Editors: Janina Uszynska-Jarmoc and Maciej Karwowski Theories – Research – Applications www.creativity.uwb.edu.pl Volume 1, Issue 2, 2014 ISSN: 2354-0036 184 Vol. 1, Issue 2, 2014 Theories – Research – Applications Editorial Team: Editor: Janina Uszynska-Jarmoc (University of Bialystok, Poland) Editor: Maciej Karwowski (Academy of Special Education, Poland) Statistical editor: Jacek Gralewski (Academy of Special Education, Poland) English language editor: Barbara Politynska-Lewko (Medical University of Bialystok, Poland) Technical editors: Piotr Remza and Karol Kowalczuk (University of Bialystok, Poland) Editorial assistant: Beata Kunat (University of Bialystok, Poland) Advisory Board: Ronald A. Beghetto (University of Connecticut, USA) Mathias Benedek (University of Graz, Austria) Katarzyna Citko (University of Bialystok, Poland) Michal Chruszczewski (University of Warsaw, Poland) Agata Cudowska (University of Bialystok, Poland) Marta Galewska-Kustra (Academy of Special Education, Poland) Vlad Petre Glăveanu (Aalborg University, Denmark) Malgorzata Goclowska (University of Amsterdam, Netherlands) Magdalena Grohman (University of Texas at Dallas, USA) Anna Hui (City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong) James C. Kaufman (University of Connecticut, USA) Dorota Kubicka (Jagiellonian University, Poland) Izabela Lebuda (Academy of Special Education, Poland) Wieslawa Limont (Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland) Todd Lubart (University of Paris Descartes, France) Monika Modrzejewska-Swigulska (University of Lodz, Poland) Aleksander Nalaskowski (Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland) Katarzyna Olbrycht (University of Silesia, Poland) Roland S. Persson (Jonkoping University, Sweden) Jean Pretz (Elizabethown College, USA) Elzbieta Rudowicz (Pomerianin Medical University, Poland) Mark A. Runco (Torrance Creativity Center, University of Georgia, Athens) Ugur Sak (Anadolu University, Turkey) Andrzej Sekowski (Catholic University of Lublin, Poland) Paul Silvia (University of North Carolina, USA) Krzysztof Szmidt (University of Lodz, Poland) Urszula Szuscik (University of Silesia, Poland) Lene Tanggaard (Aalborg University, Denmark) Aleksandra Tokarz (Jagiellonian University, Poland) Dorota Turska (Maria Curie-Sklodowska University, Poland) Dmitry Ushakov (Russian Academy of Science, Russia) Brady Wagoner (Aalborg University, Denmark) Monika Wroblewska (University of Bialystok, Poland) Artwork on the cover: Izabela Lebuda ©Copyright by Faculty of Pedagogy and Psychology, University of Bialystok This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - ShareAlike 4.0 Unported License. Publisher: Faculty of Pedagogy and Psychology University of Bialystok 20 Swierkowa St., 15-328 Bialystok, Poland tel. +48857457283 e-mail: [email protected] http://www.creativity.uwb.edu.pl ISSN: 2354-0036 185 Vol. 1, Issue 2, 2014 Theories – Research – Applications CONTENTS Maciej Karwowski The Creativity Crisis (is not) as Plain as the Nose on Your Face: A Few Introductory Comments .....186 Dean Keith Simonton A 45-Year Perspective on Creativity Research: Comments on Glăveanu’s Critique ..........................190 Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Izabela Lebuda Is the Psychology of Creativity in Terminal Crisis? Comments on Glăveanu’s Article “ The Psychology of Creativity: A Critical Reading” .............................................................................195 John Baer The Crisis in Creativity Research Stems From Too Little Fragmentation, Not Too Much ...................200 Ronald A. Beghetto Is The Sky Falling or Expanding? A Promising Turning Point in the Psychology of Creativity .............206 Mathias Benedek, Emanuel Jauk Creativity - Lost in Simplification? .........................................................................................................213 James C. Kaufman Joining the Conversation: A Commentary on Glăveanu’s Critical Reading .........................................220 David H. Cropley Commentary on The Psychology of Creativity: A Critical Reading by Vlad P. Glăveanu ....................223 Jonathan A. Plucker A Critical Response to “ The Psychology of Creativity: A Critical Reading” ........................................228 Paul J. Silvia Why Big Theories are Fruitless, Fragmentation is Ideal, Defining Creativity is Overrated and Method- Driven Research is Urgent: Some Thoughts on the Flourishing State of Creativity Science ..............233 Michael H. Chruszczewski Boredom, Messianism, and Primordial Broth .......................................................................................240 Alfonso Montuori Transdisciplinary Reflections on Glăveanu’s “ Crisis” of the Psychology of Creativity .........................246 Roni Reiter-Palmon Can we Really Have an Integrative Theory of Creativity? The Case of Creative Cognition ................256 Eric Shiu A Commentary on a Manuscript Entitled The Psychology of Creativity: A Critical Reading .................261 Vlad Petre Glăveanu Theory and Context / Theory in Context: Towards an Expanded View of the Creativity Field ............268 The Authors .......................................................................................................................................281 Reviewers — CTRA 2014, Vol. 1, Issue 1&2 .........................................................................283 Notes for Contributors ....................................................................................................................284 186 Vol. 1, Issue 2, 2014 Theories – Research – Applications The Creativity Crisis (is not) as Plain as the Nose on Your Face: A Few Introductory Comments Maciej Karwowski Academy of Special Education, Poland E-mail address: [email protected] ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Is there a crisis in creativity science? According to the fea- ture article (Glăveanu, 2014 – in the first issue of this jour- Middle-range theories nal), there can be no doubt that there is. However, as the Creative crisis current issue shows, there is no agreement among creativity scholars that this is the case. This editorial does not aim at providing an additional critique of Glăveanu’s perspective. Instead, I rather re-iterate some previously raised arguments ISSN: 2354-0036 (Karwowski, 2012), and call for middle-range theorizing DOI: 10.15290/ctra.2014.01.02.01 in creativity science. Having provocative, yet thorough papers for the inaugural issue of a new journal is the dream of every editor and a gift when it happens. Hence, as we highlighted in our first ed- itorial (Karwowski & Uszynska-Jarmoc, 2014), we were more than happy, to open the first issue of CTRA (“ Creativity: Theories – Research – Applications” ) with an article written by Vlad Petre Glăveanu of Aalborg University, and we are grateful for his engagement in this exchange. In his article, Glăveanu challenged the way that mainstream creativity sci- ence is functioning, seeing the psychology of creativity as a discipline in crisis. However, as the commentaries included in the current issue show, this claim is far from being obvi- ous and widely accepted. Leading creativity scholars have devoted their time and energy to constructively criticize Glăveanu’s position and have provided several fresh insights about their perceptions of the current state of the art of creativity science. As the editor I wish to thank all commentators, who responded to our call and submitted articles. It is delightful to say, that we have received almost thirty papers, focusing on different questions raised by the lead article. Following completion of the editorial process, we have decided to devote two issues of the journal (this and the next) to the presenta- tion of these papers: a decision based on the content of the commentaries. This issue as a whole deals with quite a general question, whether “ there is really a crisis in creativity science?” , and contains commentaries written by Dean Keith Simon- ton, Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi and Izabela Lebuda, John Baer, Ronald Beghetto, Mathias 187 The Creativity Crisis (is not) as Plain as the Nose on Your Face: ... / CREATIVITY 1(2) 2014 Benedek and Emanuel Jauk, James Kaufman, David Cropley, Jonathan Plucker, Paul Silvia, Michal Chruszczewski, Alfonso Montuori, Roni Reiter-Palmon, Eric Shiu, as well as Vlad Glăveanu’s response. Having such great scholars on board guarantees a high- quality discussion: full of knowledge, but also not void of controversies. The main contro- versy surely lies in the perception and evaluation of the current reality of creativity sci- ence – the very general question of whether there is a crisis at all? Most of the commentators perceive today’s psychology of creativity as a flourishing field. Several commentators also disagree with the claim that more general theories in creativity science are either useful or required at all. Some time ago, commenting on another thought-provoking article of Glăveanu (2012), I argued that in the social sci- ences (creativity science included) middle-range theories (Merton, 1968) work best, build- ing bridges between theoretical ideas and research results, and allowing the development of empirically testable theories, instead of often unfalsifiable grand theories (Karwowski, 2012). Wide, grand theories (Baer, 2011) are sometimes useful as paradigm-builders, but simultaneously are rarely testable and – as a result – too often end by being more a kind of ideology in science than the science itself. Rarely, for sure too rarely, grand theories are effectively translated