What questions arose while engaging this text? Clarify: What was unclear in the text? Why was it unclear? What did you already know about this topic? What information was new for y

The Sources of Innovation and Creativity

National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) Research Summary and Final Report by Karlyn Adams – July, 2005

1

Contents

 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2  What Are the Sources of Creativity and Innovation in Individuals?……………………3  What Educational and Pedagogical Techniques Have Proven Effective in

Promoting Innovation and Creativity?………………………………………………………………13  How Can Creativity Be Assessed and What Is the Impact of Assessment on

Creativity?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………25  What Techniques Stimulate Creativity and Innovation in the Workplace? ……….30  What Contributes to the Development of Successful Entrepreneurs?………………..40  What is the Nature of our Culture, Society and Economy that Makes our Country

Creative and Innovative?…………………………………………………………………………………..46  Recommendations for Education ………………………………………………………………………49  Suggestions for Further Research………………………………………………………………………52  References …………………………………………………………………………………………………………56

2

Introduction The following pages represent a comprehensive summary of current research and theory on the

sources of innovation and creativity, both in individuals and organizations. Based on the

recurring concepts in the existing literature, the paper concludes with some recommendations for

how education systems can best foster these attributes in students. Both research and

recommendations have been conducted with a view to informing US workforce development

efforts within the context of the new global economy. The following key questions are

discussed:

o What do we know about the sources of creativity and innovation in individuals?

o What do we know about curricula and pedagogical techniques that have proven effective

in promoting innovation and creativity through formal and informal education? o What do we know about techniques that have been proven to stimulate creativity and

innovation in the work place?

o What is it about the nature of our culture, our society and our economy that makes our country more creative and innovative than others?

o What contributes to the development of successful entrepreneurs? o What actions should the US education system take to promote innovation and creativity

among students?

o What are some suggestions for further research?

3

What Are the Sources of Creativity and Innovation in Individuals? A variety of theorists, using case studies, experiments and a variety of research methods, have

attempted to better understand the sources of creativity and innovation in individuals. While

these efforts have contributed significantly to broadening our comprehension of the subject, there

is nonetheless disagreement between theorists and many hypotheses that remain to be fully

substantiated. The challenge lies partially in the nature and definition of creativity itself. Broad,

complex and multi-faceted, creativity can take many forms and can be found within a variety of

contexts. It is embodied by individuals with a broad range of personal characteristics and

backgrounds. It appears that the only rule is that there are no hard and fast rules concerning the

sources of creativity. As such, the following paragraphs synthesize the current viewpoints, with

the caveat that our understanding of the topic is still a work in progress.

Cognitive psychology provides the most prolific and developed perspective on the sources of

individual creativity. In 1950, J.P. Guilford, then President of the American Psychological

Association, stated in his presidential address that the topic of creativity deserved greater

attention. Following this seminal call to action, psychological research on creativity expanded

significantly. These efforts have concentrated on the cognitive processes behind creativity, the

characteristics of creative people, the development of creativity across the individual life span,

and the social environments most conducive to creativity (Simonton, p. 1).

Teresa Amabile, PhD in Psychology and Head of the Entrepreneurial Management Unit at the

Harvard Business School, has provided the field with one of the most simple and yet

comprehensive frameworks for the topic. As depicted in the diagram below, creativity arises

through the confluence of the following three components:  Knowledge: All the relevant understanding an individual brings to bear on a creative effort.

 Creative Thinking: Relates to how people approach problems and depends on personality

and thinking/working style.

 Motivation: Motivation is generally accepted as key to creative production, and the most

important motivators are intrinsic passion and interest in the work itself.

4

Three Components of Creativity

Multiple experts provide frameworks and hypotheses on the sources of creativity yet, it appears

that the vast majority of their important contributions to the theory can be categorized as falling

within Amabile’s three intersecting circles above. Thus, this section of the paper will make use

of Amabile’s framework as the organizing principle, within which other theorists’ viewpoints are

categorized.

Knowledge

Amabile describes knowledge as all the relevant information that an individual brings to bear on

a problem. Howard Gardner goes deeper into the topic and explains that there are two types of

knowledge that may be required for creativity. On one hand, in-depth experience and long-term

focus in one specific area allows people to build the technical expertise that can serve as a

foundation, or playground for creativity within a domain. At the same time, creativity rests on

the ability to combine previously disparate elements in new ways, which implies a need for a

broader focus and varied interests. Thus, perhaps the best profile for creativity is the T-shaped

mind, with a breadth of understanding across multiple disciplines and one or two areas of in-

depth expertise. Indeed, this is what Frans Johansson recommends in his book, The Medici

Effect. He explains that “we must strike a balance between depth and breadth of knowledge in

order to maximize our creative potential,” (Johansson, p. 104). He suggests that one way to

5

improve breadth is to team up with people with different knowledge bases. The educational

implications of this recommendation are perhaps in the realm of greater focus on

interdisciplinary study and having students collaborate on group projects with team members of

varied interests.

Dean Keith Simonton, professor of Psychology at UC Davis, has conducted historiometric

studies of great creators. Using a large sample size of successfully creative individuals,

historiometric studies quantify the otherwise qualitative characteristics of test cases (their

developmental, differential and social backgrounds, for example) and through analysis of the

data, attempt to derive some general laws or theories regarding the sources of creativity.

Simonton’s research supports the idea that individuals must develop in-depth domain expertise to

be creative. He explains that we can conclude with great confidence that creative output is linked

to the amount of time a person is actively engaged in a creative domain. The relationship tends

to be a curvilinear, inverted backwards J function of career age. In other words, creativity

production increases with years in the field until reaching a maximum at which point it begins to

taper off. Howard Gardner’s research into the sources of creativity supports this idea and further

extends it to a “ten-year rule”: ten years is the approximate time required to build the domain

knowledge and expertise needed to spur creative successes. Many creative individuals seem to

have breakthroughs in ten year intervals.

Creative Thinking

While both Amabile and Gardner assert that thinking is a key aspect of the creative process, they

address this topic at a high level. Amabile suggests that key aspects of creative thinking are:

 Comfort in disagreeing with others and trying solutions that depart from the status quo.

 Combining knowledge from previously disparate fields.

 Ability to persevere through difficult problems and dry spells.

 Ability to step away from an effort and return later with a fresh perspective ( “incubation”).

Other theorists have addressed the topic of cognitive function from multiple angles. Sternberg’s

article, “Creativity and Intelligence” in the Handbook of Creativity, provides an overview of

the multitude of theories that have been proposed concerning the relationship between creativity

and intelligence. While there is no consensus on the subject, multiple theories provide insight.

6

Ultimately, Sternberg promotes a “triarchic theory”, asserting that there are three main aspects of

intelligence that are key for creativity – synthetic, analytical and practical:

1) Synthetic (creative): the ability to generate ideas that are novel, high quality and task

appropriate. One aspect of this is the ability to redefine problems effectively and to think

insightfully. Sternberg also notes that the basis for insightful thinking involves knowledge

acquisition in three forms:

a) selective encoding: distinguishing relevant from irrelevant information.

b) selective combination: combining bits of relevant information in novel ways.

c) selective comparison: relating new information to old information in novel ways.

2) Analytical: Critical/analytical thinking is involved in creativity as the ability to judge the

value of one’s own ideas, to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses and suggest ways to

improve them.

3) Practical: Ability to apply intellectual skills in everyday contexts and to “sell” creative

ideas.

In his article, “Creative Thinking in the Classroom” Sternberg stresses the importance of these

three types of thinking to overall to intellectual functioning and successful intelligence. The

analytic and practical are separate from and support the synthetic. Studies indicate that when

students were taught in a way that emphasized all three abilities, they significantly outperformed

students taught in a way that emphasized only analytical abilities. The holistic approach also

increased performance on strictly analytical, memory-related questions.

Sternberg also explains, “Because the analytical, synthetic and practical aspects of abilities are

only weakly related, students who are adept in one of these areas might not benefit particularly

from instruction aimed at another area, and in particular, creative students might not benefit

particularly well from instruction as it is given in the schools, which typically emphasizes

memory and analytical abilities.” In an experiment, they found that “high school students who

were taught in a way that better matched their own pattern of abilities…tended to achieve at

higher levels than students who were taught in a way that more poorly matched their pattern of

abilities,” (Sternberg, Handbook of Creativity, p. 256).

7

The cognitive processes suggested within Sternberg’s synthetic thinking category appear and

reappear within the literature. Although a range of vocabulary is used to describe the

phenomena, it is clear that the central, agreed-upon component of creative thinking is the ability

to combine existing elements of knowledge or understanding in new ways. Simonton’s research

on the concept of creative Darwinism also provides insight into this aspect of the creative

thinking processes. Creative Darwinism asserts that creativity is a stochastic combinatorial

process under which multiple ideational variations emerge in an individual’s mind, and then a

subset of them are selected for preservation and execution. This concept was first put forward in

1960 by David Campbell, an evolutionary epistemologist. Simonton believes that Campbell’s

model “still provides the best framework for a comprehensive theory of creativity,” (Simonton,

p. 310). The concept asserts that creativity requires the capacity to generate blind variations in

the same sense that genes might generate random mutations and that this generation is not linked

to the probability of success of any given variation. The implication is that if creativity requires

blind variation, then it is conceivable that creative performance may be increased by any

technique that might serve to break the stranglehold of conventional expectations and simply

increase the number of randomly generated variations. Some experiments have shown that this

type of stimulation is indeed possible, (Simonton, p. 313). This supports the idea that “if the

variation process is truly blind, then good and bad ideas should appear more or less randomly

across careers, just as happens for genetic mutations and recombinations,” (Simonton, p. 316).

The theory thus implies that the creative mind can be enhanced by environments or efforts that

encourage the individual to generate new variations and new combinations of ideas.

Simonton’s historiometric studies of creative individuals support this concept. The data shows

that quality of creative output is closely connected to sheer quantity. The more an individual

produces, the more likely he/she is to stumble upon success. Also, the best creative products

tends to appear at the point in a creator’s career when he/she is most prolific overall. Thus, in

the case of both the arts and sciences, creative quality is a “probabilistic consequence of quantity

and the pattern of output is random and Poisson distributed”. As Simonton explains,

“the total lifetime output of a nineteenth century scientist predicts the probability that he or she will have an entry in a twentieth-century edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (Dennis, 1954a; Simonton, 1984b). Similarly, future Nobel laureates can be predicted on the basis of the total number of citations that scientists receive to their body of work (Ashton & Oppenheim, 1978), and yet the single best predictor of citations is the total number of publications (S. Cole & J. R. Cole, 1973; Simonton, 2002)….It is significant

8

that those who publish the most highly cited works also publish the most ignored works, so that quality is a probabilistic consequence of quantity,” (Simonton, p. 3).

Simonton also explains that individual differences in creative productivity account for more

variance in output in a given career period than does age, so that truly prolific creators in

their final years may be more productive than less notable contributors at their career peaks.

For more detail on the Darwinian view of the creative process, Simonton’s articles “Creativity as

Blind Variation and Selective Retention: Is the Creative Process Darwinian?” (1999) and

“Scientific Creativity as Constrained Stochastic Behavior: The Integration of Product, Person,

and Process Perspectives” (2003) are highly recommended. For a clear and concise summary of

the role of productivity and the potential relationship between productive output and creative

success, see pages 89 – 101 of The Medici Effect which summarizes Simonton’s research and

explains how creative outcomes result when people are able to break down the associative

barriers that exist between disciplines or areas of knowledge. When this breakdown occurs,

individuals can enter what Johansson terms “the Intersection” between fields, where the number

of new combinations of ideas is staggeringly high. Living and breathing at this Intersection

explains the high level of output of successful creators. By pursing the best of these numerous

idea options, creative individuals have a shot at success.

Motivation

“Even more than particular cognitive abilities, a set of motivational attributes—childlike

curiosity, intrinsic interest, perseverance bordering on obsession—seem to set individuals who

change the culture apart from the rest of humankind,” (Nakamura & Csikzentmihaly, p. 258).

Indeed many theorists see motivation as the most important component of creativity. Much of

Amabile’s work has focused on the role of intrinsic motivation and ways in which intrinsic

motivation can be enhanced in the classroom and workplace. Amabile explains, “[We] have

found so much evidence in favor of intrinsic motivation that we articulated what we call the

Intrinsic Motivation Principle of Creativity: people will be most creative when they feel

motivated primarily by the interest, satisfaction, and challenge of the work itself—and not by

external pressures [i.e., extrinsic motivation],” (Amabile, p. 78).

9

Numerous articles and studies document how intrinsic motivation enhances creativity and how

extrinsic rewards hamper it. The principle in operation is best illustrated by Amabile’s maze

analogy. The extrinsically motivated person will take the shortest, most obvious path to get to

the reward at the finish line. The intrinsically motivated person will explore various pathways

and alternatives, taking his/her time and enjoying the process along the way. This exploration

will lead to novel, alternative solutions, some of which will turn out to be more appropriate and

successful than the original, obvious path.

One psychological experiment highlights the effect: one group of children were told they could

play with a Polaroid camera (a reward) if they promised to tell a story when they were done.

Children in a second group were told that there were two unrelated activities: 1) playing with the

camera and 2) telling the story. The first group scored significantly lower on creativity

throughout the activities, suggesting that extrinsic rewards can actually hinder creativity due to

the negative feelings resulting from external control.

However, through the course of her research and the contributions of other theorists, Amabile

has recently modified her stance on the intrinsic-extrinsic question. The revised view

acknowledges that there are probably two types of extrinsic motivation: synergistic (motivations

that are informational or enabling) and non-synergistic (motivations that are controlling).

Synergistic extrinsic motivators can support and enhance intrinsic motivation. Non-synergistic

ones hinder it.

Nonetheless, the types of extrinsic motivations that are most likely found in the workplace and

classroom are non-synergistic and not easily avoided. Thus, Amabile’s research on motivation

implies that, in the educational contexts, the impact of grades or praise as reward for schoolwork

should be reviewed in light of their impact on creativity. Amabile suggests that if assessment is

necessary, using it as informational – as a tool for improvement, rather than as a judgment, may

reduce the feeling of external control. Additionally, she suggests that consideration should be

given to the “motivation-work cycle match”. Different types of motivation play a role in

different parts of the creative process. Intrinsic motivation is particularly important when the

emphasis is on novelty. If greater emphasis is on persistence, synergistic extrinsic motivators

may play a role. Additional roles for extrinsic motivators are that they can help an individual

10

sustain energy through the difficult times necessary to gain skills in a domain. Extrinsic

motivators may also serve to bring people in contact with a topic to engage their intrinsic

interest.

Amabile’s theory of intrinsic motivation is reflected in Howard Gardner’s research on the lives

of historically successful individuals. High degrees of intrinsic motivation in great creators such

as Einstein, Picasso, and Gandhi play out in their holistic involvement in and commitment to

their work. One thing that all the creators that Gardner reviewed had in common was that they

had sacrificed a great deal on a personal level and are wholly and completely consumed by their

work dedicating all their time, energy, effort and emotion to a problem, sometimes non-stop for

days or weeks on end. This leads to what Gardner terms the “Faustian bargain” of creativity: To

gain superior professional attainment, individuals must sacrifice a more well-rounded personal

existence, neglecting family and social life. However, Gardner also qualifies his point: “The

question remains whether and to what extent some aspects of the holistic pattern hold for

individuals who are also creative, but in a more limited sense, such as the successful

entrepreneur, the original strategist and the R&D inventor,” (p. 215-216).

Closely related to motivation is the “positive psychology” perspective on creativity. Gardner

explains that creative individuals are characterized by their disposition to convert differences

into advantages. They reflect on their goals. They analyze their strengths and weaknesses

and then leverage their abilities to the optimum. They frame apparent defeats or failures as

prods to greater achievement in the future. They also demonstrate intrapersonal intelligence

– the ability to understand and guide one’s own creative process and to put checks on illusory

and/or emotional interferences in the process, (Gardner, p. 223). They are comfortable with

taking risks and show persevere, even in the face of doubt and misgivings of others.

Nakamura and Csikzentmihaly promote the linking the positive psychology/intrinsic

motivation view with a deficit psychology model to give a fuller picture of the complexities

of the creative mind: On one hand, a deficit model views creative efforts as a defense against

personal inadequacy and feelings that the self is flawed and destined to failure. On the other

hand, a meaningful purpose can also serve as a motivation for creativity. For example, the

exercise of skills can be a source of joy. Integrating a deficit and strengths model, the

11

resulting systems model asserts that creativity is the outcome of the interaction between the

innovating individual, that individual’s domain of knowledge and the social field that judges

the individual’s contribution to the domain. In a deficit model, lack of affirmation of work

from the social field might discourage persistence. Under a strengths perspective, the

innovator may use the social field as a source of information about work, but also give equal

or greater weight to signs of progress and success in the activity itself. The discussion

highlights the importance of finding meaningful challenges and domains of activities that can

serve as a source of increased self-worth and a shift towards strength-based motivation and

away from deficit based motivations. Potential implications of this viewpoint are that the

educational system should provide greater focus on helping students identify areas of interest

and passion – areas where they can achieve the a state of flow which leads to growth of skill

and confidence.

Finally, closely linked to the role of practical thinking in creativity is the importance a meta-

cognition of the creative process and an explicit decision to pursue a creative path. In his article

“Creativity as a Decision”, Sternberg stresses this importance and explains that one of the main

challenges of creativity research is to uncover general truths about the characteristics of creative

people despite the fact that “so many things seem to be true about at least some creative people,

although not necessarily all of them. For example, some seem surely to be characterized by high

self-esteem, but then others seem just as surely to be characterized by low self-esteem,”

(Sternberg, p. 1). Sternberg asserts that perhaps the one consistent attribute about successfully

creative people is their explicit decision to pursue creative a creative path. He explains:

“People who create decide that they will forge their own path and follow it, for better or for worse. The path is a difficult one because people who defy convention often are not rewarded. Hence, at times, their self-esteem may be high, at other times, low.…At times, they may feel curious, at other times, less so. But if psychologists are to understand and facilitate creativity, I suggest they must start, not with a kind of skill, not with a

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.