The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible

Living Edition
| Editors: Vlad Petre Glăveanu (Editor-in-Chief)

A Propulsion Perspective on Creative Contributions

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_65-1

Abstract

This article presents a propulsion theory of creative contributions and discusses the reward system under which it operates. The theory argues that creative contributions are of three kinds – paradigm-preserving, paradigm-defying, and paradigm-integrating. Within each of these categories are various kinds of contributions that change a field in different degrees. For example, the most valued kind of creative contribution is typically a paradigm-preserving forward incrementation, which moves a field forward a bit and threatens almost no one. In contrast, a paradigm redirection attempts to move the field in a different direction, threatening the work and standing of many in a given field, who then resist the direction suggested by the contribution. Reward systems for different kinds of creative contributions can change with time and place. For example, until recently, replications were valued little and often were devalued. Today, at least in some scientific fields such as psychology, they are valued much more because of perception on the part of some scientists that many published findings have proved not to be replicable.

Keywords

Propulsion theory Advance forward incrementation Conceptual replication Forward incrementation Redefinition Redirection Reconstructive/regressive redirection Reinitiation Synthesis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  2. Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children (trans: Kite, E. S.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  3. Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review, 90, 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cavanaugh, J. C. (2018, June). Higher education in the post-degree era. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/06/04/how-higher-ed-has-change-remain-relevant-future-opinion
  5. Chomsky, N. (2015). Syntactic structures. Eastford: Martino Fine Books.Google Scholar
  6. Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 547–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davidson, C. N. (2017). The new education: How to revolutionize the university to prepare students for a world in flux. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  8. Deary, I. J., Whalley, L. J., & Starr, J. M. (2009). A lifetime of intelligence: Follow-up studies of the Scottish mental surveys of 1932 and 1947. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dominus, S. (2017, October). When the revolution came for Amy Cuddy. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolution-came-for-amy-cuddy.html
  10. Florida, R. (2019). The creative city. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  12. Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (rev. ed.). New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  13. Greenfield, P. M. (in press). Historical evolution of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hunt, E. B., Frost, N., & Lunneborg, C. (1973). Individual differences in cognition: A new approach to intelligence. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 7, pp. 87–122). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  15. Hunt, E. B., Lunneborg, C., & Lewis, J. (1975). What does it mean to be high verbal? Cognitive Psychology, 7, 194–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaufman, J. C., & Glăveanu, V. P. (2018). The road to uncreative science in paved with good intentions: Ideas, implementations, and uneasy balances. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 457–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2019). Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kreighbaum, A. (2018, August). Trump signs update to career training law. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/08/01/trump-signs-update-career-training-law
  19. Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (50th anniversary ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kyllonen, P. C., & Christal, R. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity?! Intelligence, 14(4), 389–433.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160–2896(05)80012-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lederman, D., & Lieberman, M. (2019, March). How many public universities can ‘go big’ online? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2019/03/20/states-and-university-systems-are-planning-major-online
  22. Lindsey, D. S. (2015). Replication in psychological science. Psychological Science, 7(6), 531–536.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 615–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, 943.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pashler, H., & Harris, C. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 531–536.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Redford, J., Battle, D., Bielick, S., & Grady, S. (2017). Homeschooling in the United States: 2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016096rev.pdf
  27. Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  28. Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Genius, creativity, and leadership: Historiometric inquiries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). A propulsion model of types of creative contributions. Review of General Psychology, 3, 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2004). International handbook of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Sternberg, R. J. (in press). The augmented theory of successful intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sternberg, R. J., & Gardner, M. K. (1983). Unities in inductive reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 80–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). When your race is almost run, but you feel you’re not yet done: Application of the propulsion theory of creative contributions to late-career challenges. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 66–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). The propulsion model of creative contributions applied to the arts and letters. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(2), 75–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum: A propulsion model of kinds of creative contributions. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  42. Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2006). Beyond g: Putting multiple intelligences theory to the test. Intelligence, 34(5), 487–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Westen, D. (1998). The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 333–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human DevelopmentCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Neag School of EducationUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  3. 3.Elizabethtown CollegeElizabethtownUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Izabela Lebuda

There are no affiliations available