This paper outlines contemporary conceptions of creative thinking and innovation. In addition, it examines the varied ways in which researchers have probed these, the key components that have been identified and the nature of developmental stages across the lifespan. The paper closes with a brief discussion of implications for schooling. 

In recent years, researchers have defined creative thinking as generating ideas that are “novel, appropriate, and of high quality.”5 Notably, creativity is not synonymous with originality. An idea may be new to a specific person within a specific context without being original within greater society. Creativity is further distinguished from mere novelty in that it must be appropriate to the context in which it is generated. For example, if a student writes a story when assigned to do a painting, the story – though novel – would fail the test of appropriateness. Researchers have also noted that creative processes are highly contextual.6 Therefore it is impossible to define precisely what constitutes “high quality.” Suffice it to say that one’s creative idea must be of value as judged within the context in which it is generated. Creative thought is also considered to be a continuum that spans from ideas that significantly transform an entire field or society (Big-C) to the multitude of creative thought processes that all individuals undergo in everyday life (little-c).7 

Innovation, on the other hand, is the implementation of a novel idea into practice often on a larger social scale, such as the marketplace.8 As such, innovation and creative thought are interrelated. Indeed, innovation consists of both creative thought and imagination, but is seldom considered within the domain of school-aged students. This is due to the deep levels of understanding required for innovators to be able to move beyond the accepted norms of their given fields of work or study.9 

The first wave of inquiry prompting modern conceptions of creativity was launched in 1950 with J. Paul Guilford’s proposed “structure of intellect.” Guilford argued that models of intelligence had placed too much emphasis on “convergent” thinking, which is the marshaling of information to arrive at one correct answer. He 

proposed that thinking was also “divergent,” expanding on existing knowledge in interesting and unforeseen ways.10 Since that time, creativity – and in particular divergent thinking – has been probed by researchers working from multiple disciplinary perspectives including psychology, education, history, the arts, sociology, anthropology, and business). Approaches have been predominantly “psychometric” (to measure and define creativity); “experimental” (to measure outcomes from creativity-promoting interventions); “historiometric” (to create biographies and case studies of Big-C creators/ innovators); and “biometric” (to measure cerebral activity). 

In recent years, scholars have acknowledged that creative thought is context specific. This has raised the question as to whether creativity is also culture specific.11 Researchers working in culturally diverse contexts around the globe have determined that although there are culture-specific manifestations of creative thought, there also appear to be components that may be universal.12 

The components of creative thought identified by researchers include: 

One of the most persistent myths circulating within western societies is that creative thought and innovation are restricted to geniuses (such as inventors and artists) working in isolation.1 This perspective has endured partly because of the ways that creative thought has been conceptualized over time. From pre-history to the medieval era, creativity was regarded as supernatural – a process of external inspiration given voice through the work of the genius.2 By the late 1700s, scientific inquiry began to distinguish between “talent” and “creative processes.” As systematic research increased over the 20th century, scholars distinguished between Big-C and little-c creative thinking. Big-C creativity is mainly manifested by an elite few who have significantly changed fields of inquiry or societies whereas little-c creativity is thought to reside in the everyday thought processes that characterize all human populations.3 In short, “we may not all be creative geniuses, but we all have the potential to be creative.”4 

This paper outlines contemporary conceptions of creative thinking and innovation. In addition, it examines the varied ways in which researchers have probed these, the key components that have been identified and the nature of developmental stages across the lifespan. The paper closes with a brief discussion of implications for schooling. 

In recent years, researchers have defined creative thinking as generating ideas that are “novel, appropriate, and of high quality.”5 Notably, creativity is not synonymous with originality. An idea may be new to a specific person within a specific context without being original within greater society. Creativity is further distinguished from mere novelty in that it must be appropriate to the context in which it is generated. For example, if a student writes a story when assigned to do a painting, the story – though novel – would fail the test of appropriateness. Researchers have also noted that creative processes are highly contextual.6 Therefore it is impossible to define precisely what constitutes “high quality.” Suffice it to say that one’s creative idea must be of value as judged within the context in which it is generated. Creative thought is also considered to be a continuum that spans from ideas that significantly transform an entire field or society (Big-C) to the multitude of creative thought processes that all individuals undergo in everyday life (little-c).7 

Innovation, on the other hand, is the implementation of a novel idea into practice often on a larger social scale, such as the marketplace.8 As such, innovation and creative thought are interrelated. Indeed, innovation consists of both creative thought and imagination, but is seldom considered within the domain of school-aged students. This is due to the deep levels of understanding required for innovators to be able to move beyond the accepted norms of their given fields of work or study.9 

The first wave of inquiry prompting modern conceptions of creativity was launched in 1950 with J. Paul Guilford’s proposed “structure of intellect.” Guilford argued that models of intelligence had placed too much emphasis on “convergent” thinking, which is the marshaling of information to arrive at one correct answer. He 

proposed that thinking was also “divergent,” expanding on existing knowledge in interesting and unforeseen ways.10 Since that time, creativity – and in particular divergent thinking – has been probed by researchers working from multiple disciplinary perspectives including psychology, education, history, the arts, sociology, anthropology, and business). Approaches have been predominantly “psychometric” (to measure and define creativity); “experimental” (to measure outcomes from creativity-promoting interventions); “historiometric” (to create biographies and case studies of Big-C creators/ innovators); and “biometric” (to measure cerebral activity). 

In recent years, scholars have acknowledged that creative thought is context specific. This has raised the question as to whether creativity is also culture specific.11 Researchers working in culturally diverse contexts around the globe have determined that although there are culture-specific manifestations of creative thought, there also appear to be components that may be universal.12 

The components of creative thought identified by researchers include: 

One of the most persistent myths circulating within western societies is that creative thought and innovation are restricted to geniuses (such as inventors and artists) working in isolation.1 This perspective has endured partly because of the ways that creative thought has been conceptualized over time. From pre-history to the medieval era, creativity was regarded as supernatural – a process of external inspiration given voice through the work of the genius.2 By the late 1700s, scientific inquiry began to distinguish between “talent” and “creative processes.” As systematic research increased over the 20th century, scholars distinguished between Big-C and little-c creative thinking. Big-C creativity is mainly manifested by an elite few who have significantly changed fields of inquiry or societies whereas little-c creativity is thought to reside in the everyday thought processes that characterize all human populations.3 In short, “we may not all be creative geniuses, but we all have the potential to be creative.”4 

This paper outlines contemporary conceptions of creative thinking and innovation. In addition, it examines the varied ways in which researchers have probed these, the key components that have been identified and the nature of developmental stages across the lifespan. The paper closes with a brief discussion of implications for schooling. 

In recent years, researchers have defined creative thinking as generating ideas that are “novel, appropriate, and of high quality.”5 Notably, creativity is not synonymous with originality. An idea may be new to a specific person within a specific context without being original within greater society. Creativity is further distinguished from mere novelty in that it must be appropriate to the context in which it is generated. For example, if a student writes a story when assigned to do a painting, the story – though novel – would fail the test of appropriateness. Researchers have also noted that creative processes are highly contextual.6 Therefore it is impossible to define precisely what constitutes “high quality.” Suffice it to say that one’s creative idea must be of value as judged within the context in which it is generated. Creative thought is also considered to be a continuum that spans from ideas that significantly transform an entire field or society (Big-C) to the multitude of creative thought processes that all individuals undergo in everyday life (little-c).7 

Innovation, on the other hand, is the implementation of a novel idea into practice often on a larger social scale, such as the marketplace.8 As such, innovation and creative thought are interrelated. Indeed, innovation consists of both creative thought and imagination, but is seldom considered within the domain of school-aged students. This is due to the deep levels of understanding required for innovators to be able to move beyond the accepted norms of their given fields of work or study.9 

The first wave of inquiry prompting modern conceptions of creativity was launched in 1950 with J. Paul Guilford’s proposed “structure of intellect.” Guilford argued that models of intelligence had placed too much emphasis on “convergent” thinking, which is the marshaling of information to arrive at one correct answer. He 

proposed that thinking was also “divergent,” expanding on existing knowledge in interesting and unforeseen ways.10 Since that time, creativity – and in particular divergent thinking – has been probed by researchers working from multiple disciplinary perspectives including psychology, education, history, the arts, sociology, anthropology, and business). Approaches have been predominantly “psychometric” (to measure and define creativity); “experimental” (to measure outcomes from creativity-promoting interventions); “historiometric” (to create biographies and case studies of Big-C creators/ innovators); and “biometric” (to measure cerebral activity). 

In recent years, scholars have acknowledged that creative thought is context specific. This has raised the question as to whether creativity is also culture specific.11 Researchers working in culturally diverse contexts around the globe have determined that although there are culture-specific manifestations of creative thought, there also appear to be components that may be universal.12 

The components of creative thought identified by researchers include: 

3