A Commentary on a Manuscript Entitled The Psychology of Creativity: A Critical Reading

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Dr Eric Shiu agreed with Professor Vlad Petre Glăveanu that although the amount of research on creativity is increasing, a corresponding theoretical breakthrough is not apparent. One main culprit is the overwhelming dominance of the quantitative approach in creativity research. Another is the lack of consensus in the definition of creativity. Shiu draws from his research experience in both innovation and creativity research, and feels that the path of academic development for the innovation field is healthier. For instance there is more consensus in the definition of innovation, the categorization of innovation and the process of innovation than in creativity. Echoing Glăveanu’s recommendation to study creativity in its time and space context, Shiu added that the space con-text should extend to the cultural setting. So far research efforts on creativity are predominantly American and to a lesser extent Western European. As a result, alternative conceptions of creativity nurtured and practised in some other parts of the world may be relatively neglected. Lastly, Shiu is fascinated by the great potential for creativity researchers from different disciplines to conduct cross-disciplinary cooperation and research, but he also warned that creativity research, which is “owned” by many academic disciplines, may suffer from further fragmentation. Effective cross-disciplinary dialogue is needed to combat this danger.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)261-267
Number of pages7
JournalCreativity. Theories – Research – Applications
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2014


  • innovation
  • cross-disciplinary cooperation


Dive into the research topics of 'A Commentary on a Manuscript Entitled The Psychology of Creativity: A Critical Reading'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this