Lecture Notes
A Dynamic Definition of Creativity
Based on: Chetan Walia (2019), Creativity Research Journal, DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2019.1641787
1. Learning Objectives
By the end of this lecture, students should be able to:
• Explain why merging “creativity” and “creation” in prior research is definitionally problematic.
• Summarise the “standard definition” of creativity (novelty + usefulness) and its main critiques.
• List and explain the four elements underlying Walia’s dynamic definition of creativity.
• State Walia’s dynamic definition of creativity and distinguish it from “creation.”
• Relate the dynamic definition to Rhodes’ 4Ps/6Ps model and to Runco & Kim’s creative potential vs. creative
performance framework.
2. Background: The Problem With Existing Definitions
Most 20th-century theories treat creativity through a wide range of lenses — motivation, blind variation, divergent
thinking, problem discovery, and novel-and-useful production, among others. Over time, a rough consensus formed
around the “standard definition”:
Creativity = the production of ideas or outcomes that are both novel (original) and useful
(appropriate to a goal).
Walia’s central critique: this standard definition actually describes the outcome of creativity (a creation), not the
creative act itself. Because a creation can only be judged after it is finished, defining creativity this way makes it
impossible to study creativity while it is still happening.
Illustrative case discussed in the article
• A chef invents a new recipe. If diners find the dish unoriginal or unpalatable, it never appears on the menu —
so, under the standard definition, the chef was “not creative,” even though an act of creativity clearly took
place.
• Newton’s and Hamilton’s ideas had incubation periods of 15–17 years — creativity was ongoing long before
any “creation” could be judged.
Csikszentmihalyi’s systems perspective
Creativity is modelled as an interaction between three components:
• The individual (generates variation)
• The field (acts as a gatekeeper / mechanism of selection — e.g., critics, experts, institutions)
• The domain (the body of knowledge that determines whether a creation is carried forward)
A creative act can therefore be disregarded by the field or domain — which is further evidence that creativity and
creation must be treated as separate constructs.
3. Three Distinct Dynamics
Term Definition
Creativity The originator of an idea or variation — an ongoing act.
Creation The end result of creativity — tangible, observable, and original.
Creator The person who interacts with the field and domain to perpetuate the creation.
4. The Four Elements of Creativity (built on Kampylis & Valtanen,
2010)
Kampylis and Valtanen analysed 42 published definitions of creativity and found four recurring components. Walia
builds four “elements” of creativity directly from these:
Element 1 — Creativity is an act
Creativity is a human act that gives rise to something new. The resulting creation may be a physical object, or a
purely mental or emotional construct.
Element 2 — Creativity is production, not reproduction
Drawing on Vygotsky (2004), Walia distinguishes:
• Reproductive activity — based on memory and past experience; repeats what already exists.
• Productive (creative) activity — combines past experience with imagination to project new images onto the
future.
Both are necessary: knowledge provides the foundation, but imagination is what produces creativity.
Element 3 — Creativity acknowledges a disequilibrium
If a person’s life is in complete equilibrium with their environment — no challenges, no friction — there is no need
to be creative. Creativity is triggered by perceiving a disequilibrium (a gap, problem, or tension) and is often a
reaction against conformity.
Element 4 — Creativity requires sensitivity in perceiving a problem
Creativity begins with perceiving a unique problem, not with imagining solutions to it (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988).
Individuals who are more sensitive to their environment — i.e., slower to habituate to stimuli — show a stronger
“orienting response” that helps them notice problems worth solving.
5. Diagram: The Dynamic Creativity Process
The figure below is reproduced directly from the article (Walia, 2019, Figure 2). It shows how an individual’s
cognition interacts with the social environment, perceives disequilibrium, and triggers productive activity — which
may or may not go on to become a creation.
Figure 2. The dynamic definition of creativity. (Source: Walia, C. (2019). A Dynamic Definition of Creativity. Creativity
Research Journal.)
6. Walia’s Dynamic Definition
Creativity is an act arising out of a perception of the environment that acknowledges a certain
disequilibrium, resulting in productive activity that challenges patterned thought processes and norms,
and gives rise to something new in the form of a physical object or even a mental or emotional
construct.
Key teaching point: notice that this definition contains no reference to “novel and useful” judgment — those criteria
belong to creation, not to creativity itself.
Definition of Creation (for contrast)
Creation is treated as the fourth Kampylis & Valtanen component. A creation is:
• Tangible
• Observable
• Original
• A medium of change
• Regarded as creative by experts, the field, or society
Crucially: creativity can exist without ever being acknowledged or accepted as a creation by the field or domain.
Persistent creativity, intrinsic motivation, positive affect, and perseverance may — or may not — eventually lead to
creation.
7. Application: Linking to the 4Ps / 6Ps Model
Runco and Kim (2018) expanded Rhodes’ (1961) classic “4Ps” of creativity (Person, Process, Press, Product) into
six Ps, and separated the study of creativity into two tiers:
Creative Potential Creative Performance
Person (traits, characteristics) Product (patents, art, designs, ideas)
Process (cognition) Persuasion (historical impact, individual–field–domain judgment)
Press (culture, zeitgeist, immediate Interactions (between traits and environment)
influences)
Teaching point: creative potential does not guarantee creative performance — which mirrors Walia’s core claim that
creativity (the act/potential) and creation (the result/performance) must be studied as related but separate constructs.
8. Conclusion — Why This Distinction Matters
• Studying creativity only through its end products (creations) produces an overly restrictive picture and can
unfairly discount creative effort that never became a recognised “success.”
• Creative acts can require years or decades of engagement before (if ever) they lead to a creation; judging
creativity only at the end ignores this entire process.
• The dynamic definition keeps the standard definition’s criteria (novelty, usefulness) — but reassigns them
correctly to creation, not creativity.
• Future research should examine the creator’s journey between elements, not just the final creative output.
9. Discussion Questions for Class
• Can you think of an example (personal, historical, or organisational) of high creativity that never became a
recognised “creation”? What blocked it — the field, the domain, or something else?
• How does Weisberg’s critique (that “value” shouldn’t be part of creativity’s definition) support Walia’s
argument?
• Using Element 3 (disequilibrium), what conditions in an organisation might suppress employees’ creativity
even if they are highly skilled?
• How would you redesign a creativity assessment (e.g., in a classroom or workplace) to measure creativity as a
process, not just creation as an outcome?
Key sources cited in this lecture: Vygotsky (2004); Csikszentmihalyi (1988, 1999); Kampylis & Valtanen (2010); Corazza
(2016); Rhodes (1961); Runco & Kim (2018); Amabile & Pratt (2016). Full reference list available in the source article.