Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

A Commentary on the Social Perspective on Creativity

100%
Runco M. A.
Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications
|
2015
|
vol. 2
|
issue 1
21-31
EN
This commentary examines the social perspective on creativity, as presented in the featured article. There are several attractive aspects to the social perspective, but serious limitations as well, which are detailed in this commentary. The assumptions of the social perspective are also discussed. The most questionable of these assumes that social recognition and impact are inherent parts of creativity. The parsimonious alternative is to define creativity such that it includes only what is related to creativity per se and to recognize that social recognition may follow creation and is certainly extricable from it. A defence of this parsimonious view is presented. A brief discussion of possible crises in the field of creativity studies is also presented, with one suggestion being that the diverse approaches used in the field represent a kind of divergent thinking and as such represent progress, even though it is not linear. This commentary concludes with a discussion about creativity being vital for quality of life. That perspective differs dramatically from the product view of creativity which is often tied to a social perspective.
2

Comparison of Competing Theories about Ideation and Creativity

51%
O’Neal I. C., Paek S. H., Runco M. A.
Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications
|
2015
|
vol. 2
|
issue 2
145-164
EN
A measure of ideational behaviour, often used to estimate the potential for creative thinking, was administered to 796 children and their parents and teachers. Correlations among groups were explored. The data provided an opportunity to (a) compare four theories of creativity (a one-factor theory, 2 two-factor theories, and a three-factor theory) and (b) determine empirically how the measure of ideation should be scored (based on its empirical structure). Results of confirmatory factor analyses indicated that one of the twofactor theories (Process and Product) best fit the data and was useful for comparisons of the children and their parents and teachers. Practical implications of the differences between parents and teachers are explored. Any effort to fulfil creative potentials, for example, would probably be the most likely to succeed if children, parents, and teachers agreed, and just as probable are difficulties if the three groups disagreed or considered different things when judging creative potential. Limitations of the study are also discussed.
3

Which Test of Divergent Thinking Is Best?

45%
Runco M. A., Paek S. H., Alsuwaidi H. N., Abdulla A. M., Al-Jasim F. A.
Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications
|
2016
|
vol. 3
|
issue 1
4-18
EN
Divergent thinking (DT) tests are probably the most commonly used measures of creative potential. Several extensive batteries are available but most research relies on one or two specific tests rather than a complete battery. This may limit generalizations because tests of DT are not equivalent. They are not always highly inter-correlated. Additionally, some DT tests appear to be better than others at eliciting originality. This is critical because originality is vital for creativity. The primary purpose of the present study was to determine which test of DT elicits the most originality. Seven measures of DTwere administered on a sample of 611 participants in eight Arabic countries. The tests were Figural, Titles, Realistic Presented Problems, Realistic Problem Generation, Instances, Uses, and Similarities. The Quick Test of Convergent Thinking, Runco’s Ideational Behavior Scale, and a demographic questionnaire were also administered. A linear mixed model analysis confirmed that the originality scores in the DT tests differed by test. Post-hoc tests indicated that the Titles and Realistic Problem Generation tests produced the highest mean originality scores, whereas the Realistic Presented Problems test produced the lowest mean originality scores. These differences confirm that research using only one DT test will not provide generalizable results.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.