Four P's in the Pod: Some Comments Regarding the Status and Structure of the Creativity Domain and Field

By Scott G. Isaksen

Originally appeared in the International Creativity Network Newsletter, volume 5, number 1, 1995, pages 3-5.

From time to time, I am asked to explain my work within the emerging discipline of creativity. Usually, I choose to approach this task by either focusing on the domain (what I do and study) or the field (the people with whom I work or interact). The domain is the broad topical area including our literature, the main subject of creativity and its related subtopics. The field of creativity includes the people who work within the domain. This includes creativity organizations, professionals, practitioners and researchers. Although I often describe the domain as a coherent, understandable whole, it can also be described as fragmented and confusing. Similarly, I often try to describe the field as though it were collegial and collaborative. Unfortunately, the field can also be perceived as divided and competitive. The purpose of this commentary is to point out the existence and rationale for the divided "camps" and to lay out a challenge for improving the state of the emerging discipline.

In explaining the domain, I have often used a broad conceptual framework to organize the domain including person, process, product and press (Rhodes, 1961). Metaphorically, the domain of creativity can be viewed as a pod including at least these four P's. "Person" focuses on characteristics of individuals and people in general in an effort to better understand the source of creativity. Some are more interested in examining and nurturing the creative process and usually attempt to identify or educate others about stages and techniques. The creative product part of the general domain includes consideration and analysis of the outcomes produced by creative people and processes. The "press" for creativity includes understanding the factors within the individual (both strengths and barriers) and those outside the person like climate and culture.

When I explain the "four P's" framework I usually show them in a Venn diagram originally developed in 1984. My intention was to illustrate the conceptual inter relatedness among the four main areas of creativity inquiry. I have also used a graphic of Escher's Knots, and other metaphors and images, to illustrate the necessary interaction and interpretation of these four major themes. Many other scholars and colleagues have also pointed out the existence of these four main areas.

I believe creativity is best understood and nurtured when we know something about: the people involved; the nature of the outcomes and products they create; the process or the way the mental, physical, emotional and spiritual operations are proceeding; and the state, climate and culture within which they are creating. In other words, all four P's belong in the pod. We have attempted to reflect this ecological or interactionist approach in our program of research (Isaksen, Puccio, & Treffinger, 1993; Isaksen & Puccio, 1994) and our recent developments within the practical framework of Creative Problem Solving (Isaksen & Dorval, 1994; Isaksen, Dorval, Noller & Firestien, 1993; Isaksen, Dorval & Treffinger, 1994).

Despite the attempts and the need to take this interactive and interdisciplinary perspective to better understand and develop the creativity domain, the field appears to be organized into various "camps. " One way to explain the existence of these camps is that various collections of people often share a common focus within only one of the four broad areas (person, process, product or press). There may be very good reasons to explain why one of the four facets are more important to particular groups facing specific situations or challenges. for example, my friends and colleagues in Eastern Europe have explained the importance and centrality of climate and culture in the work within the domain.

The way we organize and structure our knowledge offers yet another reason for the limited opportunities to view or study the whole creativity framework. For example, it seems reasonable that those within psychology, or other disciplines within the natural sciences would have an affinity for understanding creativity within people. Those within the fields of education have a tendency to concern themselves with the central challenges of teaching and learning creativity-related skills and techniques. Others from the areas of invention, arts, literature, science and technology (as well as from the disciplines of economics and communication) would naturally have a concern with products and outcomes. Sociology, anthropology and archeology, share a common interest in understanding how situational or "press" aspects affect people, processes and products.

There are also a number of good reasons why the people within and among the various camps might not get along. Although I believe that the creativity domain is making progress (Isaksen, 1993; Isaksen, Murdock, Firestien & Treffinger, 1994 a & b), the quality and quantity of these relationships is a critical factor for future success.

Differences in background and motivation are often perceived as competitive or pejorative. Interpersonal conflicts or individual competition may threaten the effectiveness of any particular group within the field. There may be competition across groups within the field based on a lack of resources. Particular camps may argue the centrality of their discipline or unique strength of their tools and methods for understanding creativity. Some argue that the source for creativity is the person. This is often perceived as the only variable that counts. Therefore, the only important thing or approach is to focus on interpersonal inspiration or growth. Given conceptual or geographical distance, different camps might not even know that others share a common interest. Even worse, they may wish to present themselves as the only ones who are really and seriously involved with the topic. I know of a few who have made rather sweeping and negative generalizations about "other creativity experts. " It seems easier to discount and dismiss those with different perspectives or opinions rather than listen, understand evaluate and integrate these inputs into a more coherent or comprehensive framework.

Another intriguing dynamic has to do with an imbalance in particular style preferences within the current structure of the domain. Because the creativity field largely requires its members to cross the boundaries of traditional disciplines, it has historically attracted (and retained) a disproportionate number of those whom Kirton (1994) would describe as innovators.

There are a number of implications as a result of the domination of the field by those who prefer this particular style of creativity, decision-making and problem solving. Since innovators prefer less structure, they prefer to avoid building common frameworks or to establish careful definition of language. This orientation may have also influenced the general lack of replication or extension studies and the general chaotic character of our field. The more adaptive tasks of cataloguing, keeping careful and thorough records, working to improve the structure or comprehensively gathering and storing information appear to be uninteresting, unnecessary and unimportant for those who hold a stronger innovative preference.

Another style implication of the imbalance of innovative preference within the field is that innovators are more likely to leave a paradigm before its usefulness has been fully maximized. Their preference is to continuously explore new areas and seek out fresh frontiers. This has been absolutely essential to the founding of our field. It has also fostered a great deal of chaos because of the rarity of sticking with something as complex as creativity long enough to yield any shared value. Thus, the style dynamic, at least partially accounts for the general lack of collaborative, coherent and comprehensive programs of research and development.

If the domain and field are to productively move forward, we need to reform the general elitist view that the only important or valued kind of creativity is of the innovative kind. An improved systems view (see Zohar and Marshall, 1994) will form a learning domain (Senge, et al, 1994) which not only recognizes a diverse field but productively utilizes these different perspectives. The creativity domain and field require a transdisciplinary approach which is broad and inclusive yet instructive and insightful. Rather than pursuing each "P" as though it existed by itself, we would be better served by considering all four as important and belonging to the same domain. Future generative creativity research and development should embrace the full spectrum of talents and styles aimed less at independent positioning that results in reinvention and move toward collaborative, interactive, and comprehensive programs of research and development. As an emerging discipline, the field of creativity has room for the arts as well as the sciences, education, economics, anthropology and other areas and needs both adaptors and innovators among its ranks of reflective practitioners.

References

Isaksen, S. G. (1993). Letter from America: Visions for future work in the field of creativity and innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2, 42-44.

Isaksen, S. G. & Dorval, K. B. (1994). Expanding views of CPS: A synergy methodology. In H. Geschka, S. Moger, & T. Rickards (Eds. ), Creativity and innovation- The power of synergy: Proceedings of the fourth European Conference on creativity and innovation (pp. 129-139). Darmstadt, Germany: Geschka & Partner Unternehmensbertung.

Isaksen, S. G. , Dorval, K. B. , Noller, R. B. , & Firestien, R. L. (1993). The dynamic nature of Creative Problem Solving. In S. S. Gryskiewicz (Ed. ), Discovering creativity: Proceedings of the 1992 international creativity & innovation networking conference (pp. 155-162). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Isaksen, S. G. , Dorval, K. B. , & Treffinger, D. J. (1994). Creative approaches to problem solving. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

Isaksen, S. G. , Murdock, M. C. , Firestien, R. F. , & Treffinger, D. J. (Eds. ), (1993a). Nurturing and developing creativity: The emergence of a discipline. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Isaksen, S. G. , Murdock, M. C. , Firestien, R. F. , & Treffinger, D. J. (Eds. ), (1993b). Understanding and recognizing creativity: The emergence of a discipline. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Isaksen, S. G. , Puccio, G. J. & Treffinger D. J. (1993). An ecological approach to creativity research: Profiling creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27(3), 149-170.

Isaksen, S. G. & Puccio, G. J. (1994). Research development & dissemination at the Center for Studies in Creativity. Buffalo, NY: Center for Studies in Creativity.

Kirton, M. J. (1994). (Ed. ), Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem solving. London: Routledge.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310.

Zohar, D. & Marshall, I. (1994). The quantum society. Mind, physics and a new social vision. New York, NY; William Morrow and Company, Inc.

Senge, P. , Ross, R. , Smith, B. , Roberts, C. , & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Doubleday.