Unpacking Creativity

Creativity research has a long and illustrious history, yet the assumptions on which it is based have not been questioned.Most research assumes that creativity is a unitary construct, hindering a fuller understanding of the phenomenon.The present paper argued against homogeneity through the development of a matrix of four creativity types: responsive, expected, contributory and proactive.Implications include highlighting an imbalance in research, differences in processes and predictors for the various types and a new consideration of methodologies.Many researchers have suggested that creativity is as important to the longterm survival of organisations (e.g., Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994), as it is in the scientific (Datta, 1963), artistic (Simonton, 1975) and developmental (Goodale, 1970) arenas.Yet, despite this recognised importance, little has been done to examine the assumptions underlying creativity.In this paper, I question one of the premises of creativity research, namely that creativity is a unitary construct.Many strands of research have been woven into our knowledge of creativity.These perspectives range from: Royce's discussion of inventions in 1898, through to Guilford's call for creativity research in 1950; research into creativity in classrooms (e.g., Mayer & Sims, 1994), to research into creativity in organisations (e.g., Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Scott &