Worldgenic approach to
Theories of Creativity
Theoretical analysis of the multi-layered, multi-sphere and multi-leveled made it possible to reduce all the richness of its manifestation forms to a harmonious and economical and symmetrical structure, constituted by five independent worlds: objective and symbolic, social and internal, and integrating and creating the world of culture.
Moreover, each of the worlds has a universal structure, specific patterns of functioning and development, as well as a form of creative activity that is dominant in it.
Table 2. Manifistations of Creativity in the Phenomenal Worlds
Creative Problem Solving
Realization of Creative attitude,
1. Creativity as realization of creative attitude, strategies, techniques and styles, as a creative reflection, and metacognitive regulation and Sense -creation
Creativity as a governance with the help of the sample and the virtues and bringing things into order (Confucius, 6-5th. cc. BC.); Taking a stand of the center, “Axis of Tao”, balancing, maintaining openness, emptiness and susceptibility (Laozi, 6-5th. cc. BC, Chuang Tzu, 4-3cc. BC); Creativity as an implementation of Method – “New Organon” (F. Bacon, 1620); The method of reasoning and searching for the truth (R. Descartes, 1637); Determining unconscious tendency that guides the process and persists in problem solving (O. Külpe,1883); Special “task mental set” (H. Watt, 1906); Determining tendencies of thinking in problem solving (N. Ach, 1910); Anticipative “schema,” or an organizing mental principle (O.Selz, 1924), The implementation of creative dominant (A.A. Ukhtomsky, 1922); Creative set and activation of the unconscious (D. Uznadze, 1949); Creativity as a special state of mind, the Creative Attitude, the ability to see the world (E. Fromm, 1959,1970); Creative dispositions (G. Allport, 1961; D. Perkins, E. Jay, S. Tishman,1993; A. Galdova, A. Nelicki,1993); Creative Attitude (A.Maslow, 1963; R. Taft, M.B. Gilchrist,1970; C.E. Schaefer,1971; R.C. Schank, P. G. Childers, 1988; R. Harris,1998); Creative Stance (S.J. Parnes,1967; K. Szmidt, 1997).
Implementation of Creative Method (A. Osborne, 1953; W. Gordon, 1961 G.S. Altshuller, 1961; S. Parnes, 1967; E. de Bono, 1967; T. Buzan, 1972; D.Koberg, J. Bagnall, 1976; Arthur В. VanGundy, 1983; Roger von Oech, 1983; M. Michalko, 1991).
Creative cognitive styles (M.J. Kirton, 1976; L.D. Noppe, J.M. Gallagher, 1977; S. Messick, 1984; R.E. Goldsmith,1987; S.F.Isaksen, 1987; G.J. Puccio,1987; S. J. Guastello, J. Shissler, J. Driscoll, T. Hyde ,1998; I. Al-Sabaty, G. A. Davis, 1989; R.Schulz,1989; E.Zilevich,1988; K.B. Dorval, G. Kaufmann, 1991; S.F. Isaksen, G.J. Puccio, D.J. Treffinger, 1993; E. L. Grigorenko, R. J. Sternberg, 1995; C.W. Allinson, J. Hayes,1996; K. Szmidt,1997; O. Martinsen, G. Kauffman,1999; Jos Lemmink, Allard C.R. van Riel, Hans Ouwersloot, 2006; L.F. Zhang, R.J. Sternberg, 2006, E. Cools, H.van den Broeck, 2007).
Intuitive style of unconscious information processing and problem-solving (H. Poincaré, 1908; C.G. Jung, 1921; K.S. Bowers, G. Regehr, C. Blthazard, 1990; E. Policastro, 1995; R. Sternberg, T. Lubart, 1995; C. W. Allinson, E. Chell, J. Hayes, 2000; A.M. Baulor, 2001; D.J. Myers, 2002; J. Langan-Fox, D. Shirley, 2003; E. Necka, 2003; M. Karwowski, 2008); Creative (legislative) style of thinking (R.J. Sternberg, T. Lubart, 1995); Cognitive styles, metacognitive regulation of intellectual activity (M.A. Kholodnaja, 2004); Creative reflection, metacognitive regulation and awareness of mental strategies (J. H. Flavell, 1976, I.N Semenov, S.J., Stepanov, 1985; A.L. Costa,1987; R. Sternberg, 1988; V. G. Bogin, 1993; A Demetriou, S. Kazi, 2006); Strategies of creativity and genius (G.S. Altshuller, I.M. Vertkin, 1994; R. Dilts, 1994).
Creativity as a creation of new meanings. Generation of new meanings through a free interpretation (F. Nietzsche, 1988); Individual attaches the subjective meaning to their actions and intends the meaning on a particular historical occasion (M. Weber, 1904, 1922); Creativity as sense-giving acts and process of senses or meanings (Sinne) constituting (E. Husserl, 1913); Creative principle of synchronicity as the coincidence of causally unrelated events having identical or similar meaning (C. Jung, 1920); Listening to Being and seeing the true essences and senses of Being (M. Heidegger, 1927); Creativity as inner speech, which is to a large extent thinking in pure meanings; expanding individual and cultural meaning; bring a new sense into the phenomenon’s social meaning; “the clarification of meanings and the establishment of values” (L.Vygotsky, 1931, 1934); Choosing of the initial project as a source of polyvalent meanings (Z.P.Sartr, 1943); Giving a meaning to phenomena through existential a priori structures (L. Binswanger, 1958 R.May, 1969); Searching and finding of a new meanings (V. Frankl, 1959); Potentiation of the text, multiplication of its semantic possibilities (G. Bataille, 1949); Generation of new meanings and overcoming functional fixedness’s by the using a complex analogy (W. Gordon, 1961); Spontaneous generation and construction of meanings by the text, a systematic releasing of multiple meaning (R. Barthes, 1964); Cosmological commitment as a powerful motive to create meaning and to leave a testament of the meaning which that individual found in the world, and in himself in relation to the world”(F.Barron, 1965); Deconstruction as destroing/constructing of meanings, breaking with every given context, and engender infinitely new contexts, eternal interplay and free play of meaning, dissemination and divided generation of meaning, undoing, decomposing, desedimenting and destroying, reconstructing of structures and constituting of an ‘ensemble’ of meanings (J. Darrida, 1967,1972); Event or emission of singularities creates new sense (G. Deleuze, 1969); Artistic creative sensibility as intuitive discoursing of inherent senses and meanings (R. Arnheim, 1969); Divergent thinking as the stretching of sense (J. Guilford, 1970); The meaningful interpretation of clusters of sensory stimuli (C. Castaneda, 1971); Generation of meaning through the “primacy of context over text”, the hybrid nature of language and the relation between utterances or dialogical interplay of multiple voices (M. Bakhtin, 1975); Spontaneous unpacking of the meanings which are inherent in the World (V. V. Nalimov 1978); “Grand narratives” or metanarratives, which give meaning to the worlds, “language games”, “phrase regimens”, the innumerable and incommensurable separate systems which produce multiple meanings (J.F. Lyotard, 1979, 1983); Chaos/complexity, flow of transformation as a state in which forms appear, “rhizomatic” as a condition for free, multiple and non-hierarchical interpretation (G. Deleuze, F.Guattari,1980); Spontaneous self-generation of preconceptual meanings (E.Gendlin, 1981); Generation of meanings as lingvisation of the World (R. von Eckartsberg, 1981); Intertextuality and symbolic imagination as a source of generation and renewal of meanings (U. Eco, 1983); Transformation of meaning as context and content reframing (R. Bandler, J. Grinder, 1983); Creating semantic horizon and contexts, activation of unopened meaning (K. Swassjan, 1987); Sense–generation (В.S.Вrаtus, 1994; D.A. Leontiev, 1999; S.V. Dmitriev, 2001), Sense-construction (F. Е. Vasilyuk, 1984); Creative understanding as the extraction, transmission and generation of new meanings (V.P.Zinchenko, 1997); Sense-creation (A.A.Osanov); Potentiation is a positive deconstrection, as reconstruction of potentialities, the method and the process of multiplication of meanings (M.Epstein,2001).
Creating new meanings through metaphors. Metaphors, tropes, figurative language as the first expressions and the primary sources of meaning (J.J. Rousseau, 1754,1781); The involuntary nature of the images, similes and metaphors as the truest and simplest means of expression (F. Nietzsche,1888).
Interactive theory: Metaphor, as creating meaning through the interaction of two thoughts – “vehicle” and “tenor” (I.A. Richards, 1936), interaction between the “focus” and frame”, idea of “associated commonplaces,” (M. Black, 1954, 1962); interaction between the primary an secondary subjects (M.C. Beardsley,1962); Metaphors put two domains together (W.H.Gass,1970); Metaphor involves the transfer of a schema between disjoint realms. (N. Goodman,1976); Transfer and “mapping” from a source cognitive model to a target domain, which means that “metaphor operates between domains” (E.E.Sweetser, 1990); Process of connection and comparison between two familiar concepts acts as generators for new meaning” (D.F.N. Jensen, 2006).
Pragmatic Twist Accounts and Speech Act Theory. “A theory of language is part of a general theory of action” Metaphorical meaning is the speaker’s utterance meaning, which distinguishing from “word/sentence meaning.” (J.R.Searle, 1969,1979), Metaphor concerns what speakers mean as opposed to what their words mean. Creating own new, original, or poetic meaning is saying through normal everyday meanings. (O.Barfield, 1962, T. Cohen, 1975, Davidson,1984;P. Grice, 1989; L. Horn, 2004).
Metaphor as shifting of attitude, as seeing things in a new way. Metaphora based on aesthetic perception, “seeing as” or perspectival seeing (L.Wittgenstein, 1953, R. Aldrich,1958, M. Hester,1966); Metaphor –in which one, iconic component presents other and induces similarities ( P. Henle,1958); Сreative metaphor as gaining a new perspective on object, situation or phenomenon (making the familiar strange, seeing a familiar objects as if they were not familiar, W.Gordon,1961, 1965; displacement of Concepts, D.A. Schon 1963, 1979); New meaning as a result shifting of attitude, viewing something in a certain way (M. Black, 1962); Visual methapor uses an image to create the link between different ideas (V.C Aldrich, 1968); Seeing as is seeing the similar in the dissimilar (P. Recoer,1975); Metaphor as non-visual seeing as (W. Snibles, 1976), Metaphor as a model for changing our way of looking at things, of perceiving the world (P.Ricoeur,1978); Creativity as humor and metaphor (W. Snibles, 1976,1984); Metaphors are like words of fiction: a novel metaphor creates a new view of the subject, suggests new perspectives (I.Loewenberg, 1978); Crucial role of imagination’s functions of seeing and picturing as ability to produce new kinds by assimilation, in metaphor making (P. Ricoeur, 1979); Ontological metaphors are the “ways of viewing events, activities, emotions, ideas, etc., as entities and substances” (G. Lakoff, M. Johnson, 1980); Мetaphors as creative perception (C.Dent-Read, A.Szokolszky 1993); Generating new perceptions and inventions (F.R. Ankersmit, J.J.A. Mooij, 1993); Metaphor as seeing one thing in terms of another, see part of reality in terms of a (metaphorical) point of view, making the unfamiliar familiar (F.R. Ankersmit, 1994); Metaphor as vision or mental model of environments (sensemaking) and articulating that model to other (sensegiving) (R.Hill,1995); Creative organizational vision building through collaborative, visual-metaphorical thought (D. Ambrose,1998); “The application of familiar operations to a different sets of objects resulted in a novel perspective”. (B. Indurkhya, 2010).
Metaphor in Creative Cognition and Cognitive Linguistics: Metaphors are catalysts in the creative growth of language; they extend meaning, making the unconscious conscious, increasing accuracy and variety (Owen,1962); Metaphor as two-way influence between language and imaginary, meaning and imagery (M. Hester, 1967); Metaphor necessarily occurs in any language that could ever claim to embody richness and depth of understanding (C. M.Turbayne, 1970); Metaphors as creative use of polysemy – new meaning is metamorphosis of language and reality (P.Ricoeur,1973); Metaphora as mechanism of generating new meaning (J. Lotman, 1973); Metaphor as creation of meaning by the interpretation of reality in diverse ways (P. Ricœur, 1975); Metaphorical discourse ‘invents’ in both senses of the word: what it creates, it discovers; and what it finds, it invents (P. Ricoeur, 1978); The creative dimension of language consonant with the creative aspect of reality itself (P. Ricoeur, 1978); Imagination projects itself onto the structure of language to make metaphorizing possible (D. Davidson 1978, 1980); Metafor acts highlight unnoticed properties of the topic (A. Ortony, 1979); The emergence of metaphoric language and making sense of literal and nonliteral falsehood (E. Winner, 1979, 1988); Conceptual metaphor is “imaginative rationality”, it creates similarities ( G.Lakoff, M.Johnson (1980); Language grows and expands meaning by means of metaphors. (R. von Eckartsberg, 1981); Similarity is a product of categorisation (S.Glucksberg, B. Keysar 1990); Producing of a new meanings by interaction between concepts, “theory of conceptual blending” (G. Fauconnier, M. Turner 1995); Metaphor is the very stuff of high-level mental representation. (T.Veale, 1995); Poetic metaphor as creating the similarities between two objects or situations (M.Gineste, B.Indurkhya, V.Scart-Lhomme 1997; M.Nueckle, D.Jantezko 1997; R.Tourangeau, L. Rips 1991). Metaphor making and processing as overlap between constitutive (imagination-rationality), and interpretative (convention-intention) pairs (Z. Maalej, 1999, 2008); Metaphor as Re-Representation and Creative Analogy,humor, Ironic Similes Creative Mis-Representation in the Construction of Ironic Similes (T. Veale, 2006. 2012); “Blends,” in which conceptually fusing or integrating of various elements from two or more domains, or frames (M.Turner, 1996; Fauconnier, M.Turner, 2002); Combine perceptual, experiential and conceptual aspects of different concepts subconsciously to generate new insights (G. Fauconnier, M. Tuner, 2002); Metaphor as construal operations (perspective, gestalt structuring) (A. Cruse, W.Croft 2004). Metaphor as simultaneous mirroring and mapping (M.C.Flannery, 2009).
Nonlinguistic metaphors and Conceptual Metaphor: Nonlinguistic (musical, painting, dancing) metaphors, as a way of expressing of personal world and human emotions (L. Meyer,1956, Whittock, T. ,1992; M. Blechner, 2001 Johnson, M., Larson, S. , 2003); Metaphor as a maker of novel creates new possible world (I. Loewenberg, 1978); Metaphors as an effective mechanism for the co- construction and expansion of culture, metaphors are pervasive in everyday life, not just in language, but also in thought and action. Metaphor as organizing conceptual system, reorganizing the topic and creation of new features (G.Lakoff, M.Johnson, 1980, G. Lakoff, 1987); Metaphors create similarities (ontological link) and conceptualize experience (epistemological link) (M. Johnson, 1981); Metaphor as dreamwork and irrationality (M. Cavell, 1986); Metaphors “that are most alive and most deeply entrenched, efficient, and powerful are those that are so automatic as to be unconscious and effortless.” (G. Lakoff, M. Tuner, 1989); The metaphorical statement implies to mind a imaginative game of make-believe. (K. Walton, 1990,1993); Metaphora as theoretical foundation by integrating many theories of creativity (D. Ambrose, 1996); Model of emotional resonance shows how creative people with the help of metaphor can access and associate concepts (I.Getz, T.I.Lubart, 1998); Metaphorical polysemy and corpus-based research into metaphor (A. Deignan, 1999 2003); Metaphors as revealing of complex processes and patterns, and making implicit imaginal processes more explicit through social interaction (C. Schank ,V. John-Steiner, 2001); Metaphor as a research tool, as a teaching tool, as a generative tool for creative thinking, perception and interpretation (D. Inns, 2002, J. Gaddefors, 2007); Metaphor as interaction of two imaginative activity –pretense and seeing – as E.Camp (2003, 2009); Effect of cross-culturally using metaphors (A. Deignan, 2003, T. Grisham, 2006); Emergence of metaphor in discourse (L. Cameron, A. Deignan, 2006), Patterns of metaphor use in reconciliation talk (L. Cameron, 2007b). Metaphor as descriptive tool which “can create an understanding of a scientific principle in the mind of an artist or a young student, a sales manager or subsistence farmer”( J. Harris, B.K. Barnes, 2006); “Appropriate body action, or even imagined action, enhances people’s embodied, metaphorical construal of abstract concepts” (N.L. Wilson, R.W. Gibbs, 2007); Metaphor is a multifaceted, valuable tool that gives dimension to language, create complexity, give clarity, and develop creativity (R. B. Van Engen,2008); “Pressure of coherence”: the pressure of their bodily experiences and the pressure of the context that surrounds them. In later and more recent studies (Z. Kovecses, 2008, 2009); Metaphorical creativity as result of four common conceptual devices or strategies of elaboration,extension, questioning, and combining (Z. Kovecses, 2009); Context-induced metaphors are resulting from the social-cultural-personal background and lending coherent meaning structures to particular poems (M.J.Landau, B.R.Meier, L.A.Keefer , 2010); Metaphor Analysis (metaphor-led discourse analysis), using metaphor as research tool (L. Cameron, R. Maslen, Z. Todd, J. Maule, P. Stratton, N. Stanley, 2009, 2010); Metaphor as a mode and vehicle of thought, creative tool knowledge-building and communication ( J. Ox, J. Van Der Elst, 2011); The persuasive power of metaphor in Politics and rhetoric ( J. Chateris-Black, 2005); Communication-based theory of metaphor (L.D. Ritchie, 2006); Metaphors as a Tool to Decipher Tacit Aspects and unconscious meaning (T. Steger, 2007); Significance of metaphor in language, thought, culture, education and artistic expression. (G.D. Low, 2008); Сontext as the source of meanings “Only in the context of a speech act does a sentence express a determinate content”(F. Recanati, 2004; Ch.Travis, 2008).
Metaphors as A Valuable tools organizations tackle and way to create a positive environment: Using metaphor is a valuable tool for leaders/followers for enhancing communication in organizations and (K.Weick, 1979); Tools for shaping the organizational culture by presenting reality in a creative way, by creating new ideas, and by shaping vision (G.Morgan, 1997); Metaphor “gives life to vision” and enabled leaders to develop a “shared identity” with followers (J. M., Kouzes, B. Z.Posner 2002); “Stories, allegories, and metaphors are fast and powerful leadership tools for communicating complex concepts in unforgettable ways” (J. Harris, K. B. Barnes, 2006); Metaphor creates clarity by comparing confusing ideas with known objects allowing the audience to understand what is being communicated (G. Leder, 2007); “Metaphors help constitute the realities we live in. Metaphors give groups and organizations a sense of direction, history, and values” (F. Gerritsen, 2006); The use of metaphors, storytelling, and poetry in the leadership (T. Grisham 2006); Makes mention of “insights from metaphors” and “how metaphors take part in the construction of the environment (J. Gaddefors, 2007); Metaphor as a means to understanding complex and abstract ideas and organizational leadership (G.B.Linn, R.Sherman, P.B. Gill, 2007).
Meaning-making and meaning construction: Creativity as inner speech, which is to a large extent thinking in pure meanings; expanding individual and cultural meaning; bring a new sense into the phenomenon’s social meaning; “the clarification of meanings and the establishment of values” (L. Vygotsky,1934); Understanding old words with new meanings (H.H. Clark, R. J. Gerrig, 1983); Meaning-sense operation of creativity as a process of searching through a state space of possibilities and ultimately finding the best solution by expanding the state space itself (M. Boden, 1990); Interpretation of meanings and meaning-making as specification the structure and coherence of the larger contexts in which specific meanings are created and transmitted. (J. Bruner 1990); Сreation of intentional worlds from the meanings gathering from their sociocultural environments (R. Shweder, 1990); Meaning construction as processes of schematization, synesthesia, secondary intersubjectivity and “the creative construction of idiosyncratic analogies, primitive sensory metaphors” (B. Shore, 1991); Meaning and knowledge construction by means of mental manipulation, visualization, and the process of developing, testing and discarding hypotheses (G. Shank, 1992); The transformation of sense into meaning based on cognitive pluralism (V.John-Steiner, 1995); Creativity as the searching for meaning and interaction between fluctuating, condensed, generative and expanded thought (V. John-Steiner, 1995, 1997); Experience of new meaning-making flows (M. Chicszentmihalyi, 1996, 2003); Creative thought starts as an imaginary “sense” of how things might be, which is transformed into meaning and externally expressed in an reality (R.S. Prawat, 1999); Creativity operates through the person appropriating, making sense and meaning from, and externalizing tools, signs and artifacts (S. Moran, V. John-Steiner, 2002); Aestethic Making meaning about art (G.Kress, 1977; B. Duffy 1998; N. Paley,1988; Savva Trimis, 2005; B. Duffy, 2002; J. E. Maisel,2009); Meaning-making and values- realizing is not possessed by individuals but is interdependent with the ecosystem in which the conversation partners and other affordances function in flux (D. Larsen- Freeman, L. Cameron 2008); Meaning-making on various learner trajectories: values-realizing and sensory experiences of the body (enkinaesthesia) (B.H.Hodges 2009; S.A. Stuart 2010).
Cognitive model of meaning-making. Creating meanings as Sense-Giving and Sense-Reading, the acts which possess the structure of tacit knowing; (M. Polanyi, 1969); Creating meanings founded upon the creative imagination which synthesizes the chaotic elements of life in conformity with scientific, valid modes of knowledge (M. Polanyi, H.Prosch,1975); Two ways of meaning constructing: through new experiences, or through contemplation and recalled experiences. (M. Poplin, 1991); Making meaningful knowledge constructions as a process of experimentation (Shank, 1992); recognizing meanings of artifacts, and interpretation these meanings from their own perspectives (G. Stahl, 2002); Meaning-making as a product of continuous cognitive recursion: “creativity is mixing and matching patterns of everything you’ve ever experienced or come to know in your lifetime” (J. Hawkins, 2004); Meaning –making as recursion and recursive negotiation between remembered constructs and new inputs, “all meaning comes from analogies” (D. Hofstadter, 2007); Theory of multimodal meaning-making as complementary process of transformation and trunsduction, which are the engine that drives synaesthesia and the emergent creation of qualitatively new forms of meaning (G. Kress, 2003); Making meaning – learning through logovisual thinking. (B. Best, A. Blake J. Varney, 2005); Seeking Meaning and Making Sense ( J. Haldane, 2008); Constructing multimodal perspectives of language by means of making meaning (M. J. Narey, 2007, 2009).
Constructions of meaning. The constructivist idea of constructing meanings: сognition and learning as active seeking meaning and meaning making. Personal meaning making is inevitable. Constructivists conceptual model of meaning-making (Ch. Peirce, 1955); Meaning making and understanding as invention based on the processes of assimilation and accommodation (J. Piaget,1972, 1977); The process of constructing ones knowledge involve both cognitive and physical constructions of meaning, through the development of mental models or schemas (P.M. Johnson-Laird, 1980; S.Harel, S. Papert, 1991); Radical version of acquisition of knowledge as “meaning making and interpreting” (E.von Glasersfeld, 1981); Making sense of our experience is equivalent to meaning making (P. Cobb, L. Steffe, 1983; G. H. Wheatley, 1991; M.D. Hardy, P.S. Taylor, 1998; L. Splitter, 2008); Making meaning through mental image, visual thinking and visualization (M. Poplin, 1991; D. Cunningham, 1992; R. Solso, 1994; B. Mones-Hattal, E. Mandes, 1995); Knowledge and meaning construction through mental manipulation, visualization, and the process of developing, testing and discarding hypotheses (G.Shank, 1992); “We make our world through incessant experience, categorization, memory, reconnection” (O. Sacks, 1995); Shaping and evolving of social meanings through sharing and negotiation within the communicating groups (R.Prawat, R. Floden, 1994; M.E. Gredler, 1997; M.D. Hardy, P.S. Taylor, 1998; P. Ernest, 1999); The construction of knowledge and producing of meanings through intersubjective dialogue within cultures (R. Prawat, R. Floden, 1994; M.E. Gredler, 1997; M. McMahon, 1997; D.H. Shunk, 2000); Meaning-making in the virtual world (K. M. Osberg, 1997; J. R.Martin, P.R. White, 2005; C. M.L. Ho, A. M.H. Ong, 2007; L.ErkenBrack, 2009, D. Zheng, K. Newgarden, 2012).
Creativity as Sensemaking. Sensemaking which based on “skill in the process of knowledge-getting” (J. S. Bruner, 1966, J. Osland, A. Bird, 2000); Cognitive model of sensemaking: individuals and organisations make sense of and act within their environments according to their cognitive frameworks through the properties of the methods they use (R. Abelson 1976; S.Fiske, S. Taylor 1991; W.Bogner, P. Barr 2000. P Zhang, J. Klavans, D. Oard, D. Soergel, 2008); Sensemaking as a building of sensible, meaningful explanations , extracting of evidence and then linking it to already existing structures (J.G.March, J.P. Olsen, 1976; J. Porac , H.Thomas , C. Baden-Fuller 1989; G.C. Hopkinson 2001;); Sensemaking is the process by which people give meaning to lived experience, complex and unfamiliar situations and structure the unknown (K. Weick, 1979); Sensemaking as providing insight into uncertain or ambiguous situations at the organizational level (K. Weick, 1988, 1995; R. Drazin, M. A. Glynn, R. Kazanjian, 1999; K. Weick, M. Sutcliffe, D. Obstfeld, 2005); Individual sensemaking as underlying the “cognitive gap”, substantiates learning, adapting and responding to unexpected or unknown situations, based on each participant’s point of view. (B. Dervin, 1983, 2003); ”The basic idea of sensemaking is that reality is an ongoing accomplishment that emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense of what occurs” (K.Weick, 1993); Sense making involves placing items in frameworks, comprehending, understanding, interpreting and constructing meanings (K.Weick, 1995); Metacognition model of sense-making which involves processes recognizing, critiquing, correcting, building verifying, and modifying models of unrecognised situation (M.S. Cohen, J.T. Freeman, S. Wolf, 1996); Sensemaking is a process in which a person’s, a group’s or an organisation’s understanding of a situation, rather than the situation’s objective properties shapes the way that a person, group or organisation acts in the situation. (B. Czarniawska 1997, 1999); Cognitive model of visual sensemaking as interacting with and operating on the information with a variety of information processing mechanisms (E H. Chi, S. K. Card, 1999); Sense- making by preceding decision-making, framing the range, reach and depth of forthcoming decisions. (A.G. Woodside 2001); Sensemaking as the process of verbalisations that involve information, knowledge, cognition, thoughts, and conclusions. Methods of sensemaking include attitudes, beliefs, values, emotions and also intuition, memories, stories, and narratives. (B. Dervin, L. Foreman-Wernet, E. Layterbach, 2002); Reconstruction of existing perspectives, frameworks, or premises on a daily basis through a continuous process of knowledge creation (I.Nonaka, R.Toyama, P. Byoiere, 2003); “Sense-Making reconceptualizes factizing as one of the useful verbings humans use to make sense of their worlds” (B. Dervin, 2003); Making sense of events based on some perspective, viewpoint, or framework (G.Klein, J.K., Phillips, E., Rall, D.A. Peluso, 2004); Sensemaking as creation of mental models that can be used to think of problems, and solutions, in new ways ( D.J. Snowden, C.F.Kurtz, 2003, D.J. Snowden, 2005); Creative leadership as the art of making sense based on realization of sensemaking loop that include paying attention, personalizing, imaging, serious play, collaborative inquiry, and crafting (Ch. J. Palus, D. M. Horth, 2005); Sensemaking as gap-bridging, which is rooted in time and space, and occurs at the intersection of three horizons: the past, present, and future by applying the “Futures Research Methodology – V 2.0” working with foresight, hindsight and insight (M. Aaltonen, T. Barth, 2005); Sensemaking is the process of creating situational awareness and understanding in situations of high complexity or uncertainty in order to make decisions; Sensemaking is an active two-way process of fitting data into a frame (mental model) and fitting a frame around the data; sensemaking as “a motivated, continuous effort to understand connections (which can be among people, places and events) in order to anticipate their trajectories and act effectively” (G.Klein, B. Moon, R.F. Hoffman, 2006); Sensemaking as the process of modeling and creating a representation of a collection of information (D.Russell, P. Pirolli, 2009); Sensemaking as a larger way of viewing the world and situations that occur in it, as process of changing of frames – certainly subjective and often biasing point of view, frames as an active perspective that both describes and perceptually changes a given situation; Sensemaking is a constant process of acquisition, reflection, and action. It is an action oriented cycle that people continually and fairly automatically go through in order to integrate experiences into their understanding of the world around them (J.Kolko, 2010).
Sensemaking as narrative construction. Sensemaking is a social activity in that plausible stories are preserved, retained or shared (L.Isabella, 1990; S. Maitlis, 2005); People enact the environments they face in dialogues and written and spoken narratives (J. Bruner, 1991; B.Czarniawska,1997; 2004; T.J. Watson, 1998, 2009; G.Currie, A. Brown, 2003; A. D.Brown, P. Stacey, J. Nandhakumar, 2007; M. Abolafia, 2010); Sensemaking as narrative process, accomplished through storytelling, and helping individuals map their reality ( K. Weick, 1999; A.P. Bochner, 2001; E.M. Eisenberg, 2007); “… sensemaking is, importantly, an issue of language, talk, and communication. Situations, organizations, and environments are talked into existence… Sensemaking is about the interplay of action and interpretation rather than the influence of evaluation on choice.” (K. E. Weick, K. M Sutcliffe, D. Obstfeld, 2005).
Cultural model of sensemaking: Cultural sensemaking refers to the processes by which people make sense of and explain culturally different behaviors (J. Osland, A. Bird, 2000); Cultural sensemaking as asking explanation-based questions that can explicitly challenge the fundamental assumptions underlying the conception of a culture (W. R. Sieck, J. L Smith, L. J. Rasmussen, 2008); Cultural sensemaking competence as a high level metacognitive skills, perspective taking and culture’s decision making within specific contexts (L. J. Rasmussen, W. R. Sieck, J. Osland, 2010); Cultural sensemaking based on employing the Cultural Network Analysis process for creating cultural models (P. Smart, 2010); Trigger events or occasions that lead people to notice cultural differences, which generate opportunities for intercultural sensemaking. (J. Osland, A. Gundersen, A. Bird, 2011).
Process of sense creation. Processing model of sense creation which suggests that sense selection and sense creation coexist and operate simultaneously (R.J. Gerrig,1989); Adult age differences in interpretations and sense creation (E. M. Zelinski, J.C.Hyde, 1996); Sense Creation in and out of Discourse Contexts interpretations, “meaning recovery in discourse contexts is affected by out of discourse context” (R. J. Gerrig, H. Bortfeld, 1999).
2. Creativity as a productive activity
Taking the transcendental position, seeing inaction in action, and action in inaction, engaged in all sorts of activities, without desire for material profit that converts every activity into a meditation on the Absolute (“Bhagavad Gita”, 2c. BC – 2 c. AD); Ingenuity (inventio) (Lorenzo Valla, Leonardo da Vinci, 15 c.); Act of the self-activity of the subject (I. Kant, 1781); The creative power of man, which is realized in the ceaseless activity, the primacy of practice over the contemplation (G. Fichte, 1794); Method of Trial and Error (T. Torondayk, 1911); Manipulation of the material and ideal objects (J.Watson, 1928); Creativity as productive and transforming activity (S. Rubinstein, 1946); Creation of new work, that is accepted as novel, reliable, useful and satisfying by a group (M. Stein, 1953); The process by which something new is made – an idea, an object, the form (L. Harmon, 1955); The manipulation of external symbols or objects to produce unusual or extraordinary product (L. Fliegler, 1959); Behavioral model of creativity (B. Skinner, 1976); Object-practical, transforming activity aimed at purposeful change and transformation of the world (E.G.Yudin, 1978); Creativity as the creation of a creative product (D. MacKinnon, 1978); A series of thoughts, acts and functions that lead to the emergence of the product with the attributes of novelty and positive values (A. Rothenberg, 1979); Productive activity aimed at the creative product (H. Gruber, 1981); Activities that result in the creation of new material and spiritual values, the new social significant product (A.P. Sheptulin, 1983, A. T. Shumilin, 1989); “A person’s capacity to produce new or original ideas, insights, restructurings, inventions, or artistic objects, which are accepted by experts as being of scientific, aesthetic, social, or technological value” (P.Vernon, 1984); Creativity as the creation of a new and socially valuable products (M. Mumford, S. Gustafson, 1988); Creativity as an innovation and implementation of creative ideas into practice (A.H. Van de Den, 1986; R. Kanter, 1988; M. Mumford, S. Gustafson, 1988; T. Amabile, 2000, M.A. West, 2002); Relationships between creative styles and creative products (G.J. Puccio, D.J. Treffinger, R.J. Talbot, 1995).
Product as a model of creativity
Creative product as a model of creativity (I.A.Taylor, B.J.Sandler, 1972; W.C.Ward, P.W.Cox, 1974; D. MacKinnon, 1978; L.Briskman, 1980; T.Amabile, 1982, 1983, 1996; Pearlman, 1983; K.B. Dorval, D.J. Treffinger, K. O’Quinn, 1990; S. P. Besemer, K. O’Quinn, 1987, 1993; R. Firestien, 1993; S.G. Isaksen,1994).
Creativity, as the creating of the product, which is characterized by:
1. Novelty (originality, uniqueness, unexpectedness, uncommonness, rareness, unpredictably) Originality and uncommonness (J.P.Guilford, 1950); Novelty (D.N. Morgan,1953, C.R. Hausman, 1987); Rareness (R. Milgram, 1976); Novelty as essential element of unpredictably (L. Briksman, 1880); Novel creative product is a “new type” (C.R. Hausman, 1987); Kind of novelty: big ‘C’ the creativity of the genius and little ‘c’ for the more widely available type (M. Stein.1987); Continuum of novelty : from correction to qualitative transformation, innovative and adaptive novelty (M.Kirton,1989; G. Kaufmann,1993; L. Novelli, 1993); Private/Psychological Novelty and Public/Historic Novelty (M. Boden, 1994; H. Eysenck, 1994); Novelty as unexpectedness, unpredictability or surprising (F. Barron, 1995); Creativity as the production of effective novelty (A.J.Cropley, 1999; T.Lubart, 2001; M. Mumford, 2003); Originality that closely linked to the novelty, which is the essence of the creativity (D.N. Jackson, S.J. Messick, 1967; F. Barron, 1988; R.A. Ochse, 1990; G. Kaufmann,1993; T. Lubart, 1996); Creativity based on “successful novelty” (R. Gregory, 1981); Creativity based on “radical novelty”, that distinguish from trivial forms of novelty (C.R. Hausman,1987); Classification of novel output: Original, Germinal, Transformational (S.P.Besemer, K. O’Quinn 1987); Some levels of novelty : from lowest level –“difference” to highest -“radical newness” (G. Kaufmann,1993, 2003); Two kinds of novelty : «novelty of component mental operation’ and ‘novelty of the content of the task» (H. Gardner, R. Sternberg, 1994); Originality which is defined within sociocultural group to provide meaningful criteria (K.Simonton, 1999); Distinction between novelty on the stimulus and novelty on the response side (G. Kaufmann, 2003).
2. Novelty and value (relevance, appropriateness, significance, usefulness, effectiveness, purposefulness, logicalness, ﬁt, adequacy, valuableness, intrinsically good, contributes to something and meets task constraints).
Creative solution: a new and useful, denying the old ideas and the result of strong motivation and persistence, the result of clarifying the problem (A.Newell, I.Shaw, H.Simon, 1962); Novelty and appropriateness (P.W.Jackson, S. Messick 1965); Novelty and relevance (G.F. Kneller, 1965); Production of novel and useful ideas (M. Stein, 1974); Creative product that characterized by Novelty and value (L.Briskman, 1980); Creative products, tangible and intangible, must be unique only to the creator, and must meet the criteria of purpose and value established by the creator (P.K. Welsch,1980); Creative product is both a novel and usefulness (K. Gilhooley,1982, F.Barron,1995); Creative product is both a novel and appropriate, useful, correct or valuable (T. Amabile, 1983. 1996; L.Novelli, 1993); Novelty and intelligibility (C. Hausman, 1985); Two essential qualities of creative outcome: Novelty (newness, uniqueness) and Value (usefulness, appropriateness, resolution) (M. Rhodes, 1987); Novelty and Value (it is useful, intrinsically good, contributes to something) (C. Hausman, 1987); Novelty and Value (Adequacy, Appropriateness, Logicalness, Usefulness, Valuableness) ( S.P.Besemer, K. O’Quinn, 1987); Originality must be balanced with ﬁt and appropriateness (M. Runco, 1988); Creative solution as long as it is novel and fulfils the requirements of the task (R. Weisberg, 1988, 1993, 2003); Creative work that is both novel (original or unexpected) and appropriate (useful or meets task constraints) (R.Sternberg, T. Lubart, 1996); Novelty and purposefulness (T.Amabile, 1998; R.L. Firestien, 1993); Creative work is both new or original and appropriate or useful and be acknowledged as such by social consensus (F. Barron, 1995); Сreativity involves being both original and useful (R. E. Mayer 1999); A creative idea is one that is both original and appropriate for the situation in which it occurs (C. Martindale 1999); Creative product “must be new and must be given value by some external criteria” (H.E.Gruber, D.B.Wallace 1999); Novel and appropriate to situation due to its context – specifity, novel and social valued product (M.Mumford, S.Gustafson, 1988); Novelty and adaptability (T. Lubart, 2001); Originality (uniqueness, uncommonness) and effectiveness (usefulness, ﬁt, appropriateness) (M. A.Runco, G. J. Jaeger, 2012).
3. Aesthetics, Emotionality and Surprise: Harmony, beauty and usefulness (H. Poincaré, 1908); Creative work is guided by aesthetic feeling (B. Ghiselin 1952, P.Dirac, 1977); “Effective surprise”, “shock of recognition” (J. Bruner, 1962, 1968); Aesthetic value (M. Csikszentmihalyi, J. W Getsels, 1971, 1976, R.A. Combos, 1972); Beauty as well as simplicity as criteria for scientific theories (S. Chandrasekhar 1973, 1987); Mysteriousness (L.Briskman, 1980); High in quality (R.Sternberg, 1985,1988); Creative products, by being unpredictable, unanticipated or unexpected, cause emotional states of surprise (M.Boden, 1992; T.Lubart,1994); Aesthetically pleasing, (S.W. Russ, 1993); Aesthetics (M.Runco, 1994); Novel, Originality, surprising (C.M. Christensen, 1997); Aesthetics play the most central role in mathematical solution, thought and product (D.R. Hofstadter 1979; P.J. Davis,R.Hersh,1981; T. Dreyfus, T. Eisenberg 1986; L. Burton, 2004); Beauty as simplicity combined with complexity, that bring out aesthetic feelings (A. Br inkmann 2000); Surprise as a feature of creative solutions; The influence Surprise-value of creative product (L. Masedo, 2001; L. Masedo, A.Cardoso, 2001); Aesthetic factor playes a crucial role in the creative mathematics work (A. Brinkmann, B. Sriraman, 2009).
4. A system of criteria for creative product: Novelty, usefulness in accomplishing a goal, elaboration of original insight (D.MacKinnon,1962); Unusualness, appropriateness, transformation and condensation (J.S. Dacey, G.F. Madaus,1969); Popularity, productivity, level of reconstruction of scientific understanding of the Universe, breadth of impact, degree of novelty, social value (J.A. Ponomarev,1976); Five criterion of creative product: 1. Novelty. Originality. 2. Adaptivity to reality. The product must solve a problem. 3. Product must be evaluated, elaborated, developed, produced and communicated to other. 4. Aesthetically pleasing and looking good. 5. Transforming human existance. (D. MacKinnon,1978); Creative Product Analysis Matrix (CPAM) that consists of three scales: Novelty (Original, Transformational (surprising), and Germinal), Resolution (Valuable, Logical, and Useful), Elaboration & Synthesis (Original, Elegant, Complex vs. Simple, Understandable, and Well-Crafted) (S. Besemer, D. Treffinger, 1981; S. Besemer, K. O’Quin, 1985, 1993); Novelty, consensual, aesthetic quality (T. Amabile, 1982, 1983); New, appropriate and judged by qualified experts in that domain, by using Consensual Assesment Teqnique (CAT)(T. Amabile,1982, J. Baer, 1993; J. Baer, J.C.Kaufman, C. A. Gentile, 2004; J.C. Kaufman, J. Baer, 2012); New, workable, efficient, magical (S. Pearlman, 1983); Synergistic interaction of many factors (S .Pearlman, 1983; M. Chikszentmihayi, 1990); Creative product must be appropriate, correct, useful, valuable or expressive of meaning (T. Amabile, E. Tighe 1993); Social value, aesthetic appeal, approprietness (M. Runco, 1993); Creative product is (a) unique, original, novel; (b) good: adaptive, useful, aesthetically, pleasing, according to standards (S.W. Russ,1993); Novelty, Validity (conceptual, theoretical, expressive, instrumental, social), Increment, Realization (M. Murdock, S. Isaksen, S. Vosburg, D. Lugo, 1993); Creative Product Semantic Scale (СРSS) (based on CPAM), used to define creativity in products (S. Besemer, K. O’Oquin,1986, 1987, K. O’Oquin, S. Besemer, 1989); Creative solution requires the production of something that is perceived as new, valuable and elegant (T. Amabile, 1987); The model of the creative product: a). novelty, statistical rarity, b). adaptability, problem solving, appropriateness c) originality, improving, developing into a whole (D. Harrington, 1990); Originality, adaptability, aesthetics (M. Runco, 1994); Triad of criteria of creativity: features of the product, reactions of recipient, features of the thinking process (E. Necka, 1994); Appropriateness, quality and importance of a product (R. Sternberg, T. Lubart, 1995); Novel (original, unexpected), high in quality and appropriate (useful, meets task constraints (R. Sternberg, 1988; T. Lubart, R. Sternberg,1995); Novelty, effectiveness and ethicality’ (D. Cropley, 2002); Novel, relevant, effective (D. Cropley, A. Cropley, 2005) Novelty (Surprising, Original), Resolution (Logical, Useful, Valuable, Understable), Style (Organic, Elegant, Well-Crafted) (S. P. Besemer, 2006); Effectiveness (aesthetical, theoretical, interpersonal), novelty (different, unique), authenticity (originates in the self) (L. Sundararajan, J. R. Averill, 2007); A set of criteria for creativity: a list of 18 criteria which centers around three attributes: novelty, quality, and typicality (G. Ritchie, 2007); Creative (surprising, seminal, germinal), routine (effective, accurate, conventional) A. J. Cropley, D.H.Cropley, 2009); Creative product must have: Utility, Novelty, Surprise, Human agency (S. Draper, 2012).
3. Creativity as a problem finding and problem solving
Productive thinking as an internal activity that focused on mastery of a task (O. Kulpe, 1895, N.Ach, 1905; K. Marbe, 1922; O. Selz, 1924); Creativity as a process of transformation of a problematic situation into the resolved one (J. Dewey, 1910); Creativity as the insightful problem solving (W. Köhler, 1925; K. Duncker, 1945; M. Wertheimer, 1945); Behavioral mechanisms of problem solving (N. R. F. Maier, 1940; I. Maltzman,1955); Sensivity to problems (J.Guilford,1950); The first Creative Problem Solving (CPS): three distinct stages: Fact-Finding, Idea-Finding and Solution-Finding (A. F. Osborn, 1953, 1979); The Creative Problem Solving Process (CPS), the Osborn-Parnes CPS process: 1. Exploring the Challenge Mess-finding (Objective Finding), Fact-finding, Problem-Finding, 2. Generate Ideas Idea-finding, 3.Prepare for Action Solution finding (Idea evaluation), Acceptance-finding (Idea implementation) (A. F. Osborn, 1953, S. J. Parnes, 1967); The theory of problem-solving and creative thinking (A. Newell, J.C. Shaw, H.A. Simon (1958, 1962); Sensitivity to problems, process of sensing gaps or disturbing, missing elements and forming ideas, solution or hypotheses and testing them (E. Torrance, 1962, 1967); Creative problem solving programs and methods S. J Parnes, A. Meadow, 1959, 1960; A. Meadow, S. J. Parnes, H.W. Reese, 1959, S. J. Parnes, 1963); Structure of Intellect Problem Solving (J. Guilford, 1967); Problem-solving process (J. Kozielecki, 1969); Creativity as a process of problem solving and resolution of contradictions (G.S. Altshuller, 1964, 1979; B.V.Kedrov, 1969; D.C. Tikhomirov, 1969; Bogoyavlenskaya D.B., 1971; A.F. Esaulov, 1972; A.M. Matyushkin, 1972; J. A. Ponomarev, 1976; A.V. Brushlinskii, 1979; G.J. Bush, 1974; V.A.Molyako, 1983; V.A. Yakovlev, 1989); Creative problem solving methods, techniques and tools (W. Gordon, 1961; Edward de Bono, 1972; J.L.Adams, 1974; T. Rickards, 1974; T. Buzan, 1976; D. Koberg, J. Bagnal, 1976, R. Ackoff; 1978; Roger von Oech 1983; M. Zdenek, 1983; A.B. VanGundy, 1988; M.Michalko, 1991; J. Wyckoff, 1991; С. Crawford, 1983); Process of problem finding, intellectual vision of the missing elements (M. Czikszentmihalyi, J. W. Getzels, 1965, 1970, 1976; J.A. Glover,1979; R. Weisberg, J. Alba,1981; M. T. Moor, 1983; S. J. Parnes, S. G.Isaksen, 1985; R. Ochse, 1990; M. T. Moore, M. C. Murdock, 1991; М. Runco, I. Chund, 1992; T. Amabile, 1996; D. Perkins,1997); The CPS that includes five stages, to include Fact-Finding, Idea-Finding, Solution-Finding, Problem-Finding and Acceptance-Finding (S. J. Parnes, 1967; R. B. Noller, S. J. Parnes, A. M. Biondi, 1976; S. J. Parnes, Noller, A. M. Biondi, 1977).
Problem solving and cognitive processes (D.M. Johnson, 1972; P.K.Arlin, 1974; G. S. Welsch, 1975; J. H. Flavell, 1976; J. G. Greeno, 1980; J. Davidson, R. Sternberg, 1982; H. Gardner, 1985; R.E. Mayer,1983); Intuition in the creative problem solving (H. H Anderson, 1959; K. Raaheim, 1976, 1984; M. Polanyi, 1981); Problem solving and creative thinking (R. E. Mayer, 1983; R. W. Weisberg, 1988); Cognitive styles in problem solving (S. G. Isaksen, G. J. Puccio,1988; S. G. Isaksen, K.B. Dorval, G. Kaufmann, 1991); Problem construction and cognition (M. D. Mumford, R. Reiter-Palmon, M. R. Redmond, 1994).
The model of creative problem solving
The model of creative problem solving (CPS) (Buffulo Group): The fundamental model of creative problem solving (CPS) (D. J. Treffinger, S. G. Isaksen, R. L. Firestien, 1982); The CPS that includes six stages: Data-Finding, Mess-Finding, Idea-Finding, Solution-Finding, Problem-Finding, Acceptance-Finding and accomplishes a reasonable balance between ‘diverging’ and ‘converging.’ (S. G.Isaksen, D. J.Treffinger, 1985); Ecological approach to CPS (S. G. Isaksen, G. J. Puccio, D. J.Treffinger, 1993); CPS framework that includes three distinct components: “Understanding the Problem, Generating Ideas and Planning for Action” and six stages (S. G. Isaksen, K. B. Dorval, D. J. Treffinger, 1994); Modified CPS to become “easier to learn and use”and adding a fifth convergent thinking rule (J.Vehar, R. Firestien, B. Miller, 1999); CPS comprises of three conceptual stages: Clarification, Transformation, Implementation, six explicit process steps with six repetitions of divergence and convergence within each, and one central executive step (G. J. Puccio, M.C. Murdock, M. Mance, 2007).
Modern approaches: Knowledge integration and problem-solving (S. Hélie, R. Sun,2002); Evaluation process in problem solving (Hiroaki Suzuki, Kazuo Hiraki, 2003; Hiroaki Suzuki, 2004); Sensitivity to problems, and setting and testing hypotheses, which is preceded by comprehensive perception of the core of the problem or the problematic situation (M. Zidan, 2006); Process of creative problem finding (W.P. Hu, Q. Han, 2006; L. M. Surhone, 2010); Problem solving by Productive Thinking Model (T. Hurson, 2007); Problem-solving styles and creativity (J.C. Houtz, E.C. Selby, 2009); A unified theory and a connectionist model of creative problem solving: Incubation and Insight (S. Hélie, R. Sun, 2010).
Creative problem solving in education (John Dewey,1910; J. H. Flavell, 1976; D. T. Tuma, F. Reif, 1980; O.K. Duell, 1986; L.B. Resnick, L.E. Klopfer; S. R. Yussen, 1985, S G. Isaksen, D. J. Treffinger, 1991; W.J. Stepien, S.A. Gallagher, D. Workman, 1993; G. D. Shack, 1993; W. J. Stepien, S. A Gallagher, D. Workman, 1993; B.L.Gramond, 2009); Problem-Based Learning (A.M. Matyushkin, 1968, I.Y. Lerner, 1974; M.I. Makhmutov, 1977; A. V. Brushlinskii, 1983, V.T. Kudryavtsev, 1991); Training in creative problem solving: problem-solving skills (M. S Basadur, G. B Graen, S. G. Green, 1982); Interaction of creative thinking skills, attitudes and behaviors (M.S. Basadur, M.A. Runco, L.A. Vega, 2000).
Universal essence and cross-cutting nature of problem solving (H. Gardner, 1985; M. W Matlin, 1989; M. Runco, G. Dow, 1999); Close relation and identity of the processes of thinking, problem solving and creativity (I. A.Taylor, 1959, 1963; E. Bono, 1970; E.Torrance, 1976, 1995; J. Guilford, 1977, 1979; D.W. MacKinnon, 1978; D. Perkins,1981; H. Simon, 1985; G. Kaufmann, 1988; J.F. Voss, 1989; M. T. Moore, M. C. Murdock, 1991; M. Runco, 1994, S. G. Isaksen, 1995); Problem solving and creative thinking (R. E. Mayer, 1983; R. W. Weisberg, 1988); Interaction of creative thinking skills, attitudes and behaviors (M.S. Basadur, M.A. Runco, L.A. Vega, 2000); Model of creative problem solving (TRoP) as the interaction of goal and created trial structures and options of it achieving (E. Necka, 1994, 2003).
4. Creativity as a Creative Dialogue.
5. Creativity as a Creative Self-actualisation.
To be continued
Sergey L. Markov (2016)
1. Markov, S.L. (1997) Mechanisms of Creative Dialogue With the World. Paper presented at the 105th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, August 17, 1997. Chicago, IL.
2. Markov, S.L. (2012) Kvintologichnyi pidhid do pobudovy edynoi teorii tvorchosti [Kvintological approach to the construction of a unified theory of creativity]. Pravnychyi visnyk universitetu “KROK”, 11, 160 -171.