The goal of this chapter is to formulate a theory of creativity that uses parsimonious assumptions and logical derivations to obtain comprehensive explanations and precise predictions with respect to the most secure empirical results regarding the phenomenon. In short, the plan is to get the most with the least. The specific formulation is founded on a two-part argument. First, I argue that combinatorial models fulfill these strict requirements. That is, models based on combinatorial processes make the fewest assumptions and by logical inferences explain the widest range of established facts as well as make the most precise predictions with respect to those data. Second, I argue that even if combinatorial models are incomplete from the standpoint of one or more criteria, such models must still provide the baseline for comparing all alternative theories. That is, rival theories must account for whatever cannot be accounted for by chance alone—or what exceeds the chance baseline. This position closely parallels the concept of null hypothesis significance testing in statistics, in which researchers must demonstrate that the discovered effects, whether mean differences or correlations, exceed what could be expected by chance alone (Simonton, 2007). The rationale for this view follows from the standard scientific principle known as “Ockham's razor,” or the “law of parsimony.“ Scientists should prefer a simple explanation over a complex explanation when the former suffices to explain the data.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Brannigan, A. & Wanner, R. A. (1983a). Historical distributions of multiple discoveries and theories of scientific change. Social Studies of Science, 13, 417–435.
Brannigan, A. & Wanner, R. A. (1983b). Multiple discoveries in science: A test of the communication theory. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 8, 135–151.
Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 958–977.
Cole, S. & Cole, J. R. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 190–212). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Davis, R. A. (1987). Creativity in neurological publications. Neurosurgery, 20, 652–663.
Dennis, W. (1955, April). Variations in productivity among creative workers. Scientific Monthly, 80, 277–278.
Feist, G. J. (1997). Quantity, quality, and depth of research as influences on scientific eminence: Is quantity most important? Creativity Research Journal, 10, 325–335.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.
Feist, G. J. (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hagstrom, W. O. (1974). Competition in science. American Sociological Review, 39, 1–18.
Huber, J. C. (1998a). Invention and inventivity as a special kind of creativity, with implications for general creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 58–72.
Huber, J. C. (1998b). Invention and inventivity is a random, Poisson process: A potential guide to analysis of general creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 231–241.
Huber, J. C. (1999). Inventive productivity and the statistics of exceedances. Scientometrics, 45, 33–53.
Huber, J. C. (2000). A statistical analysis of special cases of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 203–225.
Huber, J. C. (2001). A new method for analyzing scientific productivity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 1089–1099.
Huber, J. C. & Wagner-Döbler, R. (2001a). Scientific production: A statistical analysis of authors in mathematical logic. Scientometrics, 50, 323–337.
Huber, J. C. & Wagner-Döbler, R. (2001b). Scientific production: A statistical analysis of authors in physics, 1800–1900. Scientometrics, 50, 437–453.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lamb, D. & Easton, S. M. (1984). Multiple discovery. Avebury, England: Avebury.
Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16, 317–323.
Merton, R. K. (1961). Singletons and multiples in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 105, 470–486.
Oromaner, M. (1977). Professional age and the reception of sociological publications: A test of the Zuckerman-Merton hypothesis. Social Studies of Science, 7, 381–388.
Over, R. (1988). Does scholarly impact decline with age? Scientometrics, 13, 215–223.
Over, R. (1989). Age and scholarly impact. Psychology and Aging, 4, 222–225.
Platz, A. (1965). Psychology of the scientist: XI. Lotka's law and research visibility. Psychological Reports, 16, 566–568.
Platz, A. & Blakelock, E. (1960). Productivity of American psychologists: Quantity versus quality. American Psychologist, 15, 310–312.
Poincaré, H. (1921). The foundations of science: Science and hypothesis, the value of science, science and method (G. B. Halstead, Trans.). New York: Science Press (Original work published 1913).
Price, D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shockley, W. (1957). On the statistics of individual variations of productivity in research laboratories. Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers, 45, 279–290.
Simon, H. A. (1955). On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika, 42, 425–440.
Simonton, D. K. (1979). Multiple discovery and invention: Zeitgeist, genius, or chance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1603–1616.
Simonton, D. K. (1985). Quality, quantity, and age: The careers of 10 distinguished psychologists. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 21, 241–254.
Simonton, D. K. (1986). Multiple discovery: Some Monte Carlo simulations and Gedanken experiments. Scientometrics, 9, 269–280.
Simonton, D. K. (1991). Career landmarks in science: Individual differences and interdisciplinary contrasts. Developmental Psychology, 27, 119–130.
Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89.
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, process, and person perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 475–494.
Simonton, D. K. (2004a). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2004b). Psychology's status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. Review of General Psychology, 8, 59–67.
Simonton, D. K. (2007). Chance. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (Vol. 1, pp. 129–133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
White, K. G. & White, M. J. (1978). On the relation between productivity and impact. Australian Psychologist, 13, 369–374.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Simonton, D.K. (2009). Scientific Creativity as a Combinatorial Process: The Chance Baseline. In: Meusburger, P., Funke, J., Wunder, E. (eds) Milieus of Creativity. Knowledge and Space, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9877-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9877-2_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9876-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9877-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)