RESEARCH IN CREATIVE FUNCTIONING A TREND REPORT : M.K. RAINA
Creativity is essentially a human phenomenon. It is a process in man which helps him achieve dignity and meaning in life. Creativity is considered to be identical with the expansion of the universe and the main task of man on this planet. Man's effort, at its best, has re. vealed itself in his creative work and in his search for a type of cosmology which defined his destiny. 'Whether it is considered from the viewpoint of its effects on society, or as one of the expressions of the human spirit, creativity stands out as an activity to be studied, cherished and cultivated (Arieti, 1976). In one form or another, there is a world-wide trend which shows great concern about creativity. Advanced countries are definitely interested in the study and development of creativity, as are Third World countries, whose survival depends upon the creative vision and creative striving of the masses (Raina, 1980).
Beyond local interests, whether individual or national, is the increasing recognition, in all parts of the globe, that our capacity for creative thought and action may literally make all the difference in the world.... Human Creativity may prove to be the key to success or failure in mankind's quest for knowledge, in his journey beyond the bounds of the certain and the seen, in his exploration of the unknown (Barron, 1968). In a foreword to a book, J.P. Guilford (in Raina, 1980) maintains:
This volume provides substantial evidence that there is indeed a 'creativity movement' and that it now has nearly worldwide proportions. It is a hopeful situation, for a world population of creative problem- solvers should be more productive and happy as well as more self-confident and more tolerant and, therefore, more peaceful. It can more readily solve its increasingly complex problems.
Enhancing creativity is the most certain way of uniting mankind. Unesco (1974) is positive in its stand that, while both knowledge and creativity are useful in itself, they are also indirect contributors to international understanding and peace.
It is universally acknowledged that Indian philosophers, over the centuries, have given deep and abiding thought to the theoretical and philosophical aspects of the process of creativity. Expressed in their writings is the view that, from moment to moment, man is creative in his ability to innovate new forms (navanavomeshshalini pragya). These philosophers seemed, in point of fact, well aware of the spiritual basis that gives access to the ancient Indian system of achieving concentration and relaxation that, in turn, may bring a flash of insight-a system discovered by the west only in recent years. What the Indian system espouses is not a scientific, mechanical, providential or dialectical approach, but a liberating concept which stresses the inwardness of human beings, and spirit within man. However, Indian concept of creativeness is not based on any magical mysticism but on the needs of man and the realities of our nature. It is the spirit in man, asserts Radhakrishanan (1975), which is responsible for all mankind's achievements. When the fountains of the spirit, from which the creative life of the individual and
I am thankful to Miss Rajashree Seetapalli for her help in analyzing and reviewing the abstracts
468 M.K.RAINA
society springs dry up, infirmities of every description, intellectual, moral and social, break out (Radhakrishnan, 1939).
This philosophical interpretation of the processes of creativity and current awareness about its importance should motivate some research. Currently, there is a strong awareness that scientific, technological and other types of creativity are as essential as the twin strains of musical and artistic creativity. Discussing the basis of a cultural policy for India, Dube (1975) stressed that 'A vital culture is a creative culture. One of the major objectives of the new cultural policy would be to promote creativity in the fields of literature, music and visual and graphic arts as well as science and technology'. Creativity is regarded as a crucial factor in promoting socio-cultural change and renewal.
CREATIVITY RESEARCH:INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE The spirit of the present, the emergence of new responsibilities, new social and cultural necessities, deep and tumultuous changes in social mores and objectives, have made creativity a rapidly expanding area of scientific interest. The current widespread ferment and concern with creativity is due to forces which have operated outside of psychology (Barron, 1975). Renewal in man and society will ultimately depend upon our understanding of the process of innovation and creativity and its application in different areas of human endeavour. The need for support for creativity research is obvious, since better understanding of the creative process will provide means for an early identification of individuals who are most likely to be creative in science and tech- nology, as well as an insight into how one can best educate, train, stimulate and manage potentially creative persons as individuals or as members of groups (Golovin, 1963). Yet one more, humanitarian, reason has been advanced, that creativity will eventually serve as a focal point for all disciplines concerned with the improvement of man's health, happiness and social situations.
Scientific study of creativity is quite a recent phenomenon. Psychologists, as Guilford (1967) maintains, were more concerned with the simpler processes, and apparently lacked the courage to tackle the complex problems of studying creativity. Creativity research has in fact reopened some of the doors that were closed to psychology when it consciously separated itself from philosophy. Indeed, the immaturity of scientific psychology is reflected in its slowness to study the creativity phenomenon, despite the fact that man has been creative from the dawn of his awareness of himself (Arasteh and Arasteh, 1976).
Guilford, the first dean of creativity research, has been responsible for bringing about a paradigmatic shift in the study of human abilities. An outburst of work on creativity followed after his 1950 Presidential Address on the Structure of Intellect (SI) Model. Guilford has called attention to the fact that there had been less than 200 psychological studies of creativity in the preceding quarter of this century. Within a decade, almost that number were appearing in a single year. Indeed, it has been estimated that the number of studies for 18 months of 1965 and 1966 was equal to that of the pre- ceding five years, which in turn equalled that of the preceding ten years, which in its turn equalled that of the preceding 100 years (Parnes and Brunelle, 1967).
A great variety of studies have been designed and carried out in the area of creativity prediction and also in education and training. It has now emerged as a field of study with a vengeance. One of the basic factors responsible for this establishment of creativity as a bona fide term in the literature of educational, psychological and sociological research has been broadly indicated by Freeman, Butcher and Christie (1971) as the 'growing international scope of creativity'. Earlier, Torrance (1971) had also attempted to provide evidence of the universality of creativity studies which he described as a `reassuring as to the generalizations that seem to be emerging from research and development in the United States'.
The most impressive feature characterizing the area of creativity research is a confluence of interests and its diversity. Some investigators examine the personality make-up of individuals who are high in tested creativity, others delve into paintings and mathematical discoveries, aiming to pinpoint the ingredients which set a few of these objects apart as outstandingly creative. There are investigators who specialize in test construction or interview eminent men about childhood experiences. 'Some concentrate on creativity and intelligence, while others study the effectiveness of brainstorming on creative behaviour or propose other methods of training to elevate the level of creativity'.
This unmistakably points to the diversity of approaches and techniques adopted to study creativity and the increasing number of persons concerned with it. People are undoubtedly becoming aware of the impor-
RESEARCH IN CREATIVE FUNCTIONING-A TREND REPORT 469
tance of creativity in many aspects of national life and are investigating the subject from their varied points of view.
There has been an enormous increase in creativity research and it is difficult to catalogue the whole literature. Currently, also, as Treffinger (1986) indicated, through more than 30 years of research and development, creativity has continued to be a topic of consider- able interest and concern to educators as well as to social and behavioural scientists.
Gowan (1972) organized the available literature into five sections for analysis in terms of rational-psychedelic continuum:
(a) Cognitive, rational and semantic; problem-solving views of the Buffalo school; the Guilford structure of intellect, and others.
(b) Personality and environmental; child rearing practices, personality correlates, especially originality, energy and high self-concept.
(c) Mental health; Rogerian, Maslovian self actu- alization, openness, etc.
(d) Psychedelic; existential, non-rational, cosmic consciousness, and psychedelic.
This classification provides a useful framework for un- dersta---ling creativity. Most of the research on creativity, nearly 60 per cent as estimated by Freeman, Butcher and Christie in 1972, comes from the US. Some noteworthy attempts have been made elsewhere also as has been amply shown in a volume edited by Raina (1980).
Research in the United States has been of various dimensions, of varying qualities, with varying orientations and varying results. Studies have been made by tough-minded and tender-minded psychologists, as well as those in between, 'each with his own tested concepts, intuitive assumptions, and sometimes, blind spots, guiding the manner in which he views creativity'. Each enters the continuum at a particular point, according to interest, need, obvious lacunae, compulsion, or for some other reason. Even though there has been proliferation of literature, critics observe that psychologists have only scratched the surface of a complicated and miasmic phenomenon and that no major breakthrough has occurred.
Maslow (1972) was critical when he observed that thinking and research in the field of creativeness tend to be too atomistic and too ad hoc and that it is not as holistic, organismic, or systematic as it could be and should be. Critics maintain that much of creativity research deals with pseudo-creativity and the element of genuine creativity has been absent. They point to the paucity of systematic ecological observations, lack of central focus among the investigators, inadequacy of the current methodologies used, limitations of the investigators, lack of integration in findings and othe-technical defects. We are just at the stage of indicating what in psychiatry is called manifest symptomatology and have not been, perhaps, able to penetrate the essence of creativity. Investigators in some cases have come up with rudimentary and tentative notions. This has all been summarized by Roweton (1973) after making an elaborate survey of the field. The present state of the art is a mixture of some models, limited applications, operational and non- operational definitions, random speculations, and hypothesis testing. Progress to date is promising, but manifestly incomplete.
It is widely accepted that the field is in a dynamic state, full of complexities and challenges, and a clear crystallization is somewhat of an impossibility. This complexity and the present uncertainty of concepts and conflicts of results should occasion more rigorous and varied investigations rather than foreclosing of inquiry through singleminded espousal of one's own view (Getzels, 1975). The more that is said and written about creativity, the more attention will have to be paid to it. Khatena's (1975) observation is useful: 'We are going to make mistakes in identifying it and in interpreting it, but our whole human existence is based on mistakes and their correction. The fact that so many people have so many ideas about creativity means we have a richer field to plough, and this is the cause for rejoicing'. In any field of activity, particularly with such areas as creativity where problems are immense and obstacles enormous, various issues and perspectives can be described as there are always segments of reality, to use the language of a linguistically oriented psychologist (Church, 1961) about which we are ignorant, possible because of lack of interest or lack of opportunity.
In most of the countries outside the United States, the proliferation of research in this field has been less luxuriant. In these countries, the research is in its early stages, but the surface has unquestionably been scratched. Different countries can think of issues and needs in creativity research, keeping in view their own demands and priorities, as there is a multiplicity of problems needing research everywhere. Various needs and priorities have been listed (Raina, 1975, 1976) but one has to be careful in adopting research areas. Research in developing countries should help in the mobi-
470 M.K.RAINA
lization of talents, provide direction for means and ways people can cultivate, liberate and express their slumbering creativity. And, by the same token, developing countries have to be more vigorous in ensuring that creative positives and strengths in large masses are identified and nurtured. Research along these lines cannot be a luxury which can be avoided or postponed for future attention. Possibly, with new ways of studying creativity in such countries, creativity will soon be known rather than unknown. Creativity can be studied in many ways, all rewarding in various degrees. New di- mensions are constantly being discovered and added to the ones already known (Arieti, 1976). Researchers in different countries can look at creativity from different vantage points and pursue some tangible leads at this relatively early period of scientific research in this field in their countries.
CREATIVITY RESEARCH IN INDIA In spite of the fact that a great deal of philosophical and theoretical attention is being paid to art and creativity, as Mitra (1975) points out, research in the subject has been receiving serious attention only very recently. Research is relatively new, and much remains to be accomplished. What seems to be lacking in much of the work, with some notable exceptions, is preciseness, clarity and maturity of judgement (Raina, 1975). Further, a lot of it appears to be done by individuals, working on their own, and, of necessity, carrying on work of small proportions. A number of reasons have been advanced for this situation, but none appears conclusive. However, this trend report, based primarily on doctoral theses and projects, should provide further evidence about the present state of the art.
The principal objective of this analysis is to trace the nature and volume of research in creativity in doctoral studies and research projects completed in university departments of education and other related departments in Indian universities, as also research projects conducted by other teaching and research institutes. Research projects financed by various agencies like the ICSSR, UGC and NCERT are also included. The report covers works reported during the period 1968-87.
Earlier surveys (Buch, 1974; 1979; 1986) did not carry any trend report on creativity. However, there are some trend reports which make mention of studies in this area. The ICSSR Survey of Research in Psychology (1980) has three chapters in which very small sections on creativity are included. Studies from this publication have also been considered while developing the present trend report.
The first research study in the area of creativity submitted for a formal degree of the University of Calcutta was done by Manas Raychaudhuri (1963). This clinically-oriented investigation attempted to lay bare the differential psychologic, social-environmental and developmental variables that characterize creative talent in music. It is, therefore, not correct to say as Menon and Ojha (1987) have done in the Third Survey of Research in Education (1978-83), that the first evidences of research in creativity have been mainly in the form of test construction (p. 308). Since Raychaudhuri's work, the volume of research in the area of creativity has shown a gradual upward trend. Gupta (1974) surveyed the field in India and found 76 studies at various stages some finished and a part of the literature, some in progress, with the ongoing work reported in research journals. His analysis showed that the majority of research had been done in the area of personality as related to creativity, while other important areas remained to be investigated. A subsequent survey (Raina, 1975) reveals that, one year later, a total of 133 studies in this area were done by Indian researchers and by foreign authors using Indian subjects for their study. A recent analysis (Bhaskara, 1987) of the 24 studies abstracted in the two previous Surveys of Research in Education indicated that the 24 studies could be classified as, (i) test construction and related researches-9, (ii) correlational studies and related researches- 13, (iii) intervention studies of fostering creativity-2. He used this analysis to build the argument for establishing that:
The last decade has seen a sharp increase in the volume of research on creativity and creative thinking with a major emphasis on-constructing the tests of creativity and correlational studies of creativity with self concept, personality, etc. Unfortunately there has been little research on the general problem of nurturing and promoting creative thinking, especially in the classroom setting.
However, it seems that researchers have not been prolific and much has not yet been accomplished in terms of quality and quantity when compared to international contributions.
Table 8.3 shows the year, nature and Financing agency of studies in the area of creativity.
The number of Ph.D. studies rose from five in the years 1965-72 to 67 in 1975-82. This is indicative of
RESEARCH IN CREATIVE FUNCTIONING-A TREND REPORT 471
Table 8.1
YEAR, NATURE AND FINANCING AGENCIES OF STUDIES ON CREATIVITY
Nature and Financing Agency (FA)
Year Ph.D. Theses FA Research FA Total
Reports
1968-72 5 - 1 UGC 6
1973-77 25 - 2 ICSSR 27
1978-82 67 - 6 ICSSR 1
IT College 1
Jnan
Prabodhini 1
CIIL 2
SCERT 173
1983-87 39 1 NCERT 40
Total 136 10 146