1. bookVolume 2 (2015): Issue 1 (June 2015)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2354-0036
First Published
16 Apr 2015
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

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

Published Online: 26 May 2015
Volume & Issue: Volume 2 (2015) - Issue 1 (June 2015)
Page range: 38 - 43
Received: 06 Nov 2014
Accepted: 21 Feb 2015
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2354-0036
First Published
16 Apr 2015
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
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

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 5, 997-1013, DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997.10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997Search in Google 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.Search in 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/h0040373.10.1037/h0040373Search in Google 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.Search in 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.2014.01.01.02.10.15290/ctra.2014.01.01.02Search in 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.2009.07.007.10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.007Search in Google 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/a0029528.10.1037/a0029528Search in Google Scholar

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

Hoff, E. V., & West, S. (2014). Manual : Test for Distributed creativity in Organizational Groups (DOG). Lund, Sweden: Department of psychology. Lund University.Search in 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, 17-40.10.1002/j.2162-6057.2002.tb01054.xSearch in Google Scholar

Hutchins, E. (2012). Concepts in Practice as Sources of Order. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19, 3, 314-323.10.1080/10749039.2012.694006Search in 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/a0013282.10.1037/a0013282Search in Google Scholar

Smith, G. (2001). The process approach to personality: perceptgeneses and kindred approaches in focus. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum publishers.10.1007/978-1-4757-3430-0Search in 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.Search in Google Scholar

Tanggaard, L. (2013). The sociomateriality of creativity in everyday life. [Article]. Culture & Psychology, 19, 1, 20-32; DOI: 10.1177/1354067x12464987.10.1177/1354067X12464987Search in Google 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.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo