Discussion Post I submitted for my Atlantic University TP5150 Course –July 8, 2020
My personal bias coming into this course regarding creativity is that since its located primarily in the right-brain, a logical, left-brain approach to studying is challenging at best. After this work’s reading, I am impressed with the number of research approaches into creativity and the volume of studies since the 1960s. Much of what we read is worthy of consideration, although it left me wondering if there is anything researchers won’t study! Bunny Paine-Clemes expounds on twelve great reasons to study creativity provided by the International Center for Studies in Creativity, which include the development of ‘your potential,’ discovery of “new and better ways to solve problems,” and “enhancement of the ‘learning process'” (2015, pp. xix-xxvi).
My intuition is that we are all creative in one way or another. The spark or genesis of creativity ultimately comes from the divine, higher conscious, collective conscious, or whatever other terms one is comfortable. Sternberg, Lubart, Kaufman, and Pretz, under the heading “Alternative Approaches to Creativity,” indicate that my view is part of the Mystical Approaches to the Study of Creativity” (2005, p. 352). However, I take exception to their sentiment that the “study of creativity has always been tinged – some might say tainted – with associations to mystical beliefs. Perhaps the earliest accounts of creativity were based on divine intervention” (2005, p. 352). This is a commonly shared amongst the more scientific-oriented. Yet it keeps them from seeing the forest through the trees since they dismiss out of hand the possibility that a “higher power” exists as acknowledged by many of the creative geniuses these vary studies examine let alone serve as the source for such inspirations.
The approaches that resonated with me the most were the Subjective Reports, Biological Studies, and Historical Case Studies, as described by Weisberg (2006, pp. 73-82). As he explains, the Subjective Report “uses personal reports by individuals of extraordinary accomplishment concerning how they carried out their work (Ghiseline, 1952)” (2006, p. 73). He adds that “Gardner (1993) carried out biological studies of seven of the most eminent creative individuals of the twentieth century: Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso, Igor Stravinsky, Martha Graham, T.W. Eliot, and Mahatma Gandhi” (2006, p.p 79-80). Finally, he notes that in terms of historical case studies, Gruber’s (1981) “groundbreaking and important study was based on archival data (i.e., Darwin’s notebooks)” (2006, p. 81).
Familiarity with those discussed, like Amadeus Mozart, Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso, and Charles Darwin, attracted me to this approach. I’ve read other accounts over the years of these incredibly creative individuals, and I’m fascinated by their accomplishments. I enjoy history and believe that the sources that are closest to the timeframe of a person being examined are the most accurate. Subjectivity tends to creep in when researchers from future generations look back and impose their own beliefs and worldviews on a particular subject.
In Weisberg’s Table 2.1, he indicates a significant weakness of these above approaches is “only as good as data are complete,” which is logical, and reasonably straightforward (2006, p. 79). There’s nothing to study if no information exists, which can be said about any research topic. He also adds that another weakness of these approaches is that they are “qualitative” (2006, p. 79). In my view, this is a strength since creativity is not a subject like math or science, which lends itself easily to quantitative, statistics, and meta-analysis approaches. Creativity is “both person and product, inspiration and perspiration, will and receptivity,” as Paine-Clemes put its. As such, a qualitative approach is a strength as it’s more likely to bring out the nuances of the subject area.
References
Paine-Clemes, B. (2015), Creative synergy: using art, science, and philosophy to self-actualize your life,” Virginia Beach, VA: 4th Dimension Press
Sternberg, R.J., Lubart, T.I., Kaufman, J.C., and Pretz, J.E. (2005). Creativity. In K.J. Jolyoak & R.G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 351-369). New York: Cambridge University Press
Weisberg, R. (2006), Creativity: understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Smith, H. (2000), Why religion matters: the fate of the human spirit in an age of disbelief, “Scientism: the bedrock of the modern worldview.” In M.M. Zarandi (Ed) (2003). Science and the myth of progress (pp. 233-248). Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, Inc.
Weeks, R. (2017, March 17), Critique3 [Video file]. Robin Weeks. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/9ZbIK-N14j4