Verified
MULTIPLICITY: CREATIVITY AS PROCESS
Process-based definitions of creativity introduce a range of perspectives beyond the singular, gifted individual. Poincare’s early formulation of the creative process provides a good starting point for this discussion (Boden, 1992, pp. 19–21). Poincare, a nineteenth century mathematician, describes the following sequence: “preparation”, during which the problem is analysed and possible sources of information and inspiration are explored; “incubation”, during which the sub-conscious mind works upon the problem, while the conscious mind is resting or temporarily distracted; “illumination”, the “aha” moment of creative breakthrough when the pieces in the puzzle suddenly fall into a new pattern and the solution presents itself; “verification”, where the new solution is tested against the original problem.
Poincare’s sequence is striking firstly for its unpredictable, non-linear progression; it is not clear how long each “stage” will take, nor what precise relationship one “stage” has with the next. Secondly, the sequence requires very different types of thinking, ranging from sub-conscious inspiration to rational analysis. This duality resonates with the earlier definition of creativity as something innovative but also useful; for Poincare , innovation comes at the moment of “illumination”, but usefulness must be tested at the point of “verification”. Other commentators have described a similar duality in the creative thinking process, based on a combination of irrational and rational thought processes.Weisberg (1986) refers to “divergent” and “convergent” thinking, De Bono (1982) to “lateral” and “vertical” thinking and Sternberg (1988a) has related the duality to different “domains” within the human mind. Whilst these different commentators might choose to emphasise the “rational” or “irrational” elements in the process, what they have in common is a sense of duality or dialectic. It is the tension between conscious and sub-conscious thought in Poincare ´’s model that produces the new “creative” ideas, not a reliance on one over the other.
If different types of thinking are required within the creative process, it seems more than likely that different types of thinker might also be called upon. This is the basis for “systems” theories of creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Simonton, 1988); a creative process is not the result of one person or even one set of people but of intersecting and interacting relationships between them and others. Each participant is dependent on another; for example, Picasso’s painting is informed by his relationship with contemporary avant-garde artists, African art traditions, curators and critics, his society and with posterity. Becker’s (1982) “art world” describes a similar intersecting set of relationships feeding into systems of critical reputation, patronage, education and tradition which support the development of individual creativity. These “systems” theories of creativity can also be related to Marxist theories of cultural production (Wolff, 1993).
Another set of theories of creativity attempts to itemise the different personality traits and intellectual aptitudes which might contribute to creative thinking, either by focusing on eminent “creative” people (Wallace and Gruber, 1989) or by conducting tests with a sample group (Torrance, 1988). The lists of aptitudes and traits appear so many and varied that it is difficult to privilege one over another. In line with the thesis of this article, it seems that creative potential is determined by a combination of different factors (both internal and external) rather than on a single identifiable personality type or drive.Moreover, it seems highly unlikely that all the requisite or desirable characteristics identified by the researchers could ever be found within a single person. It is more probable that the desired combination be spread across a group of people with different but complementary skills, aptitudes and personalities, as illustrated in Taylor’s “totem poles” diagram (see figure in Taylor, 1988). This likelihood is refiected in the managerial practice of assembling “multi-skilled” teams of employees from across the organisation, assigned according to team role rather than to functional role or competence (Belbin, 1993). Creative abilities may be further redefined or “stretched” by organisational context; according to Amabile, creativity stems not so much from individual talent as from the manager’s ability to “match” individual employees to appropriate tasks (Amabile, 1999a, p. 10).
Thus far, these systems theories of creativity have shared a common view of creativity as a complex, unpredictable and multidimensional process, requiring different types of thinking. These types appear to fall into two principal categories, “divergent” thinking (taking problems apart, lateral or “out of the box” thinking, spontaneous and intuitive thought) and “convergent” thinking (putting together evidence and testing solutions, “vertical” thinking within a clear set of boundaries, rational and logical thought). It is the tension between these types of thinking that engenders a new idea. It also seems plausible that, because of its complexity, the creative process might be shared productively among several people and that a diversity of external and internal factors (amounting to a creative “system”) will further infiuence a successful outcome.