Page
2
Copyright 2001 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, Government Registered
Email: richardtgreene@alum.mit.edu
3. a number of studies apply models of creativity that either do not exist or that exist but the form of the theory applied is so attenuated, exten-uated, or misunderstood that operationalization of key concepts is missing or impossible as formulated by the research (see mis-uses of “flow”“insight” “novelty” and “innovation”, that is, try distinguishing them in any way whatsoever from “change” and “good feeling”)4. the word “creation” is applied casually to a great many phenomena produced in industry whose conceptual content indicates extremelyslight amounts of novelty (two distortions are involved--self-interests of people in industry wanting to make themselves or their firms appear“creative” and subjective strenuousness experienced in trying to get anything new through a bulky bureaucracy causing self-celebration of conceptually thin tiny victories as if great accomplishments and conquests)5. good measures and models of creativity are used but there are casual, amateur, or sometimes somewhat sloppy models of the input variableshypothesized to affect it (see studies of “culture” affecting creativity, also “management” “climate” “rewards”)6. graduate students, hangers on, and followers of leading scholars continue to publish research on tiny elaborations of their master’s work (X’s theory applied to shoes, X’s theory--does it work on Thursdays?, X’s theory tested in Indiana, X’s study using a different font set, and likestudies, note: I exaggerate here).7. some, apparently for commercial reasons, have come up with business analogs of creative process phenomena and published a number of articles with the same conceptual content, centering on how creativity is just like something businessmen know and do everyday (two areas of thought eroded by commercial concerns are such theories and “innovations” in industry treated casually as “creations” by naive creativityresearchers out to discover something, perhaps, that they can sell to industry).8. when I show leading models of creativity from the research literature to extremely creative people they almost never get interested, excited,or discover anything new and interesting to them (indeed their reaction is so uniformly bored and disinterested that I have stopped showingthem such models till after whatever research activity that brought us together is complete); for years I have longed for a single good model of creativity that, when presented to extremely creative individuals, would produce instant self identification with the model and self motivatedintense scrutiny of its details--a recent model that does produce such responses--the Recommendations Model--is included in the model of models of creativity in this article but not presented in detail in this article; I have a book presenting it, see Greene, 2001; I, as a professor,enjoy the extant models on creativity but creative practitioners decidedly do not.
There is some very good work too centering on conceptual processes case studied (Adams-Price, 1998), historiometric framing of cognitiveprocess-of-creation questions (Adams-Price, 1998), testing of creativity-fostering properties of entire eras and societies (Simonton, 1999),and ecological multiple-intelligent-agents reframing of “brilliant individual” models of creation (Read and Miller, 1998).I personally want to keep away from the good work others are doing and to somehow make a contribution that fixes some of the overallweaknesses in the research literature of these past five years. These two are not all that needs doing. I have taught creativity for a number of years and though recent new books by Sternberg (Sternberg, 1999), Simonton (Simonton, 1999), Runco (Runco and Pritzker, 1999), and oth-ers have greatly improved what can easily and thoroughly be taught, there are still major gaps in the types of books and models available. Iwant to fill some of these gaps. Also, I have been an “innovator” within three large corporations, and in one venture-business spin off. Littlein the existing creativity (and innovation) literature touches on the most vital dynamics I encountered and had to invent in my career there. Iwant to enlarge current creativity models guided by dynamics experienced but not now in the literature.In this article (and in the research it describes) I attempt all four of the above aims: to avoid the types of good work already in the literature,to fix some of the faults in the overall research literature on creativity, fill gaps in types of books now available for teaching creativity, andbring new models of creativity into the literature that fully capture my own experience as an “innovator” in industry.About five years ago, as preparation for my first course on creativity, I surveyed the literature, building models of various sorts to summarizeits concepts and findings. Not surprisingly, since creativity is found in nearly any human endeavor (sex, jungle exploration, moon walks,cooking, fashion, industries to produce olympic athletes etc.) I kept running across more and more models of creativity. I was told, decadesago, that research literatures should be cumulative, recent results building on past results. When the number and variety of models is great,cumulativeness of research is dissipated. Research fans out rather than accumulates. The field of creativity research seemed to need order,focus, and convergence. A first step in that direction might be
a model of models
of creativity, both explicitly presented models and modelsimplicit in discussions or practices. A second step in that direction might be
particular models that were more thorough and inclusive
than theversions of them usual in the research literature. For example, there are a great many implicit models of creation dynamics in various studies,but authors stop at six or seven dynamics and each author has a different six or seven, making for dozens in all, though no one study acknowl-edges them all or uses them all. This article attempts both of these improvements in the literature. A third step in that direction might be
combination of the leading current models
. If there is truth to them all, and if they can be conceptually combined without contradiction orconfusion, then careful combinations of them might outperform any of them used alone. This article attempts this improvement too via a gar-bage can type model that includes seven such models. To fix the literature’s poor measures of inputs to creativity problem this article goesoutside the creativity literature for
better models of key inputs
like culture, workstyle, work environment, self type, and social processes. Tofix the literature’s trivialization by commercial possibilities and interests this article proposes
a model of creativity that fascinates creators
towhom it is shown.Below I present the model of 42 models of creativity, followed by models of each of the seven creativity models it subsumes that are includedin my new garbage can 4 Cycle model. Those subsumed models, as presented here, are more comprehensive versions than their correspond-ing versions in existing research literature (where others present twelve “traits” of creators I present sixty four, well categorized and orderedfractally).
A Note on How Hundreds of Variables in the Models Below Contribute to This Research
As the reader peruses the models below, especially the seven of them included in the 4 Cycle model, the large number of creativity variablesincluded in them may overwhelm. How can decent research include or cover in any way so many variables? This article makes the argumentthat letting researchers edit out hundreds of such variables is, sometimes, less valid than letting creators do that editing by selecting certaincreativity dynamics (question finding dynamics, darwinian systems categories, etc. below) and not selecting others, by repeating such selec-tions (the same item reappearing in several different guises in a questionnaire) hence measuring creator consistency of recognition of particu-lar dynamics chosen. In a way, this research is designed to get creators to map for us, what dynamics they recognize and do not recognize,which they use and do not use, and which interest them and do not interest them. When years of research does not converge--that is, researchlacks cumulativeness--we are forced to appeal to research subjects for focus, of certain sorts. Such creator selecting of factors is not all of thisresearch, by any means, but it is an important part. I depart in doing this, from past research practice, wherein qualitative interviews were
Leave a Comment
Richard, Excellent work! I was taken by surprise when I saw that model represents the major chemical components C, N and O. I am impressed and it does not happen very often. Can I share it? Thank you, Dorina Grossu