She, You and They – More Actors on the Creativity Research Stage!

• Authors: Eva Hoff , Ingegerd Carlsson
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The commentary confirms and builds on Glăveanu’s critical scrutiny of the current stage of creativity research. The need for more actors, theories, methods and definitions will not be fulfilled until critical reflection concerning what has been done and synthesis between different research attempts are achieved. The authors first expand the creativity stage by discussing what will happen in creativity research attempts if we alternate with a “ she, you and they” perspective? They then present a new definition of creativity. Creativity is seen as a collective, generative, novel way of experiencing reality ending with the idea of a shared product that is evaluated as creative in a relevant context. This definition is in line with the development of a new creativity tool or measurement, the Test for Distributed Creativity in Organizational Groups (DOG). The DOG can be used both for measuring the products of creative groups and investigating their processes.

Keywords

EN

Creativity research; Theoretical critique; Creativity measurement; Creativity definition; Group creativity

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 2
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 38-43

Dates

published

2015-06-01

received

2014-11-06

revised

2015-02-17

accepted

2015-02-21

online

2015-05-26

Contributors

author

Eva Hoff

• Lund University, Sweden

author

Ingegerd Carlsson

• Lund University, Sweden

References

• Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 5, 997-1013, DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997.[Crossref]
• Brown, J. (2008). Actualization and causality. In G. Smith & I. M. Carlsson (Eds.), Process and personality: actualization of the personal world with process-oriented methods (pp. 263-289). Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.
• Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 6, 380-400; DOI: 10.1037/h0040373.[Crossref]
• Draguns, J. (2008). Perceptgenesis: its origins, accomplishments and prospects. In G. Smith & I. M. Carlsson (Eds.), Process and personality: actualization of the personal world with process-oriented methods (pp. 23-51). Frankfurt: Ontos verlag.
• Glăveanu, V. P. (2014). The psychology of creativity: a critical reading. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 1, 1, 10-32; DOI: 10.15290/ctra.2014.01.01.02.
• Glăveanu, V. P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. [Article]. New Ideas in Psychology, 28, 1, 79-93; DOI: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.007.[WoS][Crossref]
• Glăveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The Five A's framework. Review of General Psychology, 17, 1, 69-81; DOI: 10.1037/a0029528.[Crossref][WoS]
• Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
• Hennessey, B., & Altringer, B. A. (2014). Kulturella skillnader: kreativitet i olika väderstreck [Cultural differences: creativity in different points of the compass]. In E. Brodin, I. M. Carlsson, E. V. Hoff & F. Rasulzada (Eds.), Kreativitet: teori och praktik ur psykologiska perspektiv [Creativity: theory and practise from psychological perspectives] (pp. 233-255). Stockholm: Liber.
• Hoff, E. V., & West, S. (2014). Manual : Test for Distributed creativity in Organizational Groups (DOG). Lund, Sweden: Department of psychology. Lund University.
• Hoff, E., & Carlsson, I. (2002). Shining lights or lone wolves? Creativity and self-image in primary school children. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 1, 17-40.
• Hutchins, E. (2012). Concepts in Practice as Sources of Order. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19, 3, 314-323.
• Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 2, 81-92; DOI: 10.1037/a0013282.[Crossref]
• Smith, G. (2001). The process approach to personality: perceptgeneses and kindred approaches in focus. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum publishers.
• Smith, G., & Carlsson, I. (1990). The creative process: a functional model based on empirical studies from early childhood to middle age (Vol. 57). Madison, Conn: International U.P.
• Tanggaard, L. (2013). The sociomateriality of creativity in everyday life. [Article]. Culture & Psychology, 19, 1, 20-32; DOI: 10.1177/1354067x12464987.[Crossref][WoS]
• West, S., Hoff, E. V., & Carlsson, I. M. (2015). Enhancing team creativity with playful improvisation theatre: a controlled intervention field study. Submitted for publication. Department of Psychology. Lund University. Sweden.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/ctra-2015-0005