What is creativity?

The arts, including dance, are often considered inherently creative. Indeed, Alma Hawkins (1988,11) said “creativity is the heart of dance.” Yet, creativity is also a term constantly encountered in everyday life and that takes on a multiplicity of meanings in different contexts. Making any satisfactory general definition is inherently difficult, although this has not stopped many theorists, especially in

psychology, from trying to do so. It has been described in many ways and from many perspectives, and there remains much disagreement among creativity researchers on precisely what creativity is, what it does, how common the capacity for it is, the effects o f various factors external to the individual, and where it can be found (Morris, 2005, 82).

The issues have been compounded by the way the term has been freely appropriated by governments, industry and the media. The term, ‘creative industries’, for example, is frequently taken to embrace an eclectic grouping of disciplines including not only design, fashion, film, music, the performing arts, publishing, software, and television and radio, but has also been taken up by other self-styled creative industries including marketing and public relations” (Pope, 2005,40).

Some politicians have even suggested creativity is a particularly national characteristic.

In the White Paper of Creative Education, the Taiwanese government refer to Taiwan as a ‘Republic of Creativity’ (Ministry o f Education, 2002).^ They are not alone.

Other governments have made similar claims, including the UK (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2008,1). It was such actions and statements that caused Tusa (2003, 5) to remark earlier that ‘creative’, ‘creation’ and ‘creativity’ are among

“the most overused and ultimately debased words in the language”, lazily used as

“political margarine” by everyone in politics and business alike.

In the arts too, creativity has many faces. American author John Morris (2005, 83) observes that in creating any artwork, the artist makes choices. Morris and two further American scholars, Carol Press and Edward Warburton (2007,1273) identify three such areas o f choice in dance: dance making in terms o f creating finished

choreography; dance performance in any context including on stage, in class or socially, including potentially both choice o f movement and choice of expression; and dance improvisation, which includes any situation in which movement is made as it is performed. Press and Warburton add that creativity can be a means to an end, and an end in itself; a skill that balances imagination and analysis, and a process in which new knowledge or ways of doing are pursued. This list is by no means exhaustive, and could be extended to include dance writing, criticism, teaching and curriculum design. Furthermore, as noted in Chapter 1, creativity is often conceptualised differently in different dance forms. A dancer regarded as creative in ballet may not be regarded as such, or to the same extent, or in the same way, in modem dance.

In dance, most ideas about creativity are embedded in texts about the practicing o f the artform, and especially in biographies or autobiographies about, or interviews with, well-known choreographers, dancers or teachers. Only towards the end o f the

twentieth-century did a research tradition focusing on the nature of creativity in dance begin to emerge as the field responded to the wider creativity in education agenda (Morris, 2005; Press and Warburton, 2007). Even so, in dance for young children, most texts continue to focus on practical creative dance strategies for the classroom or studio. As previously observed, they speak o f creativity primarily in choreographic terms and the creation of visible products that are refined and repeatable, whether a single movement or position, a dance phrase, or a short composed dance; and often include examples of personal approaches and lesson plans (for example, Shreeves, 1990; Lynch-Fraser, 1991; Hobba, 1995; van Papendorp and Friedman, 1995; Kassing and Jay, 2003).

In dance education, creativity has influenced the forming o f philosophy, the writing of goals and objectives and the design of many lesson plans. While there is a wealth of theoretical literature within psychology that deals with creativity as a concept, and a

growing body of work that focuses on creativity in general education, until recently relatively little has been related specifically to dance education, especially for young children, who are the focus o f this study.

Despite the problems highlighted above, there is a consensus among scholars about some o f the features of creativity. Press and Warburton (2005,1273) observe that, if there is one thing dance researchers agree on, it is that “if it moves you, there is a good chance something is being created.” In the specialist psychology literature, notions o f creativity almost all revolve around conceptions o f producing ideas or products that are new and o f value (Pope, 2005, 57). Phrases such as “novel and appropriate” (i.e.

original, unexpected; and useful, adaptive concerning task restraints) (Sternberg and Lubart, 1999,3) or “new and given value” (Gruber and Wallace, 1999, 94) abound.

The UK National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (1999,30), in an oft-cited definition, described it as, “Imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original and o f value.” Implicit in all the above is that outcomes can be assessed, at least to some degree.

American psychologist Robert Sternberg (2006,2) draws three further generalisations that most researchers agree on: creativity is neither wholly-domain specific nor domain-general ; it can be developed; and it is not as highly rewarded in practice as it is in theory. It is also universally regarded as a positive construct (Lubart, 1999,340).

A domain is a body of knowledge about a specific topic, but is usually much smaller than an academic subject area (Craft, 2000,34). Dance is far too large to be described as a single domain, whereas any o f the sometimes overlapping areas detailed

previously and in which creative choice might be made, such as ballet, modem dance, dance-making, performing, teaching or criticism, would all be domains. All require different, although sometimes overlapping, skills and knowledge (Adshead, 1981).

The topic o f domain-specificity is retumed to later.

Novelty can be defined in a number of ways. Stemberg (1999), two further American psychologists Gerard Puccio and David Gonzalez (2004), and British education scholar Anna Craft (2000), all highlight that creativity occurs along a continuum from a more adaptive style, where individuals tend to accept the existing framework and

respond by doing things better, to a more innovative style where they prefer to do things differently. In his propulsion model o f creativity, Stemberg outlines no fewer than eight kinds o f creative contribution, each having a different relationship to the domain. The first four all stay within the existing paradigm: replication (keeping to the status quo; reproduction), redefinition (looking at the domain from a different perspective), forward incrementation (moving the domain forwards by making a slight change in what already exists) and advance forward incrementation (making a greater change in what already exists). The remainder all attempt to reject the existing paradigm and replace it: redirection (pushing the domain in a new direction);

reconstmction (moving back to a previous position so that it may move ahead from there in a different direction); reinitiation (moving the field to a new start point) and integration (merging two existing domains to create a new idea). Puccio and Gonzalez stress that unless this continuum is recognised, there is likely to be a devaluation of some people’s inclination to be creative. Paradigm-changing contributions are rare. In most contexts, including dance education, creations will generally be new in some small way.

^Big-C* and Hittle-c’ creativity

Empirical studies o f creativity, especially those that have emphasised personality factors, have tended to focus on high-level creativity and be primarily concerned with carefully selected populations o f creativity-rich people. American Beth Hennessey (2007, 39) observes this is particularly true of East Asian research, which is often based on populations of students identified as gifted and talented. This is reflected in some definitions. For example, Feldman, Csikszentmihalyi and Gardner (1994,1) say creativity is “the achievement of something remarkable and new, something which transforms and changes a field of endeavour in a significant way,” while Ryhammer and Brolin (1999,261) see it as, “Exceptional human capacity for thought and creation.”

This focus on paradigm-shifting outcomes and highly talented people is inherently problematic, not only for this study but in any educational context. In reality there are different levels of creative achievement that have their own time, place and value

(Joubert, 2001,19). Comparing outcomes with those of a historic creative genius or with someone exceptionally skilled at a particular activity or task is inappropriate in studies such as this that consider creativity in respect o f specialist dance teachers and their students.

Since the mid-1990s there has been an increasing trend towards distinguishing

between high and democratic creativity, more commonly known as ‘Big-C’ and Tittle- c’ creativity (Gardner, 1993; Craft, 2000,2001b; Plucker, 2003, Piirto and Starko, 2006). The differentiation comes from an acceptance that creativity covers a range of processes and outcomes. ‘Big-C’ creativity is paradigm-shifting in nature and

characterised not only by novelty, but also by excellence and unambiguous, eminent creative contributions recognised as such by the field in which it takes place. Tittle-c’

is creativity in everyday life, solving everyday problems, and is based on the assumption that creativity can be exercised, fostered and developed to a greater or lesser extent by everyone (Piirto and Starko, 2006).

This was taken up by the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (1999, 32) who followed up on their definition of creativity by making it clear they saw and valued originality as existing at three-levels: in relation to the individual and their own previous work, as relative to their peer group or others o f the same age, and as historic and original in terms o f anyone’s previous work. Their definition thus covers creativity at child, school, community and societal level. In dance, however, the idea that creativity is a capacity of all is far from new. It is a theme throughout D ’Houbler’s Dance: A Creative Art Experience (1940), in which she says, “Everyone has intellect, emotion, spirit, imagination and ability to move,”

and adds, “Anyone can dance within the limits of his capacities” (p.65).

*nünî-c* creativity

Focusing on Tittle-c’ creativity is appropriate for educational settings since it

recognises there is a continuum of adaptive behaviours and that what is creative in one context does not necessarily have to be considered creative in another. As with other forms o f creativity, most conceptions o f Tittle-c’ in the literature emphasise the

creative product over the creative process. Creative products are important since they evidence the ability to be creative or the creative act. They do not have to be physical or visible, but must be capable o f external expression. So, for example, a creative product could be an idea for a dance or mental image o f a movement, which although not yet physically realised, can be explained verbally. While public products are extremely helpful forjudging creativity, solely focusing on them may undermine creative potential by diverting focus from the accompanying private processes (Beghetto, 2007).

Appraisal o f a product is usually a social judgement made through consensual assessment. In these terms, something is creative to the extent that appropriate observers independently agree that it is creative. American scholar Teresa Amabile (1996,42) defines appropriate observers as people sufficiently familiar with the domain to have developed “implicit criteria for creativity, technical goodness, and so on.” Despite the subjective nature of the approach, numerous empirical studies show a high degree of agreement between assessors, including some o f those focusing on children’s art.

Although consensual assessment is primarily used to determine whether individual outcomes are creative, the concept can be extended to the construction of creativity itself. The values of a social group are determined by its members, albeit with reference to external cultural, historic, political, professional or social influences.

Teachers and staff at a school are such a group, and although management can be proactive in determining values, they are only effective if accepted by the whole group.

At the Cloud Gate Dance School, the teachers and leaders can be seen as a consensual team that determines how creativity is conceptualised within the organisation. This is an area little explored in East Asian creativity research, where the focus o f attention has generally not been on the social psychology o f creativity (Hennessey, 2007, 38).

In developing their concept of ‘mini-c’ creativity, American scholars Ronald Beghetto and James Kaufman (2007) argue that students should not be seen as uncreative given the domain or task constraints, conventions or standards, just because their

contributions do not make sense to an observer. Piaget (1972,20) considers that to

understand is to invent, and thus the construction o f personal knowledge results from a creative interpretation of experience rather than imitation or repetition, ‘mini-c’

creativity is the novel and personally meaningful interpretation of experiences, actions, and events (Beghetto and Kaufman, 2007). It differs from ‘little-c’ or ‘Big-C’

creativity in that it highlights the creative process inherent in learning, personal knowledge and understanding; and the way in which students interpret and make sense o f new information. Beghetto and Kaufman (2007, 78) go on to consider that

‘mini-c’ creativity not only represents the “most ubiquitous form of creativity given that learning and interpretations are part of most everyone’s experience,” but that it is likely to be the starting point for higher levels o f creative expression.

Adopting Bergmann Drewe’s (1992,104) view that creative dance is personally expressive (discussed in Chapter 1), the concept o f ‘mini-c’ creativity provides a framework in which student creativity can be understood. The personal nature o f the construct equally implies it is subjective. Teachers cannot view or experience

students’ dances from the inside, so they must access the inside by taking time to hear and attempt to understand students’ ‘mini-c’ interpretations.

Although the idea of ‘mini-c’ creativity was specifically developed with reference to educational settings, it does remind us that creativity anywhere may be different from traditional conceptions. The placing of the focus on the process of construction of personal understanding may make ‘mini-c’ creativity a particularly appropriate tool for cross-cultural studies o f creativity. This is especially true in contexts where appropriateness may not be immediately apparent, as in the East, where, according to Zhu (1995,319), particular importance is placed on the similarity in spirit between the creators and their actions or what is created.