See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/221675608

Redefining Creativity - Analyzing Definitions, Collocations,

and Consequences

Article  in  The Journal of Creative Behavior · September 2010

DOI: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2010.tb01333.x

CITATIONS READS

111 2,406

2 authors, including:

Panagiotis Kampylis
European Commission
65 PUBLICATIONS   1,676 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

European conceptual model and self-assessment tool for digitally-capable schools View project

SELFIE - Self-reflection tool to support schools going digital View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Panagiotis Kampylis on 22 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Creative Behavior

PANAGIOTIS G. KAMPYLIS
JURI VALTANEN

Redefining Creativity — Analyzing Definitions,

Collocations, and Consequences

ABSTRACT
How holistically is human creativity defined, investigated, and understood? Until
recently, most scientific research on creativity has focused on its positive side.
However, creativity might not only be a desirable resource but also be a potential
threat. In order to redefine creativity we need to analyze and understand defini-
tions, collocations, and consequences of creativity. In this paper, we reviewed
42 explicit definitions and 120 collocations. The thematic analysis of our data
reveals that the vast majority of creativity definitions do not emphasize the
positive/negative aspects of the concept. Neither are the negative aspects of
creativity emphasized in its numerous collocations. Thus, we propose a compre-
hensive definition of creativity and a three-dimensional analytical framework for
investigating its consequences, positive and/or negative. Finally, we highlight the
need to move to a new era of conscientious creativity, in which all humans are
considered able and wise enough to create something ethical and constructive
for everyone in society.

INTRODUCTION
Can a human being with a creative idea be a fatal combination? This crucial
question we attempt to answer in this paper. Nowadays, everyone seems to
admire creativity, which is believed to hold the solution to all problems present
and future. We can witness this vast interest in creativity in various contexts, such
as education, in which creative thinking is considered a key skill for future
citizens (e.g. Craft, Gardner, & Claxton, 2008), or in organizations, where corpo-
rations strive to dominate international markets through creative ideas and
products (e.g. Baucus, Norton, Baucus, & Human, 2008).
The noun creativity is not only a relatively new and fashionable but also
confusing, even misunderstood, term, which appeared for the first time in
printed form in 1875 (“creativity”, 2009). It derives from the Latin creatus (past

191 Volume 44 Number 3 Third Quarter 2010

Redefining Creativity

participle of creare), which means “to make, produce”, and is related to crescere
(= arise, grow). According to Piirto (2004), creativity as a scientific term has its
roots in psychology, more specifically in Guilford’s (1950) renowned presidential
address to the American Psychological Association and in Stein’s (1953) classic
article. However, what constitutes creativity has not been defined or featured in
a clear and unambiguous way (Ferrari, Cachia, & Punie, 2009). The semantic
content rather emerges from the various ways and multiple contexts in which the
term has been used and evoked throughout history. Moreover, the nature and
definition of creativity vary across cultures (Starko, 2005) and seem to be value-
and culture-specific (Craft, 2005).
The term creativity and its cognates are used mainly in a positive manner,
although it also has some pejorative collocations such as creative accounting
(Sternberg, 2010). Conversely, we are interested in a holistic understanding of
the complex phenomenon of human creativity arguing that what should matter
is not only the quality of a creative idea but also its effects on society in the short
and long term. In other words, the purpose of this paper is to redefine creativity
by not only examining the most important explicit definitions and used colloca-
tions but also analyzing and understanding the consequences of human creativ-
ity, both positive and negative. This, holistic approach, has been absent from
previous studies that focused only on specific negative aspects of creativity, such
as deviance (e.g. Plucker & Runco, 1999), mental illness (e.g. Eisenman, 1997),
or drug use by creative individuals (e.g. Plucker & Dana, 1999).
More specifically, in this study we focus on the missing or marginalized
elements of 42 explicit definitions and 120 collocations of human creativity,
and the agreements and disagreements surrounding them. Our data analysis
provides four key components of creativity definitions and five categories of
creativity collocations. In this paper, we also present (a) a new definition of
creativity; (b) a three-dimensional analytical framework for investigating the
consequences of human creativity; and (c) an account of the need to move to a
new era of creativity.

NEED TO REDEFINE CREATIVITY

The time period from the middle of the 20th century up to today constitutes
the democratic era of scientific research on human creativity1; anyone is consid-
ered able to create from anything (e.g. NACCCE, 1999). The focus on creativity
gradually moved from eminent, Big C Creativity to everyday, little c creativity
(Craft, 2001). Several scholars (e.g. Cropley, Kaufman, Cropley, & Runco, 2010)
have pointed out that during this time period the field has been dominated by the
positive, bright side of creativity (Arndt, Greenberg, Pyszczynski, Solomon, &
Schimel, 1999); the other side, the dark one (McLaren, 1999), has in essence
been overlooked.
1 We consider as a starting point of the scientific study of human creativity the presidential address of
Joy Paul Guilford (1950) to the American Psychological Association.

192
 Journal of Creative Behavior

Recently, however, interest in the negative aspects of creativity has been

increasing (Banaji & Burn, 2006; Clark & James, 1999; Craft et al., 2008; Cropley,
Kaufman, & Cropley, 2008; Kampylis, 2010; Runco, 2007), and the assumption
that creativity is always a positive thing has been thrown into question. Two main
issues can be identified in this promising branch of creativity research:
(a) the mad genius/mental health issue, through examination of the
potential connection between mental illness and creativity (e.g.
Kaufman, 2009);
(b) the intention/interest issue, through investigation of the intentional
use of human creativity not only for constructive but also for destruc-
tive ends (e.g. Cropley et al., 2008).
Cecile Neber (1988) placed specific emphasis on the dark side of artistic
creativity through the examination of blocks, unfinished works, and the urge to
destroy. A decade ago, McLaren (1999) also investigated the dark side of cre-
ativity, underlining that our creative impulse is often placed in the service of
unethical pursuits. According to Runco (2004), the dark side of creativity may be
overlooked because morality implies a type of conformity whereas creativity is
mainly connected to non-conformity and individualism (see also Runco & Nemiro,
2003). Runco and Nemiro argued that creative efforts must be evaluated in terms
of their potential effects, in terms of their background, and in terms of their inten-
tionality. Recently, Martin (2006) made a clear argument for moral creativity,
which aims at creative products that are not only purposefully generated and
new but also morally valuable.
In the organizational context, Baucus et al. (2008) emphasized the “. . . surpris-
ing lack of attention to ethical issues and questions within the creativity litera-
ture” (p. 98). They identified four serious ethical issues concerning creativity: (a)
breaking rules and standard operating procedures; (b) challenging authority and
avoiding tradition; (c) creating conflict, competition, and stress; and (d) taking
risks. Baucus et al. asserted that organizations allowing or enabling employees to
break the rules might be more creative. By breaking the rules, organizations may
recognize that the rules themselves have become “frozen” habits that place limits
on creative behavior. Paradoxically, on the one hand organizations set rules, and
on the other hand they encourage employees to break them. This ambiguity
allows employees to decide on key ethical issues for themselves, with questions
including: (a) Which rules can be broken? (b) Under what circumstances?
(c) How far can it be taken? (d) Who gets to make or break the rules?
In the educational context, Bowers (1995) pointed out that education overem-
phasizes the fostering of individual creativity without concern for its consequences
to others or the environment, and he supported the need for a creative education
aimed at establishing an ecologically sustainable culture. More recently, Claxton,
Craft, and Gardner (2008) expressed concerns regarding creativity by explicitly
emphasizing “. . . the need for creativity to be exercised responsibly, to have some

193
Redefining Creativity

moral underpinning.” They pointed out that many researchers are worried about
certain forms of creativity that are “. . . self-indulgent, egotistical, driven by mate-
rialism and wasteful of both mental and material resources.” They concluded
by stating: “. . . creativity that is unbridled by any concern for its moral responsi-
bilities of social or ecological consequences is, we seem to agree, potentially
dangerous” (p. 169). In addition, Sternberg (2010) argues that our world
suffers from, among other things, global warming because of the dark side of
creativity and intelligence; therefore, we should always assess and encourage
wisdom in combination with assessing and teaching knowledge and creativity.
The majority of creativity researchers, according to Cropley et al. (2008), have
focused on benevolent creativity by assuming that creativity leads to ethical
and constructive purposes. However, the other side of the coin, which Cropley
et al. call malevolent creativity, also exists. It is deliberately planned to damage
others and is often related to crime, competition, and “terrorism”. The same
authors also argue that successful counter-”terrorism”, and any anti-criminal work,
requires a thorough understanding of human creativity. Malevolent and benevo-
lent creativity are, according to Cropley et al. (2008) and Kaufman (2009),
governed by the same essential principles and differ only in their intended
purposes and the consequences of the creative products.
There is theoretical and practical value in distinguishing constructive/positive
and destructive/negative aspects of creativity to the extent that various external
factors trigger positive or negative creativity, or that various internal dynamics
are involved in their operation. For example, James, Clark, and Cropanzano (1999)
asserted that the internal dynamics of positive and negative creativity are some-
what different. In addition, they assumed that the emotional and outcome-
centered components are the key determinants of whether creative outcomes
will be positive or negative.
Creativity is not only a desirable resource that should be set free, but also a
threatening potential that may actually be harmful if applied for destructive ends.
Therefore, the question is not only concerned with what creative potential the
individual has but also what his/her intentions, plans, and values are. Yet, all these
factors depend primarily on how each person conceptualizes, defines, and under-
stands creativity.
Several researchers have pointed out discrepancies between the numerous
definitions of creativity and the disagreements among scholars from various
disciplines about the concept itself (e.g. Cropley, 1999). Therefore, it is very
difficult to examine the consequences of human creativity when it is not clear
what we mean when using with this fuzzy, yet overused, term. Nevertheless,
conceptual ambiguities can be resolved, or at least minimized, by conceptual
analysis (Saariluoma, 1997, p. 27) and by the formation of more comprehensive
definitions.
One way to try to overcome the problem of defining multifaceted concepts
such as creativity is to conduct reviews and construct classifications of the pro-
posed definitions in order to identify agreements, disagreements, and missing or

194
 Journal of Creative Behavior

marginalized elements. Before conducting a review of creativity definitions, we

searched the relevant literature for related studies. Table 1 lists some key studies
on creativity definitions.

TABLE 1. Reviews of creativity definitions.

Year of Definitions
Researcher(s) publi- Main outcome(s)
cation reviewed
Morgan 1953 25 Meta-analysis: the most common element
of the examined definitions was novelty.
Taylor 1959 >100 Content analysis resulted in five distinc-
tive developmental levels of creativity
that involve diverse psychological and
cognitive processes: expressive,
technical, inventive, innovative, and
emergentive creativity.
Repucci 1960/ 60 Classification: 1. Gestalt or perception
1988 2. End product or innovation 3. Aesthetic
or expressive 4. Psychoanalytic or
dynamic, 5. Solution thinking 6. Varia.
Rhodes 1961 40 (+16 Classification: The 4 Ps of creativity:
definitions of Person, Process, Product, and Press
imagination)
Welsch 1980 22 Synthesis of reviewed definitions:
“Creativity is the process of generating
unique products by transformation of
existing products. These products,
tangible and intangible, must be unique
only to the creator, and must meet the
criteria of purpose and value established
by the creator” (p. 97)
Parkhurst 1999 unspecified A general definition is a prerequisite for
any attempt to foster students’ creative
thinking.Synthesis of reviewed defini-
tions: “The ability or quality displayed
when solving hitherto unsolved prob-
lems, when developing novel solutions to
problems others have solved differently,
or when developing original and novel
(at least to the originator) products.”

195
Redefining Creativity

Year of Definitions
Researcher(s) publi- Main outcome(s)
cation reviewed
Cropley 1999 unspecified He emphasized that, “. . . in addition to
being effective and relevant, creativity
has an ethical element”.
Plucker, 2004 34 (explicit) Content analysis in 90 creativity studies:
Beghetto 37 (implicit) only 34 (38%) provided an explicit
& Dow definition.
Synthesis of reviewed definitions:
“. . . the interaction among aptitude,
process, and environment by which an
individual or group produces a percep-
tible product that is both novel and
useful as defined within a social context”
Robinson 2008 unspecified There are no substantive changes in
creativity definitions in dictionaries over
the past 6 decades.
Ferrari, 2009 unspecified A working definition of creativity and
Cachia, innovation in the context of education.
& Punie

All of the previous attempts to collect and classify the definitions of creativity
(see Table 1) are useful, but they mainly emphasize the common elements found
in the definitions examined. In other words, these attempts stress the overlaps
and intersections of definitions but do not place an emphasis on potential
missing elements such as the positive and negative aspects of creativity. For this
reason, we conducted our own literature review.

METHOD
We carried out a literature review in order to locate, contrast, classify, and ana-
lyze explicit definitions of creativity in three different sets of digital and digitized
documents:
1. Our personal collection of creativity research literature, consisting of the
following: 1,090 journal articles and conference papers, 128 books, and 76
official documents and reports.
2. Open-access databases such as Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com),
Google Books (http://books.google.com), ERIC (www.eric.ed.gov), and the
Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org).

196
 Journal of Creative Behavior

3. Academic databases such as APA PsycNET (http://psycnet.apa.org),

EBSCOhost (http://www.ebscohost.com), Emerald (http://info.
emeraldinsight.com), InformaWorld (www.informaworld.com), JSTOR
(www.jstor.org), ProQuest Digital Dissertations (http://proquest.umi.com/
pqdweb?RQT=302&cfc=1) Sage Journals Online (http://online.sagepub.
com), Science Direct (www.sciencedirect.com), SpringerLink (www.
springerlink.com), and Wiley InterScience (www3.interscience.wiley.com)
through the Jyväskylä University Library (www.jyu.fi). Throughout these
databases we investigated, among other documents, prior issues of
journals that regularly publish articles on creativity research, such as
Creativity Research Journal, Journal of Creative Behavior, Psychology
of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, and Thinking Skills and Creativ-
ity journal.

We searched the aforementioned sets of digital and digitized documents using

the following keywords and phrases, as well as various combinations of them:
“creativity”, “creative”, “thinking”, “definition”, “creativity is”, “creativity is
defined”, and “define creativity as”. Thereafter, we searched the same sets of
digital documents in order to determine the most common creativity colloca-
tions used by creativity scholars.
Throughout the data-gathering procedure, we collected 42 explicit definitions
(see below, Table 2) and 120 collocations of creativity (see Table 3). Sources of
the definitions are provided in the reference list, marked with an asterisk.

DATA CODING, ANALYSIS AND LIMITATIONS

The collected creativity definitions and collocations were stored in two
separate electronic files. These files were coded and analyzed through the
computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software NVivo (version 7.0). We used
thematic analysis to examine the creativity definitions and collocations that we
collected through the data-gathering procedure, because it has been recognized
as an efficient and flexible way of coding qualitative information (Boyatzis, 1998).
Braun and Clarke (2006) define thematic analysis as “. . . a method for identify-
ing, analyzing and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (p. 79) and advocate
it as a useful, accessible, and theoretically flexible method for qualitative research.
They also point out that thematic analysis is widely used, although it is rarely
acknowledged.
Before focusing on the results, it is useful to point out the main limitations
of this study. First, in the limited space of a journal paper we cannot present
all creativity definitions and collocations but those we consider as the most
important for the purposes of this study. Second, we considered only those docu-
ments made available in the English language, and consequently, we did not have
access to definitions provided in other languages and cultural contexts. Finally,

197
Redefining Creativity

as with any literature review, the present study depends on our interpretation of
the data, used here in a de-contextualized way.

RESULTS
CREATIVITY DEFINITIONS
Several researchers (Banaji & Burn, 2006; Cropley, 1999; Kampylis, 2010;
Kampylis, Berki, & Saariluoma, 2009; Mumford, 2003; Parkhurst, 1999; Plucker,
Beghetto, & Dow, 2004) have focused on the remarkable breadth and number of
creativity definitions. This alone constitutes a real problem and a big challenge
for the field of creativity research. The proposed definitions appear to be too broad
or too narrow to sufficiently enhance our understanding and guide the interests
of creativity researchers and the concerns of practitioners. For example, one-
dimensional approaches to creativity tend to view a part of creativity as the whole
phenomenon. The notion of metonymy, namely letting one aspect or part of
something stand for the whole of it, underlies our use of stereotypes and, thus,
seems to play a significant role in our subsequent cognitive processing (e.g.
Bechter & Abrahamsen, 1990, p. 237). This often results in what the present
authors consider to be a narrow conceptualization of creativity, contributing to
forming the perception that creativity is not as encompassing as it truly is.
Some scholars have attempted to eliminate the vagueness surrounding the
concept of creativity by coining more focused terms such as lateral thinking
(De Bono, 1996). Others, such as Sternberg and Lubart (1999), have pointed to
concrete obstacles created by the current definitions and argue that the lack of
criteria for creativity seems to render the phenomenon either elusive or trivial.
According to Abinun (1984), the term creativity is neither trivial nor unrestrained,
because it has clear limitations and restrictions. However, it is also possible to
take the view that the concept of creativity has a large and unclear boundary
along with a clear center.
The analysis and comparison of the collected definitions (Table 2) reveals that
creativity researchers and theorists have approached what could be termed an
agreement, since the majority of their definitions intersect at the following key
components2 for understanding creativity:
1. Creativity is a key ability of individual(s).
2. Creativity presumes an intentional activity (process).
3. The creative process occurs in a specific context (environment).
4. The creative process entails the generation of product(s) (tangible or intan-
gible). Creative product(s) must be novel (original, unconventional) and
appropriate (valuable, useful) to some extent, at least for the creative
individual(s).
2 These key components are commonly referred to the literature as the 4 Ps of creativity: person, process,
press, and product (Richards, 1999; see also Rhodes, 1961).

198
 Journal of Creative Behavior

TABLE 2. Forty-two explicit definitions of the term creativity.

Author(s) Year Definition
Guilford 1950 “. . . refers to the abilities that are most characteristic of
creative people. Creative abilities determine whether
the individual has the power to exhibit creative behavior
to a noteworthy degree.” (p. 444).
Stein 1953 “. . . that process which results in a novel work that is
accepted as tenable or useful or satisfying by a group
at some point in time”. (p. 311).
Rogers 1954 “. . . is the emergence in action of a novel relational
product, growing out of the uniqueness of the
individual on the one hand, and the materials,
events, people, or circumstances of his life on the
other.” (p. 250).
Rhodes 1961 “. . . is a noun naming the phenomenon in which a
person communicates a new concept (which is the
product). Mental activity (or mental process) is implicit
in the definition, and of course no one could conceive
of a person living or operating in a vacuum, so the term
press is also implicit.” (p. 305).
Mednick 1962 “. . . the forming of associative elements into new
combinations which either meet specified requirements
or are in some way useful. The more mutually remote
the elements of the new combination, the more creative
the process or solution.” (p. 221).
Bruner 1962 “. . . an act that produces effective surprise.” (p. 18).
Koestler 1964 “The creative act is not an act of creation in the sense
of the Old Testament. It does not create something out
of nothing: it uncovers, selects, re-shuffles, combines
and synthesizes already existing facts, ideas, faculties
and skills.” (p. 120).
Torrance 1966 “. . . a process of becoming sensitive to problems,
deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements,
disharmonies, and so on; identifying the difficult;
searching for solutions, making guesses or formulating
hypotheses about the deficiencies, testing and retesting
these hypotheses and possibly modifying and retesting
them, and finally communicating the results.” (p. 8).

199
Redefining Creativity

Author(s) Year Definition

May 1975 “. . . the process of bringing something new into being.”
(p. 39).
Welsch 1980 “. . . the process of generating unique products by
transformation of existing products. These products,
tangible and intangible, must be unique only to the
creator, and must meet the criteria of purpose and
value established by the creator.” (p. 97).
Amabile 1983 “. . . creativity can be regarded as the quality of prod-
ucts or responses judged to be creative by appropriate
observers, and it can also be regarded as the process
by which something so judged is produced.” (p. 31).
Mumford & 1988 “. . . creativity appears to be best conceptualized as a
Gustafson syndrome involving a number of elements: (a) the
processes underlying the individual’s capacity to
generate new ideas or understandings, (b) the charac-
teristics of the individual facilitating process operation,
(c) the characteristics of the individual facilitating the
translation of these ideas into action, (d) the attributes
of the situation conditioning the individual’s willingness
to engage in creative behavior, and (e) the attributes of
the situation influencing evaluation of the individual’s
productive efforts.” (p. 28).
Vernon 1989 “. . . a person’s capacity to produce new or original
ideas, insights, restructurings, inventions, or artistic
objects, which are accepted by experts as being of
scientific, aesthetic, social or technological value.” (p. 94).
Boone & 1990 “. . . any form of action that leads to results that are
Hollingsworth novel, useful, and predictable.” (p. 3).
Ochse 1990 “. . . creativity involves bringing something into being
that is original (new, unusual, novel, unexpected) and
also valuable (useful, good, adaptive, appropriate).”
(p. 2).
Mumford, 1991 “. . . does not represent a unitary psychological
Mobley, Reiter- attribute, but rather an outcome of a dynamic interplay
Palmon, of certain individual and situational variables.” (p. 91).
Uhlman,
& Doares

200
 Journal of Creative Behavior

Author(s) Year Definition

Csikszentmihalyi 1996 “. . . any act, idea or product that changes an
existing domain, or that transforms an existing
domain into a new one.” (p. 28).
Herrmann 1996 “Among other things, it is an ability to challenge
assumptions, recognize patterns, see in new ways,
make connections, take risks, and seize upon a
chance.” (p. 245).
NACCCE 1999 “. . . an imaginative activity fashioned so as to
produce outcomes that are original and of value.”
(p. 29).
Parkhurst 1999 “. . . is the ability or quality displayed when solving
hitherto unsolved problems, when developing novel
solutions to problems others have solved differently,
or when developing original and novel (at least to the
originator) products.” (p. 18).
Candy & 1999 “. . . a set of activities that give rise to an outcome or
Edmonds product that is recognized to be innovative as judged
by an external standard.” (p. 4).
Seltzer & Bentley 1999 “. . . is not an individual characteristic or innate
talent. Creativity is the application of knowledge and
skills in new ways to achieve a valued goal.” (p. viii).
Eisenberger, 1999 “. . . involves the generation of novel behavior that
Haskins & meets a standard of quality or utility.” (p. 308).
Gambleton
Sternberg & 1999 “. . . the ability to produce work that is both novel
Lubart (i.e. original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e.
useful, adaptive concerning task constraints).” (p. 3).
Corsini 1999 “Ability to apply original ideas to the solution of
problems; the development of theories, techniques
or devices; or the production of novel forms of art,
literature, philosophy or science.” (p. 234).
Csikszentmihalyi 1999 “. . . a phenomenon that is constructed through an
interaction between producers and audience.
Creativity is not the product of single individuals,
but of social systems making judgments about
individuals’ products.” (p. 314).

201
Redefining Creativity

Author(s) Year Definition

Aleinikov 1999 “. . . the ability or the process of producing something
new and useful.” (p. 840).
Cropley & 2000 “. . . the production of relevant and effective novel
Urban ideas.” (p. 486).
Boden 2001 “. . . is the ability to come up with new ideas that are
surprising yet intelligible, and also valuable in some
way”. (p. 95).
Van Hook & 2002 “. . . the interpersonal and intrapersonal process by
Tegano means of which original, high quality, and genuinely
significant products are developed.” (p. 3).
Feist & 2003 “. . . is a specific capacity to not only solve problems
Barron but to solve them originally and adaptively.” (p. 63).
Carayiannis 2003 “. . . the ability to perceive new connections among
& Gonzalez objects and concepts – in effect, reordering reality by
using a novel framework for organizing perceptions.”
(p. 588).
Mumford 2003 “. . . involves the production of novel, useful
products.”(p. 110).
Ward & 2003 “. . . is the result of the convergence of basic cognitive
Saunders processes, core domain knowledge, andenvironmental,
personal, and motivational factors which allow an
individual to produce an object orbehavior that is
considered both novel and appropriate in a particular
context.” (p. 862).
Plucker, 2004 “. . . the interaction among aptitude, process, and
Beghetto environment by which an individual or group produces
& Dow a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as
defined within a social context.” (p. 90).
Boden 2004 “. . . the ability to come up with ideas or artefacts that
are new, surprising and valuable.” (p. 1).
Pope 2005 “. . . is extra/ordinary, original and fitting, full-filling,
in(ter)ventive, cooperative, un/conscious, fe<>male,
re . . . creation.” (p. 52).
Sawyer 2006 “. . . the emergence of something novel and appropriate,
from a person, a group, or a society.” (p. 33).

202
 Journal of Creative Behavior

Author(s) Year Definition

Runco 2007 “. . . a reflection of cognition, meta-cognition, attitude,
motivation, affect, disposition, and temperament.”
(p. 320).
Barnes & 2007 “. . . the act of putting two or more ideas,
Shirley materials or activities together in what feels (to the
creators) like an original, surprising and valued way.”
(p. 164).
Ferrari, 2009 “. . . is skill for everyone; ability to make new
Cachia, connections; capacity to generate new ideas; divergent
& Punie thinking; ability to get out of the rails; capacity to
produce original and valuable outcomes. (p. 14).
Kampylis, 2009 “. . . the activity (both mental and physical) that occurs
Berki & in a specific time-space, social and cultural framework
Saariluoma and leads to tangible or intangible outcomes that are
original, useful, ethical and desirable, at least to the
creator(s)”. (p. 18).

As can be seen from Table 2, various ambiguities exist. For instance, in most
of the definitions the key terms novel (along with new, original, unconventional,
and so on) and appropriate (together with valuable, useful, functional, and so
forth) are used in a vague way as it is not apparent for whom and to what extent
the creative process and product are novel and valuable. Such ambiguities
challenge the clarity of the concept of creativity and raise questions such as
“How original is original enough?” (Perkins, 1988; Sawyer, 2000), or “For whom
a product, process, or idea should be new” (Cropley, 1999, p. 513).
We further analyzed the collected definitions, utilizing the thematic analysis
framework (Boyatzis, 1998) in an attempt to specify not only the key concepts,
differences, overlaps, and intersections that emerged but also the key creativity
elements that are absent or marginalized from these definitions. In particular,
we investigated whether these definitions focus, explicitly or implicitly, on the
positive/negative aspects of human creativity.
We discovered that these general definitions of creativity do not emphasize the
positive/negative dimensions of the concept itself. Thus, it is not clear whether a
particular type of creativity serves constructive or destructive means and/or ends.
Moreover, it is not always clear for whom of the following the creative activity and
product are novel as well as valuable: (a) for the person who creates; (b) for the
specific field in which the novel product is created; or (c) for society in general.
Naturally, the short- or long-run timeline brings its own essence and difficulty
in assessing and appraising the value and contribution of an original idea. It is

203
Redefining Creativity

particularly difficult to foresee both the near and the distant future as well as to
follow and understand the use and reuse of one idea as a stepping-stone to creat-
ing another. Moreover, it can be very hard for the creator of the original idea to
anticipate the potential misuse(s) of his/her idea by end-user(s). In short, the
timing and relevant marketing of an idea may be crucial for its understanding,
final acceptance, and consequences. For example, English politicians were skep-
tical about electricity when it was discovered and unclear about its potential cre-
ative applications. However, they were convinced of its value when it was suggested
that the government could at some point tax its use.
Historically, many creative ideas failed to find wide acceptance by their con-
temporaries, even though future generations may consider them extremely im-
portant. For instance, the enquiry-based teaching of Socrates and the resistance
it raised among other philosophers and the masses in Ancient Greece is one of
many examples that clearly illustrate the reluctance to accept new, different think-
ing and novel practices. A creative idea might be seen at first to be infeasible and
negative, but over time the idea may become feasible and positive, and vice versa.
Only a small number of researchers have explicitly emphasized the absence of
the positive/negative dimensions of creativity in their definitions. Rogers (1954),
for instance, asserted that there is no fundamental difference in the creative pro-
cess as evidenced in composing a symphony or devising new instruments of
killing. The evaluation of the creative process and product as constructive or de-
structive rests in subjectivity, which is why Rogers avoided incorporating subjec-
tivity in his definition (see Table 2).
Yet, by carefully examining the key components of creativity, novelty, and ap-
propriateness, we will realize that these also rest in subjectivity. It is not always
clear whether a process or a product is really novel and appropriate and for whom.
However, the subjectivity of evaluations of creative processes and products as
constructive or destructive should not deter us from seeking out ways to encoun-
ter and encourage the constructive aspects of creativity and not the destructive
ones. For instance, on debates around climate change, Cropley (1999) has pointed
out the ethical element of creativity by stating that
. . . in addition to being effective and relevant, creativity has an ethical ele-
ment. Nowadays, this aspect has become particularly urgent . . . where the
need for environmental responsibility is increasingly being stressed (p. 513).
We claim that the ethical dimensions of creativity should be explicitly stated in
its definitions. For this reason, we present here a new definition that can be ap-
plied specifically in the context of education, which explicitly refers to the ethical
dimensions of human creativity:
Creativity is the general term we use to describe an individual’s attitude to,
ability for, and style(s) of creative thinking that leads to a structured and
intentional activity, mental and/or physical. This activity may be personal
and/or collective, occurs in a specific space–time, political, economic,

204
 Journal of Creative Behavior

social, and cultural context, and interacts with it. The creative activity aims
to realize the creative potential of the creator(s) and leads to tangible or
intangible product(s) that is (are) original, useful, and desirable at least for
the creator(s). The creative product(s) should be used for ethical and con-
structive purposes.
However, the definitions are not the whole story in understanding creativity.
Creativity collocations also play an important part in the formulation of the mean-
ing of creativity.

CREATIVITY COLLOCATIONS
We continued our literature review by tracking down the most widespread col-
locations dealing with key aspects of creativity and classified them into five classes
based on their value-laden usage: positive, negative, everyday, exceptional,
and neutral. The non-exclusive list presented in Table 3 includes 120 words that
collocate with creativity in various academic texts.

TABLE 3. Taxonomy of 120 collocations of creativity.

Positive Aesthetic, Benevolent, Bright side, Collaborative, Critical, Deliberate,

Democratic, Divine, Ethical, Evolutionary, Experimental, Germinal,
Humane, Lifespan, Moral, Musical, Normal, Orthodox, Philosophi-
cal, Poetic, Positive, Proactive, Productive, Prolific, Radical, Religious,
Revolutionary, Self-actualizing, Social, Spiritual, Spontaneous, True,
Useful

Eminent Big C, Bing-Bang, Distinguished, Elite, Emergentive, Eminent, Ex-

ceptional, Extraordinary, Great, High, Historical, Major, Outstanding,
Primary, Profound, Special-talent, Sublime, Traditional

Neutral Academic, Adult, Applied, Artificial, Artistic, Associative, Cognitive,

Collective, Conceptual, Contemporary, Crystallized, Cultural, Digi-
tal, Entrepreneurial, Female, Fluid, Functional, Group, Hands on,
Hidden, Human, Impromptu, Individual, Innovative, Institutional,
Intellectual, Intentional, Inventive, Linguistic, Male, Mathematical,
Mental Modern, Non-verbal, Organizational, Personal, Physical,
Potential, Private, Pro-c, Psychological, Quantum, Reactive, Real-
world, Scientific, Self-perceived, Sustained, Technical, Technologi-
cal, Unpredictable, Verbal, Visual

Everyday Common, Everyday, Expressive, Little c, Low, Mini-c, Minor,

Mundane, New, Ordinary, Practical, Secondary

Negative Abnormal, Dark side, Malevolent, Negative, Pseudo-creativity

205
Redefining Creativity

Table 3 provides an overview of the 120 creativity collocations through identi-

fying potential meanings. We selected these five categories because in this paper
we are dealing with the consequences of human creativity. Otherwise, we do not
want to compare and contrast the creativity collocations. A more detailed com-
parison of these would undoubtedly require a more detailed typology to justify
the comparative nature of such research. In the following sections, we report on
the meanings given to creativity according to the particular collocation used in
conjunction with the word creativity.
Our review reveals that creativity scholars have utilized these collocations in
order to determine different aspects of creativity, such as the distinction between
Big C and little c creativity (for a review see Kampylis et al., 2009, p. 18). In
other words, the meaning of the term creativity is partly expressed through the
words collocated with it. More analytically, we discovered that
1. thirty-two (32) of these collocations imply that creativity is a somewhat
positive phenomenon (e.g. humane, moral);
2. eighteen (18) collocations refer to exceptional types of creativity (e.g.
eminent, elite);
3. fifty-three (53) collocations have neutral meaning (e.g. digital, verbal,
visual);
4. twelve (12) collocations refer to the everyday aspects of creativity (e.g.
ordinary, mundane); and
5. five (5) collocations provide a negative meaning (abnormal, dark side,
malevolent, negative, and pseudo-creativity).

TOWARDS HOLISTIC ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS

The data analysis reveals that the negative aspects of creativity are empha-
sized neither in creativity’s numerous definitions (see Table 2) nor in its
collocations (Table 3). However, the creative outcomes may range from the most
constructive (e.g. the invention and application of penicillin) to the most destruc-
tive ones (e.g. the development and use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Yet, these outcomes are considered equally creative because they are novel,
appropriate, and desirable for the creative person(s). Even the same person may
use his/her creative potential for constructive (e.g. da Vinci’s artworks) and/or
destructive (e.g. da Vinci’s military devices and weapons) purposes (Runco, 2007).
Therefore, when we use the term creativity, we must carefully consider the
“. . . reciprocal relations between creativity and intentionality” (TenHouten, 1999,
p. 800) and its consequences not only to the creators but also to others.
One promising method of examining the consequences of human creativity at
a personal and social level is the three-dimensional Creativity Consequences
Analytical Framework (Figure 1). In this framework, each dimension represents
a key aspect of human creativity:

206
 Journal of Creative Behavior

1. The intention(s) of the creator(s).

2. The effect(s) that the creative process and its outcomes have for the
creator(s).
3. The consequences that the creative process and its outcomes have for
any others and for the whole of society.

Consequence to others
2

Intention of
creator(s)

Effect to
3 creator(s)

Consequence to others
Intention of creator(s)
4 Effect to creator(s)

FIGURE 1. Creativity Consequences Analytical Framework.

To demonstrate the use and comprehensiveness of the proposed analytical

framework, we will examine four cases of creativity applications, represented as
bullets in Figure 1:
1. Bullet 1 corresponds to cases such as the early support and affirmation of
Copernicus’ well-known heliocentric theory by Galileo Galilei, who was conse-
quently placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. The creator, in this
case originator, had positive intentions; the consequences for others — even
for society as a whole — were constructive, but the effects for the creator
himself were negative.
2. Bullet 2 denotes creativity that derives from positive intentions targeting and
achieving the “common good”. The consequences are very positive not only
for the creator(s) but also for others, even for the whole of society. A typical
example is the discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming, which opened
the way to the development of antibiotics.

207
Redefining Creativity

3. Bullet 3 represents the type of creativity that also derives from positive inten-
tions. The difference between this type and that denoted by Bullet 2 is that the
consequences of this type are positive only for the creator(s), while they are
negative for other people. For instance, the discovery of the New World by
Christopher Columbus had positive effects for Europeans but negative conse-
quences for Native Americans.

4. Bullet 4 symbolizes what Cropley and his co-authors (2008) call malevolent
creativity. That is, the intentions of the creator(s) are consciously negative,
whereas the outcomes are twofold: positive, useful, and appropriate for the
creator(s), but (intentionally) negative and inappropriate for others. We can
find many representative examples of malevolent creativity during times of
war. For instance, Odysseus’ stratagem of the Trojan Horse proved to be very
creative and effective for the Greeks, because it allowed them to finally enter
the city of Troy, but was catastrophic for the Trojans.

The bullets in Figure 1 represent the four extreme cases; obviously, there are
an infinite number of other cases, because the degree of intentionality and the
consequences can vary from very positive to very negative.
The proposed three-dimensional analytical framework can be utilized in many
contexts, such as education, and can provide individuals and organizations with
a holistic view of the potential/real consequences of a given creative process and
product.
We argue that it is not enough to emphasize the Janus-faced character of hu-
man creativity (Rothenberg, 1996) by simply distinguishing between its malevo-
lent/destructive and benevolent/constructive aspects. Therefore, one-dimensional
approaches are clearly not suitable for examining all the multifaceted aspects of
human creativity. Multidimensional approaches can offer a wider and deeper
understanding of creativity by combining it with other constructs such as wisdom
(e.g. Sternberg, 2003) and trusteeship (e.g. Craft et al., 2008).
However, we argue that to obtain a wider and deeper understanding of creativ-
ity we need to go more deeply than even multidimensional approaches. We need
holistic approaches such as manifold thinking (Valtanen, Berki, Kampylis, &
Theodorakopoulou, 2008), which balances critical, creative, caring, and reflec-
tive thinking and utilizes the principles of problem-focus education (Berki &
Valtanen, 2007; Valtanen, Berki, Georgiadou, Ross, & Staples, 2009) for its imple-
mentation. Such holistic approaches can offer effective frameworks for formulat-
ing and answering key questions about human creativity and its consequences,
such as: “Who should benefit from creativity and innovation?”; “How can we avoid
using creativity for destructive purposes?”; and “How can we encourage ethical/
constructive expressions of human creativity?”

208
 Journal of Creative Behavior

CONCLUSIONS
As we enter the seventh decade of scientific research into human creativity,
scholars in the field appear to be beginning to place a more balanced emphasis
on its positive and negative aspects. However, more holistic approaches are
required to fully understand and utilize human creativity. For such holistic
approaches, is apparent not only the need to redefine creativity but also the move
towards a new era of research.
To date, we can identify three main eras of development in the concept of
creativity:
1. The metaphysical era, from antiquity to the Renaissance, in which a
few geniuses are considered able to create from nothing (“ex nihilo”)
through divine (or other) inspiration.
2. The aristocratic era, from the Renaissance to the middle of the 20th
century, in which a few charismatic geniuses are considered able to
create from something.
3. The democratic era, from the middle of the 20th century up to today,
in which anyone is considered able to create from anything.

However, during these eras the emphasis was mainly on the individual creativ-
ity without specific emphasis on its consequences, especially the negative ones,
for the others and the society in general. Yet, following the multidimensional and
holistic approaches, we have identified the need to move toward a fourth era of
conscientious creativity in which all knowledgeable humans are considered able
and wise enough to create something ethical and constructive for all. We use
here the adjective conscientious with the meaning “. . . guided by or in accor-
dance with conscience or sense of right and wrong” (“conscientious”, n.d.). This
is the key skill of wise thinkers, as envisaged by Sternberg (2003), and of
the ancient Greek ideal citizen of kalos kagathos (= good and virtuous). Today’s
wise and responsible global citizen should be no different.
During the era of conscientious creativity, the challenge will be gradually, if
not radically, to increase the focus on political as well as socio-economic factors
and educational as well as organizational settings that promote benevolent
and constructive creativity and, in parallel, to decrease the factors that promote
malevolent and destructive creative activities.
We further support the view that the scientific study of creativity should follow
a new path, with the realization that creative thinking alone is not enough for
personal growth and social progress. The real challenge is to apply a holistic
framework that can bring about a remarkable conceptual change in the ways that
creativity is conceived and practiced. Otherwise, a human being with a creative
idea could be a fatal combination particularly when that human has been taught
to value and think in a narrow, one-sided way.

209
Redefining Creativity

REFERENCES
ABINUN, J. (1984). Creativity and education: Some critical remarks. Leonardo, 17(1), 35-39.
ALEINIKOV, A. G. (1999). Humane creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 847-844). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. *
AMABILE, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. *
ARNDT, J., GREENBERG, J., PYSZCZYNSKI, T., SOLOMON, S., & SCHIMEL, J. (1999). Creativity and
terror management: Evidence that creative activity increases guilt and social projection following
mortality salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 19-32.
BANAJI, S., & BURN, A. (2006). The rhetorics of creativity: A review of the literature. In A. C. England
(Ed.). London: Creative Partnerships and Arts Council of England.
BARNES, J., & SHIRLEY, I. (2007). Strangely familiar: cross-curricular and creative thinking in teacher
education. Improving Schools 10(2), 162-179. *
BAUCUS, M. S., NORTON, W. I., BAUCUS, D. A., & HUMAN, S. E. (2008). Fostering creativity and
innovation without encouraging unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 97-115.
BECHTER, W., & ABRAHAMSEN, A. (1990). Beyond the propositional era. Synthese, 82, 225-245.
BERKI, E., & VALTANEN, J. (2007). Critical and creative mathematical thinking with practical problem
solving skills – A new-old challenge. In D. Dranidis, & I. Sakellariou (Eds.), 3rd South-East European
Workshop on Formal Methods. Service-Oriented Computing; Teaching Formal Methods (pp.
154-170). Thessaloniki: South-East European Research Centre.
BODEN, M. (2001). Creativity and knowledge. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in
education (pp. 95-102). London: Continuum. *
BODEN, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). London; New York:
Routledge. *
BOONE, L. W., & HOLLINGSWORTH, A. T. (1990). Creative thinking in business organizations. Review
of Business, 12(2), 3-13. *
BOWERS, C. A. (1995). Educating for an ecologically sustainable culture: rethinking moral education,
creativity, intelligence, and other modern orthodoxies. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York
Press.
BOYATZIS, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
BRAUN, V., & CLARKE, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology 3, 77-101.
BRUNER, J. S. (1962). The conditions of creativity. In H. E. Gruber, G. Terrell & M. Wertheimer (Eds.),
Contemporary approaches to creative thinking: a symposium held at the University of Colorado
(pp. 1-30). New York: Atherton Press. *
CANDY, L., & EDMONDS, E. (1999). Introducing creativity to cognition. Proceedings of the 3rd conference
on Creativity & Cognition, (pp. 3-6). New York: ACM Press *
CARAYIANNIS, E., & GONZALEZ, E. (2003). Creativity+Innovation=Competitiveness? When, how, and
why. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (1st ed., pp. 587-604).
Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier Science. *
CLARK, K., & JAMES, K. (1999). Justice and positive and negative creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 12(4), 311-320.
CLAXTON, G., CRAFT, A., & GARDNER, H. 2008. Concluding thoughts: Good thinking — education for
wise creativity. In A. Craft, H. Gardner & G. Claxton (Eds.), Creativity, wisdom, and trusteeship:
exploring the role of education (pp. 168-176). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
CONSCIENTIOUS. (n.d.). WordNet 3.0. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from WorldNet Web site: http://
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn.

210
 Journal of Creative Behavior

CORSINI, R. J. (1999). The dictionary of psychology. New York: Brunner-Rutledge. *

CRAFT, A. (2001). Little c creativity. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in education
(pp. 45-61). London: Continuum.
CRAFT, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: tensions and dilemmas. London; New York: Routledge.
CRAFT, A., GARDNER, H., & CLAXTON, G. (2008). Creativity, wisdom, trusteeship: exploring the
role of education. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: London: Corwin
CREATIVITY. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved January 27, 2010, from http://
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creativity.
CROPLEY, A. J. (1999). Definitions of creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
Creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 511-524). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
CROPLEY, A. J., & URBAN, K. K. (2000). Programs and strategies for nurturing creativity. In K. A. Heller,
F. J. Mönks, R. Subotnik & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), International Handbook of Giftedness and
Talent (pp. 481-494). Oxford: Elsevier. *
CROPLEY, D. H., KAUFMAN, J. C., & CROPLEY, A. J. (2008). Malevolent creativity: A functional model
of creativity in terrorism and crime. Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 105 -115
CROPLEY, D. H., KAUFMAN, J. C., CROPLEY, A. R., & RUNCO, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). The dark side of
creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. (1996). Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention (1st
ed.). New York: Harper Collins Publishers. *
CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313-338). Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge
University Press. *
DE BONO, E. (1996). Serious creativity. Using the power of lateral thinking to create new ideas.
London: Harper Collins Business.
EISENBERGER, R., HASKINS, F., & GAMBLETON, P. (1999). Promised reward and creativity: Effects of
prior experience. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(3), 308-325. *
EISENMAN, R. (1997). Mental illness, deviance and creativity. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creative research
handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 295-312). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
FEIST, G. J., & BARRON, F. X. (2003). Predicting creativity from early to late adulthood: Intellect, potential,
and personality. Journal of Research in Personality 37(2), 62-88. *
FERRARI, A., CACHIA, R., & PUNIE, Y. (2009). Innovation and Creativity in Education and Training
in the EU Member States: Fostering Creative Learning and Supporting Innovative Teaching —
Literature review on Innovation and Creativity in E&T in the EU Member States (ICEAC).
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. *
GUILFORD, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454. *
HERRMANN, N. (1996). The whole brain business book. New York: McGraw-Hill. *
JAMES, K., CLARK, K., & CROPANZANO, R. (1999). Positive and negative creativity in groups, institutions,
and organizations: A model and theoretical extension. Creativity Research Journal, 12(3),
211-226.
KAMPYLIS, P. (2010). Fostering creative thinking — The role of primary teachers. Jyväskylä Studies in
Computing, Vol. 115. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
KAMPYLIS, P., BERKI, E., & SAARILUOMA, P. (2009). In-service and prospective teachers’ conceptions
of creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 15–29. *
KAUFMAN, J. C. (2009). Creativity 101. New York, NY: Springer Publications.
KOESTLER, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Hutchinson. *

211
Redefining Creativity

MARTIN, M. W. (2006). Moral creativity. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 20(1), 55-66. *
MAY, R. (1975). The courage to create. New York: W. W. Norton. *
MCLAREN, R. B. (1999). The dark side of creativity. In M. A. Runco, & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of Creativity (pp. 483-491). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
MEDNICK, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69,
220-232. *
MORGAN, D. N. (1953). Creativity today: A constructive analytic review of certain philosophical and
psychological work. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 12(1), 1-24.
MUMFORD, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research.
Creativity Research Journal, 15 (2 & 3), 107–120. *
MUMFORD, M. D., & GUSTAFSON, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and
innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27-43. *
MUMFORD, M. D., MOBLEY, M. I., REITER-PALMON, R., UHLMAN, C. E., & DOARES, L. M. (1991).
Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 91 – 122. *
NACCCE — National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education. (1999). All our futures:
Creativity, culture and education. London: DSEE. *
NEBER, C. (1988). The dark side of creativity: Blocks, unfinished works and the urge to destroy.
New York: Whitston Publishing Company.
OCHSE, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence: the determinants of creative genius. Cambridge;
New York: Cambridge University Press. *
PARKHURST, H. B. (1999). Confusion, lack of consensus, and the definition of creativity as a construct.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 33(1), 1-21. *
PERKINS, D. N. (1988). Creativity and the quest for mechanism. In R. J. Sternberg & E. E. Smith (Eds.),
The psychology of human thought (pp. 309-336). New York: Cambridge University Press.
PIIRTO, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale, Ar.: Great Potential Press.
PLUCKER, J. A., & DANA, R. Q. (1999). Drugs and creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 607-611). San Diego, CA; London: Academic Press.
PLUCKER, J. A., & RUNCO, M. A. (1999). Deviance. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 541-545). San Diego, CA; London: Academic Press.
PLUCKER, J. A., BEGHETTO, R. A., & DOW, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to
educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational
Psychologist, 39(2), 83-96. *
POPE, R. (2005). Creativity: history, theory and practice. London: Routledge.
REPUCCI, L. C. (1988). Definitions of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity —
Contemporary Psychological Perspectives (pp. 99-121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
(First section of an unpublished 1960 report to Dow Chemical Company titled Definitions and Criteria
of Creativity, Contained in the Appendix of C. W. Taylor’s chapter entitled Various approaches to
and definitions of creativity, Chap. 4).
RHODES, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310. *
RICHARDS, R. (1999). Four Ps of creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 733-742). San Diego, CA; London: Academic Press.
ROBINSON, J. R. (2008). Webster’s Dictionary definitions of creativity. Online Journal of Workforce
Education and Development, 3(2). Retrieved February 15, 2010, from http://wed.siu.edu/Journal/
VolIIInum2/volIIInum2.php#one.
ROGERS, C. R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 11(4),
250-258. *

212
 Journal of Creative Behavior

ROTHENBERG, A. (1996). The Janusian process in scientific creativity. Creativity Research Journal,
9(2 & 3), 207-231.
RUNCO, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology 55, 657-687.
RUNCO, M. A. (2007). Creativity-Theories and themes: research, development, and practice.
Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier Academic Press. *
RUNCO, M. A., & NEMIRO, J. (2003). Creativity in the moral domain: Integration and implications.
Creativity Research Journal, 15(1), 91–105.
SAARILUOMA, P. (1997). Foundational analysis: presuppositions in experimental psychology.
London: Routledge.
SAWYER, R. K. (2000). Improvisation and the creative process: Dewey, Collingwood, and the aesthetics
of spontaneity. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 58(2), 149-161.
SAWYER, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: the science of human innovation. Oxford; New York:
Oxford University Press. *
SELTZER, K., & BENTLEY, T. (1999). The creative age — Knowledge and skills for the new economy.
London: Demos. *
STARKO, A. J. (2005). Creativity in the classroom: schools of curious delight (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
L. Erlbaum Associates.
STEIN, M. (1953). Creativity and culture Journal of Psychology, 36, 311- 322. *
STERNBERG, R. J. (2003). Four alternative futures for education in the United States: It’s our choice.
School Psychology Quarterly, 18(4), 431-445.
STERNBERG, R. J. (2010). The dark side of creativity and how to combat it. In D. H. Cropley, J. C.
Kaufman, A. R. Cropley, & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
STERNBERG, R. J., & LUBART, T. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R.
Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.*
TAYLOR, I. A. (1959). The nature of the creative process. In P. Smith (Ed.), Creativity: an examination
of the creative process (pp. 51-82). New York: Hasting House Publishers.
T EN HOUTEN, W. D. (1999). Handwriting and creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 799-805). San Diego, CA; London: Academic Press.
TORRANCE, E. P. (1966). Torrance test on creative thinking: Norms- Technical Manual Research
Edition. Princeton NJ: Personnel Press. *
VALTANEN, J., BERKI, E., GEORGIADOU, E., ROSS, M., & STAPLES, G. (2009). Problem-focused higher
education as a means of ameliorating the effects of globalization, social exclusion and the recession.
In M. Ross & G. Staples (Eds.), Proceedings of the British Computer Society Quality Specialist
Group SQM 2009 and INSPIRE 2009. Southampton: BCS
VALTANEN, J., BERKI, E., KAMPYLIS, P., & THEODORAKOPOULOU, M. (2008). Manifold thinking and
distributed problem-based learning: Is there potential for ICT support? In M. B. Nunes & M. McPherson
(Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference e-Learning 2008 (Vol. 1, pp. 145-152).
Amsterdam: IADIS Press.
VAN HOOK, C. W., & TEGANO, D. W. (2002). The relationship between creativity and conformity among
preschool children. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(1), 1-16 *
VERNON, P. E. (1989). The nature-nurture problem in creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning & C. R.
Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity: perspectives on individual differences (pp. 93-110).
New York, NY: Plenum Press. *
WARD, T. B., SMITH, S. M., & FINKE, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook
of creativity (pp. 189-212). New York: Cambridge University Press.

213
 Redefining Creativity

WARD, T., & SAUNDERS, K. (2003). Creativity. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science.
London: Natural Publishing Group. *
WELSCH, P. K. (1980). The nurturance of creative behavior in educational environments: A
comprehensive curriculum approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan,
Michigan. *

Panagiotis G. Kampylis, University of Jyväskylä, Department of Computer Science and Information

Systems, Agora Center, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014, Jyväskylä, Finland. e-mail: [email protected]
Juri Valtanen, University of Tampere, Department of Education, Atalpa building, FI-33014, Tampere,
Finland. e-mail: [email protected]

AUTHOR NOTE
This research work was supported by the Jyväskylä Graduate School in Computing and
Mathematical Sciences (COMAS), the Greek State Scholarship Foundation (I.K.Y.), and the Greek
Ministry of Education, Life-long Learning, and Religious Affairs. Please address requests for
reprints to: Panagiotis G. Kampylis, Agora Center, P.O. BOX 35, University of Jyväskylä, FI-40014,
Jyväskylä, Finland, emails: [email protected], [email protected]

214

View publication stats