The case study begins by exploring how an actualised creative idea failed to gain the necessary funding to see it implemented. The idea was therefore actual at the level o f the psychological but not, at the level of the material, it was an un-actualised piece o f technology. These levels o f existence will be defined and explored further in chapter five.
not know how to deal with it. There are numerous examples of scientists who have produced something which is initially ignored, only later to be regarded as highly creative (e.g. Koestler 1964: 240). Therefore, in organisations it is entirely plausible that an individual may be performing creatively but that their creativity remains unrecognised, either by the group, or by themselves, or both.
Runco (1999) criticises Amabile for suggesting that there could be ‘no creativity whatsoever without appreciation’ and argues that she probably means there would be no impact, or change in history without appreciation. To suggest there is not creation, discovery or insight without recognition is to misunderstand the nature of the phenomena. He claims when defining creativity, that appropriateness and value are critical but social recognition may not be. Runco makes clear that we must not assume creativity depends on recognition but current definitions (including Runco’s) fail to escape from the need for recognition. Recognition is implied either directly or indirectly through referral to the need for a product to be useful, appropriate, or valuable to a group. The goal of tapping into unrecognised creativity is therefore made problematic by the way in which the field defines the phenomena. However, those wishing to discuss unrecognised creativity (e.g. Nickerson 1999) who are informed by the existing conceptual framework do not ignore this definition and suggest another; neither do they identify its problems, unless of course they reject the ontological assumptions contained within their meta-theory.
In summary, then, research within the existing conceptual framework implies that creative potential, un-actualised creativity and unrecognised creativity are possible, even if the implication is oblique. However, they lack the meta-theoretical consistency to deal with these phenomena. This is in part because they lack the meta-theoretical concepts (such as concepts o f potential) necessary to give these phenomena some grounding (especially in their ontological commitments); in part because empirical research tends to privilege the observable (and the un-actualised is unobservable); and in part because current definitions focus on produced and actualised creativity, which implicitly denies the existence of creativity in an un-produced, unrecognised or un-actualised sense. It is clear then that to conduct research into these phenomena requires the meta-theoretical issues to be resolved.
Before attempting resolution it is necessary to reflect on one more issue the field contains. It was suggested that it might be possible to explore creative potential within the existing conceptual framework through looking at creative performance in one context and asking what happens to that performance in another context (for example in-work and out-of-work). To ask what happens as a person moves between the two contexts has a track record in the
existing conceptual framework. For example Mumford (2003a) referred to markers for potential being identified via this method. However, it was also shown in chapter two that such research would run into another debate, whether creativity could be considered domain general or specific. In order to conduct research into the identified areas of research interest, through the exploration of in-work and out-of-work creativity as was originally proposed for this research, it is necessary' to understand the parameters of this debate before attempting to resolve the meta-theoretical issues identified so far. It will be shown that doing so reveals more of the effects of existing meta-theory on understanding creativity.
3.3 The difficulties of cross-contextual research into creativity
W hether creativity can be considered domain general or domain specific refers to a selection of issues which combine to suggest one of two positions (i) creativity is a general ability possessed by human beings involving largely the same set of skills and thinking processes (ii) creativity is domain specific and each domain has its own unique requirements which determine the skills required to be creative - as each domain changes, so do the necessary skills. In each of these positions, presuppositions about the nature of creative potential and its relationship to performance exist and bias findings. In order for the debate to progress, a clear understanding of just how notions of creative potential and performance are used to inform the debate, and whether they are sufficient to do what is expected of them, is required.
Before exploring how creative potential is thought to influence the debate, it is necessary to distinguish between a domain and a context. A domain, in this sense, refers to a realm within which creativity can occur, for example maths is considered a domain as is art. A context however, refers to all the things that combine to influence a particular situation. Work, can be seen as a context as it potentially contains many domains (maths, language, art) as well as people, processes, structures, and so on. Out-of-work is also considered a context which could include multiple domains. An example of the nature of context comes from Choi (2004). Commenting on factors that mediate the individual and contextual influences on creative performance, she details contextual factors such as challenging work, encouraging organisational environment, work group support and absence of organisational impediments.3-
Baer (1999) provides a good summary of the distinction within the existing conceptual framework. He claims that theories of domain specificity hold that there are several domains of knowledge, each located as a human ability, and that cognitive development in each of
32 It is not necessary to this argument to develop and explain all of the different ways in which we can classify