Creativity And Innovation Pdf Free Download
Creativity and innovation: Skills for the 21st Century
Abstract
Creativity and innovation have been highlighted as essential skills for the 21st century, especially if we consider that both skills can promote human potential by eliciting positive aspects of the individual. These skills have been valued in different contexts. The purpose of this text is to discuss the notions of creativity and innovation as independent constructs and to discuss the relationships between these concepts according to the scientific literature. Three different propositions will be presented, namely, treating these constructs as synonyms, as distinct from each other or as complimentary.
Discover the world's research
- 20+ million members
- 135+ million publications
- 700k+ research projects
Join for free
Content may be subject to copyright.
237
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION
Estud. psicol. I Campinas I 35(3) I 237-246 2018
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-02752018000300002
1 Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas, Centro de Ciências da Vida, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia. Campus II, Av.
John Boyd Dunlop, s/n., Jd. Ipaussurama, 13060-904, Campinas, SP, Brasil. Correspondência para/Correspondence to: T.C. NAKANO.
E-mail: <tatiananakano@hotmail.com>.
Como citar este artigo/How to cite this article
Nakano, T. C., & Wechsler, S. M. (2018). Creativity and innovation: Skills for the 21st Century. Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas), 35 (3),
237-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-02752018000300002
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
CC
BY
SEÇÃO TEMÁTICA | THEMATIC SECTION
CRIATIVIDADE E INOVAÇÃO | CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION
Creativity and innovation: Skills for the 21st Century
Criatividade e inovação: competências para o século XXI
Tatiana de Cassia NAKANO1 0000-0002-5720-8940
Solange Muglia WECHSLER1 0000-0002-9757-9113
Abstract
Creativity and innovation have been highlighted as essential skills for the 21st century, especially if we consider that both
skills can promote human potential by eliciting positive aspects of the individual. These skills have been valued in different
contexts. The purpose of this text is to discuss the notions of creativity and innovation as independent constructs and to
discuss the relationships between these concepts according to the scientifi c literature. Three different propositions will
be presented, namely, treating these constructs as synonyms, as distinct from each other or as complimentary.
Keywords: Creativity; Innovation; Positive psychology.
Resumo
Tanto a criatividade quanto a inovação vêm sendo ressaltadas como habilidades essenciais para o século XXI, notadamente
diante da constatação de que, ambas, atuam no sentido de favorecer o potencial humano, constituindo-se em aspectos
positivos do indivíduo, valorizados, cada vez mais, em diferentes contextos. Nesse sentido, o presente texto enfocará as
compreensões sobre criatividade e inovação, como construtos isolados e depois as relações que se estabelecem entre
esses conceitos, de acordo com a literatura científi ca. Três diferentes propostas serão apresentadas, tratando os construtos
como sinônimos, como elementos distintos e ainda como complementares.
Palavras-chave: Criatividade; Inovação; Psicologia positiva.
The development of humanity has been
increasingly dependent on innovation and discovery.
From this point of view, creativity is perceived
not only as the expression of human potential
238
Estud. psicol. I Campinas I 35(3) I 237-246 2018
T.C. NAKANO & S.M. WECHSLER
but also understood as fundamental for societal
growth. Considering that innovation depends
on the occurrence of creativity, applied to a
specific domain, there is the need to understand
these phenomena, and to determine if they are
independent, related or complementary.
Understanding creativity
Interest in the study of creativity can be
explained by the need to further understand
human potential and traits relative to the positive
aspects of the individual (Kaufman & Beghetto,
2009; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Singer, 2004).
This characteristic has been valued because of its
importance in promoting individual well-being,
in both personal and professional achievements
(Wechsler & Nakano, 2018), and in the important
contributions that it can bring to humanity
(Krentzman, 2013; Pfeiffer & Wechsler, 2013).
These reasons make creativity an increasingly
appreciated characteristic perceived as a valuable
resource for individual and social development.
Creativity can be understood as being a
multidimensional construct, involving cognitive
variables, personality characteristics, family,
educational aspects, and both social and cultural
elements. These dimensions interact with each
other according to individual thinking and creative
styles and are therefore expressed and found in
many different ways (Sternberg, 2010; Wechsler,
2008). Therefore, the creative phenomenon has
been studied under the most different approaches,
sometimes emphasizing the person, or the
process or products, the environment, or even the
interaction between two or more of these variables,
thus implying that creativity has multiple ways to
be identified (Alencar & Fleith, 2008; Nakano &
Wechsler, 2012).
The study of the creative person includes
research into both the cognitive value as well as
personality variables. Cognitive aspects involved
in creative thinking are mainly related to divergent
thinking skills, emphasized in Guilford's (1966)
work, which names them as fluency, flexibility,
elaboration and originality and were later confirmed
by Torrance's numerous works that look at the
predictive value of these characteristics on adults'
creative achievements (Torrance, 1972, 1993).
Personality variables associated with creativity
are an amalgam of positive characteristics,
such as curiosity, tolerance towards different
ideas, autonomy, imagination, self-confidence,
persistence, motivation, and others (Almeida
& Wechsler, 2015; Plucker & Renzulli, 1999).
Nevertheless, rather than believing that creative
people possess all of these characteristics, there
is a consensus among authors indicating there
are many different paths along which people can
display their creative potential (Isaksen, Dorval, &
Treffinger, 2011).
The creative person, according to a
humanistic perspective, has the consciousness and
the abilities to address crisis in transformative ways
(O'Hara, 2017). Therefore, the creative person can
be understood as being in a process to reach self-
actualization and to develop characteristics that
are related to mental health, such as subjective
well-being, resilience, optimism, quality of life, and
other aspects emphasized by positive psychology
(Wechsler, Oliveira, & Suarez, 2015). According
to Amabile's (1996) conception, creativity would
involve the interface of motivation with a specific
area of knowledge. Thus, creative people would
function on behalf of their intrinsic motivation,
considering this as a key component to influence
an individual's ability to express his/her talents
(Subotnick, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011).
The state of Flow describes these moments of
intense concentration and high involvement
in which creative people forget schedules or
environments when they are pursuing a highly
motivating task (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; McCoach
& Flake, 2018).
To understand the creative process, it is
important to review Wallachs' definition of the
phases involved in this process: preparation,
incubation, illumination and verification (Treffinger
& Isaksen, 2005). These processes were later
clarified in the model known as Osborn-Parnes's
Creative Problem Solving Model, which is composed
of five stages: fact- finding, problem-clarification,
239
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION
Estud. psicol. I Campinas I 35(3) I 237-246 2018
idea finding, solution generation and acceptance
finding (Isaksen, Treffinger, & Dorval, 2001). These
phases indicate that problem solving comprises
stages of generating ideas using creative thinking
followed by cognitive processes, demanding the
evaluation and implementation of ideas, which
are more related to critical thinking (Grohman,
Wodniecka, & Klusak, 2006). Therefore, both
divergent and convergent thinking are presented
in creative problem solving (Wechsler et al., 2018).
Creative products, on the other hand, can be
concrete or tangible, or intangible such as learning
or developing a new skill (Isaksen et al., 2011). The
question of evaluating creative products is always a
central issue of debates, as there are so many criteria
to be considered. An interesting proposal was made
by O'Quin and Besemer (2006) in order to solve this
problem, and this considers three main dimensions:
novelty, resolution and style. The novelty dimension
examines the original contribution the product
brings to an area; the resolution aspect refers to
how well the product solves the problem from
which it was derived; and finally, the style aspect is
related to the elaboration or the outcome of making
that product more attractive. Another criterion was
added by Kaufman, Beghetto, and Pourjalali (2011),
stating that a creative product requires not only that
the solution be unique but also relevant to the task.
In this sense, creativity differs from a thought that
may be extremely original but is irrational and that
is totally unrelated to the task.
Concerns are also raised by David, Nakano,
Morais, and Primi (2011) about the environment
that impacts creative productivity, by either
stimulating or inhibiting creative expression. The
importance of education is confirmed in various
studies (Pfeiffer, 2018), indicating that teachers as
well as parents play a definite role in incentivating
talents from childhood to adolescence. On the
other hand, the cultural context has to also be
considered as a creative product requiring not only
originality and task relevance but also cultural values
(Beghetto & Kaufman, 2014). Thus, the System
Model of Creativity, proposed by Csikszentmihalyi
(1996) in order to understand creativity, considers
the interaction of three subsystems: the individual,
the domain or area of expertise, and the field
represented by the gatekeepers or judges who will
allow the product to be recognized. This area of
study sometimes is confused as innovation, since
the focus is on product rather than the person or
the process. However, there are differences to be
considered, and these will be defined in the next
sections.
Understanding innovation
Innovation has been valued as a necessary
individual characteristic in the globalized world.
Taken as a concept of multidisciplinary interest,
research on this phenomenon has been developed in
several areas of knowledge including administration,
education, economics, psychology and sociology,
among others. As a concept, innovation has
been defined as the development of the product
or practice of new and useful ideas to benefit
individuals, teams, organizations or a broader
range of society (Bledow, Frese, Anderson, Erez, &
Farr 2009). Then, there is the need to clarify that
innovation is not just a matter of coming up with
a new idea but also requires a valuable product.
In this case, "product" is not limited to a tangible
object but can also be a seen as a process to increase
production and reduce costs in a way not yet
tested in that specific context (Cropley, Kaufman,
& Cropley, 2011).
The term "Innovation" is always linked to
the insertion, implementation or development of
an idea, product or service for the purpose of utility
in society. Given its amplitude, different types of
innovation were defined by the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD,
2016) as the following: a) product innovation
is the application of an idea or service that has
undergone substantial development, the feasibility
of which may be related to its functionality or other
techniques that make new uses for that idea or
service possible; b) process innovation, referring to
the development of new methods to achieve a given
production; c) organizational innovation, or new
types of organization or means of administering
organizations; and d) marketing innovation,
240
Estud. psicol. I Campinas I 35(3) I 237-246 2018
T.C. NAKANO & S.M. WECHSLER
whereby new methods are used to obtain the
development of products and their associated
packaging, forms of cost and promotional publicity.
The distinction between product or process
innovation is based on the social impact of each of
these terms. While product innovation has a clear
effect on the economy and job creation, process
innovation must be looked at relative to its ability
to bring a cost reduction, the time required for a
given activity to be completed, or a significant gain
in effectiveness to provide some type of service
(Mello, 2009). Understood in this way, innovation
would involve the transformation or application of a
concept into something that might have commercial
value or that could be used by a wide range of
people (Verissimo, 2009). Therefore, innovation
tends to be seen more as something related to the
financial or social impact and may or may not be
related to a technological discovery (Cabral, 2003).
Increasingly, there is a tendency among countries
concerned with innovation to approach this issue
under a systematic approach to tackle complex
problems, rather than trying to solve a specific
problem or case, as this change involves many
variables.
Due to its relevance, innovation has been
focused on as a point of research by important
Brazilian centers of studies, such as the Innovation
Agency at University of Campinas (2018), the
Innovation Research Center at Federal University
of Rio Grande do Sul (2018), the Center for
Technology Policy and Management at University of
São Paulo (2018), and the Brazilian Association of
Creativity and Innovation (Associação Brasileira de
Criatividade e Inovação, 2018),. In other countries
as well, such as those located in Asia (India, China,
Mongolia, Thailand, Philippines, Korea, Thailand,
Australia), and as reviewed in the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(Care & Luo, 2016) report, there are two main
domains, mentioned by all of them, on which their
policies will focus in the 21st century: creative and
innovative thinking (involving creative thinking,
critical thinking, reflective thinking, and decision
making) and interpersonal skills (communication
and collaboration). Due to the recognition of
creativity and innovation as key competencies for
development, there is the need to characterize their
relationship.
The relationship between creativity and
innovation
Given the globalization of business, which
has increased the international mobility of managers
and the tendency to expand innovative activity
across countries, it has become increasingly
important to understand the relationship between
the processes of creativity and innovation (Candeias,
2008). Innovation is valued not only for individual
and organizational performance but also for
economic success and social development at the
global level (Westwood & Low, 2003).
Differences between national and inter nation al
interest in the subject can be noted in relation to
the number of studies carried out. A simple search
on Google Scholar in December 2017 showed that
by looking for the combination of the terms in
Brazilian Portuguese "criatividade and inovação ",
about only 8,570 results were found. When the
terms were searched in English ("creativity and
innovation"), 103,000 results were found. This
number represents less than 8% of the number of
studies found internationally. The data demonstrate
that, as highlighted by Stein and Harper (2012),
there is currently a vast literature on the two
constructs in general and with reference to many
specific fields, including management, economy
and community development, most notably on the
international scale. Nevertheless, there is a small
number of studies focusing on the relationship
between constructs.
In the investigation of these two phenomena,
several issues are present. For instance, is innovation
different from creativity? Is the presence of creativity
necessary to reach innovation, or can these
processes operate independently? Such questions
have been topics of interest to several researchers,
indicating the importance of understanding these
concepts and their possible interactions.
While the study of creativity goes back to the
beginnings of psychology science, the application
241
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION
Estud. psicol. I Campinas I 35(3) I 237-246 2018
of psychological theories in understanding and
explaining the relationship between creativity
and innovation is more recent (Reiter-Palmon,
2011). The two characteristics were, until recently,
investigated primarily separately (Agars, Kaufman,
& Locke, 2008). For this reason, the gap resulting
from this independence of research among the
two concepts is only beginning to be investigated.
There is a threshold of creativity that is necessary
for innovation, according to Runco (2011), as
creative efforts may benefit from extreme originality,
whereas innovation requires some originality, not
maximum novelty, as the most important factor in
effectiveness or public usefulness.
This fact can be confirmed by Joo, McLean,
and Yang (2013), after an extensive review of
empirical studies published between 2001 and
2012, who pointed to the fact that studies on
creativity directed toward understanding the
development of human resources have been
scarce, notably those that jointly address creativity
and innovation. Nationally, a review of research on
creativity in the organizational context carried out
by Spadari and Nakano (2015) showed that among
40 analyzed Brazilian studies published between
1989 and 2014, the creativity construct was directly
investigated as related to the concept of innovation
in only 22.5% of the studies. According to these
authors, specifically in the field of psychology,
great focus has been given to the investigation
of the relationship of creativity with innovation,
as well to the application of innovation mainly in
the organizational context. Similarly, a review of
scientific production on creativity and innovation
(Campos, Nakano, Ribeiro, & Silva, 2014), after
having consulted 285 studies from different
Brazilian databases, showed that the complexity of
the two phenomena became visible in light of the
number of studies focused on the two constructs,
in either isolation or combination, and applied
to several areas of knowledge (predominantly in
psychology, administration and education).
These findings confirm the multidisciplinary
approach of both constructs (Amorim & Frederico,
2008; Giglio, Wechsler, & Bragotto, 2009; Valentim,
2008), as well as the fact that most studies involving
the relationship between creativity and innovation
are still much more exploratory than effectively
subsidized by theoretical models. Thus, three
different approaches can be found: innovation
and creativity taken as synonyms, as distinct
characteristics, or as complementary. Each approach
will be further explored below.
Creativity and innovation as synonymous
This view argues that both constructs can
be considered synonymous, considering the final
product is the same (De Breu, Njistad, Bechtoldt, &
Baas, 2011). However, the literature has challenged
this view, stating that creativity alone does not
necessarily generate innovation and may assume, in
part, responsibility for its promotion or being one of
the sources of innovation (Ribeiro & Moraes, 2014).
Criticisms of this understanding involve
the fact that if we consider these constructs as
synonyms, we fail to recognize several important
points that distinguish them (De Breu et al., 2011).
First, creativity requires something appropriate, an
idea, insight or solution that solves a problem, while
innovations require that this idea be implemented,
in the sense of making some progress. In contrast
to creativity, innovation would require overcoming
a number of barriers or steps to be implemented,
including problem analysis, evaluation and
implementation (Zeng, Proctor, & Salvendy, 2011).
Authors such as Somech and Drach-Zahavy
(2013), in a study that revised the literature on
innovation, found that most studies refer to
innovation as a generic concept and therefore
do not differentiate between the two stages of
innovation: the creativity stage of the generation of
new ideas, and the implementation phase, which is
the successful implementation of creative ideas. In
this model, creativity often refers to the first phase
of the innovation process and can be seen as a
subprocess of innovation. This emphasis will be used
and best explained in the following view. However,
researchers have recently adopted an interactional
approach, arguing that situational and personal
factors can have a combined effect on innovation.
242
Estud. psicol. I Campinas I 35(3) I 237-246 2018
T.C. NAKANO & S.M. WECHSLER
Creativity and innovation as distinct
constructs
At the other extreme, such constructs have
also been studied as distinct and unrelated concepts
(Cerne, Jaklic, & Skerlavaj, 2013; Reiter-Palmon,
2011; Stein & Harper, 2012; Zeng et al., 2011).
In this view, researchers note the use of the terms
indistinctly, given that both can be considered
from a perspective related to the final product,
evaluated in terms of its novelty and adequacy (in
the case of creativity) or its usefulness (in the case
of innovations) (De Breu et al., 2011).
The difference between the constructs is
mainly related to the recognition that creativity
has been identified as the most important
determinant of innovation, constituting one of its
sources (Amabile, 1988). The difference between
creativity and innovation would lie in the fact that
innovation particularly concerns the outcome of a
process, whether it is a new product or even a new
service; that is, putting an idea into practice within
a context (Amorim & Frederico, 2008). Creativity,
however, would be more directly related to the
creation of new ideas without the need for their
practical application (Gurteen, 1998; Mundim &
Wechsler, 2007). Similarly, according to the authors,
both creativity and innovation require a complete
rupture of conventional thinking, similar to a radical
paradigm shift, beginning with a divergence of
viewpoints and attempting to achieve convergence
(agreement), so that there are processes of
divergence and convergence, of integrating the
new with the old.
Another distinction to be made is that
creativity requires something new and original, in
terms of absolute rarity. Innovation requires that this
novelty be for the current group or situation, so that
it does not have to be original in the sense that it has
never been thought of before and may be relative.
It admits the possibility that the same idea, insight,
or solution and even its implementation has already
been generated, having only to guarantee that its
adoption, in that situation, unit or department, is
considered an innovation for those people involved
(Hammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall, & Zhao, 2011). An
important question is posited by Glaveanu (2010):
Novelty? for whom? useful for whom? This question
emphasizes the point that a process or product can
only be evaluated as more or less creative in relation
to something (a group, a domain or a historical
period).
However, the distinction between creativity
and innovation may involve two types of risk,
emphasized by Isaksen et al. (2001). The first is
to place too much emphasis on the product to be
obtained, leading to the misunderstanding that
other factors important for innovation are not
needed, such as the person, the process and the
environment. Indeed, most organizations that failed
to achieve innovation forgot about the importance
of the human element as well as the processes
or operations needed to achieve innovation or
environmental context for this to happen. The
second risk is to limit creativity to a mythological
view, understanding it only as the generation
of different ideas, without any concern with its
adequacy and solution of real problems, erroneously
indicating that creativity only involves the production
of new ideas (Runco, 2009). However, it must be
remembered that creativity involves the realization
of something different and meaningful, and thus
innovation must be seen as a subset or a result of
creativity. Therefore, innovation needs creativity in
order to happen, and it is not possible to generate
something new and useful for society without an
earlier creative process (Dionne, 2008).
Another distinction between creativity
and innovation was proposed by Clydesdale
(2006), who suggested that creativity is driven by
intrinsic motivation, whereas innovation results
from extrinsic motives, or the need to overcome
standards of thinking or practicing. Another
distinction refers to the fact that creativity must
be investigated at the individual level, whereas
innovation must be analyzed in terms of a team or
organizational level (Cerne et al., 2013). Thus, many
steps occur between having an idea and putting it
into practice, running the risk that there may be
a failure of communication between these two
moments (Wechsler & Nakano, 2018).
243
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION
Estud. psicol. I Campinas I 35(3) I 237-246 2018
Creativity and innovation as a
complementary construct
Finally, the view that defends the idea that
creativity and innovation are related concepts seems
the most consensual. In this model, innovation
involves two stages: the creativity phase (generation
of new ideas) and the implementation phase
(the succession of creative ideas). In this sense,
creativity would be defined as the first stage of
a problem-solving process, while innovation is
focused on the implementation of the idea and its
acceptance. However, both would require a rupture
of conventional thinking and involve divergence
and convergence.
Creativity has been described as the most
important determinant of innovation, as explained
by Amabile (1988). In this sense, creativity is
important in itself and can be conceptualized as
a necessary precondition for innovation (Joo et
al., 2013), although this would depend not only
on creativity but also on external sources such as
the market and its regulatory forces, so that the
connection between the two concepts cannot be
considered simple and linear (King, 1995).
Final Considerations
In the challenge of considering the
relationship between the two important themes, it
should be noted that both creativity and innovation
have historically been complex phenomena, subject
to innumerable contextual and social influences.
These variables deserve multiple views so that they
can be known and understood in the different fields
of knowledge (Giglio et al., 2009).
The search for creative professionals who
can innovate – that is, individuals who stand out
for their mastery of efficient strategies to address
new problems and solve them successfully – has
been emphasized by different types of organizations
(Cropley, 2005). These data indicate the need for
a creative education, ranging from elementary to
higher education, motivating students to genuinely
desire to learn, to discover new subjects and to go
beyond the teaching offered in the classroom. This
change in attitude towards education involves a
rethinking of teaching strategies and a challenge to
old teaching styles in order to encourage students
and future professionals to develop the creative and
innovative skills that are so required and valued as
essential skills in the 21st century.
The literature review points to several
historical and conceptual issues that are being
faced by researchers interested in the relationship
between creativity and innovation. Some of
them may be mentioned: (1) although these
characteristics are becoming more and more
desired, especially in the organizational context
due to the benefits that can be generated for the
companies, difficulties in their identification are still
present; (2) important observation also refers to the
fact that most of the studies involving the theme
still turn to initial explorations on the relation of
creativity with innovation; (3) the need for other
focuses to be investigated; for example, creative
and innovative expression on a personal level in
various contexts, such as social and educational,
as well as the relationship with other constructs
that make up positive psychology, such as hope,
self-efficacy, self-esteem, optimism, resilience and
affection. These limitations still constitute gaps in
the Brazilian scientific literature, and research with
these focuses should be conducted. It is necessary
to mention, finally, the limitation relating to the
existing psychological instruments to identify these
abilities; thus, it is recommended that more research
examine the areas of creativity and innovation
assessment in order to enable a scientific basis for
recognizing these phenomena.
References
Agars, M. D., Kaufman, J. C., & Locke, T. R. (2008).
Social influence and creativity in organizations: A
multilevel lens for theory, research, and practice. In
M. D. Mumford, S. T. Hunter, & K. E. Bedell-Avers
(Eds.), Multi-Level issues in creativity and innovation:
Research in multi-level issues (pp.3-61). Amsterdam:
JAI Press.
Alencar, E. M. L. S., & Fleith, D. M. (2008). Barreiras à
promoção da criatividade no ensino fundamental.
Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 24(1), 59-66.
244
Estud. psicol. I Campinas I 35(3) I 237-246 2018
T.C. NAKANO & S.M. WECHSLER
Almeida, L. S., & Wechsler, S. M. (2015). Excelência
profissional: a convergência necessária de variáveis
psicológicas. Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas),
32(4), 763-771. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-
166X2015000400019
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and
innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(pp.123-167). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Amabile, T. A. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder:
Westview Press.
Amorim, M. C. S., & Frederico, R. (2008). Criatividade,
inovação e controle nas organizações. Revista de
Ciências Humanas, 42(1/2), 75-89.
Associação Brasileira de Criatividade e Inovação (2018).
Recuperado em janeiro 15, 2018, de www.criabrasilis.
org.br
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, A. (2014). Classroom
contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25 (1),
53-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.
905247
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr,
J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation:
Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and
ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 2(3), 305-337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1754-9434.2009.01154.x
Cabral, R. (2003). Development in Science. In J. Heilbron
(Org.), The Oxford Companion to the history of
modern science (pp.205-207). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Campos, C. R., Nakano, T. C., Ribeiro, W. J., & Silva, T.
F. (2014). Criatividade e inovação: uma revisão da
produção científica. Revista Faculdades do Saber,
1(2), 151-244.
Candeias, A. A. A. (2008). Criatividade: perspectiva
integrativa sobre o conceito e sua avaliação. In M.
F. Morais & S. Bahia (Orgs.), Criatividade: conceito,
necessidades e intervenção (pp.41-64). Braga:
Psiquilíbrios.
Care, E., & Luo, R. (2016). Assessment of transversal
competencies in education: policy and practice in
the Asia-Pacific Region. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved
August 10, 2016, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0024/002465/246590E.pdf
Cerne, M., Jaklic, M., & Skerlavaj, M. (2013). Authentic
leadership, creativity and innovation: A multilevel
perspective. Leadership, 9(1), 63-85. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/174271501245130
Clydesdale, G. (2006). Creativity and competition: The
Beatles. Creativity Research Journal, 18(2), 129-139.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1802_1
Cropley, A. J. (2005). Creativity in education and learning .
London: Routledge.
Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., & Cropley, A. (2011).
Measuring creativity for innovation management.
Journal of Technology Management and Innovation,
6(3), 13-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-
27242011000300002
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity : Flow and the
psychology of discovery and invention. New York:
Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow. New York:
Harper & Row.
David, A. P. M., Nakano, T. C., Morais, M. F., & Primi, R.
(2011). Competências criativas no ensino superior. In
S. M. Wechsler & T. C. Nakano (Orgs.), Criatividade
no ensino superior: uma perspectiva internacional
(pp.14-53). São Paulo: Vetor.
De Breu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., Bechtoldt, M. N., &
Baas, M. (2011). Group creativity and innovation:
A motivated information processing perspective.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 5(1),
81-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017986
Dionne, S. D. (2008). Social influence, creativity and
innovation: boundaries, brackets and non-linearity.
In M. D. Mumford, S. T. Hunter, & K. E. Bedell-Avers
(Eds.), Multi-Level issues in creativity and innovation :
Research in multi-level issues (pp.63-73). Amsterdam:
JAI Press.
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (2018). Innovation
Research Center. Retrieved January 25, 2018, from
http://nitec.co/en/
Giglio, Z. G., Wechsler, S. M., & Bragotto, D. (2009). Da
criatividade à inovação. Campinas: Papirus.
Glaveanu, V. P. (2010). Principles for a cultural psychology
of creativity. Culture & Psychology, 16(2), 147-163.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354067X10361394
Grohman, M., Wodniecka, Z., & Klusak, M. (2006).
Divergent thinking and evaluation skills: Do they always
go together? Journal of Creative Behavior, 40(2), 125-
145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2006.
tb01269.x
Guilford, J. P. (1966). The structure of the intellect model :
Its use and implications. New York: MacGraw-Hill.
Gurteen, D. (1998). Knowledge, creativity and innovation.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(1), 5-13. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673279810800744
Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A.
R., & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of individual-level
innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 5(1), 90-105. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018556
Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. J. (2011).
Creative approaches to problem solving: A framework
for innovation and change. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Isaksen, S., Treffinger, D., & Dorval, K. B. (2001). Clarifying
our CPS vocabulary. Communiqué Creative Problem
Solving Group, 11, 7-10.
245
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION
Estud. psicol. I Campinas I 35(3) I 237-246 2018
Joo, B. K., McLean, G. N., & Yang, B. (2013). Creativity and
human resource development: an integrative literature
review and a conceptual framework for future research.
Human Resource Development Review, 12(4), 390-421.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484313481462
Kaufman, J., & Beghetto, R. (2009). Beyond big and little:
The four c models of creativity. Review of General
Psychology, 13(1), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0013688
Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Pourjalali, S. (2011).
Criatividade na sala de aula: uma perspectiva
internacional. In S. M. Wechsler & V. L. T. Souza
(Eds), Criatividade e aprendizagem: uma perspectiva
internacional. São Paulo: Loyola.
King, N. (1995). Individual creativity and organizational
innovation: An uncertain link. In C. M. Ford & D. A.
Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations : Ivory
tower visions and real world voices (pp.82-87).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Krentzman, A. R. (2013). Review of the application of
Positive Psychology to substance use, addiction, and
recovery research. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,
27(1), 151-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029897
McCoach, D. B., & Flake, J. R. (2018). The role of
motivation. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), APA handbook of
giftedness and talent (pp.201-213). Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association.
Mello, M. T. L. (2009). Propriedade intelectual e
concorrência. Revista Brasileira de Inovação, 8(2),
371-402.
Mundim, M. C. B., & Wechsler, S. M. (2007). Estilos
de pensar e criar em gerentes organizacionais e
subordinados. Boletim de Psicologia, 57(126), 15-32.
Nakano, T. C., & Wechsler, S. M. (2012). Criatividade:
definições, modelos e formas de avaliação. In C.
S. Hutz (Ed.), Avanços em avaliação psicológica de
crianças e adolescentes II (pp.328-361). São Paulo:
Casa do Psicólogo.
O'Hara. M. (2017). Rising to the occasion: New persons
for new times. Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas),
34(4), 454-466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982027
52017000400002
O'Quin, K., & Besemer, S. P. (2006). Using the creative
product semantic scale as a metric for results-oriented
business. Creativity and Innovation Management,
15(1), 34-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-86
91.2006.00367.x
Orga nization for Economic and Cooperation Development
(2016). Innovation strategy . Retrieved October 27,
2016, from http://www.oecd.org/site/innovation
strategy/defininginnovation.htm
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2018). (Ed). APA handbook on giftedness
and talent. Washington, D. C.: American Psychology
Association.
Pfeiffer, S. I., & Wechsler, S. M. (2013). Youth leadership:
A proposal for identifying and developing creativity
and giftedness. Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas),
30(2), 219-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-
166X2013000200008
Plucker, J., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric
approaches to the study of human creativity. In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp.35-60).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Reiter-Palmon, R. (2011). Introduction to special issue:
The psychology of creativity and innovation in the
workplace. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the
Arts, 5(1), 1-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018586
Ribeiro, O. C., & Moraes, M. C. (2014). Criatividade em
uma perspectiva transdisciplinar: rompendo crenças,
mitos e concepções. Brasília: Líber Livro.
Runco, M. A. (2009). Creativity : Theories and themes .
Burlington: Academic Press.
Runco, M. A. (2011). Divergent thinking. In M. A. Runco,
& S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity
(pp.400-403). London: Elsevier Academic Press.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating
team creativity to innovation implementation: The
role of team composition and climate for innovation.
Journal of Management, 39(3), 684-708. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0149206310394187
Spadari, G. F., & Nakano, T. C. (2015). Criatividade no
contexto organizacional: revisão de pesquisas. Revista
Sul Americana de Psicologia, 3(2), 182-209.
Stein, S. M., & Harper, T. L. (2012). Creativity and
innovation: divergence and convergence in
pragmatic dialogical planning. Journal of Planning
Education and Research, 32(1), 5-17. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0739456X11417829
Sternberg, R. (2010). The nature of creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 18(1), 98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15326934crj1801_10
Sternberg, R., Grigorenko, E., & Singer, J. (2004).
Creativity: From potential to realization. Washington,
D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Subotnick, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell,
F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted
education: A proposed direction forward based
on psychological science. Psychological Science
in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3-54. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/1529100611418056
Torrance, E. P. (1972). Predictive validity of the Torrance
Tests of Creative Thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior,
6, 236-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.
1972.tb00936.x
Torrance, E. P. (1993). The Beyonder in a thirty-year
longitudinal study. Roeper Review, 15(3), 131-135.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783199309553486
Treffinger, D., & Isaksen, S. (2005). Creative problem
solving: The history, development, and implications
246
Estud. psicol. I Campinas I 35(3) I 237-246 2018
T.C. NAKANO & S.M. WECHSLER
for gifted education and talent development. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 49(4), 342-353. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/001698620504900407
University of Campinas (2018). Innovation Agency.
Retrieved February 5, 2018, from https://en.inova.
unicamp.br/
University of São Paulo (2018). Center for Technology
Policy and Management. Retrieved January 25, 2018,
from http://pgt.prp.usp.br/contato/
Valentim, M. L. P. (2008). Criatividade e inovação na
atuação profissional. CRB-8 Digital, 1(1), 3-9.
Veríssimo, G. (2009). Inovação: um turbulento e pra-
zeroso desafio. In Z. G. Giglio, S. M. Wechsler, & D.
Br agotto (Orgs.), Da criatividade à inovação (pp.157-166).
Campinas: Papirus.
Wechsler, S. M. (2008). Criatividade: descobrindo e
encorajando. São Paulo: Psy.
Wechsler, S. M., & Nakano, T. C. (2018). Criatividade
e inovação como elementos da psicologia positiva:
implicações para o contexto organizacional. In A. C. S.
Vasquez & C. S. Hutz (Orgs.), Aplicações da Psicologia
Positiva: trabalho e organizações. São Paulo: Hogrefe.
Wechsler, S. M., Oliveira, K., & Suarez, J. T. (2015).
Criatividade e saúde mental: desenvolvendo as forças
positivas de caráter. In M. F. Morais, L. C. Miranda, &
S. M. Wechsler (Eds.), Criatividade : aplicações práticas
em contextos internacionais (pp.59-76). São Paulo:
Vetor.
Wechsler, S. M., Saiz, C., Rivas, S. F., Vendramini, C.
M. M., Almeida, L. S., Mundin, M. C., & Franco, A.
(2018). Creative and critical thinking: Independent
or overlapping components. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 27(1), 114-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
tsc.2017.12.003
Westwood, R., & Low, D. R. (2003). The multicultural
muse: Culture, creativity and innovation. International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3(2), 235-259.
Zeng, L., Proctor, P. R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2011). Can
traditional divergent thinking tests be trusted in
measuring and predicting real-world creativity?
Creativity Research Journal, 23(1), 24-37. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/10400419.2011.545713
Received: February 16, 2018
Approved: March 2, 2018
... The recent appreciation of creativity as one of the most valued emotional skills of the 21 st Century (Nakano & Wechsler, 2018) creates another challenge for shy people. Despite this, studies reveal conflicting results in the relationship between creativity and shyness. ...
... Studies indicating ways of reconciling specific characteristics of individuals that distort the perception of individual skills, such as shyness, in interviews or in the routine of organizations, have been kept out of the discussion -with a few rare exceptions that focus on the link between shyness and the ability to concentrate on technology-related activities (Scholz, 2017), or that discuss shyness as a problem for organizations when it comes to excessive sentimentality in labor relations (McDonnell, 1984). In general, shyness is seen as a trait that needs to be hidden by the candidate and discovered by the employer (Donida, Visentini, & Ferreira, 2018;Van Zalk, Lamb, & Rentfrow, 2017), failing to consider characteristics that may correlate with shyness and that may be attractive to the organization, at a time when creativity is considered one of the individual skills that will make a difference in the careers of 21 st -century workers (Nakano & Wechsler, 2018). In organizations, although the talent selection process is an ongoing challenge, bias variants (Knight, 2017) ISSN: 1983-716X transform this process into a muddle between what the organization wants, what it sees in the individual, and what talents the individual really has to offer. ...
... Thus, it can be seen that creativity has gained relevance in organizations as an essential skill of the 21 st Century (Nakano & Wechsler, 2018). However, although we understand the importance of creativity for business competitiveness globally (Alberton & Carvalho, 2017), few studies have attempted to elucidate how organizational creativity can sustain the skills needed for it to emerge (de Vasconcellos et al., 2019). ...
Objective: To analyze the relationship between self-perception of creativity, shyness, and employability of the individual. Methodological procedures: A quantitative research was conducted with 152 respondents through exploratory factor analysis to develop a unified scale of perceived individual creativity and regression analysis to assess the effects of perceived individual creativity and timidity on employability. Results: Shyness is negatively related to creativity self-perceived. Although more creative individuals are less afraid of becoming unemployed and have more hope of repositioning themselves professionally, there is no evidence of the relationship between employability, creativity, and shyness regarding the previous experience of unemployment. Therefore, this article contributes to understanding how the effects of conditions intrinsic to the individual-specifically, creativity and shyness-can affect their insertion in the labor market. Limitations: The research considered only individuals residing in some regions of Brazil with a level of education above or equal to higher education. Even though creativity may have a different relevance from one sector to the other, the profession was not controlled. Practical implications: This study elucidates how different factors underlying perceived individual creativity have distinct effects on professional insertion. In addition, the article offers a synthetic assessment scale to measure the self-perception of creativity. Theoretical implications: A validated scale of individual creativity was proposed. In addition, this study contributes to the interpretation of specific personality characteristics-like shyness-and individual skills-such as individual creativity as a factor to be considered in studies on human resources and employability. Originality: The study proposes a scale for the perception of individual creativity and separately analyzes the factors that constitute the individual creativity perceived concerning shyness and employability.
... La importancia de la creatividad para el desarrollo de los individuos, las organizaciones y las sociedades (Rodríguez, 2015;Runco, 2004) resulta incuestionable debido a sus consecuencias personales, sociales, culturales y económicas (Mishina, 2013;Robinson & Aronica, 2013;Romo, 2012), al punto que ha sido considerada como un bien cultural de la humanidad (Ferreriro et al., 2013) y un elemento esencial no sólo de la vida espiritual, sino también de la vida material y la economía de individuos y pueblos (Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura [UNESCO], 2020a). Sin duda, la creatividad se ha consolidado como una de las habilidades esenciales para la vida en el presente siglo (Nakano & Wechsler, 2018;Puccio, Mance, & Murdock, 2011). Kim (2011) ha reportado una disminución progresiva en los puntajes del pensamiento creativo con el paso de los años, de ahí la importancia de realizar investigación que permita identificar cuáles los mejores métodos para apoyar la creatividad y tomar mejores decisiones al momento de invertir en potencialidades creativas (Runco, Paek & Garret, 2015). ...
... La creatividad es considerada como una de las habilidades esenciales para el siglo XXI (Nakano & Wechsler, 2018) y su importancia ha sido asociada a consecuencias sociales positivas (Rodríguez, 2015;Runco, 2004;UNESCO, 2020a). Estudios que permitan identificar variables promisorias que ayuden a su desarrollo son necesarios. ...
-
![Mario Maya]()
Creativity has become a subject of study of increasing importance, due to its impact on society and culture (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; Romo, 2012; Vecina, 2006). Studies to identify promising variables that help its development are necessary. Kandler et al. (2016) assure that creativity can be measured through a two-factor structure: perception of creativity and creative performance. The objective was to analyze the influence of intelligence, self-concept, self-esteem and task commitment in the perception of creativity and creative performance in young adults. Independently, these variables have been positively related to creative performance, but how these might be influencing a person's perception of their own creativity is unknown. The final study sample consisted of 200 university students (M = 19.92 years; SD. 1.39). Data collection was carried out in a group manner, with the prior consent of the participants. The results do not support the idea of two factors of creativity (Kandler et al., 2016). Therefore, analyzes were performed for each of these. Intelligence was the only significant predictor of creative performance, while task commitment, individualistic self-concept and ethical-moral self-esteem were significant predictors of creativity perception.
... Many studies stated that skills and competencies that must be considered to fulfil demand of 21 st century era [2]. Creativity is one of essential skills that must be possessed by students in facing demand of 21 st century challenges [3]. In field of science, creativity is known as scientific creativity [4]. ...
21st century learning should implement creativity in teaching and learning process. In the field of science, creativity is called as scientific creativity. The difference between creativity and scientific creativity lies in dimensions such as scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry. People can be creative in art, but they can differ in science. The urgency of scientific creativity makes it important to assess scientific creativity among stakeholders in education especially teachers and prospective teachers. Prospective teachers are people who will have an important role in future education because their competencies will affect students in the future that will be produced. Unfortunately, there is no studies that discussed scientific creativity among prospective teachers, especially in chemistry field, this is because there was not yet an instrument for assessing scientific creativity among prospective teachers. Therefore, this study aimed to develop an instrument to assess the scientific creativity of prospective chemistry teachers. This research was conducted quantitatively through validity expert's method and reliability as data analysis. The results showed that the instrument was valid as confirmed by the experts, and reliable with alpha Cronbach = 0.636. The valid and reliable scientific creativity instruments obtained can be a tool for stakeholders in education to assess scientific creativity before teaching in schools. With the hope that it could help to increase the involvement of 21st century education and further achieve the main goal, namely creating quality education.
... Creativity is enunciated to be given high priority as one of the key competencies of the 21st century in every sphere of life, particularly in education (Hernandez-Torrano & Ibrayeva, 2020;Bonnardel & Didier, 2020;Nakano & Wechsler, 2018;Gajda et al, 2017;Tsai, 2013;Trilling & Fadel, 2009;Craft et al, 2007), replacing intelligence as the focus of interest (Parkhurst, 1999). Along with the paradigm shift in contemporary learning theory towards more constructivist and social cognitivist approaches, there has been an ever-increasing inclination to incorporate creativity and its required skills into many a school curriculum throughout the world (Shaheen, 2010). ...
An increase in research on the teaching of creativity in learning environments is being witnessed as more studies continue to reveal its effects on learning outcomes and academic achievement. Thus, any investigative attempt to examine the relevant approaches to teaching of creative thinking skills is appreciated within the creativity literature. However, it is evident that the research on brainstorming as a creativity-promoting technique within an educational context has been overlooked for a while. Therefore, this research synthesis tried to recombine and reinterpret the results of some qualitative studies on the impacts of brainstorming technique on learners' achievement. To this end, 34 studies within the relevant literature were scanned; however, seven of them were found to be conducive to the meta-thematic analysis. The results of the meta-thematic analysis suggest that the brainstorming technique has positive effects on learners' cognitive skills and affect. It is believed that designing instruction with brainstorming could foster students' creativity by directing them to solving problems via critical thinking. The study further dwells on the reported drawbacks that are encountered during the implementation of this technique within the classroom and discusses some possible solutions as implications.
... There are changes in various fields of life quickly and globally in the 21st century, marked by the development of information and communication technology and computerization (Joyce & Calhoun, 2014;Nakano & Wechsler, 2018). At the same time, people must also have a complete mastery of sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Forawi, 2016;Larsson, 2017). ...
This study aims to describe the impact of online mentoring activities in implementing the RADEC (Read, Answer, Discuss, Explain, and Create) learning model on the competence of elementary school teachers in training students' critical thinking skills. The method was a pre-experiment with a one-group pretest-posttest design involving 25 elementary school teachers in Indonesia. The teachers received online mentoring in implementing RADEC learning model. The research instrument was a questionnaire to measure teachers' knowledge and skills in training critical thinking. The data processing technique was carried out by calculating the mean and the percentage of each item to obtain a description of the teachers' knowledge and skills in training students' critical thinking before and after treatment. The data were analyzed inferentially with a paired sample t-test using SPSS version 22 software to see the impact of the treatment on teachers' competence in training critical thinking. Based on the results of the paired-sample t-test, for both the knowledge and skills aspects, the probability value (sig) was 0.00 <0.05. This result means that there was a significant difference in the knowledge and skills of teachers in training students' critical thinking skills before and after mentoring activities. The study results indicate that the online mentoring in implementing the RADEC learning model improved teachers' competence in training elementary school students' critical thinking skills.
... This could be an excellent start in developing students' creativity skills, which is vital in raising learners who might become scientists, designers, and engineers in the future. Furthermore, creativity is highlighted as a vital skill in the 21st-century that can enhance students' potential in finding and creating solutions to different real-world problems [17]. Therefore, it is a challenge for all teachers in today"s generation to provide practical problems that are authentic for the students to unravel. ...
Developing students' 21st-century skills is one of the major goals of the Philippine education system. It has been a major problem in the education sector to integrate, innovate, and support learners in today's generation to develop a broad set of competencies necessary to compete in the global race of skills. This study aimed to improve students' conceptual understanding and creativity skills in physics using problem-based learning and project-based learning method. This study used a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest non-equivalent research design. Two heterogeneous classes were utilized as participants of the study. The first class intact class was designated as the first experimental group (n=42) utilizing problem-based learning, while the other intact class was designated as the second experimental group (n=36) using the project-based learning method. The creativity and conceptual understanding skills were measured using an open-ended questionnaire and scored using researcher-made rubrics with Krippendorff's alpha of 0.98 and 0.97, respectively. Results revealed significant improvement in conceptual understanding and creativity skills due to employing both teaching methods. Moreover, there is no significant difference in student's conceptual understanding and creativity skills as influenced by the two teaching methods. The absence of difference suggests that the two teaching methods contributed to the equal improvement of students' scores. Based on these results, it is suggested to use these teaching methods in other physics topics that require content and 21st-century skills mastery.
... The Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in several problems that require thinking skills to produce creative and innovative solutions [22]. Creative and innovative solutions are the result of trained creative thinking [23,24]. Students with good creative thinking skills can be flexible and see challenges as opportunities in a world that continues to proliferate [25]. ...
Purpose This study aims to analyze the literature on knowledge management on intellectual capital, social capital and its contribution to Iranian companies' innovation. Design/methodology/approach To investigate knowledge management's relationship on intellectual capital, social capital and innovation, using structural equation modeling based on data collected from 205 chief executive officers, production managers and marketing managers of Iranian companies. The research instrument is a standard questionnaire consisting of 109 questions in which 5 of them are demographic questions, 26 questions were asked to reveal the knowledge management process, 40 questions for intellectual capital, 21 for social capital and 17 for innovation. Findings The results show that knowledge management has a positive and significant relationship between intellectual capital and social capital. Knowledge management did not have a significant effect on innovation. However, intellectual capital and social capital have a significant effect on innovation. On the other hand, knowledge management mediated by intellectual capital and social capital has a positive and significant indirect effect on innovation. Originality/value The paper includes the implications for developing knowledge management and intellectual, social capital leading to innovation in manufacturing companies. Knowledge management can improve the innovation performance of a company if it is shared and applied effectively. This study addresses an important subject and the findings may be used by professionals and managers or another person interested in advancing knowledge management that leads to innovation.
Abstract Purpose: The main objective of this paper is to analyse the perception of bioclimatic comfort by tourists who visited the city of Porto. The results of the investigation carried out during the summer of 2019, the winter of 2019-2020 and the summer of 2020 are presented. Methodology: The study is based on the use of primary data, resulting from a questionnaire survey applied to 563 tourists about the perceptions of bioclimatic comfort. Microclimatic measurements of Air Temperature (AT), Relative Humidity (RH), Surface Temperature (ST), Global Radiation (GRad) and Wind Speed (WS) on Avenida dos Aliados (in the city center of Porto) were realized. Based on 7 techniques, the answers were parameterized according to the environmental characteristics found at the place of inquiry and the sociodemographic profile of the tourists. Furthermore, the study sought to correlate the effect of COVID-19 on the perception of tourists. Originality: It is the first study carried out for Porto to determine the influence of climatic and meteorological parameters on the conditions of tourist enjoyment. In addition, the study aggregates information about the behavior of tourists during the period of COVID-19. Results: The results revealed that the absence of precipitation is the fundamental parameter for staying in public spaces during leisure and recreation activities. Exposure to the sun for long periods and continuously was also a fundamental component of the tourist's climaticmeteorological experience. COVID-19 significantly conditioned the way tourists made their intra-destination visit, as well as their perception during their stay in the destination in the summer of 2020. Managerial implications and practical recommendations: This study is fundamental for an investigation in tourism climatology as it overcomes the most simplistic and descriptive views on climate and meteorology in traditional studies of prospective and analysis in urban space. It also contributes to useful practical applications that can be used in tourism planning and management projects. This type of study is fundamental for the achievement of strategies that leverage the tourism sector in a post-pandemic context and return to a 'new normal'.
The International Workshop Tourism and Hospitality Management (IWTHM2021) is an international scientific meeting, that gathers together researchers from around the world, with the purpose of sharing knowledge in the topic of Tourism and Hospitality Management. Moreover, this intensive, diversified and original event intends to be a reference in the scientific community evolving Tourism and Hospitality Management.
There are questions as to whether creative or critical thinking are relevant for problem solving. Therefore, we have analyzed the association between creative and critical thinking to determine whether their components are independent or associated with each other. A sample of 291 undergraduate students from Brazil (41.2%) and Spain (58.8%), with ages ranging from 17 to 56 years (M = 21.35, SD = 5.61), from both genders (84% women), answered two creative and critical thinking online tests. Two models were tested using the Structure of Equation Modeling, the first indicating that creativity and critical thinking converge for a general single factor, and the second indicating that they are two separate factors, even if moderately correlated. The results demonstrated that the second model has the best fit indexes, thus confirming the independence of each cognitive component in reference to critical thinking and creativity. In conclusion, the results suggest the need to enhance both skills for developing problem solving abilities.
-
![Maureen O'Hara]()
Global problems are accelerating to the point where they are challenging civilization. The author reflects on how early mentors in Biological and Psychological science modeled a new paradigm for their inquiry that included subject-subject participation, qualitative methods, a wider range of accepted evidence and the ability to indwell in a state of "not knowing" and letting coherence emerge. Such an approach not only leads to new knowledge but also develops capacities and competencies in the researcher that are more adequate for understanding complex and seemingly intractable crises of global the 21st century. The author identifies three levels of crisis occurring simultaneously: conceptual, cultural and existential which undermine coherence at personal and societal levels. When societies destabilize doubt and uncertainty rise producing the possible responses of defensiveness, anarchy and transformation. To optimize the possibility of transformation a new kind of psychology is needed that is better adapted to current conditions. Persons of Tomorrow, a term coined by humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers during the upheavals of the 1960s, have the consciousness and capacities to address these crises in creative and transformative ways. The non-profit International Futures Forum has developed theory, pedagogy and social practices to facilitate transformative innovation. Case examples of its and others' transformative projects are described and linked to the urgent need to develop and to practice as Persons of Tomorrow.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the thinking and creative style of executives, managers and subordinates. The instruments utilized were: Scale of Thinking and Creative Styles (Wechsler, 1999, 2006) and the Leadership Perception Inventory, elaborated for this research. The participants were 48 men and 28 women (38 were managers and 38 subordinates). The Analysis of Variance indicated significant differences (p
- Ronald A. Beghetto
-
![James C. Kaufman]()
Various factors influence the development of creative potential, including everything from individual differences to the kinds of experiences and opportunities that creators experience throughout the lifespan. When it comes to nurturing creativity in the classroom, the learning environment is one of the most important factors – determining, in large part, whether creative potential will be supported (or suppressed). In short, classroom context matters. It is one thing to recognize that the classroom environment impacts the development of creative potential, it is quite another to understand just what it takes to develop an optimally supportive creative learning environment. This is because many of the features of optimal learning environments are quite subtle and even counterintuitive. In this paper, we discuss insights from the research on how teachers might establish a creativity-supportive learning environment in their classroom.
- MAGDALENA GROHMAN
-
![Zofia Wodniecka]()
- MARCIN KŁUSAK
The aim of the present study was to explore the hypothesized relationship between divergent thinking (DT) and two types of evaluation: interpersonal (judgments about others' ideas) and intrapersonal (judgments about one's own ideas). Divergent thinking and evaluation skills were measured by means of a GenEva (Generation and Evaluation) task. There were two conditions of the task: intrapersonal and interpersonal, and two aspects of a given idea were assessed: originality and uniqueness. The main results suggest that (1) overall DT skill is positively related to intrapersonal evaluation of uniqueness; (2) the originality component of DT skill is negatively related to intrapersonal evaluation of uniqueness; (3) overall DT is negatively related to intrapersonal evaluation of originality; (4) underestimation of idea uniqueness is more salient in interpersonal evaluation, particularly in case of those with high DT skill. The results are discussed in terms of author's and observer's perspectives of judgment.
Posted by: salvadorsalvadorcheaneyeer10264877.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327378152_Creativity_and_innovation_Skills_for_the_21st_Century
Post a Comment for "Creativity And Innovation Pdf Free Download"