As briefly mentioned in this chapter’s introduction, creative product theories attempt to describe what constitutes a creative product. This section outlines the most prominent among the creative product theories.
2.5.1 Besemer’s Creative Product Analysis Matrix
Besemer and her colleagues developed the Creative Product Analysis Matrix to aid judgment of creative products for evaluative or improvement purposes (Besemer & O’Quin, 1999). The model consists of three dimensions, which Besemer regards as the most vital indicators of the creativity of products (O’Quin & Besemer, 2006).
The first dimension is called novelty. Novelty considers elements of newness regarding materials, concepts, and processes within the creative product (O’Quin & Besemer, 2006). It also looks at the product’s capacity to inspire further creative products (Fryer, 2012). Although widely cited as a dimension of creativity, focusing solely on novelty or originality might result in a merely weird or bizarre product being considered creative.
This is why the second dimension named resolution is vital. Resolution refers to how well the product accomplishes the purpose for which it was created. Generally, a product that is logical, understandable, and useful is regarded as high in resolution (O’Quin & Besemer, 2006).
The first two dimensions reflect the common agreement in creativity literature, as evidenced in various definitions of creativity itself, that for a product to be creative it must be both novel and useful. However, Besemer and her fellow researchers have also added a third dimension, labelled elaboration and synthesis. This dimension is also known as style, but should not be understood as meaning stylistic appearance or fashion-related stylishness (O’Quin & Besemer, 2006). Instead it refers to how the product presents itself to judges or customers. This dimension considers aspects of the product such as expressiveness, attractiveness, complexity, and the extent to which disparate elements form a coherent whole (Fryer, 2012). Of the three dimensions, style is the least cited within the literature as a criterion of creativity and is mostly proffered in artistic domains (visual or performing arts) and to a lesser degree within mathematics or physics where instead the elegance of a solution or how it is presented is often praised.
A key strength of the creative product analysis matrix is that it can be applied to a variety of creative products ranging from consumer products to works of art (Besemer, 1998). However, a limitation of the model is that it does not consider feasibility of creative products. Products may be original, may work, and even look good to observers, but the feasibility must at least be considered to improve the chances of future acceptance by a wider audience.
2.5.2 Sternberg’s Propulsion Theory of Creative Contributions
Sternberg and his colleagues devised the Propulsion Theory of Creative Contributions to delineate the types of creative products a person can create in terms of how it is judged in its context or field (Sternberg, 2006). Creative products, termed creative contributions in this theory, are viewed as attempts to propel a field to where a creator believes it should go. In this way, the theory uses a ‘space’ metaphor similar to the one employed in Perkins’ Klondike space theory (Sawyer, 2012). Sternberg holds the view that creativity is a form of propulsion and as such also represents an attempt at leadership (Sternberg, 2006). Therefore, a creative contribution is a creator’s way of saying, ‘This is the future of our field. Follow me, if you agree.’
Eight types of creative contributions that fit into three broad categories are described within the propulsion theory (Sternberg, 2006). The three categories describe how contributions relate to existing paradigms.
1. Replication. This type of contribution attempts to make the case that the field is in the right place (Sternberg & Kaufman, 2010). It keeps the field where it is, in stationary motion, like a wheel turning in place, but not moving forward.
2. Redefinition. This type of contribution tries to see the current status quo from a different point of view (Sternberg & Kaufman, 2010). This represents a circular motion, because the creative product leads back to where the field is at present.
3. Forward Incrementation. In this instance, the contribution attempts to propel the field forward in the direction it is already moving, leading to forward motion (Sternberg, 2006). This type of contribution is the most widely accepted as it does not defy the crowd and threatens virtually no one (Sternberg & Kaufman, 2010).
4. Advance Forward Incrementation. This type of contribution is almost identical to Forward Incrementation. The only difference is that it moves the field to a place beyond where others are ready for it, leading to accelerated forward motion (Sternberg, 2006).
B] Types of creative contributions that reject current paradigms and attempt to replace them:
5. Redirection. Contributions or products of this variety attempt to divert the field from where it is into a new direction (Sternberg, 2006).
6. Reconstruction/Redirection. Here, an attempt is made to move the field back to where it was in the past and then move it in a direction different from the one it originally took from that point onwards (Sternberg & Kaufman, 2010). The motion is thus backwards at first, then in a new direction.
7. Reinitiation. In this case, a contribution attempts to move the field to new, as-yet-unreached starting point and then move it in a new direction from that position (Sternberg, 2006).
C] A Type of creative contribution that synthesizes current paradigms:
8. Synthesis (also known as Integration). The product or contribution attempts to merge diverse ways of viewing phenomena or paradigms into a new paradigm (Sternberg & Kaufman, 2010).
It should be noted that the type of creative contribution is not indicative of the amount of creativity inherent in such a contribution. As we have seen from definitions of creativity, there is general agreement that there is both a novelty and usefulness component within creativity. Therefore, one cannot evaluate two contributions and come to the conclusion that because synthesis is more novel than forward
incrementation, the synthesized contribution is more creative. This is because contribution type makes no prediction regarding usefulness.
Although widely applicable to various domains, a minor limitation of the Propulsion theory of creative contributions is that it is conceptualised from a scientific creativity viewpoint. Serving an illustration, contribution types such as reconstruction/redirection and reinitiation are more common in scientific fields. This is perhaps the case due to the fact that progress within a scientific field is documented within journal articles and scholarly textbooks. This meticulous record of literature makes it easier to pinpoint a previous state of the field to use as a starting point for a reconstruction/redirection.