当前位置: X-MOL 学术Creativity Research Journal › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Defining Creativity: How Far Have We Come Since Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow?
Creativity Research Journal ( IF 2.032 ) Pub Date : 2020-09-30 , DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2020.1821552
Jeb S. Puryear 1 , Kristen N. Lamb 2
Affiliation  

ABSTRACT

Defining creativity remains an Achilles heel of creativity research. In 2004, Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow placed a call to action for more consistent, clearer conceptions of creativity to move research forward and support practitioners across fields. The present study replicated and expanded on their study by surveying articles from business, education, psychology, and creativity journals (n = 600). Results suggested small but notable improvements in the reporting of explicit definitions and field-specific trends addressing creativity in contexts. There were also strong suggestions from the data that elements present in creativity conceptions are strongly field-specific. Although these findings were encouraging, issues regarding congruence across and within fields persist even on core elements such as novelty and usefulness. At a time when academic research is becoming more integrative, the degree of and implications of this lack of coherence and transparency are discussed.



中文翻译:

定义创造力:自Plucker,Beghetto和Dow以来,我们走了多远?

摘要

定义创造力仍然是创造力研究的致命弱点。2004年,Plucker,Beghetto和Dow呼吁采取行动,呼吁人们建立更一致,更清晰的创造力概念,以推动研究的发展并在各个领域为从业者提供支持。本研究通过调查来自商业,教育,心理学和创造力期刊(n= 600)。结果表明,在报告明确定义和针对特定领域的趋势以解决情境中的创造力方面,报告取得了微小但显着的改进。从数据中也有强烈的建议,即创意概念中存在的元素是针对特定领域的。尽管这些发现令人鼓舞,但是即使在新颖性和实用性等核心要素上,跨领域和跨领域的一致性问题仍然存在。在学术研究变得更加一体化的时代,讨论了缺乏连贯性和透明性的程度和影响。

更新日期:2020-09-30
down
wechat
bug