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

Abstract

This comment considers Glăveanu’s observations about the state of creativity studies. I agree with Glăveanu’s view of creativity research but disagree that it is bad. The history of psychology shows that “big theories” inevitably fail to fulfill their promise. Instead, as George Kelly argued long ago, complex problems with many facets are better served by a mix of big and small theories. Likewise, the diversity of creativity research is a sign of healthy pluralism, not lamentable fragmentation. Science doesn’t proceed via central planning, and claims of “fragmentation” and “wasted effort” raise disturbing questions about who gets to decide what other scientists should study. Finally, creativity research should be more method-driven than it is. Methods are interesting in their own right, and they can be heuristics for generating good ideas as well as tools for solving problems. All told, this era of creativity research will be remembered as a period of renaissance rather than decline.