doi.org/10.35321/term29-05

Classification of Conceptions of Creativity and Definition of the Concept of Creativity

GEDIMINAS BERESNEVIČIUS

Vilniaus universiteto Komunikacijos fakultetas

ORCID id: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5357-0697

A N N O T A T I O N

The article classifies the most common conceptions of creativity found in the scholarly literature. Five types are distinguished: creativity as an intrinsic characteristic of the creator, as a creative process, as a creative outcome, as a componential construct, and as a factor that promotes multidimensional progress. Each type of conception has several subtypes. Analysis of the conceptions shows that the only semantically and logically correct one is the conception of creativity as an intrinsic characteristic of the creator, while the conception of creativity as a subtype of creative abilities is the one that should be used. The conception of creativity as a characteristic of a process, product, or environment is also acceptable. Based on the analysis of scholarly literature, the following definition of creativity is formulated: creativity is the creator’s ability to create something qualitatively new, and the novelty of the creative process, the product created, and the environment.

KEYWORDS: creativity, classification of conceptions of creativity, definition of the concept of creativity.

A B S T R A C T

The article classifies the conceptions of concept of creativity that are most often found in scientific literature. Five types of them are described: creativity as an internal singularity of the creator, creativity as a creative process, creativity as a product, creativity as a formation of different components, and creativity as a driving factor of multi-sided progress. Each type of the conception has several subtypes. The analysis of the conceptions shows that the only semantically and logically correct conception is that of creativity as an internal singularity of the creator, and the definition of creativity as a subtype of creative abilities should be used. The conception of creativity as a process, product, or an environmental feature is also acceptable. Based on the analysis of scientific literature, the following definition of creativity was formulated: creativity is the creator’s ability to create something qualitatively new; the novelty of the creative process, the product or environment created.

KEYWORDS: creativity, classification of the conceptions of creativity, definition of creativity.

76

Gediminas Beresnevičius

Kūrybiškumo sampratų klasifikacija ir kūrybiškumo sąvokos apibrėžtis

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

The concept of creativity¹ still raises many questions. Psychologists and other researchers disagree about how to define this concept. In the scholarly literature, we encounter an abundance of definitions of creativity that often contradict one another. Even dictionaries and encyclopedias provide different definitions of creativity². This not only creates theoretical dissonance but also complicates empirical research on creativity. Thus, defining the term and concept of creativity is extremely important in psychology, education, sociology, and other fields.

Naturally, specialists in different fields understand creativity differently, define this concept in the way they find most suitable, and give the term distinct content. We believe that any conception of creativity should be correct rather than erroneous (as is often the case in the scholarly literature), irrespective of context or research field. Psychologists, sociologists, and scholars in other fields may establish their own specific terminology. What matters most is that the essence of the concept of creativity be understood correctly in terminology.

A classification of conceptions of creativity could bring greater clarity. However, the groupings of creativity proposed by scholars do not eliminate the aforementioned confusion. For example, dividing creativity into “little c” and “Big C” (Sawyer 2012) is more a classification of creative works than of creativity. Dividing creativity into “heroic,” “historical” (Černevičiūtė, Strazdas 2014), or other kinds of “creativity” does not encompass the full range of conceptions of the concept under discussion, and the criteria used for grouping are highly questionable.

The confusion surrounding conceptions of creativity and the considerable theoretical uncertainty give rise to the aim of this study: to develop a classification of existing conceptions of creativity grounded in scholarly analysis, enabling the formulation of an appropriate and usable definition of creativity. The object of the study is the concept of creativity.

To achieve this aim, the following objectives were set:

1) to review and classify the principal conceptions of creativity presented in the scholarly literature;

2) to analyze conceptions of creativity and assess their correctness and usability;

1 In this article, we will discuss creativity, although Lithuanian also has the concept of creative ability. This choice is determined by an analysis of the concepts, which shows that the semantic field of creativity is broader than that of creative ability (for more on this, see Beresnevičius 2022). In quotations, we retain the authors’ original usage of these words.

2 The definitions of creativity given in dictionaries published in Lithuania are discussed by Aurelija Ganusauskaitė, Agnė Blažienė, and Jolita Vveinhardt (2020).

Terminologija | 2022 | 29

77

3) to define the concept of creativity on the basis of the analysis of scholarly literature.

The research method was a comparative and summarizing qualitative analysis of scholarly literature. The research was conducted from 2007 to 2022. Concepts of creativity presented in publications by foreign and Lithuanian scholars were examined; the titles of these publications contain the word creativity or creativeness in any grammatical case, or the word creativity if the publication is in English³. The vast majority of the publications studied are in the fields of psychology and education. There are very few works in other fields—sociology, economics, and philosophy—that mention the concept of creativity.

The study examines not only definitions of creativity presented in scholarly texts, but also conceptions—that is, how the author(s) of a text understand creativity: as an intrinsic characteristic of the creator, as a process, as a product, or in some other way. By a conception of a concept, we mean a statement or an idea arising from the context that describes the semantic field (content) of the concept. This study examines only the essential characteristics of the concept of creativity that form the basis for the classification presented.

We consider a definition (conception) to be correct if it meets the following requirements:

1) it complies with the rules for constructing definitions;

2) the definition does not violate the fundamental principles of logic;

3) the term that describes the concept being defined (in our case, creativity) is unambiguous⁴ (its meaning is fixed and does not depend on context);

4) the conception is scientific, that is, suitable for describing theoretical models of creativity and empirical research.

1. CLASSIFICATION OF CONCEPTIONS OF CREATIVITY

As is known, a definition consists of three parts: the definiendum, the definiens, and the copula (expressed by the words is, is called, means). A definition is an equality between the definiendum and the definiens (Plečkaitis 2001).

Concepts are usually defined in accordance with the rules of definition. Unfortunately, not all statements defining creativity can be considered definitions, for various

³ For more on the study covering publications by Lithuanian scholars from 1979 to 2019, see Beresnevičius 2020.

⁴ This article relies on the logical rule of univocity.

78

Gediminas Beresnevičius

Kūrybiškumo sampratų klasifikacija ir kūrybiškumo sąvokos apibrėžtis

violations of the rules governing definitions or obvious logical errors. We would call such statements improper definitions.

A definition (a logical operation) establishes the specificity of the object under study and the meaning of the linguistic expression used. The narrower the definiens, the broader the definition, and vice versa. If, for example, the definiens is restricted to a single word, the object will belong to a very broad class of objects or even to several classes. By indicating an object's features, characteristics, and properties, we make the concept more precise and at the same time narrow the definition.

For the sake of brevity, we will call a definition with a minimal definiens a concept's conception. A conception is the most elementary definition, the most important feature of the object being defined, constructed by removing words that describe the object but are not significant and retaining the essential construct “X = A,” where “A” is one or more essential words describing the concept “X.”

For example, Ala Petrulytė writes: “Creativity is one of the essential traits of a psychologically healthy personality” (Petrulytė 1995: 3.) Removing the words that qualify the essential statement gives us a conception of creativity: “<...> creativity is a trait.”

When there is a great variety of definitions, the only way to achieve greater clarity is to classify and analyze them. Classification is based on grouping objects according to their essential features.

We will group conceptions of creativity into types and subtypes. Each conception has many specific definitions. For example, in A. Petrulytė's (1995) definition of creativity cited above, a personality trait is an internal characteristic of the creator. There are many such characteristics, and a trait is one of them; thus, an internal characteristic of the creator is a type of conception of creativity, while a trait is its subtype.

Below, we will briefly review the types of conceptions most frequently found in scholarly works. We will not examine very rare definitions because of the article's limited length.

1.1. Creativity as an internal characteristic of the creator

The conception of creativity as an internal characteristic of the creator is the most widespread in the scholarly literature. This category of conceptions of creativity includes definitions that describe creativity as a person's creative ability, a personality quality, trait, or power to create, a quality, or a qualification.

A few examples of this type of conception: “[Creativity] may be defined as the ability to produce works that are both novel and appropriate” (Lubart

Terminologija | 2022 | 29

79

2009: 339); “In both popular media and political documents, creativity denotes a power that is difficult to rationalize, yet positive <...>” (Trilupaitytė 2015: 26); “Creativity is one of the general qualifications attributed to a person's formal abilities in the cognitive domain” (Laužackas 1998).

In the scholarly literature, a considerable number of Lithuanian authors equate creativity with a complex of human traits and abilities or personal qualities. This conception appears in Leonas Jovaiša’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of Education: “Creativity <...> is a complex of personality traits that enables the achievement, through productive work, of original, socially significant, qualitatively new results of activity” (Jovaiša 2007: 127). Ellis Paul Torrance noted that researchers associated creativity with a “constellation of primary abilities” (Torrance 1965: 665).

Lithuanian scholarly publications sometimes define creativity as a person's inclination to create. A. Petrulytė states that creativity is “an individual's inclination toward the composition, modeling, or thinking of something in a new, original, or innovative way” (Petrulytė 2001: 8). Definitions of creativity as an inclination can also be found in the works of foreign authors. “Creativity is defined as the inclination to create or recognize ideas, alternatives, or opportunities <...>” (Franken 1993: 396).

In summary, we can state that creativity as an ability, quality, trait, power, quality, complex of qualities, and inclination constitutes subtypes of the conception of creativity as an internal characteristic of the creator.

1.2. Creativity as a process

Encyclopedias, books by Western researchers, and many articles state that creativity is the generation of ideas, problem-solving, product manufacturing (production), technology development, or another process. “The most common way to define creativity is as a process through which something new and useful is created,” assert John C. Houtz and Cathryn Patricola (Houtz, Patricola 1999: 1). Michael D. Mumford agrees: “Over the past decade, it seems we have reached a general consensus that creativity means the production of new and useful products” (Mumford 2003: 110).

The scholarly literature contains many definitions that describe creativity as a person's activity or behavior. These conceptions can also be classified under the process category. Having considered the views of various scholars, Junona Almonaitienė concludes that “creativity is

80

Gediminas Beresnevičius

Kūrybiškumo sampratų klasifikacija ir kūrybiškumo sąvokos apibrėžtis

rather than an inner human quality, or potential, but a certain kind of behavior” (Almonaitienė 2000: 83).

In the work of humanistic psychologists, we can find statements that creativity is a person’s self-expression, the actualization of personality, the expression of creative potential, and the realization of creative needs. These are also processes. For example, Mark A. Runco (2007) quotes Albert Bandura, according to whom “creativity is one of the highest forms of human expression” (Runco 2007: 385).

The conception according to which creativity is understood as creative or divergent thinking should also be classified under creativity as a process. “J. P. Guilford equated creativity with divergent thinking <...>,” states Daiva Grakauskaitė-Karkockienė (2002: 10). We also find creativity equated with creative thinking in the work of E. P. Torrance, one of the world’s most prominent creativity researchers. In the scholar’s view, creative thinking is a process in which: 1) uncertainties, problems, gaps in information, and strange and unusual things are sought; 2) hypotheses are formulated and questions posed; 3) the hypotheses and conjectures put forward are evaluated and tested; 4) solutions are retested if necessary; 5) results are published (Torrance 1988).

There are definitions that equate creativity with problem solving, which, like thinking, is a process that takes place in the brain. Dean Keith Simonton writes: “Creativity is typically defined as successful problem solving that requires some insight” (Simonton 2009: 116).

Creativity is often defined as a phenomenon or phenomenon. Rūta Girdzijauskienė maintains: “In the work of contemporary scholars, creativity is examined as a complex and multidimensional phenomenon” (Girdzijauskienė 2014: 80). And according to Lukasz Swiatek, “creativity is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon encompassing many processes and practices” (Swiatek 2014: 73).

We treat the words phenomenon and phenomenon as synonyms, since a phenomenon is an extraordinary occurrence, event, or fact. In this article, we narrow the concept of phenomenon by recognizing that there are many conceptions of it.

Thus, we would include the following subtypes in the conception of creativity as a process: creativity as creation, production or making, activity, behavior, self-expression or self-actualization, creative or divergent thinking, problem solving⁵, and a phenomenon.

5 Here, we understand problem solving as a mental act. It would be more appropriate to call the result of thinking a solution.

Terminologija | 2022 | 29

81

1.3. Creativity as a result

In the scholarly literature, there are conceptions in which creativity is equated with the result of creative activity. Robert Drazin, Robert K. Kazanjian, and Mary Anna Glynn write: “In these studies creativity is almost always understood as a product important to the social system, and independent variables are treated as factors that can be controlled to improve those products” (Drazin, Kazanjian, Glynn 2009: 268).

There is a group of researchers who define creativity as evaluation. According to Cameron Ford and Maribeth Kuenzi, creativity is “a subjective, domain-specific evaluation of the novelty and value of the outcome of a particular action” (Ford, Kuenzi 2009: 66). Although evaluation (like problem solving) can be understood in two ways, here we treat it as a product of a process (thinking)—an opinion expressed or written by evaluators.

Thus, the following subtypes belong to the category of conceptions of creativity as a product of creative activity: creativity as a product or outcome of activity, evaluation, as well as problem solving or an idea, and the outcome of interaction.

1.4. Creativity as a composite construct

Scholarly publications contain definitions of creativity that combine several conceptions of different kinds. For example, “creativity can be described as both an outcome and a process” (Shalley, Zhou 2009: 4).

So-called componential models of creativity can also be classed among complex definitions of creativity (composed of several parts). One of the first, and perhaps the best known, is Mel Rhodes’s 4P model (Rhodes 1961). In this model, creativity consists of four components: person (in English person), process (in English process), product (in English product), and environmental influence (in English press). In his article, M. Rhodes (1961) describes these elements not as elements or constituent parts of creativity, but as fields of scholarly research that are in one way or another related to creativity. Nevertheless, the author called the model a model of creativity. This is how most researchers understood it, and the idea that creativity consists of several distinct parts became widespread in the scholarly literature. Later, theoretical schemas of creativity emerged with more than four “creativity” elements.

Vienas iš labiausiai tyrėjų cituojamų kūrybiškumo modelių – Teresos M. Amabile (1983) schema, kurioje vaizduojami kūrybos proceso etapai ir juos veikiantys kūrėjo gebėjimai, žinios, motyvacija. Vėliau šią schemą autorė

82

Gediminas Beresnevičius

Kūrybiškumo sampratų klasifikacija ir kūrybiškumo sąvokos apibrėžtis

modifikavo ir papildė aplinkos poveikiu kūrėjo motyvacijai (Amabile 1996). T. Amabile (1983, 1996) savo schemą vadino „Kūrybiškumo modeliu“.

Savita kūrybiškumo modelį sukūrė Mihaly’is Csikszentmihalyi’is (2009). Jo modelyje yra 3 pagrindinės dalys: kūrėjas, vertintojai ir kūrybos sritis. Kūrėjas šiame modelyje suprantamas kaip individas, turintis reikiamų gebėjimų ir tinkamą pasirengimą kūrybai. Vertintojai yra visos visuomenės dalis, o kūrybos sritis įeina į savo laikmečio kultūrą. Sukūręs produktą kūrėjas jį pateikia įvertinti atitinkamos srities ekspertams. Jei ekspertai produktą įvertina palankiai, produktas (jau kaip kūrinys) patenka į kūrybos sritį. Pavyzdžiui, mokslinis straipsnis publikuojamas žurnale, jei jį priėmė redakcija ir teigiamai įvertino recenzentai.

There are quite a few models of creativity in the psychological literature. They differ from one another in their components and in the relationships depicted among them. The models of M. Rhodes, T. Amabile, and M. Csikszentmihalyi are the best known and most frequently discussed in the scholarly literature.

Sometimes creativity is described as an interaction between internal personality and environmental factors, or between the parts of a constructed theoretical model. “Creativity is the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment through which an individual or group produces tangible new products that are useful in a social context,” state Jonathan A. Plucker and Sasha A. Barab (Plucker, Barab 2005: 201). Creativity is occasionally called the outcome of interaction. Discussing M. Csikszentmihalyi’s (2009) model, Emma Policastro and Howard Gardner write: “Creativity is understood not as a product of an individual’s mind, but rather as the outcome of a dynamic interaction among a creative individual, the domain in which he or she works, and the body of judges (the field) that evaluates the quality of the work” (Policastro, Gardner 2009: 214).

The conception of creativity as interaction should be classified as a type of process conception, while the outcome of interaction belongs to the category of creativity as a result.

We can conclude that researchers of creativity have long discussed creativity as a complex construct consisting of several distinct components. We would also include componential models of creativity in this category of conceptions.

1.5. Creativity as a factor

On the Internet, in popular literature, and sometimes in articles of an economic, sociological, or political nature, there are conceptions in which creativity is presented as a factor promoting economic, scientific, technological, and other kinds of progress

Terminologija | 2022 | 29

83

“Creativity <...> is now the decisive source of competitive advantage,” asserts Richard Florida (Florida 2002: 5). There are also figurative definitions of creativity that are semantically close to this conception and more reminiscent of catchphrases or poetic metaphors. For example: “Creativity is the locomotive driving cultural evolution” (Csikszentmihalyi 2009: 320); “Creativity and creativeness are the main engine of scientific progress, because only creative scientific thought and the creative abilities at one’s disposal generate various inventions and innovations” (Barevičiūtė 2014: 19).

2. ANALYSIS OF CONCEPTIONS OF CREATIVITY

In this section, we will analyze the previously presented types and subtypes of conceptions in terms of their correctness, that is, we will attempt to determine which conceptions of creativity are correct or incorrect, and which are acceptable for use.

2.1. Creativity as an internal characteristic

According to the linguistic logic of Lithuanian word formation, derivatives of adjectives with the suffixes -ingas, -a and -iškas, -a indicate what characteristic an object has: kūrybingumas denotes the abundance of that characteristic, while kūrybiškumas denotes its essence (DLKG 1997). The two concepts are very close in meaning and usage: we can say that kūrybiškumas and kūrybingumas denote an object's characteristic, indicate what the object is like, what distinguishes it, and so on.

If we are talking about a person who creates, then this characteristic is, of course, the ability to create. Human abilities are precisely those mental mechanisms that make it possible to perform a mental or physical function—in this case, to create. Thus, the conception that creativity is the ability to create is entirely correct. This conception does not violate the logic of language and is suitable for describing the results of psychologists’ research, the development of creativity, the effects of the environment, and other matters related to creation.

As mentioned, this type of conception of creativity includes not only conceptions of creativity as an ability, but also as a personal quality, a complex of qualities, a trait, a power, a quality, and an inclination.

Definitions in which creativity is identified as a human quality are essentially correct, because an ability is also a quality. A quality is a more stable mental construct than abilities, which depend on training and development; that is, an ability grows stronger through learning and development. Research shows that

84

Gediminas Beresnevičius

Kūrybiškumo sampratų klasifikacija ir kūrybiškumo sąvokos apibrėžtis

Creativity can be easily developed or suppressed—it depends on the conditions created, the influence of people around the individual, the individual’s efforts, and other factors. Therefore, creativity should be called not a trait but an ability.

The conception of creativity as a complex of traits is complicated. This raises the question: what is the composition of this complex? What set of traits is sufficient for a person possessing them to be considered creative? Compiling a list of traits can give rise to serious disagreements. Inevitably, the complex would include personal traits unrelated or only indirectly related to creativity (e.g., persistence and diligence, which are needed not only in creative work). This conception would be correct if the complex included only creative abilities, but in that case it would coincide with the conception of creativity as abilities.

A trait is an even more stable structure of the human psyche. It develops over a very long period and may remain unchanged throughout one’s life; thus, it is better not to call creativity a trait, although this conception is correct.

Equating creativity with power is essentially correct, but this usage is complicated by the fact that the concept of power has many meanings, and only a small number of them can be associated with a person. If we considered power to be the totality of abilities, competencies, skills, and knowledge, this conception would coincide with the conception of creativity as abilities or as a complex of traits.

We would consider equating creativity with quality not very well-founded. If we understood quality as a creator’s characteristic or attribute, this would be an acceptable and correct conception of creativity. However, quality is more commonly used when speaking about things rather than people. Therefore, it is better not to use this conception.

Problems similar to those associated with a complex of traits arise when we consider creativity to be a qualification, since the concept of qualification encompasses many abilities, competencies, areas of knowledge, and other individual characteristics (not all of them related to creativity). Thus, this conception is only partly correct, and we would recommend not using it.

Inclination should not be equated with creativity. Inclination is a person’s orientation, associated with inner motivation. Inclination is a factor determining the beginning, development, and duration of creative work, but not those human characteristics responsible for creativity itself. If we considered inclination to be creativity, all measurements of creativity would become meaningless, since what is usually tested is a person’s cognitive abilities (not inclinations). Equating creativity with inclination creates confusion; therefore, this conception is incorrect and should not be used, even though it belongs to the category of conceptions of creativity as an inner characteristic of the creator.

Terminologija | 2022 | 29

85

2.2. Creativity as a process

Creative work, creating, creative action or thinking, making, producing, behavior, the act of creation, generating ideas, self-expression, self-actualization, and activity are processes. A process is a sequence of actions with a beginning and an end. Processes may be short- or long-term, intermittent or continuous, or take other forms. Their essential feature is unfolding over time. Clearly, a process is not creativity but creative work. The statement “creativity is the production of new and valuable works” defines not creativity but creating, the creative process, the “production” of works. Therefore, all conceptions that equate creativity with one process or another are incorrect and should not be used.

Conceptions of creativity that describe the concept as thinking, problem solving⁶, a phenomenon, or an occurrence are likewise incorrect and should not be used, because these are not characteristics of an object but, once again, processes.

2.3. Creativity as a result

A work of art or literature, a scientific theory, an invention, an improvement, a business plan, a technology, a method, a legal act, a solution to a problem, an idea, or a thought is not creativity, but a result of the creative process. A product obtained through creative activity or during the creative process should be called a product, an outcome of activity, a work, or creative work (as the totality of works or the results of creative activity), rather than creativity.

How could we understand conceptions of creativity in which this concept is described as the result of interaction? If the result of the interaction is a process, then the concept of creativity is unsuitable for describing it; the concept of creative work (creation) or another process should be used instead. If the interaction results in some real or virtual objects (things, ideas, projects, etc.), we should certainly call them products or works, not creativity.

In general, we can say that conceptions in which creativity is equated with some kind of result are incorrect and should not be used.

2.4. Creativity as a componential construct

A definition in which creativity is described as a construct composed of different elements violates the rule of unambiguity for definitions, according to which, within the bounds of one theory, each defining part of a definition

⁶ Problem solving here is understood as a mental act taking place in the human mind. The consequence of this process is a solution (the result of thought).

86

Gediminas Beresnevičius

Kūrybiškumo sampratų klasifikacija ir kūrybiškumo sąvokos apibrėžtis

must correspond to only one concept being defined, but not vice versa (Plečkaitis 2001). As an example, let us take the previously cited definition by Christina E. Shalley and Jing Zhou (2009), in which creativity is equated with both a result and a process. From what has been said, we can formulate the following system of equations:

Creativity = { result, process,

We arrive at the conclusion that a result is a process, which is a clear contradiction: it cannot be that the same concept describes two different things, or that different things mean one and the same thing. Of course, there are words that mean different things depending on the context, e.g., the word kasa. But such polysemy does not apply to creativity, because we have clear and unambiguous words for describing a process and a result.

Attempts to define creativity as one thing or another (e.g., creativity is either an ability, a process, or a result) do not resolve the situation. Some researchers explain that there can be many different “creativities.” Pamela Burnard (2012), for example, makes this claim; however, the “creativities” mentioned in her book are forms, modes, and methods of creative work (not of creativity!). If the claim that two or more creativities exist were considered true, every time we used this concept we would have to specify which creativity (of process, result, or another kind) we had in mind. It would be clearer to call process creativity simply a process, and result creativity simply a result.

M. Rhodes’as (1961), kalbėdamas apie žmones, kaip 4P modelio sudedamąją dalį, be kitų klausimų, kelia ir tokį: „Koks yra kūrybiškumo ir intelekto koreliacijos koeficientas?“ Jei kūrybiškumą suvoksime kaip 4P visumą, klausimas taps absurdiškas, nes kokia gali būti koreliacija tarp intelekto ir žmogaus su visais bruožais, temperamentu, intelektu (!), procesu, produktais bei aplinkos įtaka? Akivaizdu, kad neįmanoma nustatyti koreliacijos tarp intelekto ir teorinio konstrukto, į kurį įeina ir pats intelektas. Jei kūrybiškumas yra vienas iš žmogaus parametrų (kas logiškai ir išaiškėja iš autoriaus teksto apie žmogų), tai 4P nebegalime vadinti kūrybiškumo modeliu, nes nelogiška, kad visuma kartu būtų ir savo paties dalis. Kaip matome, kūrybiškumo kaip sudėtingo darinio traktavimas pažeidžia moksliškumo ir logiškumo reikalavimus. Panašių nelabai logiškų aspektų galima rasti ir T. Amabile (1983, 1996) ir M. Csikszentmihalyi’o (2009) modeliuose.

Terminologija | 2022 | 29

87

The authors of models of creativity speak of one creativity, merely composed of several parts. The logical confusion of such constructs could be eliminated by changing the models’ names. M. Rhodes’s (1961) model could be called not a model of creativity, but a model of research areas related to creativity. T. Amabile’s (1983, 1996) could be called a model of the effects of motivation, abilities, and other factors on the creative process, and M. Csikszentmihalyi’s (2009) a model of the interaction between the creator, evaluators, and the domain of creativity or a model of the entry of a work into the domain of creativity. Renamed in this way or another, these models no longer represent, much less define, creativity.

It may be convenient to regard creativity as a complex whole of objects and processes related to creative activity and to vary the concept’s content depending on the specifics of the study, but in our view such a position is not scientific.

We can conclude that componential models or definitions of creativity, consisting of several different conceptions of creativity, are incorrect and do not define this concept unambiguously, and therefore should not be used.

2.5. Creativity as a factor

Definitions in which creativity is identified as human capital or human resources (hereafter HC / HR) are complicated because the authors of such definitions do not always specify the content of the capital or resources in question. HC / HR are complex concepts encompassing many things. If, in this conception, creativity is equated with abilities, then this conception is correct and we would classify it under the conception of abilities. If we understood HC / HR simply as employees possessing creativity, ingenuity, knowledge, experience, skills, and so on, then the definition that creativity is HC / HR would be absurd, since we would arrive at the conclusion that creativity is... a person or a group of people! If we considered HC / HR a complex construct consisting of abilities, knowledge, and other things, the situation would be analogous to that of the models discussed above.

From what has been said, it can be concluded that definitions of creativity involving HC / HR are correct only if we regard HC / HR as creative abilities (and such a definition coincides with the subtype of creativity as abilities). However, this conception should not be used, because every time we use this concept, we would have to clarify the content of HC / HR.

Various metaphors in which creativity is described as a factor promoting economic and other kinds of progress (a “driver,” and so on) belong to the type of definitions of creativity as a certain factor. Such statements are essentially correct, but metaphors cannot be considered definitions because they do not meet the requirements for definitions and violate their rules.

88

Gediminas Beresnevičius

Kūrybiškumo sampratų klasifikacija ir kūrybiškumo sąvokos apibrėžtis

3. SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS OF CONCEPTIONS OF CREATIVITY

The conceptions of creativity found in the scholarly literature can be divided into five most frequently mentioned types, which can in turn be divided into 26 subtypes, as shown in the table. Taking into account the criteria for the correctness of a conception stated at the beginning of the article and the analysis of conceptions of creativity conducted, the table also indicates which conceptions are correct or incorrect, and which are acceptable or unacceptable for use.

Table. Classification of conceptions of creativity and their evaluation and acceptability for use

TYPE OF CONCEPTION

SUBTYPE OF CONCEPTION

EVALUATION OF CONCEPTION

ACCEPTABILITY OF CONCEPTION FOR USE

1. An internal characteristic of the creator

Ability

Correct

Acceptable for use

Characteristic

Correct

Not recommended for use

A complex of characteristics

Debatable

Not recommended for use

Trait

Debatable

Not recommended for use

Power

Correct

Not recommended for use

Quality

Correct

Not recommended

Qualification

Questionable

Not recommended

Inclination

Incorrect

Not recommended

2. The creative process

Creation

Incorrect

Not recommended

Production, manufacturing

Activity

Behavior

Self-expression, self-actualization

Creative or divergent thinking

Problem solving

Phenomenon

3. Creative output

Product, outcome of activity

Incorrect

Not recommended for use

Solution to a problem, idea

Evaluation (as an opinion)

Result of interaction

4. Componential construct

4P model

Incorrect

Not recommended for use

T. Amabile’s model

M. Csikszentmihalyi’s model

Terminologija | 2022 | 29

89

5. Economic and other factor

HR / HI as a creative ability

Correct

Not recommended for use

HR / HI as an employee or a complex construct

Incorrect

Not recommended for use

“Engine of progress” and other metaphors

Incorrect

Not recommended for use

As we can see from the table, of all the conceptions of the concept of creativity found in the scholarly literature, only one conception remains correct and appropriate for use: according to it, creativity is an ability as an intrinsic characteristic of the creator. All the other conceptions are either incorrect or correct but not recommended for use.

4. DEFINITION OF CREATIVITY

We have established that creativity is an ability. We will attempt to refine this conception.

Who has creative abilities? Psychologists most often speak of the creativity of humans and animals; sociologists, of a group of people or a collective; economists, of a company, region, city, or country. Meanwhile, advances in modern cybernetics, programming, and IT make it possible to speak of artificial intelligence’s ability to create texts, drawings, and music. Thus, a creator may be a person, animal, collective, organization, artificial intelligence, or other entity with creative abilities. Psychologists still debate whether abilities are innate or developed through practice. In recent decades, evidence has been mounting that all abilities can be developed.

What is creation? We hold that creation is a process in which some new, original (not copied), imagined or material objects (ideas, solutions, projects, works, etc.) are discovered, conceived, or made. Not every new product is a creation. Almost all processes (even copying or template-based production) produce something new—something that did not exist before it was made: a new copy, a new item. Thus, only products that differ qualitatively from their prototype, analogue, or similar product⁷ should be called creations.

Many researchers add value, usefulness, artistry, suitability, and other characteristics to the criteria for a creation; however, these criteria describe craftsmanship, artistry, scientific merit, and other qualities of a product, but not its creativity.

⁷ Understandably, assessing qualitative novelty may pose considerable problems because of the specific nature of the field of creation and the subjectivity of evaluation; nevertheless, this criterion is best suited to distinguishing creative products from non-creative ones.

90

Gediminas Beresnevičius

Kūrybiškumo sampratų klasifikacija ir kūrybiškumo sąvokos apibrėžtis

Scientific literature definitions of creativity rarely mention it, although sometimes the context suggests that creativity is an internal characteristic not only of the creator but also of the work itself or of creation as a process. According to the semantic meaning of the word creativity, this is how we should understand the concept—as a description of an object or an action. We note that creativity is not an idea, an object, or a process, but a characteristic or quality of an idea, object, or process.

Thus, we can say that creativity is the ability developed by a creator to create qualitatively new imagined or material objects; it is the qualitative novelty of the process, the creator’s work product, and the environment.

The definition presented does not claim to be the final truth and may be refined.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Having reviewed the scholarly literature on creativity, we classified all the conceptions of this concept that we found into five main types: 1) creativity as an internal characteristic of the creator, 2) creativity as the creative process, 3) creativity as the outcome of creation, 4) creativity as a componential construct, and 5) creativity as a factor of progress. Each type of conception has several subtypes. Other conceptions of creativity that do not fall within this classification make up a very small proportion of all conceptions of the concept.

2. Having analyzed the classified conceptions of creativity, we determined that the conception of creativity as the ability to create is correct and should be used.

3. On the basis of our analysis of conceptions of creativity, and by extending the conception of creativity to include the characteristics of the object and the process, we can define creativity as the creator’s developed ability to create qualitatively new imagined or material objects, and the qualitative novelty of the process, the product of the creator’s activity, and the environment.

LITERATŪRA

Almonaitienė Junona 2000: Šiuolaikinis požiūris į kūrybingumą ir įvertinimo problemas. – Psichologija 21, 117–121.

Amabile Teresa M. 1983: The Social Psychology of Creativity, New York: Springer-Verlag.

Amabile Teresa. M. 1996: Creativity in Context: Update to The Social Psychology of Creativity, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Barevičiūtė Jovilė 2014: Pagrindiniai kūrybiškumo ir kūrybingumo aspektai šiuolaikiniuose humanitariniuose bei socialiniuose moksluose. – Filosofija. Sociologija 25(1), 19–28.

Beresnevičius Gediminas 2020: Kūrybiškumas: lietuvių mokslinių publikacijų 1979–2019 m. statistika. Prieiga internete: https://www.academia.edu/43463246/K%C5%ABrybi%C5%A1kumas_lietuvi%C5%B3_mokslini%C5%B3_publikacij%C5%B3_1979_2019_m_statistika.

Terminologija | 2022 | 29

91

Beresnevičius Gediminas 2022: Kūrybiškumo ir kūrybingumo sąvokų Lietuvos autorių mokslinėse publikacijose vartosena bei prasmių analizė. – Psichologija 66, 8–20.

Bernard Pamela 2012: Musical Creativities in Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi Mihaly 2009: Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity. – Handbook of Creativity (12^th printing), ed. R. J. Sternberg, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 313–335.

Černevičiūtė Jūratė, Strazdas Rolandas 2014: Kūrybingumo sampratų raida: nuo genijaus į kūrybines sistemas. – Santalka: Filosofija, Komunikacija 22(2), 113–125.

DLKG – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, trečias pataisytas leidimas, red. V. Ambrazas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1997.

Drazin Robert, Kazanjian Robert K., Glynn Mary Ann 2009: Creativity and sensemaking among professionals. – Handbook of Organizational Creativity, eds. J. Zhou, C. E. Shalley, N.Y.: Psychology Press, 263–281.

Florida Richard 2002: The Rise of the Creative Class, New York: Basic Books.

Ford Cameron, Kuenzi Maribeth 2009: “Organizing” Creativity Research Through Historical Analysis of Foundational Administrative Science Texts. – Handbook of Organizational Creativity, eds. J. Zhou, C. E. Shalley, N.Y.: Psychology Press, 65–92.

Franken Robert E. 1993: Human Motivation, 3rd ed., Boston: Cengage Learning.

Ganusauskaitė Aurelija, Blažienė Agnė, Vveinhardt Jolita 2020: Kūrybingumo ir kitų su kūryba susijusių žodžių apibrėžčių diskurso analizė lietuvių kalbos žodynuose. – Visuomenės saugumas ir viešoji tvarka 24, 70–87.

Girdzijauskienė Rūta 2014: Kūrybiškumui ugdyti palanki aplinka Lietuvos mokyklose. – Tiltai 4, 79–91.

Grakauskaitė-Karkockienė Daiva 2002: Kūrybos psichologija, Vilnius: Logotipas.

Houtz John C., Patricola Cathryn 1999: Imagery. – Encyclopedia of Creativity 2, eds. M. A. Runco, S. R. Pritzker, San Diego: Academic Press, 1–11.

Jovaiša Leonas 2007: Enciklopedinis edukologijos žodynas, Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis.

Laužackas Rimantas 1998: Sistemetorinės profesinio ugdymo kaitos dimensijos: hab. darbas, Kaunas.

Lubart Todd I. 2009: Creativity Across Cultures. – Handbook of Creativity (12^th printing), ed. R. J. Sternberg, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 339–350.

Mumford Michael D. 2003: Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. – Creativity Research Journal 15, 107–120.

Petrulytė Ala 1995: Kūrybiškumo ugdymo aktualijos, Vilnius: Leidybos centras.

Petrulytė Ala 2001: Kūrybiškumo ugdymas mokant, Vilnius: Presvika.

Plečkaitis Romanas 2001: Apibrėžimas. Prieiga internete: https://www.vle.lt/Straipsnis/apibrezimas-74875.

Plucker Jonathan A., Barab Sasha A. 2005: The Importance of Contexts in Theories of Giftedness. – Conceptions of Giftedness (Second edition), eds. R. J. Sternberg, J. E. Davidson, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 201–216.

Policastro Emma, Gardner Howard 2009: From Case Studies to Robust Generalizations: An Approach to the Study of Creativity. – Handbook of Creativity (12^th printing), ed. In R. J. Sternberg, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 213–225.

Rhodes Mel 1961: An analysis of creativity. – Phi Delta Kappan 42(7), 305–310.

Runco Mark A. 2007: Creativity. Theories and Themes: Research, Development, and Practice, Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.

Sawyer R. Keith 2012: Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shalley Christina E., Zhou Jing 2009: Organizational Creativity Research. – Handbook of Organizational Creativity, eds. J. Zhou, C. E. Shalley, N.Y.: Psychology Press, 3–31.

Simonton Dean Keith 2009: Creativity from a Historiometric Perspective. – Handbook of Creativity (12^th printing), ed. R. J. Sternberg, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 116–133.

Swiatek Lukasz 2014: Rewarding and Promoting Creativity: New Approaches, Old Realities. – Academic quarter 9, 73–86.

Torrance Ellis Paul 1965: Scientific Views of Creativity and Factors Affecting Its Growth. – Daedalus 94(3), 663–681.

Torrance Ellis Paul 1988: The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. – Nature of creativity, ed. R. J. Sternberg, New York: Cambridge University Press, 43–75.

Trilupaitytė Skaidra 2015: Kūrybiškumo galia? Neoliberalistinės kultūros politikos kritika, Vilnius: DEMOS kritinės minties institutas.

92

Gediminas Beresnevičius

Kūrybiškumo sampratų klasifikacija ir kūrybiškumo sąvokos apibrėžtis

CLASSIFICATION OF THE CONCEPTIONS OF CREATIVITY AND THE DEFINITION OF CREATIVITY

Summary

Scientific literature provides many different definitions of the concept of creativity. This raises theoretical problems and complicates empirical research. The only method to reduce the current misunderstanding related to the concept of creativity in psychology is the classification of the concepts of creativity and its scientific analysis. This would allow to determine the correct and usable concept of creativity. In this article, we consider such a definition (conception) to be correct that meets the following requirements: (1) the rules for its compilation apply to the definition; (2) the definition does not violate the fundamental principles of logic; (3) the term defining the conception is unambiguous; (4) the conception is scientific, i. e., suitable to describe theoretical models of creativity and empirical research.

In this article, conceptions of creativity are grouped into types and subtypes. Five types of the conception of creativity are distinguished: creativity as an internal singularity of the creator, creativity as a creative process, creativity as a product, creativity as a formation of different components, and creativity as a driving factor of multi-sided progress.

We identified that the type of the conception of creativity as internal singularity of the creator has the following subtypes: creativity as an ability, characteristic feature, power, quality, a complex of features, and predisposition. Creativity as a creative process has the following subtypes: creativity as creation, production, activity, behaviour, self-expression or self-actualisation, creative or divergent thinking, and a problem-solving (as a mental act) phenomenon. The type of creativity as a product has the following subtypes: creativity as a product or result of activity, an evaluation, a solution to a problem or an idea, and the result of the interaction of different factors. Conceptions perceiving creativity as a theoretical structure or a formation that consists of several components (parts) are based on Mel Rhodes (1961), Teresa Amabile (1983, 1996), Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (2009), and other componential models of creativity. The fifth type of the concept of creativity describes it as a factor that promotes economy, science, technology, culture, and other kinds of progress.

After the analysis of the classification of the conceptions of creativity, we determined that the conception of creativity as the ability to create that belongs to conception of creator’s inner characteristic is correct and usable.

Based on the analysis of the conceptions of creativity, we can define creativity as the creator’s ability to create qualitatively new imaginary or material objects, as well as the qualitative novelty of the process, the product or environment created.

Gauta 2022-08-10

Gediminas Beresnevičius Vilniaus universiteto Komunikacijos fakultetas Saulėtekio al. 9, I rūmai, LT-10222 Vilnius E. paštas [email protected]

Terminologija | 2022 | 29

93