Towards a conceptualization of creativity : understanding the development of a standard definition

Abstract

Background: Runco and Jaeger (2012) refer to the standard definition as: “The definition of creativity is bipartite: Creativity requires both originality and effectiveness” (p 92), however although it would seem that reference to a standard definition exists, its recognition and acceptance cannot be assumed. The debates within the field regarding the nature of creativity, how it should be defined, and its criteria have grown in number and complexity as the varying conceptualizations of creativity threaten the stability of the field. The aim of this dissertation is to reveal that multiple conceptualizations of creativity coexist and that as such how we choose to conceive of creativity, and the domination of one conceptualization over another, influences how we will define it. Choice of definition, in turn, has implications to both the field and to society. Method: To understand the position of the standard definition within the field, how it developed, and its relationship to past and present conceptualizations of creativity, concept analysis was conducted. Forty-six articles were chosen from the Creativity Research Journal from 2005-2015 and another 17 articles from 1950-1965. Data was extracted based on the relevant research questions through a process of inductive qualitative content analysis and complied into concept models based on Nuopponnen’s (2010b) Basic Concept Model. Results and Discussion: Although a standard definition of creativity is generally acknowledged by most researchers there does not seem to be a widespread acceptance making its role in unifying the field improbable. The reason for this, as discovered through a review of the development of the standard definition and drawn from the results of the comparison of the conceptual analyses of both past and present articles, is due to the increasing amount and contradictory variations in how we conceive of creativity. This suggests that maintaining a view of creativity in keeping with the standard definition may result in too narrow a focus with implications not only on the development of the field but to creativity’s relevance and use in society.