Creativity Theory - TRaining MAterial in Creativity and InnovaTion ...

36
B. SUCCESS FACTORS
Nevertheless, on a statistical basis throughout
history, there are more creative men
than there have been creative women.
But statistics need to be interpreted. It is
clearly factors from the socio-cultural environment
which explain this difference
in number. For centuries women were
relegated to the functions of marriage,
motherhood and household. The patriarchal
society perpetuated this role and the
socio-cultural environment was so devised
as not to elicit in women a motivation to
be creative: women had no opportunity
to emerge in any cultural field; they have
been discouraged and have even been restricted
from pursuing creative inclinations.
The belonging to a specific race or ethnic
group is neither a sign nor a prerequisite
for creativity. It is true that for instance Africans
in Africa have not contributed much to
science and literature but this has rather to
do with the general socio-cultural context.
The lack of creativity in a specific group is
more strongly connected with how much
freedom it benefits from to be creative in a
specific environment and not so much on
the race. Nevertheless, let us briefly mention
the particular case of some minorities
that have been precluded from freedom
and access to the conditions of a creativogenic
society. In some particular cases an
unfair, restrictive, punitive or oppressive
society has been a stimulus to creativity;
for example, black people in Louisiana who
developed the field of jazz music after the
emancipation as a result of the Civil War.
It is obvious, however, that a moderate,
temporary discrimination cannot be recommended
as a way to promote creativity.
On the other hand, there are factors that
have a strong relationship with creativity.
One of those is knowledge [20]. There
are basically two theoretical views
concerning the relationships between
knowledge and creativity: the “tension”
view and the “foundation” view.
According to the “tension” view (Frensch,
& Sternberg) creative thinking goes beyond
knowledge and so it is implicitly or
explicitly assumed that there is a tension
between knowledge and creativity. Knowledge
may provide the basic elements,
the building blocks out of which are constructed
new ideas, but in order for these
building blocks to be available, the mortar
holding the old ideas together must not be
too strong. While it is universally acknowledged
that one must have knowledge of a
field if one hopes to produce something
novel with it, it is also widely assumed
that too much experience can leave one
in ruts, so that one can not go beyond
stereotyped responding. The relationship
between knowledge and creativity is assumed,
therefore, to be shaped like an inverted
U, with maximal creativity occurring
with some middle range of knowledge.
A number of researchers (Bailin, Gruber,
Hayes, Kulkarni & Simon, Weisberg) have
argued the opposite of the “tension” view
and that is that knowledge is positively
related to creativity. Rather than breaking
out of the old to produce the new, creative
thinking builds on knowledge. This
view can be called the “foundation” view.
This view is supported by a series of studies
investigating this issue and advancing
the “10-year-rule” for the development of
creativity: creative individuals require an
extensive amount of time between their
initial exposure to the field and production
of their first significant work. Such
results indicate, indirectly at least, that
the ability to do creative work depends
on deep knowledge of one’s chosen field.
Related studies have found evidence that
deep immersion in one’s chosen field is
necessary before innovation is produced.
Hence practice, entailing thousands of
hours spread over many years, is indispensable
for the acquisition of master levels of
complex skills. This view is also supported
by Schopenhauer who considered that
talent is an inborn characteristic of creative
individuals but at the same time this
talent needs to be cultivated in order to
bring about creativity: “Talent is an excellence
which lies rather in the greater versatility
and acuteness of discursive than
intuitive knowledge. He who is endowed
with talent thinks more quickly and more
correctly than others” (Schopenhauer).
The conclusion is that extensive domainspecific
knowledge is a prerequisite for
creative functioning.
The personality of individuals also
belongs to those factors that have a
positive correlation with creativity. Rather
than a single trait, it is a combination of