Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
It is argued that the concept of creativity is too loosely defined, and too much driven from a bottom-up operationalist view. It is also argued that current popular definitions of creativity, by focusing on novelty and appropriateness, do not distinguish the concept of creativity in a satisfactory way from standard definitions of the concept of intelligence, which also focus on novelty and appropriateness as key defining features. A solution to this conceptual dilemma is offered by way of making a clear-cut distinction between novelty on the stimulus and novelty on the response side. This distinction is used as a platform for the development of a new taxonomy of different kinds of creativity and intelligent behaviour. A major feature of this new model is the distinction made between proactive and reactive creativity. Finally, the conceptual model is used as a basis for pointing out some shortcomings of existing tests of creativity and, with a practical-educational perspective in mind, some specific suggestions on the anatomy of a new kind of creativity assessment are made.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Geir Kaufmann (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: