Creativity Research Journal Creativity research - Documents Free

This article was downloaded by: [Runco, Mark] On: 20 April 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 776107281] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Creativity Research Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653635

Creativity research: Originality, utility, and integration Mark A. Runco ab a University of Hawaii, Hilo b California State University, Fullerton, CA

To cite this Article Runco, Mark A.(1988) 'Creativity research: Originality, utility, and integration', Creativity Research

Journal, 1: 1, 1 — 7

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10400418809534283 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400418809534283

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Copyright 1988 • Creativity Research Journal Volume 1 (ISSN 1040-0419)

Editorial

Creativity Research: Originality, Utility, and Integration Downloaded By: [Runco, Mark] At: 16:52 20 April 2010

Mark A. Runco University of Hawaii, Hilo, and California State University, Fullerton

There is an obvious need for a journal devoted to scholarly research on creativity. The literature in this area is growing rapidly, and until now has been scattered among a variety of journals. This has inhibited communication among those interested in creativity research, and made it very difficult for individuals to keep up with the field. With the inauguration of the Creativity Research Journal

(CRJ), there is one journal specializing in research on creativity. This should make things easier for individuals and facilitate the exchange of ideas. The objectives of the CRJ can be explicitly stated. The primary objective is to publish high-quality, scholarly articles which will help researchers, educators, artists, organizational


specialists, and other interested parties to better understand creativity. A related objective is to facilitate communication among those studying creativity. The title of this journal was selected with care, for the CRJ is a research journal. Preference is given to reports from carefully designed empirical investigations. The assumption is that good research is usually based on data. This is not to say that important research is always experimental, for reliable and meaningful data can be found in quasi-experimental, meta-analytical, observational, and archival research, as well as the Correspondence should be addressed to Mark A. Runco, EC 105, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92634.

1

Downloaded By: [Runco, Mark] At: 16:52 20 April 2010

conventional experimental investigations. Additionally, theoretical work is crucial. The scientific study of creativity undoubtedly requires both objective data and sound theory. Integrative literature reviews and theoretical pieces that appreciate empirical work are therefore extremely welcome, but purely speculative articles will not be published in the CRJ. Research on creativity comes in various guises. In fact, the range of approaches to the study of creativity is widening, with Behavioral, Biogenetic, Clinical, Cognitive, Developmental, Educational, Humanistic, Organizational, Personological, Psychometric, and Social research quite apparent in the recent literature. To facilitate integrations and communication, the CRJ welcomes all approaches and theoretical orientations. Several different perspectives and emphases are represented in the Inaugural issue.

Extant Discontents Kupfersmid (1988) described three areas in which readers of psychology journals have expressed discontent: the publication of irrelevant topics; the reliance on statistical tests of significance; and possible biases in review process. The first of these discontents is easily avoided (assuming that our readers have some interest in creativity). A reliance on

2

statistical significance is more difficult to entirely avoid. Probability levels are useful for interpreting results, and are ingrained in the social and behavioral sciences. Still, referees for the CRJ will be asked to weigh the actual meaningfulness of results more heavily than the statistical significance. Many CRJpapers can address the meaningfulness question simply by reporting more than the test of significance. Effect sizes are useful, and in many cases appropriate descriptive statistics can be extremely convincing. In some creativity research, authors will be asked to discuss the the clinical significance (Jacobson, Follette, & Revenstorf, 1984) or social validity (Runco, 1984, in press; Runco & Schreibman, 1988) of the results. Importantly, demonstrations of educational or clinical significance and social validation do not replace the conventional statistical test. They offer information that is meaningful in the natural environment, and may be free of sample size biases, but they are best used to complement rather than replace traditional (and statistical) tests of significance. There are a number of issues surrounding the use and efficacy of reviews (Kupfersmid, 1988). The review procedure of the CRJ is designed to minimize the opportunity for bias. For example, authors are encouraged to prepare manuscripts that will allow a blind review, and



typically three reviewers will be asked to comment on each paper. One may wonder about the possibility of a truly blind review (Ceci & Peters, 1984; Surwillo, 1986). In many cases, it is difficult to avoid clues about authorship, for the author may be extending his or her earlier work, have a unique experimental or writing style, or even have a certain pattern of citing earlier work. Individuals submitting manuscripts to the CRJ should avoid even subtle clues about authorship.

The editorial process used by the CRJ stacks up well against these suggestions. For example, we intend to keep the review interval below six weeks, and the publication lag below six months. Three reviewers will be asked to evaluate every manuscript that is submitted (and deemed appropriate for the CRJ). We have a large and outstanding Editorial Board, and ad hoc reviewers will be asked to help whenever necessary. Finally, the criteria used to select articles will be put into print (below, and in subsequent Editorials).

More on the Editorial Process Crandall (1986) suggested several ways ~ in addition to blind reviews - that the review process can be improved. He recommended that (a) guidelines be published regularly; (b) two people be involved in selecting reviewers; (c) a large pool of reviewers be available; (d) two or more individuals review each manuscript; (e) reviewers use a form with explicit criteria (which are published regularly); (f) reviews be sent to authors; (g) referees have the option of signing their reviews; (h) editorial decisions be made quickly, and within a specified interval; (i) editors report data on lags and reviewer reliability; (j) journals cooperate with investigations of the editorial process; and (k) editors regularly examine the review process and attempt to improve it.


Criteria and the Criterion Problem The criteria used to decide what will be published in the CRJ include Originality, Significance for the Field, Utility and Applicability, Presentation and Logic, and Integration with Existing

Research. Reports of empirical studies will also be judged on their Design, Analyses, and Interpretation. Authors are encouraged to write the Editorial Office of the CRJ for a copy of the form sent to referees. Originality may be the most important criterion. It is vital that manuscripts offer something new. However, in this regard the CRJ is in an unconventional position. Most readers of the CRJ are undoubtedly aware of the notorious criterion probl-

3


em in the research on creativity (e.g., Shapiro, 1970). The CRT has its own version of this problem. This is due to the subject matter, and the originality and subjectivity that are inherent in creativity. This journal is devoted to creativity, and originality and novelty are integral constituents of creativity. With this in mind, should we publish all of the manuscripts that are clearly original? In a sense, an original work is one that is dissimilar to others. But in science ~ at least "normal science" (Kuhn, 1962) ~ we often build upon the work of others. Most readers look for connections among research reports. Originality is vital, but must be balanced with fit and appropriateness. Csikszentmihalyi (this volume) describes his experience in a publishing house and his dealing with many submissions that were wellresearched and original, but not useful or even reasonable. Some highly motivated authors are, according to Csikszentmihalyi, "fruitcakes." Similarly, when using divergent thinking tests to estimate the potential for creative thinking (e.g., Hocevar & Bachelor, in press; Milgram, in press; Runco, in press), one must look beyond originality. These tests contain only open-ended questions (e.g., "List all of the things you can think of that are square"). Responses are varied, and the examiner needs to derive objective scores for the ideational

4

responses. A statistical technique is typically used, with unique ideas or at least unusual ideas are given originality points. If a group of children is asked to list square things, and 35% of the group gives "Window" as a response, that is a typical or "popular" idea, and does not earn originality points. But if one child in the group gives "My dad's music" as a response, it is unusual (for that group), and may deserve originality points. Although there are some concerns with this scoring technique (e.g., differences among various groups of examinees), it is relatively objective. The specific number of respondents giving a response can be reliably counted, and transformed into an originality score. Now consider the examinee that gives "Basketball" as a response when asked to list square things. Objectively speaking, this is will probably be a unique idea, but it is unique in part because it is patently inaccurate. It is downright unrealistic. Clearly, a statistically unusual idea may not be worthwhile. Examiners using divergent thinking tests have dealt with this problem in several ways (Runco, Okuda, & Thurston, 1987), but the point is that creative products, be they ideas, publications, or a dinner salad, should be original, appropriate, and worthwhile. The CRJ will publish original work, but will look carefully at the connections and



appropriateness of manuscripts. In this sense, the Originality criterion is directly related to the Integration criterion.

fluences in several ways by our interest in facilitating the exchange of ideas. First, as mentioned above, the intent is to maintain short editorial and publication lags. Ideas should be exchanges while they are fresh, not Format and Features after two or three years. Add togethThe format of the CRJ is relatively er the time it takes to conceptualize, conventional. We will, for example, design, and arrange an empirical rely on the Publication Manual of the study, collect and analyze the data, American Psychological Association interpret the results, and write and (1983) for matters of form. Feature revise a paper, and it is obvious that Articles will be published on a regular editorial and production intervals basis, each with several invited Com- must be kept at a minimum. Although conventional in some mentaries. Gruber's paper is the Feature Article in Volume 1, with ways, there are several differences responses by Albert, Csikszentmihalyi, between the CRJ and most other Lubart and Sternberg, and Simonton. journals. CRJ articles may, for exComments will also be published, ample, have longer Introductions than much like those found at the end of is typical. Authors are asked to insure most issues of the American Psycho- that their work is placed in context, logist (also see Peat, and Rothenberg and asked to explore the ties between their work and earlier research. & Hausman, in this volume). One of the important functions of Special care will be taken to encoura research journal is to facilitate the age comprehensive coverage of the exchange of ideas. This is an impor- relevant literature in Introductions tant function for any journal, but and Discussions. This should help particularly important for the CRJ communication among those working because there are to many different in various specializations, and miniapproaches to the study of creativity, mize the possibility of redundant and too many investigators seem to publications. Hoff-Ginberg (1987) know only about their own specializa- complained that many journals overtion or field. The Commentaries and emphazise the shortness of papers. the Comments section should both Her complaint was that in insuring facilitate the exchange of ideas, and that results are not overinterpreted, perhaps communication among parties the important issues are often lost. We hope to avoid this in the CRJ. working in different areas. The policies of the CRJ are in- When a short paper is sufficient (e.g.,


5

worthwhile extensions or replications), it will be published as a Research Note.


Final Comments This inaugural issure is indeed special, with papers that are good examples for future volumes of the CRT. Moreover, this issue represents an excellent beginning effort at meeting our objectives, with several exchanges in the Commentaries and Comments sections (especially the former, with the responses to Gruber's paper), several empirical papers, and several integrative reviews (Gardner, Gruber, and Lumsden & Findlay). The reviews are particularly important given the interdisciplinary nature of the CRJ. Readers are encouraged to send comments about these papers to the Editor. Readers are also encouraged to peruse this volume, for it contains subscription information, copyright policy, submission information, announcements for a new German journal and a new Creativity monograph series, and several other items of interest to those interested in creativity research. REFERENCES Ceci, S. J., & Peters, D. (1984). How blind is a blind review? American Psychologist, 39, 1491-1494.

6

Crandall, R. (1986). Peer review: Improving editorial procedures. Bioscience, 36, 407-409. Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. A. (in press). A taxonomy critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. Glover, R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity. New York: Plenum. Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1987). Suggestions to improve articles published in professional journals: Reply to Boor. American Psychologist, 42, 407. Jacobson, N., Follette, W., & Revenstorf, D. (1984). Psychotherapyoutcome research: Methods for reporting variability and evaluating clinical significance. Behavior Therapy, 15, 336-352. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Kupfersmid, J. (1988). Improving what is published: A model in search of an editor. American Psychologist, 43, 635642. Milgram, R. M. (in press). Creativity: An idea whose time has come? In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Perspectives on creativity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (3rd. ed.). (1983). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Runco, M. A. (1984). Teachers' judgments of creativity and social validation of divergent thinking tests. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59, 711-717. Runco, M. A. (in press). The divergent and creative thinking of children and adolescents. Seattle, WA: Special Child Publications. Runco, M. A., Okuda, S. M., & Thurston, B. J. (1987). The psychometric properties of four systems for scoring divergent thinking tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 2, 149-156.


Surwillo, W. (1986). Anonymous reviewing and the peer-review process. American Psychologist, 41, 218.


Runco, M. A., & Schreibman, L. (1988). Children's judgments of autism and social validation of behavior therapy efficacy. Behavior Therapy, 19, 565-576. Shapiro, R.J. (1970). The criterion problem. In P.E. Vernon (Ed.), Creativity (pp. 257-269). New York: Penguin.


7