The Defragmentation of Creativity: Future Directions with an Emphasis on Educational Applications

Part of the Creativity in the Twenty First Century book series (CTFC)


In recent years, there has been a virtual explosion in the creativity literature of topics, perspectives and methodologies; yet investigators in one subfield often seem entirely unaware of advances in another. The field of creativity research has become increasingly fragmented, but how should defragmentation proceed, if at all? Should researchers attempt to construct a unified systems theory of creativity ? The argument is made that a defragmentation of the creativity field should not entail wholesale reduction to models that fail to help us understand reality and generate new hypotheses. Some models may be hazardous because they distort reality either by oversimplification or, in an opposite vein, by complicating our understanding through attempts to include all aspects and instances of the process of creativity across all cultures into one unified model or by losing sight of the applied goals of our research. Specific models of creativity and specific issues related to enhancing creativity in our schools are presented as part of this discussion.


Creativity Research Design Thinking Creative Intersection Cultural Participation Creativity Literature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ambrose, D. (2005). Interdisciplinary expansion of conceptual foundations: Insights from beyond our field. Roeper Review, 27, 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Backhouse, R.E., & Biddle, J. (2000). The concept of applied economics: A history of ambiguity and multiple meanings. History of Political Economy, 32, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baer, J. (2011). Why grand theories of creativity distort, distract and disappoint. The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 21(1), 73–100.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.Google Scholar
  6. Christensen, C. M., Johnson, C. W., & Horn, M. B. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  7. Christensen, C. M., Wang, D., & van Bever, D. (2013). Consulting on the cusp of disruption. Harvard Business Review, 91(6), 106–114.Google Scholar
  8. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2006). A systems perspective on creativity. In J. Henry (Ed.), Creative management and development (pp. 3–17). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glăveanu, V. P. (2010). Creativity as cultural participation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 41(1), 48–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hennessey, B. A. (2004). Developing creativity in gifted children: The central importance of motivation and classroom climate. NRCG/T Senior Scholar Series. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (RM04202).Google Scholar
  11. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keynes, J. N. (1917). The scope and method of political economy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
  15. Pallotta, D. (2013). What’s the point of creativity? Retrieved from
  16. Persson, R. S. (2012). Cultural variation and dominance in a globalised knowledge-economy: Towards a culture-sensitive research paradigm in the science of giftedness. Gifted and Talented International, 27, 15–48.Google Scholar
  17. Persson, R. S. (2014). The needs of the highly able and the needs of society: A multidisciplinary analysis of talent differentiation and its significance to gifted education and issues of societal inequality. Roeper Review, 36, 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Robelen, E. W. (2012). Coming to schools: Creativity indexes. Education Week, 31(1), 12–13.Google Scholar
  19. Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Von Nordenflycht, A. (2010). What is a professional service firm. Toward a theory and taxonomy of knowledge-intensive firms. Academy of Management Review, 35, 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Watanabe, T., & Villeneuve, M. (2013, August 21). Public opposes use of test scores in teacher reviews, poll shows. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from:
  22. Watson, M. W. (1982). Developmental psychologists in the classroom. In T. M. Amabile & M. L. Stubbs (Eds.), Psychological research in the classroom: Issues for educators and researchers (pp. 63–75). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wellesley CollegeWellesleyUSA
  2. 2.Brandeis UniversityWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations