Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications

2 Issues per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2354-0036
See all formats and pricing
More options …

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

Eva Hoff / Ingegerd Carlsson
Published Online: 2015-05-26 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2015-0005

Abstract

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

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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Hoff, E. V., & West, S. (2014). Manual : Test for Distributed creativity in Organizational Groups (DOG). Lund, Sweden: Department of psychology. Lund University.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Hutchins, E. (2012). Concepts in Practice as Sources of Order. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19, 3, 314-323.Google Scholar

  • 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Smith, G. (2001). The process approach to personality: perceptgeneses and kindred approaches in focus. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum publishers.Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Tanggaard, L. (2013). The sociomateriality of creativity in everyday life. [Article]. Culture & Psychology, 19, 1, 20-32; DOI: 10.1177/1354067x12464987.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2014-11-06

Revised: 2015-02-17

Accepted: 2015-02-21

Published Online: 2015-05-26

Published in Print: 2015-06-01


Citation Information: Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications, Volume 2, Issue 1, Pages 38–43, ISSN (Online) 2354-0036, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2015-0005.

Export Citation

© Eva Hoff et al.. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in