REPOZYTORIUM UNIWERSYTETU
W BIAŁYMSTOKU
UwB

  1. Repozytorium Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku
  2. Czasopisma naukowe / Journals
  3. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications
  4. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2023, Vol. 10, Issue 1-2

Szukanie zaawansowane
  • Zespoły i Kolekcje


  • Zaloguj się
  • Zarejestruj się
  • Mój RUB
  • FAQ
  • Polityka
  • Regulamin
  • DOI
  • Instrukcja
  • Aspekty prawne
  • Open Access
  • Archiwum


  • Kontakt
  • O Dspace
  • Strona Biblioteki
  • Strona Uczelni



    • Proszę używać tego identyfikatora do cytowań lub wstaw link do tej pozycji: http://hdl.handle.net/11320/20140
    Pełny rekord metadanych
    Pole DCWartośćJęzyk
    dc.contributor.authorBonetto, Eric-
    dc.contributor.authorPichot, Nicolas-
    dc.contributor.authorGuiller, Théo-
    dc.contributor.authorArciszewski, Thomas-
    dc.date.accessioned2026-04-21T12:14:54Z-
    dc.date.available2026-04-21T12:14:54Z-
    dc.date.issued2023-
    dc.identifier.citationCreativity. Theories – Research – Applications, Vol. 10, Issue 1-2, 2023, pp. 41-49pl
    dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11320/20140-
    dc.description.abstractOne of the more important questions about creativity is what makes a creative production a revolution? The present contribution follows the analysis of the development of scientific knowledge proposed by Kuhn (1962) in ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,’ to propose a typology that may contribute to an answer. This typology, based on a retrospective analysis of a given domain of productions, distinguishes between two types of creativity: normal creativity and revolutionary creativity. Creative revolutions refer to ‘game changing’ productions in the domain, creating a turning point in the development of this domain. These creative revolutions constitute major disruptions within the domain, since they display both a high degree of novelty and sufficiently high value for future creative productions to take them as a new point of reference. The proposition to distinguish between normal and revolutionary creativity is explored as a complementary view to other typologies on creativity.pl
    dc.language.isoenpl
    dc.publisherUniversity of Białystokpl
    dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License-
    dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/-
    dc.subjectcreativitypl
    dc.subjectcreative revolutionpl
    dc.subjecttypologypl
    dc.titleThe Structure of Creative Revolutionspl
    dc.typeArticlepl
    dc.rights.holder© 2023 Eric Bonetto, Nicolas Pichot, Théo Guiller, Thomas Arciszewski, published by University of Białystokpl
    dc.rights.holderThis work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.pl
    dc.identifier.doi10.2478/ctra-2023-0003-
    dc.description.EmailEric Bonetto: bonetto.ericbw@gmail.compl
    dc.description.AffiliationEric Bonetto - Aix-Marseille Universite, Aix-en-Provence, Francepl
    dc.description.AffiliationNicolas Pichot - Aix-Marseille Universite, Aix-en-Provence, Francepl
    dc.description.AffiliationThéo Guiller - Aix-Marseille Universite, Aix-en-Provence, Francepl
    dc.description.AffiliationThomas Arciszewski - Aix-Marseille Universite, Aix-en-Provence, Francepl
    dc.description.referencesAmabile, T.M. (1996/2018). Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. Westview Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesBoden, M.A. (1991). The creative mind: Myths & Mechanisms. Basic Books.pl
    dc.description.referencesBoden, M.A. (2018). Creativity and biology. In B. Gaut & M. Kieran (Eds.), Creativity and philosophy (pp. 173-192). Routledge.pl
    dc.description.referencesBonetto, E., Pichot, N., Pavani, J.B., & Adam-Troïan, J. (2021). The paradox of creativity. New Ideas in Psychology, 60, 100820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2020.100820pl
    dc.description.referencesClignet, R. (1985). The Structure of Artistic Revolutions. University of Pennsylvania Press. https://doi.org/doi:10.9783/9781512801354pl
    dc.description.referencesCrilly, N. (2010). The Structure of Design Revolutions: Kuhnian Paradigm Shifts in Creative Problem Solving. Design Issues, 26(1), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2010.26.1.54pl
    dc.description.referencesCropley, D., & Cropley, A. (2008). Elements of a universal aesthetic of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.3.155pl
    dc.description.referencesCropley, D., & Cropley, A. (2010). Functional creativity. In J.C. Kaufman & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (pp. 301–318). Cambridge University Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesCsíkszentmihályi, M., & Wolfe, R. (2014). New conceptions and research approaches to creativity: Implications of a systems perspective for creativity in education. In M. Csíkszentmihályi (Ed.), The systems model of creativity (pp. 161–184). Springer.pl
    dc.description.referencesHaslam, S.A., Adarves-Yorno, I., Postmes, T., & Jans, L. (2013). The collective origins of valued originality: A social identity approach to creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 384–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313498001pl
    dc.description.referencesHeinich, N. (2014). Le paradigme de l’art contemporain. Structures d’une révolution artistique. Gallimard.pl
    dc.description.referencesJaksland, R. (2021). Teaching scientific creativity through philosophy of science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(4), 110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-021-00427-9pl
    dc.description.referencesKaiser, D. (2012). In retrospect: the structure of scientific revolutions. Nature, 484(7393), 164–165. https://doi.org/10.1038/484164apl
    dc.description.referencesKaufman, J.C., & Beghetto, R.A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of general psychology, 13, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688pl
    dc.description.referencesKaufman, J.C., & Sternberg, R.J. (2010). Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesKirton, M. (1978). Have Adaptors and Innovators Equal Levels of Creativity? Psychol Rep, 42(3), 695–698. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1978.42.3.695pl
    dc.description.referencesKo, Y., & Kim, J. (2008). Scientific geniuses’ psychopathology as a moderator in the relation between creative contribution types and eminence. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802278677pl
    dc.description.referencesKuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesKuhn, T.S. (2000). The road since structure. Philosophical essays, 1970–1993, with an autobiographical interview. University of Chicago Press.pl
    dc.description.referencesMartin, B. (2013). Difficult men: behind the scenes of a creative revolution: from The Sopranos and The Wire to Mad Men and Breaking Bad. Penguin.pl
    dc.description.referencesMerrotsy, P. (2013). A Note on Big-C Creativity and Little-c Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 474–476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.843921pl
    dc.description.referencesNixon, S. (2017). Looking westwards and worshipping: The New York ‘Creative Revolution’ and British advertising, 1956–1980. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540515571388pl
    dc.description.referencesPichot, N., Bonetto, E., Pavani, J. B., Arciszewski, T., Bonnardel, N., & Weisberg, R. W. (2022). The construct validity of creativity: empirical arguments in favor of novelty as the basis for creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 34, 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2021.1997176pl
    dc.description.referencesPoliti, V. (2018). Scientific revolutions, specialization and the discovery of the structure of DNA: toward a new picture of the development of the sciences. Synthese, 195(5), 2267–2293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1339-6pl
    dc.description.referencesRickards, T., Runco, M.A., & Moger, S. (2009). The Routledge companion to creativity. Routledge.pl
    dc.description.referencesRunco, M. A. (2014). “Big C, Little c” Creativity as a False Dichotomy: Reality is not Categorical. Creativity Research Journal, 26, 131–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.873676pl
    dc.description.referencesRunco, M.A., & Jaeger, G.J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity research journal, 24, 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092pl
    dc.description.referencesSanbonmatsu, D. M., & Sanbonmatsu, K. K. (2017). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions : Kuhn’s misconceptions of (normal) science. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 37(3), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000059pl
    dc.description.referencesSarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2008). Studying Engineering Design Creativity. In. J. Gero (Ed.), Proceedings of the NSF Workshop on Studying Design Creativity.pl
    dc.description.referencesStein, M.I. (1987). Creativity research at the crossroads: A 1985 perspective. In S.G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 417–427). Bearly.pl
    dc.description.referencesStenhouse, D. (1971). Scientific Creativity: ‘Normal’ or ‘Revolutionary’. Australian Journal of Education, 15(2), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494417101500205pl
    dc.description.referencesSternberg, R.J. (1999). A propulsion model of types of creative contributions. Review of General Psychology, 3, 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.3.2.83pl
    dc.description.referencesSternberg, R.J. (2020). What’s wrong with creativity testing?. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54, 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.237pl
    dc.description.referencesTurnbull, H.W. (1959). The correspondence of Isaac Newton. The royal society.pl
    dc.description.referencesValente, T. (1995). Network Models of the Diffusion of Innovations. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 2, 163–164.pl
    dc.description.referencesWeisberg, R.W. (2015). On the usefulness of “value” in the definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.1030320pl
    dc.description.referencesWeisberg, R.W. (2018). Response to Harrington on the definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 30(4), 461–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1537386pl
    dc.description.referencesWestmeyer, H. (1998). The social construction and psychological assessment of creativity. High Ability Studies, 9(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813980090102pl
    dc.identifier.eissn2354-0036-
    dc.description.volume10pl
    dc.description.issue1-2pl
    dc.description.firstpage41pl
    dc.description.lastpage49pl
    dc.identifier.citation2Creativity. Theories – Research – Applicationspl
    dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-0824-1103-
    dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-9131-706X-
    dc.identifier.orcidbrakorcid-
    dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-7524-8911-
    Występuje w kolekcji(ach):Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2023, Vol. 10, Issue 1-2

    Pliki w tej pozycji:
    Plik Opis RozmiarFormat 
    Creativity_10_1-2_2023_E_Bonetto_N_Pichot_T_Guiller_T_Arciszewski_The_Structure_of_Creative_Revolutions.pdf189,58 kBAdobe PDFOtwórz
    Pokaż uproszczony widok rekordu Zobacz statystyki


    Pozycja ta dostępna jest na podstawie licencji Licencja Creative Commons CCL Creative Commons