Is Internet Making Us More

Creative?
Manuela Gutiérrez-Leefmans*

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get

you everywhere”
Albert Einstein

Recepción: 6 de mayo de 2015

Aceptación: 13 de agosto de 2015

Abstract. This essay answers the question ‘Is Internet making us more creative?’. The essay
*The University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
Correo electrónico: maria.gutierrezleefmans@mbs.ac.uk
begins by defining ‘creativity’ based on concepts on which diverse authors agree. The ability to
Se agradecen los comentarios de los árbitros de la generate ideas is what helps us find a solution, make the best decision and take new challenges.
revista. This work makes reference to both utopian and dystopian authors in relation to Internet use
and shows, based on the different concepts of creativity, how Internet, despite the lack of trust
from some people keeps fostering new creations. In the last years it has been suggested by some
authors that Internet is affecting our creativity, which is concerning to hear if we are taking into
account the time we spent on Internet every day.
Key words: Creativity, Internet, Collaboration, Innovation, Decision.

¿El Internet nos está volviendo más creativos?

Resumen. Se responde a la pregunta ¿el nternet nos está volviendo más creativos? Con base en
diversos autores, se define el concepto de creatividad. Es la habilidad de generar ideas lo que nos
ayuda a encontrar la solución a un problema, tomar la mejor decisión y enfrentar nuevos retos.
De acuerdo con los diferentes conceptos, se hace referencia a autores utópicos y distópicos en
relación con el uso del internet y se muestra que este sigue alentando nuevas creaciones a pesar
de la falta de confianza por parte de algunos. En los últimos años se ha sugerido que Internet
afecta nuestra creatividad, lo cual resulta alarmante si tomamos en cuenta el tiempo que pasamos
en línea cada día.
Palabras clave: creatividad, internet, colaboración, innovación, decisión.

Introduction decision and take new challenges. In a The objective of this article is to
way, it is our ideas that strengthen our address the question, ‘Is Internet
We make decisions every day, we are personality and make us unique. fostering creativity?’ The aim is to
faced with problems in our lives that If Internet is affecting our creativity, provide insights that show evidence of
require solutions and we live situations as suggested by some authors, and if the positive effects of Internet in the
that change over time demanding us we take into account the time spent process of creation.
to evolve. How can we do all of this on Internet every day for work, study,
without intelligence, without making information and entertainment, it 1. What is creativity?
use of our knowledge and experience is concerning to hear that it may be
to succeed? It is the ability of being making us less creative. It is then a A general definition of creativity is the
creative which helps us to generate topic worth exploring and for some of following. Creativity is the ability to
ideas and find a solution, make the best us, fascinating. think up and design new inventions,

182 CIENCIA ergo-sum , ISSN 1405-0269, V o l . 23-2, julio-octubre 2 0 16. Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Toluca, México. Pp. 182-187.
 Ensayo

produce works of art, solve problems in our area of expertise– often leads into 2. Gain of originality versus
new ways, or develop an idea based on interesting new concepts. For Haefele Loss of trust
an original, novel, or unconventional (1962), brainstorming is part of the
approach (Britannica Online Encyclo- creative process being its principal The Internet, with the reshaping of
pedia, 2012). function “to feed new, pertinent, per- media and the provision of new forms
There are diverse concepts that de- haps remote associations to the one or of interaction, is fostering creativity.
fine creativity, however many authors two high-creatives in the group under Digital technologies have enabled
agree on the following three. prime conditions of motivation, inter- creations of novel works and new ways
The first concept relates to inno- est, permissiveness, and opportunity of expression. According to Lessig
vation, to all acts of novel work and for achievement” (Haefele, 1962: 9). (2002), these products grew out of the
new productions of certain value, an Adair considers that “you will be cre- ability of innovators to add value at the
“act that produces effective surprise” ative when you start seeing or making edge of the network. From innovations
(Bruner, 1962 cited in Sternberg, 1988: connections between ideas that appear that Internet made possible, new forms
118). For Bruner (1962), the surprise as- to others to be far apart” (Adair, 1990: of art keep emerging. Examples are
sociated with creative accomplishment 6). For Adair (1990), creative thinkers the MP3 to compact the size of digital
often has the quality of obviousness are also those who have a habit of curi- music recording, the range of tools
after the fact. Bohm and Lee state that osity leading to give searching attention for manipulating and editing digital
“to experiment with the formation of to whatever is of interest to them. images for films, the use of digital
new structures is seen as a creative act, A third group of definitions is related technologies via Internet to include
in part because it suspends the con- to solution thinking, the ability to solve user interaction in arts and the creation
straints of both personal and historical problems and make decisions. Guilford of html –basic elements for building
conditioning, thereby enabling one to defines creativity in terms of discovery blocks of websites– to aid the reader or
acquire a new perspective” (Bohm and and divergent-thinking factors. The guide him or her to other relevant texts.
Lee, 1952: 11). Ghiselin (1952), defines former, representing the ability to de- All these technologies h ave eased the
it as the process of change, develop- velop information from what is given emergence of ‘sound art’ where one can
ment, of evolution, in the organization by stimulation and the latter being listen together with visual perceptions,
of subjective life. For Stein it is “that related to “one’s ability to come about YouTube video blogging and user gen-
process which results in a novel work in different directions when faced with erated videos, digital art including new
that is accepted as tenable or useful or a problem” (Guilford, 1959, cited in media art, virtual reality, net art and fi-
satisfying by a group at some point in Sternberg, 1988: 118). When we are in a nally e-books which have encouraged a
time” (Stein, 1953, cited in Sternberg, problematic situation, for example, the novel kind of writing. An example that
1988: 118). Examples of this type of main road we are used to walk through includes digital work, user interaction
creation are the development of a is closed and we are in a hurry, finding and media, resulting in a new product
new product or service or the use of a new another way to get to our destiny in a attractive to some is ‘We tell stories’
method. short period of time, requires some lev- from Penguin Publishing, where stories
Other authors refer to the association el of creativity. Dacey links creativity are serialized through social media
concept of creativity, the combination to intuition, he defines it as the “ability blogs and Twitter accounts. Through
of ideas. According to Rawlinson, to solve problems through the use of it, game designers work together with
creative thinking is “the relating of the subconscious” (Dacey, 1989: 8). For authors to provide a different experi-
things or ideas which were previously Runco and Albert, “creativity begins ence. Posing questions to the writer
unrelated –or bisociative thinking with and is expressed through the while reading a book through e-reader
”(Rawlinson, 1981: 8). Haefele defines decisions one makes, not through the Kindle, is possible. Following other
it as the “ability to make new combi- particular media used or the products readers and seeing their comments, if
nations from two or more concepts generated” (Runco & Albert, 1990: 19). available, is possible as well. Alternative
already in the mind” (Haefele, 1962: These different concepts lead us to ending stories are also more common
5). On his view, this new combination agree that creativity lies on novelty and now, thanks to the multiple hyperlinks
is termed an innovation. For example, change, on association and perception Internet makes possible.
the application of ideas from a different and on solution thinking and decision Going back to Stein (1953), who re-
discipline –and linking it to others in making. fers to creativity as that process which

CIENCIA ergo-sum , V o l . 23-2, julio-octubre 2 0 16. 183

Ensayo

results in a novel work that is accepted by Shirky. He explains how previous term memory” (Carr, 2010: 125). For
as tenable or useful or satisfying by a generations used their spare time for Carr, it is the long term memory that
group at some point in time, we can see activities where they only ‘consumed’, generates creative thinking.
how Internet is fostering creativity by instead of ‘producing’ as it is with the However, Carr recognizes that
these examples and that the product is use of Internet. Shirky refers to the Gin skimming and scanning are important
considered of value for some. Craze in Britain and to TV consump- activities, as they stimulate our working
However, for some, the novelty tion in later generations as maladaptive memory, in charge of decision making
produced in Internet is of low quality and self-anesthetizing responses to and problem solving (Carr, 2010). If
and threatens creativity. For Keen epochal social disruptions (Shirky, we recall, both of these activities are
(2007) there is a lack of experts to 2010). Therefore, Shirky recognizes also considered to be part of the cre-
filter Internet content, according to that Internet can be a response to our ative process. While Carr’s argument
him, an avalanche of amateur content social environment too, however, the is valid if we focus on the amount of
is threatening our values, economy, difference lies in the ‘production’ and information received while doing the
and even innovation and creativity creation. According to Shirky, the ‘cog- process of thinking, as seems to be
itself (Keen, 2007). The sociologist nitive surplus’ we have –all the spare his concern, it is the ‘availability’ of
Jurgen Habermas is among these too. time we decide to dedicate to different the information via Internet, what has
Habermas, on ‘Internet and the pub- activities–, is so large that even the helped people to be able to read more,
lic sphere’, confirms this by stating smallest amount of time dedicated to acquire knowledge and therefore, cre-
that on the Internet, contributions produce can generate positive effects. ate. For some authors, scanning can
by intellectuals lose their power to Hence, we can conclude that, while help increase creativity as more sources
create a focus as there is a decentered, there is still a trust concern on the can be reached, what can be considered
multi-focus public sphere emerging by quality of Internet content by some, we a brainstorming process itself. Tapscott
computer-mediated communication cannot deny that new productions of and Williams argue that if you give peo-
(Habermas, 1989). value for some others –or creations–, ple the data, they will be able to provide
For others, the mere experimentation are taking place. solutions (Tapscott & Williams, 2010).
on the Internet can increase creativity. For a government issue for example,
Clay Shirky gives the example of a ‘lol- 3. Information overload versus where a city is facing trouble with
cat’ -funny picture of a cat-, claiming Brainstorming limited transportation, users may have
that creations are of all kind but that a good suggestion now that they have
among all the new ideas, some will be Nicholas Carr, in ‘The Shallows’, ar- access to the data. Pulitzer Prize win-
of value. For example, there is a lack gues that skimming and scanning are ning author, Thomas Friedman, claims
of trust on Wikipedia’s content, even activities that stimulate our working he has never been more creative than
though some level of review takes memory only and that they are not recently and he attributes it to his blog
place. Wikipedia has a network of reading itself (Carr, 2010). On his view, and the ability to review and scan ‘tons’
contributors and editors who vet the ‘distractions’ caused by Internet such of information on the web (Carr, 2010).
accuracy of its ‘prosumer’ entries. A as receiving information updates and For Hemp (2009), we cannot deny that
contributor is later promoted to editor suggestions to read for example, con- in the knowledge economy, informa-
when he or she is approved by certain stitut interruptions to a deep reading, tion is our most valuable commodity.
percentage of peer rating (Kazman & and that is what is making us ‘shallow One can generate solutions more easily
Chen, 2009). thinkers’. As our working memory is and make decisions when one is better
Shirky argues that increased freedom to overloaded we cannot think properly informed.
create means increased freedom to create and according to him, that causes the Therefore, by having more informa-
throwaway material, as well as freedom loss of our long term memory. “When tion one can connect ideas in a way that
to indulge in the experimentation that the load exceeds our mind’s ability results in the creation of a new solution
eventually makes the good new stuff to store and process the information or a new product.
possible (Shirky, 2010). The term –when the water overflows the thim-
‘prosumer’ adopted to define the pro- ble– we are unable to retain the infor- 3. 1. The free market
duction-consumption phenomenon by mation or to draw connections with the Supporting this argument is the fact
Kazman and Chen is also confirmed information already stored in our long that the Internet is a free market.

184 Gutiérrez Leefmans, M. Is Internet Making Us More Creative?

 Ensayo

The fact of being Internet a ‘free 4. Collaboration versus Copyright then we are also part of the product
content market’, encourages creativity. result of such collaboration.
With the low content distribution costs, Very related to the open access that the ‘Crowdsourcing’ is a term that has
acquisition of knowledge is more feasi- free market provides, is the so called been given to the “commons-based
ble and so is the possibility to contribute ‘wisdom of the crowds’. Creativity is in- peer production used to create value in
and create. The self-publishing feature creased by the connections of groups information technology, the arts, basic
that Amazon has recently encouraged online, the addition of their experiences research, and retail business” (Kamzan
is an example of this. People are able and knowledge, and their collaboration &Chen, 2009: 76). Referring to collab-
to share their creations in a worldwide to provide solutions. orations such as Linux applications,
platform, and by this, reach more minds. Castells and Cardoso (2006), states Firefox add-ons, Wikipedia articles, and
Taking the case of scientific publish- that the productivity of the networks Facebook applications, these authors
ing, Tapscott and Williams consider challenges the traditional ‘inventor’ confirm that it is the ‘prosumers’ who
that publishers have done much to image of personal virtuosity, which deliver the vast majority of end-user val-
accelerate the publication process in attends the psychological represen- ue (Kamzan & Chen, 2009). That value
response to increased competition on tations of creative accomplishment. is product of the application or solution
the Web. According to them, “the vast They emphasize by this, the change generated by someone within the crowd.
majority of published research today is of individual creativity to a collective Derived from the evidence provided,
still only available to paid subscribers, one. Crowdspring is an example of a we can argue that due to the exchange
despite the availability of much cheaper site that promotes work collaboration of ideas among people, possible via In-
electronic publishing methods” (Tap- by allowing graphic designers generate ternet collaboration networks and tools,
scott & Williams, 2010: 175). On their designs together. Another example is new products and solutions emerge.
view, scientific publishing is both slow ODesk, a site that helps people from
and expensive for users, and these issues remote locations perform different 4. 1. The controllers
as a result, are increasingly big problems kinds of jobs or provide together a The innovations result of such collabo-
in science (Tapscott & Williams, 2010). solution to a task. ration, are defended by many. The fact
In ‘Macrowikinomics’ Tapscott and Other authors have studied the of considering the initiatives to limit
Williams present the example of PLoS evolution of collective creativity as Internet openness as a threat to creativ-
ONE as a possible platform of innova- well. From ‘learning and consuming’ ity, confirms how it highly encourages
tion. In this open access peer-reviewed activities such as finding similar others, the creative process.
scientific journal, authors pay to be pub- absorbing content, learning rules and The US government claims that con-
lished and it is a decision of the reader techniques, gaining sense of mem- tent should be regulated to direct users
whether to use the content or not. It is bership, reflecting on feedback and only to ‘lawfully’ sites as was proposed
their task to “filter, annotate, and apply sharpening skillsets, we seem to be with pipa (Protect Intellectual Property
the growing body of public knowledge moving to the ‘doing and producing’ Act) and sopa (Stop Online Piracy Act).
that scientists generate” (Tapscott & ones as part of a group, where we post Its aim is to restrict Internet sites to
Williams, 2010: 176). According to comments, ask questions, receive feed- ensure none of the sites available al-
the authors, this gives everyone the back, get involved in projects, assess low illegal content access or download
opportunity to tap new insights and and review, and take leadership roles (Forbes, 2012). While piracy is indeed
contribute their own. Therefore, if more (Kozinets et al., 2008). For utopian a matter to be addressed by authori-
people had access to scientific journals, Howard Rheingold, a potential for ties, extreme measures can inhibit the
more knowledge would be generated. ‘collective intelligence’ was foreseen in creative process taking place on the
Consequently, the free information Internet. In ‘Smart Mobs’, he referred Internet. As Forbes explains, sites like
and data available on the Internet help to the potential for technology to Google received millions of requests to
more people acquire knowledge and augment collective intelligence (Rhe- take down material or links to websites
create. This together with, as stated ingold, 2012). According to him, peer- which infringe on valid copyrights,
previously, our curiosity leading to to-peer networks are changing the way and the intent of sopa and pipa was
give searching attention to whatever in which people share information to to do the same for foreign-based sites
is of interest to us (Adair, 1990), will reach new forms of collective action. If (Forbes, 2012). These initiatives were
continue making us creative thinkers. we are part of a collective intelligence, criticized by many users and technology

CIENCIA ergo-sum , V o l . 23-2, julio-octubre 2 0 16. 185

Ensayo

companies, claiming that sopa poses er, evidence found shows that Internet The contribution of this essay lies on
a serious risk to the industry’s track is fostering creativity in different ways. the provision of a different perspective
record of innovation and job creation Firstly, it has made possible the gener- of the creative process on Internet. By
as well as to the us cybersecurity. ation of novel works. As a result, by be- introducing a diverse group of concepts
On the other side, there are authors ing the Internet the host to all these new of creativity, it argues that Internet is
who defend Internet openness in favor ideas, it is allowing a ‘brainstorming’ fostering creativity. It shows utopian
of creativity. For Lessig, “a society that process and as many authors suggest, views that confirm what the basic
defends the ideals of free culture must when brainstorming, one should not concepts of creativity tell us. Hence, it
preserve precisely the opportunity for judge, but embrace all ideas “…to sus- contributes to studies on creativity and
new creativity to threaten the old” ( The pend judgement and allow free wheel, to give answer to the concerns that may
Economist, 2004). He suggests that, by where no evaluation is allowed, either arise in our information society. Con-
the use of Public General Licenses –as of one’s own ideas or those of anybody cerns on negative effects of the Internet
codes work in a communications sys- else” (Rawlinson, 1981: 38, 39). Hence, are vanished by authors who consider
tem– , the content can be protected in whether the creations we are currently that a balance between developing new
a way that it does not prevent the rest of seeing on the Internet are of value only abilities and continue to read, will lead
the users from having access to the cre- for some, is not relevant if we consider to a deeper immersion in ideas. Accord-
ation and add to it (Lessig, 2002). Tim that the process of creation is still being ing to Michelman (2010), we will take
Berners-Lee, considered as the father encouraged. our new-found abilities to consume
of the World Wide Web, expressed his Secondly, the ‘free’ concept of In- and contextualize multiple ideas and
concern about a closed Internet: “One ternet has made content available for multiple forms of media and combine it
of the things I like about the computer many people who now have access to with our long-held ability to dive deep
that I use is that I can write a program that knowledge and to contribute with into text-based content. Whether that
on it or I can download a program on their creation. Critique to dystopian will be possible at the same level for all
to it and run it. That is important to Carr’s argument is that he focuses on of us is out of scope of this research.
the whole future of the Internet […] the amount of information received Further studies could be conducted to
obviously a closed platform is a serious while doing the process of thinking explore for example the specific case
brake on innovation” (Katz, 2012). leaving out the fact that the mere ‘avail- of ‘foxes’ –multi-taskers between 16
As stated by Lessig, unregulated ability’ of information on Internet is and 24 years old– according to Google
technology frees creativity and decen- what has helped people to read more, Generation experiments, and other
tralizes the control of the network, acquire knowledge and by the linkage six different types of animals which
allowing it to remain a common (Les- of ideas be able to create. Utopian are classified to study the effect of the
sig, 2002). Thus, it is the openness of authors agree that Internet openness Internet on reading and knowledge
Internet and the user collaboration it and low distribution costs of informa- (Nicholas et al., 2011).
allows that boosts creativity. tion, give everyone the opportunity to
innovate (Tapscott &Williams, 2010; Foresight analysis
Discussion and conclusion Lessig, 2002).
Finally, ‘collective creativity’ spe- If Internet helps individuals increase
This paper has addressed the question cially benefits from the media and net- their creativity, leading to the gener-
whether Internet is helping us be more works that encourage collaboration for ation of new products and solutions
creative. In other words, is Internet solution generation. Examples of group then equal opportunities need to be
fostering creativity? collaboration show how networks created. With only privileged groups
Dystopian authors argue that creativi- allow people to contribute in perform- having access to Internet, we leave out
ty is being threatened by the low quality ing tasks, generating solutions and potentially valuable creations and limit
Internet content making contributions making decisions. The evolution from ourselves to certain views of the world.
lose their power to create focus (Keen, a ‘consumer’ role to a ‘producer’ one ‘Cultural fragmentation’ has been
2007; Habermas, 1989) and that infor- eased by Internet, leading to a ‘mass identified as a challenge by Vickery
mation overload making us lose our collaboration’, is defended by utopian and Wunsch-Vincent (2007) with the
long term memory, prevents us from authors (Shirky, 2010; Rheingold, 2012; risk of greater individualization of the
creative thinking (Carr, 2010). Howev- Kazman & Chen, 2009). cultural environment.

186 Gutiérrez Leefmans, M. Is Internet Making Us More Creative?

 Ensayo

Informed users will make better deci- digital divide that still characterizes tions for research and development.
sions. People that use Internet health-re- some countries. At a national level The more creative people - linking
lated Q&A boards –while it is true that digital literate citizens will be able to ideas and collaborating -, the more
the advice given does not substitute contribute with ideas and be more advances in science are to be expected.
medical assistance– are provided with participative. By joining discussion Shall this need not be attended we are
some guidance. Consumers who read forums for example, people can get in risk of hindering our growth. First of
online reviews and use price compari- together to find solutions to common all, as individuals who need to express
son engines are in a better position and problems. Participative web technolo- ourselves and be independent. Second-
can make better use of their resources. gies can also improve the quality and ly, as communities who need constant
Entrepreneurs can find advice online extend the reach of education (Vickery development (e.g. in terms of education
to make their companies grow. Thus, & Wunsch-Vincent, 2007). Students and culture). And lastly, as countries that
the creativity fostered by the Internet that make use of Web 2.0 technology need technological and other innova-
can lead to more independent citizens. are easily encouraged to share ideas, tions to drive industrial growth. Once
Hence, this study stresses the pri- opinions and knowledge. At an interna- Internet access becomes a norm and not
ority and urgency of extending In- tional level, the ‘collective intelligence’ a privilege it will be possible to raise our
ternet access in order to decrease the facilitated by technology has implica- countries’ living standard.

Referencias

Adair, J. (1990). The Art of Creative Writing. Hemp, P. (2009). Death by information overload. Rawlinson, G. (1981). Creative Thinking and
England: The Talbot Adair Press. Harvard Business Review, 87(9), 82-89, 121. Brainstorming . England: Gower Publis-
Bohm, D., & Lee, N. (1998). On Creativity. Katz, I. (2012). Tim Berners-Lee: Demand hing Company Limited.
London: Routledge. your data from Google and Facebook. The Rheingold, H. (2012). The new power of
Britannica Online Encyclopedia (2012. Guardian . Retrevied from http://www. collaboration. ted Ideas worth spreading
April 4), Creativity, (online) Available guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/18/ (online). Retrevied from http://www.ted.
at http://www.britannica.com/bps/ tim-berners-lee-google-facebook com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_colla-
search?query=creativity. Kazman & Chen (2009). The Metropolis boration.html
Carr, N. (2010). The Shallows. New York: Model. A New Logic for Development of Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1990). Theories
Norton and Company. Crowdsourced Systems. Communications of creativity. Sage Publications, Inc.
Castells, M., & Cardoso, G. (Eds.). (2006). The of the ACM, 52(7), 76-84. Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive Surplus. Creativi-
network society: From knowledge to policy Keen, A. (2007). The cult of the amateur: ty and Generosity in a connected age. usa:
(pp. 3-23). Center for Transatlantic Relations, How today’s Internet is killing our culture Penguin Group.
Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced Interna- and assaulting our economy . London: Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture.
tional Studies, Johns Hopkins University. Nicholas Brealey. The journal of psychology, 36(2), 311-322.
Dacey, J. (1989). Fundamentals of Creative Kozinets, R., Hemetsberger A., & Schau Sternberg, R. (1988). The nature of Creativity.
Thinking. Lexington Books, D. C. Heath. H. (2008). The Wisdom of Consumer uk : Cambridge University Press.

Forbes, S. (2012). Don’t Soft-Soap sopa, February Crowds: Collective Innovation in the Tapscott, D. &Williams A. (2010). MacroWi-
13, Fact & Comment. International Review Age of Networked Marketing. Journal of kinomics: Rebooting business and the
of Law and Economics, 21, 453-473. Macromarketing , 8(4), 339-354. world. London: Atlantic.
Ghiselin, B. (1952). The creative process: A Lessig, L. (2002). The future of ideas: The The Economist (2004). Copyright law.
symposium. Manuscript. Published New fate of the commons in a connected world. Killing creativity (online). Retrevied
English Library. New York: Vintage Books. f r o m h t t p : / / w w w. e c o n o m i s t . c o m /
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation Michelman, P. (2010). No, Google Is Not Ma- node/2592996
of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category king You Stupid. Harvard Business Review. Vickery, G., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2007).
of bourgeois society. Published Cambridge. Nicholas, D., Rowlands, I., Clark, D. & Williams, P. Participative web and user-created con-
Haefele, J. (1962). Creativity and Innovation. Lon- (2011). Google Generation II: web behaviour tent: Web 2.0 wikis and social networking.
don-New York: Reinhold Management Refe- experiments with the BBC. Aslib Proceedings: Organization for Economic Cooperation
rence Series, Reinhold Publishing Corporation. New Information Perspectives, 63(1), 28-45. and Development ( oecd).

CIENCIA ergo-sum , V o l . 23-2, julio-octubre 2 0 16. 187