Navigating the Tensions Inherent in Understanding Creativity: An Interview with Mark Runco

Abstract

Dr. Runco has written about the history of what is viewed by many as the standard definition of creativity (Runco and Jaeger 2012). First described by Stein (1953) and Barron (1955), this standard definition involves two components: originality and usefulness. According to Dr. Runco, originality, novelty or unconventionality is the most obvious component of any definition of creativity. Conversely, something boring, mundane, commonplace, or conventional is not original and thus not creative (Runco and Jaeger 2012). So, the first key component in the standard definition is originality, but that alone is not enough. For something to be creative it must also be effective. It must have some aspect of usefulness or value. Random processes will often generate things that are original or unique, but without the product being effective (or valued/useful) in some way it cannot be considered creative. The problem with the two-part standard definition, however, is that it can be too objective, and potentially misses the range and depth of possible creative endeavors. While the standard definition can be easily used to look at famed works or creators whose creativity is unambiguous (Michelangelo or Mozart, for example), a rigid adherence to this definition, argues Runco, may leave important parts of creativity ignored or unexamined. There is a dichotomy between the standard definition, which can be applied scientifically, and a more nuanced definition, which allows for the study and understanding of other parts of creativity. Dr. Runco recognizes the element of authenticity in his own definition. This is the part of creativity that is personal, and not easily compared to normative standards (Runco 2003). It is authentic to the self, and can lead—as is the case for Eastern philosophers such as Confucius—to self-enlightenment and self-understanding. Along the same vein, Dr. Runco asserts there is an important aesthetic component to creativity. This is consistent with our own work, in which we define creativity as NEW: Novel, Effective, and Whole (Mishra et al. 2013). The Whole in our definition seeks to capture some of the aesthetic, contextual elements that Dr. Runco speaks of. Dr. Runco studies everyday creativity, children’s creativity, and creative potential; and in that context, spontaneity can also be seen as an important part of a definition of creativity. In essence, Dr. Runco believes that a more nuanced definition of creativity goes beyond originality and usefulness to include consideration of the varied contexts in which creativity takes place. This nuanced expansion of the standard definition helps us understand creativity in new ways that are more representative of its role in the real world.