Profiling Creative Problem Solving: Putting the Puzzle Together

By Gerard J. Puccio

Originally appeared in the International Creativity Network Newsletter, volume 3, number 2, 1993, pages 1, 6-7.

Editor's Note: This article, based on a paper written by Isaksen, Puccio, and Treffinger (in press) entitled "An ecological approach to creativity research: Profiling for creative problem solving (in press), is a follow-up to "Changing views of creative problem solving: Over forty years of continuous improvement" (ICN Newsletter, Volume 3, Number 1).

The purpose of this article is to briefly describe the current research Profiling Initiative at the Center for Studies in Creativity, Buffalo State College. The goal of this research initiative is to investigate Creative Problem Solving (CPS) fits and interacts with other baxic elements of creativity.

Imagine someone giving you a puzzle piece from a jigsaw puzzle that is made up of 1000 pieces. Now imagine that person has just asked you to describe the image of the completed puzzle. Obviously this task would be rather difficult. Examining this piece out of its context makes it virtually impossible to comprehend the overall image. In fact, it would even be difficult to provide a clear description of one of the adjoining pieces. You might be able to identify some characteristics of the adjoining piece (e. g. , color, size and dimensions), but many of your assertions would merely be speculations.

Much like the individual who attempts to draw conclusions about the entire puzzle from one piece, past creativity researchers attempted to describe creativity by looking at isolated pieces. Given the complex and dynamic nature of creativity, it was important to begin by identifying the fundamental pieces of the creativity puzzle. However, like the person holding only one piece of the puzzle, it was difficult for researchers to predict how their pieces interacted with others. Many early researchers, for example, focused on identifying the personality characteristics of highly creative individuals without considering how these personal ingredients interacted with aspects of their home or work environments.

Examining the First Piece: Process

Research and development at the Center for Studies in Creativity began by focusing on the creative process. Given the Center's roots in the work of Alex Osborn (1963) and Sidney Parnes (1967), it was natural for the first major research endeavor to examine the impact of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) and other creative processes. This rather extensive research program, called the Creative Studies Project, assessed student outcomes in regard to four-semesters of creativity course work. The results of this research clearly demonstrated that students enrolled in the creative studies program outperformed control subjects on a variety of measures of divergent and convergent production , as well as other academic and non-academic measures (see Parnes, 1987; Parnes & Noller, 1973a; Parnes & Noller, 1973b). One of the intriguing anomalies of this research project was that students who dropped-out of the program seemed to share some common characteristics. Parnes and Noller (1973b) described the drop-outs as "people who are interested mainly in quick idea-production rather than viewing this in the context of a disciplined process" (p. 20). Thus, researchers at the Center began to recognize an interaction between the creative process and characteristics of people. In essence, they noted that the process puzzle piece did not fit equally well for all people.

Adding a Second Piece: Person

Building on the results of the Creative Studies Project, Isaksen (1987) began a second major research initiative called the Cognitive Styles Project. The purpose of this research initiative was to understand how characteristics of the person, in particular differences regarding how people process information, interacted with use of the CPS process. Investigations within this project addressed such questions as: do individuals with different cognitive styles report different problem-solving strengths and weaknesses? (Zilewicz, 1986); are individuals who report certain cognitive styles more fluent and original than others? (Isaksen & Puccio, 1988; Puccio, 1987); can creativity style be distinguished from creativity level? (Teft, 1990); what are the relationships between cognitive style and mental imagery? (Isaksen, Dorval, & Kaufmann, 1991); and, how do individuals' natural creative processes relate to their style preferences? (Pershyn, 1992). This line of research has provided numerous practical insights that have helped to further develop CPS as described by Isaksen and Dorval (1993) in the previous newsletter. In addition, the Cognitive Styles Project pointed to pieces still missing from the creativity puzzle.

Putting the Whole Puzzle Together: An Ecological Approach

The Center's present research focus, the Profiling Initiative, is guided by an ecological approach to creativity research. An ecological approach to profiling CPS builds on the puzzle pieces laid out by former Center research programs, as well as numerous other findings in the field (e. g. , Ekvall & Tangeberg-Andersson, 1986; Kirton, 1976; MacKinnon, 1962). The intent of this research program is to paint a complete image of the various interactions that occur among elements of the fundamental dimensions of creativity: namely person, press (environment), process and product (Rhodes, 1962). Thanks to the efforts of past researchers who focused their energies on examining single pieces of the creativity puzzle, we are now able to look at how these pieces fit together and how they vary across a spectrum of contexts. An ecological approach to researching CPS has several advantages. In particular, it bridges theory and practice by enhancing the transfer of research use. Historical research trends at the Center closely parallel the developments in the CPS process described by Isaksen and Dorval (1993). Data from the Profiling Initiative should stimulate further development of CPS by helping us to better understand what aspects of CPS (i. e. , concepts, tools, stages or components) work best for a variety of individuals in a variety of situations.

The Profiling Initiative is primarily concerned with predicting, understanding, and facilitating CPS performance. The framework for these dimensions is operationalized through "personal orientation, situational outlook, CPS process and outcomes. To these four basic pieces a fifth has been added, "task" (see Figure). Experience in applying CPS has shown that the nature of the task that emerges from the interaction between the person and the situation can have a dramatic effect on the use of CPS.

In practical terms profiling is an attempt to understand CPS in real situations in which all of the puzzle pieces naturally come together. Within the personal orientation, situational outlook, task and outcome dimensions there are a host of contingencies which may interact with the application of CPS. Personal orientation, for instance, is concerned with the interaction between creativity style, motivation and personality traits and various elements of the CPS process. When considering situational outlook, researchers can examine such variables as psychological climate, cultural values and reward systems. The history, complexity or ambiguity of task may also influence the use of CPS. Finally, desired outcomes such as novelty, usefulness or satisfaction may interact with elements of the CPS process.

As we become more aware of interactions that occur ecologically among the puzzle pieces, further developments can be made to improve transfer of training and enhance the facilitation of CPS for practitioners who need to use CPS in a variety of circumstances.

References

Ekvall, G. , & Tangeberg-Andersson, Y. (1986). Working climate and creativity: A study of an innovative newspaper office. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 215-225.

Isaksen, S. G. (1987). A new dimension of creativity research: Examining style and level of creativity. Paper presented at the KAI 10th Anniversary International Conference, London, England.

Isaksen, S. G. , Puccio, G. J. , and Treffinger, D. T. (in press). An ecological approach to creativity research: Profiling for creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior

Isaksen, S. G. , & Dorval, K. B. (1993). Changing views of creative problem solving: Over 40 years of continuous improvements. International Creativity Network Newsletter: Buffalo NY:Center for Studies n Creativity 3, 1, pp. 1-5.

Isaksen, S. G. , Dorval, K. B. , & Kaufmann, G. (1991). Mode of symbolic representation and cognitive style. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 11, 271-277.

Isaksen, S. G. , & Puccio, G. J. (1988). Adaption-innovation and the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: The level style-issue revisited. Psychological Reports, 63, 659-670.

Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622-629.

Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied Imagination (3rd edition). New York: Scribners.

Parnes, S. J. (1987). The creative studies project. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed. ), Frontiers of Creativity Research: Beyond the Basics (pp. 156-188). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.

Parnes, S. J. , & Noller, R. B. (1973a). Toward supersanity: Channeled freedom. Buffalo, NY: DOK.

Parnes, S. J. , & Noller, R. B. (1973b). Applied creativity: The creative studies project: Part IV-Personality findings and conclusions. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 15-36.

Pershyn, G. S. (1992). An investigation into the graphic depictions of natural creative problem solving process. Unpublished master's thesis, State University College at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.

Puccio, G. J. (1987). The effect of cognitive style upon problem defining behavior. Unpublished master's thesis, State University College at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.

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

Tefft, M. E. (1990). A factor analysis of the TTCT, MBTI and KAI: The creative level-style issue re-examined. Unpublished master's thesis, State University College at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.

Zilewicz, E. (1986). Cognitive styles: Strengths and weaknesses. Unpublished master's thesis, State University College at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.