Throughout four posts I will present the Basic Concepts and the Introductory Principles to Creativity. In this post I will explain the following three points:
1. What was and what is creativity?
2. Definition of Creativity
3. Relationship of Creativity with Invention, Innovation and with the Entrepreneurs.
1. What was and what is Creativity?
Today we are all creative, being so in our jobs is almost an obligation. Not only in business, but also in politics and education, we must be creative; and even in our kitchens we must show that vocation for the novelty that surprises and delights our diners. Now, throughout history, has this always been the case? The polish philosopher Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz, in his book "History of six ideas: art, beauty, form, creativity, mimesis, aesthetic experience", differentiated four stages in the evolution of the concept of creativity and, who were the creative in each of those stages?
First stage:
In Ancient Greece there was no concept of creativity. Art was limited to reproducing objects, in a harmonious and proportionate way, based on the techné understood as the set of procedures and their form of application for that purpose. According to Tatarkiewicz for the ancient Greeks: “… Nature is perfect, and man in his activities ought to liken himself to it; nature is subject to laws, therefore he ought to discover its laws and submit to them, and not seek freedom, which will easily deflect him from that optimum which he can attain in his activities. The attitude of the ancients may likewise be expressed as follows: The artist is a discoverer, not an inventor” (Tatarkiewicz, 1980, p.245)…”
Tatarkiewicz analyzes the meaning of the term creativity in Classical Greece: “… The Greeks had no terms that might correspond to the terms 'to create' and 'creator'. And it can be said, neither had they need of such terms. The expression 'to make' sufficed them. Indeed, they did not extend even that to art, or to artists such as painters and sculptors: for these artists do not make new things but merely imitate things that are in nature. "Will we say of a painter that he makes something?" asked Plato in The Republic, and answered: "Certainly not, he merely imitates." (Resp.597 D.) An artist, in the eyes of the ancients, differed from a creator in yet another way: namely, the concept of a creator and of creativity implies freedom of action, whereas the Greek conception of the artist and the arts involved subjection to laws and rules. Art was defined as "the making of things according to rules"; we know many such definitions from ancient writings. The difference between an artist and a creator would thus actually be a dual one: the artist does not create but imitates; and he is governed by laws, not by freedom” (Tatarkiewicz, 1980, p.244).
For the Greek culture, only poets were considered creative. The word poet derives from poiesis, which means to make or invent freely, a situation that differentiated them from the characteristic imitation of other artists.
“…For the Greeks there was only one exception to this, but a great one: poetry…The poet was one who made. The Greeks did not link the poet with artists, nor did they associate poetry with art. The difference was two-fold. First, the poet makes new things - brings to life a new world - while the artist merely imitates. And second, the poet is not bound by laws as artists are; he is free in what he does. There was no term corresponding to 'creativity' and 'creator', but in reality the poet was understood to be one who creates” (Tatarkiewicz, 1980, p.246).
It should be noted that, Plato considered poets critically, because he found them responsible for transfiguring things and producing fictions and deceptions that undermined a just and virtuous education.
About the poems, what Jorge Luis Borges expressed is of interest: “…Writing a poem is rehearsing a minor magic. The instrument of that magic, language, is quite mysterious. We know nothing of its origin. We only know that it branches into languages, each consisting of an indefinite and changing vocabulary and an indefinite number of syntactic possibilities. With these elusive elements I have formed this book. (In the poem, the cadence and the atmosphere of a word can weigh more than the meaning)…” (Borges, 1985, Own translation).[1]
In Latin, there were the terms creatio and creare, where creator was synonymous with father and creator urbis, founder of a city. The concept of creativity could be assimilated to that of ingenuity, a term that in Roman times was defined by Cicero as the ability to separate the spirit from the senses, and to free thought from what is customary.
Second stage:
From the arrival of Christianity until practically the
Enlightenment, the word creativity was exclusively linked to theology: Creator
was synonymous with god. The use of the words, creatio ex nihilo, designated
the great divine act of creating everything that exists from nothing, depriving
man of the possibility of creating, only God could make something from nothing.
Third stage:
It began in the 18th century, with the incorporation of the term creator into the language of art, becoming synonymous with artist. Creativity was linked to the concept of imagination. From the middle of the 18th century to the beginning of the 19th century, there were two currents of thought that had an impact on creativity in art:
The Illustration first of all, with its goal of emancipating humanity through knowledge and the public use of reason, synthesized in Kant's phrase “…sapere aude…” (…dare to know…). This movement promoted greater freedom of public expression, creating a more conducive environment for creative artistic work.
Subsequently, the movement of Romanticism began the
recovery of the creativity immanent in the forms of life. An impulse was given
to the emotional side, revaluing ancient myths and legends, especially the
medieval ones. He highlighted the particularities of national traditions and
the figure of artistic genius, which expressed the feelings of those peoples.
Between the Reason of the Illustration and the Sentiments of the creative genius of Romanticism.
"…The dream of the reason produces monsters…"
“…Fantasy, isolated from reason, only produces impossible monsters. United to her, on the other hand, she is the mother of art and the source of her desires…”
Francis of Goya
Rhyme III.
“…Madness that the spirit
exalt and faint,
divine drunkenness
of the creative genius...
Such is the inspiration.
…
Stream in whose waves
his thirst the fever quenches,
oasis than to the spirit
returns its vigor...
Such is our reason.
With both always in struggle
and of both winners,
only genius is given
to a yoke to tie the two…”
Gustavo Adolfo Becquer
Since the mid-19th century, the term creativity began to be extended to other human affairs, particularly scientists and inventors. The English researcher Francis Galton in his work "The hereditary genius" (1869) made a first systemic explanation of scientific creativity, biased towards innate gifts. The author expressed that people's talent was hereditary: “… I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world…” (Galton, 1869, p.1).
The assumption that all creation must be from nothing was eliminated, suppressed said restriction, all people have the possibility of being considered creators from the use of existing ideas and elements.
Fourth stage:
The fourth period begins with the 20th century where the expression creator was applied to all cultural manifestations. In this period, people began to talk about creativity in science, politics, and technology. In this period, the words creator and creativity left the exclusive scope of the arts and sciences, and were expanded by all types of human activity.
Creativity is perceived as a reflection of a culture of possibilities, and of our ability to imagine, do and change. This ability can be attributed to individuals, groups, organizations, and also to an entire culture. Creativity is equivalent to a possible way to increase the available resources that are necessarily finite.
Since the end of the 19th century, there have been authors who, from different branches of knowledge, theorize about various aspects of creativity. Among them sociologists such as Gabriel Tarde and Georg Simmel can be cited. Even more interesting are the writings of different philosophers, in the first place it is worth mentioning Friedrich Nietzsche, with his proposal of creative destruction that so influenced the economist Joseph A. Schumpeter (Reinert, and Reinert, 2006), (as well as his superman ideas that explain the personality characteristics of the Schumpeterian entrepreneur). Within philosophy, the works of thinkers of the Process such as, Henri Bergson, Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Sandler Peirce should also be highlighted.
In particular, Peirce, as the founder of the
current of American pragmatist philosophers, which incorporates the influence
of Darwinian evolutionary theory, developed the logical method of abduction, as
a scheme for the proposal of new hypotheses. Faced
with inductive and deductive logic, abduction is the logic that allows for the
creativity of new theoretical positions. Years
later the
philosopher John Dewey, belonging
to the pragmatist current, is one of the first to deal with creative processes,
proposes a rigorous analysis of acts of thought distinguishing five steps: "...Upon examination, each instance reveals, more or
less clearly, five logically distinct steps (i) a felt difficulty; (ii)
its location and definition; (iii) suggestion of possible solution; (iv)
development by reasoning of the bearings of the suggestion; (v) further
observation and experiment leading to its acceptance or rejection; that is, the
conclusion of belief or disbelief (Dewey, 1910, p.72).
Also, these stages were articulated by
Graham Wallas, a social psychologist who, in his book ´The Art of Thought´ of
1926, described five stages in the creative process: 1. Preparation stage; 2. Incubation stage;
3. Illumination stage; 4. Evaluation stage and 5. Verification stage. That with variations,
continues to be analyzed today.
From psychology, one of the first important contribution to the subject of creativity, was the book "Productive Thinking" of Max Wertheimer published in 1945.
Max Wertheimer, as the founder of the gestalt school of psychology, investigated the mechanisms of perception, but towards the end of his career he focused on the analysis of mental thought processes. From these studies arose his book Productive Thinking, where he distinguished between reproductive thinking – mechanical, repetitive and rote thinking – and productive or creative thinking, capable of facing new situations and problems with original responses and solutions. To carry out his studies, Wertheimer used, among others, the analysis of the construction process of the physical theories of Galileo Galilei, Charles Friedrich Gauss and Albert Einstein. In all of them he found reliable evidence of a thought carried out in terms of totalities in which the solution arises thanks to the grasp of the structural relations involved in the problem. In total coherence with his Gestalt vision of perception, also in the Productive thinking is insight-based reasoning. Wertheimer argued that only insightful reasoning could bring true understanding of conceptual problems and relationships.
The year 1950 was a turning point in psychological research on creativity. In this year, Joy Paul Guilford, in the speech he gave as president of the American Psychological Association, proposed the study of the psychological profiles that define the most creative people. In later periods, a variety of tests were applied to generate indicators with the aim of defining the degree of creativity in different personalities and in those who showed a divergent thinking style. One of the most recognized test has been the "Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking", based on the measurement of creativity from four value scales: Fluency, Flexibility (later eliminated), Originality and Elaboration.
In this journey through the theoretical milestones of creativity in the 20th century, we will explain the proposals of Jacob Getzels and Mihály Csíkszentmihályi (Getzels and Csíkszentmihályi, 1976) who considered the creative process as a response to a problematic situation, a process that consists of the typical phases of 'formulation of the problem', 'adoption of a resolution method' and 'search for a solution. They highlighted the primacy of the problem over the solution. For them the significant element in creative realization is the way in which the problem is conceived, because only a fruitful question can be answered with creative solutions. His conclusion is that the creative act implies the discovery of new problems, as well as its solutions.
In 1983, Teresa Amabile began to develop her
Componential Theory of Creativity. As she explains: “…The componential theory
of creativity is a comprehensive model of the social and psychological
components necessary for an individual to produce creative work. The theory is
grounded in a definition of creativity as the production of ideas or outcomes
that are both novel and appropriate to some goal. In this theory, four
components are necessary for any creative response. Three components within the
individual: domain- relevant skills, creativity-relevant processes, and
intrinsic task motivation. And one component outside the individual, the social
environment in which the individual is working…” (Amabile, 2012, p.1) And after, she continues saying: “…In the
componential theory, the influences on creativity include three
within-individual components: domain-relevant skills (expertise in the relevant
domain or domains), creativity-relevant processes (cognitive and personality
processes conducive to novel thinking), and task motivation (specifically, the
intrinsic motivation to engage in the activity out of interest, enjoyment, or a
personal sense of challenge). The component outside the individual is the
surrounding environment – in particular, the social environment. The theory
specifies that creativity requires a confluence of all components; creativity should
be highest when an intrinsically motivated person with high domain expertise
and high skill in creative thinking works in an environment high in supports
for creativity…” (Amabile 2012, p.2).
2. Definition of creativity.
As in other fields of knowledge, dozens of definitions of creativity can be found, which have varied over time. As well as the central focus of the definition, from highlighting the stages of the creative process to the personality characteristics of the creators. But a point in common is to highlight the particularities of the products resulting from creativity, as Runco and Jaeger explain: “…The standard definition is bipartite: Creativity requires both originality and effectiveness. Are two criteria really necessary? Originality is undoubtedly required. It is often labeled novelty, but whatever the label, if something is not unusual, novel, or unique, it is commonplace, mundane, or conventional. It is not original, and therefore not creative. Originality is vital for creativity but is not sufficient. Ideas and products that are merely original might very well be useless. … So again, originality is not alone sufficient for creativity. Original things must be effective to be creative. Like originality, effectiveness takes various forms. It may take the form of (and be labeled as) usefulness, fit, or appropriateness. …Effectiveness may take the form of value. This label is quite clear in the economic research on creativity; it describes how original and valuable products and ideas depend on the current market…” (Runco, and Jaeger, 2012 p. 92).
Therefore, for use in these introductory posts, I present the following definition of creativity.
The capacity that
all human beings have to think in ways that give rise to products -whatever
these are of nature-, characterized by being jointly novel and valuable.
The characteristics of the components of this definition will be explained below:
Ability. It is the faculty to make new combinations, to relate or restructure known elements, in order to achieve results, ideas or products, both original and relevant. This capacity, which would begin with the search for resolution of existing problems, and/or the formulation of new problems, involves the most complex processes of our thought.
All human beings. For several decades, research in psychology and neuroscience have shown that this is a faculty inherent in all human beings. Until more than a century ago it was assumed that it was a capacity attributable to artistic and/or scientific genius. This potential that all human beings [2] have individually can also be attributed to groups of people: from companies and institutions to regions and cultures. This will lead us to study, also, creativity processes by interaction and collective creativity processes.
Products. Creative thinking must have a result –give rise to products, whatever their nature may be-, from arriving at an original conclusion, assuming a new scientific hypothesis, making a different decision; to proposing an innovative pension system, developing a new cooking recipe, painting a picture or redefining the music business. Based on the products obtained, different fields of application of creativity can be identified: business, artistic, scientific, technological, social, political, educational, etc. Likewise, on a daily basis, individuals need to generate creative products to respond to the continuous contingencies that are continually presented to us. (Joas, H. 1996).
New and valuable. The result of
creativity must be a product that is both novel and valuable. This leads us to
raise at least two questions. The first of these is that creativity will always
have a social component, since there must be one or several external agents
that determine its degree of novelty and its value. Secondly, within these
evaluations, different degrees will be found, ranging from personal incremental
creativity to revolutionary social creativity.
3. Relationship of Creativity with Invention, Innovation and the Entrepreneurs.
Creativity is a condition present in the processes of
invention, innovation, and in the doing of entrepreneurs. Estos tres procesos requieren del uso de la
creatividad. Sin embargo, en términos promedio, será un elemento muy importante
para los inventores, un poco menos para los innovadores y más reducida para los
emprendedores
Invention
The concept of invention comes from the Latin invenire, "to find". It can be defined as the process developed individually or in groups by experts, who produce an artifact with certain attributes, such as: providing a solution to previously unresolved needs; or be a more efficient solution for them. Not belonging to the symbolic realm, by materializing in an object or artifact.
In Spain, the Industrial Property Law defines an invention as "any solution to a technical problem that gives rise to an industrial task", understanding this last concept in its broadest sense and regardless of the economic feasibility of putting it into practice.
The technical problem may be old or new, but the solution must be new to qualify as an invention. An invention does not necessarily have to be something complex. What characterizes it is that it is a solution to a technical or functional problem, not aesthetic or of another nature. It is the application of creativity to the resolution of this particular type of problem.
It is interesting to remember a case
of inventor that is very difficult to find: Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519)
a particular case of a person who stood out as extremely creative in very
different fields from arts to sciencies. He evidenced his degree of
mastery in, painting –author of works such as La Gioconda or The Last Supper-,
as an inventor - he is credited with the inventions of the bicycle, the
parachute, the diving suit, the compass, the helicopter, the glider, among
others –and, also in scientific discoveries – recent investigation demonstrate
that Da Vinci performed experiments to show that gravity is a form of
acceleration, two centuries before Isaac Newton (Gharib et al., 2022). [3]
Innovation
In the Oslo Manual, fourth edition (OECD 2018), innovation is defined in the following terms: The basic definition of a business innovation is as follows: “…A business innovation is a new or improved product or business process (or combination thereof) that differs significantly from the firm's previous products or business processes and that has been introduced on the market or brought into use by the firm…” (OECD, 2018, p. 68)
In particular, on product innovation, it is later detailed that: “…A product innovation is a new or improved good or service that differs significantly from the firm’s previous goods or services and that has been introduced on the market...” (OECD, 2018, p. 70)
To later expand in the following terms: “…Product innovations must provide significant improvements to one or more characteristics or performance specifications. This includes the addition of new functions, or improvements to existing functions or user utility. Relevant functional characteristics include quality, technical specifications, reliability, durability, economic efficiency during use, affordability, convenience, usability, and user friendliness. Product innovations do not need to improve all functions or performance specifications. An improvement to or addition of a new function can also be combined with a loss of other functions or a decline in some performance specifications…” (OECD, 2018, p. 71)
In reference to process innovation, said Manual
explains that: “…All business functions can be the object of innovation
activity. The term business process includes the core business function of
producing goods and services and supporting functions such as distribution and
logistics, marketing, sales and after-sales services; information and
communication technology (ICT) services to the firm, administrative and
management functions, engineering and related technical services to the firm,
and product and business process development. Business processes can be
considered as services for which the firm itself is the customer. Business
processes can be delivered in-house or procured from external sources. A
business process innovation is a new or improved business process for one or
more business functions that differs significantly from the firm’s previous
business processes and that has been brought into use in the firm…” (OECD, 2018, p. 72)
As with invention, creativity is also closely related to innovation processes. As I explained, creativity refers to the production of something that contains two attributes: novelty and value. The definition of innovation is based on novelty, and on the use of it (within which being valuable is a necessary but not sufficient condition), as Woodman explains, innovation is the process by which the use of new ideas is implemented,.
Therefore, innovation is more related to the implementation or adoption by organizations or the market of novelties; while creativity is related to the generation of new and valuable products, whatever their nature.
There is another perspective related to
the agents that carry out these activities, assigning the work of creativity to
individuals or small groups, while those of innovation are more related to
organizations. Creativity is a capacity of human beings, which is distinguished
from innovation, which belongs to organizations. M. Runco suggest that
creativity is guided specially by, intrinsic human motivations: the passion
that leads to create, the interest in a task; while innovation is determined by
extrinsic incentives: such as the need to compete, adapt to changes or the need
to exceed previous standards.
Entrepreneurs
What are the factors that explain the creativity of entrepreneurs and that launch innovations in companies? To understand this topic we will focus on the ideas of Joseph Schumpeter. This economist was the one who initiated, more than a century ago, studies on the relationship between economic changes, innovations and the actions of entrepreneurs.
Throughout his academic life, Schumpeter had a common thread in his research, the study of the evolutionary process of the capitalist system, whose fundamental explanatory variable is innovation. He maintains that the dynamic element of innovation is the entrepreneur, whom he defines as the "ephor" of the exchange economy.
The entrepreneur is usually neither an inventor, nor a researcher, nor the capitalist owner of the company, they can be, but usually they are not: “…It is particularly important to distinguish the Entrepreneur from the inventor. Many inventors have become entrepreneurs and the relative frequency of this case is no doubt an interesting subject to investigate, but there is no necessary connection between the two functions. The inventor produces ideas, the entrepreneur ´gets things done`, which may but need not embody anything that is scientifically new…” (Schumpeter, 1947, p. 152)
For Schumpeter: “…The carrying out of new combinations, we call enterprise, the individuals whose function it is to carry them out we call ´entrepreneurs…” (Schumpeter, 1934, p.74) The entrepreneur in a company is usually a manager, with the characteristics of a leader: “…Furthermore, the ordinary characterization of the entrepreneur type by such expressions are ´initiative´, ´authority´or ´foresight´…” (Schumpeter, 1934, p.75)
He considers that the task to be carried out by entrepreneurs is highly complex, in addition, due to the need to overcome resistance to change. Decisions about innovations are characterized by uncertainty, which makes it difficult to change the habits and routines of the organization since the success of the proposed change is not assured. Innovations may also contain external objective elements that would prevent their implementation, from legal, political, cultural or religious restrictions, for this reason Schumpeter emphasized with such emphasis the exceptionality of the entrepreneurial leader who put the new combinations into practice: “…Therefore, too, the carrying out of new combinations is a special function and the privilege of a type of people who are much less numerous than all those who have the objective possibility of doing it. Therefore, finally, entrepreneurs are a special type, and their behavior a special problem, the motive power of a great number of significant phenomena...” (Schumpeter, 1934, p.81-82)
When proposing what are the reasons that drive the entrepreneur in his creative actions, he highlights that they are not rational and that they do not have a hedonistic basis, detailing three types of reasons: “…First of all, there is the dream and the will to found a private kingdom, usually, though not necessarily, also a dynasty…Then there is the will to conquer: the impulse to fight, to prove oneself superior to others, to succeed for the sake, not of the fruits of success, but of success itself…Finally, there is the joy of creating things done, or simply of exercising one´s energy and ingenuity. Our type seeks out difficulties, changes in order to change, delights in ventures…” (Schumpeter, 1934, p.93-94)
These intrinsic motivations of the entrepreneur who creatively uses innovations were complemented with extrinsic motivations in later works. When dealing with the idea of creative destruction, Schumpeter expressed that: “…The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development from the craft shop and factory to such concerns as U.S. Steel illustrate the same process of industrial mutation—if I may use that biological term—that incessantly revolutionizes 2 the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism. It is what capitalism consists in and what every capitalist concern has got to live in…” (Schumpeter, 1942, p.83).
As we seen in this third case, creativity
is still necessary for the actions of the Entrepreneur, but to a lesser degree
than in Invention and Innovation. The most important thing for the entrepreneur is not to
create the innovation, but rather the decision to start them up.
In the next Post, I will continue presenting the basic concepts and principles of Creativity, In particular I will deal with the following topics: The Four “Ps” Of Creativity: People, Processes, Places and Creative Products.
Notes:
[1] These ideas of Borges would seem to be related to what Wilhem Von Humboldt wrote in his book Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues: und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts, published in 1836. This Prussian thinker was amazed at the infinite use that could be made from a finite resource such as the number of words available to people. Expressed in the following way: “…But the language process is not only such that an individual phenomenon is produced; at the same time it must open up the possibility of producing an indefinable number of such phenomena, and under all the conditions established for it by thought. Because you are actually looking at an infinite and truly limitless area, the epitome of everything conceivable. Therefore, it must make infinite use of finite resources (104) This issue becomes important because it demonstrates the unlimited possibilities of human creation, Von Humboldt relates it to language, but it is applicable both to the world of ideas, facts and/or things. Even more so given that these finite resources are increasing in number - it is enough to compare the number of words that a dictionary currently has compared to one a hundred years old -, to understand how the limits expand in "the society of possibilities". . This topic will be expanded in future posts.
[2] The creativity that we will study is related to the human race. Different researches has been carried out that could show the existence of creativity in various animal species. More than a hundred years ago, the German psychologist W. Köhler studied the creative behavior of primates who, by stacking boxes or joining sticks, managed to reach bananas hanging from the ceiling, out of reach. Another field of debate is related to artificial intelligence and the capacity or not, which could have the field of artificial creativity. This extremely dynamic area in new proposals – there are a lot of new systems getting better, for example, DALL•E, Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, or Nightcafe - could provide a definitive answer to the question if the AI is really creative in a short time.
[3]
From the study of the work and the notes of Leonardo Da Vinci, Michael J. Gelb,
proposed a method of seven characteristics for creative work: 1) Arouse
curiosity. 2) Create different perspectives. 3) Sharpen the senses. 4) Accept
the uncertain. 5) Discover the balance. Balance between art and science,
between logic and imagination. 6) Work body and mind. 7) Go towards the new and
the unknown, keeping a broad perspective.
Bibliography:
Amabile, T. (2012). “Componential Theory of Creativity”. Harvard Business School, Working Paper, 12-096
Borges, J.L. (1985). Los Conjurados. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Emecé.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we Think. Lexington, Mass, U.S.A.
Galton, F.(1869). Hereditary genius. An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London, United Kingdom: Macmillan and Co.
Getzels, J.W and Csikszentmihalyi, M (1976). The Creative Vision: A Longitudinal Study of Problem Finding in Art. New York, U.S.A: John Wiley & Sons.
Gharib, M., Roh, C., & Noca, F. (2022). Leonardo da Vinci’s Visualization of Gravity as a Form of Acceleration. Advance online publication on Project MUSE. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/871462.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von: Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues: und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin : Dümmler 1836
Joas, H. (1996). The Creativity of Action. Chicago, U.S.A: University of Chicago Press.
OECD/Eurostat (2018). Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th Edition, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. Paris/Eurostat, Luxembourg: OECD Publishing.
Reinert, H., and Reinert, E. (2006). “Creative Destruction in Economics. Nietzsche, Sombart, Schumpeter. The European Heritage” Economics and the Social Sciences, 3, 55-85.
Runco, M.A. and Jaeger, G. (2012). “The Standard Definition of Creativity”. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96, 2012.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economics Development. An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest And The Business Cycle. Mass, U.S.A: Harvard Univeristy Press Cambridge.
Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York, U.S.A: Harper & Brothers.
Schumpeter, J. (1947). “The Creative Response in Economic History”. The Journal of Economic History, Vol. VII November I947 Nº. 2 pp.149-159.
Tatarkiewicz, W. (1980). History of six ideas: art, beauty, form, creativity, mimesis, aesthetic experience. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne International Philosophy Series.
Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. London, United Kingdom: C.A. Watts & Co.
Wertheimer, M. (1945). Productive Thinking. New York, U.S.A: Harper & Brothers.
