Creative Research Methods 2e. Kara, Helen
a divine attribute (Sternberg 2006: 6; Hesmondhaugh and Baker 2011: 3) with only gods being able to create something from nothing. A legacy of this is that some creative people still refer to the capricious ‘muse’ or ‘inspiration’, which may arrive – or not – at any time (Carter 2004: 25). Nowadays, creativity is more often viewed as a process of creating something from elements that already exist by putting them together in a new way (Carter 2004: 47; Koestler 1969: 45, cited in Forceville 2012: 113; Munat 2007: xiv; Saldaña 2015: 122).
Some scholars of creativity subscribe to a ‘standard definition’ including the criteria of originality and effectiveness (Runco and Jaeger 2012: 92), which stems from the work of Stein (1953) and Barron (1955) in the 1950s (Runco and Jaeger 2012: 95). Yet this definition says more about what creativity does and how it functions than about what it is. Also, creativity scholars now acknowledge that this definition may not be entirely adequate; there is no clear consensus that the criteria of originality and effectiveness are the best or only criteria to use in judging creativity (Runco and Jaeger 2012: 95). Some commentators take the view that originality is not a requirement for creativity (for example, Fryer 2012: 22), although others still subscribe to the ‘something from nothing’ view (for example, Mould 2018: 4).
The Hungarian-American psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1996/2013: 28) set out his understanding of how creativity happens:
Creativity occurs when a person, using the symbols of a given domain such as music, engineering, business, or mathematics, has a new idea or sees a new pattern, and when this novelty is selected by the appropriate field for inclusion into the relevant domain. The next generation will encounter that novelty as part of the domain they are exposed to, and if they are creative, they in turn will change it further.
However, creativity is understood differently in different countries. For example, research in Hong Kong, China and the US found that Chinese people tend to see creativity as an external social attribute, focusing on what creative people can contribute to society, while Westerners tend to see creativity more as an internal individual attribute (Niu 2006: 386–7; Paletz et al 2011: 95). In Germany, creativity is seen as a process to help solve problems (Preiser 2006: 175), while in Scandinavian countries creativity is seen as an individual attitude that helps people to cope with the challenges of life (Smith and Carlsson 2006: 202).
Some of this may be due to different linguistic approaches to creativity (Paletz et al 2011: 95). For example, of 28 African languages surveyed by Mpofu et al, 27 had no word that directly translated to ‘creativity’. The exception was Arabic, which has different words for creativity in secular and religious contexts (Mpofu et al 2006: 465). Polish also has two words for creativity: twórczość, which refers to high-level creativity resulting in distinguished artistic or scientific achievements, and kreatywność for more everyday, personal creativity (Neçka et al 2006: 272–3). But there is no suggestion that fewer words for creativity means that the speakers of that language are any less creative. African countries where no word for creativity is spoken are as rich in humour and crafts, music and invention, arts and storytelling, as any other countries. Interestingly, there is evidence that being bilingual promotes creativity, although the reasons for this are more complex than simply having access to more words (Kharkhurin 2011: 239; Swann et al 2011: 26).
Some scholars have theorised creativity by breaking it down into different categories. Two-category examples include ‘small c creativity’ for everyday creativity and ‘big C creativity’ for notable creativity (Sternberg 2006: 6). Another two-category example suggests historical creativity for anything recognised as important over time and personal creativity for anything valued in its own context (Boden 1994, cited in Carter 2004: 66–7). Other commentators have proposed triple divisions, such as artistic creativity, the creativity of discovery and the creativity of humour (Clegg and Birch 1999: 7). The Polish theorist Edward Neçka took this approach one step further with his model of four levels of creativity (Neçka et al 2006: 274–5), shown in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: Neçka’s four levels of creativity
| Type | Examples of use | Duration |
| Fluid | Creativity in speech; solving small problems using intelligence | Seconds to minutes |
| Crystallised | Solving larger problems using intelligence and knowledge | Minutes to years |
| Mature | Creating new texts or artefacts using intelligence, knowledge and skill | Hours to decades |
| Eminent | Creating new concepts or ground-breaking texts or artefacts | Days to decades |
Source: Adapted from Neçka et al, 2006
These theories are useful in helping us to think about creativity in practice. Dictionary definitions can also help. The verb ‘to create’ in English simply means ‘to bring something into existence’. It is synonymous with ‘make’ and ‘produce’. So you could create an apple pie. You would be bringing it into existence; it would be your creation, not exactly like any other apple pie. But how ‘creative’ would that process be? You are not bringing elements together in a new way, because countless apple pies have been made before. Unlike the verb at its root, the word ‘creative’ is synonymous with ‘original’ and ‘ingenious’. To be truly creative, you’d need to create, say, a turnip and cockroach meringue. Which neatly illustrates the point that the results of creativity are not always positive (Carter 2004: 48).
Part of the difficulty in discussing creativity is that the word has become so ubiquitous in Western society that it can seem almost meaningless (Carter 2004: 140; Hesmondhaugh and Baker 2011: 2; Toolan 2012: 19). Also, there is a large body of literature on creativity, from many disciplinary perspectives, which would take an entire book of its own to synthesise effectively. But we do know some things about the creative process. It’s not about making something from nothing; it’s about taking things that already exist and making new combinations. And, while creativity is often viewed as a type of behaviour (Walsh et al 2013: 26), it is not only about making things; creativity can also be applied to thinking, reading, playing and other activities. Creative thought involves lateral thinking, challenging accepted ways of seeing and doing things; defining problems as well as solving them (Carter 2004: 41). Reading is an interactive and embodied process: the reader is not merely a passive recipient of the text, but an active interpreter, bringing their own understandings and feelings to the process of creating meanings as they read (Pope 1999: 43, cited in Loffredo and Perteghella 2006: 10; Howard 2012: 214; Ellingson 2017: 20). Creativity in research (and no doubt elsewhere too) is not solely about thinking in the cerebral sense: it also involves elements of human ‘knowing’ such as intuition (Csikszentmihalyi 1996/2013: 315; Stierand and Dörfler 2014: 249), imagination (Lapum et al 2012: 103; Pink 2015: 45), reverie (Duxbury 2009: 56) and wonder (Hansen 2012: 3). Creativity is an essential element of play (Swann 2006: 45), and the combination of the two aids learning (Furlow 2001: 30, cited in Gillen 2006: 182; Kuntz and Guyotte 2018: 665).
Education is key to developing creativity (Yamamoto 2010: 345). Yet some education systems, such as those in countries like China and Singapore, focus on rote learning, which does not help children and young people to develop their critical and creative faculties (Teo and Waugh 2010: 206). Although creativity is hard to define or measure, it can and should be taught (Katz-Buonincontro 2012: 264). One way to teach creativity is to teach the creative methods of a given discipline (Teo and Waugh 2010: 212). This book is designed to enable and support the learning and teaching of creative research methods.
Research