Interdisciplinary Exploration and Domain-Specific Expertise Are Mutually Enriching

  • Don AmbroseEmail author
Part of the Creativity Theory and Action in Education book series (CTAE, volume 4)


Interdisciplinary and domain-specific investigative trajectories represent very different approaches to the study of creative intelligence. They proceed in opposing directions and seem to generate contradictions. Interdisciplinary work seems to make domain-specific inquiry look excessively insular while domain-specific work seems to undermine the credibility of investigations that cross disciplinary borders. In actuality, these two very different approaches can enrich each other if their adherents develop healthy forms of mutual respect.


Interdisciplinary Creativity Creativity studies Creative intelligence Domain-specific inquiry Dogmatism 


  1. Ambrose, D. (1996). Unifying theories of creativity: Metaphorical thought and the unification process. New Ideas in Psychology, 14, 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambrose, D. (1998). A model for clarification and expansion of conceptual foundations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambrose, D. (2003). Barriers to aspiration development and self-fulfillment: Interdisciplinary insights for talent discovery. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambrose, D. (2005a). Aspiration growth, talent development, and self-fulfillment in a context of democratic erosion. Roeper Review, 28, 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ambrose, D. (2005b). Interdisciplinary expansion of conceptual foundations: Insights from beyond our field. Roeper Review, 27, 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ambrose, D. (2006). Large-scale contextual influences on creativity: Evolving academic disciplines and global value systems. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 75–85. Scholar
  7. Ambrose, D. (2009). Expanding visions of creative intelligence: An interdisciplinary exploration. Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ambrose, D. (2014a). Invigorating innovation and combating dogmatism through creative, metaphorical business leadership. In F. K. Reisman (Ed.), Creativity in business (pp. 52–66). London: KIE Conference Book Series.Google Scholar
  9. Ambrose, D. (2014b). The ubiquity of the chaos-order continuum: Insights from diverse academic disciplines. In D. Ambrose, B. Sriraman, & K. M. Pierce (Eds.), A critique of creativity and complexity: Deconstructing clichés (pp. 67–86). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  10. Ambrose, D. (2016). Borrowing insights from other disciplines to strengthen the conceptual foundations for gifted education. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 3(2), 33–57.Google Scholar
  11. Ambrose, D. (2017a). Interdisciplinary exploration supports Sternberg’s expansion of giftedness. Roeper Review, 39, 178–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ambrose, D. (2017b). Interdisciplinary invigoration of creativity studies. Journal of Creative Behavior, 51, 348–351. Scholar
  13. Ambrose, D., & Cross, T. L. (Eds.). (2009). Morality, ethics, and gifted minds. New York: Springer Science.Google Scholar
  14. Ambrose, D., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2012). How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and higher-level thinking. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Ambrose, D., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2016a). Creative intelligence in the 21st century: Grappling with enormous problems and huge opportunities. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  16. Ambrose, D., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2016b). Giftedness and talent in the 21st century: Adapting to the turbulence of globalization. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  17. Ambrose, D., Cohen, L. M., & Tannenbaum, A. J. (Eds.). (2003). Creative intelligence: Toward theoretic integration. Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ambrose, D., VanTassel-Baska, J., Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2010). Unified, insular, firmly policed or fractured, porous, contested, gifted education? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 453–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ambrose, D., Sternberg, R. J., & Sriraman, B. (Eds.). (2012). Confronting dogmatism in gifted education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Ambrose, D., Sriraman, B., & Pierce, K. M. (Eds.). (2014). A critique of creativity and complexity: Deconstructing clichés. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  21. Arends, D., & Kilcher, A. (2010). Teaching for student learning: Becoming an accomplished teacher. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Baer, J. (1999). Domains of creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 591–596). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  24. Baer, J. (2010). Is creativity domain specific? In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 321–341). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Baer, J. (2012a). Domain specificity and the limits of creativity theory. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Baer, J. (2012b). Unintentional dogmatism when thinking big: How grand theories and interdisciplinary thinking can sometimes limit our vision. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and a higher-level thinking (pp. 157–170). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Baer, J. (2013). Teaching for creativity: Domains and divergent thinking, intrinsic motivation, and evaluation. In M. B. Gregerson, H. T. Snyder, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Teaching creatively and teaching creativity (pp. 175–181). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Baer, J. (2015). The importance of domain-specific expertise in creativity. Roeper Review, 37, 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Baer, J. (2016a). Creativity and the common core need each other. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Creative intelligence in the 21st century: Grappling with enormous problems and huge opportunities (pp. 175–190). Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Baer, J. (2016b). Domain specificity of creativity. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  31. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2015). Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Beckert, J. (2002). Beyond the market: The social foundations of economic efficiency. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2015). Teaching for creativity in the Common Core classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  34. Bender, T., & Schorske, C. E. (Eds.). (1997). American academic culture in transformation: Fifty years, four disciplines. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Runco, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). The dark side of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Dawkins, R. (2006). The selfish gene (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. De Waal, F. B. M. (2006). Primates and philosophers: How morality evolved. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2012). Dogmatism, creativity, and critical thought: The reality of human minds and the possibility of critical societies. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and higher-level thinking (pp. 37–49). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Galison, P. (2001). Material culture, theoretical culture, and delocalization. In J. W. Scott & D. Keates (Eds.), Schools of thought: Twenty-five years of interpretive social science (pp. 179–193). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Gardner, H. (1988). Creativity: An interdisciplinary perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 8–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gardner, H. (2006). Five minds for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  42. Gruber, H. E., & Bödeker, K. (Eds.). (2005). Creativity, psychology and the history of science. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Gutworth, M. B., Cushenbery, L., & Hunter, S. T. (2016). Creativity for deliberate harm: Malevolent creativity and social information processing theory. Journal of Creative Behavior. Scholar
  44. Hobbes, T. (1985). Leviathan. New York: Penguin (Original work published 1651).Google Scholar
  45. Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1992). Models of teaching (4th ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  46. Kalbfleisch, L., & Ambrose, D. (2008). The cognitive neuroscience of giftedness [special issue]. Roeper Review, 30(3 & 4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kaufman, J. C., Glăveanu, V. P., & Baer, J. (Eds.). (2017). The Cambridge handbook of creativity across domains. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Kotz, D. M. (2015). The rise and fall of neoliberal capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Langton, C. G. (1990). Communication at the edge of chaos: Phase transitions and emergent computation. Physica D, 42, 12–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lindauer, M. S. (1998). Interdisciplinarity, the psychology of art and creativity: An introduction. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Madrick, J. (2014). How mainstream economists have damaged America and the world. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  54. Majid al-Rifaie, M., Cropley, A., Cropley, D., & Bishop, M. (2016). On evil and computational creativity. Connection Science, 28(2), 171–193. Scholar
  55. McLaren, R. B. (2003). Tackling the intractable: An interdisciplinary exploration of the moral proclivity. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Morson, G. S., & Schapiro, M. (2017). Cents and sensibility: What economics can learn from the humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nielsen, M. (2011). Reinventing discovery: The new era of networked science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. O’Boyle, M. W. (2008). Mathematically gifted children: Developmental brain characteristics than their prognosis for well-being. Roeper Review, 30, 181–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Subotnik, R. F., & Worrell, F. C. (2017). The role of domains in the conceptualization of talent. Roeper Review, 39, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Packard, N. H. (1988). Adaptation toward the edge of chaos. In J. A. S. Kelso, A. J. Mandell, & M. F. Shlesinger (Eds.), Dynamic patterns in complex systems (pp. 293–301). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  61. Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Page, S. E. (2010). Diversity and complexity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Page, S. E. (2017). The diversity bonus: How great teams pay off in the knowledge economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  66. Root-Bernstein, R. (2001). Music, creativity, and scientific thinking. Leonardo, 34(1), 63–68. Scholar
  67. Root-Bernstein, R. (2003). The art of innovation: Polymaths and universality of the creative process. In L. V. Shavignina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 267–278). Oxford: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Root-Bernstein, M. (2014). Inventing imaginary worlds: From childhood play to adult creativity across the arts and sciences. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  69. Sawyer, R. K. (1998). The interdisciplinary study of creativity in performance. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 11–19. Scholar
  70. Shiu, E. (Ed.). (2014). Creativity research: An inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary research handbook. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Silvia, P. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2009). Is creativity domain-specific? Latent class models of creative accomplishments and creative self-descriptions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(3), 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Simonton, D. K. (2009). Varieties of (scientific) creativity: A hierarchical model of domain-specific disposition, development, and achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sriraman, B., & Dahl, B. (2009). On bringing interdisciplinary ideas to gifted education. In L. V. Shavignina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 1235–1256). New York: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Effecting organizational change: A “mineralogical theory” of organizational modifiability. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 54, 147–156. Scholar
  75. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). WICS as a model of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 14, 109–137. Scholar
  76. Sternberg, R. J. (2005). WICS: A model of giftedness in leadership. Roeper Review, 28, 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Reflections on ethical leadership. In D. Ambrose & T. L. Cross (Eds.), Morality, ethics, and gifted minds (pp. 19–28). New York: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stiglitz, J. E. (2010). Free fall: America, free markets, and the sinking of the world economy. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  79. Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Suresh, S. (2013, October). To tap the world’s vast and growing potential for new ideas, we need new rules. Scientific American, 309(4), 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Temin, P., & Vines, D. (2013). The leaderless economy: Why the world economic system fell apart and how to fix it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Thiessen, B. L. (1998). Shedding the stagnant slough syndrome: Interdisciplinary integration. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Trivers, R. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  85. Venkatasubramanian, V. (2017). How much inequality is there? Mathematical principles of a moral, optimal, and stable capitalist society. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  87. Walzer, M. (2001). International society: What is the best that we can do? In J. W. Scott & D. Keates (Eds.), Schools of thought: Twenty-five years of interpretive social science (pp. 388–401). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Wilson, E. O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Education and Human Services, Rider UniversityLawrence TownshipUSA

Personalised recommendations