Creativity & Engineering

Collected Chapters and Papers

David H Cropley
Professor of Engineering Innovation
School of Engineering
University of South Australia

The following materials are pre-publication versions of book

chapters and journal papers that I have authored/co-authored.

This collection comprises 7 book chapters and 4 journal papers

that address various aspects of creativity in the engineering
domain. The publications range from more conceptual and
theoretical concepts, through to examples of empirical studies,
and spans a period from 2000 – 2018.

I hope that together, these chapters and papers give readers a

single source that presents a reasonably unified picture of the
nature of creativity in the engineering domain.

I have made some minor formatting changes, only to improve

layout or readability. Otherwise, each manuscript is identical to
that accepted for publication.

1
 Table of Contents

Cropley, D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,

High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219. 4-24

Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept of

functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces
of the Muse, Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
25-49

Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013). Furious
Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work?
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340. 50-85

Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet? In S.
Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-
169). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd. 86-103

Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering Education,

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171. 104-131

Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and challenges in

STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.
132-151

Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli (Eds.),

Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173),
London, UK: Springer. 152-182

Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu (Ed.), The

Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd. 183-213

Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R. Beghetto and

J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 214-232

2
Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the Engineering
Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of
Creativity Across Domains, Chapter 15 (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press. 233-255

Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain

Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering
Science ; Online first. 256-296

3
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates

David H. Cropley
University of South Australia

and

Arthur J. Cropley
University of Hamburg

Address for reprint requests: Dr David Cropley

School of Electrical and
Information Engineering
University of South Australia
Mawson Lakes, SA 5095
Australia
Fax: +61 8 8302 5344
Email: [email protected]

Running head: Creativity in engineering

4
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates

Summary

A total of 64 male engineering undergraduates received three lectures on creativity at the beginning

of a course on engineering innovation. Some of them (N = 37) also completed a “creativity” test

and were individually counselled on the basis of test scores. A separate control group (N = 21) took

the test together with these students, but otherwise did not participate in any way in the study. Upon

retesting six weeks later the counselled students were more innovative, whereas the control group

were simply less inhibited. In addition, machines constructed by the counselled students were more

elegant and creative than those of the 27 students who merely attended the lectures. Thus, the

training was associated with changes in behaviour not only on the test, but in a practical activity

too.

5
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates

Almost from the beginning, modern research has demonstrated that although students with high

IQs usually obtain good grades both at school and university, they are consistently outstripped by

those with not only a high IQ but also high creativity (see Cropley & Urban, in press, for a recent

summary). In the specific case of engineering, Facaoaru (1985) showed that engineers rated most

highly by their colleagues displayed, among other things, factual knowledge, rapid recall, and

logical thinking (central aspects of conventional intelligence) combined with properties such as

having unusual ideas, tolerating the unconventional, and seeing unexpected implications (elements

of creativity). Apparently, creativity adds something to intelligence. Indeed, Sternberg and Lubart

(1992) concluded that “contrarianism” (going against the conventional way) is a characteristic of all

gifted individuals.

Hassenstein (1988) argued that Klugheit (literally cleverness, but used by Hassenstein as a

label for a more encompassing concept of giftedness) incorporates both factual knowledge, accurate

observation, good memory, logical thinking, and speed of information processing (e.g., intelligence)

and inventiveness, unusual associations, fantasy, and flexibility (e.g., creativity). Following this

approach, Cropley (1995) argued that creativity is indispensable for “true” giftedness. In the present

paper, then, creativity will be regarded as an integral part of giftedness.

The call for education to foster creativity in engineers was one of the main reactions to the

“Sputnik shock” of 1957, when the then Soviet Union succeeded in launching the first successful

earth satellite, and was widely regarded as having beaten the United States in the first event of the

space race. This perceived failure of American science and engineering was attributed to lack of

creativity, and judged to be the result of defects in education. University-level teaching of

engineering was widely regarded as indifferent or even hostile to creativity, and empirical studies

supported this view. Snyder (1967), for instance, showed that students at an American university

who preferred trying new solutions dropped out of engineering courses three times more frequently

than those who preferred conventional solutions. Gluskinos (1971) found no correlation between
6
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

creativity as measured by a creativity test and GPA’s in engineering courses. Despite this, the

literature over the years demonstrates the existence of a continuing interest in fostering the

creativity of engineering students (e.g., Gawain, 1974; Masi, 1989; Olken, 1964).

More recently, many corporations have rediscovered creativity: According to Munroe (1995),

70% of the cost of a product is determined by its design, so that creative design can lead to

substantial cost savings. As a result, creativity training for employees is becoming widespread

(Clapham, 1997; Thakray, 1995). According to the 1995 US Industry Report, corporations are now

budgeting billions of US Dollars for creativity training programs, and demand for training is said to

be outstripping the supply of trainers (Hequet, 1995).

At the level of the individual engineer, considerations of the global marketplace and the creative

skills regarded as essential for a successful career in engineering (Dekker, 1995) have also raised

the issue of fostering creativity in engineering education (e.g., Steiner, 1998). A recent survey in

Australia (Government of Australia, 1999), however, suggests that this training is not taking place,

or is ineffective if it is. According to employers in the survey, three-quarters of new graduates in

Australia are “unsuitable” for employment because of “skill deficiencies” in creativity, problem-

solving, and independent and critical thinking.

Attempts in the past to train engineering students to be more creative have produced mixed

results. Rubinstein (1980) and Woods (1983) reported some success in training them in problem-

solving. More recently, in a pretest-posttest study, Basadur, Graen and Scandura (1986) showed that

a program emphasizing divergent thinking increased the preference of manufacturing engineering

students for generating new solutions, although the study did not report any changes in actual

performance. Clapham and Schuster (1992) administered creativity tests to engineering students

from a variety of majors. About half of them then received creativity training that emphasized

deferment of judgement, brainstorming, incubation and idea-getting techniques, while the

remainder acted as controls. The statistical analysis showed that the test scores of the trained

students had increased significantly more than those of the controls.

7
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

Clapham (1997) reviewed possible mechanisms through which beneficial effects of training

might occur, and concluded that they can be attributed to programs’ ability to foster: (a)

development of appropriate thinking skills; (b) acquisition of positive attitudes to creativity and

creative performance; (c) motivation to be creative; (d) perception of oneself as capable of being

creative; (e) reduction of anxiety about creativity; (f) experience of positive mood in problem-

solving situations. It is apparent that this list goes beyond simply thinking skills, and encompasses

attitudes, motivation, self-image, and similar factors.

Despite a certain degree of success, as just reported, comprehensive analyses of the effects of

short-term training on creativity (e.g., Mansfield, Busse & Krepelke, 1978) indicated that effects do

not persist over time and do not transfer to situations markedly different from the original training.

Nonetheless, Feldhusen and Goh (1995) concluded that it is possible to teach students to be

“creative,” for instance to seek new ideas and try novel approaches. In a discussion of creativity and

motivation Eisenberger and Armeli (1997) made a further important point by emphasizing that

creativity can be fostered, even via external rewards (extrinsic motivation), provided that it is made

clear to students what it is that they are required to do differently or better, and that they are given

specific feedback based on their own behaviour. This is inconsistent with Amabile’s (1983) widely

accepted conclusion that extrinsic motivation is inimical to creativity.

In the present study an attempt was made to encourage engineering undergraduates to come

up with innovative ideas, not simply in a paper and pencil test situation, however, but also in a

practical exercise (“Build a wheeled vehicle powered by the energy stored in a mouse trap”). The

course the students attended emphasized not merely thinking, but also noncognitive aspects of

creating novelty such as image of the successful engineer, the need for courage, and tolerance of

unusual or unexpected ideas. This was done both by offering three lectures specifically on creativity

as well as by incorporating case studies of creative breakthroughs in engineering into the remaining

lectures. The students also received specific, individual, psychological feedback on their own

performance, in the form of “creativity counselling” based on test scores, something that has seldom

8
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

occurred in earlier projects (see below for more details). The “creativity” test employed in the study

(see below) was a multidimensional instrument that made it possible to differentiate between

novelty produced by unconventional elaboration of existing ideas and novelty resulting from

production of new ideas. Finally, the project was carried out within the framework of a course taken

for credit as a normal part of the participants’ undergraduate program. The students’ received

grades in this course, and their machines were assigned marks (i.e., there was a strong element of

extrinsic motivation, theoretically fatal to creativity). Thus, the material reported here possesses the

potential to extend understanding of a number of issues in the training of creativity in higher

education settings.

Method

Instruments

Data were collected by means of two procedures: a “creativity” test, on the one hand, ratings of the

creativity of a working machine constructed by students, on the other. The key difference between

the two assessments is that scores on creativity tests are an abstraction, whereas a machine actually

built by participants is a behavioural measure bearing some relation to the real-life work of

engineers.

The test. Urban and Jellen’s (1996) Test for Creative Thinking—Drawing Production (TCT—

DP) was used to assess creative potential. The wisdom of referring to procedures such as this one as

“creativity” tests is unclear (i.e., their validity has been questioned). Recently, Helson (1999)

distinguished between “creative potential” and “creative productivity,” and pointed out that the

former—measured by tests—may or may not lead to the latter. For this reason, we prefer to write

“creativity” in quotation marks (as above) when referring to the tests, or to label them “tests of

creative potential.”

According to the manual, this instrument is suitable for use with a very wide range of ages,

including tertiary students, and for several purposes over and above simple assessment, including

counselling. At its core is what the test constructors call “image production.” Persons taking the test
9
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

are required to complete figural fragments, as in several other creativity tests. However, scoring is

not based on statistical uncommonness of the figures produced but on a number of criteria derived

from Gestalt psychology. In all, the test yields 14 dimensions including “Boundary Breaking,”

“Unconventionality,” and “New Elements.” There is also a “Total” score, the sum of the various

sub-dimensions. The test has two forms, A and B, that can be regarded as equivalent.

The authors reported validity coefficients of about 0.80 for correlations of test scores with

teacher ratings, and test-retest reliabilities of the order of 0.70. In the present study, correlating

Form A “Total” of the control group with Form B six weeks later yielded a test-retest reliability of

.75

(N = 21, p = .01), a satisfactory level in view of Hocevar and Bachelor’s (1989) report that test-

retest reliabilities of about .70 are typical for creativity tests. Interrater reliability was estimated by

having 36 randomly chosen Form A protocols rescored by a second rater (without knowledge of the

scores assigned by the first). An interrater reliability of 0.94 was obtained (N = 36, p = 0.01).

The creative product. Almost from the beginning of the modern era of creativity research, raters’

assessments of products of various kinds have been employed as a way of measuring creative

productivity. This approach has been supported in principle by recent theorizing and research.

Hennessey (1994) emphasized that a product can be regarded as creative when competent judges

apply this label, and suggested the method of “consensual assessment.” When judges agree that it is,

a product is creative. In Hennessey’s study, untrained undergraduates were able to make consistent

judgements about the creativity of products by simply applying their own subjective understanding

of creativity. Interrater agreements were up to .93, and reliabilities of the ratings ranged from .73 to

.93.

In the present study, the vehicles were rated on four dimensions according to the subjective

judgement of the rater: Effectiveness (distance travelled), Novelty (originality and surprisingness),

Elegance (understandability and workmanlike finish), and Germinality (usefulness, ability to open

up new perspectives). These four dimensions are a fusion of the scales of Taylor’s (1975) Creative

10
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

Product Inventory, that includes scales for “Generation,” “Reformulation,” “Originality,”

“Relevance,” “Hedonics,” ‘Complexity,” and “Condensation,” and the dimensions of Besemer and

O’Quin’s (1987) Creative Product Analysis Matrix, including “Novelty,” “Resolution,” and

“Elaboration and Synthesis.” In addition, each vehicle was awarded points for the Overall

Impression it made, bearing in mind that the students had been urged to make their vehicles as

creative as possible (see below). In all five categories, a vehicle could receive from 0 to 5 points,

with intervals of 0.25 points between ratings being possible (i.e., scores such as 3.50 or 2.75 could

occur). The machines were assessed blind (without knowledge of the group to which a particular

student belonged) by an engineering instructor. Unfortunately, because the models were part of the

students’ exams and had to be returned to them quickly, there was only time for a single rater to

assess them, so that the level of agreement between raters (interrater reliability) could not be

determined.

Procedure

Recruiting participants. All participants were enrolled in a second-year course “Engineering

Innovation and Practice” (EIP). Because of the well-known gender differences in creativity test

scores and effects of creativity training, possible confounding by gender needed to be controlled.

The small number of female students in EIP meant that this could only be done by confining the

study to males. During the first week of semester, the purpose of EIP was explained to the students

enrolled in it, as well as the various activities involved in the course. Of particular interest here are

the creativity testing, the creativity counselling, the creativity lectures and the construction of the

mousetrap-powered vehicle. In the second week the students were given the opportunity of taking

the TCT—DP and receiving the counselling. It was emphasized that participation was voluntary.

About 60% of the 64 male students in the course did in fact volunteer (N = 37). They are referred to

in the following as the “experimental” group. Of these people, 3 did not submit the model, leaving a

reduced experimental group of 34.The remaining EIP students (N=27) attended the lectures and

submitted the vehicle, but did not do the test or receive counselling. They comprise the “lecture”

11
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

group. In the same week, male volunteers were also recruited in a different engineering course that

included none of the elements of EIP. These students (N = 21) did the test with the EIP students, but

neither attended EIP lectures nor received counselling, and formed the “control” group. The 85 men

in the three groups ranged in age from 18—25. It is important to note that the experimental and

control groups consisted of volunteers (i.e., they were self-selected), while the men in the lecture

group, who simply submitted the model, were “refusers.” Thus, the possibility cannot be discounted

that the experimental and control groups contained men particularly receptive to material on

creativity, the lecture group men particularly unreceptive. Indeed, the mean TCT-DP scores of

experimentals and controls that are reported below were considerably higher than scores for similar

groups given in the test manual.

Measuring creative potential. Members of both groups of volunteers took Form A of the

TCT—DP in the second week of the semester. Their protocols were scored by three female

graduate students of psychology according to the procedures outlined in the test manual (Urban &

Jellen, 1996). These raters had been trained to score the test in a half-day workshop. Protocols were

identified by code numbers only, and the raters were not informed which group the men whose

work they were rating belonged to. In the eighth week of semester the students took Form B of the

test, and their protocols were once again scored blind by the same raters.

Creativity counselling. On the basis of scores on 13 of the subtests of the TCT—DP (time

taken was excluded), a profile was constructed for each of the 37 EIP students who had taken the

test. The profiles focused on three dimensions: “Productivity,” “Originality,” and

“Unconventionality.” Initially, these dimensions were established by means of an intuitive grouping

of subscales that experience with the TCT-DP suggested belong together. Subsequently, however,

the dimensions were empirically confirmed by a factor analysis of the Form A protocols of 111

male, second-year engineering students (the men who completed Form A in connection with the

present study, regardless of the group they belonged to or whether they also completed Form B,

plus additional students who took EIP in the next semester). The factor analysis (principal-axis

12
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

method followed by rotation of factors with eigenvalues greater than unity to the Varimax criterion

of simple structure) yielded three “significant” factors, as anticipated. The first (eigenvalue = 2.30,

17.7% of total variance) was defined by Boundary Breaking, Continuations, and Completions, and

was labelled “Productivity,” the second (eigenvalue = 1.98, 15.2% of total variance) by New

Elements, Thematic Connections, and Perspective, and labelled “Novelty.” The third factor

(eigenvalue = 1.40, 10.8% of total variance) was defined by Humour, Symbol-Figure

Combinations, Symbolic/Abstract/Fictional, and Non-Stereotypical Utilization of the Given

Fragments. It was labelled “Unconventionality.” Bearing in mind that the reliabilities of the

individual subtests were on average about 0.70, these three factors accounted for about 90% of the

accountable variance of the TCT-DP.

In the third week of semester, each student was individually counselled by one of the three

psychologists already mentioned, the sessions typically taking about 15 minutes. The counsellors

had received training in using the test for creativity counselling in the workshop mentioned above.

Each participant was shown his own profile, and attention was drawn to areas of relative strength

and weakness, not in a normative but in an ideographic fashion. This was done without reference to

the actual test or to scoring criteria. To take a concrete example that illustrates what the procedure

was like, a student might be advised, “You produced plenty of ideas. However, only a few of them

were novel or unconventional.” The student might then specifically thematize issues such as

unwillingness to risk doing something “foolish,” whereupon the counsellor would encourage the

participant to distinguish between prudence and excessive caution.

The creativity lectures. In the second, third, and fourth weeks of semester the students

enrolled in EIP received three lectures from a psychology specialist (the second author) on (a) What

has creativity got to do with engineering students? (b) Why do engineers have problems with

creativity? (c) What are the psychological elements of creativity? (d) What are the characteristics of

a creative product? (e) How can you solve problems creatively? (f) What blocks creativity?

Lectures emphasized the importance of creativity in modern engineering practice and as a factor in

13
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

developing a career in the field, and attempted to provide students with an understandable, practical

model of creativity that stressed cognitive, motivational, affective, and social aspects. It emphasized

that creative products must not only be novel and germinal, but must also reflect a high level of

engineering knowledge (be effective and relevant). As will be discussed below, this stress on

building a model that really worked caused difficulty for some students.

The behavioural measure. The course outline indicated that one of the assignments to be

completed and scored as part of the assessment for the course was to build “a wheeled vehicle

powered by a mousetrap.” This had to be submitted in the 8th week of semester. It was emphasized

to the students that the creativity of their vehicle would be an important source of points, although

they were also reminded that it would have to be capable of propelling itself. When students asked

for clarification of either “a wheeled vehicle,” or “powered by a mousetrap,” they were advised that

the words in question were a sufficient definition of the task, and would not be elaborated upon by

the instructor. They were, however, reminded that the course was about creativity, and were also

reminded of the four dimensions on which their products would be evaluated (Effectiveness,

Novelty, Elegance, and Germinality—see below).

Results

The results are presented in two parts: Those relating to TCT—DP scores and involving

comparisons of the experimental group (N = 37) with the control group (N = 21), and those relating

to the assessment of the vehicle and involving comparison of the reduced experimental group (N =

34) with the lecture group (N = 27).

Changes in test scores

The first results are derived from a comparison of the test scores of the experimental group with

those of the control group. The members of both groups were tested with the TCT—DP and retested

six weeks later. At the time of the second testing the experimental group’s members had received

counselling based on their creativity profiles (see above) and had attended the lectures on creativity.

The control group had simply waited six weeks. Both groups consisted of volunteers, a fact that is
14
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

likely to hav reduced the possible confounding effects of self-selection. Indeed, since the controls

were not even in EIP, but responded to a general appeal in second-year courses, the volunteer effect

may well have been stronger in their case than in that of the experimentals, and would thus be

conservative (i.e., it would reduce the chance of creativity differences in favour of the

experimentals).

The TCT—DP scores of the groups, both total scores and also scores on the various dimensions,

were compared using a two-way analysis of variance, the dimension “experimental group vs.

control group“ (counselled versus not counselled) defining one independent variable, the dimension

“first testing versus second testing” the other. Naturally, there were repeated measures on the time

of testing factor, since the same people were tested on two occasions. This design permitted both

between-group and within-group comparisons.

The analyses of variance indicated that there was already a significant difference between the

total score of the experimentals (M = 40.92, SD = 12.26) and that of the controls (M = 36.76, SD =

9.78) at the time of the first testing, F(1, 56) = 6.15, p = .02, i.e., even before the lectures and

counselling. There was a significant interaction between group and time of testing, F(1,56) = 4.94, p

= .03. This was caused by a large increase in the mean (M = 47.27, SD = 10.56) of the

experimentals (40.92 vs. 47.27), whereas the mean of the controls (M = 37.33, SD = 12.89) had

remained almost constant (36.76 vs. 37.33). Thus, it can be argued that whereas simply waiting six

weeks for the second testing had no effect on the mean score of the controls, lectures and

counselling led to a statistically significant increase in the scores of the experimentals.

This greater increase in total scores of experimentals than of controls was largely attributable to

significant increases in three of the subdimensions of the TCT—DP, New Elements, F(1,56) = 7.51,

p = .01, Boundary Breaking (Fragment Dependent), F(1,56) = 5.72, p = .02, and

Unconventionality via Manipulation of the Materials, F(1,56) = 5.65, p = .02. Although there were

numerical increases in scores of the experimentals on several other subdimensions, unaccompanied

15
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

by correspondingly large increases for the controls, these differences were not statistically

significant and are thus to be regarded as tendencies rather than significant differences. The most

notable example is Boundary Breaking (Fragment Independent), where the mean of the

experimental group increased from 2.43 (SD = 2.99) to 4.38 (SD = 2.41), as against the control

group, where the increase was from 1.71 (SD = 2.78) to 2.57 (SD = 2.87). In the case of

Continuations and Completions, there were actually numerical decreases in scores of both groups

on the second testing (see later comment).

Creativity of the product

The second set of results was derived from a comparison of the creativity of the mouse trap-

powered vehicles submitted by the members of the experimental group (who had taken the test,

been counselled and received the lectures) with that of the vehicles constructed by the lecture

group—who had not taken the test and had not been counselled.

All participants succeeded in constructing a vehicle that met the minimum formal requirements

(it had wheels and was capable of moving itself). Several of the resulting models were elegantly

designed and well-finished. However, most students assumed that the vehicle had to be four-

wheeled and had to run on the ground like a car or truck. In addition, most focused on the energy

stored in the trap’s spring as the source of power, as well as consciously opting for a vehicle that

was effective in that it could cover a metre or more, and was socially acceptable in that it looked

like existing vehicles. Only a few were able to achieve a dramatic breakaway from conventional

thinking, for instance by constructing an aeroplane launched by a catapult powered by the

mousetrap’s spring (the plane had wheels and covered a considerable distance), or by building a

large hollow wheel set rolling by a weight mounted in its interior and wound into position by the

mousetrap’s spring. More radical in some ways was a wheeled cart attached to the mousetrap by a

string. When the mousetrap was thrown off the table on which the vehicle stood, its weight pulled

the vehicle along as the trap fell to the floor, thus using the gravitational force acting on the

16
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

mousetrap’s mass as the source of energy. The only limit on the distance this method could propel

the vehicle was the height of the surface from which the mousetrap was thrown. One group set fire

to the mousetrap and used the heat generated by the flames to generate steam that moved the

vehicle a short distance, thus using the chemical energy stored in the wood. A final group thought

of using the mousetrap’s spring to compress a bellows and inflate a balloon, that would then deflate

violently and drive the vehicle by its jet action, but abandoned this approach as too risky, since it

might not propel the vehicle sufficiently far to be judged effective.

Correlations among the five dimensions showed that Effectiveness and Elegance correlated

substantially with each other, r = 0.54, N = 61, p = .00, not surprising in view of the fact that both

dimensions emphasized whether or not the vehicle worked. Novelty correlated substantially with

Germinality, r = 0.92, N = 61, p = .00, but not with Effectiveness, r = -0.11, N = 61, ns, or

Elegance, r = 0.12, N = 61, ns, while Germinality had only low correlations with Effectiveness, r = -

0.09, N = 61, ns, or Elegance r = 0.26, N = 61, p = .05. In other words, ratings defined two

relatively independent dimensions, one characterized by Effectiveness and Elegance, the other by

Novelty and Germinality. The Overall Impression score correlated substantially with Novelty, r =

0.87, N = 61, p = .00, and Germinality, r = 0.89, N = 61, p = .00, but far less with Effectiveness, r =

0.16, N = 61, ns, or Elegance, r = 0.38, N = 61, p = .01, so that the rater’s subjective impression was

formed on the basis of Novelty and Germinality, scarcely surprising in view of the fact that the rater

formed an overall impression based on perceived creativity of the vehicles.

Comparison of the means of the two groups showed that the mean of the experimental group on

Elegance (M = 3.46, SD = 0.39) was significantly different from the mean (M = 3.15, SD = 0.48) of

the lecture group, t(59) = 2.80, p = .00. The difference between the mean of the experimentals on

Overall Impression (M = 3.59, SD = 0.43) and that of the lecture group (M = 3.34, SD = 0.46) was

also statistically significant, t(59) = 2.18, p = .04. In all other cases (Novelty, Germinality and even

Effectiveness), the means of the experimentals were numerically higher than those of the lecture

17
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

group (i.e., it is possible to speak of a tendency for the counselled group to surpass the group

without counselling on the various assessments of their vehicles).

Discussion

The subdimensions of the TCT—DP on which the experimentals obtained significantly greater

increases than the controls were in essence tasks requiring either production of something new (as

against extending or altering something that already existed), or using the materials in a radically

unconventional way, for instance by rotating or folding the answer sheet (as against retaining the

usual spatial orientation, even though in some cases giving unexpected answers). The controls

sometimes constructed more unconventional figures, but tended to stick within the conventional

framework. For instance, on the retest they elaborated existing figures in a more ingenious fashion

than before. This can be attributed to the fact that on the second occasion the test materials were

familiar and the unstructured nature of the task less inhibiting. By contrast, the experimentals went

further. As a group, they were more prepared to introduce new material out of their own heads or

change the existing structure. The untrained students increased their scores to be sure, but did this

by being less inhibited, whereas the people in the experimental group increased theirs by being

more innovative. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the variance of the experimental

group decreased at the second testing, whereas that of the control group increased. In the “treated”

group weaknesses were reduced, thus homogenizing performance, whereas in the “untreated” group

those with higher initial scores became more adept with experience of the test, whereas those with

lower scores to start with remained limited in their answers. Thus, the quantitative differences

between the counselled students and the control group seem to reflect a qualitative effect of

counselling on behaviour.

The results show that, in addition to producing more novelty in the test setting, the experimentals

transferred this to the actual building of a vehicle. This finding is of considerable interest, because it

involves a criterion intuitively resembling the actual work of engineers, raising the hope that the

18
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

effects obtained in this study might persist in real-life settings. This was achieved despite the fact

that the students were working for grades (extrinsic motivation), and supports the position of

Eisenberger and Armeli (1997) rather than Amabile (1983). The “counselling” described here gives

practical hints on implementing Eisenberger and Armeli’s recommendation for clear feedback to

students on what they need to do differently in order to behave more creatively.

When their instructors ask engineering students to create novelty, they expose them to a

dilemma. Engineering requires high levels of expertise— mastery of basic knowledge, skills and

techniques. The public wants machines to work and bridges to continue standing. Mastery of what

already exists thus has a high value for students, and production of novelty runs directly counter to

this tradition. Paradoxically, however, it is highly prized. Somehow, a compromise must be found

between two apparently contradictory ways of behaving. Focusing on people who had achieved

high public acclaim for their expertise, Root-Bernstein (1989) described the “novice effect”: This is

seen in experts who display high command of orthodoxy, but are still able to break out of the

straitjacket of their own expertise and look at their subject with the openness and freshness of

beginners. The present study can be seen as looking at this issue from the other end of the scale: It

is concerned with how to encourage students to seek to develop expertise, but at the same time to

remain capable of creating novelty.

Ericsson and Smith (1991) pointed out that expertise is typically conceived of as arising from a

combination of primarily inherited attributes (such as intelligence, personality, or special abilities)

and primarily acquired attributes such as special cognitive strategies or domain-specific knowledge.

It is scarcely conceivable that the brief training provided in the present study would bring about

profound and longlasting changes in participants’ ability or personality structure (i.e., in the sense

of Helson [1999] in their fundamental psychological potential to be creative). However, it was

possible to show them a different way that they found enjoyable of solving an engineering problem,

as well as to give them a convincing demonstration of their own ability to come up with ideas. In

this sense, the study offers hints about how to influence the emergence of acquired attributes, in the

19
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

present case specific knowledge about creativity, divergent cognitive strategies, and a positive

attitude to novelty. However, there seems little likelihood that such attributes will persist unless

they are further developed by appropriate follow-up activities.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer.

Basadur, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. (1986). Training effects of attitudes toward divergent

thinking among manufacturing engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 612-617.

Besemer, S. P. & O'Quin, K. (1987). Creative product analysis: Testing a model by developing a

judging instrument. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics

(pp. 367-389). Buffalo, NY: Bearly.

Clapham, M. M. (1997). Ideational skills training: A key element in creativity training programs.

Creativity Research Journal, 10, 33-44.

Clapham, M. M., & Schuster, D. H. (1992). Can engineering students be trained to think more

creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 26, 156-162. Cropley, A. J. Creative intelligence: A

concept of “true” giftedness. In J.

Freeman, P. Span, & H. Wagner (Eds.), Actualizing talent: A lifelong challenge (pp.99-114).

London: Cassell.

Cropley, A. J., & Urban, K. K. (in press). Programs and strategies for nurturing creativity. In K. A.

Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of

research and development of giftedness and talent. Oxford: Pergamon.

Dekker, D. L. (1995, August). Engineering design processes, problem solving and creativity.

Proceedings of the 1995 International Association for Engineering Education Frontiers in

Education Conference, pp. 16-19.

20
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

Eisenberger, R. & Armeli, S. (1997). Can salient reward increase creative performance without

reducing intrinsic creative interest? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 652-

663.

Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Prospects and limits of the empirical study of expertise: an

introduction. In Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (Eds.), Toward a General Theory of Expertise:

Prospects and Limits (pp. 1-38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Facaoaru, C. (1985). Kreativität in Wissenschaft und Technik [Creativity in science and

technology]. Bern: Huber.

Feldhusen, J. & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity. An integrative review of

theory, research, and development. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 231-247.

Gawain, T. H. (1974). Reflection on education for creativity in engineering. International

Association for Engineering Education Transactions in Education, 17, 189-192.

Gluskinos, U. M. (1971). Criteria for student engineering creativity and their relationship to college

grades. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8, 189-195.

Government of Australia (1999). Higher Education Funding Report, 1999. Canberra: Government

Printer.

Hassenstein, M. (1988). Bausteine zu einer Naturgeschichte der Intelligenz [Fundamentals of a

natural history of intelligence]. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt.

Helson, R. (1999). A longitudinal study of creative personality in women. Creativity Research

Journal, 12, 89-102.

Hennessey, B. A. (1994). The consensual assessment technique: An examination of the

relationships between ratings of product and process creativity. Creativity Research Journal,

7, 193-208.

21
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

Hequet, M. (1995, October). Doing more with less. Training, pp. 76-82.

Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of

creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R.

Ronning & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 53-76). New York: Plenum.

Mansfield, R. S., Busse, T. V., & Krepelka, (1978). The effectiveness of creativity training. Review

of Educational Research, 48, 517-536.

Masi, J. V. (1989, August). Teaching the process of creativity in the engineering classroom.

Proceedings of the 1989 International Association for Engineering Education Frontiers in

Education Conference, pp. 288-292.

Munroe, A. S. (1995, January 26). Is your design a life sentence? Machine Design, p. 156.

Olken, H. (1964, December). Creativity training for engineers–its past, present and future.

International Association for Engineering Education Transactions in Education, pp. 149-161.

Root-Bernstein, R.S. (1989). Discovery. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Rubinstein, M. F. (1980). A decade of experience in teaching an interdisciplinary problem solving

course. In D. T. Turna & F. Reif (Eds.), Problem solving and education (pp. 35-48). Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Snyder, B. (1967). Creative students in science and engineering. Universities Quarterly, 21, 205-

218.

Steiner, C. J. (1998). Educating for innovation and management: The engineering educators’

dilemma. International Association for Engineering Education Transactions in Education, 41,

1-7.

Sternberg, R.J. & Lubart, T.I. (1992). Creative giftedness in children. In P.S. Klein & A.J.

Tannenbaum (Eds.), To be young and gifted (pp. 33-51). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

22
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

Taylor, A. (1975). An emerging view of creative actions. In I. A. Taylor, & J. W. Getzels (Eds.),

Perspectives in creativity (pp. 297-325). Chicago: Aldine.

Thackray, J. (1995, July). That vital spark (creativity enhancement in business). Management

Today, pp. 56-58.

Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1996). Test for Creative Thinking—Drawing Production. Lisse:

Swets and Zeitlinger. Vosburg, S. K. (1998). Mood and quantity and quality of ideas.

Creativity Research Journal, 11, 315-324.

Woods, D. R. (1983). Introducing explicit training in problem solving into our courses. Higher

Education Research and Development, 2, 79-102.

23
Pre-publication Version - Cropley D. H. and Cropley A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 207-219.

Biographical Notes

David H. Cropley completed undergraduate studies at the University of Salford, UK and obtained

his PhD in Australia. He is lecturer in electronic engineering at the University of South Australia

and is particularly interested in information, systems engineering and measurement. As a result of

his interest in fostering creativity in engineers he has conducted research on innovative approaches

to university teaching and the development of a model of creativity in systems engineering.

Arthur J. Cropley was initially a schoolteacher in Australia, England and Canada. He completed

his PhD at the University of Alberta and has since been a university teacher in Canada, Australia

and Germany. In 1999 he became professor emeritus. He has published extensively on creativity

and learning in adults, and is now combining these areas in studies of creativity in engineering

education.

24
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Engineering creativity: A systems concept of functional creativity

David Cropley and Arthur Cropley
University of South Australia University of Hamburg

Creativity and the “failure” of engineers

Creativity has been a topic of interest to writers in different areas for many years, stretching

back to antiquity. However, earlier discussions focused mainly on art, literature, music, dance

and similar areas, what we will refer to later in this chapter as “aesthetic” or “artistic”

creativity. This situation changed drastically about 50 years ago. The turning point was the

successful launching in 1957 by the then Soviet Union of the first artificial earth satellite,

Sputnik I. In the United States of America and most North American-Western European

societies this event led to a wave of self-criticism that centered mainly on the argument that

the western world’s engineers had failed.

At first it was not clear where the cause of their failure lay. However, the 1949 address

of the incoming president of the American Psychological Association (Guilford, 1950) had

already laid the groundwork for an answer that was quickly seized upon when the crisis

occurred. Guilford argued that psychologists (and as a result teachers, educational theorists,

parents, even politicians) had in their definitions of human intellectual functioning placed too

much emphasis on acquiring factual knowledge, recalling it rapidly and accurately,

reapplying it in a logical manner in order to find the single best answer to a problem, applying

existing skills in a well-practiced, economical and tidy way in new situations, having clearly

defined and concretely specified goals, working quickly, resisting distractions, following

instructions, and similar processes. According to Guilford these define “convergent” thinking.

They are undoubtedly of great value. Indeed, as Sternberg (1997) pointed out, abilities of this

kind have dominated the definition of intelligence from the beginning of its widespread use in

about 1920.

25
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

However, Guilford argued that people are capable of applying their intellect in a

different way by using what he called “divergent” thinking. This involves branching out from

the given to envisage previously unknown possibilities and arrive at unexpected or even

surprising answers, and thus generate novelty. By the time of the Sputnik shock the idea that

convergent thinking leads to conventional products (even if they are useful in a limited way),

whereas divergent thinking leads to novelty, was well established among theorists, and

divergent thinking had come to be associated with creativity—indeed, Guilford’s paper

introducing the idea of convergent thinking was entitled “Creativity”. An intense discussion

was already under way, and the failure of American engineers to make the breakthrough the

Soviets had achieved was quickly attributed to defects in their creativity. Thus, from the very

beginning of the modern era creativity was seen as a practical problem centering on engineers.

The general argument is easy to summarize: In the face of rapid change that is

biotechnological (e.g., communications, health), environmental (e.g., global warming, gene

modified crops), industrial (e.g., offshore manufacturing, globalization), demographic (e.g.,

breakdown of the family, ageing of the population), social (e.g., adaptation of immigrants,

integration of minorities), and political (e.g., terrorism, achieving fairness in international

relations), societies will stagnate, even perish, unless their leaders in all fields become more

creative. Thus, creativity is no longer seen as purely the domain of aesthetes and intellectuals

concerned with questions of truth and beauty (as important as these issues may be), but as a

pathway to national prosperity and as a means for making the nation strong and safe.

Creativity as an aspect of engineering

The shift away from aesthetics in discussions of creativity has continued and has opened up

new perspectives on the topic. Adopting a human capital approach (e.g., Walberg and Stariha,

1992), writers have given considerable attention to creativity in applied and theoretical

sciences (“scientific/intellectual” creativity) as well as in management and manufacturing on

26
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

the one hand, administration and even the military, on the other (“survival/prosperity”

creativity). According to economic theory, returns on investments in rich countries should

have been lower during the second half of the twentieth century than during the first, because

the stock of capital was rising faster than the workforce. However, the fact is that they were

considerably higher. The decisive factor that defeated the law of diminishing returns is now

seen to be the addition to the system of new knowledge and technology (Economist

Technology Quarterly, 2002). Higgins (1994) described 10 challenges faced by business in

the first decade of the 21st century. These challenges, which include the accelerating rate of

change of all facets of business, increasing competition, globalization and the transformation

of First World economies from industrial to knowledge-based economies, act as sources of

problems and opportunities. Higgins proposed that the mechanism that will enable businesses

to survive and prosper in this new environment (to solve the problems and utilize the

opportunities) is innovation—the process of applying creativity to generate new and valuable

ideas, products and processes.

Creativity has thus come to be seen as a vital factor in “good” engineering, which is

now viewed as “a career full of discovery, creativity and excitement [our italics]” (Horenstein,

2002, p.1). Burghardt (1995, p.2) defined it as “… a professional life devoted to the creative

solution of problems [our italics]”. At the level of the individual engineer, this means that

creativity is seen as essential for a successful career (Dekker, 1995). One result is that

creativity training is becoming widespread (Clapham, 1997; Thakray, 1995). According to the

1995 US Industry Report, corporations are now budgeting billions of US Dollars for creativity

training programs, and demand for training is even outstripping the supply of trainers

(Hequet, 1995). Among other things, this indicates the importance of creativity in the early

education of engineers (see below). We turn now to the question of what engineering

creativity is.

27
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

The creativity of products

Although Cropley (2001) among others has emphasized that there are common

elements to creativity in all domains, creativity in engineering clearly differs from creativity

in, for instance, fine arts. Horenstein (2002, p.2) defined these differences succinctly by

pointing out that engineers “produce devices or systems that perform tasks or solve problems

[our italics]”. Burghardt (1995, p.4) made this contrast explicit: According to him, fine art is

“a manifestation of creativity with no functional purpose [our italics], only aesthetic purpose”.

By contrast, engineering creativity “results from creativity with a purpose [our italics]”. This

purpose is to create products (in the broadest sense of the word – including physical objects,

complex systems and processes), that, to repeat Horenstein’s definition, “perform tasks or

solve problems”. We refer to this as “functional” creativity. Its most important aspect is the

devices or systems that perform tasks or solve problems, i.e. its practically useful products.

Although earlier discussions of creativity gave considerable emphasis to tangible

products (e.g., Clifford, 1958; Gordon, 1961; Roe, 1952; Rossman, 1931), this aspect of

creativity has not received as much attention as might be expected in recent years, perhaps

because modern research has been dominated by psychologists and educators. Writers such as

Albert (1990) have even concluded that it is too difficult to define creative products in a

practical, objective way, because the concept is so subjective, and have recommended

focusing instead on creative processes and characteristics of the creative person. Amabile

(1983) and Csikszentmihalyi (1996) gave support to this view by suggesting that “creativity”

as a property of products is no more than a positive category of judgment in the minds of

observers, a term that they use to praise products that they find exceptionally good. This view

can be seen as a warning against reifying “creativity”, thus repeating the mistake made by

treating “intelligence” as though it were a real and tangible entity rather than simply an

explanatory construct used to make sense of observable behavior. Despite this, we will show

28
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

below that the creativity of products is not as diffuse a concept as might at first appear to be

the case. We believe that in a certain sense there really is creativity. The purpose of this

chapter is to work out a definition that can be applied in engineering.

There is widespread agreement among contemporary writers on engineering (e.g.,

Burghardt, 1995; Dekker, 1995; Horenstein, 2002; Steiner, 1998) that (a) engineers must

produce products, and (b) creativity is a vital component of engineering practice and therefore

of the products they produce. Of course paintings, musical compositions, poems or novels, or

even systems of ideas as in, let us say, philosophy or mathematics are products. Some writers

would also argue that such products “perform tasks or solve problems” of their own kind,

such as capturing the essence of beauty or communicating a feeling to another person.

However, as Burghardt (1995, p. 4) put it, “technology is the manifestation of engineering

creativity [our italics]”. Functional creativity involves as product either an effective complex

system of some kind such as a submarine or a business information system, or a process in the

sense of a service, technique or method (a manufacturing process, a control process, a

logistics service). Each of these examples is drawn directly from a particular sub-

specialization of engineering ranging from mechanical engineering to systems engineering.

The idea of product thus has a particular quality in engineering that is different from its

meaning in the context of aesthetic creativity. We turn now to the issue of defining the

creativity of functional products.

In principle, creativity can be regarded as either a cause (i.e., some power or capacity

in people that causes them to produce creative products), or as an effect (i.e., a property of

certain products that makes them creative and sets them off from other, noncreative ones). It

makes intuitive sense to examine creativity by looking at its effects (i.e., to focus on products)

in order to work out a model of functional creativity, although we will subsequently apply the

results in order to make suggestions for how to encourage engineers to be more creative (i.e.,
29
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

creativity as cause). In essence we will work from specific products to develop general rules

(inductive thinking) and then reapply these rules to make specific suggestions (deductive

thinking). As Cropley (2002) argued, this way of working seems to be common in physical

and applied science, but is less common in social sciences, where the hypothetico-deductive

paradigm is more common (i.e., the general rule already exists at the beginning of research).

It seems more or less self-evident that the first characteristic of a creative product is

novelty—creativity always leads to something new. As the psychologist Bruner (e.g., 1962)

put it, creativity must create “surprise”. However, novelty (surprisingness) is not sufficient on

its own. If it were, every crazy idea or absurd suggestion would be creative. Thus, creative

products must be not only novel, but also relevant and effective (Bruner, 1962). This is

especially true of engineering: Bridges or buildings are not supposed to collapse, no matter

how unusual they are (although of course, some do). Thus, the first two criteria of functional

creativity are (a) relevance and effectiveness and (b) novelty. The order of these criteria is not

irrelevant: Although novelty seems intuitively to take precedence over effectiveness, our view

is that in the case of functional creativity there can be no discussion of creativity without first

dealing with the issue of effectiveness. To take a simple example, a bridge must first solve the

problem of getting traffic across a river. If it does not do what the engineers were hired to

build it for it is a bad product, no matter how beautiful or how surprising it is. Higgins (1994,

p.6) reiterates this is a more general, business sense when he states that “to be a true creative

product it must have value and not just be original. To be innovative, it must have significant

value [our italics]”.

In this sense, functional creativity differs from other forms such as aesthetic creativity,

where novelty may have precedence. There may even be a conflict between the two ways of

looking at creativity. A famous example in our homeland is the Sydney Opera House. After

several decades it is still hailed as a piece of extraordinary architectural creativity because of

30
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

its high level of novelty. Its only fault is that it is a less than optimal venue for the large-scale

staging of operas, the purpose for which it was originally commissioned! Critics who

emphasize the criteria of functional creativity and insist that it should be capable of solving

the problem for which it was built (i.e., who place relevance and effectiveness before novelty)

are dismissed as soulless curmudgeons by those who give preference to the criteria of

aesthetic creativity.

In the case of aesthetic creativity, the relationship in products between relevance and

effectiveness, on the one hand, and novelty, on the other, may be more or less open, or even

optional. To take a simple example: A book might be acclaimed by critics for opening new

perspectives in literature and also sell well (i.e., be both novel and functionally effective).

However, it might sell well without critical acclaim (i.e., effectiveness without novelty), or be

critically acclaimed without good sales (novelty without effectiveness). All three

combinations might be regarded as involving creativity, only the combination of poor sales

accompanied by lack of acclaim being “uncreative”. By contrast, in the case of functional

creativity, the sequence is not optional. This can be demonstrated by a second Australian

example.

In 1999 the Australian Minister for Defence commissioned a report to investigate

problems associated with the performance of a new class of diesel-electric submarine (the

Collins class) under construction for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). By 1999 three of the

planned six submarines had been delivered to the RAN, yet there were serious and widely

publicized problems with the submarines. Aside from substantial delays in their completion

(the third boat was 28 months late in delivery) the report (MacIntosh and Prescott, 1999, p.6)

found that the submarines “cannot perform at the levels required for military operations”.

They further determined that six years after the launch of the first boat there were still many

outstanding deficiencies. Among the most serious problems were several that related
31
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

specifically to the functional performance of the submarines (as military systems, rather than

simply as underwater vehicles). These included problems with the diesel engines, with the

submarines’ noise signature, with the propellers, the periscopes and the masts, and with the

combat systems. At the same time the report determined that “there has been much high

quality work carried out and the internal layout and the housekeeping of the boats are of a

high order” (MacIntosh and Prescott, 1999, p.5).

This represents a clear case where relevance and effectiveness, in terms of the

fundamental purpose of the submarines, were lacking. The designers’ task was to provide a

system for seeking out and destroying enemy ships and submarines, something the Collins

class boats could not do effectively with defects such as an easily detectable noise signature

and defective combat systems. The aspects that received praise—for example the internal

layout—may well represent innovative approaches to comfort and conditions in a submarine,

and thus involve production of substantial novelty. However, the boats seem to offer an

example of novelty without effectiveness. According to the discussion above, this might be

acceptable in aesthetic creativity, but in a military context novelty without effectiveness

would have literally fatal results. Thus, novelty is of necessity secondary to the functional

purpose of the system. Because of a lack of clarity on this, informed opinion in Australia is

sharply divided on whether the submarines are a success or not: The two sets of criteria

(aesthetic vs. functional) lead to different assessments of the boats, although because of lack

of clarity on the issues there is poor understanding in public discussions of how it is possible

for disagreement to exist1.

1The situation is made more difficult by the fact that both politicians and senior officers in
the RAN have a vested interest in obfuscation, since they do not wish to be seen as having
made costly mistakes.
32
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

The criteria of functional creativity

In defining creativity of products Besemer and O’Quin (1987) emphasized “novelty” (the

product is original, surprising and germinal), “resolution” (the product is valuable, logical,

useful, and understandable), and “elaboration and synthesis” (the product is organic, elegant,

complex, and well-crafted). Resolution refers to what we call relevance and effectiveness,

while elaboration and synthesis involve not the presence or absence of novelty but the nature

of the novelty. Taylor (1975) also emphasized relevance and originality. However, he went

beyond these dimensions to include “generation,” “reformulation,” “complexity,”

“condensation” and “hedonics.” Generation and reformulation are related to novelty, but—

like elaboration and synthesis—complexity and condensation involve the nature of the

creativity. The criterion of hedonics is reminiscent of Jackson and Messick’s (1965)

distinction between external criteria of the effectiveness of a novel product (i.e., does it

work?) and internal criteria such as logic, harmony among the elements of the product, and

pleasingness (i.e., is it beautiful?). Paradoxically, Taylor thus added what are to some extent

aesthetic criteria to the definition of functional creativity.

It is interesting to note that even untrained judges can agree on whether such criteria

are present in a product, and can do it in a consistent (reliable) way (e.g., Besemer and

O’Quin, 1987), while there is substantial agreement among raters, especially those who are

knowledgeable in a domain (Amabile, 1983). In other words people have a common

understanding of novelty, complexity, elegance, and the like, and can recognize them when

they see them. This is the phenomenon of consensus described by Amabile (1983). We will

argue below that consensus is particularly evident in the case of engineers.

Cropley and Cropley (2000) rated products designed and built by engineering students

(wheeled vehicles propelled by the energy stored in a mouse trap) on four dimensions:

Effectiveness (ability to propel itself), Novelty (originality and surprisingness), Elegance

(understandability and workmanlike finish), and Germinality (usefulness, ability to open up

33
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

new perspectives). They found that these dimensions could be assessed by an engineer acting

as rater with a substantial degree of reliability and with satisfactory validity (ratings of the

four dimensions had low correlations with each other and correlated with scores on a

creativity test in a logical way). In this chapter we propose a similar four-dimensional model

for defining the creativity of engineering products, i.e. of functional creativity. The four

dimensions are:

1. Relevance and effectiveness (the product solves the problem it was intended to

solve)

2. Novelty (the product is original and “surprising”)

3. Elegance (the product is “beautiful” or pleasing, and goes beyond a simple

mechanical solution, for instance by introducing a “bonus” such as being cost-

effective)

4. Generalizability (the product is broadly applicable—it can be transferred to

situations other than the present one and opens up perspectives for solving other

problems)2

It is helpful to conceptualize the products of functional creativity as solutions to

problems. Indeed, the idea of solving a problem was emphasized by both Horenstein and also

Burghardt. The systematic relationships among the four criteria just stated becomes apparent

when they are related to a hierarchical model of problem solutions ranging from the “routine”

solution (characterized by relevance and effectiveness alone) at one pole to the “innovative”

solution (characterized by effectiveness, novelty, elegance and generalizability) at the other,

with “original” and “elegant” solutions between these poles. This relationship is shown in

Table 1. The schematic in Table 1 can also be used to demonstrate the position of what we

2
Finally, most writers nowadays accept that a product must be ethical if it is to be acclaimed as creative (e.g.,
Grudin, 1990). Ethical issues are readily recognizable in areas such as biotechnology.

34
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

call “aesthetic” creativity. The table shows that each solution higher in the hierarchy

incorporates all the properties of solutions at lower levels, but adds something to them.

According to our criteria (see above) routine solutions are not creative, because the second

necessary criterion (novelty) is missing. This does not mean, however, that such solutions are

useless.

---------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
---------------------------------------

Functional creativity as a system

For our purposes, the most important aspect of the four dimensional model of functional

creativity is that the dimensions form a hierarchy. Relevance and effectiveness, on the one

hand, and novelty on the other are fundamental and necessary conditions for a creative

product, but neither is sufficient on its own. Only when both are present is it possible to talk

about creativity. Furthermore, the first criterion (effectiveness) must be met before the second

(novelty) becomes relevant. Elegance and generalizability come higher in the hierarchy: It is

possible to talk about creativity without them and they are only interesting when the first two

criteria have been met.

The relationship among the criteria is also dynamic. To put this slightly differently, addition

of the criteria higher in the hierarchy adds value to those below them. To take the most

obvious example, novelty increases effectiveness. Elegance adds to both novelty and

effectiveness and generalizability adds to novelty as well as increasing relevance and

effectiveness. Thus, although elegance and generalizability are not absolutely indispensable

for creativity, they add value to the creativity of a product. For an example of how

generalizability adds value to a solution see the refueling example below.

There is an interesting nexus of aesthetic values (e.g., elegance) and effectiveness that

manifests itself in engineering. A documented heuristic in the field of systems engineering

35
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

reinforces the idea that elegant products tend to be more effective than inelegant ones. In our

terminology, elegance adds value. Rechtin and Maier (1997) quoted Wernher von Braun’s

aphorism: “The eye is a fine architect. Believe it!” This principle captures what is intuitively

understood by many engineers, namely that good engineering solutions usually look like good

solutions. In the language of functional creativity they are elegant and understandable. A

similar point was made by Einstein. He argued that it is not difficult to find solutions to

problems: The difficult part is finding solutions that are elegant (see Miller, 1992). Grudin

(1990) reinforced this idea when he gave his book the title “the grace of great things [our

italics]”. Such solutions not infrequently cause a more or less instantaneous “shock of

recognition” (Cropley, 1967, p. 21) when they occur, and provoke a “Why didn’t I think of

that?” reaction. To return to an earlier point, there is “consensus” among observers. Indeed,

an elegant solution may look so simple and obvious—after the fact—that viewers may

underrate its creativity or denigrate it as “obvious”.

A further important point is that products do not occur in a vacuum. As both Miller

(2000) and Sternberg (1999) emphasized, creativity most commonly involves what Sternberg

called “propelling a field”, usually by adding to what already exists, seeing it in a new light,

transferring it to a new context, and so on. Bolts from the blue are the exception. A simple

example occurred when practices well known in the refueling of commercial aircraft were

transferred to Formula One motor racing. Although commonplace at the previous place of

work the practices were unknown at the new (i.e., in that context they were novel). Thus, the

generalizability of the practices added value to them and made them capable of being applied

in a new setting, where they were regarded as novel. Importantly, a change in the context or

particular purpose can also have the opposite effect, destroying the relevance and

effectiveness of a product, as can be seen in the Falklands War case study below. Thus, the

context determines creativity by defining not only a product’s relevance and effectiveness, but

36
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

also its degree of novelty. In a sense, creativity is not an aspect of the product at all, but of the

context. This is one of the “paradoxes” of creativity referred to by Cropley (1997).

A case study
The dynamic nature of functional creativity can be illustrated by the following example from

the Anglo-Argentinean Falklands War of 1982. It is a characteristic of wartime that it

produces many examples of engineering creativity. These examples are particularly valuable

for the present discussion because the criterion of effectiveness is often starkly obvious. As a

result, examples from war are very instructive, although we do not want to create the

impression that we are admirers of armed conflict. As the fighting in the Falklands developed,

both sides used high performance fighter jets. In the case of the British this was the “Harrier”

V/STOL (Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing) aircraft operating from aircraft carriers, while

for the Argentineans it was “Mirage” and “Dagger” jets. Considered in isolation each

country’s aircraft met a particular need defined for that country’s anticipated military

operations. In the British case this was for jet aircraft capable of operating from aircraft

carriers within a given framework of cost and performance. In the case of Argentina it was for

supersonic land-based fighters to counter similar aircraft from potential adversaries. There is

little doubt that both countries considered the aircraft that they possessed to be relevant and

effective for their particular needs. Of course, if these aircraft had been intended for some

quite different task such as transporting passengers they would have been irrelevant and

ineffective, immediately changing the nature of their claims to engineering creativity. This

will be discussed more fully later.

The importance of the particular context in defining functional creativity is illustrated

by what happened when the British and Argentinean aircraft met in combat. The British

aircraft quickly achieved superiority over the Argentineans, to the point that no British

Harriers were lost in air-to-air combat in the conflict, while they accounted for eleven

37
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Argentinean fighters and a number of other, lesser aircraft. The particular capabilities of the

Harriers, on paper inferior to the Mirages and Daggers, became assets, because the context of

aircraft operations in the Falklands War forced the Argentinean aircraft to operate at low

altitudes, where their superior speed could not be capitalized upon. Although they would have

been relevant and effective in meeting a threat from other, similar, land-based fighter jets,

they were ineffective under the particular conditions of the fighting in the Falklands. The

context for which the Argentinean aircraft had been designed was not the one in which they

had to fight. This immediately rendered them far less relevant and effective than had been

thought to be the case. At the same time, the context enhanced the Harrier’s relevance and

effectiveness, since they were ideally suited to the actual combat conditions encountered. In

other words, the ability of the Harriers to function well in a setting that had not been foreseen

(i.e., their generalizability) added value to their novelty. Possibly more interesting, the

Harriers’ generalizability subtracted value from the Mirages and Daggers. Subtraction of

value is a special issue that becomes relevant when there are competing solutions, a situation

that will be discussed in more detail below.

The case study also illustrates the dynamic nature of the other dimensions that define

functional creativity. The Harrier is regarded, in a general sense, as a novel aircraft. It has, for

example, the ability to fly backwards and to take off and land vertically. This is a quality that

is certainly original and surprising in fixed-wing aircraft. The Harrier possesses other

characteristics that were also hailed as highly innovative when it was first introduced into the

market. These qualities distinguish it from other aircraft. It is unique, unusual and at the time

it was introduced its capabilities would not have been anticipated by competing

manufacturers. The Mirages and Daggers, on the other hand, are routine high performance jet

aircraft. They have no particular features that set them apart from competing products. They

certainly do not evoke surprise. In fact it is likely that when introduced they represented a

38
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

combination of design factors that was entirely predictable and commonplace. This takes

nothing away from their ability to solve a particular problem (their relevance and

effectiveness in a given context), but means that they exhibit very little, if any, novelty, and as

we now know, a fatal lack of generalizability. We see then that relevance and effectiveness

alone is insufficient to define engineering creativity, although it is vitally necessary. The

generalizable creative product is capable of solving a given problem in a novel manner, even

if this is not what it was originally designed for.

The greater novelty of the Harrier had important consequences in the context of the

particular problem defined by operations in the Falklands War. Specifically the unusual and

surprising ability of the Harrier to use a maneuver known as VIFFing (Vectoring In Forward

Flight) made a significant improvement to its relevance and effectiveness. In air-to-air combat

the Harrier was able turn disadvantage into decisive advantage when being pursued by an

Argentinean jet, by suddenly VIFFing, or using the controllable exhaust nozzles of the engine

to alter speed and direction radically. This maneuver enabled the Harrier to jump out of the

path of a pursuing aircraft and rapidly reposition itself behind the attacker, and was almost

impossible for the conventional, routine Argentinean jets to counter. It thus transferred the

Harriers from a position of danger into a one where they could destroy the attacking aircraft.

There can be little doubt of the surprise that this tactic must have caused Argentinean pilots

who succumbed to it. The addition of generalizable novelty in the design of the Harrier added

value to its relevance and effectiveness. Furthermore, this novelty in the Harrier had the effect

of reducing the relevance and effectiveness of the Mirage and Dagger jets (i.e., it subtracted

value from the competing product).

Latent functional creativity

In Table 1 we touched upon the possibility that “aesthetic” solutions to problems, while

displaying novelty, may or may not involve other criteria such as effectiveness. This raises the

39
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

possibility that, despite our earlier insistence on the necessity of effectiveness, even in the

case of functional creativity there may be two kinds of novelty that are worth taking seriously,

one kind that is actually observed to add value to the product (in terms of solving a particular

given problem) and another kind that has not yet been seen to do this, but may eventually do

so if and when appropriate problem conditions are encountered—a kind of abstract novelty

that yields potential creativity. We cannot dismiss large numbers of products as lacking

creativity simply because they fail to solve a particular problem in a given context. If we did

this, we would have had to rate the Harrier as lacking creativity if, for instance, it had chanced

to be applied to the problem of transporting passengers, because of its low level of

effectiveness in this particular context, despite the fact that we have shown that the aircraft

has a great deal of novelty that gives it creative merit in an engineering sense, regardless of

the problem context, and that proved to be extremely effective when the right circumstances

occurred.

For this reason it is necessary to view engineering creativity as consisting of two

fundamental categories: (a) functional creativity and (b) “latent” functional creativity. If

neither of these applies, then any creative merit must, by definition, be (c) aesthetic creativity.

These three categories can be defined as follows:

1. Functional creativity is driven by a specific functional purpose (relevance and

effectiveness in a particular context).

2. Latent functional creativity characterizes products that possess novelty without a

particular functional purpose, although this novelty has the potential to become

relevant and effective when the right circumstances occur.

3. Aesthetic creativity involves novel products with no functional purpose, present or

potential. “Functional” purpose is used here with the particular meaning worked out

above.
40
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

This distinction means that despite its lack of effectiveness as, let us say, a passenger

transport aircraft, the Harrier was not relegated to the status of “art”, but had latent functional

creativity that was realized when the product was placed in the appropriate context, i.e., used

as a low level fighter aircraft. It does not lose its novel abilities in the “wrong” context (e.g.,

as a means of mass passenger transport), but simply realizes no benefit from them, because of

an absence of relevance and effectiveness to the particular situation, which nullifies the

usefulness of its novelty in the setting in question, but not in absolute terms.

This issue becomes particularly important in a situation where a product is forced to

compete with a rival solution. In a sense this was the problem faced by the pilots of the

Argentinean Mirages and Daggers. It is also a common situation in commercial settings.

Indeed, this may be one of the main practical ways in which functional creativity differs from

aesthetic creativity. Although there are many examples of highly “commercial” aesthetic

creators such as some of the Italian painting masters or 5 cents a word authors, the artist does

not usually compete directly for market shares and the like, and many are reluctant to sell

their work at all. However, in the case of functional creativity, a novel product may have its

effectiveness and thus its functional creativity destroyed by its rival, in the way that, to take a

single example, the vacuum tube’s relevance was destroyed by the silicon chip. Nonetheless,

the vacuum tube continues to have been creative in its day, although it is no longer in general

use because of the existence of a more effective rival. The need to make a product’s value

robust in the face of a rival product or even capable of subtracting value from the rival

supports the importance of “loading” new products with novelty, and suggests several reasons

for doing this.

1. Novelty may add so much value to a product that it is immune to value

subtractions resulting from a rival’s novelty.

41
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

2. The product’s novelty may also give it the capacity to subtract value from a rival

product (i.e., to nullify the rival’s effectiveness).

3. “Extra” novelty may add to a product’s generalizability.

However, since the nature of the rival may be unknown at the time a product is being

developed (i.e., the exact problem the product must solve may be unknown), added value

resulting from novelty may initially be only latent.

Implications for practice—fostering creativity in engineers

Despite the importance of creativity, a recent survey in Australia (Government of Australia,

1999) showed that three-quarters of new graduates there are “unsuitable” for employment

because of “skill deficiencies” in creativity, problem-solving, and independent and critical

thinking. A UK study (Cooper, Altman and Garner, 2002) concluded that the education

system militates against innovation. In the US, university-level teaching of engineering is

widely regarded as indifferent or even hostile to creativity, and empirical studies support this

view. Snyder (1967), for instance, showed that students at an American university who

preferred trying new solutions dropped out of engineering courses three times more frequently

than those who preferred conventional solutions. Gluskinos (1971) found no correlation

between creativity as measured by a creativity test and GPAs in engineering courses. Despite

this, the literature over the years demonstrates the existence of a continuing interest in

fostering the creativity of engineering students (e.g., Gawain, 1974; Masi, 1989; Olken,

1964).

Attempts in the past to train engineering students to be more creative have produced

mixed results. Rubinstein (1980) and Woods (1983) reported some success in training them in

problem-solving. More recently, in a pretest-posttest study, Basadur, Graen and Scandura

(1986) showed that a program emphasizing divergent thinking increased the preference of

42
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

manufacturing engineering students for generating new solutions, although the study did not

report any changes in actual performance. Clapham and Schuster (1992) administered

creativity tests to engineering students from a variety of majors. About half of them then

received creativity training that emphasized deferment of judgment, brainstorming, incubation

and idea-getting techniques, while the remainder acted as controls. The statistical analysis

showed that the test scores of the trained students had increased significantly more than those

of the controls.

Clapham (1997) reviewed possible mechanisms through which beneficial effects of

training might occur, and concluded that they can be attributed to programs’ ability to foster:

(a) development of appropriate thinking skills; (b) acquisition of positive attitudes to

creativity and creative performance; (c) motivation to be creative; (d) perception of oneself as

capable of being creative; (e) reduction of anxiety about creativity; (f) experience of positive

mood in problem-solving situations. It is apparent that this list goes beyond simply thinking

skills, and encompasses attitudes, motivation, self-image, and similar factors.

Cropley and Cropley (2000) pursued Clapham’s analysis further in a study in which

engineering students received three lectures from a psychology specialist (the second author

of this chapter) on (a) What is creativity? (b) What has creativity got to do with engineering

students? (c) Why do engineers have problems with creativity? (d) What are the

psychological elements of creativity? (e) What are the characteristics of a creative product? (f)

How can you solve problems creatively? (g) What blocks creativity? Lectures also

emphasized the issues touched on above (importance of creativity in modern engineering

practice and as a factor in developing a career in the field, nature of engineering creativity).

Finally, it was emphasized that creative products must not only be novel and germinal but

must also reflect a high level of engineering knowledge (i.e., be effective and relevant).

43
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Subsequently, the students were required to build “a wheeled vehicle powered by a

mousetrap.” It was emphasized that the novelty of their vehicle would be an important source

of points, although they were also reminded that it would have to be capable of propelling

itself, i.e., effective. They were also reminded of the four dimensions on which their products

would be evaluated (Effectiveness, Novelty, Elegance, and Germinality—see above). Finally,

the students were given individual “creativity counseling” based on the connection between

psychological aspects of creativity such as non-conformity, originality, openness, or risk-

taking and their own behavior on a creativity test, for instance drawing their attention to

unfavorable aspects of their own personality such as fear of taking a risk or excessive

conformity.

Both longitudinal comparisons of test scores (before and after training) as well as

comparisons with the work of a control group indicated that the program had had beneficial

effects on participants’ originality of thinking and willingness to depart from the conventional,

as well as on the novelty of the machines they built. However, it is scarcely conceivable that the

brief training provided in this project would bring about profound and long-lasting changes in

participants’ fundamental psychological potential to be creative. However, it was possible to

show them a different way of solving an engineering problem that they found enjoyable, as

well as to give them a convincing demonstration of their own ability to come up with ideas. In

this sense, the study offers hints about how to influence the development of knowledge about

creativity and divergent cognitive strategies, as well as a positive attitude to novelty. However,

there seems little likelihood that such attributes will persist unless they are further developed by

appropriate follow-up activities.

44
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

References

Albert, R. S. (1990). Identity, experiences, and career choice among the exceptionally

gifted and talented. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Theories of creativity (pp 13-34).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer.

Basadur, M., Graen, G. B., and Scandura, T. (1986). Training effects of attitudes toward

divergent thinking among manufacturing engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,

612-617.

Besemer, S. P. and O’Quin, K. (1987). Creative product analysis: Testing a model by

developing a judging instrument. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity

research: Beyond the basics (pp. 367-389). Buffalo, NY: Bearly.

Bruner, J. S. (1962). The conditions of creativity. In H. Gruber, G. Terrell and M.

Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to cognition (pp. 1-30). New York:

Athaneum.

Burghardt, M. D. (1995) Introduction to the engineering profession (2nd ed.). New York:

Addison Wesley.

Clapham, M. M. (1997). Ideational skills training: A key element in creativity training

programs. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 33-44.

Clapham, M. M., and Schuster, D. H. (1992). Can engineering students be trained to think more

creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 26, 156-162.

Clifford. P. I. (1958). Emotional contacts with the external world manifested by selected

groups of highly creative chemists and mathematicians. Perceptual and Motor

Skills, 8, 3-26.

Cooper, C., Altman, W. and Garner, A. (2002). Inventing for business success. New

York: Texere.

45
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Cropley, A. J. (1967). Creativity. London: Longmans.

Cropley, A. J. (1997). Creativity: A bundle of paradoxes. Gifted and Talented

International, 12, 8-14.

Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education and learning. London: Kogan Page.

Cropley, A. J. (2002). Qualitative research methods: An introduction for students of

psychology and education. Riga: Zinātne.

Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2000) Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates.

High Ability Studies, 11, 207-219.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.

New York: Harper Collins.

Dekker, D. L. (1995, August). Engineering design processes, problem solving and creativity.

Proceedings of the 1995 International Association for Engineering Education Frontiers

in Education Conference (pp. 16-19).

Economist Technology Quarterly. (September 21, 2002, pp 13-14). Thanksgiving for

innovation.

Gawain, T. H. (1974). Reflection on education for creativity in engineering. International Association

for Engineering Education Transactions in Education, 17, 189-192.

Gluskinos, U. M. (1971). Criteria for student engineering creativity and their relationship to

college grades. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8, 189-195.

Gordon, W. J. (1961). Synectics. New York: Harper.

Government of Australia (1999). Higher Education Funding Report, 1999. Canberra:

Government Printer.

Grudin, R. (1990). The grace of great things: Creativity and innovation. New York:

Ticknorand Fields.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.

46
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Hequet, M. (1995, October). Doing more with less. Training, pp. 76-82.

Higgins, J. M. (1994). 101 Creative problem solving techniques – The handbook of new ideas

for business. Winter Park, FL: The New Management Publishing Company.

Horenstein, M. N. (2002). Design concepts for engineers (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall Inc.

Jackson, P. W. and Messick, S. (1965). The person, the product, and the response: Conceptual

problems in the assessment of creativity. Journal of Personality, 33, 309-329.

Masi, J. V. (1989, August). Teaching the process of creativity in the engineering classroom.

Proceedings of the 1989 International Association for Engineering Education Frontiers in

Education Conference, pp. 288-292.

MacIntosh, M. K. and Prescott, J. B. (1999). Report to the Minister For Defence on the

Collins Class Submarine and related matters. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of

Australia.

Miller, A. I. (1992). Scientific creativity: A comparative study of Henri Poincaré and Albert Einstein,

Creativity Research Journal, 5, 385-418.

Miller, A. I. (2000). Insights of genius. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Olken, H. (1964, December). Creativity training for engineers–its past, present and future.

International Association for Engineering Education Transactions in Education, pp. 149-161.

Rechtin, E. and Maier, M. (1997).The art of systems architecting. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Roe, A. (1952). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd Mead.

Rossman, J. (1931). The psychology of the inventor: A study of the patentee. Washington,

DC: Inventors’ Publishing Co.

Rubinstein, M. F. (1980). A decade of experience in teaching an interdisciplinary problem

solving course. In D. T. Turna and F. Reif (Eds.), Problem solving and education (pp. 35-

48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

47
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Savransky, S. D. (2000). Engineering of creativity. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.

Snyder, B. (1967). Creative students in science and engineering. Universities Quarterly, 21,

205-218.

Steiner, C. J. (1998). Educating for innovation and management: The engineering educator’s

dilemma. International Association for Engineering Education Transactions in

Education, 41, 1-7.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Intelligence and lifelong learning. What's new and how can we use it?

American Psychologist, 52, 1134-1139.

Sternberg, R. J. (1999). A propulsion model of types of creative contributions. Journal of

General Psychology, 3(2), 83-100.

Taylor, A. (1975). An emerging view of creative actions. In I. A. Taylor and J. W. Getzels (Eds.),

Perspectives in creativity (pp. 297-325). Chicago: Aldine.

Thackray, J. (1995, July). That vital spark (creativity enhancement in business). Management

Today, pp. 56-58.

Walberg, H. J. and Stariha, W. E. (1992). Productive human capital: Learning, creativity and

eminence. Creativity Research Journal, 5, 323-340.

Woods, D. R. (1983). Introducing explicit training in problem solving into our courses. Higher

Education Research and Development, 2, 79-102.

48
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept
of functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman and J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity Across Domains: Faces of the Muse,
Chapter 10 (pp. 169-185). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Table 1. The hierarchical organization of problem solutions

Kind of Solution

Criterion Original
Routine Elegant Innovative Aesthetic

Effectiveness + + + + ?
Novelty - + + + +
Elegance - - + + ?
Generalizabilit - - - + ?
y

49
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Furious Activity vs. Understanding:

How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work?

James C. Kaufman

Learning Research Institute

John Baer

Rider University

David H. Cropley

University of South Australia

Roni Reiter-Palmon

Sarah Nienhauser

University of Nebraska at Omaha

Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Abstract

What is the role of expertise in evaluating creative products? Novices and experts do not

assess creativity similarly, indicating domain-specific knowledge’s role in judging creativity.

We describe two studies that examine how quasi-experts (people who have more experience

in a domain than novices but also lack recognized standing as experts) compare to novices

and experts in rating creative work. In Study One, we compare different types of quasi-

experts with novices and experts in rating short stories. In Study Two, we compared experts,

quasi-experts, and novices in evaluating an engineering product (a mousetrap design). Quasi-

experts (regardless of type) seem to be appropriate raters for short stories, yet results were

mixed for the engineers quasi-experts. Some domains may require more expertise than others

to properly evaluate creative work.

51
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Furious activity vs. Understanding:

How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work?

Furious activity is no substitute for understanding

-- H. H. Williams

Popular and critical tastes in the arts occasionally align (such as the hit movie Avatar),

but more often are in opposition. For example, actors who have won the People’s Choice

Award include Adam Sandler, Kate Hudson, Vince Vaughn, and other stars who are unlikely

to impress film critics. In contrast, past acting winners of the National Board of Review

Awards include Lesley Manville, Jackie Weaver, Emile Hirsch, and other acclaimed but

comparatively obscure thespians.

Why does this discrepancy exist? One possibility is that it is a reflection of “highbrow

culture” and “lowbrow culture.” Rentfrow, Goldberg, and Zilca (2011) studied film, music,

book, and television preferences and found the high-low culture split regardless of the

entertainment medium. They also found a five-factor solution, with two factors relating to the

highbrow preference (aesthetic and cerebral) and three for lowbrow (communal, dark, and

thrilling). Notably, these preferences were related to cognitive and personality factors.

Measured intelligence was significantly and positively related to dark and aesthetic

preferences, and significantly negatively related to communal. The intellect personality factor

was positively correlated with aesthetic, cerebral, and dark, and negatively related to

communal and thrilling (Rentfrow et al., 2011). North and Hargreaves (2007) uncovered a

similar highbrow/lowbrow split in music preferences, with highbrow preferences associated

with higher incomes, intellect, and education. Winston and Cupchik (1992) found a

highbrow/lowbrow split in visual art; people with more artistic training preferred highbrow

52
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

art. In the marketing world, Holbrook, Lacher, and LaTour (2006) studied why critically

acclaimed works tend to meet with tepid audience response and found that audience

judgment served as a mediating factor (i.e., laypeople and experts disagree aesthetically).

Indeed, a related perspective is to consider this role of expertise in evaluating creative

products. For example, the movie critics who vote on the National Board of Review awards

(and the industry members who vote on the Academy Awards) have a much higher level of

expertise than the average layperson. Both the critics and the professionals have spent years

either making or evaluating movies, comparable to the ten years of deliberate practice needed

to make a substantial contribution to a field (Ericsson, Roring, & Nandagopal, 2007). Most

laypeople, however, are novices. Somewhere in the middle are quasi-experts, such as amateur

movie buffs or people in the film industry who might be more removed from actual

filmmaking (i.e., gaffers).

Plucker, Holden, and Neustadter (2008) compared movie reviews from professional

critics (experts) to scores on user-driven websites such as the International Movie Database

(IMDb; these raters could be considered quasi-experts). Plucker, Kaufman, Temple, and Qian

(2009) extended the original study with a group of college students with no particular

experience with film. The critics showed the strongest reliability, followed by IMDb users,

and then the students. The IMDb users were highly correlated with both students (.65) and

critics (.72). However, the correlation between critics and students was notably lower (.43).

The question of how expert, quasi-expert, and novice aesthetic judgments are related

goes far beyond film, of course. There are also important implications for creativity. For

example, extensive work has looked at differences in actual creative performance and

problem-solving. Some research has examined the actual creative process (e.g., Voss, Wolfe,

Lawrence, & Engle, 1991), whereas other studies have investigated the relationship between

53
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

expertise and rigidity in problem-solving (e.g., Bilalic, McLeod, & Gobet, 2008; Schooler &

Melcher, 1995).

The impact of expertise on a person’s reaction to a creative product has been less

examined. In one classic study, Hull, Tessner, and Diamond (1978) studied the ages of both

early accepters and continued rejecters of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as proposed in The

Origin of Species. Based on these results, they proposed Planck’s Principle, which argues that

younger scientists are more likely to accept new ideas than older scientists (a subsequent

study, however, found contradictory results; see Levin, Stephan, & Walker, 1995).

Another way of approaching this issue is to look at creativity assessment. One

common way to measure creativity is to ask raters to evaluate actual creative work. Initially

called “aesthetic judgment” and emphasizing the arts, this work initially started nearly 100

years ago (Cattell, Glascock, & Washburn, 1918; Child, 1962). More recently, Amabile

(1982, 1983, 1996) has established specific guidelines for using raters to evaluate creativity,

which she dubs the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT). The CAT is typically used for

artistic efforts, including collages (Amabile, 1996; Hennessey, Kim, Guomin, & Weiwei,

2008), short stories and poetry (Baer, Kaufman, & Gentile, 2004; Baer, Kaufman, & Riggs,

2008; Kaufman, Gentile, & Baer, 2005), photo captions (Kaufman, Lee, Baer, & Lee, 2007),

photographic essays (Dollinger, 2007), designs (Haller, Courvoisier, & Cropley, 2010),

dramatic performance (Myford, 1989), and music compositions (Hickey, 2001). It is less

common to apply the CAT to non-artistic work, although there have been several studies

demonstrating its effectiveness in such domains as writing mathematical problems and

equations (Baer, 1994), responding to science-based questions about an animal’s habitat

(Kaufman, Evans, & Baer, 2010), or solving everyday problems (Reiter-Palmon, Mumford,

Boes, & Runco, 1997).

54
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Conceivably, the CAT could be used on any type of creative product and can be

thought of as a more formalized version of the kinds of ratings that many prize and grant

committees do when they invite groups of experts in a field to rank order a group of

submissions, candidates, or applications.

According to the CAT, creative work should be assessed by experts. The question of

what type of expert should be used is its own debatable topic. Conceivable experts for

judging high school poetry could include professional poets, creative writing teachers,

literary journal editors, and perhaps even experienced English teachers or creativity

researchers. Most research has found that different types of experts have solid-to-strong inter-

rater reliability (Amabile, 1996; Baer et al., 2004; Cheng, Wang, Liu, & Chen, 2010). In

addition, different expert groups (i.e., teachers and writers) tend to agree with each other,

with correlations typically higher than r = .40 and often above r = .70 (Amabile, 1996; Baer

et al., 2009; Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976).

The relationship between expert and novice ratings of creative work is less

convergent. Lee, Lee, and Young (2005) applied generalizability theory techniques to expert

and novice ratings of flower designs. Their experts were professional artists who worked in

flower design and their novices were undergraduate students. They found low levels of inter-

rater reliability among the novices. They also calculated that the variance due to raters was

much lower for the experts, also indicating a higher level of agreement. Finally, Lee et al.

(2005) found that product-based variance — differences between the ratings given to

different products — was twice as high in experts as in novices. In other words, novices were

much less likely to be able to discriminate between different types of flower designs.

Hickey (2001) conducted an extensive study of novice and expert ratings of children’s

musical compositions. Her three composers did not agree with each other (and their ratings

could therefore not be used), but she did get agreement for theorists, three types of teachers

55
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

(instrumental, mixed, and general/choral), and samples of 2nd and 7th grade children. The

three types of teachers agreed with each other and with the music theorists. The two groups

of children agreed with each other. However, the children’s ratings did not correlate with

either the theorists' or the teachers' ratings.

A series of studies investigated this question by domain. Kaufman, Niu, Sexton and

Cole (2010) collected both poetry and short stories by more than 200 college students. Both

samples of work were then rated by two different groups of judges: experts and novices.

There were poetry experts (all accomplished in publishing, critiquing, or teaching poetry)

who rated the poems and fiction experts (equally accomplished in their field) who rated the

short stories. The novices were more than 100 college students (separate from those who had

written the poems or stories).

The novices were not found to be comparable to the experts, although the extent of

divergence related to the domain. For poetry, the correlation between the two sets of raters

was just r =.22 (Kaufman, Cole, Baer, & Sexton, 2008). The experts' ratings of the poems

were fairly consistent, with a coefficient alpha of .83. The novices' ratings were far less

consistent. Because coefficient alpha increases with the size of the group, the authors

assessed what the average inter-rater reliability would have been for any randomly selected

set of ten novice raters. The inter-rater reliability of groups of 10 novices was just .58. The

coefficient alpha for the full group of novice raters was .94, but getting this level of inter-rater

agreement required 106 raters. Even with the full contingent of 100+ novice raters and their

high coefficient alpha inter-rater reliability, however, the correlation between expert and

novice ratings was still quite low. Whatever one might argue was the basis of the novices’

judgments, it was not creativity in poetry as understood by experts in the field.

The results were better for the short story ratings (Kaufman, Baer, & Cole, 2009). The

correlation between expert and novice ratings was .71. This indicates moderate levels of

56
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

agreement, certainly not acceptable for any kind of high-stakes individual assessment, but

possibly high enough for group comparisons in research. The experts had high levels of inter-

rater reliability (coefficient alpha of .92). The mean inter-rater reliability of randomly

selected groups of 10 novice raters was just .53, but using all 106 novice raters it reached .93.

It should be noted that even the moderate level of agreement (.71) between expert and novice

raters required more than 100 novices. Thus a very large number of novice raters managed to

produce creativity ratings somewhat similar to experts — good enough, perhaps, for some

creativity research purposes, but limiting.

Why might novices and experts disagree on creative work? Much of the work on this

question has focused on visual art and emphasizes different emotional and intellectual

responses. Leder, Gerger, Dressler, and Schabmann (2012) found that experts and novices

have different emotional responses to art, and emotion played a bigger role for novices in

their appraisal of art. Silvia (2006) compared novices to quasi-experts (people with some

background and training in the arts). He found that quasi-experts were better able to

understand complex pictures and, thus, also found them more interesting (Mills, 2001, found

comparable results). Locher, Smith, and Smith (2001) compared experts (art teachers) to

novices and found the experts better able to see paintings as being complex.

Other reasons may be found in psychophysiological work, such as Müller, Höfel,

Brattico, and Jacobsen’s (2010) study of novices and expert approaches to music. They

physiologically measured how experts and novices responded to music. Müller et al (2010)

found that experts and novices showed different brain responses to different types of chord

progressions. Their results suggested that experts are better at perceiving music and can more

easily switch between types of listening modes.

Most creativity researchers would prefer to use novices instead of experts if possible

because of very practical reasons (Kaufman, 2009). Experts are hard to find, may expect

57
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

payment, and may be less likely to agree to rate a large number of items. Yet the research

suggests that simply using novices is not an appropriate substitute. One possible compromise

might be to use “quasi-experts” as raters. Quasi-experts, as discussed earlier, have more

experience in a domain than novices but also lack recognized standing as experts. If an expert

poet has published in many literary journals and given multiple readings, a quasi-expert

might be an MFA candidate in creative writing emphasizing poetry. The studies on the use of

quasi-experts are encouraging to those who want to use expert raters but are encumbered by

the practical issues involved (such as expense and time).

Hekkert and van Wieringen (1996) looked at expert, quasi-expert, and novice

aesthetic preference. They found that the three groups tended to agree about some types of art

(figurative) but not others (abstract). Indeed, expert and novice judges were far apart in how

much they liked abstract paintings, with the quasi-experts in the middle. Amabile (1996)

reports a series of studies looking at experts, quasi-experts, and novices; although there is

often not enough information about the specific level of expertise of the raters to make

sweeping conclusions (see Kaufman & Baer, 2012, for a detailed discussion), quasi-experts

generally show agreement with experts. Kaufman et al. (2005) used gifted novices and

experts to rate stories and poetry; they found strong (if lower) inter-rater reliabilities for the

gifted novices, with correlations of r = .78 for poetry and r = .77 for short stories.

The purpose of the first study reported in this paper was to investigate how quasi-

expert judgments of creative work compared to both novice and expert judgments. We

predict that quasi-experts, regardless of their nature of expertise, will give more reliable

ratings than novices (H1). Further, these ratings will be more highly correlated with expert

ratings than novice ratings (H2). Finally, expert ratings will continue to show the highest

levels of reliability (H3).

The second study will then see how these findings transfer to another domain.

58
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Study One

Method

Participants/Procedure

Four groups of quasi-experts were recruited for this study. The first group, Creativity

Students, consisted of 12 advanced undergraduate and graduate students (eight women and

four men) actively involved in creativity research. All 12 students had training in creativity

research, had participated in conducting experiments in creativity, and in most cases (nine of

12) presented their research at a professional conference. Professional creativity researchers

have been used as experts in past work (Baer et al, 2004), and their ratings strongly correlated

with domain experts (Baer et al, 2009).

There were three other groups of quasi-experts whose quasi-expertise was based on

their connection to the field of teaching. One of these groups consisted of 10 Elementary

Education majors (all sophomore and juniors, and all women) who were preparing to be

elementary teachers. Although not English majors, this group had at least some experience in

reading and grading student papers and in the study of creativity in their educational

psychology coursework. A second group of quasi-experts with a somewhat greater degree of

expertise included 10 junior and senior Secondary Education/English double majors (one

man, nine women) who were preparing to be English teachers. The third group of teacher

quasi-experts consisted of nine currently employed English teachers with at least two years of

experience teaching English (six women, three men). Each of these quasi-expert raters

received a small honorarium for their participation.

The material was taken from a past study (Kaufman et al., 2010) and consisted of 205

short stories written by college students. The sample that generated the stories included 54

men and 151 women, with a mean age of 24.20 years (SD = 8.73 years).

59
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Expert and novice ratings were taken from a past study (Kaufman et al., 2009). The

expert raters from the past study were ten professional writers (seven women, three men).

Five had MFAs in creative writing and three others had Ph.D.’s in English; all ten had been

published. Consistent with Amabile’s (1996) Consensual Assessment Technique, they never

met or discussed their ratings in any way.

Novice raters consisted of 106 college students from a California public university

who participated in the study for course credit. The novice sample included 25 men and 81

women, with a mean age of 21.17 years (SD = 6.21 years). Like the expert raters, the novice

raters worked independently.

All raters received the same instructions:

1. There were two prompts: “Execution" and “2305.” Students could choose

either one and were asked to write a story with one of the two prompts as its

title.

2. Please rate each story for creativity on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being least

creative, 10 the most creative.

3. Please compare the stories to one another, not to some other standard.

These are not stories written by students who identify themselves as writers.

They were subjects in a psychology experiment.

4. Please try to use the full scale.

5. There is no need to explain or justify your ratings. Use your expert sense

to judge each story for its creativity (not for spelling, punctuation, etc. -- just

creativity).

60
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Data Analysis

The effectiveness of different rater groups was evaluated using two methodologies.

The first method evaluated the reliability of the ratings for each of the groups. Interrater

reliabilities were evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. In addition, as the number of novice

raters was exceedingly large (which would increase their inter-rater reliability), the

reliabilities of random smaller samples were evaluated. Specifically, using a random number

generator, 10 novices were selected at random (equal to the number of expert raters), and the

interrater reliability was calculated on this subsample. The random sampling was repeated

100 times.

The three groups of raters were compared using correlations to determine whether the

rank order of the rated targets was similar across groups of raters. High correlations would

indicate that the raters across the different groups rated the targets (stories) in a similar

fashion. The same random samples were used to calculate correlations. To determine the

average across the random samples, Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were transformed

using Fisher’s Z, then averaged, and then the average was transformed back to the Pearson

correlation coefficient (r).

Results

Reliabilities were high across all rater groups when using the full group (experts .93;

quasi-experts .97; and novices .99). When the 41 quasi-experts were broken down into the

four specific sub groups, reliabilities were somewhat lower (likely due to the smaller sample

sizes of 12, 10, 10, and 9) but were still high (.86 to .92). When evaluating the reliabilities for

the novices using random samples of 10 novices3, however, a very different picture emerged.

The reliabilities ranged from .35 to .75, with an average reliability across the 100 samples of

.53. These results indicate that a very large sample of novices may be as reliable as experts;

3
This analysis is new and more detailed than the original analysis presented in Kaufman et al, 2009.

61
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

however, when smaller sample sizes are used (as is the case in most creativity studies),

novices are not reliable. In fact, novices perform fairly poorly. The highest inter-rater

reliability of the novice samples that was obtained was .75, but this occurred in just one of the

100 samples.

The correlations between the rater groups are presented in Table 1. All the

correlations are high indicating some degree of overlap in the rank order of ratings. As can be

seen, the correlation between experts and full group of quasi-experts was high (r = .89),

indicating that the two groups rate in a similar fashion. The lowest correlation was seen

between the experts and the 106 novices (r = .72). Further, when the specific subgroups of

quasi-experts were examined, the relationships between expert ratings and quasi-expert

ratings remained strong, especially for English teachers and Creativity Students. It is notable

that these relationships continued to be high, despite the fact that the specific groups were

smaller (about 10-12 quasi-experts, comparable to the number of experts in this study and

similar to the number of judges frequently used in CAT-based research studies).

The results obtained using the 100 random samples of 10 novices provide a quite

different picture. The lowest correlation between experts and novices was .22 and the highest

was .76, with an average of .56. The correlation between quasi-experts and novices ranged

from .32 to .85, with an average of .66. These results indicate that while experts and quasi-

experts have a high degree of agreement regarding the creativity of the stories as indicated by

the correlations, novices’ judgments are not similar to those of experts. The overall

correlation (using the full novice sample) was still lower than quasi-experts. When smaller

samples were used, the correlations between experts and novices were even lower. Taken

together, this study suggests that novices are not appropriate substitutes for experts in

providing creativity ratings (consistent with Kaufman et al., 2009). However, quasi-experts

62
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

seem to provide similar ratings to those of experts, both in terms of reliability and rank order,

and therefore can be used as substitutes for experts.

Study Two

Although quasi-experts seem to be suitable substitutes for experts in the domain of

creative writing (Study 1), there is an extensive literature on how creativity differs across

domains (see Kaufman & Baer, 2005). It is important to explore whether these findings

would transfer to other domains. In particular, one key question is whether these results

would vary in a domain that requires a different level of expertise to become accomplished.

Although most domains take ten years of deliberate practice to become a creative

expert (Simonton, 1997), Simonton (2004, 2009) argues for a hierarchy within domains, with

“hard sciences” at one end of the extreme (highest), “soft sciences” in the middle, and arts

and humanities at the other end (lowest). Some of the variables that Simonton uses in his

model include the level of domain consensus. If people agree about the key components

needed to produce new work – in other words, if both the body of knowledge for the domain

is well-defined, and the means by which expertise is achieved is codified – then it is likely

that most, if not all, experts possess this knowledge. Novices without such expertise would

likely be at an even greater disadvantage for these domains than for domains in which there is

a high level of disagreement even at the expert level. Put simply, the differences between

novice, quasi-expert and expert, in domains in the “hard sciences,” are likely to be both larger

in magnitude, and more sharply delineated, than the differences in a domain at the lower end

of Simonton’s spectrum. This concept is also in accord with Amabile's (1983) suggestion that

the more esoteric or specialized the field, the more narrow the range of possible experts.

Simonton (2009) places the sciences higher than the arts and “hard” sciences (e.g.,

physics, chemistry) higher than “soft sciences (e.g., sociology, psychology). Klavans and

63
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Boyack (2009), in their mapping of the sciences, place both physics and chemistry as being

strongly tied to engineering. Indeed, the nature of the domain of engineering includes very

strong consensus about what is part of its body of knowledge. This is controlled, and

codified, in two ways in countries like the United States and Australia. First, national

accreditation bodies like the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) in

the United States set out what knowledge is required to turn novices into (quasi) experts

through the process of university education. Second, a variety of international, national

and/or state-based professional bodies then certify practitioners at one or more levels of

expertise. The International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), for example,

defines three levels of professional systems engineer: supervised practitioner, practitioner

and expert. Entry into any one of these requires a formal assessment of the candidate’s

fluency (their level of familiarity with the domain’s body of knowledge), their domain-

relevant education, and their practical experience.

This may be contrasted with the process by which a creative writer achieves expertise.

That is not to say that one is any more or less expert than the other; only that the manner in

which the body of knowledge in each domain is defined is very different, and the means by

which a person moves from one level (novice, quasi-expert and expert) to another is very

distinctive.

The manner in which creativity is understood across the spectrum of domains may

also be very different. In domains like engineering, the greater level of consensus and

codification of the body of knowledge imposes constraints on creativity that may not be

present in domains like creative writing. Cropley and Cropley (2005, 2008, 2010) sought to

address this characteristic of creativity, relative to domains, by focusing on functional

creativity. They argued that, in the practical world of engineered products, processes,

systems, and services, the most important aspect of an artifact that excites admiration in the

64
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

beholder is not novelty, but the product’s ability to meet customer needs, i.e. its effectiveness.

An automobile, for example, must transport people quickly, economically and comfortably

over long distances. If it fails to satisfy requirements like these, then it lacks effectiveness and

thus cannot be regarded as creative, no matter how novel it is. This reflects the constraints

imposed by a highly-codified domain at the upper end of Simonton’s spectrum. Creativity in

engineering is permitted, and valued, but only in certain ways, and at certain times.

The purpose of Study 2, then, was to explore the nature of judgments of creative work

by quasi-experts, in the domain of engineering, in comparison to novices and experts. Will

the findings from domains such as creative writing transfer to a domain such as engineering

where the boundaries between levels are thought to be greater and more sharply delineated?

In Study 2 we predict that quasi-experts will give more reliable rating than novices (H1) and

that these rating will be more highly correlated with experts than with novices (H2). We

further predict that expert rating will show the highest levels of reliability (H3).

Method

Participants/Procedure

Three groups were recruited for this study: a small group (N=15, all male) of

Australian professional engineers, serving as experts; a larger group (N=31, 4 females) of

Australian first-year undergraduate engineering students, serving as quasi-experts, and; a

large group (N=274, 34 males, 226 females, 14 did not provide gender information) of

American students taking a psychology class at a California public university, who served as

novices.

Two key characteristics of judges emerge as the criteria by which experts, quasi-experts

and novices are differentiated from each other in this study. Amabile (1996) notes the

importance of “experience with the domain in question” (p. 41), while Stein (1974) highlights

65
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

the acceptance of the product by an organized group within a domain. For the purposes of

Study 2, novices were therefore selected on the basis that they possessed neither domain-

relevant experience (in this case “engineering”) nor were they members of an organized,

recognizable, domain-relevant group (either professional engineers or engineering students).

Membership of the expert group was restricted to participants who had a minimum of a

Bachelor of Engineering Degree and at least 10 years of experience as a professional engineer

(satisfying the requirement for experience within the domain) and who held a professional

membership (CPEng) with Engineers Australia (satisfying the requirement for membership of

a domain-relevant group).

Membership of the quasi-expert group was restricted to participants who were enrolled in

the first year of a Bachelor of Engineering degree. While the quasi-experts also satisfy the

two requirements: domain experience and membership of a domain-relevant group, they

differ from the experts primarily by virtue of the degree of their experience. It seems

reasonable to assume that first-year engineering students possess greater domain experience

compared to undergraduate psychology students, but less than degree-qualified, professional

engineers. The question of whether this is sufficient to distinguish quasi-experts from novices

is, of course, central to the investigation.

Participants were directed to a website where the measures were hosted online.

Participants were presented, sequentially, with an image of one of five different mousetraps

of varying designs. Images of the mousetraps were selected from Google image search to

represent a diverse range of possible mousetraps. Participants were asked to rate each of the

different mousetraps using the following five constructs:

 Overall Creativity – the degree to which the mousetrap is creative, using your own

subjective definition of creativity.

66
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

 Relevance /Effectiveness – the degree to which the mousetrap fulfills the function for

which it was designed.

 Novelty – the degree to which the mousetrap is original and surprising.

 Elegance – the degree to which the mousetrap is well-made, complete and pleasing to

the eye.

 Genesis – the degree to which the mousetrap opens up new perspectives and the

problem.

Each item was rated using a 5-point Likert-type scale (ranging from “very low” through

“medium” to “very high”) to indicate the degree to which the item applies to the given

mousetrap.

Data Analysis

In a similar fashion to Study 1, the effectiveness of the different rater groups (novice,

quasi-expert and expert) was evaluated by assessing both the reliability of the ratings for each

group, and the correlations between groups. Also, consistent with Study 1, the reliabilities of

100 random sub-groups of 10 novices were selected to filter out the effects of group size on

reliability. Table 2 shows the results for reliability. The table shows values both for Overall

Creativity (comparable to the ratings of creative writing made in Study 1) as well as values

for the four dimensions of a creative product, defined by Cropley and Cropley (2010) in their

model of functional creativity. Table 3 presents the correlations between pairs of groups

(Expert + Quasi-Expert; Quasi-Expert + Novice; Expert + Novice). In both Tables (2 and 3)

results are shown for the full group of Novices, as well as for random samples. Similar to

study 1, to obtain the average correlation between the novice random samples and the other

two groups (experts and quasi-experts), these correlations were first transformed using

67
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Fisher’s Z, then averaged, and the value was then transformed into a correlation which was

used in Table 3.

In relation to Overall Creativity, reliabilities for the three groups showed the same

pattern as Study 1. Novices had the highest level of reliability (.98), followed closely by

quasi-experts (.93). Experts had an acceptable level of reliability (.86), but lower than that of

the other two groups, likely as a result of the low number of raters relative to the other two

groups. Using random samples of novices, the results shifted, and the average reliability was

considerably lower (.66) and now well below that of the other groups. Of particular note is

the range of values of average reliability in the samples of novices. The lowest average

reliability for Overall Creativity for the novices was close to zero (.06).

The correlations for Overall Creativity, between experts and quasi-experts, were

moderate (r = .52), indicating that for this task, experts and quasi-experts differ to some

extent in their ratings. The correlations indicated that novices (when using the full sample)

were very similar to quasi-experts (r = .96). When random samples of novices were used, the

range of correlations with quasi-experts was large (r = .27 to r = .99), however the average

correlation between samples of novices and quasi-experts remained high (r = .85).

Correlations between experts and novices were more discrepant. The correlation between

novices and experts, using the full sample of novices, was low (r = .29) indicating little

overlap between expert and novice ratings, further, using the random samples of novices,

some of the correlations were negative!

When evaluating the reliabilities for the other rating scales (Table 2), the full sample

of novices performed reliably (> .94); indeed, they typically outperformed experts and quasi-

experts by a small margin. Overall, all three groups showed good interrater reliability as

measured by Cronbach’s alpha. However, when random samples for novices were analyzed,

as in Study 1, a different picture emerged. As with the reliability for Overall Creativity, the

68
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

minimum value obtained for reliability for each of the scales was close to zero. While the

maximum reliability was adequate, this level of reliability was seen in only a fraction of

random samples. The average reliabilities based on all 100 samples ranged from .48 to .63 –

most would not be considered adequate for ratings of creativity. In contrast to the reliability

measures for Overall Creativity, a less stable picture emerges for the comparison of

reliabilities between experts and quasi-experts. In two cases (Elegance, Novelty) the

reliability of experts exceeded that of quasi-experts, while in the remaining two cases

(Genesis, Relevance/Effectiveness) the reliability of quasi-experts exceeded that of experts.

The correlation data for the other rating scales (Table 3) indicate, in general, that

quasi-experts provided ratings that were more similar to those of novices than those of

experts. The relationships between expert ratings and those of quasi-experts and novices

were, however, somewhat varied depending on the specific scale that was used. For each

rating scale, experts tended to show a higher correlation with quasi-experts than with novices

(concentrating on the full samples), however the magnitudes of these correlations were highly

variable, ranging from .78 (Experts/Quasi-Experts: Relevance/Effectiveness) and .79

(Experts/Novices: Relevance/Effectiveness) to .02 and -.16 respectively for Genesis. When

the random samples of novices were used to evaluate correlations, the range of correlations

was very large, with all scales having negative correlations between novices and experts as

well as quasi-experts at the minimum values. Based on these random samples of novices, all

correlations between experts and quasi-experts were higher than between experts and

novices. Again, these results indicated, in general, stronger similarities in ratings between the

quasi-experts and novices, likely due to the large number of novices used as raters in this

study; however there were some noteworthy exceptions that will be discussed below.

69
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Discussion

The results for Study 2 support the argument that the differences between novices,

quasi-experts, and experts are larger and sharper for a more highly structured and codified

domain (i.e. hard sciences in Simonton’s hierarchy). The net effect of this is that, in contrast

to Study 1, quasi-experts, as defined in this study, were poor substitutes for experts for the

purpose of evaluating overall creativity. The evaluations of overall creativity of the quasi-

experts in Study 2 showed a much higher correlation with the evaluations of novices (.85)

than with experts (.52). In both studies, however, it should be noted that there were

substantial differences in the gender ratios of the different groups.

A somewhat more varied picture emerges for the evaluation of the four characteristics

of creativity. Two of these characteristics (Elegance and Genesis) showed the same pattern as

for Overall Creativity, namely, that quasi-experts were a poor substitute for experts. For

Genesis, in particular, the correlation between experts and both quasi-experts (.02) and

novices (-.05) was, in effect, non-existent. Conversely, one characteristic (Novelty) showed a

different pattern when compared to Overall Creativity. In this case, quasi-expert ratings

correlated quite highly with those of experts (.71) and did so more strongly than with novices

(.55). Novelty also showed high reliability (.90). Finally, the correlations for

Relevance/Effectiveness showed a third variation. In this case, ratings for all three groups

were moderately strong and broadly comparable (.78, .71, .65). This also suggests that quasi-

experts could function as substitutes for experts (noting also a reliability of .97 for quasi-

experts for this characteristic). Indeed, it suggests that of all the measured criteria,

Relevance/Effectiveness is the only one where an argument can be made that novices are

capable of substituting for experts, to a limited degree. While these results support previous

findings on the evaluation of overall creativity, and are consistent with hypotheses based on

Simonton’s hierarchy of domains, they provide some interesting insights into the role that

70
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

expertise might play in relation to evaluating more differentiated, and domain-specific,

criteria of creativity. There is widespread agreement (for example, Kaufman 2009) that the

two key components of creativity are novelty and appropriateness to the task at hand (likely

assessed by the Relevance/Effectiveness factor). In Study 2, it emerges that, unlike the

overall construct creativity, quasi-experts may be much closer to experts in their ability to

recognize what is new, original, and surprising. This finding may suggest that at least some

domain knowledge (first-year engineering) is sufficient, perhaps acting in concert with a

general predisposition to the domain, to form accurate judgments of novelty. Even more

interesting is the fact that very little domain knowledge may be required to form a reasonable

judgment of appropriateness – even those raters with no domain-specific knowledge may

recognize if an artifact will do what it is supposed to do. By contrast, the criteria Elegance

and Genesis are more sophisticated and nuanced characteristics of creativity and the results of

Study 2 suggest that quasi-experts and novices are not able form judgments of these that are

comparable to experts.

In summary, whereas Study 1 supports the possible use of quasi-experts as substitutes

for experts in relation to the evaluation of creativity in domains require lower levels of

domain-based knowledge to acquire expertise, Study 2 suggests that the larger and sharper

delineations of expertise, quasi-expertise, and absence of expertise found at the higher end of

the hierarchy of domains precludes the use of quasi-experts as substitutes for experts in the

evaluation of creativity. However, when creativity is broken down into more highly

differentiated components: novelty, relevance and effectiveness, elegance and genesis, a

more complex picture emerges. It appears that the core criteria that defines creativity (novelty

and appropriateness), may be more independent of the level of expertise of the observer,

while more sophisticated (and domain-dependent) criteria such as elegance and genesis

remain strongly linked to the level of expertise of the observer.

71
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Future research might investigate both the transferability of the latter finding back to

other domains such as creative writing. Many studies have had experts (Müller et al, 2010;

Amabile, 1996) and novices (Rawlings, Barrantes i Vidal, & Furnham, 2000; Turner &

Silvia, 2006) rate nuanced aspects of artistic work, from emotional response to technical

quality. Amabile (1996), for example, had experts rate artistic work on such dimensions as

novel use of materials, variation in shapes, symmetry, representationalism, silliness, detail,

and evidence of effort and planning.

Another area for future work might be to investigate the role that different levels of

quasi-expertise might play. In other words, is there a specific range of knowledge that is

needed to serve as a proxy for an expert rater? Does this amount of knowledge vary by

domain? Some of this work has been done on how people evaluate their own work. Silvia

(2008) asked people to pick their best responses to a divergent thinking task and then

examined if the chosen responses were the same as the responses chosen by outside raters.

Silvia found that people were able to discern their more creative responses reasonably well;

in addition, people more open to experience were more likely to choose accurately. At the

Big-C end of the spectrum, Kozbelt's (2007) analysis of Beethoven's self-critiques found that

the great composer was a reasonably accurate rater himself.

Finally, it would be interesting to see how differing familiarity with creativity

research impacts ratings. There has been extensive work that examines how instructions

impact creative performance. Several studies have found that simply telling people to be

creative leads to more creative performance (e.g., O’Hara & Sternberg, 2001). Chen, Kasof,

Himsel, Dmitrieva, Dong, and Xue (2005) found these instructions improved creativity across

mathematical, verbal, and artistic domains (although to a lower degree for verbal).

Runco, Illies, and Reiter-Palmon (2005) found that telling someone to be creative in a

specific way (i.e., "think of things that will be thought of by no one else") resulted in higher

72
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

divergent thinking scores than simply telling them to be more creative in a general way.

Runco, Illies, and Eisenman (2005) found an interaction between the instructions

(emphasizing originality, appropriateness, both or neither) and the type of DT task (realistic

or unrealistic). Realistic tasks with appropriateness-focused instruction drew more

appropriate ideas, and unrealistic tasks with originality-focused instructions produced more

original ideas. Niu and Liu (2009) compared three types of instructions: a control group (no

instructions), general instructions encouraging creativity, and detailed instructions giving

examples of how participants could be creative. They found that only the detailed instructions

led to more creative work.

However, this line of research has not been fully extended to seeing how people rate

creativity. Although one of the core tenets of the Consensual Assessment Technique is to not

provide training (Kaufman, Plucker, & Baer, 2008), the question has broader implications.

Dollinger and Shafran (2005) trained novice judges4 on aesthetic judgment by showing them

drawings from an entirely different study and the ratings that these drawings had received

from a panel of expert judges. They then compared the trained novice ratings and expert

ratings, and found the novices had strong reliability and generally agreed with the experts.

The question of whether such training could be done on-line (thereby using less resources)

and how much training is needed to increase novice or quasi-expert judgments has yet to be

answered.

Conclusion

On a practical level, expense of getting expert raters to look at creative work has

largely limited the Consensual Assessment Technique to research use. Finding a happy

medium might encourage more work with this technique, which allows a domain-specific

4
Possibly quasi-expert using our definitions

73
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

perspective on creativity. On a theoretical level, exploring the question of how differing

levels of expertise leads to similar or divergent perceptions of creative work can yield insight

into many aspects of cognition.

This study compared novice, quasi-expert, and expert ratings of creativity in two

domains, creative writing (short stories) and engineering (product design). Novices,

consistent with extensive past work (see, e.g., Kaufman & Baer, 2012) only showed

acceptable levels of reliability and expert agreement when used in excessively large numbers.

When the level of analysis was lowered to groups of 10, reliability and agreement was

drastically reduced. The utility of quasi-experts varied by domain. For creative writing, quasi-

experts showed strong reliability and expert agreement; in engineering, the results were

inconsistent and generally did not support the use of quasi-experts as raters.

74
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity.

Boulder, CO: Westview.

Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multi-domain training experiment.

Creativity Research Journal, 7, 35 – 46.

Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment

technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 113-117.

Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Riggs, M. (2009). Rater-domain interactions in the Consensual

Assessment Technique. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 19,

87-92.

Bilalić, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008). Inflexibility of experts – Reality or myth?

Quantifying the Einstellung effect in chess masters. Cognitive Psychology, 56, 73-102

Cattell, J. Glascock, J., & Washburn, M. F. (1918). Experiments on a possible test of

aesthetic judgment of pictures. American Journal of Psychology, 29, 333-336.

Chen, C., Kasof, J., Himsel, A. J., Greenberger, E., Dong, Q., & Xue, G. (2002). Creativity in

drawing of geometric shapes: A cross-cultural examination with the consensual

assessment technique. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 33, 171–187.

Cheng, Y-Y., Wang, W-C., Liu, K-S., & Chen, Y-L. (2010). Effects of association instruction

on fourth graders' poetic creativity in Taiwan. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 228-

235.

Child, I. L. (1962). Personal preferences as an expression of aesthetic sensitivity. Journal of

Personality, 30, 496-512.

75
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept of

functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Faces of the muse: How

people think, work and act creatively in diverse domains (pp. 169-185). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cropley, D. H. & Cropley, A. J. (2008). Elements of a universal aesthetic of creativity.

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 2, 155-161.

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2010), Functional creativity: Products and the generation of

effective novelty. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of

Creativity (pp. 301-320). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dollinger, S. J. (2007). Creativity and conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences,

43, 1025-1035.

Dollinger, S. J., & Shafran, M. (2005). Note on the Consensual Assessment Technique in

creativity research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100, 592-598.

Ericsson, K. A., Roring, R. W., & Nandagopal, K. (2007). Giftedness and evidence for

reproducibly superior performance: An account based on the expert performance

framework. High Ability Studies, 18, 3 – 56.

Getzels, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of

problem-finding in art. New York: Wiley.

Haller, C. S., Courvoisier, D. S., & Cropley, D. H. (2010). Correlates of creativity among

visual art students. International Journal of Creativity & Problem-Solving, 20, 53-71.

Hekkert, P., & Van Wieringen, P. C. W. (1996). Beauty in the eye of expert and nonexpert

beholders: A study in the appraisal of art. American Journal of Psychology, 109, 389-

407.

76
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Hennessey, B. A., Kim, G., Guomin, Z., & Weiwei, S. (2008). A multicultural application of

the Consensual Assessment Technique. International Journal of Creativity and

Problem Solving, 18, 87-100.

Hickey, M. (2001). An application of Amabile's Consensual Assessment Technique for rating

the creativity of children's musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music

Education, 49, 234-244.

Holbrook, M. B., Lacher, K. T., & LaTour, M. S. (2006). Audience judgments as the

potential missing link between expert judgments and audience appeal: An illustration

based on musical recordings of 'My Funny Valentine.' Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 34, 8-18.

Hull, D. L., Tessner, P. D., & Diamond, A. M. (1978). Planck’s principle: Do younger

scientists accept new scientific ideas with greater alacrity than older scientists?

Science, 202, 717-723.

Kaufman, J. C., Gentile, C. A., & Baer, J. (2005). Do gifted student writers and creative

writing experts rate creativity the same way? Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 260-265.

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J., (2005). The Amusement Park Theory of Creativity. In J. C.

Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 321-

328). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kaufman, J. C., Lee, J., Baer, J., & Lee, S. (2007). Captions, consistency, creativity, and the

consensual assessment technique: New evidence of validity. Thinking Skills and

Creativity, 2, 96-106.

Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cole, J.C., & Sexton, J. D. (2008). A comparison of expert and

nonexpert raters using the Consensual Assessment Technique. Creativity Research

Journal, 20, 171-178.

77
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. New

York: Wiley.

Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., & Cole, J. C. (2009). Expertise, domains, and the Consensual

Assessment Technique. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 223-233.

Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity 101. New York: Springer.

Kaufman, J. C., Evans, M. L., & Baer, J. (2010). The American Idol Effect: Are students

good judges of their creativity across domains? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28, 3-

17.

Kaufman, J. C., Niu, W., Sexton, J. D., & Cole, J. C. (2010). In the eye of the beholder:

Differences across ethnicity and gender in evaluating creative work. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 40, 496-511.

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2012). Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is

creative? Creativity Research Journal, 24, 83-91.

Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2009). Toward a consensus map of science. Journal of the

American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 455-476.

Kozbelt, A. (2007). A quantitative analysis of Beethoven as self-critic: Implications for

psychological theories of musical creativity. Psychology of Music, 35, 147-172.

Leder, H., Gerger, G., Dressler, S. G., & Schabmann, A. (2012). How art is appreciated.

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 2-10.

Lee S., Lee J., & Young C-Y. (2005). A variation of CAT for measuring creativity in

business products. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 15, 143-153.

Locher, P. J., Smith, J. K., & Smith, L. F. (2001). The influence of presentation format and

viewer training in the visual arts on the perception of pictorial and aesthetic qualities

of paintings. Perception. 30, 449-465.

78
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Millis, K. (2001). Making meaning brings pleasure: The influence of titles on aesthetic

experience. Emotion, 1, 320–329.

Muller, M., Höfel, L., Brattico, E., & Jacobsen, T. (2010). Aesthetic judgments of music in

experts and laypersons—An ERP study. International Journal of Psychophysiology,

76, 40-51.

Myford, C. M. (1989). The nature of expertise in aesthetic judgment: Beyond inter-judge

agreement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.

Niu, W., & Liu, D. (2009). Enhancing creativity: A comparison between effects of an

indicative instruction “to be creative” and a more elaborate heuristic instruction on

Chinese student creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 93-

98.

North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2007). Lifestyle correlates of musical preference: Travel,

money, education, employment, and health. Psychology of Music, 35, 473–97.

O’Hara, L. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). It doesn’t hurt to ask: Effects of instructions to be

creative, practical, or analytical on essay writing performance and their interaction

with students’ thinking styles. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 197–210.

Plucker, J. A., Holden, J., & Neustadter, D. (2008). The criterion problem and creativity in

film: Psychometric characteristics of various measures. Psychology of Aesthetics,

Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 190-196.

Plucker, J. A., Kaufman, J. C., Temple, J. S., & Qian, M. (2009). Do experts and novices

evaluate movies the same way? Psychology and Marketing, 26, 470-478.

Rawlings, D., Barrantes-Vidal, N., & Furnham, A. (2000). Personality and aesthetic

preference in Spain and England: Two studies relating sensation seeking and

openness to experience to liking for paintings and music. European Journal of

Personality, 14, 553-576.

79
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., Boes, O. J., & Runco, M. A. (1997). Problem

construction and creativity: The role of ability, cue consistency, and active processing.

Creativity Research Journal, 10, 9-24.

Rentfrow, P. J., Goldberg, L. R., & Zilca, R. (2011). Listening, watching, and reading: The

structure and correlates of entertainment preferences. Journal of Personality, 79, 223-

258.

Runco, M. A., Illies, J. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2005). Explicit instructions to be creative and

original: A comparison of strategies and criteria as targets with three types of

divergent thinking tests. Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 15, 5–15.

Runco, M. A., Illies, J. J., & Eisenman, R. (2005). Creativity, originality, and

appropriateness: What do explicit instructions tell us about their relationship? Journal

of Creative Behavior, 39, 137–148.

Schooler, J.W., & Melcher, J. (1995). The ineffability of insight. In S.M. Smith, T.B. Ward,

& R.A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach, (pp. 97-133). Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Silvia, P. J. (2008). Discernment and creativity: How well can people identify their most

creative ideas? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 139-146.

Silvia, P. J. (2006). Artistic training and interest in visual art: Applying the appraisal model

of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24, 139-161.

Simonton, D. K. (2004). Psychology’s status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical

placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. Review of General

Psychology, 8, 59-67.

Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career

trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66-89.

80
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Simonton, D. K. (2009).Varieties of (scientific) creativity: A hierarchical model of

disposition, development, and achievement. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4,

441-452.

Stein, M. I. (1974). Stimulating Creativity: Volume 1 – Individual Procedures. New York,

NY: Academic Press.

Turner, S. A., & Silvia, P. J. (2006). Must interesting things be pleasant? A test of competing

appraisal structures. Emotion, 6, 670-674.

Voss, J.F., Wolfe, C. R., Lawrence J.A., & Engle, R.A. (1991). From representation to

decision: An analysis of problem solving in international relations. In R.J. Sternberg

& P.A. Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp.

119-158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Winston, A. S., & Cupchik, G. C. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art by naïve

and experienced viewers. Visual Arts Research, 18, 1-14.

81
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Author Note: Please address correspondence to James C. Kaufman, Learning Research

Institute, California State University at San Bernardino, Department of Psychology, 5500

University Parkway, San Bernardino California, CA 92407. Electronic mail:

[email protected]. The authors would like to thank Alexander S. McKay, Kristen Ramos,

Paul Silvia, Dean Keith Simonton, and Arielle White for their assistance and suggestions

with earlier drafts of the manuscript.

82
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013).
Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Table 1

Study 1 Correlations between rater groups

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Experts ---

2. Quasi-experts overall .89 ---

3. Quasi-expert English teachers .86 .95 ---

4. Quasi-expert English majors .77 .93 .84 ---

5. Quasi-expert Education majors .80 .94 .87 .83 ---

6. Quasi-expert creativity students .91 .95 .87 .83 .84 ---

7. Novices overall .72 .83 .81 .77 .81 .73

83
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013). Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed
to evaluate creative work? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Table 2

Study 2 Reliabilities.

Scale Experts Quasi-experts Novices Novices Random Sample

Total sample Minimum Maximum Average

Overall Creativity .86 .93 .98 .06 .88 .66

Elegance .96 .79 .97 .15 .89 .63

Genesis .85 .87 .96 .06 .78 .53

Novelty .93 .90 .94 .06 .86 .48

Relevance/Effectiveness .83 .97 .97 .06 .89 .59

84
Pre-Publication Version - Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Sinett, S. (2013). Furious Activity vs. Understanding: How much expertise is needed
to evaluate creative work? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 7:4, pp. 332-340.

Table 3

Study 2 Correlations Between rater groups

Scale Experts/Quasi- Quasi-experts/Novices Experts/Novices

Experts
Full Minimum Maximum Average Full Minimum Maximum Average
Sample Sample

Overall Creativity .52 .96 .27 .99 .85 .29 -.45 .89 .35

Elegance .60 .96 -.38 .99 .86 .38 -.30 .70 .42

Genesis .02 .92 -.48 .99 .71 -.16 -.78 .99 -.05

Novelty .71 .75 -.80 .98 .55 .08 -.90 .96 .15

Relevance/Effectiveness .78 .88 -.79 .99 .71 .79 -.82 .99 .65

85
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Engineering, Ethics and Creativity: N’er the Twain Shall Meet?

David Cropley, University of South Australia

Creativity and the role of Ethics

Creativity has, since J P Guilford first suggested divergent thinking as a component of human

cognition (Guilford, 1950), long been associated with positive qualities, characteristics and outcomes.

On the one hand, Bruner (1962) saw creativity as a defining characteristic of human intelligence,

distinguishing it from impersonal, cold, machine intelligence. A. J. Cropley (2010) drew together

these positive views which he suggested see creativity as “a principle of nature and that it is, by

definition, a universal beneficial force fostering growth and rebuilding in all organic systems” (p.2). In

parallel with this view, creativity has also long been seen as good for the individual, and is associated

with many positive personal properties such as courage, openness to experience and flexibility, as

well as offering beneficial effects for mental health (A. J. Cropley, 1990). Adding to these positive

perspectives, creativity is also understood to be vital culturally and organizationally (Oral, 2006) “for

shaping…future orientations and actualizing reforms in political, economic and cultural areas” (p.65)

and economically (A. J. Cropley, 2010) “as the key to meeting challenges…arising from technological

advances, social change, globalization, and now the global financial crisis” (p.3). In fact, whether

creativity is defined and studied in relation to the person, the process, the product or the press

(environment) – namely, the 4Ps (Rhodes, 1961) – there is a great deal of attention paid to the

positive aspects of creativity.

However, more recent attention that has been given to the contrasting, dark side of

creativity (e.g., D. H. Cropley, Cropley, Kaufman, & Runco, (2010); D. H. Cropley, Kaufman, & Cropley,

(2008)) serves, among other things, to shift focus to why most creativity is good. If malevolent

creativity is (D.H. Cropley, et al., 2008) “…creativity that is deliberately planned to damage others”

(p.106), why is a very significant proportion not like this? D. H. Cropley (2010) grouped personal

properties, including feelings and motivation, under the banner of intent, to explain why some

86
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

creative endeavors are malevolent while others are benevolent. It is not difficult to see that an

individual’s ethics and morals play a role in setting the direction that this intent takes. Equally, the

nature of the environment, or press, within which creativity takes place also influences the outcome.

An organization’s framework of ethics and morals – an aspect of its culture – can reinforce, or

diminish, the intent of the individual.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the role that ethics and morals, both individual and

organizational, play in shaping creativity, in particular in engineering design. While that purpose and

focus is predominantly benevolent, the possibility of bad outcomes, whether accidental (negative

creativity) or deliberate (malevolent creativity) should not be overlooked. Indeed, in discussing

individual and organizational ethics and morals, in engineering design, it is inevitable that cases such

as exploding automobile fuel tanks (e.g. the Ford Pinto) and collapsing hotel walkways (e.g. the

Kansas City Hyatt) will enter the discussion and blur the lines between benevolent creativity and

malevolent creativity in engineering design. What role, if any, did individual and organizational ethics

and morals play in these outcomes? Are they examples of benevolent creativity gone wrong, or

deliberate, malevolent creativity? Regardless of how we classify them, what role did ethics and

morals play in the path from the first identification of a technological problem, to the

implementation of an engineering solution?

Ethics, Creativity and Design

The ethical framework necessary to steer creative efforts in the right direction, however, generates a

paradox that forms the key idea of this chapter. Put simply, creativity requires freedom, openness

and flexibility, while ethical behavior implies constraint, limitation and control. How can the former

flourish in the presence of the latter? The two appear, on the surface, to be mutually exclusive.

A simple example of the paradoxical role of ethics in creativity can be found in the case of

the artist Andres Serrano’s infamous “Piss Christ”. If Serrano had felt bound by a code of ethics that

dictated that artists should not offend the religious sensibilities of the public, then it is likely that he

would not have created his notorious, and highly novel, work. Unfettered by such an ethical/moral

87
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

constraint, Serrano’s art was able to explore a much larger range of ideas that encompassed such

novel possibilities as “immerse a religious icon in a glass of your own urine”. The real or perceived

absence of an ethical constraint allowed Serrano to maximize his creativity. Even if we argue that a

real ethical rule was broken by the artist (as opposed to what we might think of as a softer

“guideline”), we cannot deny that his willingness to overlook this constraint had only a degree of

negative consequences for Serrano – his art was, in at least one case, defaced during an exhibition

(Silvia & Brown, 2007) and he was accused of blasphemy (D. H. Cropley & Cropley, 2013). Even for

those who were offended by it, we can argue that the negative consequences were relatively

innocuous – nobody was killed or injured as a result of the production of this work of art. Conversely,

it could be argued that the artist himself has been richly rewarded for his willingness to break rules,

and deviate from accepted norms – many saw it as daring, paradigm-breaking and highly effective (D.

H. Cropley & Cropley, 2013) and Serrano won a visual arts award for the work. Silvia and Brown

(2007) offer some insight into why Serrano’s piece might be viewed as creative. Citing Martindale

and Moore (1988), they explain that people exhibit a preference for art that is prototypical for its

category (let us assume, in this case, that the category is religious iconography). Where a work is not

prototypical for its category, people exhibit negative reactions. Non-prototypicality can be seen,

therefore, as synonymous with non-conformity and deviance from norms – qualities that are good

indicators of novelty, and thus creativity. In simple terms, the adverse reaction of many viewers can

be taken as an indicator of the creativity of Serrano’s work. The point of this example is that

minimizing or eliminating a constraint, or at least ignoring it, resulted in higher creativity.

By way of contrast, it is difficult to imagine the same kind of scenario (Serrano) playing out in

technological domain such as engineering design. An engineer, for example, will generally ignore the

prevailing rules and standards of behavior only at his or her peril. Not only does the engineer risk

personal sanction by breaking these rules, but the likelihood of negative consequences resulting from

uncontrolled novelty is greater. The case of the collapsed walkways at the Kansas City Hyatt, in 1980,

is a case in point. The engineer of record for the design of the hotel was charged with negligence,

88
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

incompetence and misconduct, and ultimately lost his license to practice engineering – all because of

a failure to check a design change and assess its risk (Horenstein, 2002; Voland, 2004). Thus, while

the design change that was made can be looked at as a novel solution to a particular problem, it was

not effective, as demonstrated by the collapse. Cropley and Cropley (2005) have argued that it is the

combination of novelty and effectiveness that characterizes engineering creativity.

Therefore, while Serrano’s artistic creativity, built largely on a foundation of novelty,

exhibited positive rewards and few negative consequences, engineering creativity, with a strong

dependence on effectiveness and usually a strong coupling to human users, is much more tightly

constrained. In terms familiar to researchers working with human subjects, the potential for harm

resulting from engineering products is much greater than that resulting from artistic products. In

engineering this idea of potential for harm is more commonly expressed in terms of risk. It’s hard to

see the designer of a breast implant, for example, being lauded by the public as a bold innovator for

her willingness to move outside of the ethical and safe design space and use, for example, pebbles

encased in an old gym sock as an implant, simply because this is novel. Even a cursory assessment of

risk – the potential for harm – would rule out this solution, no matter how novel.

In particular in engineering, there is therefore a fundamental tension between creativity and

ethics. Any ethical framework – any set of rules governing human conduct – imposes constraints on

what can and can’t be done in any given field of Endeavour. Where that field of Endeavour is the

“production of a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context”

(Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004, p. 49), i.e. creativity, then it seems self-evident that ethics will limit

what can be produced. In particular, where those products, and the social context, carry any

potential for harm, as is usually the case in engineering, the ethical considerations drive a process of

risk assessment and analysis that places severe constraints on what can and cannot be done.

It is useful at this point in the discussion of engineering creativity to make a distinction

between what is legal and what is ethical. Salcedo-Albaran et al. (2009) describe the differences

between statutory rules (i.e. laws) and customary rules (i.e. norms). Creativity, of course, involves

89
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

rule-breaking, and rules constrain creativity, however when the rules that are broken are statutory in

nature we are more likely to perceive the product as illegal or criminal, while breaking customary

rules is more likely to be seen as positive and creative (p.155-156). The design novelty in the case of

the Kansas City Hyatt walkways was not, in itself, unethical or illegal. It was perfectly reasonable to

consider alternative ways of supporting the walkways. The failure was in the application of a

framework of ethical behavior – checking design changes, assessing their risk, certifying them as safe.

Ethics does not tell us what is statutory and what is customary, but instead tells us how we

incorporate this knowledge into our behaviors and actions.

Engineering design as creativity

The paradox that has been described – creativity requires freedom, but takes place within a

framework of rules that are inherently constraining – can now be examined in the specific case of

engineering design.

While it is true to say that engineering encompasses many varied activities, an essential core

– indeed, a defining characteristic – of engineering is design. Dieter and Schmidt (2012) remind us

that “… it is true that the professional practice of engineering is largely concerned with design; it is

often said that design is the essence of engineering” (p.1). Citing Blumrich (1970), they characterize

the process of design as “to pull together something new or to arrange existing things in a new way

to satisfy a recognized need of society” (p.1). Dieter and Schmidt (2012) describe the essence of

design as synthesis.

Horenstein (2002) contrasted design with other essential activities in engineering by focusing

on the process of solving problems. He stated that “If only one answer to a problem exists, and

finding it merely involved putting together the pieces of the puzzle, then the activity is probably

analysis … if more than one solution exists, and if deciding upon a suitable path demands being

creative, making choices, performing tests, iterating and evaluating, then the activity is most

certainly design. Design can include analysis, but it must also involve at least one of these latter

90
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

elements” (p.23). The core of engineering practice is therefore design, but that design activity

involves two stages: a stage of creative synthesis, followed by a stage of logical analysis. The first

stage is synonymous with divergent thinking (Guilford, 1950), while the second is synonymous with

convergent thinking. This may be illustrated as shown in Figure 1. Expressed in this way we can see

that engineering design is simply a form of creative problem-solving.

X1
..
Problem/Need Solution = X3
..
Xn

Divergent Thinking Convergent Thinking

(Synthesis) (Analysis)

Figure 1: Stages in the Design Process

Figure 1 reminds us that the process of engineering design begins with divergent thinking. A

problem or a need – for example, “how can I distribute baked beans to consumers?” – arises, for

which we desire to create a technological solution. Traditional definitions of divergent thinking – for

example “thinking…that generates a variety of ideas” (Russ & Fiorelli, 2010, p.236) – as captured in

the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1966), usually illustrate this process in the

following way. As part of an Alternate Uses test participants may be invited to think of as many uses

as they can for a tin can. Although there is no doubt that such a question does test divergent thinking

(e.g. it can be used as: a suit of armor for a mouse; a cup for drinking; one end of a communication

device), divergent thinking in engineering design (and, arguably, in any practical problem-solving

context) is manifest in a subtly different way. To illustrate the difference consider the fact that

engineers rarely select an object, for example a tin can, and ask “what are all the possible things I

could do with this object?” Instead, the more typical design process is that a question is asked, or a

problem posed – for example, “how can I distribute baked beans to consumers?” and a variety of

possible solutions are proposed (in a plastic bag; in my hand; in a tin can). Both examples represent

91
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

divergent thinking in the sense that a variety of ideas is generated in response to a question or

problem. However, in the former case the progression is really from solution (tin can) to possible

needs, akin to a version of the game-show Jeopardy in which there are many correct questions in

response to the given answer. By contrast, in the engineering design example, the progression is

from need (distribute baked beans) to possible solutions (including, among other things, a tin can). In

engineering parlance we can regard this as the difference between bottom-up design (“what need

can I satisfy with this object?”) and top-down design (“how can I satisfy this need?”).

The difference may seem trivial, and indeed, it is of little consequence to the definition of

divergent thinking. However, in the context of the complete design (or creative problem-solving)

process, where divergent thinking is followed by convergent thinking, it highlights an element that is

critical to any discussion of the interaction between engineering design, creativity and ethics.

Divergent thinking, in isolation, is free to consider any possible solution that enters the mind of the

designer. Thus there is, for example, no limit on the possible uses of a tin can, and no limit to the

number of ways that baked beans could be distributed to consumers. However, divergent thinking, as

the precursor to convergent thinking, and taking place within a creative problem-solving (or top-

down engineering design) process, does not have the same freedom. While it is true that there may

be an infinite number of ways that baked beans could be distributed to consumers, achieving a

practical solution dictates that many of these will be rejected during the stage of convergent

thinking, for a variety of possible reasons.

The reasons for rejecting solution options in the engineering design process may range from

cost (a solution is too expensive) and technical feasibility (a solution is impossible to implement) to

safety (a solution is demonstrably unsafe) and risk (a solution poses an unacceptably high likelihood

of a serious negative outcome). Each of these parameters introduces constraints that, in effect, limit

the available range of solutions from all possible solutions to a subset of feasible, practical solutions.

Furthermore, considerations of safety and risk are, at their core, questions of ethics and morality.

92
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Freedom versus Constraint

The preceding discussion once again highlights the paradox that is central to this chapter. At the

heart of top-down engineering design specifically, and creative problem-solving more generally, is

the ability to generate (Guilford, 1950, 1967) many different ideas (fluency), of different types

(flexibility), that are unusual (originality) and to develop these ideas (elaboration). This divergent

thinking characterizes creativity and depends for its success on freedom from constraint. The only

way that we hope to identify and develop effective, competitive, technological solutions to

engineering problems is to explore the largest possible design space, that is, to maximize fluency,

flexibility, originality and elaboration. At the same time, however, and in practice, we are bound by

constraints that place limits on that design space. Successful design is contingent on maximizing the

design space, while practical limitations act to minimize the design space. It would appear, therefore,

that it is not possible ever to realize fully successful design, because constraints do not permit the

designer to explore the unfettered, maximum theoretical design space (Figure 2) in which reside the

highly effective and novel solutions that satisfy needs and capture new markets. The designer must,

instead, settle for a limited and unsatisfactory available design space (Figure 2) that is more likely to

be filled with routine solutions that, while probably effective, lack the novelty that opens up new

markets and new possibilities.

Theoretical Design
Space
Constraint

Freedom

Available Design
Space

Figure 2: The Theoretical and Available Design Spaces

93
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Constraints and Engineering Design

The literature of creativity rightly devotes a great deal of attention to the range of factors that can

inhibit or foster the generation of effective novelty. From early in the modern creativity era,

following Guilford’s seminal work (Guilford, 1950), research has examined four main facets of

creativity: Person, Product, Process and Press (e.g. Rhodes (1961) and MacKinnon (1978)). The

constraints that inhibit creativity can be therefore be grouped under these categories.

Osborn (1953), for example, described the importance of Process and sought to address the

constraints associated with the misapplication of divergent and convergent thinking by defining a

strict process in the form of Brainstorming. Indeed Osborn’s description of the creative problem-

solving process could be characterized as a model of stage-specific constraints, the sources of which

are the 4Ps (Rhodes, 1961) of creativity: Person, Product, Process and Press. More recent work on

Process, and descriptions of more recent versions of the creative problem-solving process, includes

that of Puccio and Cabra (2009), Puccio at al. (2005) and also Isaksen and Treffinger (2004).

Cropley and Cropley (2012) have described a phase model of the process of innovation that

illustrates the relationship between the stages of creative problem-solving and the 4Ps (Figure 3). For

example, during the stage of Generation, they argue that divergent thinking is the dominant Process,

while in the subsequent stage of Illumination, convergent thinking is most active. They reason,

therefore, that a stage-specific constraint at this point in the process would be the potential barrier

in transitioning from divergent to convergent thinking. In other words, premature analysis, judgment

and criticism (i.e. convergent thinking applied too early) would interfere with the successful

execution of the Generation stage, preventing the exploration of the fullest range of possible

solutions during this stage.

94
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.
Preparation Activation Generation Illumination Verification Communication Validation

Process Divergent Convergent

Thinking Thinking
Product

Person

Press Low High

Demand Demand

Figure 3: Stage-specific constraints on engineering design

Creative problem-solving, in the general sense, seeks to address this conflict between

freedom and constraint by quarantining the stages of the process from each other, minimizing any

contamination of one by the other. Similarly, it is possible to identify other stage-specific constraints

in this model, derived from the relationship between the 4Ps (Product, Person, Process and Press)

and the stages of innovation (Figure 3).

Ethical Constraints and Engineering design

In addition to the stage-specific constraints described in the previous section, we propose that there

are also stage-independent constraints that arise across all stages of the design process, and which

can be traced to aspects of Person, Process, Press and Product. In engineering design, the impact of

morality and ethics is an example of this. To understand how ethics impact on engineering design,

and the role of ethics in constraining the engineering design space, it is necessary to consider four

common ethical theories.

Utilitarianism

This theory, originating with the philosopher John Stuart Mill (for example, Mill (2007)) seeks the

maximization of human well-being. It is a collectivist approach to ethics in that the focus is on the

well-being of an entire society, and not of individuals. Utilitarianism can be regarded as being

concerned with the balance between good and bad consequences, or benefits and costs, to society

that arise from solutions to engineering problems. Two forms of Utilitarianism: act and rule, have

also been described (Fleddermann, 2004). Act Utilitarianism may be considered to apply to the

outcomes of design (products), and dictates that products should be judged based on whether the

95
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

greatest good results from a given situation, allowing for rules to be broken to achieve this. Rule

Utilitarianism, by contrast, dictates that moral rules have primacy. In engineering, a moral rule such

as “do not harm people” transforms into a design rule requiring the same, and places a global

constraint on the design process. No matter what stage of the design process is active; Rule

Utilitarianism dictates that no engineering solution will be considered that is likely to lead to death or

injury. Thus it permanently closes off certain regions of the design space, as no-go areas, no matter

how creative they might be. Utilitarianism may be considered a source of stage-independent

constraint on the design process shaped by the Product.

Duty Ethics

This ethical theory, regarded as originating with the philosopher Immanuel Kant (Kant, Wood, &

Schneewind, 2002), can be associated with the Person in our stage model of creativity and

innovation. In Duty Ethics, we think of a set of ethical actions that can be written down as a list of

duties. If the individual (and the organization?) follows his or her duties – for example, “be honest”,

“don’t cause harm to others” – then the actions which result, in this case in the design process, will

be ethical. Thus the duty to cause no harm to others leads to both the individual and the organization

developing solutions to problems that are safe. In the context of the design process this represents a

set of constraints that derive from the Person and Press, and which exert their influence across the

entire design process. Certain solution options are never considered because they would violate the

duties that are spelled out for individuals and organizations.

Rights Ethics

This ethical theory is closely associated with Duty Ethics, but is framed from the point of view of the

customer in the context of the engineering design process (Fleddermann, 2004). Whereas Duty Ethics

spells out the fact that individuals (and organizations) have a duty to protect others, Rights Ethics

spells out the rights of individuals that others have a duty to protect. The impact is essentially the

same for the engineering design process – the duties of the individual designer/design organization,

and the rights of consumers of the outcome of design combine to create a set of constraints that

96
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

limit what can and can’t be considered in the engineering design space. Even if by closing off this part

of the design space we lose access to a range of solutions that meet other criteria, we cannot

consider them at any point because they would violate fundamental, unbreakable constraints.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue Ethics (Hursthouse, 1999) holds that “actions are considered right if they support good

character traits (virtues), and wrong if they support bad character traits (vices)” (Fleddermann, 2004)

(p.38). Responsibility and honesty are important virtues that flow through into engineering design.

Preparation Activation Generation Illumination Verification Communication Validation

Rule Utilitarianism (Moral rules lead to design rules = constraint)

Process

General Utilitarianism (Maximizing benefit to society = constraint)

Product

Virtue Ethics (Virtuous engineers do not consider options that are irresponsible, dangerous = constraint)
Person
Duty Ethics (Engineers have a duty to protect the rights of consumers = constraint)
Virtue Ethics (Virtuous organizations seek to look after their customers = constraint)
Press
Duty Ethics (Moral agents seek to protect the rights of consumer = constraint)

Figure 4: Stage-independent Constraints and Theories of Ethics

Corporate Morality and Moral Agency

Fleddermann (2004) raises an important issue that adds a level of complexity to the question of

ethics in engineering design, and constraints on creativity. In simple terms “is there a difference

between the ethics practiced by an individual and the ethics practiced by a corporation?” (p.38). If

we are correct, and Press is a source of stage-independent constraints in engineering design (Figure

4), then organizational behavior must play a role and corporations must have some degree of moral

agency. In other words, it must be possible to hold a corporation to account for its actions. However,

doing so creates further constraints on the available design space in engineering design.

Safety and Risk in Engineering Design

Safety and risk play an especially significant role in constraining engineering design. They represent

an outward manifestation of all of the ethical theories. Whether prompted by Process (i.e. design

rules traced to rule utilitarianism) or Person (i.e. good behaviors traced to virtue and duty ethics) or

Press (good corporate citizenship traced also to virtue and duty ethics in the context of moral

97
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

agents), or Product (cost-benefit considerations derived from general utilitarianism), safety and risk

stand out as significant constraints on design, and therefore limiting factors on creativity in

engineering design. For example, if safety and risk were not factors in automobiles then designers

would be free to consider solutions to the underlying need that encompassed much higher speeds,

lighter-weight materials, an absence of safety devices such as seat belts, more aerodynamic shapes,

more energetic fuels, etc. Considerations of safety and risk, however, do exert an influence on the

design space, ruling out many of these options.

While there is an implied warranty in engineering design (namely, that products will be safe

to use), a dilemma faced by designers is that nothing can be completely safe. Engineers, however,

are required to make products as safe as reasonably possible. For this reason safety plays a

pervasive, constraining, role in engineering design. To judge whether a design is safe or not

Fleddermann (2004) describes four criteria that must be met. We can see links to the Kansas City

Hyatt walkway collapse in each of these. From the point of view of engineering design and creativity,

these criteria spell out the constraints that exist in the design process. The first is that, as a minimum,

a design must comply with applicable laws. The second is that a design should meet accepted

standards. The third is that “alternative designs that are potentially safer must be explored” (p.65).

This particular criterion is significant because doing so introduces an opportunity for creativity and it

is this reintroduction of creativity that gives us an opportunity to expand the available design space

back into the theoretical design space (see Figure 2). The fourth criterion is that engineers must

attempt to predict the ways that a product might be misused by the consumer and then design a

product to avoid these problems. This criterion also introduces an opportunity for creativity that

rebalances the available design space.

The reaction to these latter two criteria is perhaps the most obvious way that engineers can

offset the effects of ethical constraints on the theoretical design space. Although the ethical

constraints initially appear to limit the design space to a subset of the theoretical maximum, the

98
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

introduction of new design problems based on these criteria for safety in fact represent a

reformulation of the design problem. We will revisit this issue shortly.

In the language of system design and requirements, the first step in design is identifying a set

of requirements – a set of statements that express the purpose of the thing to be created and

constraints on that design. In engineering design there are at least two ways that ethics plays a role

here. First, bearing in mind that requirements form a set of criteria by which a product is tested,

ethics drives a move to ensure that a full set of requirements even exists. In other words, a narrow

view would be to say that because there was no explicit, expressed requirement for the system to be

safe, therefore there was no test in relation to safety that was failed; therefore, the system meets all

the requirements and is satisfactory. This is a sin of omission. Just because there is no requirement

for safety, for example, does not mean that the system is therefore inherently safe. An ethical

framework therefore demands that the set of requirements that dictates the design space is, by

definition, complete in all respects, including covering things like safety. Second, there is the specific

introduction of ethically-driven requirements that limit the design space. In the language of

engineering design we talk of non-functional system (NFS) requirements – those specific statements

that spell out constraints on the whole system. These include safety, cost, possibly size, weight, and a

range of other factors often call “ilities”, such as maintainability, reliability, etc. Not only do these

NFS requirements impose constraints, or limitations, on the design space, shrinking it to a subset of

the possible solutions, they also introduce the possibility of trade-offs. The implication of trade-offs is

that certain qualities of the solution – its cost, size, weight and safety –are negotiable and, indeed,

are frequently in conflict. Take as an example the famous case of the Ford Pinto. Fleddermann (2004)

points out that there were, in effect, two competing NFS requirements at odds – cost and safety.

Setting an upper limit on cost, for example, imposed a practical upper limit on safety that fell below

the minimum required for actual safe operation. The only way that designers could balance this was

to violate one of the NFS requirements (in this case, safety). The upper limit on cost then directly

constrained the design space to a subset of solution options that were unsafe.

99
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

This situation creates an apparent paradox. The only way to satisfy the requirement for

safety (apart from ignoring it) is to violate the requirement for cost. In the case of the Ford Pinto,

management dictated that cost was the primary consideration, so that the engineers were faced

with the dilemma of how to satisfy the requirement for safety. The solution, in plain terms, was to

soften the requirement for safety to the point that the chosen solution met it. The role of creativity

here is to re-expand the design space (shrunk by the cost and safety constraints) back to the point

that it included safe solutions. However, such a requirement limits the design space to a subset of

the full, potential design space – in other words, only those solutions which meet the ethically-based

requirements such as safety.

Tackling Ethical Constraints in Engineering Design

Engineering design problems begin with a theoretically unconstrained design space, where the

opportunity for creativity is at a maximum. This is then reduced to an available design space (Figure

2) by a range of ethical and other constraints. Because of a desire to recognize and realize the

benefits of creativity engineers nevertheless seek to offset the effect of those constraints. This can be

done in one of two ways. Either the engineer can ignore the ethical constraints (both statutory and

customary), and there are examples from the history of engineering design where this pathway has

been followed, although fortunately these are relatively rare, or, the engineer can rebalance the

ethical constraints as described previously, by shifting the design problem in new directions. Thus,

what appears at first sight to be a constraint, e.g. safety, in fact can be seen to function more as a

stimulus for redefinition of the problem, for which there is a new and different available design space

that is less constrained than the original design space. This side-step can be illustrated as shown in

Figure 5.

100
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Initial Theoretical
Design Space

Reformulated Available
Design Space

Available Design
Space

Figure 5: Side-stepping constraints – Reformulating the Problem

Therefore freedom and constraint in the context of engineering design are, in fact, entirely

reconcilable. Constraints, perhaps, need to be seen as highly contextual in nature. A constraint is only

a constraint under a certain set of conditions. It may be possible to remove, or at least side-step, a

constraint in a manner that does not violate overarching ethical considerations. Therefore, it is

entirely possible to devise ethical and creative engineering solutions. The limitations imposed by

ethical frameworks do not constrain design to the point that no creativity is possible and when

engineers reframe the problem it is still possible to generate effective novelty. The requirement for

ethics, although it will always limit to some degree the range of solution options, does not militate

against creativity, but can still serve as a stimulus for creativity provided we understand how the

process operates.

Conclusions

The complex interrelationship of novelty, effectiveness and technical, engineering problem-solving

creates an apparent paradox. That paradox is expressed in the tension between a desire for freedom

and a requirement for constraint. In the engineering profession, ethics describes the set of rules and

standards that govern the conduct of engineers in their capacity as professionals. A framework of

ethics and morals in particular addresses the potential for harm that exists when engineering

solutions are created, and limits what can be done. At the same time, the defining creative, and

value-adding, activity of engineering – design – demands patterns of thought and behavior, both in

101
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

the individual and the organization, that favor risk-taking, freedom from constraint and tolerance of

uncertainty. How is it possible to balance the need for freedom that creative design requires, with

the inherent constraints imposed by ethics?

The solution to this paradox may lie in how we make sense of those constraints. It is

tempting to see constraints only in terms of how they close off and limit the design space (Figure 2).

This view, however, ignores the creativity that can also be applied to how each problem is

formulated. If constraints, whether arising from ethical considerations or not, are first seen as a

stimulus to reformulating the problem, and not simply a barrier to design, then the design space is

not reduced. Instead, the design space shifts, or side-steps, into a region that unconstrained, or less

constrained, compared to the original (Figure 5).

Thus, the necessity that gives rise to invention is not so much in the original need, as it is in

the flexibility and creativity that engineers apply as they reformulate a problem to accommodate

what can and cannot be done. Once we see constraints as a stimulus to creativity, and not an

impediment, it becomes clear that it is possible to devise ethical, creative engineering solutions, and

that the requirement for ethics does not militate against creativity.

References

Blumrich, J. F. (1970). Design. Science, 168, 1551-1554.

Bruner, J. S. (1962). The creative surprise. In H. E. Gruber, G. Terrell & M. Wertheimer (Eds.),
Contemporary approaches to creative thinking (pp. 1-30). New York, NY: Atherton.
Cropley, A. J. (1990). Creativity and mental health in everyday life. Creativity Research Journal, 3(3),
167-178.
Cropley, A. J. (2010). The dark side of creativity. In D. H. Cropley, A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman & M. A.
Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity. (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Cropley, D. H. (2010). Summary - The dark side of creativity: A differentiated model. In D. H. Cropley,
A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The Dark Side of Creativity. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept of functional
creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Faces of the Muse: How People Think, Work and
Act Creatively in Diverse Domains (pp. 169-185). Hillsdale: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2012). A Psychological Taxonomy of Organizational Innovation:
Resolving the Paradoxes. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 29-40.
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2013). Creativity and Crime: A Psychological Approach. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.

102
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics, and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet?
In S. Moran, D. H. Cropley and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity, Chapter 8 (pp. 152-169).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Runco, M. A. (Eds.). (2010). The Dark Side of Creativity.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., & Cropley, A. J. (2008). Malevolent creativity: A functional model of
creativity in terrorism and crime. Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 105-115.
Dieter, G. E., & Schmidt, L. C. (2012). Engineering design (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher
Education.
Fleddermann, C. B. (2004). Engineering Ethics (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Horenstein, M. N. (2002). Design concepts for engineers (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
Hursthouse, R. (1999). On virtue ethics: OUP Oxford.
Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (2004). Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: Versions of
creative problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(2), 75-101.
Kant, I., Wood, A. W., & Schneewind, J. B. (2002). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: Yale
University Press.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness: Identifying and developing creativity.
Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.
Martindale, C., & Moore, K. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(4), 661.
Mill, J. S. (2007). Utilitarianism, liberty & representative government: Wildside Press LLC.
Oral, G. (2006). Creativity of Turkish prospective teachers. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 65-73.
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied Imagination. New York, NY: Scribner’s.
Puccio, G., & Cabra, J. (2009). Creative problem solving: Past, present and future. The Routledge
Companion to Creativity, Oxford, UK: Routledge, 327-337.
Puccio, G. J., Murdock, M. C., & Mance, M. (2005). Current developments in creative problem solving
for organizations: A focus on thinking skills and styles. KOREAN JOURNAL OF THINKING AND
PROBLEM SOLVING, 15(2), 43.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310.
Salcedo-Albarán, E., Kuszewski, A., de Leon-Beltran, I., & Garay, L. J. (2009). Rule-breaking from
illegality: A trans-disciplinary inquiry.
Silvia, P. J., & Brown, E. M. (2007). Anger, disgust, and the negative aesthetic emotions: Expanding an
appraisal model of aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,
1(2), 100-106.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Technical norms manual. Lexington, MA:
Personnel Press.
Voland, G. (2004). Engineering by Design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

103
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering Education

David H Cropley

University of South Australia

Abstract

Why is creativity important to engineering, and engineering education? The value that creativity and

innovation offer lies in their ability to facilitate the development of novel and effective technological

solutions to problems stimulated by change. There is, however, a disconnect between creativity,

innovation and engineering. Educational programs focus excessively on narrow and deep technical

specifications, with little or no room in the curriculum for developing the ability to think and act

creatively. Unless this disconnect is addressed through holistic changes to engineering education, we

risk producing engineers who are ill-equipped to tackle the problems sparked by increasingly rapid

change in society.

Why do we Need Creativity and Innovation in Engineering?

It is easy to call for creativity and innovation in engineering. It is rare, however, to see explanations of

why creativity and innovation are valuable to engineering. What do they offer? This question may be

the hardest to answer in engineering education. We can ask our students to embed creativity and

innovation in their designs – we can even teach them what this means – but if students do not see the

value of creativity and innovation to engineering, then our efforts may be in vain. Why should we

expect a student to take the risk inherent in the production of novelty, if they can play it safe with

conventional designs and products? Is it enough to make the rationale for creativity and innovation

simply one of grades – make it creative because you will get a better mark – or do we need to

demonstrate the value of creativity and innovation in a more concrete and practical way?

The value of creativity and innovation to engineering is rooted in the problems that engineers

solve, and the catalyst provided by change. Isaac Asimov wrote, “It is change, continuing change,

inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any

104
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be ...”5 Change –

for example, population change, climate change, security change, economic change, technology

change – drives the expression of new needs and the development of new technologies. Engineering –

as a problem solving process – connects those new needs and new technologies together. Because

creativity is concerned with the generation of effective, novel solutions, creativity and engineering are,

in essence, two side of the same coin. In fact, engineering can be characterized as a special case of the

more general process of generating effective, novel solutions to problems – i.e. creativity (D. H.

Cropley, 2015).

Creative Engineering Problem Solving

Three types of creative engineering problem solving and two types of routine engineering problem

solving can be identified from the preceding discussion, depending on how the process is initiated.

Where problem and solution are old (in the sense of precedented and well-defined) and the

engineering process involves matching these together, then the problem solving paradigm is routine

(but not unimportant) engineering replication (Figure 1). Where new problems remain tied to old

solutions – stagnation – no progress is made and the paradigm remains routine in nature.

In contrast, where new problems and new solutions must be matched, then the problem solving

paradigm shifts from routine to creative. Creative engineering problem solving can be further

characterized as either forward incrementation (where a new solution satisfies an old problem but does

so better, faster or cheaper); redirection (where a new solution opens up new possibilities and thus

satisfies a new problem) and; reinitiation (where a new problem can only be satisfied by a new

solution).

The importance of creativity to engineering now becomes clear. We need engineers who are

equipped – both technically and creatively – to generate the solutions sparked by change. There will

always remain a place for the application of engineering knowledge to the solution of routine – i.e.

well-understood, straightforward – problems. However, the accelerating pace of change in the 21st

5
Isaac Asimov, “My Own View” in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (1978) edited by Robert Holdstock; later published
in Asimov on Science Fiction (1981).

105
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

century will drive a growth in new problems that require creative – in other words effective and novel

– technological solutions.

Solution
“Redirection”
“Forward (Technology-Push)
Incrementation”
New Creative
(Better, faster,
cheaper) “Reinitiation”
(Market-Pull)

“Replication” “Stagnation” Routine

Old

Old New Problem

Figure 1: Creative and Routine Problem Solving Paradigms

The value and importance of creativity – the new solutions – also emerges in Buhl’s

discussion (p. 10): “we expend a great deal of effort in modifying modification rather than attacking

the problems at their core”. He notes, “Industries are continually being supplanted, not by

modifications but by innovations.” and illustrates this as follows: “Locomotives were not displaced by

modified locomotives but by a new approach [emphasis added] to transportation needs – the car.” (p.

10).

At a more general, psychological level Sternberg (2007) expressed a similar sentiment: “The

problems we confront, whether in our families, communities, or nations, are novel and difficult, and

we need to think creatively to and divergently to solve these problems.” (p.7). Creativity is of value

because it tells us everything we need to know about generating the solutions to these novel and

difficult problems – how to generate them; who can generate them; how to recognize them, and; how

to stimulate them. The key question is, how to build this into engineering education?

106
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

The Disconnect between Creativity and Engineering?

If society is dependent on the ability of engineers, and other STEM professionals, to develop novel

and effective technological solutions to the problems that result from all forms of change, then it is

curious that there is not a stronger connection between creativity and all aspects of engineering.

Indeed, there appears to be a disconnect that may be most pronounced in engineering education.

There are many reasons that might explain this state of affairs. At a general level, there is the

inertia and resistance to change that constrains many entrenched systems. Engineering education has

done a reasonable job for many decades, and it is human nature to be reluctant to risk changing what

seems to be working (“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it6”). This is compounded by a trend towards ever-

greater specialization in engineering. Programs proliferate, and it seems inevitable that the only way

they can be differentiated by departments competing for a finite study body, is to drill deeper into

narrow specializations. The danger, as Gandhi warned, is that “The expert knows more and more

about less and less until he knows everything about nothing.” What is lost in this over-specialization

may be general graduate attributes, skills and abilities: things like design, creative problem solving,

and abstract thinking. At a more practical level, there is also the problem that many engineering

faculty, university administrators and other stakeholders do not understand creativity and innovation

sufficiently well to do anything to change the system, even if they are motivated to do so.

In this paper, I first discuss the failure to embed creativity and innovation in engineering

education in more detail. I then attempt provide some practical help in tackling the problem in two

ways. First, at the general level, I state some guiding principles for creativity and engineering

programs. In other words, a set of creativity requirements that would, in an ideal world, drive the

design of engineering programs. Second, at a more concrete, specific level, I suggest elements of an

exemplar curriculum for a course on engineering creativity as a first step towards embedding

creativity in engineering education.

6The origins of this sentiment, explicitly stated, can be traced to The Preface to the Book of Common Prayer, dating from
the time of Queen Elizabeth I – “… common experience sheweth, that where a change hath been made of things advisedly
established (no evident necessity so requiring) sundry inconveniences have thereupon ensued; and those many times more
and greater than the evils, that were intended to be remedied by such change”.

107
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

The Failure to Educate for Creativity and Innovation

The failure of engineering education to address the need for creativity is reminiscent of the sentiment

stated in the 1996 report of the Alliance of Artists’ Communities (1996) which concluded, “American

creativity” is “at risk”. The problem is neither limited to the United States of America, nor to artistic or

aesthetic domains. Employers surveyed in Australia in 1999 lamented the fact that three-quarters of

new university graduates in that country show “skill deficiencies” in creativity, problem-solving, and

independent and critical thinking. Also in Australia, in 2013, the annual Graduate Outlook Survey

conducted by Graduate Careers Australia7 indicated that “Critical reasoning and analytical

skills/Problem solving/Lateral thinking/Technical skills” was third on the list of top selection criteria

for employers. More alarming, however, was that when asked to rate the employability skills of

graduates actually hired in 2013, employers indicated that only 57.3% exceeded average expectations

in problem solving – a figure that has been declining since 2009! Tilbury, Reid and Podger (2003)

provide additional evidence of weaknesses in graduate creativity, reporting on an Australian employer

survey which concluded that Australian graduates lack creativity.

The same trends are also found in other countries. In the United Kingdom, Cooper, Altman

and Garner (2002) concluded that the education system there discourages innovation. The British

General Medical Council, for example, noted that medical education is overloaded with factual

material that discourages higher order cognitive functions such as evaluation, synthesis and problem

solving, and engenders an attitude of passivity. Bateman (2013), meanwhile, reported on results of a

UK employment survey in the area of computer science and IT, and suggested that graduates in this

domain miss out on employment opportunities due to a lack of creativity.

A similar picture has been reported widely in the United States in various sources. Recent

articles in Time8 and Forbes9 Magazines, for example, suggest that employers are frustrated by the fact

that new graduates are emerging from universities lacking skills in creativity and problem solving.

7 http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Graduate_Outlook_2013.pdf
8 http://business.time.com/2013/11/10/the-real-reason-new-college-grads-cant-get-hired/
9 http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2014/03/04/two-sides-of-the-same-coin-the-employment-crisis-and-the-education-

crisis/

108
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

The problem does not seem to be confined to universities. Even though research was

indicating, more than 25 years ago, that most teachers claimed to have a positive attitude to creativity,

properties and behaviors actually associated with creativity are frequently frowned upon in 21st century

classrooms in many different countries Evidence summarized by Cropley (2001) suggests that teachers

discourage traits such as boldness, desire for novelty or originality, or even actively dislike children

who display such characteristics. The disconnect is manifest in calls for creativity, coupled with

limited efforts to foster its emergence, or even dislike of people who display it.

The situation in engineering education appears to be similar. The United Kingdom’s Royal

Academy of Engineering published the report Creating Systems that Work: Principles of Engineering

Systems for the 21st Century in 2007. Among six principles that the report presented as necessary for

“understanding the challenges of a system design problem and for educating engineers to rise to those

challenges” (p. 11) is an ability to “be creative”. The report also recognizes the key role that creativity

plays in successful engineering and defines creativity as the ability “to devise novel and … effective

solutions to the real problem” (p. 4). Baillie (2002) similarly noted an “…increasing perception of the

need for graduates of engineering to be creative thinkers…” (p. 185). Despite this, we see little

evidence that creativity and innovation form a core of the engineering curriculum.

Cropley and Cropley (2005) reviewed findings on fostering creativity in engineering

education in the United States of America, and concluded that there is little support for creative

students. There has been some effort, in recent years, to encourage creativity in colleges and

universities: For instance, in 1990 the National Science Foundation (NSF) established the Engineering

Coalition of Schools for Excellence and Leadership (ECSEL). This had the goal of transforming

undergraduate engineering education. However, a subsequent review of practice throughout higher

education in the United States (Fasko, 2001) pointed out that the available information indicated that

deliberate training in creativity was rare.

Kazerounian and Foley (2007) restate the fundamental problem: “If creativity is so central to

engineering, why is it not an obvious part of the engineering curriculum at every university?” They

suggested that this is because it is “not valued in contemporary engineering education” (p. 762), but

the problem runs deeper than that. Why is creativity in engineering education largely overlooked?

109
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

What do our Students Think?

Before discussing specific reasons why creativity has not become a core part of the engineering

curriculum, I would like to examine the views of a key stakeholder – the student. What do they think

of the question of creativity and engineering? Many of the issues facing universities in relation to

creativity and innovation in engineering curricula have been clearly articulated by Wilbur (2013).

In addition, I have also discussed the role of creativity in engineering with undergraduate

students both in the United States and in Australia. The extracts that follow are typical of comments

from discussions with these stakeholders conducted in 2013 and 2014.

“As engineers we are supposed to be the innovators of the world, inspired by

creativity and a passion for problem-solving. However, many curricula drain

students of excitement for challenges. Students are graduating unprepared.”

What is noteworthy about this comment is that the student in question has a clear understanding of the

relationship between engineering, creativity and problem solving. At the same time, she conveys a

sense that her degree fails to prepare her for those activities. This is consistent with the employer

survey data reported previously.

“I feel that engineers need to have open discussions and team projects, rather than

weekly homework that addresses only theoretical problems. I understand that a

strong basis in the fundamentals is a necessary start, but it should not need to span

four years of undergraduate studies, with no additional hands-on learning. Students

forget why they even had a passion for engineering in the first place.”

These comments echo concerns that the current engineering curriculum is dominated by convergent,

analytical work and passive knowledge acquisition. The comments also mirror concerns that

engineering degrees are increasingly focused on narrow specializations. At the same time, the

comments also suggest an appreciation that expert knowledge is a necessary (but not sufficient)

prerequisite for creativity.

“The same kids who had such excitement for a subject are stuck in a classroom,

being told “In the real world none of this applies”. How are we supposed to trust our

education system, when it admits how much it is failing us?”

110
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

These comments suggest that students begin their engineering education with high levels of intrinsic

motivation, and are thus predisposed to be creative, yet lose this motivation in programs that they feel

fail to prepare them adequately, and are disconnected from the real world.

“Encouraging creativity while teaching the fundamentals is a balance the schools

have yet to learn. As engineering students, we take a couple of English courses and

dabble in the humanities. Instead, what about a drawing class? By learning to draw,

we can more clearly express our ideas. Da Vinci certainly couldn't have been as

creative as he was without this talent. I am involving myself in an extracurricular

program where I will take a drawing course, a business course, and a project course,

where real local companies ask for each group to come up with an applicable

solution to one of their problems. These types of classes should be mandatory for

engineering students, not a program that often doesn’t work with our schedules.”

This comment may be one of the most significant. It reflects a major reason why creativity is not more

strongly embedded in engineering. In simple terms, even where opportunities to develop some of the

requisite competencies are available, they are usually treated (by engineering departments) at best as

supplementary to the engineering programs. In other words, engineering programs reluctantly tolerate

them provided that: (a) they are the responsibility of some other organization, and; (b) they do not

interfere with the core purpose of the engineering curriculum (which is to ensure that the student is

extensively steeped in the knowledge pertaining to a narrow and convergent specialization). This leads

to a situation in which the development of creativity becomes a remedial action that employers have to

add to correct skill deficiencies embedded in engineering graduates during their time at university!

“It's amazing how many students don't even bother to show up to class, end up

dozing off or fiddling with their phones (myself included) because the subject has lost

its sparkle. In fact, in one class today the professor cut class short because he was

losing so much attention from the students. This past year I have found myself

becoming more and more discouraged by the program I am in. While I will stick with

Engineering until I graduate, I see myself taking it a different direction, one that at

this point does not include graduate school.”

111
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

Can engineering schools really afford to discourage students in this way? Engineering already

struggles with diversity – not least in attracting women into the profession – and cannot afford to drive

students away from pursuing graduate studies. Creativity is not just a necessary component of

engineering education, but it also offers the means to revitalize engineering programs, making them

far more motivating for students from diverse backgrounds.

“Students forget why we are actually here – to learn to become engineers; to see a

new and different perspective of the world; to look at a telephone line and think,

"How does that actually work?" rather than never pausing to wonder or ask

questions. Students often take what their professors say as the truth without sitting

and pondering why it is so, or maybe suggesting another vantage point. We need to

be creative in the classroom and creative with our dreams, not always accepting the

status quo. I really do feel that more people need to hear the message that

engineering should be creative. The curriculum in school should be fun and exciting

and teach us to embrace the power that we hold to make a difference.”

This student’s comments reinforce a willingness and enthusiasm to embrace creativity, and a keen

desire to engage in the fundamental engineering problem solving process as described in this paper. I

now turn to three specific problems that are reinforcing the disconnect between creativity, innovation

and engineering education.

The Over-Specialization Problem

Employers, industry bodies and students see the value of creativity in engineering. The need has been

clearly articulated. What is preventing a reconnection of creativity and engineering in higher

education? Buhl (1960) summarized the underlying problem facing engineering education, both in

general, and in relation to creativity, highlighting that “Until the present day we have sought to expose

the student to every conceivable situation he might encounter after he leaves the university” (p. 10). It

is important to understand that Buhl did not mean this as a compliment. Rather, he was drawing

attention to the fact that engineering programs 55 years ago suffered from the problem of breadth at

the expense of depth. The issue that this created was that students and faculty, because of the sheer

volume of topics, could only hope to cover those topics in a relatively superficial manner. The

112
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

superficiality occurred in two senses – a lack of coverage within any given topic, and also a lack of

opportunity to develop deep understanding of any given topic. To put this in plain language, students

were learning an awful lot of relatively superficial material, in a very superficial manner. Biggs (1999)

referred to this as “the inevitable tension between coverage and depth of understanding” (p. 44). Buhl

(1960) made it clear, in engineering, why this approach is inherently flawed. “The present growth of

technical knowledge has placed this goal [exposing students to every conceivable situation that might

be faced as a professional] beyond the reach of a four-year college education. The student may now be

assured that ten or twenty years after graduation many of the problem solutions and “facts” presented

to him will have changed” (p. 10). In the 21st Century, this problem of the half-life of knowledge is

even more severe. In 1960, this situation resulted in a focus on the development of broad, shallow

knowledge, and left little room for creativity.

The reaction to this state of affairs seems to have been to try the opposite – depth at the

expense of breadth. I have previously described a modern trend towards a focus on narrower

specializations, however this proliferation has the same basic impact – no room for creativity, design,

thinking and other soft skills. The solution is not to attempt to cram ever more technical content into

the curriculum, but, as Buhl (1960) noted “…schools must educate the student for change. Students

must not only learn the fundamental ideas upon which the various subjects are based, but they must

learn how to solve a problem in a creative way…” (p. 11).

The problem of over-specialization is compounded by deficiencies in engineering pedagogy.

Problem-based learning, for example, may be highly effective in theory. However, if the problems

used remain convergent and analytical in nature this approach to learning will do no more to stimulate

creativity than any other paradigm. Walther et al. (2011) suggested that the issue may lie in “persisting

difficulties of the construct of outcomes-based education as the current paradigm of formal

engineering education” (p. 704). Walther and Radcliffe (2007) earlier expressed this as a mismatch

between different kinds of learning outcomes and predominant teaching approaches. In simple terms,

a learning outcome framed around the development of declarative knowledge of, say, engineering

mechanics, may be amenable to a “traditional” teaching approach in a way that a more diffuse

graduate quality such as “the ability to think creatively” is not. A fundamental dilemma faced by

113
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

engineering educators, in preparing students for the “…diversity of competency demands” (Walther &

Radcliffe, 2007) (p. 44) is “…whether to equip students with a broad (and arguably shallow)

knowledge base in many domains, or prepare them for specific job tasks and a contribution to a

narrow subject area (technical depth)” (p. 44). Creativity is, by its nature, a broad, generic

competency. If poorly understood, and perceived as the antithesis of the “serious business” of

engineering (Kazerounian & Foley, 2007), it is hardly surprising that it is not only undervalued, but

missing from most curricula.

The Pseudo-Expertise Problem

Linked to the issue of over-specialization is the kind of knowledge developed. Factual, or declarative,

knowledge is easier to teach, and easier to measure, but is it the right knowledge that students need to

be successful, creative engineers?

Domain knowledge – i.e. technical expertise – is an important foundation to engineering

creativity (D. H. Cropley, 2015). DeHaan (2009), citing Bransford et al (2000) and Crawford and

Brophy (2006), also discusses differences between experts and novices, and the role of creative

thinking, suggesting that minimal levels – a threshold in other words – of expertise and fluency are

needed for expertise. Sawyer (2006) describes the fact that experts typically are distinguished by

deeper knowledge, recognition of patterns, ability to see relations among disparate facts, capacity to

organize content and so forth. However, an excessive focus only on factual knowledge – even at a

very deep level – means that students miss out on developing the other qualities needed for expertise.

Such a focus risks creating what Sternberg (2003) called pseudo-experts. Students struggling

with a new subject are taught to solve problems by the application of algorithms and procedural

knowledge (Biggs & Tang, 2011). If they do this a lot it can become routinized and may be considered

expertise. DeHaan (2009), however, contrasts this with the need to move up the scale of what Crowe

et al (2008) refer to as Higher Order Cognitive Skills (HOCS), and which Biggs and Tang (2011)

would describe as higher (or deeper) levels of understanding. In other words, the argument is that true

expertise, or adaptive expertise (Hatano & Oura, 2003; Schwartz, Bransford & Sears, 2005) is

characterized by an ability “to draw on … knowledge to invent or adapt strategies for solving unique

or novel problems within a knowledge domain” (DeHaan, 2009) (p. 175) – not just the blunt-force

114
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

application of algorithms, no matter how adept the “expert” is at their application. The foundation for

creativity in engineering, then, is the development of adaptive expertise, which can only come about

as a result of the development of appropriate relational and extended abstract functioning knowledge

(Biggs & Tang, 2011). Pseudo-expertise, namely expertise characterized by knowledge that is overly

declarative and procedural, and which is more superficial (characterized by uni-structural and/or

multi-structural levels of understanding) actually works against the development of creativity in

engineering.

DeHaan (2009) also discusses university-level teaching and creativity. Passive teaching and

learning approaches, for example, are seen as failing to engender active engagement and cognitive

flexibility. Citing Ausubel and Paul (2000) he links this failure to negative outcomes in creativity and

creative problem-solving because of the key role that cognitive flexibility plays as a core mental

executive function in creative problem solving. Furthermore, the transfer of knowledge that is critical

to the ability to apply ideas creatively in new contexts is facilitated by active learning strategies

(Freeman et al., 2007).

All of this suggests the existence of a threshold of adaptive expertise, i.e. a necessary but not

sufficient foundation of engineering creativity. This is why even a move from broad and shallow to

narrow and deep will fail if the depth is only declarative and procedural in nature. Figure 2 shows the

relationships between kinds of knowledge, levels of understanding and three basic forms of expertise.

Engineering programs that fail to develop conditional and functioning knowledge, no matter what

level of understanding is achieved, can only hope to produce pseudo-experts. Adaptive expertise

requires the development of all forms of knowledge (i.e. declarative, procedural, conditional and

functioning). In addition, the potential for professional-level engineering creativity (Pro-C creativity,

in other words) is greatest when a threshold of adaptive expertise has been reached.

It is self-evident, then, that if engineering programs are producing only pseudo-experts, their

ability of these graduates to apply creativity will remain constrained and limited. If adaptive expertise

is has not been developed in these graduates, then it is likely that no amount of training in creativity

will compensate for the deficiency. Conversely, when adaptive expertise has been achieved, then with

115
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

the addition of the requisite processes, personal qualities and press, Pro-C Creativity in the engineering

domain can be realized.

Level of Understanding

Declarative
Knowledge
Non-expertise
Pseudo-expertise

Adaptive Expertise

Functioning
Knowledge

Potential for Pro-C Creativity

Figure 2: Expertise and Creativity

The Lack of Knowledge Problem

One of the most pervasive – but also most fixable – problems that may be blocking the addition of

creativity to the engineering curriculum is, quite simply, a lack of knowledge about creativity. Where

discussions of creativity in engineering do occur, they follow a pattern typified by Mishra and

Henriksen (2013), and begin by restating the myth that creativity is poorly defined, before offering

their own definition. Even concerted efforts to explore creativity in engineering seem – almost

willfully – to avoid or ignore the existing body of knowledge. A special issue of European Journal of

Engineering Education published in 1998 provides a salient example. It began with the question “How

does one implement creativity in engineering education?” (Ihsen & Brandt, 1998) (p. 3). While that

editorial is to be congratulated for attempting to raise the issue to prominence in engineering

education, it also falls victim to some of the pervasive misconceptions about creativity that hold back

progress. The most notable of these is the creativity is hard to define myth. Frustratingly, the editors

seem almost proud to point out that of the 13 papers selected for the special issue, 13 different

116
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

definitions of creativity are given! This situation is made worse by the mindset that “we leave it up to

the readers to think about their own definition of creativity in engineering education and to develop

their own concepts and specific approaches…” (p. 3)! With such a level of misunderstanding, or lack

of knowledge, it is hardly surprising that creativity is not embedded in the engineering curriculum.

Another common myth – not unique to engineering creativity – involves the question: can

creativity be taught? Acar (1998), for example, argues that there is “no universal agreement on

whether creativity can be taught or not”, while Tornkvist (1998) starts his discussion in a more

rhetorical manner, citing Evans (1991) who claimed that “You cannot teach creativity, but you can kill

it”. Benson (2004) reminds us why this lack of knowledge of creativity is problematic: “…unless

misconceptions are identified and addressed, the development of creativity will almost certainly be

hindered.”

Amoussou et al. (2011) provide another informative perspective on the issue of knowledge, or

lack thereof, surrounding creativity in engineering and technology. They surveyed computer science

and engineering faculty in state higher education system in California. Superficially, the study seems

to suggest that faculty are doing well in promoting creativity – however, a number of weaknesses in

the methodology mask underlying problems. It is unclear, for example, if the sample in the study was

representative of the wider population of faculty in engineering and computer science. It is possible

that respondents were largely those who already had a favorable disposition to creativity? The survey

also failed to include items designed to check the honesty or social desirability of responses. For

example, one question asked respondents about the degree to which they explicitly instruct students to

be creative. This was not balanced with a question such as: “I explicitly instruct students to be

analytical in their designs”. We would expect that if the pattern of responses was high for the former,

then it would be low for latter, yet this was not explored. Amoussou et al. (2011) also indicate that

items in survey were “based on psychological literature on creativity that is often unknown to

computer scientists or engineers” (p. S2B-3). While encouraging, the survey included questions that

could hardly be answered reliably by respondents lacking knowledge of psychological concepts. An

example of the problem at hand is the question: “Are your students taught about informational social

influence?” For a population of computer scientists and engineers, lacking knowledge of psychology,

117
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

it is likely that a respondent would answer in a socially desirable way – this sounds like a good thing,

so I’ll say “yes”. The study also failed to report reliability data so there is no statistical evidence that

respondents gave consistent answers. It is important that surveys such as this are conducted, as part of

addressing the problem of embedding creativity in engineering, however they must be designed more

rigorously, and tailored to the target population, or they risk compounding the problem. The points

made by Amoussou et al. (2011) about how to encourage creativity are, admittedly, valid but I suspect

that this survey under-reports the extent of the problem. The results suggest that the problem is not as

extensive as I am suggesting, leading to a risk that decision makers will take no action in support of

creativity in engineering, because they feel, and have evidence, there is no problem.

Another recent study that illustrates a similar problem is that of Ahern et al. (2012)

investigating “critical thinking” in engineering education. Their study suggested that engineering

faculty thought critical thinking was important, but found it hard to articulate what it was! In technical

disciplines, faculty equated critical thinking with problem solving and creative thinking, and

“something a little more abstract and conceptual than simply learning facts” (p. 127). While this seems

encouraging, it reveals, once again, a lack of understanding of the topic. In the study, faculty also

reported that subjects like engineering are “so content-driven in the early years that the space for

introducing critical thinking was minimal” (p. 128). Other outcomes from the study included a finding

that “Large class sizes made teaching critical thinking skills harder” (p. 128), while “There may be

lessons that can be learnt by engineering from the humanities in terms of academics themselves

becoming more aware of what critical thinking is” (p. 128). This echoes the theme I have discussed in

earlier sections – a lack of understanding of what creativity is; how to teach it, and; how to embed it in

the curriculum. At the same time, this study does acknowledge that critical thinking (and creativity) is

“an important attribute that universities can engender in graduates” and that “successful careers in

these disciplines would usually require some level of critical thinking [creativity]” (p. 128).

Table 1 summarizes three major problems that hinder the reconnection of creativity and

engineering.

118
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

Table 1: Summary of the Problems

Problem Symptom Consequence

Over-Specialization Degrees focus on narrow Focus only on technical content. No

specializations room for creativity

Pseudo-Expertise Teaching focuses on factual No threshold of adaptive expertise

knowledge achieved. No room for creativity

Lack of Knowledge Faculty focus on “what is creativity?”, Little real progress while the wheel is
“can it be taught?” reinvented

Benefits of Creativity in Education

There are other reasons for embedding creativity in the engineering curriculum. Among these is the

value of creativity at the level of the individual. Cropley and Cropley (2000) drew attention to the

benefits of creativity in education: “modern research has demonstrated that although students with

high IQs usually obtain good grades both at school and university, they are consistently outstripped by

those with not only a high IQ but also high creativity” (p. 207). Cropley and Urban (2000) expand

further on this point. Facaoaru (1985), studying professional engineers, determined that those rated by

their peers as the best engineers were not only technically or conventionally better, but had more

characteristics typical of creative people. Cropley (1994) suggests “creativity is indispensable for

“true” giftedness”. In other words, the value of creativity to the individual is that it can be taught and

developed (Torrance, 1972).

Fasko (2001) describes other examples of the benefits of creativity in an individual and

educational setting, citing earlier work by Parnes and Noller (1972) who reported data on a study into

the benefits of creativity courses. Fasko (2001) notes that “Parnes and Noller found that students who

completed the sequence of creativity courses significantly outperformed comparable control

students…” (p. 324) across a range of idea generation, evaluation and problem-solving measures, and

that their performance in other courses improved as well. A study by Mohan (1973) found a similar

result for teacher training, while Mack (1987) discussed the perceived need for creativity training

among teachers, and the perception of teachers of the importance of creativity training for children.

119
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

Reconnecting Creativity and Engineering

Reconnecting creativity and engineering in an educational setting requires many changes. Some of

these are explored in detail in Cropley (2015, 2015 in press). Even where program design guidelines

exist, for example the ABET (2011) accreditation criteria, these do not give enough explicit direction

and guidance. Among the ABET criteria for accrediting academic programs Curriculum talks about

“carry knowledge further toward creative application” (p. 4). That, however, is the only use of the

terms creativity, innovation, creative or innovative in the criteria. The term design, on the other hand,

is used frequently in the context of problem-solving and meeting needs, suggesting that, while there is

little specific guidance on embedding creativity and innovation in college-level engineering programs,

the need for creativity is implicit in the specified student outcomes (e.g. “an ability to identify,

formulate and solve engineering problems” or “an ability to design a system…to meet desired needs

within realistic constraints…” (p. 3)). If creativity is generally absent in engineering programs it is not

through a failure to articulate that need in the accreditation guidelines, although its specific role could

be articulated much better. The underlying problem seems to be one of how those guidelines are

enacted in practice. The problem therefore returns full circle to issues of a lack of understanding of the

role of creativity and innovation in engineering design and problem solving, and a lack of the requisite

knowledge and skills needed to build creativity into the curriculum. While this may seem like a harsh

criticism, this problem is by no means unique to engineering.

I have painted a fairly bleak picture, but this should not draw attention away from the many

attempts that have been made to insert creativity into engineering programs. Acar (1998), for example,

discusses features of an engineering curriculum that might be used specifically to foster creativity. For

example, in describing a new curriculum approach for a masters degree in systems engineering in the

United Kingdom, he highlights the importance of encouraging and rewarding creativity. At a more

specific and practical level, he makes explicit the link between a clear definition of the objectives in a

system design activity and the fact that this will “ease finding alternative ways of looking at the

problem” (p. 136). In other words, divergent thinking in the context of an engineering design activity

120
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

will be facilitated by good problem definition. Acar (1998) also notes the importance of defining

student design projects in an open-ended manner, with problems selected that have no right answer.

These two approaches deserve a more extensive explanation. The former can be seen as an expression

of the importance, both to design and to creativity, of a top-down approach. This is the difference

between asking “what can I do with this brick?” and asking “what are all the ways that I can solve the

problem of building a house?” The latter is an expression of the importance of first defining “what” a

system must do (its function), in terms that are solution-free, followed by “how” the function will be

implemented. Indeed this whole issue of the definition of needs and requirements, and the relationship

of this to creativity, is a topic of some importance (Hoffmann, Cropley, Cropley, Nguyen, & Swatman,

2005). Other examples of work that is seeking to embed creativity in engineering and education,

particularly in a more holistic and systematic manner, includes Baillie and Walker (1998), Chang, Hsu

and Chen (2013) and Liu and Schoenewetter (2004).

I now discuss three general principles and twelve specific strategies, based on Sternberg

(2007), that can help drive both program and curriculum design to enhance creativity. These are not

simply statements such as we need to teach engineering students how to brainstorm. There is little

value in a piecemeal approach unless it is placed inside a framework that supports all 4Ps of the

creativity concept. Engineering students will only develop creativity as a genuine graduate quality – as

an emergent property of their education – if these strategies permeate their programs and curricula as a

system, and are not simply tacked on in a reductionist, remedial fashion.

Principles and Strategies for Guiding Curriculum Design

Sternberg (2007) outlined three things promote the habit of creativity (p. 3). These can be seen

as serving as general principles for curriculum and program design in engineering. First, students must

have the opportunity to engage in creativity. This must be woven, holistically, throughout programs

and courses in an integrated and mutually reinforcing manner. Second, students must receive positive

encouragement as they engage in tasks requiring creativity. Third, students must be rewarded when

they demonstrate the desired creativity.

Sternberg (2007) (p. 8-15) outlines twelve strategies that guide the development of the

creativity habit and further inform curriculum development for creativity. This is not to suggest that

121
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

every aspect of engineering learning must be transformed. There will remain many areas of the

curriculum that are best served by convergent approaches – there is, after all, still only one right

answer to the question “what is 2+2?”. However, wherever practical, these strategies should be used to

guide the development of creativity as a desirable and vital graduate quality:

 Redefine problems – students need practice at making choices in order to make good choices.

When their choices do not work out, students need the opportunity to try again. To achieve

this engineering students need the opportunity to engage in projects which are presented as

more open-ended and flexible. Highly constrained, or over-specified, projects do not allow the

student to develop this skill;

 Question and Analyze Assumptions – students must be encouraged to ask questions, and not

just accept the problem as it is given it to them. This can be achieved partly through the way in

which faculty respond to questioning, as well as the way in which faculty establish a Press in

which a questioning mindset is valued and modeled;

 Sell your creative ideas – students need to learn how to persuade others of the value of their

ideas, i.e. to justify their ideas. Team-based activities, as well as competitive elements to

student projects, engender an environment in which the students must become adept at selling

their ideas, both to each other, and to faculty;

 Encourage idea generation – students need to get practice at generating ideas, coupled with

constructive criticism. This should be encouraged intrinsically, as a necessary component of

the activities the student undertakes, and extrinsically, by teaching students specifically how to

engage in divergent thinking. In other words, students need to be taught how to think

divergently, and must be given ample opportunity to use this skill;

 The role of knowledge – to be a creative engineer, you first need to be a technically

competent engineer. Broad preparation is important, and we must caution against over-

specialization. Students should be encouraged to see value in developing other knowledge and

skills. You never know when your knowledge of biology, for example, might give you an idea

for solving a mechanical problem. The growing field of biomimetics suggests that biological

sciences may prove to be an exciting and valuable area for broadening education for

122
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

engineering students. This principle also supports the value of diverse internships and work

experience during the engineering student’s time at college;

 Identify and surmount obstacles – students must be given challenging tasks, in order to

build resilience. They must be given the opportunity to fail, and try again. Certainly, in project

work, but also in other courses, students need to develop an understanding that engineering,

for example, is usually not simply a matter of rolling out a pre-determined solution. Every

problem is unique and bound by a unique set of constraints. What worked in another situation

may not work in this one. Students who understand this are able to focus their energies on

finding the new solution, rather than trying to puzzle out why the old solution does not work

(and may never work);

 Encourage sensible risk-taking – students need the opportunity to try out ideas, even though

they might not work. They need to learn how to assess risks and judge that the risk is

acceptable. This can be encouraged simply by making it clear to students that they will not be

punished for mistakes, both in terms of their grades, and in real terms (for example, if they

damage an integrated circuit in the course of a practical class). They need to be taught which

risks are acceptable, and which are not. Connecting electronic components together on a

breadboard in an unusual way is a sensible risk; forgetting to wear safety gear when testing the

breaking strain of a steel wire cable is not. If we overreact to the former, we encourage a risk-

averse mindset that discourages students from taking sensible, reasonable risks;

 Encourage tolerance of ambiguity – by presenting students with ill-defined problems.

Creative people recognize that ambiguity gives them more room to be creative. This can be as

simple as breaking away from a familiar lab paradigm – “Here is the handout for today’s lab

class. Follow the instructions”. Rather than giving students a highly structured menu for a lab

class, give them a more open-ended problem statement that requires them to deal with

ambiguity and think more independently. In an electronics lab, for example, rather than

instructions that state “Put component X on your breadboard. Now connect component Y to

component X. Now touch your voltmeter probe to point Z and write down the number on the

voltmeter”, the same learning outcome can be achieved with the following: “Today I want you

123
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

to find out as much as you can about how transistors work. You have everything you need in

the lab, so go for it!” This may make students uncomfortable at first, but with the right

encouragement and support they will begin take this uncertainty in their stride. When faced

with ambiguity, some people close down and do nothing, while others see the ambiguity as an

opportunity to try different things. We need our creative engineering professionals to be of the

latter mindset;

 Build creative self-efficacy – allowing students to see that they can be creative, so they avoid

the “I’m not creative” fallacy. Requiring creativity as an assessable component of project

work allows students to see that they can be creative, and that their creativity is an asset. This

requires faculty to understand creativity, and how it is manifest in engineering products, and to

encourage students to build this in to the work they do;

 Finding what excites them – students must be assisted in exploring a broad range of areas of

their chosen discipline so that they have an opportunity to find the specific area that excite

them. Access to a wide variety of broadening subjects, and the opportunity for diverse, real-

world projects, sponsored by real-world organizations, gives students the best chance of

finding their chosen field before they graduate. I do not mean only finding a particular

disciplinary specialization – e.g. power electronics versus telecommunications – but also a

question of activities such as design versus testing;

 The Importance of delaying gratification – foster a sense that sometimes you need to work a

little longer and harder to get the reward. Pushing students to the full extent of their abilities is

necessary. Both in regular coursework, and in project work, we must ensure that students have

the opportunity to push boundaries. This may require more flexibility in assessment, so that

each student can be pushed to his or her limit, without always being assessed in a norm-based

fashion. In every case, however, as faculty we should have the option of pushing students

beyond their comfort zones. This does not, however, mean doing twenty convergent

homework problems instead of ten, but pushing students further across all aspects of their

program;

124
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

 Provide a favorable environment – engineering educators need to role model creativity. We

need to demonstrate our own flexibility, openness, tolerance for ambiguity and resilience –all

twelve of the items mentioned. More simply, we need to demonstrate that we understand what

creativity is, why it is valuable and why it is in the curriculum.

If, as programs are updated and reaccredited, faculty ensure that students are given the

opportunity to develop the creativity habit by embedding these twelve strategies across the program,

we will go a long way towards reconnecting creativity to engineering.

Designing a Curriculum for Engineering Creativity

Notwithstanding the arguments presented about the importance of a holistic, program-level approach

to creativity in engineering education, and the twelve strategies for shaping the design of an

engineering program with embedded creativity, it is also useful to discuss the development of specific

courses that tackle this topic. I believe that one way to overcome some of the barriers that I have

described is the development of an exemplar – a model course design that can be used by faculty to

kick-start the process of embedding creativity in engineering education (see also Cropley, 2015).

Curriculum Objectives

The development of a credible, effective and relevant curriculum is founded on solid pedagogy. Biggs’

(1999) (updated in Biggs & Tang (2011)) approach to constructive alignment, provides a cohesive

framework for the development of an Engineering Creativity curriculum. Under that framework, a

curriculum must be stated in the form of clear objectives that specify the level of understanding

required. Teaching and learning activities (TLAs) directly address those objectives. Following this,

assessment tasks must be chosen to allow students the opportunity to demonstrate that they have

achieved the level of understanding specified in the objectives.

The first step in the process of developing an aligned curriculum is to define the kinds of

knowledge that are relevant to the subject and level – in this case, an introductory course in

engineering creativity and innovation. Biggs’s (1999) distinguishes among four kinds of knowledge:

 Knowledge of thing or facts (declarative or propositional knowledge – “what?”);

 Knowledge in the form of competencies or skills (procedural knowledge – “how?);

125
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

 Knowledge of the applicability of facts and skills (conditional knowledge – “when?” and

“why?”);

 Knowledge as an ability to apply facts and skills in an appropriate manner (functioning

knowledge – “application” and “performance”).

It is particularly important in a course on engineering creativity that the focus is on

functioning knowledge, characterized by Biggs (1999) as the ability to “…put declarative knowledge

to work by solving problems…” (p. 40). He goes on to describe how “functioning knowledge requires

a solid foundation of declarative knowledge, at relational level at least, but it also

involves…procedural…and conditional knowledge.” (p. 40). Functioning knowledge in this course,

and in the context of engineering creativity, is demonstrated by the ability to develop novel and

effective solutions to practical, realistic technological problems.

Clearly, an introductory course on engineering creativity should impart some declarative

knowledge to the student. The primary purpose of the course is to teach engineering students to be

creative, and to embed creativity in the work they do as engineers. However, achieving this in a deep

sense, whereby the student is able not only to execute simple procedures, but also to understand why

those procedures work, and to apply them to different situations, requires a foundation of factual

(declarative) knowledge.

The necessary declarative knowledge for an introductory course in engineering creativity

should address:

 What is creativity?

 What contribution does creativity make to engineering and society?

 What are the stages in the development of a creative engineering solution?

 What factors affect the role of creativity in the engineering process?

 What role does creativity play in innovation?

The procedural knowledge needed to build on this declarative base will include:

 How do engineers solve problems?

 How is creativity measured?

126
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

 How are creative ideas generated?

 How is creativity fostered in people?

 How is creativity managed?

The Conditional knowledge needed to extend the declarative/procedural base will add further

richness, and will include:

 When and why do engineers use creativity to solve problems?

 When and why do different thinking styles play a role in creative problem solving?

 Why is creativity valuable in products?

 When and why are different tools used to support engineering creativity?

 When and why are different factors active in fostering/inhibiting creativity?

The foundation of knowledge outlined then makes possible the practical application of the

knowledge – functioning knowledge – for the purpose of solving real engineering problems in a

creative manner. The matter of selecting topics to achieve the development of the kinds of knowledge

outlined above is addressed in detail in Cropley (2015).

Summary

Creativity plays a central role in engineering problem solving. Without creativity, the process of

developing technological solutions to the problems we face in society is limited to the replication of

old solutions. However, many of the problems we faced are characterized by novelty – new needs

demand new solutions – and cannot be solved by replication. Climate change, for example, means that

trying to solve the world’s energy needs by replicating an old solution – burning coal, for example –

will not work. To find the new solutions that are capable of solving these new problems requires

creativity. It is surprising, therefore, that engineering education has largely failed to address this need.

Engineers are educated principally to solve well-defined, convergent, analytical problems, and little

attention is given, in engineering programs, to the complimentary skills, attitudes and abilities in

creativity that are critical to developing effective and novel solutions. This paper highlights the

problems that are maintaining this disconnect between creativity and engineering education, and

suggests principles and strategies for tackling this pressing issue.

127
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

References

ABET. (2011). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. Baltimore, MD: ABET Engineering

Accreditation Commission.

Acar, B. S. (1998). Releasing creativity in an interdisciplinary systems engineering course. European

Journal of Engineering Education, 23(2), 133-140.

Ahern, A., O'Connor, T., McRuairc, G., McNamara, M., & O'Donnell, D. (2012). Critical thinking in

the university curriculum–the impact on engineering education. European Journal of

Engineering Education, 37(2), 125-132.

Amoussou, G. A., Porter, M., & Steinberg, S. J. (2011). Assessing creativity practices in design. Paper

presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City: SD.

Ausubel, D. P., & Paul, D. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view.

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Baillie, C. (2002). Enhancing creativity in engineering students. Engineering Science & Education

Journal, 11(5), 185-192.

Baillie, C., & Walker, P. (1998). Fostering creative thinking in student engineers. European Journal of

Engineering Education, 23(1), 35-44.

Bateman, K. (2013, April 18, 2013). IT students miss out on roles due to lack of creativity.

ComputerWeekly.com.

Benson, C. (2004). Professor John Eggleston Memorial Lecture 2004-Creativity: Caught or Taught?

Journal of Design & Technology Education, 9(3), 138-144.

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does. Buckingham, UK:

SRHE and Open University Press.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-

Hill International.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Buhl, H. R. (1960). Creative engineering design: Iowa State University Press.

128
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

Chang, C. P., Hsu, C. T., & Chen, I. J. (2013). The relationship between the playfulness climate in the

classroom and student creativity. Quality & Quantity, 47(3), 1493-1510.

Communities., A. o. A. (1996). American creativity at risk: Restoring creativity as a priority in public

policy, cultural philanthropy, and education. Portland, OR: Alliance of Artists’ Communities.

Cooper, C., Altman, W., & Garner, A. (2002). Inventing for Business success: Texere, Nueva York.

Crawford, V. M., & Brophy, S. (2006). Adaptive expertise: Methods, findings, and emerging issues.

Paper presented at the SRI International.

Cropley, A. J. (1994). Creative Intelligence: A Concept of "True" Giftedness. European Journal for

High Ability, 5(1), 6-23.

Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in Education and Learning: A Guide for Teachers and Educators.

London, UK: Kogan Page.

Cropley, A. J., & Urban, K. K. (2000). Programs and strategies for nurturing creativity. In F. J. M. K.

A. Heller, R. J. Sternberg, R. F. Subotnik (Ed.), International handbook research and

development of giftedness and talent (pp. 481-484). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Cropley, D. H. (2015). Creativity in Engineering: Novel solutions to complex problems. San Diego:

Academic Press.

Cropley, D. H. (2015 in press). Teaching Engineers to Think Creatively: Barriers and Challenges in

STEM Disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on

Teaching Thinking: Routledge.

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates. High

ability studies, 11(2), 207-219.

Crowe, A., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2008). Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom's

taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 7(4), 368-

381.

DeHaan, R. L. (2009). Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE-Life

Sciences Education, 8(3), 172-181.

Evans, F. T. (1991). The Creative Engineer. In R. A. Smith (Ed.), Innovative Teaching in Engineering

(pp. 497-502). London: Ellis Horwood.

129
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

Facaoaru, C. (1985). Kreativität in Wissenschaft und Technik [Creativity in science and technology].

Bern: Huber.

Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 317-327.

Freeman, S., O'Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., . . . Wenderoth, M. P.

(2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE-Life

Sciences Education, 6(2), 132-139.

Hoffmann, O., Cropley, D., Cropley, A., Nguyen, L., & Swatman, P. (2005). Creativity, requirements

and perspectives. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 13(1), 159-175.

Ihsen, S., & Brandt, D. (1998). Editorial: Creativity: How to Educate and Train Innovative Engineers.

European Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 3-4.

Kazerounian, K., & Foley, S. (2007). Barriers to creativity in engineering education: A study of

instructors and students perceptions. Journal of Mechanical Design, 129, 761-768.

Liu, Z., & Schonwetter, D. J. (2004). Teaching creativity in engineering. International Journal of

Engineering Education, 20(5), 801-808.

Mack, R. W. (1987). Are methods of enhancing creativity being taught in teacher education programs

as perceived by teacher educators and student teachers? The Journal of Creative Behavior,

21(1), 22-33.

Mishra, P., & Henriksen, D. (2013). A NEW Approach to Defining and Measuring Creativity:

Rethinking Technology & Creativity in the 21st Century. TechTrends, 57(5), 10-13.

Mohan, M. (1973). Is There a Need for a Course in Creativity in Teacher Education? The Journal of

Creative Behavior, 7(3), 175-186.

Parnes, S. J., & Noller, R. B. (1972). Applied creativity: The creative studies project. The Journal of

Creative Behavior, 6(3), 164-186.

Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 41-48.

Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. P.

Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 1-51).

Greenwich, CT: Infrmation Age Publishing.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). What is an “expert student?”. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 5-9.

130
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering
Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9:2, pp. 161-171.

Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Creativity as a habit. In A.-G. Tan (Ed.), Creativity: A Handbook for Teachers

(pp. 3-25). Singapore: World Scientific.

Tilbury, D., Reid, A., & Podger, D. (2003). Action research for university staff: changing curricula

and graduate skills towards sustainability, Stage 1 Report. Canberra: Environment Australia.

Törnkvist, S. (1998). Creativity: can it be taught? The case of Engineering Education. European

Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 5-12.

Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can We Teach Children To Think Creatively? The Journal of Creative

Behavior, 6(2), 114-143.

Walther, J., Kellam, N., Sochacka, N., & Radcliffe, D. F. (2011). Engineering Competence? An

Interpretive Investigation of Engineering Students' Professional Formation. Journal of

Engineering Education, 100(4), 703-740.

Walther, J., & Radcliffe, D. F. (2007). The competence dilemma in engineering education: Moving

beyond simple graduate attribute mapping. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education,

13(1), 41-51.

Wilbur, R. (2013). Boxed In: The Lack of Creative Thinking in Engineering Students. Undergraduate

Research Posters. Virginia Commonwealth University.

131
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

Teaching Engineers to Think Creatively: Barriers and Challenges in

STEM Disciplines

David H Cropley

University of South Australia

Abstract: Creativity and creative thinking are frequently acknowledged important elements

in many STEM disciplines. In engineering, for example, the ability to generate novel,

workable solutions to complex technological problems is at the heart of the design process. It

is surprising, therefore, that few programs pay more than lip-service to the importance of

creative thinking as an essential, teachable, core skill. One possible reason for this disconnect

between rhetoric and reality is a seemingly ever-present reluctance in engineering education

to reconsider the balance of breadth versus depth. The reaction to changes, over the last

twenty to thirty years, in the nature and the quality of students seems to have pushed many

engineering programs to default to what they perceive as the least risky approach. If there are

more students in today's academic environment who are not naturally independent,

successful, "deep" learners, the answer is to pack in more and more prescribed, core technical

material. In other words, many engineering programs seem to be driving towards ever greater

breadth and surface learning in technical topics only. As a result, there is simply no time or

space for allied skills such as creative thinking, even if they are perceived as important. This

is frequently expressed as "we'd love to have more creative thinking in the degree, but what

do you suggest we get rid of?" Few programs, if any, have shown a willingness to reverse this

trend, and focus on deep learning, including in areas such as creative thinking. In this chapter

the author calls, as a first step, for more research to understand the nature of the problem. Put

132
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

simply, what is the right mix of technical knowledge and enabling skills - for example,

creative thinking - that makes a capable engineer? The answer to this question will enable us

to design programs to deliver this optimal outcome.

133
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

1. Introduction

Creativity has long been portrayed as an elusive and ill-defined quality of people and things.

Ford and Harris (1992) lamented the lack of attention paid to creativity in the social sciences,

suggesting that it lacked a “universally accepted definition” (p. 186) and was undervalued as

an academic ability. More recently, de Sousa (2008) suggested that creativity remains an

elusive construct. While some might argue this was the case in the early days of the modern

era of creativity research (e.g. in the decade immediately following Guilford (1950)) it seems

increasingly unjustified to claim that the development of creativity in educational settings is

being held back by a lack of clarity on what creativity is. This is not to say that the message is

reaching the ears of the people who matter – in this case, teachers at all levels. Benson (2004)

made this point very clearly – her anecdotal evidence suggests that primary school teachers,

for example, express a concern about their own lack of understanding of the nature of

creativity. Benson (2004) also highlights some common misconceptions – what her teachers

did think they know about creativity is that it is simply a matter of letting children “do their

own thing” (p.138) and that creativity, at its core, is “developed mainly through art and

music” (p.138). In an earlier study of university students in the field of apparel design,

Kawenski (1991) saw the same problem also among the students – “In the first place, their

romantic notions led them to believe that creative thinking consisted of just letting their minds

waft about dreamily, waiting for the muse to strike them.” (p. 263).

There seem to be at least two problems that beset attempts to build creativity into

education, and not least, STEM education. First, many researchers active in the field of

creativity encourage a view that creativity is a nebulous, elusive construct. Mishra and

Henriksen (2013), for example, adopt a common pattern, and begin by propagating the myth

that creativity is poorly defined, before offering their own definition. In the same manner,

Leikin and Pitta-Pantazi (2013) talk of “…the lack of a clear, widely accepted definition of

134
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

creativity” (p.160). Second, that even as the construct has become clearly and concretely

defined, this message has not filtered down to end-users – teachers and students. Leikin et al

(2013), for example, report data from a large (n= 1,089), multinational (six countries) study of

mathematics teachers, indicating that there remains a highly consistent (α = .740) belief

among mathematics teachers (mean = 4.2 on a scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 6 “strongly

agree”) that creativity is more innate ability (“he or she is born that way”) than learned. As a

result, creative thinking continues to struggle to establish itself in STEM and engineering

education, even as key stakeholders (for example, the United Kingdom’s Royal Academy of

Engineering10) extol its value to the profession.

Four things need to happen to address these problems, so that engineers can be taught

to think creatively. Benson (2004) makes it clear why: “…unless misconceptions are

identified and addressed, the development of creativity will almost certainly be hindered.”

The first step is obvious, and involves communicating a clear understanding of the nature of

creativity. It is also worth noting here that, while the definition may be complex in the sense

of having a number of interconnected facets or dimensions, this does not mean that it must

therefore be unclear or elusive. The second step requires a more detailed effort to explain the

value of creativity in the context of STEM disciplines. Third is the need to identify the

structural impediments in education that act as a barrier to creativity. Fourth is a clear set of

guidelines for how our understanding of creativity can be translated into practical curriculum

design, and learning outcomes in STEM. The following sections briefly address each of these

steps.

10
The Royal Academy of Engineering published the report Creating Systems that Work: Principles of
Engineering Systems for the 21st Century in June 2007. Among six principles that the report presents as
necessary for “understanding the challenges of a system design problem and for educating engineers to rise to
those challenges” (p.11) is an ability to “be creative”. The report further recognises the key role that creativity
plays in successful engineering and defines creativity as the ability “to devise novel and … effective solutions to
the real problem” (p. 4).

135
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

2. What is Creativity?

A significant factor that seems to be holding back the development of creativity in the STEM

disciplines is the simple fact that, outside of what can be regarded as its “home” discipline

(arguably, the field of psychology), creativity is often poorly understood. Baillie (2002), for

example, writing about creativity in engineering education, asks (one can only hope

rhetorically) “It is however not clear how creativity can be nurtured or fostered in students or

how it can be assessed. What is creativity? What blocks it and what facilitates it?” What is not

clear is why this should be the case. Each of the questions posed has been studied extensively,

in most cases for 50+ years, and the results are accessible through a range of research journals

and other reputable publications. It is simply not credible that engineering faculty, for

example, can claim that these questions have not been answered adequately!

Even if we accept, as many do, that creativity has been tied too strongly to the arts (D.

H. Cropley & Cropley, 2013) in the public eye (p.12-13), the fact remains that any teacher

working in a STEM discipline, and interested in creativity, has already succeeded in

“unhooking” creativity from the arts (McWilliam, Dawson, & Tan, 2011) and is primed to

absorb the wealth of material that is available, for example by starting with the search-term

“creativity” and Wikipedia.

As readily available as material on creativity is, there seems to remain some

impediment that is blocking its wider acceptance in STEM disciplines. While this persists it is

difficult to see any real progress in the task of teaching engineers to think creatively because

new efforts seem to get stuck in a process of reinventing the wheel. STEM disciplines will

make much more rapid, and meaningful, progress if they first recognise and adopt the

foundation that has been provided by the 60 years of research that followed Guilford’s

ground-breaking presidential address to the American Psychological Association in 1949.

Guilford’s call to arms (published as Guilford, 1950), set in motion the modern creativity era

136
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

(A. J. Cropley & Cropley, 2009) (p.8) that has resulted in a wealth of empirical research

regarding what creativity is, where it is found, who engages in it, how it is achieved, how it

can be taught, what hinders it, what promotes it, and many other questions of direct relevance

to educators. Volumes such as the Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (Kaufman & Sternberg,

2010) and the Encyclopedia of Creativity (Runco & Pritzker, 2011) are excellent portals into

the world of empirical creativity research, irrespective of discipline or goal.

Two things will help anyone entering the field of creativity to proceed with a

minimum of duplication. These two things tackle the question of “what is creativity?” First is

a well-founded definition that represents the general consensus that has emerged over decades

of creativity research, and is broad enough to satisfy the needs of any domain. Plucker,

Beghetto and Dow (2004) have captured all the essential ingredients in the following:

Creativity is “the interaction among aptitude, process and environment by which an

individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined

within a social context” (p.90).

The second vital ingredient is to recognise that creativity, and the preceding definition,

define the phenomenon in terms of 4Ps: Person, Product, Process and Press (environment).

This conceptual framework was first described by Rhodes (1961) and provides a convenient

way of understanding the who, what, when, where and how of creativity. It is beyond the

scope of the present chapter to describe each of these in any detail, however a brief summary

of the 4Ps is warranted.

The Person addresses the factors relating to the psychology of the individual actor

involved in the creation of the perceptible product. Research has shown that personal

properties (e.g. optimism, openness, self-confidence), motivation (both intrinsic and extrinsic)

and feelings (e.g. excitement, hope, fear) are distinct dimensions of the Person that each have

a bearing on creativity (D. H. Cropley & Cropley, 2013) (p.62). Furthermore, these

137
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

dimensions of the Person interact with each other in a variety of ways such that different

combinations have unique consequences for creativity.

The Product addresses the output of the creative endeavour. Although it is no surprise

that psychologists are interested in the creative person, it is also widely accepted that an

essential core of creativity, whether in music and poetry, or engineering and science, is the

tangible artefact. In fact, this definition of Product can be extended – any product, process,

system or service that is both novel and useful qualifies as a creative product. Mackinnon

(1978) concluded that “analysis of creative products” is “the bedrock of all studies of

creativity”, and indeed, Morgan (1953) came to a similar conclusion. While more recent

definitions of the creative product debate the existence of higher order characteristics (e.g.

Cropley and Cropley, 2005), the foundation of definitions as far back as Stein (1953) is a

combination of novelty and usefulness. For some thing to be considered creative, it must be

original and surprising, and, it must address a real problem or need.

The Process typically addresses the styles of thinking that result in creative products.

Although more complex and nuanced than is suggested here, two main thinking styles are

commonly associated with creativity. It was Guilford (1950) again who laid the groundwork

for understanding the roles that convergent and divergent thinking play in the production of

creativity. While divergent thinking is often exclusively associated with creativity, it is

important to recognise that convergent thinking also plays a critical role, especially when

creativity is considered in the context of problem-solving, engineering and other STEM

disciplines. Engineers will immediately recognise this as a feature of the design process.

Horenstein (2002) explained the essence of design as follows: “… if more than one solution

exists, and if deciding upon a suitable path demands being creative, making choices,

performing tests, iterating and evaluating, then the activity is most certainly design. Design

can include analysis, but it must also involve at least one of these latter elements” (p.23). The

138
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

core of engineering design therefore involves two stages: a stage of creative synthesis (i.e.

divergent thinking), followed by a stage of logical analysis (i.e. convergent thinking).

It may be tempting to see Process in terms of activities such as brainstorming,

however that is simply a tool to help people recognise and tap into divergent and convergent

thinking. In activities such as engineering it is also possible to think of Process in terms of the

stages that an individual or team undertake as they solve problems and satisfy needs,

creatively or otherwise. However, this should not detract from understanding Process as the

core cognitive activities that underpin creativity: divergent thinking and convergent thinking

(A. J. Cropley & Cropley, 2009).

Finally, the Press examines the role of environmental and social factors on creativity.

More specifically, Press can be considered to address both: (a) how the “climate” can either

facilitate or inhibit creativity, and; (b) how the “environment” reacts to the production of

creativity. Press therefore touches on not only factors such as management support for

creativity (e.g. rewarding creativity, encouraging risk-taking), and how the physical

environment may foster creativity (e.g. through the provision of plants and adequate lighting

in the workplace), but also on the way that society tolerates radical deviations from norms

(are creative people ridiculed or hailed), and even the rules and standards that govern

professional activities such as engineering.

3. What is the value of Creativity?

Even if well-defined, creativity may still struggle to gain a foothold in STEM education

because its inherent value is not recognised or understood. At a very general level Sternberg

(2007) expresses a sentiment common in discussions of creativity and innovation, and the

value that they bring to society: “The problems we confront, whether in our families,

communities, or nations, are novel and difficult, and we need to think creatively to and

139
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

divergently to solve these problems.” (p.7). Creativity is of value because it tells us

everything we need to know about generating the solutions to these novel and difficult

problems – how to generate them; who can generate them; how to recognise them; how to

stimulate them.

More specifically, Pilzer (1990) builds a compelling, albeit unwitting, explanation for

the importance of creativity in the context of STEM disciplines. Writing on the subject of

economics, he describes the relationship between a society’s wealth, its physical resources,

and its technology. In simple terms, “technology determines what constitutes a physical

resource” (p. 28) and “Technology determines … both the efficiency with which we use

resources and our ability to find, obtain, distribute, and store them.” (p. 32). Without

technology, a society’s wealth is low because it is unable to make productive use of resources

such as iron ore, oil, solar energy, fertile land and even information. Without technology it is

unable to extract greater value from these raw materials, or to turn them into valuable,

tradeable goods and services. The process of the efficient transformation of physical resources

into wealth drives a constant stream new problems that require new technological solutions.

The novelty and effectiveness inherent in these problems and solutions encapsulates the

importance of creativity, and their technological basis highlights the importance of STEM

disciplines in realising the latent wealth of any society. It seems axiomatic, therefore, that

teaching engineers (and other STEM disciplines) to think creatively is absolutely essential to

a society’s ability to generate wealth, and as a result provide a stable, safe, healthy and

productive environment for its citizens.

Gertner (2012) further illustrates the value of creativity in STEM, describing the

driving force behind the activities of the famous Bell Labs: “…that the growth of the system

[the US telephone system run by AT&T] produced an unceasing stream of operational

problems meant it had an unceasing need for inventive solutions.” (p. 45). The impetus for

140
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

creativity, moreover, was not simply technological in nature: “…the engineers weren’t merely

trying to improve the system functionally; their agreements with state and federal

governments obliged them to improve it economically, too.” (p. 45).

The value of creativity can also be considered at the level of the individual. For

example, Cropley and Cropley (2000) drew attention to the benefits of creativity in education:

“modern research has demonstrated that although students with high IQs usually obtain good

grades both at school and university, they are consistently outstripped by those with not only a

high IQ but also high creativity” (p. 207). Cropley and Urban (2000) expand further on this

point. Facaoaru (1985), studying professional engineers, determined that those rated by their

peers as the best engineers were not only technically or conventionally better, but had more

characteristics typical of creative people. Cropley (1994) suggests “creativity is indispensable

for “true” giftedness”. In other words, the value of creativity to the individual is that it can be

taught and developed (Torrance, 1972).

Fasko (2001) describes other examples of the benefits of creativity in an individual

and educational setting, citing earlier work by Parnes and Noller (1972) who reported data on

a study into the benefits of creativity courses. Fasko (2001) notes that “Parnes and Noller

found that students who completed the sequence of creativity courses significantly

outperformed comparable control students…” (p.324) across a range of idea generation,

evaluation and problem-solving measures, and that their performance in other courses

improved as well. A study by Mohan (1973) found a similar result for teacher training, while

Mack (1987) discussed the perceived need for creativity training among teachers, and the

perception of teachers of the importance of creativity training for children.

Although only touching on the available evidence, it seems reasonable to assert that

creativity is beneficial for society, necessary for effective, technological problem-solving and

141
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

adds value to the individual engineer. It remains, however, under-represented in engineering

curricula.

4. Barriers to Creativity in STEM Education?

The “Sputnik Shock” of 1957 was perhaps the first occasion where creativity, science and

engineering were linked together in the context of education. The success of the Soviet

Union’s space program gave rise to a “wave of self-criticism that centred mainly on the

argument that the Western world’s engineers had failed” (D. H. Cropley & Cropley, 2005) (p.

169) and creativity was, perhaps for the first time, seen as a core part of engineering. Indeed

one of the first legislative reactions to the Sputnik Shock was the US National Defense

Education Act of 1958, which provided significant funding to stimulate and support STEM

education. The Act recognised that “The defense of this Nation … depends as well upon the

discovery and development of new principles, new techniques, and new knowledge.”

[emphasis added] (National Defense Education Act, 1958).

Despite such compelling pressure, it is by no means clear that creativity succeeded in

permeating engineering education. Kazerounian and Foley (2007) encapsulate the problem as

follows: “If creativity is so central to engineering, why is it not an obvious part of the

engineering curriculum at every university?” The reasons for this failure to translate theory

into practice are many and varied. Walther, Kellam, Sochacka and Radcliffe (2011) suggest

that the problem may lie in “persisting difficulties of the construct of outcomes-based

education as the current paradigm of formal engineering education” (p.704). Walther and

Radcliffe (2007) earlier expressed this as a mismatch between different kinds of learning

outcomes and predominant teaching approaches. In simple terms, a learning outcome framed

around the development of declarative knowledge of, say, engineering mechanics, may be

amenable to a “traditional” teaching approach in a way that a more diffuse graduate quality

142
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

such as “the ability to think creatively” is not. A fundamental dilemma faced by engineering

educators, in preparing students for the “…diversity of competency demands” (Walther &

Radcliffe, 2007) (p. 44) is “…whether to equip students with a broad (and arguably shallow)

knowledge base in many domains, or prepare them for specific job tasks and a contribution to

a narrow subject area (technical depth)” (p. 44). Creativity is, by its nature, a broad, generic

competency. If poorly understood, and perceived as the antithesis of the “serious business” of

engineering (Kazerounian & Foley, 2007), it is little wonder that it is not only undervalued,

but absent in most curricula.

5. How can Creativity be embedded in STEM Education?

If it is true that creativity is failing to make a mark in STEM, and especially engineering,

education, then what can be done to change this? Like Kazerounian and Foley (2007) I

believe that this is because it is “not valued in contemporary engineering education” (p. 762).

However, I believe that it is undervalued not so much because of issues of outcomes-based

learning, or the debate over broad/shallow versus narrow/deep knowledge, but, because it is

poorly understood. My purpose in this chapter has been to suggest that there is no real reason

why it cannot be better understood – it IS well-defined, and there IS a wealth of empirical

research and theoretical understanding that supports it. There remains, however, a failure to

diffuse this knowledge among engineering and other STEM educators.

To conclude, I offer twelve strategies that can help drive curriculum and program

design to enhance creativity. It is important that these are pitched at a strategic level. There is

little value, for example, in discussing brainstorming as a specific creativity method unless

this is placed inside a framework that supports all four Ps of the creativity concept. STEM

students will only develop creativity as a genuine graduate quality – as an emergent property

143
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

of their education – if these strategies permeate their curricula as a system, and are not simply

tacked on in a reductionist, piecemeal fashion.

The twelve strategies are derived from Sternberg’s (2007) conceptualisation of

creativity as a habit. Three things promote the habit of creativity (Sternberg, 2007) (p. 3) and

should serve as general principles for curriculum and program design in STEM disciplines.

First, students must have the opportunity to engage in creativity. This must be woven

throughout courses in an integrated and mutually reinforcing manner. Second, students must

receive positive encouragement as they engage in tasks requiring creativity. Third, students

must be rewarded when they demonstrate the desired creativity.

Sternberg (2007) (p.8-15) then outlines twelve strategies that guide the development

of the creativity habit. This is not to suggest that every aspect of STEM learning must be

transformed. There will remain many areas of the curriculum that are best served by

convergent approaches – there is, after all, still only one right answer to the question “what is

2+2?”. However, wherever practical, these strategies should be used to guide the development

of creativity as a desirable and vital graduate quality:

 Redefine problems – to make good choices, students need practice at making choices.

When those choices don’t work out, students need the opportunity to try again. To

achieve this STEM students need the opportunity to engage in projects which are

presented as more open-ended and flexible. Highly constrained, or over-specified,

projects do not allow the student to develop this skill.

 Question and Analyse Assumptions – students must be encouraged to ask questions,

and not just accept the problem as we as give it to them. This can be achieved partly

through the way in which faculty respond to questioning, as well as the way in which

faculty establish a “press” in which a questioning mindset is valued and modelled.

144
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

 Sell your creative ideas – students need to learn how to persuade others of the value

of their ideas, i.e. to justify their ideas. Team-based activities, as well as competitive

elements to student projects, engender an environment in which the students must

become adept at selling their ideas, both to each other, and to faculty.

 Encourage idea generation – we want students to get practice at generating ideas, but

with constructive criticism. This should be encouraged intrinsically – as a necessary

component of the activities the student undertakes – and extrinsically – by teaching

students specifically how to engage in divergent thinking. In other words, students

need to be taught (or perhaps, reminded) how to think divergently, and must also be

given plenty of opportunity to use this rediscovered skill.

 The role of knowledge – to be a creative engineer, you first need to be a competent

engineer. The principle for the student here is about broad preparation and not over-

specialising. In other words, encouraging students to see the value in developing other

knowledge and skills. You never know when your knowledge of biology, for example,

might give you an idea for solving a mechanical problem. Indeed, the growing field of

biomimetics suggests that biological sciences may prove to be an exciting and

valuable area for “broadening” education for engineering and other STEM students.

This principle also supports the value of diverse internships and work experience

during the STEM student’s time at college.

 Identify and surmount obstacles – we must present students with challenging tasks,

so that they build resilience. We need to give them opportunities to fail, and try again.

Certainly in project work, but even in other courses, students need to develop an

understanding that engineering, for example, is usually not simply a matter of rolling

out a pre-determined solution. Every problem is unique and bound by a unique set of

constraints. What worked in another situation may not work in this one. Students who

145
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

understand this are able to focus their energies on finding the new solution, rather than

trying to puzzle out why the old solution doesn’t work (and may never work).

 Encourage sensible risk-taking – students need the opportunity to try something,

even though it might not work. They need to learn how to assess risks and judge that

the risk is acceptable. This can be encouraged as simply as making it clear to students

that they won’t be punished for mistakes, both in terms of their grades, and in real

terms (for example, if they damage an integrated circuit in the course of a practical

class). Clearly, they need to be taught which risks are OK, and which are not.

Connecting some electronic components on a breadboard in a new way is a sensible

risk; forgetting to wear safety goggles when operating a drill press is not. However, if

we overreact to the former, we encourage an extremely risk-averse mindset in which

the student never takes sensible risks.

 Encourage tolerance of ambiguity – by presenting students with ill-defined

problems. Creative people recognise that ambiguity gives them more space to be

creative. This can be as simple as breaking away from a typical “lab” paradigm of

“here’s the sheet for today’s lab class. Follow the instructions” that is familiar in many

STEM disciplines. Instead of giving students a highly structured “menu” for a lab

class, for example in electronics, give them a more open-ended problem statement that

requires them to deal with the ambiguity and think more independently. Rather than a

set of instructions along the lines of “put component X on your breadboard. Now

connect component Y to component X, touch your voltmeter probe to point Z and

write down the number on the voltmeter” we can achieve the same outcomes by

saying to students “Today I want you to find out as much as you can about how

transistors work. You have everything you need in the lab, so go for it!” This may

make students uncomfortable at first, but with the right encouragement they will begin

146
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

take this uncertainty in their stride. When faced with ambiguity, some people close

down and do nothing, while others see the ambiguity as an opportunity to try different

things. We want our creative STEM professionals to be of the latter mindset.

 Build self-efficacy – allowing students to see that they can be creative, so they don’t

fall into the “I’m not creative” self-fulfilling prophecy. Simply requiring creativity as

an assessable component of, for example, project work, will allow students to see that

they can be creative, and that their creativity is an asset. This requires faculty to

understand creativity, and how it is manifest in engineering products and other STEM

outputs, and to encourage students to build this in to the work they do.

 Finding what excites them – help students explore a broad range of areas of their

chosen discipline so that they have a better chance of finding the part that really turns

them on. A wide variety of broadening subjects, as well as the opportunity for diverse,

real-world projects, sponsored by real-world organisations, gives students the best

chance of finding their chosen field before they graduate.

 The Importance of delaying gratification – foster a sense that sometimes you need

to work a little longer and harder to get the reward. Pushing students to the full extent

of their abilities is necessary. Both in regular coursework, and in project work, we

must ensure that students have the opportunity to push boundaries. This may require

more flexibility in assessment, so that each student can be pushed to his or her limit,

without always being assessed in a norm-based fashion. In every case, however, as

faculty we should have the option of pushing students beyond their comfort zones.

 Provide a favourable environment – STEM educators also need to role model

creativity. We need to demonstrate our own flexibility, openness, tolerance for

ambiguity and resilience – indeed all twelve of the items mentioned. More simply, we

147
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

need to demonstrate that we understand what creativity is, why it’s valuable and why

it’s in the curriculum.

References

Baillie, C. (2002). Enhancing creativity in engineering students. Engineering Science &

Education Journal, 11(5), 185-192.

Benson, C. (2004). Professor John Eggleston Memorial Lecture 2004-Creativity: Caught or

Taught? Journal of Design & Technology Education, 9(3), 138-144.

Cropley, A. J. (1994). Creative Intelligence: A Concept of "True" Giftedness. European

Journal for High Ability, 5(1), 6-23.

Cropley, A. J., & Cropley, D. H. (2009). Fostering creativity: A diagnostic approach for

education and organizations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Cropley, A. J., & Urban, K. K. (2000). Programs and strategies for nurturing creativity. In F.

J. M. K. A. Heller, R. J. Sternberg, R. F. Subotnik (Ed.), International handbook

research and development of giftedness and talent. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates.

High ability studies, 11(2), 207-219.

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept of

functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Faces of the Muse: How

People Think, Work and Act Creatively in Diverse Domains (pp. 169-185). Hillsdale:

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2013). Creativity and Crime: A Psychological Approach.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

de Sousa, F. C. (2008). Still the Elusive Definition of Creativity. Tarptautinis psichologijos

žurnalas: Biopsichosocialinis požiūris(2), 55-82.

148
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

Facaoaru, C. (1985). Kreativität in Wissenschaft und Technik [Creativity in science and

technology]. Bern: Huber.

Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 317-327.

Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. (1992). The Elusive Definition of Creativity. The Journal of Creative

Behavior, 26(3), 186-198.

Gertner, J. (2012). The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation.

London, UK: The Penguin Press.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.

Horenstein, M. N. (2002). Design concepts for engineers (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2010). Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kawenski, M. (1991). Encouraging Creativity in Design. The Journal of Creative Behavior,

25(3), 263-266.

Kazerounian, K., & Foley, S. (2007). Barriers to creativity in engineering education: A study

of instructors and students perceptions. Journal of Mechanical Design, 129, 761.

Leikin, R., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2013). Creativity and mathematics education: The state of the

art. ZDM, 45(2), 159-166.

Leikin, R., Subotnik, R., Pitta-Pantazi, D., Singer, F. M., & Pelczer, I. (2013). Teachers’

views on creativity in mathematics education: an international survey. ZDM, 45(2),

309-324.

Mack, R. W. (1987). Are methods of enhancing creativity being taught in teacher education

programs as perceived by teacher educators and student teachers? The Journal of

Creative Behavior, 21(1), 22-33.

149
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness: Identifying and developing

creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.

McWilliam, E., Dawson, S., & Tan, J. P.-L. (2011). Less elusive, more explicit. The

challenge of ‘seeing’creativity in action. In P. Thomson & J. Sefton-Green (Eds.),

Researching creative learning: methods and issues. London: Routledge.

Mishra, P., & Henriksen, D. (2013). A NEW Approach to Defining and Measuring Creativity:

Rethinking Technology & Creativity in the 21st Century. TechTrends, 57(5), 10-13.

Mohan, M. (1973). Is There a Need for a Course in Creativity in Teacher Education? The

Journal of Creative Behavior, 7(3), 175-186.

Morgan, D. N. (1953). Creativity today: A constructive analytic review of certain

philosophical and psychological Work. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,

12(1), 1-24.

National Defense Education Act. (1958) (Vol. 72, pp. 1580-1605).

Parnes, S. J., & Noller, R. B. (1972). Applied creativity: The creative studies project. The

Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(3), 164-186.

Pilzer, P. Z. (1990). Unlimited wealth: The theory and practice of economic alchemy. New

York, NY: Crown Publishers.

Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to

educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity

research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83-96.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310.

Runco, M., & Pritzker, S. R. (Eds.). (2011). Encyclopedia of Creativity. San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and

Applied, 36, 311-322.

150
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2015). Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and
challenges in STEM disciplines. In R. Wegerif, L. Li and J. Kaufman (Eds.), International Handbook of
Research on Teaching Thinking, Chapter 33 (pp. 402-410). New York, NY: Routledge.

Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Creativity as a habit. In A.-G. Tan (Ed.), Creativity: A Handbook for

Teachers (pp. 3-25). Singapore: World Scientific.

Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can We Teach Children To Think Creatively? The Journal of

Creative Behavior, 6(2), 114-143.

Walther, J., Kellam, N., Sochacka, N., & Radcliffe, D. F. (2011). Engineering Competence?

An Interpretive Investigation of Engineering Students' Professional Formation.

Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 703-740.

Walther, J., & Radcliffe, D. F. (2007). The competence dilemma in engineering education:

Moving beyond simple graduate attribute mapping. Australasian Journal of

Engineering Education, 13(1), 41-51.

151
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Creativity in Engineering

David H Cropley

School of Engineering, University of South Australia

Email: [email protected]; Tel: +618 8302 3301

Abstract

Creativity is a fundamental element of engineering. Creativity is concerned with the

generation of effective, novel solutions to problems, while engineering, and engineering

design has a similar goal, focused on technological solutions. It was the Sputnik Shock of

October 1957 that prompted, for the first time, research into the people who generate creative

solutions, the cognitive processes they employ, the environment in which they undertake

these activities, and the characteristics of the products they create. This chapter summarises

the psychological framework that guides efforts to understand how creativity is fostered so

that engineering organisations can maximise their capacity for innovation. Of special

importance is embedding creativity in engineering education.

Keywords

Creativity, Engineering, Innovation, Design, Technology, Education

Introduction

The Sputnik Shock that occurred on October 4, 1957 (Dickson, 2001) was pivotal to the

process of linking creativity (the generation of effective novelty), innovation (the

exploitation of effective novelty) and engineering (the design and development of

technological solutions to problems) in a systematic and scientific way. After the launch of

Sputnik I, US lawmakers began to look more deeply for the underlying causes of the Soviet

152
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Union’s strategic achievement. The US Government understood that highly skilled people

were essential to technological progress, and the Congress addressed this through the

National Defense Education Act (NDEA11) of 1958. The NDEA was designed to rectify a

shortage of graduates in mathematics and engineering. However, the key step in linking

creativity, innovation, engineering and technology was the hypothesis that the Soviet threat in

space was not only a quantitative problem (e.g. a shortage of engineers in the US) but also a

qualitative one. There was a belief that Soviet engineering achievements, and their Sputnik I

success, resulted from superior creativity (A. J. Cropley & Cropley, 2009). This led to

attention moving, for the first time, from economic issues that underpin the growth and

development of technology, to the particular qualities of a product that make it creative, the

qualities of the people and organizations that make the technology, and the processes by

which they achieve the development of new and effective technological solutions to

problems. In other words, Sputnik I prompted a focus on psychologically oriented creativity

research.

The shift to a qualitative explanation for engineering creativity was aided by the fact

that a scientific foundation linking creativity, engineering and technology already existed. In

1950, the psychologist J. P. Guilford delivered a pivotal presidential address to the American

Psychological Association’s annual convention. Guildford (1950) argued that human

intellectual ability had been defined too narrowly in terms of factors such as speed, accuracy

and correctness – what he termed convergent thinking – and needed to be understood in a

broader sense, to include factors such as generating alternatives and seeing multiple

possibilities. Guilford saw intellectual ability as involving both convergent and divergent

thinking.

11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Education_Act

153
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Engineers, in fact, are no strangers to the need for both forms of thinking: analysis

and synthesis. Horenstein (2002), for example, reminds us that design requires both: “…if

more than one solution exists, and if deciding upon a suitable path demands … making

choices, performing tests, iterating, and evaluating, then the activity is most certainly design.

Design can include analysis, but it also must involve at least one of these latter elements.” (p.

23).

In fact, the relationship between creativity and engineering runs much deeper.

Creativity is concerned with the generation of effective and novel solutions to problems.

Engineering is concerned more specifically with generating technological solutions to

problems. Despite this, engineering is still frequently seen as predominantly analytical in

nature – “a common misconception … is that engineering is “just” applied math and science”

(Brockman, 2009) (p. x). It follows that successful engineering design must focus on both

analysis (convergent thinking) and synthesis (divergent thinking) in the creation of

technological solutions. Concentrating on one at the expense of the other risks the integrity of

the solutions (products) themselves, and the skill-base of the engineers involved in the

creation of these solutions. Engineering, in short, is fundamentally a process of creative

problem solving.

The Importance of Creativity to Engineering

Few would disagree that creativity is an essential element of 21st century life. In relation to

engineering, this was explicitly identified as long ago as 1959 by Sprecher (1959), while

Mokyr (1990) discusses the more general importance of creativity and innovation to national

prosperity. There is widespread agreement that creativity is a vital component in the success

and prosperity of organizations. Despite this, it is also clear that many leaders, managers,

professional practitioners and educators are either apathetic to creativity or, uncertain of how

to foster and exploit it in practice. This situation is not unique to engineering, and is typically

154
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

the result of a lack of practical understanding of what creativity is, of how it can add value to

the solution of real problems, and of what needs to be done to foster it. This in turn results

from several misconceptions. For example, creativity has been, in the past, thought of (Olken,

1964) as a trait that people are born with – “you either have it, or you don’t” (p. 149). At the

same time, it is frequently conceived of too narrowly, as exclusively concerned with

aesthetics – “creativity is about art, isn’t it?” Creativity is also regarded frequently as simply

a matter of thinking and especially free and unconstrained thinking. Benson (2004), for

example, reports anecdotal evidence suggesting that primary school teachers see creativity as

simply a matter of letting children “do their own thing” (p.138) and that creativity is

“developed mainly through art and music” (p.138). Other researchers have noted similar

conceptual hurdles. Kawenski (1991), for example, writing about students in an apparel

design course, found that “In the first place, their romantic notions led them to believe that

creative thinking consisted of just letting their minds waft about dreamily, waiting for the

muse to strike them.” (p. 263). The result of this is that creativity is often associated with lack

of rigor, impulsive behaviour, free expression of ideas without regard to quality, and other

“soft” factors. In engineering, there is then also the hurdle that these soft factors may be

dismissed as “not real engineering”.

In recent years, it seems as though there is little cross-fertilization and sharing of ideas

taking place between psychology and engineering. The strong connection between creativity

and engineering, which existed immediately after the Sputnik Shock, seems to have

dissipated. Buhl (1960) exemplifies this, but also highlights the fact that the early cross-

fertilization seemed to fade away, so that from the 1970s onwards the connections between

creativity and engineering were largely broken.

Engineering, in relation to creativity, may have been a victim of its own success. By

the late 1960s, the success of the Apollo Space Program may have engendered a feeling

155
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

among engineers in the United States, as well as other Western countries, that the concerns

identified by the Sputnik Shock had been solved. US and Western engineers had

comprehensively demonstrated their technical abilities, and the West could stop worrying

about creativity in engineering!

The challenges of the early 21st century – health, security, climate, population, food –

remain, and finding effective and novel technological solutions is more important than ever.

We know creativity is vital to engineering success, but we struggle to understand why or

how, and therefore, the role of creativity is often ignored, especially in engineering education.

At the same time that engineers forgot about creativity, another factor was conspiring

to make it harder to re-establish the connection. As the study of creativity grew within the

field of psychology, a gradual shift in our understanding of the term creativity took place.

Creativity became tied strongly to the arts (D. H. Cropley & Cropley, 2013) in the public eye

(p.12-13), and this contributed to the difficulty of reconnecting creativity to engineering. Any

manager or teacher working in engineering, and interested in creativity, must now actively

“unhook” creativity from the arts (McWilliam, Dawson, & Tan, 2011) before they can absorb

the wealth of material that is available on the subject.

It seems that before any reconnecting and rebalancing of creativity and engineering

can take place, it is first necessary to dispel some of the myths and misconceptions of

creativity. What is creativity, and how should we understand it?

What is Creativity?

The most significant factor that is holding back the development of creativity in engineering

is the fact that, beyond the field of psychology, creativity is poorly understood. Baillie (2002)

illustrates this problem perfectly. She stated, “It is however not clear how creativity can be

nurtured or fostered in students or how it can be assessed. What is creativity? What blocks it

156
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

and what facilitates it?” (p. 185). These questions have been the focus of research for more

than 50 years, with results widely published and readily available!

Florida (2002) noted that creativity involves the production of “meaningful new

forms”. He highlighted the fact that such forms involve:

 physical objects that can be made, sold and used;

 theorems or strategies that can be applied in many situations;

 systems for understanding the world that are adopted by many people;

 music that can be performed again and again.

Embedded in this approach to creativity is the emphasis on products and the idea that

the product must be public (other people come to know about it and find it useful in some

way) and enduring (its application or use persists for some time – in some cases for a very

long time). This means that the creativity of ephemeral remarks or fleeting ideas is of lesser

interest. The emphasis on meaningful new forms is especially relevant for practical settings

such as engineering.

The Definition of Creativity

Two basic components are needed by engineers entering the field of creativity to answer the

question what is creativity? These not only answer the fundamental question, and remove the

basic blocks to reconnecting creativity with engineering, but also ensure that progress is made

with a minimum of duplication. The first component is a clear, and widely accepted,

definition representing the consensus that has emerged over decades of creativity research.

Such a definition should be broad enough to satisfy the needs of any domain. Plucker,

Beghetto and Dow (2004) have captured all the essential ingredients in the following:

Creativity is “the interaction among aptitude, process and environment by which an

individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined

within a social context” (p.90).

157
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

The Five Ps of Creativity

The second component needed by engineers for the reconnection with creativity is to

recognise that creativity is characterised in terms of 4Ps: Person, Product, Process and Press

(environment). This conceptual framework was first described by Rhodes (1961) and

provides an excellent framework for understanding the who, what, when, where and how of

creativity in engineering.

Phase – The Stages of Creativity

Even divided into the 4Ps, this framework for understanding creativity may be still too

diffuse to provide a concrete framework for recognising and fostering creativity in

engineering. Creativity in engineering is concerned with solving problems; however, the

solutions engineers devise do not emerge in a single step. Engineers understand that there is a

sequence of stages that is followed starting with the recognition that there is a problem to be

solved, and followed by the determination of possible ways of solving that problem,

narrowing these down to one, or a few, probable solutions, before selecting the best option

for development and implementation. Creativity in engineering is embedded across this

sequence of stages. To understand creativity in engineering, it is first necessary to understand

how the 4Ps intersect with the stages that we know characterise engineering problem solving.

The answer to this issue is therefore a fifth P – Phases. These are the steps involved

in the generation of novel and effective engineering products. Guilford (1959) described

creativity as problem solving, and defined it as having four stages:

 recognition that a problem exists;

 production of a variety of relevant ideas;

 evaluation of the various possibilities produced;

 drawing of appropriate conclusions that lead to the solution of the problem.

158
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Table 1 sets out these four steps in sequence. Importantly, Guildford’s stages are also

characterised very clearly in terms of contrasting phases of convergent and divergent

thinking.

Table 1: Stages of creative problem solving (Guilford, 1959)

Stage 1 2 3 4

Description Recognition Production of a Evaluation of Drawing of

that a problem variety of the various appropriate
exists relevant ideas possibilities conclusions that
produced lead to the
solution of the
problem

Summary Problem Idea Generation Idea Evaluation Solution

Recognition Validation

Characteristic Convergent Divergent Convergent Convergent

Guilford’s model corresponds closely to Wallas’s (1926) well-known four-phase

model: In the phase of Preparation a person becomes thoroughly familiar with a content area,

in the Incubation phase the person “churns through” or “stews over” the information obtained

in the previous phase, in the phase of Illumination a solution emerges, not infrequently

seeming to the person involved to come like a bolt from the blue, and finally comes the phase

of Verification, in which the person tests the solution thrown up in the phases of Incubation

and Illumination. More recently, the Wallas model has been refined by adding three

additional phases (Activation, Communication, Validation) (A. J. Cropley & Cropley, 2008;

D. H. Cropley, 2006) conceptualizing creativity as involving seven consecutive Phases

(Figure 1).

159
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Preparation

Activation

Generation

Illumination

Verification

Communication

Validation

Figure 1: The Extended Phase Model of the Creative Process

The Phases of creativity captured in the Extended Phase Model shown in Figure 1, and the

fundamental oscillation between stages of convergent and divergent thinking, tie strongly to

the steps of Engineering Design as the mechanism by which products and systems are

realised. Dieter and Schmidt (2012) remind us that “… it is true that the professional practice

of engineering is largely concerned with design; it is often said that design is the essence of

engineering” (p.1). Citing Blumrich (1970), they characterize the process of design as “to pull

together something new or to arrange existing things in a new way to satisfy a recognized

need of society” (p.1). Dieter and Schmidt (2012) describe the essence of design as synthesis.

Horenstein (2002) contrasted design with other essential activities in engineering by

focusing on the process of solving problems. The core of engineering practice is therefore

design, but that design activity involves two stages: a stage of creative synthesis, followed by

160
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

a stage of logical analysis. The first stage is synonymous with divergent thinking (Guilford,

1950), while the second is synonymous with convergent thinking. This may be illustrated as

shown in Figure 2 and we usually think of this process proceeding, as illustrated from left to

right.

X1

Problem/Need Solution = X3
…

Xn

Divergent Thinking Convergent Thinking

(Synthesis) (Analysis)

Figure 2: Convergence and Divergence in Problem Solving

Buhl (1960) notes many important, and recurrent themes both in creative, and

engineering, problem solving. These include the non-linear progression that the process

frequently follows. However, the most prescient of Buhl’s (1960) points is that “It is

necessary to understand all the factors which tend to prohibit or retard the work at each

phase, and to understand what things tend to increase the possibility of an unusual answer”

(p. 15).

Here is where creativity and engineering come together. As engineering design moves

through a series of stages, these involve either convergent or divergent thinking. We also

know that four factors – Person, Product, Process and Press – either help or hinder creative

problem solving (and therefore engineering problem solving) in each of the phases.

Understanding engineering creativity therefore involves understanding this interplay between

Phases and the 4Ps. This is discussed in the following sections.

161
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Person – Who are the Creators?

The Person addresses the factors relating to the psychology of the individual actor involved

in the creation of the Product. Research has shown that personal properties (e.g. optimism,

openness, self-confidence), motivation (both intrinsic and extrinsic) and feelings (e.g.

excitement, hope, fear) are distinct dimensions of the Person that each have a bearing on

creativity (D. H. Cropley & Cropley, 2013). Furthermore, these dimensions of the Person

interact with each other in a variety of ways such that different combinations have unique

consequences for creativity. Table 2 summarises these properties mapped to each stage of the

Extended Phase Model (Figure 1).

Table 2: Examples of creativity-enabling Personality Traits

Phase Motivation Personal Properties Feelings

Preparation hope of gain optimism interest
willingness to work hard self-discipline curiosity
openness

Activation preference for complexity critical attitude dissatisfaction

problem-solving drive willingness to judge and excitement
(intrinsic) select hopefulness
dissatisfaction with the status self-confidence
quo

Generation freedom from constraints relaxedness determination

tolerance for ambiguity acceptance of fantasy fascination
willingness to take risks nonconformity
adventurousness

Illumination trust in intuitions sensitivity excitement

willingness to explore ideas openness
resistance to premature flexibility
closure

Verification desire for closure hardnosed sense of reality satisfaction

desire to achieve quality self-criticism pride in oneself

162
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Communication desire for recognition self-confidence anticipation

(intrinsic) autonomy hope
desire for acclaim or reward courage of one’s fear
(extrinsic) convictions

Validation desire for acclaim toughness elation

mastery drive flexibility

Engineering creativity is therefore fostered by supporting the creativity-enabling personality

traits that are active in the different phases of the problem solving process.

Product – What do they Create?

The Product addresses the output of the creative activity. It is no surprise that psychologists

are interested in the creative person, however, it is also widely accepted that an essential core

of creativity, whether in art and poetry, or engineering and science, is the tangible artefact.

This definition of Product can be extended to any product, process, system or service that is

both novel and useful (Table 3) (D. H. Cropley & Cropley, 2005).

Table 3: Different Types of Creative Product

Product Type Product Characteristics

Artefact A manufactured object

Process A method for doing or producing something

A combination of interacting elements forming a complex,

System
unitary whole

An organized system of labour and material aids used to satisfy

Service
defined needs
Mackinnon (1978) concluded that “analysis of creative products” is “the bedrock of

all studies of creativity” (p.187), and indeed, Morgan (1953) came to a similar conclusion.

While more recent definitions of the creative product debate the existence of higher order

characteristics (D. H. Cropley & Cropley, 2005) the foundation of definitions as far back as

163
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Stein (1953) is a combination of novelty and usefulness. For an object, for example, to be

regarded as creative, it must be original and surprising, and it must solve a real problem or

satisfy a real need.

Four criteria define the creativity of a product (D. H. Cropley & Kaufman, 2012; D.

H. Cropley, Kaufman, & Cropley, 2011): relevance and effectiveness; novelty; elegance and

genesis. Products can be classified using these four dimensions arranged in a hierarchy

ranging from “routine” products (characterised by effectiveness alone) to “innovative”

products (characterised by effectiveness, novelty, elegance and genesis), with “original” and

“elegant” products between these poles (Table 4). In the table, a plus sign means that a

criterion is associated with this kind of product, while a minus sign indicates that it is not.

The classifications in Table 4 also demonstrate the idea of pseudo- and quasi-creativity,

where the only necessary property of products seems to be novelty. The table shows that

products higher in the hierarchy incorporate all of the properties of products at lower levels,

but add something to them. According to this classification, routine products are not creative,

because the second necessary criterion (novelty) is absent. However, this does not mean that

these products are not useful, or that they are not common. In engineering, many products

perform important and valuable functions, yet are devoid of creativity, in the sense that they

do not possess novelty.

164
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Table 4: The Hierarchical Organization of Products

Kind of Product
Routine Original Elegant Innovative Pseudo or quasi-
Criterion creativity

Effectiveness + + + + -
Novelty - + + + +
Elegance - - + + ?
Genesis - - - + ?

Process – How do they Create it?

Process addresses the styles of thinking that result in creative products. Although more

complex than suggested here, two main thinking styles are commonly associated with

creativity. It was Guilford (1950) who laid the groundwork for understanding the roles that

convergent and divergent thinking play in the production of creativity. While divergent

thinking is often exclusively associated with creativity, it is important to recognise that

convergent thinking is also critical, particularly in the context of problem solving and

engineering. Engineers will immediately recognize this as a feature of the design process.

The core of engineering design therefore involves two fundamental stages: a stage of creative

synthesis (i.e. divergent thinking), followed by a stage of logical analysis (i.e. convergent

thinking).

Table 5 sets out processes typical of divergent thinking, and lists the associated results

of these processes.

165
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Table 5: Characteristics of Divergent Thinking

Typical Processes Typical Results

thinking unconventionally alternative or multiple solutions
seeing the known in a new light deviation from the usual
combining the disparate a surprising answer
producing multiple answers new lines of attack or ways of
doing things
shifting perspective
opening up exciting or risky
transforming the known
possibilities
seeing new possibilities

Divergent cognition (Boden, 1994) involves not only the generation of many possible

ideas or solutions, but also involves seeing connections between disparate pieces of

information (e.g., recognizing patterns, relating diverse concepts, combining unrelated ideas).

One particularly interesting aspect of divergent thinking, especially in an engineering context,

is the process of making associations. In fact, Mednick (1962) argued that what is necessary

for producing novelty is that such associations go beyond the traditional, conventional or

orthodox, and are remote. He described the formation of remote associates and their

connection to novelty production in the following way: In the course of their lives, people

learn a number of possible responses to any given stimulus. Responses most frequently linked

with a particular stimulus in the past are likely to be selected as appropriate if the stimulus is

encountered again (i.e., they are common). On the other hand, responses seldom paired with

the stimulus in the past have a low probability of being chosen (i.e., they are uncommon or

remote). This means that when a particular stimulus recurs in a new situation, people

typically select a common, familiar response. These responses and quick, reliable and

efficient, but they are routine, and lack creativity. For example, Chicken is a common

associate to the stimulus Egg, since these two ideas often occur together. A person with a

166
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

high preference for common associates might associate Green with Grass. This is not a

problem until a situation requiring novelty is encountered.

In engineering problem solving, the impact of both forms of association (common and

remote) can be seen when examining the functions of common objects. A paper clip’s

common association is with the function clip paper. The name of the object reinforces this

common association. When asked to devise alternative uses for a paper clip, engineers must

first overcome functional fixedness – that tendency to associate objects with their customary

function. These common associations do have, however, certain advantages to engineers.

They represent the routine solutions that are sufficient for many situations. Standardized

electronic components, for example resistors and capacitors with known values, are

extremely useful in speeding up design and manufacturing processes. The penalty, however,

is that the habit of forming common associates can become so ingrained that it is difficult to

make the transition to remote associates in situations where novelty is required.

In any discussion of Process, it is also important to recognize the fact that creativity does not

come from nowhere. It rests on a foundation of knowledge and requires effort. To be a

creative engineer, you first need to be a capable, technical engineer! The characteristics of

convergent thinking (A. J. Cropley, 2006) that are vital in supporting the overall process of

creative problem solving are summarised in Table 6.

167
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Table 6: Characteristics of Convergent Thinking

Typical Processes Typical Results

thinking logically greater familiarity with what already
exists
recognizing the familiar
better grasp of the facts
combining what “belongs together”
a quick, “correct” answer
homing in on the single best answer
improvement of existing skills
reapplying set techniques
closure on an issue
preserving the already known
seeking accuracy and correctness

Divergent thinking is both necessary and appropriate at certain stages of the engineering

problem solving process. Equally, convergent thinking is necessary and appropriate at other

stages of the process.

Press – Where Does the Creativity Happen?

The Press examines the role of organisational and social factors on creativity. More

specifically, Press can be considered to address both: (a) how the “climate” can either

facilitate or inhibit creativity, and; (b) how the “environment” reacts to the production of

creativity. Press touches on not only factors such as management support for creativity (e.g.

rewarding creativity, encouraging risk-taking), and how the physical environment may foster

creativity (e.g. through the provision of plants and adequate lighting in the workplace), but

also on the way that society tolerates radical deviations from norms (are creative people

ridiculed or hailed), and even the rules and standards that govern professional activities such

as engineering.

In the institutional environment – for example, an engineering firm – it is helpful to

define, more precisely, the aspects of the organisation that influence creativity:

168
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

 material institutional structures and facilities such as work stations, laboratories,

information-processing facilities, libraries, classrooms and workshops, etc. These are

found in businesses, factories and the like, but also in schools and universities;

 people, not only managers or instructors, but also fellow workers or students;

 immaterial institutional factors influencing the interactions between material

structures and people, such as traditions, standards, norms and customs;

 psychological institutional factors influencing these interactions, such as roles,

relationships, social hierarchies, interaction rules, communication pathways, and the

like.

Figure 3 shows this organizational Press in more detail.

Social Environment

Institutional Environment

Material People
factors

Psychological Immaterial
factors factors

Figure 3: Factors of the Institutional Environment

The Press can act either to foster or to inhibit creativity. A congenial environment

provides the specific conditions that permit, release, encourage or foster the creativity of

individual people or of groups. These include:

 the amount of divergence or risk-taking that is tolerated/encouraged;

169
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

 the kind of variability that is tolerated/encouraged (for instance, routine extensions of

the already known vs. radical deviations);

 the resources that are made available (not only material, but also human) to support

production of novelty;

 the rewards (or punishments) that are offered to people who diverge from the usual.

Paradoxes of Creativity

To understand the interaction of creativity and engineering, one critical factor must be

acknowledged. Each of the 4Ps described in previous sections is not uniformly good or bad

for creativity (A. J. Cropley, 1997; A. J. Cropley & Cropley, 2008). For example,

Horenstein’s (2002) description of engineering, cited earlier, makes it clear that the steps

involved in designing and developing an engineering solution involve different cognitive

skills. Sometimes it is necessary, in other words, to think analytically, and sometimes

synthetically. This suggests a paradox in engineering creativity. Cognitive processes that

appear to be mutually exclusive, are both necessary for creativity. How can creativity in

engineering be developed and fostered if it requires us simultaneously to think both

convergently and divergently? Discussions of creativity, therefore, are confronted by a

number of apparent paradoxes: Aspects of the processes of creativity, the personal properties

associated with it, the conditions that foster its emergence and the products it yields seem to

be mutually incompatible. Similarly, a lack of structure and management pressure in the

environment may encourage creativity some of the time but inhibit it at other times.

Properties of the individual – a willingness to take risks, for example – may be favourable to

creativity at some points in the process, but unfavourable at other times. The solution to this

paradox lies in the fifth P - Phases. Engineering creativity takes place across distinct phases.

It is possible to build a model of creativity in engineering that identifies the relationships

between the Person, the Process, the Product and the Press, at each Phase, and specifies

170
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

exactly what conditions favour or inhibit creativity, at each point in the problem solving

process.

The Innovation Phase Model

Resolving the paradoxes of engineering creativity – the apparent need for simultaneous, but

conflicting, qualities of the person for example – is achieved by recognising that each of the

4Ps can move between two poles(D. H. Cropley & Cropley, 2011). The best example is

Process – both convergent and divergent thinking are required at different stages of the

engineering problem solving process (see Table 7). In some stages, for example the

Generation phase, divergent thinking is most favourable to the overall process of creativity.

In other phases, for example Illumination, convergent thinking is most appropriate. Mapping

the creativity-enabling state of each of the 4Ps against the seven Phases of the process

resolves the paradoxes of engineering creativity (see Table 7). Phase by phase, Table 7 shows

that the conditions that foster creativity and innovation change. What is good for creativity

and innovation in, for example, the Activation Phase, may actually hinder innovation in the

Verification Phase. The key to successful engineering creativity and innovation therefore is to

adapt to the favourable conditions, at each stage of the process.

The Innovation Phase Model has been tested empirically through the Innovation

Phase Assessment Instrument (IPAI) described in (D. H. Cropley & Cropley, 2012; D. H.

Cropley, Cropley, Chiera, & Kaufman, 2013). In addition to demonstrating that teams and

organisations may be well-aligned, or misaligned to the different poles that favour creativity

across the different phases, the IPAI also highlights the relationship between creativity and

innovation. The former is a necessary pre-requisite to the latter, and while other researchers

frequently explore innovation from an economic or organizational viewpoint, the focus of the

research described in this chapter remains fundamentally psychological – what aspects of

personality, emotions and motivation help or hinder engineers engaged in creativity and

171
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

innovation? What cognitive processes do they draw on to aid in their creativity? What

institutional and social factors help or hinder their efforts to design and develop novel

products and systems? How do we assess whether those novel products and systems are,

indeed, creative?

A framework for understanding creativity and engineering – the Innovation Phase

Model – is a necessary pre-requisite for embedding these concepts in engineering practice.

However, without substantial change to engineering education, these concepts are unlikely to

have beneficial impact.

172
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli (Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative
Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London, UK: Springer.

Table 7: The Innovation Phase Model (IPM)

Invention Exploitation

Phase Preparation Activation Generation Illumination Verification Communication Validation

Knowledge, Problem Many A few A single A working A successful
problem definition, candidate promising optimal prototype ‘product’
Dimension Poles recognition refinement solutions solutions solution

Convergent Convergent Convergent Convergent Convergent

Process vs Mixed
Divergent Divergent Divergent

Reactive Reactive Reactive

Person
vs Mixed Mixed
(Motivation)
Proactive Proactive Proactive Proactive

Adaptive Adaptive Adaptive Adaptive Adaptive

Person
vs
(Properties)
Innovative Innovative Innovative Innovative

Conserving Conserving Conserving Conserving Conserving

Person
vs
(Feelings)
Generative Generative Generative Generative

Routine Routine Routine Routine Routine

Product vs
Creative Creative Creative Creative

High Demand High High High High

Press vs
Low Demand Low Low Low

173
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Educating Engineers for Creativity

The failure of engineering education to adequately address the need for creativity is reflected

in the 1996 report of the Alliance of Artists’ Communities (1996) which concluded, that

American creativity is at risk. The problem is not confined to the United States of America,

and goes beyond the artistic or aesthetic focus areas of the report. For example, employers

surveyed in Australia in 1999 noted that three-quarters of new university graduates there

show skill deficiencies in creativity, problem-solving, and independent and critical thinking.

Also in Australia, in 2013, the annual Graduate Outlook Survey12 indicates that “Critical

reasoning and analytical skills/Problem solving/Lateral thinking/Technical skills” is high on

the list of selection criteria for employers, and yet, when asked to rate the employability skills

of graduates actually hired in 2013, employers indicated that only 57.3% exceeded average

expectations in problem solving. Tilbury, Reid and Podger (2003) also reported on an

employer survey in Australia which concluded that Australian graduates lack creativity.

In the United Kingdom, Cooper, Altman and Garner (2002) concluded that the

education system discourages innovation. As an example, The British General Medical

Council noted that medical education is overloaded with factual material that discourages

higher order cognitive functions such as evaluation, synthesis and problem solving, and

engenders an attitude of passivity. Bateman (2013), meanwhile, reports on results of UK

employment survey data in the area of computer science and IT, suggesting that graduates in

this domain miss out on employment opportunities due to a lack of creativity.

A similar picture is reported widely in the United States in various sources. Articles in

Time and Forbes Magazines, for example, suggest that employers are frustrated by the fact

that new graduates are emerging from universities lacking skills in creativity and problem

solving.

12
http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Graduate_Outlook_2013.pdf

174
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

The problem is not unique to higher education. Over a period of decades, research has

shown that, while most teachers claim to have a positive attitude to creativity, in classrooms

in many different countries, properties and behaviours actually associated with creativity are

frequently frowned upon. The evidence summarized by Cropley (2001) is that teachers

discourage traits such as boldness, desire for novelty or originality, or even actively dislike

children who display such characteristics. Therefore, despite widespread calls for creativity,

there may be limited efforts to foster its emergence, or even dislike of people who display it.

The situation in engineering education seems to be no different. The United

Kingdom’s Royal Academy of Engineering published the report Creating Systems that Work:

Principles of Engineering Systems for the 21st Century in June 2007 (Elliott & Deasley,

2007). Among six principles that the report states are necessary for “understanding the

challenges of a system design problem and for educating engineers to rise to those

challenges” (p.11) is an ability to “be creative”. The report further recognizes the key role that

creativity plays in successful engineering and defines creativity as the ability “to devise novel

and … effective solutions to the real problem” (p. 4)! Baillie (2002) similarly noted an

“…increasing perception of the need for graduates of engineering to be creative thinkers…”

(p. 185).

Cropley and Cropley (2005) reviewed findings on fostering creativity in engineering

education in the United States of America, and concluded that there is little support for

creative students. It is true that there has been some effort in recent years to encourage

creativity in colleges and universities: For instance, in 1990 the National Science Foundation

(NSF) established the Engineering Coalition of Schools for Excellence and Leadership

(ECSEL). This had the goal of transforming undergraduate engineering education. However,

a subsequent review of practice throughout higher education in the United States (Fasko,

175
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

2001) pointed out that the available information indicated that deliberate training in creativity

was rare.

Kazerounian and Foley (2007) restate the fundamental problem: “If creativity is so

central to engineering, why is it not an obvious part of the engineering curriculum at every

university?” They suggested that this is because it is “not valued in contemporary engineering

education” (p. 762), but the problem runs deeper than that. Why is the compelling pressure for

creativity in engineering education largely ignored? Cropley (2015) suggests at least three

problems are causing creativity to be ignored in engineering education: (a) engineering

degrees are focused on narrow specializations; (b) teaching focuses too much on the

acquisition of factual knowledge; (c) educators lack a detailed understanding of creativity.

Solutions to these problems require many changes. A starting point is Sternberg

(2007) who outlined three things promote the habit of creativity (p. 3). These should serve as

general principles for curriculum and program design in engineering. First, students must

have the opportunity to engage in creativity. These must be embedded throughout programs

and courses in an integrated and mutually reinforcing manner. Second, students must receive

positive encouragement as they engage in tasks requiring creativity. Third, students must be

rewarded when they demonstrate the desired creativity.

Sternberg (2007) (p.8-15) further outlines twelve strategies (Table 8) that guide the

development of the creativity habit. This is not to suggest that every aspect of engineering

learning must be transformed. There will remain many areas of the curriculum that are best

served by convergent approaches – there is, after all, still only one right answer to the

question “what is 2+2?”. However, wherever practical, these strategies should be used to

guide the development of creativity as a desirable and vital graduate quality:

176
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Table 8: Twelve Keys for Developing the Creativity Habit (Sternberg, 2007)

Summary of Habit Key

Redefine Problems

Question and Analyse Assumptions

Do Not Assume that Creative Ideas Sell Themselves: Sell Them

Encourage Idea Generation

Recognize That Knowledge is a Double-Edged Sword and Act Accordingly

Encourage Children to Identify and Surmount Obstacles

Encourage Sensible Risk-Taking

Encourage Tolerance of Ambiguity

Help Children Build Self-Efficacy

Help Children Find What They Love to Do

Teach Children the Importance of Delaying Gratification

Provide an Environment That Fosters Creativity

There is a great deal needed to transform the understanding of creativity in

engineering, and to embed creativity in engineering education. An important starting point is

the recognition that creativity is already well defined, and that there is an accessible and

useful framework for understanding the factors that foster, and inhibit, creativity. Perhaps the

single most important factor for progress in engineering creativity is to avoid reinventing the

wheel, and to build on the body of knowledge – much of which sits in the discipline of

psychology – that has been developed since the late 1950s.

References

177
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Baillie, C. (2002). Enhancing creativity in engineering students. Engineering Science &

Education Journal, 11(5), 185-192.

Bateman, K. (2013, April 18, 2013). IT students miss out on roles due to lack of creativity.

ComputerWeekly.com.

Benson, C. (2004). Professor John Eggleston Memorial Lecture 2004-Creativity: Caught or

Taught? Journal of Design & Technology Education, 9(3), 138-144.

Blumrich, J. F. (1970). Design. Science, 168, 1551-1554.

Boden, M. A. (1994). What is creativity? In M. A. Boden (Ed.), Dimensions of creativity (pp.

75-118). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Brockman, J. B. (2009). Introduction to engineering: modeling and problem solving.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Buhl, H. R. (1960). Creative engineering design: Iowa State University Press.

Communities., A. o. A. (1996). American creativity at risk: Restoring creativity as a priority

in public policy, cultural philanthropy, and education. Retrieved from Portland, OR:

Cooper, C., Altman, W., & Garner, A. (2002). Inventing for Business success: Texere, Nueva

York.

Cropley, A. J. (1997). Creativity: A bundle of paradoxes. Gifted and Talented International,

12(1), 8-14.

Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in Education and Learning: A Guide for Teachers and

Educators. London, UK: Kogan Page.

Cropley, A. J. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3),

391-404.

Cropley, A. J., & Cropley, D. H. (2008). Resolving the paradoxes of creativity: An extended

phase model. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(3), 355-373.

178
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Cropley, A. J., & Cropley, D. H. (2009). Fostering creativity: A diagnostic approach for

education and organizations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Cropley, D. H. (2006). The role of creativity as a driver of innovation. Paper presented at the

IEEE International Conference on the Management of Information Technology,

Singapore.

Cropley, D. H. (2015). Creativity in engineering: Novel solutions to complex problems. San

Diego: Academic Press.

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept of

functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Faces of the Muse: How

People Think, Work and Act Creatively in Diverse Domains (pp. 169-185). Hillsdale:

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2011). Understanding value innovation in organizations: A

psychological framework. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving,

21(1), 17-36.

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2012). A psychological taxonomy of organizational

innovation: resolving the paradoxes. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 29-40.

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2013). Creativity and crime: A psychological approach.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Chiera, B. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Diagnosing

organizational innovation: Measuring the capacity for innovation. Creativity Research

Journal, 25(4), 388-396.

Cropley, D. H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Measuring functional creativity: Non-expert raters

and the creative solution diagnosis scale. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(2),

119-137.

179
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., & Cropley, A. J. (2011). Measuring creativity for innovation

management. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 6(3), 13-30.

Dickson, P. (2001). Sputnik: The shock of the century. USA.: Walker Publishing Company.

Dieter, G. E., & Schmidt, L. C. (2012). Engineering design (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-

Hill Higher Education.

Elliott, C., & Deasley, P. (Eds.). (2007). Creating systems that work: Principles of

engineering systems for the 21st century. London: The Royal Academy of

Engineering.

Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 317-327.

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.

Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its

cultivation (pp. 142-161). New York: Harper.

Horenstein, M. N. (2002). Design concepts for engineers (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kawenski, M. (1991). Encouraging creativity in design. The Journal of Creative Behavior,

25(3), 263-266.

Kazerounian, K., & Foley, S. (2007). Barriers to creativity in engineering education: A study

of instructors and students perceptions. Journal of Mechanical Design, 129, 761-768.

MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness: Identifying and developing

creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.

McWilliam, E., Dawson, S., & Tan, J. P.-L. (2011). Less elusive, more explicit. The

challenge of ‘seeing’creativity in action. In P. Thomson & J. Sefton-Green (Eds.),

Researching creative learning: methods and issues (pp. 113-125). London: Routledge.

180
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of creativity. Psychological Review, 69, 220-

232.

Mokyr, J. (1990). The lever of riches: Technological creativity and economic progress. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Morgan, D. N. (1953). Creativity today: A constructive analytic review of certain

philosophical and psychological Work. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,

12(1), 1-24.

Olken, H. (1964). Creativity training for engineers - its past, present and future. International

Association for Engineering Education Transactions in Education, 149-161.

Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to

educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity

research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83-96.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310.

Sprecher, T. B. (1959). A study of engineers' criteria for creativity. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 43(2), 141-148.

Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and

Applied, 36, 311-322.

Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Creativity as a habit. In A.-G. Tan (Ed.), Creativity: A handbook for

teachers (pp. 3-25). Singapore: World Scientific.

Tilbury, D., Reid, A., & Podger, D. (2003). Action research for university staff: changing

curricula and graduate skills towards sustainability, Stage 1 Report. Retrieved from

Canberra:

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.

INDEX Terms

Convergent Thinking

181
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016) Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza and S. Agnoli
(Eds.), Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking, Chapter 10 (pp. 155-173), London,
UK: Springer.

Creativity

Design

Divergent Thinking

Education

Effectiveness

Elegance

Engineering

Genesis

Habit

Innovation

Novelty

Paradox

Person

Phases

Press

Process

Product

Sputnik

Technology

182
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Creativity and Culture in Engineering

David H Cropley

University of South Australia

Abstract

This chapter explores creativity and culture in the domain of engineering. I begin by

recognising that culture is a label for the attitudes, motives, values and beliefs shared by an

organisation. In the literature of creativity, these equate to the 4Ps framework – Person,

Product, Process and Press. A creativity culture, therefore, is definable by a particular

combination of the 4Ps.

I then recognise that creativity in organisations occurs as a series of stages leading to

innovation. The culture that supports this process is fluid – the attitudes, motives, etc., that

support innovation change from one stage to the next. From this, a cultural baseline is

defined – what aspects of the 4Ps support the generation and exploitation of ideas in an

organisation, at each stage of the process?

I then turn to engineering creativity and innovation. How does the culture of

engineering organisations align to the generic cultural baseline for innovation? I will discuss

aspects of the 4Ps that are unique to engineering organisations, and ask if these align

favourably to the generic cultural baseline. Are engineering organisations well aligned to the

culture required for successful creativity and innovation, or not? Are particular aspects of the

engineering culture helping, or hindering, creativity and innovation in engineering

organisations?

183
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Introduction

Culture can be interpreted in a variety of ways, not least in the literature on creativity. Lubart

(2010), for example, cites House and Javidan (2004) who described culture as a set of

“…shared motives, values, beliefs and identities…that result from common experiences of

members of collectives…” (p. 15), while Puccio and Cabra (2010) subsume culture as a

component of the broader creative work environment (see Figure 1), defining organisational

culture as a set of “…values, traditions and beliefs…” (p. 155) that is specific to a particular

organisation.

The Creative Work Environment

National Culture

External Environment

Organisational Culture

Organisational Structures

Climate

Physical Space

Figure 1: Components of the Creative Work Environment

At the same time, creativity research has also focused considerable attention on the

so-called Press – variously referred to in terms of environment or climate, and differentiated

in terms of the external, social environment, and the internal, organisational environment

(e.g. Cropley, 2015). As Puccio and Cabra (2010) note, however, the terms culture and

climate are frequently used interchangeably. This blurring of terms may have the effect of

184
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

focusing discussions of culture too narrowly on the Press, in the tradition of the 4Ps (e.g.,

Rhodes, 1961; Barron, 1969), with the result that studies of creativity and culture lose sight of

the role that Person, Product and Process play in shaping, and being shaped by, “the way that

things are done around here” (Lundy & Cowling, 1996, p. 168).

To make this point more explicit – the study of creativity and culture is more than the

study of the Press. A formal definition of culture makes this clear. The Collins Concise

Dictionary (2001) defines culture as “…the attitudes and general behaviour of a particular

social group, profession, etc.” Creativity and culture in engineering is therefore a study of all

facets of creativity – Person, Product, Process and Press – as they pertain to the practice of

engineering.

Lubart (2010) described three aspects of culture and creativity, the first of which is of

special relevance to the present discussion: “does creativity mean the same thing in different

[organisational] cultural settings?” (p. 266). I answer this question, in relation to an

engineering cultural setting, in five stages:

1. By recognising that creativity is a key driver of the wider process of innovation;

a. In particular, innovation involves a series of stages, and can be described as

paradoxical with regard to the 4Ps.

2. By defining a universal cultural baseline of Person, Product, Process and Press across

the innovation process;

a. This model describes the particular blend of 4Ps that favour innovation at each

stage of the innovation process.

3. By describing the way creativity is done in the engineering domain to show that it is a

special case of a more general process of innovation;

a. It would be unreasonable to expect engineering cultures to align to innovation

cultures if the two domains did not overlap. However, if engineering is a

185
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

special case of the innovation process, then it is not unreasonable to examine

the relationship between the two cultures.

4. By defining a typical engineering culture in terms of the 4Ps;

a. What is the typical engineering culture described in terms of the 4Ps, and

therefore relatable to the more general innovation culture?

5. By examining the alignment of engineering cultures to the generic innovation culture;

a. Is the typical engineering culture actually well-aligned to innovation? If not,

where are the points of difference, and how can these be addressed?

In this way I will be able to establish a basis for studying if, and how, creativity in

engineering (i.e., innovation) differs from creativity in other cultural contexts.

Creativity in Organisations: The Process of Innovation

In organisational settings, creativity is rarely simply the process of ideation or divergent

thinking. Rather, creativity is the front-end of a larger and more complex process of

innovation. Roberts (1988), for example, divided innovation into two stages or phases:

invention and exploitation. Invention was characterised as the generation of novel products

and processes – ideas, in other words – and is thus synonymous with creativity. Exploitation,

on the other hand, was seen as the implementation of these ideas. Bledow et al. (2009) made a

similar distinction and explicitly linked the first phase (invention) to creativity. D. H. Cropley

and Cropley (2010) distinguished between the generation of effective novelty (i.e. creativity)

and the exploitation of effective novelty (i.e. innovation). These sources help to make two

points clear. First, creativity is a necessary, but not sufficient, part of innovation. Second,

innovation is a process that consists of at least two distinct phases.

In fact, the process of generating and implementing ideas – innovation – has a history

that pre-dates the modern creativity era and its catalyst (Guilford, 1950). Prindle (1906), for

example, studied inventors, concluding that every invention is the result of a series of small,

186
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

compounding and linked steps. Wallas (1926), in probably the best known example,

developed a more sophisticated model of seven phases: encounter (a problem or challenge is

identified), preparation (information is gathered), concentration (an effort is made to solve the

problem), incubation (ideas churn in the person’s head), illumination (what seems to be a

solution becomes apparent), verification (the individual checks out the apparent solution),

and persuasion (the individual attempts to convince others that the product really does solve

the problem). Rossman (1931) formalised the steps in a comparable fashion, proposing seven

phases: observation of a need or difficulty, analysis of the need, survey of all available

information, formulation of all objectively possible solutions, critical analysis of these

solutions for their advantages and disadvantages, the birth of new ideas, and experimentation

to test out the most promising idea. Applying these concepts to a particular field of activity,

Hadamard (1945), writing about the psychology of invention in the field of mathematics,

identified four phases of invention: preparation, incubation, illumination, and precising.

More recently, D. H. Cropley and Cropley (2012) drew these together to illustrate the

relationship between creativity and innovation, and the stages that are relevant to the

generation and exploitation of novel and effective ideas (Table 1).

Table 1: The Stages of the Innovation Process

Phase Key Features Characterisation

Preparation Knowledge acquisition; problem Invention (Creativity)

recognition

Activation Problem definition and refinement

Generation Development of a broad range of

possible solutions

Illumination Identification of a subset of

promising solutions

Verification Selection of a single, optimal

solution

187
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Communication Development of a working Exploitation

prototype

Validation Implementation of the finished

product

Therefore, to understand creativity in an organisational context, not least in

engineering, requires us to understand that creativity forms part of a larger process –

innovation – comprised of a number of distinct stages.

A Dynamic Innovation Culture

In addition to developing a characterisation of the innovation process in terms of a series of

stages involving idea generation and idea exploitation, D. H. Cropley and Cropley (2012,

2015) and Cropley et al (2013) drew on Csikszentmihalyi’s (2006) conclusion that the

creative process includes distinct phases that draw on different psychological resources, to

create a model of the intersection of the 4Ps with each phase (Table 2). In fact, the model

expanded the traditional 4Ps into a more detailed 6Ps by giving greater weight to the

components of the Person – namely motivation, personal properties and feelings. Thus, not

only is creativity in an organisational setting characterised as a series of stages or phases, but

each phase has a unique profile of Person, Product, Process and Press factors that tend to

favour innovation, in that phase. Therefore, an ideal innovation culture – the attitudes and

general behaviours of a particular group, in a particular setting – can be expressed as a

dynamic series of changing values – expressed, for simplicity, as dichotomous poles – of

Person, Product, Process and Press, specific to each phase of the innovation process (Table

2).

188
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture
Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Table 2: Innovation Phases and the 4Ps

Invention (Creativity) Exploitation

Poles Preparation Activation Generation Illumination Verification Communication Validation

Convergent Convergent Convergent Convergent Convergent

Process versus Mixed
Divergent Divergent Divergent

Reactive Reactive Reactive

Personal
versus Mixed Mixed
Motivation
Proactive Proactive Proactive Proactive

Adaptive Adaptive Adaptive Adaptive Adaptive

Personal
versus
Properties
Innovative Innovative Innovative Innovative

Conserving Conserving Conserving Conserving Conserving

Personal
versus
Feelings
Generative Generative Generative Generative

Routine versus Routine Routine Routine Routine

Product
Creative Creative Creative Creative

High Demand High High High High

Press versus Low
Demand Low Low Low

189
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

The key to understanding creativity and culture is therefore to understand the

paradoxical nature of innovation and the psychological resources that drive it. Innovation is

not simply a one-size-fits-all process in which favourable aspects of the 4Ps are uniformly

favourable. Instead, different states of the 4Ps – convergent thinking or divergent thinking,

for example – take on special significance depending on the particular phase of the process

that is active at any given point in time. Culture, insofar as it represents a snapshot of those

poles of the 4Ps, is similarly dynamic in nature. In simple terms, the culture that favours

innovation during the phase of generation, for example, is very different from the culture that

favours innovation during the phase of verification (see Table 2). Indeed, we might describe

the culture of innovation as, in fact, a system of phase-related sub-cultures.

It follows, therefore, that to understand creativity and culture in engineering, we must

compare a typical engineering culture, expressed in terms of the 4Ps, with the dynamic

innovation culture characterised in Table 2.

Engineering as Innovation

Although it is implicit in this discussion, some further explanation of why engineering and

creativity/innovation can be compared in terms of culture is warranted. A key to

understanding the intersection of creativity and culture in engineering is identifying what it is

that engineers do? What is the common, unifying purpose that defines the activity called

engineering? There is a consistent answer to this question. Jensen (2006), for example, says

that “Engineers solve problems” (p. 17). This process defines steps that include the ability to:

 understand and define the problem;

 apply standard approaches to solving the problem;

 “supplement the standard solution methods with creativity and insight” (p. 18).

Burghardt (1995) described the engineering profession as one “devoted to the creative

solution of problems” (p. 2), while Horenstein (2002) takes a different tack, explaining that

190
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

“design” is what engineers do (p. 22), and that “design can be defined as any activity that

results in the synthesis of something that meets a need” (p. 22). Brockman (2009), in

comparison, also links engineering to needs-driven problem solving, noting that problems

arise from a drive to “satisfy mankind’s complex needs and desires” (p. 3). Buhl (1960)

stated that “a designer is one who satisfies mankind’s needs through new answers to old

problems.” (p. 9). He continued this theme stating that “The designer must deliberately create

new products and processes which will fulfil mankind’s needs. He must be creative in all

stages of problem solution.” (p. 9-10).

Before we can examine this match between theory and practice, we must first

acknowledge that, in an engineering setting in particular, it is difficult to separate creativity

(in the sense of the generation of effective novelty) from innovation (in the sense of the

exploitation of effective novelty). Creativity is a necessary, but not sufficient, component of a

complex and non-linear process of developing technological solutions to the needs and

problems of humankind. Therefore, understanding creativity and culture in engineering

requires us to understand innovation.

While it is true to say that engineering encompasses many varied activities, an

essential core – indeed, a defining characteristic – of engineering is design. Dieter and

Schmidt (2012) remind us that “… it is true that the professional practice of engineering is

largely concerned with design; it is often said that design is the essence of engineering” (p.1).

Citing Blumrich (1970), they characterize the process of design as “to pull together

something new or to arrange existing things in a new way to satisfy a recognized need of

society” (p.1). Dieter and Schmidt (2012) describe the essence of design as synthesis.

Horenstein (2002) contrasted design with other essential activities in engineering by

focusing on the process of solving problems. He stated that “If only one answer to a problem

exists, and finding it merely involved putting together the pieces of the puzzle, then the

191
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

activity is probably analysis … if more than one solution exists, and if deciding upon a

suitable path demands being creative, making choices, performing tests, iterating and

evaluating, then the activity is most certainly design. Design can include analysis, but it must

also involve at least one of these latter elements” (p.23). The core of engineering practice is

therefore design, but that design activity involves two stages: a stage of creative synthesis,

followed by a stage of logical analysis. The first stage is synonymous with divergent thinking

(Guilford, 1950), while the second is synonymous with convergent thinking. This may be

illustrated as shown in Figure 3 and we usually think of this process proceeding, as illustrated

from left to right.

X1
…
Problem/Need Solution = X3
…
Xn

Divergent Thinking Convergent Thinking

Figure 3: Convergence and Divergence in Problem Solving

The key point of this discussion is that engineering – characterized especially as

design – is, like innovation, a process of stages. Not only that, but the stages are largely

identical across the two activities (see Cropley, 2015 for a full discussion). Engineering can

be thought of as a special case of the more general process of creative problem solving, or,

innovation.

Engineering Culture

In order to address Lubart’s (2010) fundamental question “does creativity mean the same

thing in different [organisational] cultural settings?” (p. 266), it is first necessary to

characterise the typical engineering culture. To facilitate comparisons with the generic

192
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

innovation culture described previously (i.e. Table 2), the typical engineering culture,

inasmuch as it can be identified, can now be expressed using the framework of the 4Ps.

However, one of the difficulties in drawing comparisons between a psychologically-oriented

model of innovation (the 4Ps), and the extant culture of engineering, is that the respective

constructs and terminology can be significantly different. Nevertheless, it seems possible to

identify, in engineering literature, research that examines three categories that relate to

engineering culture:

1. The characteristics of engineering people – in particular, gender;

2. The characteristics of the engineering profession – especially, cognitive style, and;

3. The characteristics of engineering places – most notably, management culture.

These may then be mapped onto to the psychologically-oriented 4Ps, to facilitate the

comparison on engineering cultures and the more general culture of innovation (Table 3).

Table 3: Elements of Cultures

Elements of Engineering The Engineering Engineering

Engineering Culture People Profession Places

Elements of Person Process Product Press

Innovation Culture

Engineering People

It is difficult, in any discussion of engineering and culture, to overlook the influence of

gender. The purpose of this chapter is not to explore the underlying issues that have given

rise to a profession, and therefore a culture, dominated by males (Frome, Alfeld, Eccles, &

Barber, 2006; Jagacinski, 1987; McIlwee & Robinson, 1992; Robinson & Mcllwee, 1991),

rather, this pervasive cultural characteristic is taken as fact, and used as a basis for

discussions of culture in the context of engineering and innovation.

193
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Perhaps the most importance consequence of the male-dominated nature of

engineering cultures is revealed by research on creativity and gender. Cropley (2002), for

example, explored creativity and gender from a general, psychological perspective along the

lines already outlined. He began by listing personal characteristics thought to be linked to

creativity independent of domain (Table 4).

Table 4: General Personal Characteristics Associated with Creativity

Motivation Personality Social skills

 goal directedness  openness  team work

 persistence  flexibility  willingness to go it alone
 curiosity  independence  willingness to risk
 risk taking  acceptance of things looking foolish
 curiosity that are “different”  communication skills
 unwillingness simply to  self-image as  confidence in a group
carry out orders innovative and daring  willingness to admit not
 desire to do things  tolerance for ambiguity having an answer
differently  sensitivity to problems  low level of respect for
 drive to reveal one’s own  mental toughness “sacred cows”
unusual ideas to others  autonomy  willingness to be
 mastery drive  self-centeredness disrespectful to authority
 desire for acclaim  intuitiveness  willingness to risk
 playfulness hurting people’s feelings

These characteristics were then used as the basis for an analysis of the relationship of

gender and creativity. As psychological categories, male and female are probably best

regarded as stereotypes – they describe common and general patterns, but are neither all-

encompassing nor exclusive, and are shaped by culture such that they can be regarded as

socially constructed (Lorber, 1991). However, accepting these labels as reasonable

descriptors for the purposes of the present discussion, it can be argued that differences exist

between males and females, with regard to creativity. Lipman-Blumen’s (1996) distinction

between male and female “achieving styles”, for example, suggests that there are

194
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

characteristics of cognition and personality that are stereotypically male or female. Table 5

summarizes a selection of these. The contents of the table are based on discussions in

Millward and Freeman (2002), Powell (1993) and Schein (1994), and strongly reflect the

analysis of Maccoby and Jacklin (1974), however, these are mapped into categories more

reminiscent of the 4Ps for the purposes of this chapter.

Table 5: Personal Characteristics Associated with Male and Female Stereotypes

Female Male
- concrete - abstract
- narrowly focused - broadly focused
Cognition
- convergent - divergent
- intuitive - logical
- irresolute - persistent
- seeks security (avoids risks) - takes risks
Motivation - seeks to avoid failure - seeks success
- reactive - proactive
- pursues long-term goals - pursues short-term goals
- cautious - daring
- empathic - egocentric
- timid - aggressive
Personality - sensitive - insensitive
- oriented towards feelings - oriented towards ideas
- lacking self-confidence - self-confident
- responsible - adventurous
- people-oriented - task-oriented
- wants to be liked - wants to be respected
- communicative - taciturn
Social
- slow to come forward - seeks limelight
Properties
- allows herself to be dominated - tries to dominate others
- gives in to authority - challenges authority
- fears criticism - fights back when criticized

The key point, for a discussion of engineering culture and creativity/innovation, is that

when the general characteristics associated with creativity (Table 4) are mapped onto the

stereotypes of males and females (Table 5), it appears that the male stereotype aligns to the

characteristics associated with creativity better than the female stereotype! There are several

195
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

important issues associated with this that have a direct bearing on the discussion of creativity

and culture in engineering:

1. Engineering is male-dominated, and there appears to be a male stereotype of

creativity – a typical constellation of attitudes and behaviours;

2. However, creativity is embedded in a broader process of innovation;

3. Therefore, the male stereotype that appears favourable when restricted to creativity

may be unfavourable when applied in the broader context of innovation.

Of course, the issue of stereotypes is more complex both in relation to creativity, and

engineering, than it is possible to convey here. Stereotypes are heavily influenced and, in fact,

determined by the social and, in the case of engineering, organizational environments (Press).

Stereotypes exert a strong influence on aspects of experience, such as the way boys and girls

are educated or treated by their parents, and by society. Millward and Freeman (2002) linked

society’s stereotypes of male and female directly to management by drawing attention to

evidence indicating that the stereotypes have consequences for the way female managers are

regarded by their seniors (and thus for factors like authority and promotion), as well as for

females’ actual management behaviour. In fact, Schein (1994) concluded that the stereotypes

exert a drag on female managers from the very beginning of their careers. It has been

suggested (Cropley, 2015) that in engineering these stereotypes play a negative role even

before a female embarks on an engineering career, and may be the single most important

factor in the poor participation rates by women in engineering degrees, and subsequent

engineering careers. An important mechanism through which stereotypes affect the behaviour

of females and males is also role expectations. Scott and Bruce (1994) showed that these

expectations have direct effects on creative behaviour. For instance, not only do male

managers expect their female colleagues to avoid risks, but the women too are familiar with

the stereotype and the associated role expectations, and often tend to behave accordingly.

196
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Lipman-Blumen (1996) carried out an extensive analysis of male-female stereotypes

and the way males and females are shaped into different achieving styles during the process

of psychological development. There are a number of psychological mechanisms that could

lead people to acquire existing stereotypes:

 imitation (Bandura, 1962);

 identification with the same gender parent who conforms to the stereotype (Hoffman,

1971);

 differential reinforcement by parents, teachers and the like of what are perceived as

gender appropriate behaviours (Fagot & Leinbach, 1993), or

 the view that acquisition of clear gender roles is vital for healthy psychological

development (Kohlberg, 1966).

Thus, even if they are no more than stereotypes, a society’s ideas on gender can affect

not only what others regard as normal in men and women, what duties women are assigned,

and so on, but also, through internalization of the stereotypes by women themselves, what

ambitions they develop, what kind of management behaviour they exhibit, and what careers

they choose. More recent research has also addressed this issue through the construct

stereotype threat (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999). One obvious conclusion from this is that

the benefits that might be gained from the qualities and characteristics of the minority of

female engineers are lost – female participation fails to reach a threshold level that might

overcome the negative effects of stereotypes.

For the present discussion, the important outcome of a discussion of gender,

creativity, innovation and engineering is that what at first might appear to be an advantage (a

male-dominated profession apparently replete with the characteristics that favour creativity)

is, at best, an advantage in some phases of innovation and, at worst, a serious disadvantage in

other phases of innovation.

197
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

It is also interesting to look at empirical evidence for relationships between gender,

personality, creativity and engineering. Williamson, Lounsbury, and Han (2013), for example,

conducted a large study of both engineers and non-engineers, examining specific personality

characteristics, many of which are relevant to discussions of creativity. Although there are

limitations on the generalizations that can be drawn from the study, it is noteworthy that the

sample of engineers (n=4,876) was comprised of 3,998 males (82%). The study used the

Personal Style Inventory (Lounsbury & Gibson, 1998) to assess a number of relevant aspects of

personal properties, motivation and feelings. When comparing the male-dominated engineers to

a very large sample of non-engineers (for which no demographic breakdown is given beyond

n=75,892), it is possible to conclude that the engineers were significantly more intrinsically

motivated and tough-minded, and equally open-minded and adept at team work as the non-

engineers. Without drawing unwarranted conclusions, these data do suggest that the male-

dominated engineer sample is distinctly different from the non-engineer sample. In many ways,

this is sufficient to make the point that a culture dominated by one gender (engineering) has a

profile of personal characteristics that may align to aspects of those characteristics that favour

some phases of innovation, but not others. In other words, in the context of innovation, a male-

dominated culture is likely to be both a blessing and a curse. In practical terms, this means that

the culture of engineering organisations is facilitatory, in certain phases, but inhibiting in others.

The Engineering Profession

Along with the characteristics of the Engineer – the Person – another important factor

shaping engineering culture is the character of profession itself and the manner in which it is

passed on to those entering the profession. Despite efforts to embed creativity, innovation and

other associated attributes in engineering curricula (e.g. Radcliffe, 2005), and despite the

considerable attention among employer groups, professional bodies and accreditation

agencies (see Cropley, 2015 for a discussion of this issue in relation to engineering), it is also

198
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

acknowledged (Kazerounian & Foley, 2007) that creativity has largely failed to make its way

into the engineering curriculum.

Cropley (2015) offers at least three reasons for this disconnect between creativity and

engineering, each largely stemming from issues in the way that engineers are educated:

 A problem of overspecialisation – a narrow and deep focus on particular engineering

specialisations, leaving little room for creativity, and other associated competencies;

 A problem of pseudo-expertise – a focus on factual, declarative knowledge at the

expense of the conditional and procedural knowledge needed to develop genuine,

adaptive expertise that drives professional engineering creativity;

 A problem of a lack of knowledge – simply put, a poor understanding about creativity

among educators, and a preponderance of unchallenged myths. Engineers don’t

understand what makes something and someone creative, and therefore don’t know

how to develop creativity in others.

From the perspective of the engineering profession, encompassing education,

employers, professional bodies, and so on, the resulting engineering culture, at least as it

relates to creativity and innovation, is convergent and analytical. I have suggested elsewhere

(Cropley, in press) that the dominance of a reductionist, analytical mindset in engineering is

driving the problems identified above, and leading to the development of i-shaped

professionals (and not the desired T-shaped professionals describe, for example, by Oskam

(2009)). There is substantial, and long-standing, evidence to support the existence of a

predominant cognitive style in engineering that favours some phases of innovation, but

inhibits others. Kolb and Wolfe (1981), more than 30 years ago, described this as the

professional deformation of engineers (p. ii), recognising that the mentality of the profession

could lead to an undesirable inflexibility in cognitive style. More recently, Lumsdaine and

Lumsdaine (1995) noted a strong preference for a logical, analytical thinking style among

199
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

engineering faculty, and their data suggested that students shifted away from a preference for

creative thinking over the four years of their engineering degrees.

Like case of gender, the practical result of this dominant professional cognitive style

is a culture that is reasonably well-aligned to some of the phases of innovation – those where

convergence is favourable – but misaligned to others, where divergent thinking is required.

Engineering Places

The third element that characterises an engineering culture is the place where the activity

occurs. The environment, of course, has a number of levels, as alluded to earlier (Puccio &

Cabra, 2010) – ranging from the broad, social environment to the more immediate

organisational environment. One aspect of the latter that is important for shaping engineering

culture is the management culture.

Schein (1996) discusses management cultures in the context of differences between

three sub-cultures: executives, engineers and operators. Of particular interest for the present

discussion are his “assumptions of the engineering culture” (p. 14). These include:

 “Engineers prefer linear, simple cause-and-effect, quantitative thinking”;

 “Engineers are safety oriented and overdesign for safety” (p. 14).

The key is, once again, the identification of a general engineering culture with

specific characteristics that impact directly on creativity and innovation. Schein’s

assumptions tie the engineering culture back to a pattern that is analytical in thinking and

risk-averse in nature, and focused on “designing humans out of the systems rather than into

them.” (p. 14).

Kunda (1986) presents other examples of the environment of an engineering

organization shaping culture and impacting on innovation. Discussing organizational

structure specifically, and citing findings from an ethnographic field study of the engineering

division of a large, high-tech firm, he notes a “…vague, decentralized, chaotic…” (p. 20)

200
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

structure that contributed to “…an aura of ambiguity that, depending on context, is either

celebrated as a source of creativity, or seen as a pain in the neck.” (p. 21). Furthermore,

describing orthogonal formal and informal reporting structures and their impact on individual

and group responsibilities, Kunda (1986) notes a “…highly political and rapidly shifting

social environment that many agree characterizes the industry, its organizations and

personalities.” (p. 25).

Kunda (1986) also describes aspects of the social nature of the work environment in

his study of the engineering firm. Engineers enjoy different levels of status, depending on the

kind of work they do. “Development of new products is the glamorous work. This is seen as

the essence of creative engineering.” (p. 26), while “Other engineering groups in the

Engineering division are involved in lower status support activities…” (p. 27). Flowing on

from this is a variety of incentives and pressures that, echoing Lundy and Cowling (1996),

directly impact on how engineering innovation actually gets done. The practical consequence,

once again, is a culture in engineering organizations that aligns quite well to some phases of

the innovation, but equally, is misaligned to others.

Although the picture is complex and multi-faceted, it is clear an engineering culture

can be identified with particular characteristics that can be expressed in terms of the people,

the profession and the places of engineering. More specifically, this culture can be translated

into a form that is readily comparable to a psychologically-oriented model of innovation,

expressed in terms of the 4Ps – Person, Process, Product and Press. The picture that is

emerging, however, is one of a mismatch between an engineering culture defined by a fairly

static constellation of particular values of the 4Ps, and an innovation culture that is

characterised by a dynamic blend of phase-dependent sub-cultures.

The (Mis)Alignment of Engineering and Innovation Cultures

201
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

It is now apparent that there are significant points of difference between a typical engineering

culture – the framework of the values, motives, attitudes and beliefs – expressed in terms of

the 4Ps, and the culture associated with innovation. This is all the more surprising given the

general similarity between engineering and innovation – both are focused on the generation

and exploitation of effective novelty.

The explanation for this mismatch lies in the fact that the innovation culture defined

in Table 2 is a theoretical ideal. This is how innovation should happen. In contrast, the typical

engineering culture identified in previous sections – male-dominated, overly convergent,

often risk-averse, linear and quantitative – is only one instantiation of how innovation

actually happens.

We can identify at least three ways in which the real and the theoretical cultures

misalign. The static, engineering culture is characterised by a particular kind of person. That

person is likely to be male, and while reasonably open-minded and motivated, he prefers

analytical approaches to problems that seek to discover the one-right-answer that must exist.

While this is ideal for a phase like Verification (see Table 6, shaded column), it will be

obvious that an organisation full of such people will also struggle, for example, with the

Generation phase.

In a similar fashion, the static, engineering culture is characterised by a particular

process – convergent thinking. This is likely to have been ingrained in the mind of the

engineer as part of his education. He has been taught to prefer unambiguous, well-defined

problems that involve finding the right answer, eliminating uncertainty and minimising risk.

As was the case with personality factors, this is ideal for a phase like Verification, but not for

a phase that requires divergent thinking. Even if the organisation itself recognises the need

for divergent thinking, it is constrained by the ability of its engineers to adapt to the styles of

thinking that favour innovation in all phases.

202
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Finally, the static, engineering culture is characterised by a management culture that

often reinforces attitudes and behaviours that favour only some phases. Not only is creativity

psychologically challenging for many individuals – requiring openness, tolerance for

ambiguity and so on – it is also challenging for managers responsible for the activities of the

organisation. If tolerance for uncertainty makes an individual psychologically uncomfortable,

it makes a manager financially and temporally uncomfortable. Organisations are usually

constrained by resource pressures – time and money – and creativity, as Amabile (1996) has

demonstrated, needs adequate resources. Engineering cultures therefore are more likely to be

characterised by a high-demand management environment. Deadlines must be met, budgets

not exceeded, and scarce resources used efficiently. This high-demand environment will

facilitate some phases – once again, Verification, to take one example – but will hinder

efforts in other phases – Generation, again – that are best served by a low-demand

management environment.

The practical implication of this misalignment is clear. The engineering culture that is

well-represented by the constellation of ideal values in the phase Verification extends

outwards to other phases in a practical, engineering setting (see Table 6. Where that

constellation aligns, either wholly, or largely, with the ideal innovation culture, as it does in

Verification, as well as Preparation, Communication and Validation, then innovation is

facilitated. However, where the engineering culture fails, wholly or largely, to align

(indicated by the crossed out terms in Table 6), as is the case in Activation, Generation, and

Illumination, then innovation is hindered.

One of the key questions posed early in this chapter was how creativity differs in

engineering from other cultural contexts. The answer lies in the fact that engineering should

be an outstanding example of how the generation of effective and novel ideas – creativity –

feeds a wider process of exploitation and implementation – innovation. The point of

203
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

differences arises in how the theoretical ideals of innovation are realised by the day-to-day

realities and constraints of engineering. Real-world engineering has evolved with many

constraints that serve to block some parts of the innovation process. However, creativity itself

is really no different in engineering compared to any other cultural context – the differences

lie in everyday constraints that each cultural context builds for itself. The key to successful

creativity, and innovation, is being able to recognise those constraints for what they are, and

either remove them – for example, by breaking down the gender bias in engineering – or to

steer around them by adapting the culture to stay aligned with the ideal.

204
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture
Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Table 6: The (Mis)Alignment of Engineering and Innovation Cultures

Invention (Creativity) Exploitation

Poles Preparation Activation Generation Illumination Verification Communication Validation

Convergent Convergent Convergent Convergent Convergent Convergent

Process versus
Divergent Divergent Divergent Mixed

Reactive Reactive Reactive

Personal Mixed
Motivation
versus Mixed Mixed Mixed
Proactive Proactive Proactive Proactive

Adaptive Adaptive Adaptive Adaptive Adaptive

Personal Adaptive
versus
Properties
Innovative Innovative Innovative Innovative

Conserving Conserving Conserving Conserving Conserving

Personal Conserving
versus
Feelings
Generative Generative Generative Generative

Routine versus Routine Routine Routine Routine Routine

Product Creative
Creative Creative Creative

High Demand High High High High

High
Press versus Low
Demand Low Low Low

205
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Summary

Many engineering organisations may feel justified in thinking that their performance with

respect to innovation is fair, or even good. One-size-fits-all models of innovation – what’s

good for innovation is always good for innovation – do nothing to dispel or challenge this

belief. However, many engineering organisations may be like the proverbial statistician

whose head is in an oven, and whose feet are in a refrigerator. On average, things feel quite

comfortable! However, in this chapter I have explained that the paradoxical nature of

innovation – in effect, a succession of phase-related sub-cultures – means that many

engineering organisations are underperforming with respect to innovation. Probably the most

pervasive reason for this misalignment is the male-dominated nature of the engineering

profession. From this particular structural characteristic stems a unique profile of personal,

psychological attitudes and behaviours, cognitive style, organisational climate and

management style, influenced by the way engineers are taught, and how they judge and value

creativity and innovation. Where this profile naturally aligns to innovation, engineering

organisations perform well. However, across the full spectrum of the innovation process, it is

almost axiomatic that the engineering culture that is doing well in some phases must be doing

badly in others.

How is this issue to be resolved? There are many possible approaches, each with

merits. A great deal of attention has been given, in recent years, to shifting the emphasis in

engineering education to the achievement of outcomes expressed in terms of broad sets of

graduate qualities (e.g. Radcliffe, 2005; Walther & Radcliffe, 2007; Walther, Kellam,

Sochacka & Radcliffe, 2011). In other words, change the attitudes and behaviours of the men

entering the engineering profession to align better to the requirements for successful

innovation. This is certainly one possible way to tackle the problem. Equally valid, however,

206
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

and perhaps far more beneficial, is to fix the structural problem that constrains engineering

cultures.

Rebalancing gender in the engineering profession is about far more than equity. A

recent report – Innovation by Design: The Case for Investing in Women – published by the

Anita Borg Institute (2014) highlights research findings which make a compelling case that

“diversity powers innovation” (p. 5). Two key advantages of diversity stand out for

engineering organisations:

 Increased innovation;

 Better problem solving and group performance.

In terms of engineering cultures, and the alignment to an innovation culture, I have

already established why this should be the case. Many of the misalignments identified earlier

– those phases where the 4Ps of a typical engineering organisation fail to align to the ideal –

stem from the influence of the male-dominated gender bias of engineering organisations. The

same misalignments could be addressed not by trying to change the male engineer to be more

stereotypically female at certain points in the process, but instead to draw on the strengths that

female engineers and managers could bring to the culture.

A reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this chapter is that a typical

engineering culture, characterised in in terms of the 4Ps – Person, Process, Product and Press

– suffers from significant misalignments when compared to a generic innovation culture. In

other words, the attitudes and general behaviours of this particular profession, constrained as

they are by structural factors like gender, are not uniformly favourable to the attitudes and

behaviours required for successful innovation. However, that statement masks important

details. While on average engineering cultures may exhibit modest, or even quite good,

alignment, the paradoxical nature of innovation – what’s good for innovation in one phase

may be bad for innovation in another phase – means that typical engineering cultures are

207
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

strong at some aspects of innovation, but weak at others. The solution, driven by a recognition

that a problem exists, lies in more effective engineering education, better diversity, and more

dynamic approaches to managing the innovation process.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bandura, A. (1962). Social learning through imitation. In M. R. E. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska

Symposium on Motivation (pp. 211-269). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Barron, F. X. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston.

Blumrich, J. F. (1970). Design. Science, 168, 1551-1554.

Brockman, J. B. (2009). Introduction to engineering: modeling and problem solving.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Buhl, H. R. (1960). Creative engineering design: Iowa State University Press.

Burghardt, M. D. (1995). Introduction to the Engineering Profession. (2nd ed.). New York,

NY: HarperCollins College Publishers.

Cropley, A. J. (2002). Creativity and innovation: Men’s business or women’s work? Baltic

Journal of Psychology, 3, 77-88.

Cropley, D. H. (2015). Creativity in engineering: Novel solutions to complex problems. San

Diego: Academic Press.

Cropley, D. H. (in press). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R. Beghetto &

J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2010). Functional creativity: products and the generation of

effective novelty. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge

handbook of creativity (pp. 301-317). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

208
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2012). A psychological taxonomy of organizational

innovation: resolving the paradoxes. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 29-40.

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2015). The psychology of innovation in organizations. New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Chiera, B. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Diagnosing

organizational innovation: Measuring the capacity for innovation. Creativity Research

Journal, 25(4), 388-396.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2006). Foreword: Developing creativity. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M.

Shaw, & J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative

curriculum (pp. xviii-xx). London: Routledge.

Dieter, G. E., & Schmidt, L. C. (2012). Engineering design (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-

Hill Higher Education.

Fagot, B. I., & Leinbach, M. D. (1993). Gender-role development in young children: From

discrimination to labeling. Developmental Review, 13(2), 205-224.

Frome, P. M., Alfeld, C. J., Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (2006). Why don't they want a male-

dominated job? An investigation of young women who changed their occupational

aspirations. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 359-372.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.

Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. New York, NY:

Dover.

Hoffman, M. L. (1971). Identification and conscience development. Child Development, 42,

1071-1082.

Horenstein, M. N. (2002). Design concepts for engineers (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall, Inc.

209
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

House, R. J., & Javidan, M. (2004). Overview of GLOBE. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M.

Javian, P. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Leadership, culture and organizations: The

GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 9-28). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.

Innovation by design: The case for investing in women. (2014). Retrieved December 5,

2014, from http://anitaborg.org

Jagacinski, C. M. (1987). Engineering Careers: Women in a Male‐Dominated Field.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(1), 97-110.

Jensen, J. N. (2006). A User's Guide to Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson:

Prentice Hall.

Kazerounian, K., & Foley, S. (2007). Barriers to creativity in engineering education: A study

of instructors and students perceptions. Journal of Mechanical Design, 129, 761-768.

Kohlberg, L. A. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of childhood sex role concepts

and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 179-

204). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kolb, D. A., & Wolfe, D. M. (1981). Professional Education and Career Development: A

Cross Sectional Study of Adaptive Competencies in Experiential Learning. (Vol.

Lifelong Learning and Adult Development Project.): Case Western Reserve

University.

Kunda, G. (1986). Engineering culture: Culture and control in a high-tech organization.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (1996). Women in corporate leadership: Reviewing a decade's research.

Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.

Lorber, J. (1991). The Social Construction of Gender. In J. Lorber & S. A. Farrell (Eds.), The

Social Construction of Gender (pp. 99-106). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

210
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Lounsbury, J., & Gibson, L. (1998). Personal Style Inventory: A work-based personality

measurement system. Resource Associates, Knoxville, TN.

Lubart, T. (2010). Cross-cultural perspectives on creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J.

Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 265-278). New York:

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lumsdaine, M., & Lumsdaine, E. (1995). Thinking preferences of engineering students:

Implications for curriculum restructuring. Journal of Engineering Education, 84(2),

193-204.

Lundy, O., & Cowling, A. (1996). Strategic human resource management. London:

Routledge.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford:

Stanford University Press.

McIlwee, J. S., & Robinson, J. G. (1992). Women in engineering: Gender, power, and

workplace culture: SUNY Press.

Millward, L. J., & Freeman, H. (2002). Role expectations as constraints to innovation: The

case of female managers. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 93-110.

Oskam, I. F. (2009). T-shaped engineers for interdisciplinary innovation: an attractive

perspective for young people as well as a must for innovative organisations. Paper

presented at the 37th Annual Conference–Attracting students in Engineering, ,

Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Powell, G. N. (1993). Women and men in management (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Prindle, E. J. (1906). The art of inventing. Transactions of the American Institute for

Engineering Education, 25, 519-547.

211
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Puccio, G. J., & Cabra, J. F. (2010). Organizational Creativity: A Systems Approach. In J. C.

Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 145-

173).

Radcliffe, D. F. (2005). Innovation as a meta attribute for graduate engineers. International

Journal of Engineering Education, 21(2), 194-199.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310.

Roberts, E. B. (1988). Managing invention & innovation. Research Technology Management,

33, 1-19.

Robinson, J. G., & Mcllwee, J. S. (1991). Men, women, and the culture of engineering. The

Sociological Quarterly, 32(3), 403-421.

Rossman, J. (1931). The psychology of the inventor: A study of the patentee. Washington:

Inventors’ Publishing Company.

Schein, E. H. (1996). Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning.

Sloan management review, 38(1), 9-20.

Schein, V. E. (1994). Managerial sex typing: A persistent and pervasive barrier to women’s

opportunities. In M. J. Davidson & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Women in management:

Current research issues (pp. 65-84). London: Chapman.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behaviour: A path model of

individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of management journal, 37, 580-

607.

Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math

performance. Journal of experimental social psychology, 35(1), 4-28.

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.

212
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity and culture in engineering. In V. P. Glaveanu
(Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, Chapter 27 (pp. 486-506), Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Walther, J., Kellam, N., Sochacka, N., & Radcliffe, D. F. (2011). Engineering competence?

An interpretive investigation of engineering students' professional formation. Journal

of Engineering Education, 100(4), 703-740.

Walther, J., & Radcliffe, D. F. (2007). The competence dilemma in engineering education:

Moving beyond simple graduate attribute mapping. Australasian Journal of

Engineering Education, 13(1), 41-51.

Williamson, J. M., Lounsbury, J. W., & Han, L. D. (2013). Key personality traits of engineers

for innovation and technology development. Journal of Engineering and Technology

Management, 30(2), 157-168.

Biography

David Cropley is the Associate Professor of Engineering Innovation at the University of

South Australia.

Dr Cropley joined the School of Engineering at the University of South Australia in 1990,
after serving for four years in the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy, including deployments to
the Middle East and West Indies.

Dr Cropley is author of four books on creativity including Creativity in Engineering: Novel

Solutions to Complex Problems (Academic Press, 2015) and The Psychology of Innovation in
Organizations (Cambridge University Press, 2015). He is also co-editor of The Ethics of
Creativity (Palgrave MacMillan, 2014) and The Dark Side of Creativity (Cambridge
University Press, 2010).

Now a recognised expert in creative problem solving and innovation, Dr David Cropley was a
scientific consultant and on-screen expert for the Australian ABC TV Documentaries
Redesign My Brain (2013), Life at 9 (2014) and Redesign My Brain, Series 2 (2015).

Address for Correspondence:

David Cropley,
School of Engineering,
Building W, Mawson Lakes Campus,
University of South Australia,
Mawson Lakes, SA 5095,
AUSTRALIA.

213
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

Nurturing Creativity in the Engineering Classroom

D. H. Cropley

School of Engineering

University of South Australia

Abstract

There is ample evidence that creativity is vital to engineering. Key stakeholders in the process

of engineering education – employers – want creative engineering graduates, and creativity

contributes important elements to the design and production of technological solutions to the

needs of society.

Despite this, engineering does a relatively poor job of nurturing creativity in the

engineering education process. It is often the case that this deficiency is either blamed on the

mystical, ill-defined nature of creativity, or the more day-to-day pressures of crowded

curricula, however, there is a far more straight-forward reason why the typical engineering

classroom is failing to nurture creativity. A prevailing reductionist and analytical mindset

drives engineering education, resulting in program structures that shut out synthetic thinking

and creativity.

The failing of engineering education, however, also contains the seeds of the solution

to the problem, so that can creativity can be nurtured appropriately in the engineering

classroom. This chapter culminates in an explanation of how engineering programs could be

restructured with a top-down, systems mindset that would make space for synthesis, as well as

analysis, and allow the proper development of creativity alongside technical engineering

expertise.

214
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

Creativity is Vital to Engineering

Throughout history, a key factor in human development has been our ability to solve

problems. Those problems take a variety of forms, but many of the most critical have been

problems that are highly amenable to the application of engineering in the sense defined by

the US Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) – that is, solutions that,

at their core, make use of the “…materials and forces of nature for the benefit of mankind”.

Thus, the problem of warmth and shelter was solved by mankind’s ability to create structures

from stone, wood and other materials. The problem of feeding large numbers of people was

tackled by the development of the plough and irrigation. Problems of health were solved by

the creation of systems for removing and processing waste. Our success at solving these

problems through the application of engineering has resulted in rapid growth and

development.

It is important to note, however, that this process of problem solving for human

development is highly dynamic in nature. We are all too familiar with the fact that each

solution that is developed contains the seeds of new problems. The solutions developed and

applied since the industrial revolution – steam engines, the use of coal as a fuel, the

development of internal combustion engines, the exploitation of oil – have provided many

benefits, however they have also given rise to new problems that themselves must be

addressed. Pollution and climate change, for example, are by-products of earlier solutions that

now stimulate both a drive to replace those older technologies with better and more efficient

solutions, as well as a push to mitigate the undesirable effects of earlier systems.

Where does creativity come into play in this process of engineering solutions to the

needs of mankind? The cycle of problem – solution – problem – solution has one distinct

characteristic that explains why creativity is so vital to engineering, and therefore to society.

Every time a new problem emerges – one that is unprecedented or never seen before – it is

215
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

axiomatic that previous solutions will not be suitable. The solution, for instance, to the

problem of diesel engines polluting the environment is not to build more diesel engines!

Something has to change! If we keep applying the same old solution, but hope for a different

result, then we are, as Einstein suggested, flirting with insanity. The key ingredient is the

addition of novelty – something new. The diesel engine problem may be solved, therefore, by

the addition of novelty in the form of new components that reduce the emissions of the

engine, or, it may be solved by a completely new paradigm – electric motors instead of diesel

engines. Whichever approach is taken, the key ingredient is novelty, and novelty is a defining

characteristic of creativity.

Our ability to harness the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of mankind –

engineering problem solving – therefore cannot look past the role of creativity. With the

exception of routine replication – solving old problems with old technologies – engineering is

a forward-looking, optimistic pursuit that seeks to develop new technological solutions to the

stream of new and challenging problems that we face as the world continues to develop. It

follows that engineers themselves must have, as a core competency, the ability to find and

develop these novel solutions, and for this reason, creativity must be deliberately and

carefully nurtured in the engineering classroom.

The Need for Creativity in Engineering Education

Both Buhl (1960) and Cropley (2015) have underlined the case that creativity is a vital,

integral and valuable part of engineering, and the preceding discussion touches on the key

reasons. Creativity needs to be nurtured in engineering education because without it,

engineers are not fully equipped for their role as technological problem solvers. This is

supported by empirical evidence from one of the key stakeholders in the development of

technological solutions – the employers who hire engineers. In fact, not only do these

stakeholders echo the importance of creativity in engineers, but they highlight an alarming

216
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

concern – that the engineers emerging from the educational pipeline are not equipped with

this core competency to the degree that is required to be fully effective. In fact the problem is

not unique to engineering, as evidence shows.

A 1999 survey of employers in Australia suggested that 75% of new university

graduates in that country show “skill deficiencies” in creativity, problem-solving, and

independent and critical thinking. The importance of creativity and related skills was again

confirmed by the 2013 annual Graduate Outlook Survey conducted by Graduate Careers

Australia13, which indicated that “…Problem solving/Lateral thinking…” is third on the list of

top selection criteria for employers. However, of greater significance, and an indicator that all

is not well in the educational process with respect to creativity, was the fact that employers

indicated that only 57.3% of graduates hired exceeded average expectations in problem

solving – a figure that has been declining in recent years! If further evidence of both the

importance of creativity in engineering, and the apparent failure of engineering education to

produce creative engineers, is needed, Tilbury, Reid and Podger (2003) also reported on an

employer survey in Australia which concluded, quite simply, that Australian graduates lack

creativity.

A similar state of affairs is apparent in other developed nations. In the United

Kingdom, Cooper, Altman and Garner (2002) concluded that the education system, in

general, discourages innovation. More specifically, the British General Medical Council noted

that medical education is overloaded with factual material that discourages higher order

cognitive functions such as evaluation, synthesis and problem solving, and engenders an

attitude of passivity – criticisms that could be levelled also at engineering curricula. Closer to

the discipline of engineering, Bateman (2013) reports on results of UK employment survey

13
http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Graduate_Outlook_2013.pdf

217
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

data in the area of computer science and IT, suggesting that graduates in this technological

domain miss out on employment opportunities due to a lack of creativity.

The same picture is also reported in the United States in various sources. Articles in

Newsweek (2010), Time (2013a, 2013b), and Forbes Magazine (2014), for example, reiterate

the fact that not only is creativity vital to economic growth and general societal well-being,

but that employers continue to be frustrated by the fact that new graduates are emerging from

universities lacking skills in creativity and problem solving.

Turning to engineering education more specifically, the circumstances seem to be no

different. The Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) in the United Kingdom provides a good

example. In 2007, the RAE published the report Creating Systems that Work: Principles of

Engineering Systems for the 21st Century (Elliott & Deasley, 2007) and among six principles

that the report sets out as critical for “understanding the challenges of a system design

problem and for educating engineers to rise to those challenges” (p.11) was an ability to “be

creative”. The report also connected creativity firmly into the engineering process defining it

as the ability “to devise novel and … effective solutions to the real problem” (p. 4)! Baillie

(2002) echoes the same points noting an “…increasing perception of the need for graduates of

engineering to be creative thinkers…” (p. 185).

Of particular concern is the fact that this conversation has been taking place for

decades, with little to show for it. The same concerns that we see raised currently about a lack

of creativity in school and university education are not new. In a New York Times article

Hechinger (1983) reported on a study finding a lack of creativity in schools, while Cropley

and Cropley (2005) reviewed findings on fostering creativity in engineering education in the

United States of America, concluding that there was little support for creative students in the

curriculum.

218
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

Even efforts to address the identified deficiencies – for example, the 1990 National

Science Foundation (NSF) Engineering Coalition of Schools for Excellence and Leadership

(ECSEL) – have had little success, if the views of stakeholders are correct. ECSEL had the

goal of transforming undergraduate engineering education, however, a subsequent review of

practice throughout higher education in the United States (Fasko, 2001) found that the

deliberate training in creativity was rare. Cropley (2015) has summarized many of these

arguments, and also noted an unflattering view amongst engineering students – engineering

curricula continue to focus on traditional topics, taught in traditional ways, and these make

little room for the creativity that almost everyone agrees is critical to engineering education.

The Problem: i-Shaped Engineering Graduates

There are many ways to look at this problem, but if we are to find ways to address it, so that

creativity is properly nurtured in the [engineering] classroom, then it is helpful if two things

can be achieved. One is to move beyond simply restating the problem. There seems to be no

dispute – creativity is not being adequately or appropriately nurtured in engineering

education. The second is to understand the problem in a holistic sense – put another way, if

we define the problem in a piecemeal way, then it is no surprise if the solutions are similarly

piecemeal. In other words, we need to treat the disease and not merely mask the symptoms. A

helpful starting point along this path is to understand the nature of the graduates that we are

producing in the engineering education pipeline.

A good way to characterise the ideal engineering graduate is through the construct of

T-shaped professionals. The concept has been attributed to different sources – for example,

Karjalainen, Koria and Salimaki (2009) give credit to Iansiti (1993), while Oskam (2009)

links it to Kelley and Littman’s (2005) work at IDEO. Regardless of the source, the T-shaped

concept describes an ideal professional, such as an engineer, with a blend of domain-specific,

specialist knowledge and skills (the vertical arm of the T) and complementary, extra-

219
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

disciplinary knowledge and skills that facilitate collaboration, communication and creativity

(the horizontal bar of the T). More simply, the ideal T-shaped professional combines breadth

of knowledge with depth of expertise.

Putting the problem that has been articulated – engineering graduates lack creativity –

in these terms, it is as though engineering programs are producing, not T-shaped

professionals, but i-shaped professionals! The vertical component of the “T” – the domain-

specific knowledge and skills – is partly filled, mainly with declarative (what) and procedural

(how) knowledge, and isolated “dots” of complementary skills and abilities – creativity for

example – may be developed, forming the beginnings of the horizontal component, but

lacking integration with the technical (vertical) knowledge (see Figure 1). The domain

knowledge frequently fails to address higher-order conditional (when and why) aspects of the

discipline, and the “dots” often float free from the domain knowledge, added on almost as an

afterthought.

Complementary E.g. Creativity,

Knowledge Communication

Conditional

Domain
Knowledge Procedural

Declarative

Figure 1: “i-Shaped” Professionals

The real problem that must be addressed is not “where do we add in some creativity to

an engineering program?” or “how to we develop more conditional knowledge in engineering

courses?” – both Band-Aid solutions – but “why are engineering programs failing to produce

220
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

T-shaped graduates?”, who, among other things have the necessary skills and abilities in

creativity that complement their domain-specific knowledge, so that they are able to solve,

efficiently and effectively, the problems that we face in society today.

Why are Programs Producing i-Shaped Graduates?

The evidence at the end of the education pipeline suggests that engineering educators are not

providing what the customer needs, i.e. T-shaped engineering graduates. In Cropley (2015) I

suggested that there are three problems that are contributing to a general misalignment of

engineering education and creativity: (a) over-specialisation; (b) pseudo-expertise; (c) lack of

knowledge. Briefly, those are as follows:

 Over-specialisation – in what seems to have been a reaction to a paradigm of breadth

at the expense of depth, described by Buhl (1960), the modern paradigm of

engineering education seems to have swung to a focus on depth of knowledge in

narrow specialisations (the vertical arm of the “T”). The negative impact of this has

been to focus attention only on the technical content of the specialisation, leaving little

or no room in the curriculum for students to “…learn to solve problems in a creative

way” (Buhl, 1960, p. 11), as illustrated by Figure 1.

 Pseudo-expertise – in essence, an excessive focus on declarative (what) and

procedural (how) knowledge, not balanced by the development conditional (when and

why) knowledge. In addition, a focus on developing only intermediate levels of

understanding in these forms of knowledge. The particular deficiency here is not so

much in creativity itself, but in a failure to develop fully the domain expertise which

then serves as a pre-requisite for domain creativity (Figure 1).

 Lack of Knowledge – this pervasive problem is simply the fact that, across many

disciplines, a significant block to creativity is the fact that educators frequently have a

poor understanding of what creativity is, why it is important, how to develop it and

221
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

how to embed it in their curricula. As a result, the best that can be expected is

something approaching an i-shaped professional.

I now believe that these problems are, in fact, symptoms of a deeper issue.

Kazerounian and Foley (2007) touched on this when they asked why creativity is “…not an

obvious part of the engineering curriculum at every university?” (p. 762). The real problem

that is preventing creativity from being properly nurtured in the engineering classroom – and

preventing the development of T-shaped engineers – is structural in nature. In fact, the

structure of engineering programs may be reinforcing the three problems described above, and

making any transition difficult to achieve, even where the will to do so exists.

The Real Problem

The deeper problem blocking a change to a curriculum that is inclusive of creativity in

engineering is complex, but stems from a reductionist tradition in science. This approach

seeks to understand objects, phenomena or theories in terms of their constituent parts.

Analysis is the process by which we apply reductionism, taking apart an object, for example,

to find out how it works. Classical mechanics is a case in point. While it is certainly true that

analysis is a valuable tool and means for gaining knowledge, especially in an engineering

context, it cannot shed any light on the properties of a more complex entity that emerge only

at the level of interacting components, i.e. a system. To illustrate, we cannot find the music

emitted by a piano simply by disassembling it.

Engineering, both as a discipline, and in terms of the education of engineers,

nevertheless is frequently tackled in a reductionist, analytical fashion. The mechanistic,

reductionist mindset, ingrained in our thinking through hundreds of years of influence from

the scientific method, des Cartes and the like, still dominates engineering education.

Why is reductionism an issue? First, the reductionist, analytical mindset, when applied

to engineering education, steers us into a curriculum structure that is bottom-up in nature. The

222
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

“i” is populated from the bottom, focusing first on declarative knowledge. Both an “i” and a

“T” look the same from this perspective, so that it is difficult to see beyond the declarative

component of knowledge. In the same way that a reductionist thinker breaks apart an object

and studies the pieces to gain knowledge, the reductionist educator breaks the end product –

the engineer – into his or her pedagogical parts, gaining knowledge about what needs to be

taught. To the detriment of creativity, those building blocks look predominantly declarative in

nature.

Like the piano, the pieces that remain after taking the engineer apart – the frame, the

strings, the hammers, the keys – are then taken as the building blocks of engineering

education. In engineering these building blocks become: calculus and Laplace transforms;

classical mechanics and Ohm’s law; Boolean algebra and thermodynamics. While they are

not unimportant, the bottom-up approach emphasises these components at the expense of

higher-order components of knowledge.

The second reason that reductionism is an issue is that the reductionist mindset, by

definition, excludes one important element of creative work. Sternberg (1985), Sternberg and

Lubart (1995), Sternberg and Williams (1996) described creative work and three abilities that

are amenable to training and education. They noted the importance of not only analytical and

practical ability – of obvious relevance to engineering – but also of a synthetic ability relating

to the generation of novel and effective ideas. By definition, a reductionist and analytical

mindset shuts out this vital synthetic ability that is a key building block of creativity.

The third issue arising from reductionism can be understood by considering the

opposite mindset. The converse of reductionist, bottom-up thinking is a top-down, systems

approach. If reductionism is analytical in nature, a systems mindset is synthetic in nature. Not

only is this a vital element of creative work, as indicated above, but in reductionism we also

lose the emergent properties that are inherent in complex systems.

223
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

Like the piano, a complex system exhibits properties – e.g. the ability to produce

music – that only appear when all the components of the system are working together – they

emerge only at the level of the system. By reducing engineering education to its component

parts, we succeed in identifying the building blocks such as those mentioned, but we risk

losing sight of the emergent aspects – those aspects that are only apparent in the integrated,

functioning system – i.e. the working engineer. For engineering, these emergent properties

seem to include not only communication skills and teamwork, but also the creativity that

results from the interaction of all of the building blocks (both analytical and synthetic).

The real problem facing engineering education – the impediment to nurturing

creativity in the engineering classroom – is a faulty program structure driven by three

reductionist parameters:

 A bottom-up focus that is oriented towards filling the vertical bar of the “i” with the

lowest level building blocks of engineering knowledge;

 An analytical emphasis that keeps the attention focused away from synthetic elements

of knowledge and ability – the cross-piece of a “T”;

 A mindset that excludes the importance of the integration of the building blocks of

knowledge and leaves no room for properties which emerge only at the top of the “T”.

Under these conditions, the development of an i-shaped professional seems almost

inevitable. At best, this leaves employers with the job of turning the “i” into a “T”, and at

worst, it leaves the engineering graduate without the full set of knowledge and skills needed

for effective engineering problem solving.

How the Problem is Manifest in Practice?

How does the real problem – the reductionist paradigm – affect engineering education in

practical terms?

224
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

First, we see the impact in the structure of typical engineering degrees. A bottom-up,

analytical focus dictates that we begin with the smallest, analytical, declarative and procedural

building blocks, which in engineering typically includes:

 Introductory computer programing:

o learning about (what and how) data types, variables, constants, Boolean

operators, arrays and strings.

 Basic engineering mathematics:

o learning about (what and how) vectors, complex numbers, types of functions,

rates of change and calculus.

 Basic electricity and electronics:

o learning about (what and how) the analysis of resistive networks, learning

about capacitors and inductors, learning how to analyse alternating current

circuits.

 Introductory mechanics:

o learning about (what and how) statics and dynamics, forces, moments and

equilibrium, rigid bodies and structural members.

Second, the analytical focus means that these building blocks tend to congregate in the

convergent phases of the engineering process. If a simplified representation of the process is

captured in four phases: problem recognition; idea generation; idea evaluation and solution

validation (see Figure 2), then the bottom-up focus locates the engineering education process

more specifically at beginning of idea evaluation.

The latter two stages – idea evaluation and solution validation – are the business of the

vertical bar of the T-shaped concept. The education process therefore begins with the idea

evaluation stage, filling the vertical bar from the bottom-up. This is followed by further

convergent knowledge associated with solution validation. The higher order, emergent and

225
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

conditional (when and why) knowledge of the problem recognition stage may follow unless

blocked by the dominant focus on lower-level building blocks. Finally, although it may

follow sequentially, the key divergent stage of idea generation is impeded both by the fact that

it is synthetic in nature and therefore does not fit into an analytical framework, and simply

because it is left until last, and often is excluded simply through a perceived lack of time and

space. I have seen this occur, in practice, with statements like “you can put in as much of the

creativity stuff as you like, as long as you don’t take out any existing material”. This

reductionist mindset is saying, in effect, “We don’t want any synthetic content in this

program”.

Convergent Divergent Convergent Convergent

Problem Idea Idea Solution

Recognition Generation Evaluation Validation

Bottom-Up
Starting Point

Figure 2: The development of the “i-Shaped” engineer

Fixing the Problem: Nurturing Creativity in Engineering Education

The three issues surrounding the dominance of a reductionist mindset in engineering

education – the bottom-up, analytical, non-emergent characteristics – drive, and are driven by,

a program structure that tends to act to maintain the status quo. That status quo is little or no

creativity.

There is a risk that we can spend all our time debating the cause and effect, and see no

progress made towards the obvious goal of nurturing creativity in engineering education. Is

the program structure that tends to develop i-shaped engineers caused by an reductionist

226
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

mindset, or does is the mindset the way that we rationalise a long-standing structure? Are both

the mindset and the structure the result of a lack of understanding of what creativity is, and

how it is fostered in people, or do the mindset and structure of programs make it impossible

for engineering educators to incorporate creativity into their programs?

What seems clear is that something has to change, because the key stakeholders –

employers and students – seem to be unanimous in their view that creativity is both a vital

component of engineering education, and poorly addressed by current programs. Students

want to be T-shaped, and employers want T-shaped graduates, but the education process is

manufacturing i-shaped engineers who lack key competencies, in particular with respect to

creativity.

If part of the problem is the impact of a reductionist mindset – manifest as a bottom-

up, analytical and non-emergent approach and structure – then what would the opposite to this

look like? How would an engineering education process achieve the T-shaped result if we had

a free hand to design the structure to achieve this end?

Driven by a top-down, holistic approach to engineering education that values a

balance of analysis, practice and synthesis, and seeks to develop both the basic building

blocks of knowledge, as well as higher order, emergent elements, we can speculate that

engineering education would do the following:

1. We would need to begin with a realistic, high-level model of the engineering process:

a. This would probably look rather like the core stages of depicted in Figure 2,

but would also recognise that the development of an engineered systems itself

proceeds from a more abstract, conceptual level, to a more concrete, detailed

level.

227
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

b. This would also highlight the fact that there are two core processes that need to

be taught – DT and CT – and that this these recur as engineering design moves

from conceptual to detailed levels (Figure 3).

CT
DT
CT Conceptual
level
CT

Intermediate
level

Detailed
level

Figure 3: Stages driving the development of a T-shaped engineer

2. We would probably begin at the beginning. Engineering problem solving, as depicted

in Figure 2, first requires us to recognise and define the problem, before generating

solution ideas, then evaluating these and finally validating the solution.

a. This would push engineering education to start with Problem Recognition

(Figure 2) and not Idea Evaluation.

3. We would recognise that engineered systems are progressively refined from a higher,

conceptual level, down to a lower, detailed level (Figure 3), and this would permeate

the way that engineering is taught, breaking a reductionist, bottom-up mindset, and

focusing as much attention on synthetic ability and emergent, conditional knowledge,

as it would on lower-level declarative and procedural knowledge.

228
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

4. This would almost certainly mean that some elements currently taught in Year 1 – for

example, the building blocks mentioned earlier – might in future not be taught until

Year 4, and vice versa. This would also ensure that the higher order knowledge, both

in the vertical component of the T, as well as in the horizontal bar, could not be left

out.

Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom would flow out of this structure, as a

result of the shift away from the reductionist mindset that cannot help but develop i-shaped

engineers, and towards a systems mindset that leads to the development of T-shaped

individuals.

Domain
Knowledge

Broadening
Knowledge

Creativity,
Communication, etc.

Conditional

Procedural

Declarative

Figure 4: Creating T-Shaped Engineers

Concluding Thoughts

In writing about nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom, it is tempting, and seems

obvious, to focus on proximate issues. What can an instructor do, here and now, to help his or

229
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

her students generate some novel ideas? Let’s teach them how to brainstorm, or introduce

mind-mapping as a technique. However, this seems too short-sighted, and avoids the more

fundamental question of whether or not the students are being taught the right things, in the

right order, and at the right depth. In more simple terms, there may be little value in knowing

how to execute a process like brainstorming if you do not know when or why this is of value.

Indeed, treating idea generation itself as another declarative or procedural building block –

here is what it is, and here is how to do it – seems doomed to failure. Buhl (1960) probably

captured this notion best when he stated that “…schools must educate the student for change.

Students must not only learn the fundamental ideas upon which the various subjects are based

[the vertical components], but they must learn how to solve problems in a creative way…”

(p.11). It seems clear that if programs start the process of learning how to solve problems in a

creative way by jumping into the mid-point of the process (Figure 2), and if the guiding

philosophy excludes the key synthetic piece of the process, then engineering graduates will

only emerge as i-shaped individuals, knowing, as Gandhi warned more and more about less

and less and unable to actually solve the problems that society needs them to be able to solve

to ensure continued development and prosperity.

References

Baillie, C. (2002). Enhancing creativity in engineering students. Engineering Science &

Education Journal, 11(5), 185-192.

Bateman, K. (2013, April 18, 2013). IT students miss out on roles due to lack of creativity.

ComputerWeekly.com.

Buhl, H. R. (1960). Creative engineering design: Iowa State University Press.

Cooper, C., Altman, W., & Garner, A. (2002). Inventing for Business success: Texere, Nueva

York.

230
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cropley, D. H. (2015). Creativity in engineering: Novel solutions to complex problems. San

Diego: Academic Press.

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept of

functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Faces of the Muse: How

People Think, Work and Act Creatively in Diverse Domains (pp. 169-185). Hillsdale:

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Elliott, C., & Deasley, P. (Eds.). (2007). Creating systems that work: Principles of

engineering systems for the 21st century. London: The Royal Academy of

Engineering.

Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 317-327.

Iansiti, M. (1993). Real-world R&D: Jumping the product generation gap. Harvard Business

Review, 71(3), 138-147.

Karjalainen, T.-M., Koria, M., & Salimaki, M. (2009). Educating T-shaped design, business

and engineering professionals. Paper presented at the 19th CIRP Design Conference,

Cranfield University.

Kazerounian, K., & Foley, S. (2007). Barriers to creativity in engineering education: A study

of instructors and students perceptions. Journal of Mechanical Design, 129, 761-768.

Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2005). The ten faces of innovation: IDEO's strategies for defeating

the Devil's Advocate and driving creativity throughout your organization. New York,

NY: Doubleday.

Oskam, I. F. (2009). T-shaped engineers for interdisciplinary innovation: an attractive

perspective for young people as well as a must for innovative organisations. Paper

presented at the 37th Annual Conference–Attracting students in Engineering, ,

Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

231
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. (2017). Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In R.
Beghetto and J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom, Chapter 13 (pp. 212-226). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture

of conformity. New York: Free Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1996). How to develop student creativity. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tilbury, D., Reid, A., & Podger, D. (2003). Action research for university staff: changing

curricula and graduate skills towards sustainability, Stage 1 Report. Canberra:

Environment Australia.

232
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Creativity in the Engineering Domain

David H. Cropley*
Arthur J. Cropley#
Bree L. Sandwith*14

Abstract
Engineering can claim an important association with the birth of the modern creativity era.

The Sputnik Shock of 1957 led to the identification of creativity not only as a valuable quality

in general, but also as a vital element of practical, successful problem solving. The

engineering domain epitomizes the interdependence of the 4Ps of creativity – Person, Product,

Process and Press – highlighting the necessity of each as a component of generating effective

and novel solutions to problems.

In this chapter, we discuss both what makes engineering unique as a domain of

creativity, and also how important are the core, psychological constructs of creativity to this

domain. We discuss, in particular, two facets of creativity – the characteristics of creative

products, and the measurement of divergent thinking – where insights from the domain of

engineering add value to the understanding of creativity as a systems phenomenon.

Creativity in the Engineering Domain

The Sputnik Shock – the reaction to the launch of the Soviet satellite in 1957 – launched the

modern creativity era. As Western nations – most notably, the United States – sought to

explain their failure in the first leg of the Space Race, two domains were linked, possibly for

the first time. The deficiency was seen as stemming from both a quantitative source – simply,

a shortage of engineers – and a qualitative source – a shortage of creative engineers (Cropley,

2015). The former was addressed, in the United States, through programs such as the National

Defense Education Act of 1958 that provided a funding boost to STEM education, and the

14
*University of South Australia, #University of Hamburg

233
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

establishment of organizations like the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency

(DARPA). However, the latter required a connection to be made between the psychology of

creativity, and domain of engineering. Despite this obvious connection, creativity has not

always figured prominently in engineering in the years since Sputnik, despite the fact that the

core activity in engineering – design – is, in essence, a process of generating novel and

effective solutions to problems.

In this chapter, we explore some key questions surrounding creativity and engineering.

Are there any aspects of creativity that are unique in this domain? How is creativity defined in

engineering? How is creativity measured in the engineering domain, and is there anything we

can learn from creativity placed in this practical, problem solving context? We also ask what

is required to define key studies in engineering creativity, and conclude by examining a

contribution that the engineering domain may make to developing a better understanding of

the core, divergent thinking process.

Understanding Creativity in the Engineering Domain

What is unique about creativity in engineering?

It is tempting to think that creativity in the domain of engineering is unique because it is

focused largely, if not exclusively, on creating real, tangible solutions to problems. This

means that it seems natural to focus on the “product” in any study of engineering creativity.

However, this is deceptive, because creativity in the context of engineering is far more a

question of how personal, psychological factors, cognitive processes, and organizational

conditions combine to bring about a specific, novel outcome, or product. Therefore, what may

be unique, and we say this cautiously and provocatively, is that engineering may be the only

domain in which each of Rhodes’s (1961) “Four Ps” – Person, Process, Press and Product –

plays an equally important role in the generation of effective and novel outcomes. In other

contexts, it may be sufficient to look only at what makes a person creative, or what cognitive

234
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

processes favour the generation of ideas, but in a highly pragmatic, and solution-focused,

domain such as engineering, all four Ps contribute to the successful development of the

outcome. Indeed, the domain of engineering may be unique in that creativity cannot exist – or

cannot be understood properly – without the framework of the 4Ps. In other words, the

domain of engineering can only be characterised by a systems model in which creativity

emerges as a result of the interaction of the 4Ps (Figure 1).

Person

Creativity in
Press Product
Engineering

Process

Figure 1: Creativity in Engineering – A Systems Phenomenon

Claiming that engineering is unique in this respect, however, is fraught with danger!

Not only is it likely that other domains will make similar, and valid, claims, but Systems

theories of creativity have been considered for some time (see Kozbelt, Beghetto and Runco,

2010, for a summary) and the concept of creativity “…emerging from a complex system with

interacting subcomponents…” (p. 38) is not new. However, where previous systems models,

such as Gruber and Wallace’s (1999) evolving systems concept or Csikszentmihalyi’s (1988,

1999) systems perspective of creativity, take a particular focus – asking, for example, “What

is Creativity?” or “Where is Creativity?” (Kozbelt, Beghetto, & Runco, 2010) – a systems

235
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

concept of creativity in engineering asks “How?” in the broadest sense. How do all four Ps

interact to deliver creative outcomes?

How is creativity defined in engineering?

As important as it is to articulate a unique perspective on creativity in engineering, it is also

important to recognise how much is not different. Too many forays into creativity in specific

domains make the mistake of assuming that either nothing is known about creativity, or that

the current body of knowledge does not apply to a domain like engineering. It is all too

common to see articles on creativity in STEM disciplines begin by stating, for example, that

“…it is imperative that we move … towards a more precise definition” (Mishra & Henriksen,

2013, p. 10) or to “…leave it up to the readers to think about their own definition of creativity

in engineering…” (Ihsen & Brandt, 1998, p. 3). While minor differences in how creativity is

defined in psychology may remain, there is nothing to suggest that the definition by Plucker,

Beghetto and Dow (2004) – “the interaction among aptitude, process and environment by

which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as

defined within a social context” (p.90) – fails to capture the essence of creativity in

engineering. Indeed, this definition is an excellent description of the systems concept of

creativity illustrated in Figure 1. If there is one distinguishing feature of creativity in

engineering, both in the definition and in the systems concept, it is the primacy of the outcome

– the perceptible product. Engineering, after all, is about making things, not just thinking

about making things!

What other constructs are important in engineering creativity?

236
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Even articles in the engineering domain that fail to draw adequately on the body of

knowledge of creativity (e.g. Badran, 2007) usually do a good job in one important, and

related, aspect – that of articulating the importance of creativity (and innovation) in

engineering. The practical, outcome-focused character of a systems model of creativity in

engineering naturally demands an explanation of “why?” – Why is creativity so important in

this domain? What value does creativity confer on the process of developing technological

solutions to practical problems? Why is creativity necessary in engineering?

Mokyr (1990) explains that creativity is the key driver of economic and social

progress, providing technological solutions to problems of nutrition, shelter, transport, health

and more. Buhl (1960) recognised that the essence of engineering design is the ability to

“…create new products and processes…” (p.9) in response to new needs and problems –

creative solutions, in other words. Cropley (2015) explained that without an injection of

novelty in problem solving processes we are limited, at best to replication, and at worst, to

stagnation. With creativity, engineering problem solving equips society with the means to

move forward, finding solutions to the new problems that arise as a result of constant change.

Measuring Creativity in the Engineering Domain

If creativity – the ability to generate new and effective ideas, defined in a universal sense by

Plucker, Beghetto and Dow (2004) – is same whether we are engaging in engineering or in

musical composition, then it seems axiomatic that creativity will be measured in exactly the

same way, using the same instruments. Questions of domain differences – engineering versus

art, for example – do not change the underlying definition, even if they lead to different

interpretations of the measurements obtained. While this may hold true in a general sense, is it

true as we drill down into the detail of person, process, product and press, as they are manifest

in the engineering domain?

237
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Measuring Person and Press

With respect to the Person, the question of measurement is unaffected by the domain. We

measure the Person – or personality, more specifically, in the sense of the Big Five (Costa &

McCrae, 1992) – in engineering creativity in exactly the same way that we measure the

Person in artistic domains of creativity. Where differences are thought to exist –

conscientiousness, for example (see Baer, 2010, for a discussion) – it is not a question of the

means of measurement, but a question of interpretation. Conscientiousness is not measured

differently in engineers – they answer the same subset of questions as anyone else – rather, it

is the question of how the measured values are associated with creativity that may differ.

Even extending measures in this area to include other personality constructs – for example,

the Dark Triad of psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism (e.g. Paulhus, 2002) – any

argument over domain differences is a question of the interpretation of the measurement, not

the means of measurement (i.e. the instrument). Similarly, the question of the means of

measurement and the Press, or climate, is also not affected by the domain. The interpretation

of data may differ, and the way those data are associated with creativity may also differ, but

the underlying construct, and therefore the instrument that operationalizes that construct,

remains the same.

Measuring Process

Turning to the cognitive Process, it appears that the same issue is at play for this dimension of

creativity. Creativity, while not exclusively defined in terms of divergent thinking (e.g.

Cropley, 2006), is nevertheless strongly linked to divergent production in the realm of testing

and measurement (e.g. Plucker and Makel, 2010). The ability of an individual to generate

many (fluency) ideas in different categories (flexibility) that are unusual (originality) and that

238
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

are developed in some way (elaboration) remains the foundation of creativity tests, whether

part of the Torrance Tests (Torrance, 1966) or Urban and Jellen’s (1996) Test of Creative

Thinking – Drawing Production. Like Person and Press, there is no disputing the relevance of

the construct divergent thinking to engineering. However, unlike Person and Press, there is

something intuitively unsatisfactory, from the point of view of engineering, about the way

that divergent thinking is measured. It would appear that the issue is not simply one of

differences in interpretation. To understand what this might be consider how engineers

themselves define the difference between convergent and divergent thinking. Horenstein

(2002) does this by contrasting two key activities in engineering design – “If only one answer

to a problem exists, and finding it merely involved putting together the pieces of the puzzle,

then the activity is probably analysis … if more than one solution exists, and if deciding upon

a suitable path demands being creative, making choices, performing tests, iterating and

evaluating, then the activity is most certainly design. Design can include analysis, but it must

also involve at least one of these latter elements” (p.23).

What this means is that in engineering problem solving processes (i.e. design), there

is, in effect, a directionality to the process. This flow typically proceeds in what is referred to

as a top-down manner, first defining (Blanchard & Fabrycky, 2006) “…what needs to be

accomplished…” and not “…how it is to be done.” Engineering creativity (design) therefore

proceeds by defining first a function, and then seeks to finds a variety of ways (forms) in

which this function could be satisfied. This is notably different from the typical format of

divergent thinking tests which, for example, ask the test subject to consider a form (e.g. a

shoe) and generate possible functions that could be satisfied by this solution (see Cropley,

2014, for a discussion). Put simply, divergent thinking in the engineering domain is

characterized by function-first problems, in contrast to typical divergent thinking tests that are

structured in a form-first manner. The underlying constructs remain the same – fluency,

239
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

flexibility, originality and elaboration – however the stimulus in traditional form-first tests is

unrepresentative of the way that problems are solved (not just in engineering, but probably in

all practical problem solving contexts). This raises at least some questions about the validity

of traditional divergent thinking tests in the engineering creativity domain.

There is other evidence that this may be more than merely a definitional problem. The

ability to generate many different, original and elaborate ideas in response to a function-first

problem has real value. This is because engineers seek not simply any solution to the

problem, but the best solution to the problem. They do so also under conditions of constraint

(e.g. Cropley, 2014) meaning that the ability to find the most diverse set of possible solutions

to a problem increases the likelihood of finding a good solution.

A second benefit of defining divergent thinking in engineering in a manner that is

congruent with problem solving in this domain is that we see the importance of how the

problem is defined. Not only are engineering problems defined in terms that are function-first,

but the way that function is stated may have an impact on the quality of the subsequent

divergent thinking. Dieter and Schmidt (2012) captured this when they discussed the fact that

“The modelling of a mechanical product in a form-independent and solution–neutral way will

allow for more abstract thinking about the problem and enhance the possibility of more

creative solutions” (p. 225). Both how divergent thinking is defined in the engineering

domain, and how it is measured, may matter a great deal. We will explore this a little further

later in this chapter.

Measuring Product

If Person and Press highlight differences in the interpretation of creativity measurements in

the engineering domain, and Process highlights differences in the way that creativity is

measured, Product draws attention to both facets.

240
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Previous research has developed a broad consensus – the essence of creativity in the

perceptible product includes usefulness, appropriateness, and similar functional constructs

that seem to relate to the ability of the product to do what it is intended to do (see Cropley &

Cropley, 2005 for a discussion) to which must be added, as a minimum, novelty. The

characteristics of creative products have been explored by many researchers (Amabile &

Tighe, 1993; Cattell & Butcher, 1968), and with variations in the higher-order characteristics

(e.g. Besemer & O’Quin, 1987; Cropley & Kaufman, 2012; Miller, 1992; Taylor, 1975;) but it

is perhaps a perspective uniquely expressed in engineering that suggests that the

characteristics exist in a hierarchy (Cropley & Cropley, 2005; Cropley, 2015).

The rationale for such a hierarchy is simple. Creativity in the engineering domain is

concerned with solving problems. The value that creativity offers is to improve that problem

solving process by generating a wide range of possible solutions. New problems demand new

– i.e. creative – solutions. While novelty seems to be vital, the problem-solving focus should

not draw attention away from the fact that effectiveness is the key. If a product does not solve

the problem for which it was developed, then it is not a solution. In fact, both Heinelt (1974)

and Cattell and Butcher (1968) recognised this, respectively defining quasi-creativity and

pseudo-creativity to differentiate novel and effective solutions from those that are merely

surprising, unusual or different.

For engineering, if not all creative problem solving domains, a solution must, as a pre-

requisite, be relevant and effective. Once this condition is satisfied, then the addition of

novelty defines a creative product. While this is easily said and may be logical, is this

hypothesis supported by any empirical evidence?

In two studies of product creativity, Cropley, Kaufman and Cropley (2011) and

Cropley and Kaufman (2012) examined the utility of various product creativity rating scales.

Participants evaluated a range of products (five different designs of mousetraps) both in terms

241
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

of a single measure of Overall Creativity – much like a Consensual Assessment (Amabile,

1982) rating of creativity – as well as in terms of individual items: Relevance &

Effectiveness; Novelty; Elegance, and Genesis. These data were used in the evaluation of a

more detailed, thirty-item product scale. However, they also provide an opportunity to explore

the question of the hierarchy of product characteristics. Is there any empirical evidence to

support the claim that effectiveness and novelty are pre-requisites for product creativity?

To test this hypothesis we re-analyzed data from the two previous studies of product

creativity and applied hierarchical multiple regression to the ratings of mean creativity for the

five different products. This technique allowed us to examine the amount of overall creativity

predicted by each product characteristic, across a sample of n = 266, with five different

products. Each product characteristic (e.g. novelty) was entered, in turn, at Step 1, with the

remaining characteristics entered together at Step 2. In each case, the percentage of variance

(R Square) explained by the single product characteristic at Step 1 was recorded (Table 1)

with the dependent variable set as the mean creativity of the product.

Table 1: Hierarchical Multiple Regression Output

Product R Square R Square R Square R Square Mean

(R&E) (Novelty) (Elegance) (Genesis) Creativity

A 11.7% 17.5% 11.8% 20.7% 2.78

B 25.0% 31.0% 31.1% 26.2% 3.56

C 4.3% 16.6% 20.8% 19.7% 2.67

D 36.9% 34.4% 15.4% 27.3% 4.22

E 14.6% 30.6% 24.6% 29.2% 3.39

All values were significant at p<.01

Individually, each hierarchical multiple regression test tells us, not surprisingly, that

the four characteristics all contribute to overall creativity. More formally, each test, with each

242
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

characteristic entered in turn at Step 1, tests a mediation model such as that shown in Figure

2.

Genesis
Novelty

Elegance

Product
R&E
Creativity

Figure 2: Generic mediation model – product creativity

To test the hypothesis of interest – effectiveness and novelty are pre-requisites for

product creativity – it was necessary to combine the results of the separate hierarchical

regression tests across the five products. The values of R Square for each product

characteristic were tested for correlations with mean product creativity. The correlation

coefficients for this test are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Correlation coefficients for R Square values and product creativity

Mean Creativity

R Square (R&E) .962**

R Square (Novelty) .943*

R Square (Elegance) .297

R Square (Genesis) .798

** p<.01, * p<.05

These results suggest, for the first time, that there is empirical support for the assertion

that effectiveness and novelty are pre-requisite characteristics of creativity. The correlation

coefficients in Table 2 suggest that the more creative the product, the more its creativity is

predicted by relevance and effectiveness, and to a slightly lesser extent, by novelty. In other

243
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

words, this supports the hypothesis that for a product to be judged creative, it must, as a pre-

requisite, be relevant and effective, and novel.

At the same time, elegance and genesis are not unimportant – the individual

hierarchical regression models (each row in Table 1) show that these also play a role in

predicting creativity – however, that role is more complex and is the subject of on-going

research. What seems to be emerging from the work reported here is that the characteristics of

a creative product are both systematic and hierarchical. Different characteristics contribute to

creativity in different ways, and some characteristics matter more than others.

Key creativity studies in the engineering domain?

The question of key studies in the domain of engineering creativity is overlaid with many

conditions. Is a key study characterized by an underpinning theoretical framework that is

specific to engineering? Is it characterized by a sample that is uniquely representative of the

wider population of “engineers”? Is it defined by a focus on engineering products? Would it

be one that used a test of divergent thinking that better reflected the manner in which

engineers actually generate ideas?

In terms of their utility as a basis for expanding the body of knowledge – regardless of

any specific 4Ps focus – those studies that are firmly grounded in the psychology of creativity

are front-runners for the status of key studies. The work of Buhl (1960) – his book Creative

Engineering Design – is a rather obscure and little-cited work that, nevertheless, is

remarkably prescient. Written early in the modern creativity era, this book is surprisingly

germane to the discussions of engineering design, problem solving and the role of creativity.

Charyton (2008) is one of the few examples of studies published in mainstream creativity

literature that is built on the creativity body of knowledge in psychology, but is specific to the

engineering domain. Similarly, Cropley and Cropley (2000) has emerged as a frequently cited

244
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

study of a domain-specific sample, utilizing constructs and tests from the psychology of

creativity. More recently, we see other engineering studies emerging that are building on

established concepts in the psychology of creativity (e.g. Berger et al, 2014), and applying

these to the engineering domain. Finally, and most recently, studies of engineers and other

domains are emerging (e.g. Agogué et al, 2015) that are drilling into more specific issues of

creativity – product measurement, personal qualities and process characteristics – with a

much stronger grounding in the literature of the psychology of creativity.

The Future of Creativity in Engineering

The earlier discussion of Process and the validity of current tests of divergent thinking opens

up an exciting area of investigation in the domain of engineering creativity. In fact, the unique

perspectives of the engineering domain may assist in developing a better understanding of

what it means to be creative across all domains. The core question is one of form-first versus

function-first problems and their relationship to creativity.

The first issue is that traditional divergent thinking tests – the Alternate Uses Test, for

example – present the test subject with a solution, and fluency, flexibility, etc., are measured

for a range of possible problems that could be satisfied in this form-first task (Figure 3). Thus,

a shoe (the Form) might be associated with “paperweight” (Function A), “doorstop”

(Function B) and “pencil case” (Function C).

Function A

Form Function B

Function C

Figure 3: Form-First Problems

Not only is this unrepresentative of the way that engineers solve problems, but it may also

place an unwitting constraint on the individual’s creativity. Specifically, the functional

245
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

fixedness15 inherent in form-first tasks may place a constraint on creativity by reinforcing

conventional associations – between form and function – making it harder for the test subject

to find and articulate the remote associations (see Mednick, 1962, for the classic discussion of

remote associates) that are beneficial to divergent thinking.

In contrast to form-first tasks, function-first tasks present the test subject with a more

open-ended problem statement, and measure fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration

across the range of solutions that are generated in response (Figure 4). In this case, “how to

store baked beans?” (a Function) might be satisfied by “a ziplock bag” (Form A), “a paper

cup” (Form B) or “a tin can” (Form C).

Form A
Function Form B

Form C

Figure 4: Function-First Problems

One way to explain the difference between these two problem types is that they

represent different forms of externally imposed structure – i.e. rules and limits inherent in the

Press – that impact on individual creativity. Cropley (2014) described this in terms of the

tension between freedom and constraint, and the so-called design space. If constraint limits

the available design space, then it would seem that high structure must be bad for creativity,

and form-first tasks cannot generate the same variability as low-structure, function-first

problems (Table 3).

15
Functional fixedness was first discussed in detail by Duncker (1945). He used it to refer to the tendency of
people to use objects only in ways that are customary in their experience, which usually means in socially
defined ways; a hammer for example is regarded as useful only for hammering in nails and is not regarded as
providing a weight for the pendulum of a grandfather clock. The divergent thinker has to break this functional
fixedness. However, function is also fixed by other factors apart from social convention such as the laws of
biology or physics. Even for a divergent thinker the function of a tin can remains fixed: The criterion of
relevance and effectiveness means, for instance that it cannot be used as food for a starving baby or burned in a
campfire to provide warmth. Asking people being tested for divergent thinking how many ways they can think of
to use a tin can thus involves giving them a solution (the tin can) and asking them to find problems it could be
used to solve from within the fixed functionality of tin cans.

246
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Table 3: Task Types, Structure and Creativity

Task Type Structure Creativity

Form-First HI LO

Function-First LO HI

There is domain-specific evidence in engineering to support our assertions about the

impact of externally imposed structure on creativity. For example, in a task where participants

were asked to design a new toy (in general terms, a function-first task), Moreau and Dahl

(2005) found that participants who were told that they had to include a specific number of

design features (in effect, more explicit function-first tasks) had a higher degree of creative

thought processes, and hence came up with toy designs that were judged as more novel, than

those who were left to choose whether or not they incorporated those features. Similarly,

research conducted by Goldenberg, Mazursky, and Solmon (1999) found that suggestions for

improving existing products (once again, in general, a function-first task) were rated as more

original and practical when participants were given instructions to think about those products

in terms of specific features and functions, and then asked to change or modify these

components (again, highlighting more specific function-first problems).

More recently, Sandwith (2015) found further evidence supporting the beneficial

impact of low structure on product creativity. In her study, product creativity scores on a

form-first, high structure task were uncorrelated with individual participants’ creativity, while

product creativity and individual creativity were positively correlated on a function-first, low-

structure task.

However, in contrast to these findings, Sagiv, Arieli, Goldenberg, and Goldschmidt

(2010) have also found evidence suggesting that a high structure task can have a positive

influence on creativity. Two factors explain why this might be the case. First, harking back to

247
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

the statement by Dieter and Schmidt (2012) – the manner in which the function is stated may

have a strong impact on the apparent structure of the problem. Engineers know that the most

concise way to state a function is as a verb-noun pair, e.g. move (verb) a load (noun).

Function-first problem statements then take the form of a question – “How to Verb-Noun?”,

e.g. how to move a load? A form-dependent and solution-specific function is one in which the

verb-noun pair is highly specific, for example, “how to screw screws”. In this example,

another form of fixation may constrain thinking to the point that the only possible solution

that can be imagined is a screwdriver. Conversely, a form-independent and solution-neutral

function would state the verb-noun pair in the most abstract terms possible, minimizing

fixation and maximizing the range of solutions that can be imagined. “How to apply torque?”

is therefore likely to lead to greater creativity, inviting solutions like “knife blade”, “fingers”,

“coin” and “paper clip”, as well as the more conventional “screwdriver”. The explanation for

the finding of Sagiv et al (2010) is that there are, in fact, three generic task types: Form-First,

Function-First (Restrictive) and Function-First (Expansive) – see Table 4.

Table 4: Restrictive and Expansive Function-First Tasks

Task Type Structure Creativity

Form-First HI LO

Function-First HI? LO?

(Restrictive)

Function-First LO HI
(Expansive)

While expansive, abstract, function-first tasks and low structure in general seem likely

to support higher creativity, a question remains over the relative impact of different forms of

more structured task types. This also begs a very important question – are current form-first

divergent thinking tests really the best way to measure individual creativity?

The second factor that explains why some findings (Sagiv et al, 2010) suggest that
248
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

high structure may be associated with creativity concerns a second form of imposed structure.

Personal Need for Structure (PNS) can be thought of as a form of internally-imposed

structured, in contrast to the externally-imposed structure of constraints, rules and problem

type. Individuals with a high Personal Need for Structure are predisposed to think

convergently (Goclowska, Baas, Crisp, & De Dreu, 2014), and thus, the solutions they

produce are constrained by both externally imposed convergent thought (as prompted by the

task type) and internally imposed convergent thought (an intrinsic preference to do so). This

is supported by the finding (Sagiv et al, 2010) that the greatest difference between systematic

and intuitive thinkers (similar to high and low PNS) was found on the function-first (low

structure) task, with the intuitive thinkers (low PNS) producing ideas that were more novel

and creative than the systematic (high PNS) thinkers.

It is also important here to note the research of, for example, Stokes (2008), Haught and

Johnson-Laird (2003), and also Onarheim (2012), concerning the positive effects of

constraints on creativity. Structure, limitations and constraints may impact on creativity in a

variety of ways, both in terms of absolute size of the search, or design, space, and also in

terms of where, within that design space the engineer is able to look for solutions.

Conclusions

The engineering domain represents a very practical expression of creativity. The outcome, or

Product, is of special significance, although it is clear that Person, Process and Press are

necessary contributing factors. This means that creativity in the engineering domain is very

much a systems phenomenon, representing the result of the interaction of the 4Ps.

Although there is much that should be shared across engineering and other domains of

creativity, one aspect that is put into a new perspective is the manner in which creativity in

measured – both in the Process and in the Product. The engineering domain highlights the fact

that practical real-world problems, which require divergent thinking for their solution, are

249
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

usually expressed as functions for which an appropriate form is sought. This is distinctly

different from the traditional test of divergent thinking that places the form first, calling into

question the appropriateness, if not the validity, of divergent thinking tests for studying

engineering creativity. The engineering domain further highlights the importance of the

characteristics of the creative product. While a number of characteristics matter as far as

product creativity is concerned, some matter more than others. To an engineer, it is self-

evident that a product can only be creative if it is both effective and novel, and evidence is

emerging to support this hierarchical view of product creativity.

The interest – in a formal sense – for creativity in the engineering domain is growing.

More studies and literature are emerging that build on the body of knowledge of creativity

research, and it seems likely that this will continue to grow as more engineering researchers,

interested in the factors that contribute to engineering problem solving, continue to tap into

the psychology of creativity. A particular area of interest for future research concerns

developing a better understanding of the impact of problem type (i.e. form-first or function-

first) and a range of different manifestations of constraint (e.g. limitations on the absolute size

of a given design space, versus limitations imposed within a given design space) on creativity.

Coupled with a growing understanding of the domain-specific elements of personality and

press on engineering creativity, this holds out the prospect of far more efficient methods for

finding and developing novel and effective solutions to technological problems.

References

Agogué, M., Le Masson, P., Dalmasso, C., Houdé, O., & Cassotti, M. (2015). Resisting

classical solutions: The creative mind of industrial designers and engineers.

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(3), 313-318.

250
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique.

Journal of personality and social psychology, 43, 997-1013.

Amabile, T. M., & Tighe, E. (1993). Questions of creativity. In J. Brockman (Ed.), Creativity.

The Reality Club (Vol. 4, pp. 7-27). New York: Simon and Schuster.

Badran, I. (2007). Enhancing creativity and innovation in engineering education. European

Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5), 573-585.

Baer, J. M. (2010). Is creativity domain specific? In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),

The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 321-341). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Berger, K., Surovek, A., Jensen, D., & Cropley, D. (2014). Individual creativity and team

engineering design: A taxonomy for team composition. Paper presented at the

Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, Madrid, Spain.

Besemer, S. P., & O'Quin, K. (1987). Creative product analysis: Testing a model by

developing a judging instrument. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity

research: Beyond the basics (pp. 367-389). Buffalo: Brady.

Blanchard, B. S., & Fabrycky, W. J. (2006). Systems engineering and analysis (4th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Buhl, H. R. (1960). Creative engineering design: Iowa State University Press.

Cattell, R. B., & Butcher, H. J. (1968). The prediction of achievement and creativity. New

York: Bobbs-Merrill.

Charyton, C., Jagacinski, R. J., & Merrill, J. A. (2008). CEDA: A research instrument for

creative engineering design assessment., 2(3), 147. Psychology of Aesthetics,

Creativity, and the Arts, 2(3), 147-154.

Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and

Individual Differences, 13(6), 653-665.

251
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cropley, A. J. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3),

391-404.

Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet? In S.

Moran, D. H. Cropley, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Ethics of Creativity (pp. 152-

169). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.

Cropley, D. H. (2015). Creativity in engineering: Novel solutions to complex problems. San

Diego: Academic Press.

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates.

High ability studies, 11(2), 207-219.

Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept of

functional creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Faces of the Muse: How

People Think, Work and Act Creatively in Diverse Domains (pp. 169-185). Hillsdale:

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cropley, D. H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Measuring functional creativity: Non-expert raters

and the creative solution diagnosis scale. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(2),

119-137.

Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., & Cropley, A. J. (2011). Measuring creativity for innovation

management. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 6(3), 13-30.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R.

J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 325-339). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity.

In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313-335). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

252
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Dieter, G. E., & Schmidt, L. C. (2012). Engineering design (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-

Hill Higher Education.

Goclowska, M. A., Baas, M., Crisp, R. J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014). Whether Social

Schema Violations Help or Hurt Creativity Depends on Need for Structure.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(8), 959-971. Retrieved from

doi:10.1177/0146167214533132

Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., & Solmon, S. (1999). Toward identifying the inventive

templates of new products: A channeled ideation approach. Journal of Marketing

Research, 36, 200-210.

Gruber, H. E., & Wallace, D. B. (1999). The case study method and evolving systems

approach for understanding unique creative people at work. In R. Sternberg (Ed.),

Handbook of creativity (pp. 93-115). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Haught, C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2003). Creativity and constraints: The production of

novel sentences. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the

Cognitive Science Society.

Heinelt, G. (1974). Kreative Lehrer/kreative Schüler [Creative Teachers/Creative Students].

Freiburg: Herder.

Horenstein, M. N. (2002). Design concepts for engineers (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Ihsen, S., & Brandt, D. (1998). Editorial: Creativity: How to Educate and Train Innovative

Engineers. European Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 3-4.

Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman

& R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 20-47). New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

253
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of creativity. Psychological Review, 69, 220-

232.

Miller, A. I. (1992). Scientific creativity: A comparative study of Henri Poincare and Albert

Einstein. Creativity Research Journal, 5(4), 385-414.

Mishra, P., & Henriksen, D. (2013). A NEW Approach to Defining and Measuring Creativity:

Rethinking Technology & Creativity in the 21st Century. TechTrends, 57(5), 10-13.

Mokyr, J. (1990). The lever of riches: Technological creativity and economic progress. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Moreau, P., & Dahl, D. W. (2005). The Impact of Constraints on Consumers’ Creativity.

Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 13-22. Retrieved from:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/429597

Onarheim, B. (2012). Creativity from constraints in engineering design: lessons learned at

Coloplast. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(4), 323-336.

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,

Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-

563.

Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to

educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity

research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83-96.

Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J.

Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48-73). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310.

254
Pre-publication Version - Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J. and Sandwith, B. L. (2017). Creativity in the
Engineering Domain. In J. Kaufman, V. P. Glaveanu, and J. Baer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity
Across Domains, Chapter 15, (pp. 261-275), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sagiv, L., Arieli, S., Goldenberg, J., & Goldschmidt, A. (2010). Structure and freedom in

creativity: The interplay between externally imposed structure and personal cognitive

style. Journal of organizational behavior, 31(8), 1086-1110.

Sandwith, B. L. (2015). The Influence of Structure and Personality On Creativity In a

Military Context. University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

Stokes, P. D. (2008). Creativity from Constraints: What can we learn from Motherwell? from

Modrian? from Klee? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(4), 223-236.

Taylor, I. A. (1975). An emerging view of creative actions. In I. A. Taylor & J. W. Getzels

(Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 297-325). Chicago: Aldine.

Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Technical norms manual.

Lexington, MA: Personnel Press.

Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1996). Test for Creative Thinking - Drawing Production (TCT-

DP). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.

255
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–pp.
(Online first).

The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain Differences and Creativity in

Engineering and Design

Professor David H Cropley*

School of Engineering
University of South Australia
Email: [email protected]

Professor James C Kaufman

Neag School of Education
University of Connecticut

*Corresponding Author

256
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–pp.
(Online first).

The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain Differences and Creativity in

Engineering and Design

Abstract
For many years, researchers have debated the role of “domain” in creativity. Opinion remains

divided, but a common view is that creativity is a combination of domain-general elements,

coupled with domain-specific manifestations, usually in the form of different kinds of

products. Discussions of domains and creativity frequently take place in very broad, thematic

terms, differentiating only between Arts and Sciences, with less attention given to differences

within domains. The goal of this paper is to explore a single technological domain, studying

differences between the micro-domains of Engineering and Industrial Design. Do Engineers

and Industrial Designers differ when evaluating the creativity of products? If they differ, what

might be the underlying drivers of these differences? Contrary to expectations, not only were

there significant differences between these groups, but evidence presented in this study

suggests that Engineers have difficulty differentiating between aesthetics and functionality, as

components of product creativity, in contrast to Industrial Designers, who seem to possess a

more discriminating eye.

Keywords: creativity, innovation, engineering, industrial design, domains, function,

aesthetics

257
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–pp.
(Online first).
The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain Differences and Creativity in
Engineering and Design
1. Introduction

The debate concerning the domain generality or domain specificity of creativity has ebbed

and flowed for at least twenty years. From a classic point-counterpoint, focused on whether

creativity was general (1), or domain-specific (2), to edited volumes (3, 4), this question has

remained at the forefront of creativity research. More than a decade ago, (3) emphasized that

although the domain-general nature of creativity may remain unclear, there seems “no doubt

that domain-specific abilities exist – and that such abilities matter very much in creative

performance in diverse domains” (p. xiii). The field is still discovering and studying the

nature and extent of these domain-specific abilities, evidenced by a new edited volume on the

topic that is twice as big as earlier books (5)!

One possible way to make sense of domains in creativity is through the lens of the 4Ps

(Person, Product, Process, and Press; (6); see also (7)). Past research, such as studies by (8),

(9) and (10) has suggested a strong degree of domain specificity in studies focused on creative

products (e.g. stories, poems, and works of art). In other words, the ability to produce a

creative output in one domain tended to be specific to that domain. Conversely, studies that

focused on the person (e.g. 1, 11, 12) – using both self-assessments of creativity and tests of

divergent thinking – tended to show creativity as domain general in nature.

The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) model of creativity (13 – 16) provides a

more systematic and nuanced approach to the question of how domains and the 4Ps intersect,

and helps to untangle the question of domain specificity/generality in creativity. The initial

requirements of the APT model – those factors that are pre-requisites for creativity in any

domain – include elements of person (e.g. intelligence and motivation) and press (i.e. the

organizational or cultural climate).

258
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–pp.
(Online first).
The APT model of creativity proposes three levels that go from more broad to very

specific. First are the General Thematic Areas, akin to slightly more specific variations of the

description of the two cultures of Art and Science (17). These expansive categories may

include the Visual Arts, Creative Writing, Science, Scholarship, Interpersonal Relations, or

Performance (18 – 20). Next come domains (e.g. Psychology, Poetry) and even micro-

domains (e.g. Cognitive Psychology, Sonnets). One of the main applied points of the APT

model is that different general thematic areas, domains, and even micro-domains will have

separate patterns of individual difference variables associated with creativity. In other words,

a creative artist will differ from a creative scientist on personality (21), (19), domain

knowledge (22), emotions (23), creative self-beliefs (24), and cognitive strengths (25).

There have been fewer studies looking at differences by domains and micro-domains,

but some exist; often, college majors are used as a proxy for creative interests. Kaufman (26),

for example, found that creative writers were more open to experience, neurotic, and

intrinsically motivated than journalists. Pringle, DuBose, and Yankey (27) compared eight

different business majors to find that marketing majors were most extraverted and computer

information systems majors were most introverted. Kaufman, Pumacchua, and Holt (28)

surveyed multiple majors; social science majors were most likely to be open and agreeable,

whereas arts majors were most likely to have higher creative self-beliefs.

There are other theories and models similar in concept to the APT model. For

example, fractal geometry (29, 30) suggests that domains follow a pattern of repeating, self-

similar entities. This sentiment is echoed in the many different domains discussed in (31).

Beyond the single super-domain that encompasses creativity in any area or activity, we find

very general thematic areas of arts and science, followed variously by the more specific

domains of poetry and painting, or maths and biology. Plucker and Beghetto (32) have

proposed a “hybrid” model in which creativity is mostly domain-general but appears domain-

259
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–pp.
(Online first).
specific in real-world actions. The level of domain-specificity varies depending on social

context, maturing as someone progresses from childhood into adulthood. Further, the Creative

Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ) developed by (33) uses a similar domain-based hierarchy

to explore areas in which creative achievement is typically found. Two broad thematic areas –

Arts and Science – decompose into a total of ten domains – Drama, Writing, Humor, Music,

Visual Arts and Dance, on the one hand, and Invention, Science, and Culinary endeavors, on

the other.

Hierarchical models such as the APT can lend insight into how creativity is studied in

different areas. For example, engineering creativity is a rapidly expanding field of interest.

(34 – 36) highlight not only the role that engineering played in defining the modern creativity

era, but also the central importance of creativity to the process of technological problem

solving. Despite this, studies that examine how creativity in engineering differs from other

types of creativity are sparse. Where they exist, most use engineering as a proxy for general

science and compare engineers to people in the arts (e.g., 37, 38).

However interesting it might be to compare engineers to people in radically different

domains, the differences tend to be large and somewhat predictable. Such comparisons add to

our general knowledge of creativity, but offer little in the way of insight into the subtleties of

creativity across elements of the person, the process, and so forth. These studies also offer

little applied help in guiding people to be creative; students debating between pursuing a

career in engineering versus painting are probably few. However, comparing engineering to a

closely related alternative (as opposed to a general thematic area) could have great practical

impact. For example, many students may be torn between studying the micro-domains

engineering and industrial design.

As related micro-domains, engineering and industrial design share a common

connection. Both are concerned with the development of technological solutions in response

260
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–pp.
(Online first).
to an identified need. Both, in other words, seek to create tangible products as their output.

Thus, while they share a parent domain, it is recognized that engineers design products “from

the inside out”, while industrial designers work “from the outside in” (e.g. 34, 39, 40). The

differences between these two micro-domains are simplified for the purposes of this study.

However, as a means for exploring differences in the perception of creativity between closely

related domains, it seems sufficient to highlight major contrasts. Thus, engineers and

industrial designers are concerned with developing solutions to the same design problems, but

work from opposite, yet complimentary, perspectives. Indeed, the close relationship between

the two micro-domains is vital – “a product which functions well but is ugly, or which is

stylish but not well engineered, will not survive in the market” (p.2) (41). The ideal solution

to a technological, design problem is therefore one that draws on the skillsets of both

engineers and industrial designers to maximize both the functional and the aesthetic

components of the solution.

It might be expected, therefore, that with respect to creativity, engineers have a greater

focus on performance or effectiveness, while industrial designers are more concerned with the

visual appeal, or elegance, of a solution. In fact, (42) first suggested that creativity in the

engineering (micro) domain could be characterized as functional creativity. With respect to

the characteristics of creative products, they built on existing frameworks to suggest a

hierarchy of relevance and effectiveness, novelty, elegance and genesis, suggesting that both

relevance and effectiveness, and novelty, acted as pre-requisite qualities for engineering

creativity. They suggested, furthermore, that other (micro) domains might place a different

emphasis on the importance of these characteristics, depending on the needs of the domain.

This led to the hypothesis that functionality would be valued above anything else, by

engineers assessing the creativity of products.

261
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–pp.
(Online first).
More recently, (43) supported the complementary nature of engineering and industrial

design in creativity, noting that “engineers would rather express performance creativity …

whereas industrial designers would be more rooted in artistic creativity.” (p. 314). These

authors also noted that differences between engineers and industrial designers might be

explained by cognitive differences (e.g. in divergent thinking) citing evidence from (44) and

also personality differences (e.g. curiosity) citing (45). Agogué et al (43) also noted the value

of investigating differences in these micro-domains, as a means for providing “…new insights

for the debate on the domain generality or domain specificity of creativity (p. 314). In the

body of design literature, as distinct from creativity research, there are also studies exploring

differences in aesthetic and functional characteristics of products, though typically focused on

the experience of the consumer (e.g. 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50).

In this study chair designs were selected as the stimulus because they represent

tangible artefacts that embody elements of a broadly technological problem solving process,

of the type relevant to engineers and industrial designers. For engineers, this process is

understood (51) as harnessing “the laws of nature” and using them “to produce devices or

systems that perform tasks and solve problems” (p. 2), whereas industrial designers consider

this process to be “creating products to optimize function, value and appearance for the

mutual benefit of user and manufacturer” (52). If a design problem is, for example, “how to

support a sitting person’s weight”, then a chair represents both a functional solution (e.g. what

materials, in what physical arrangement, are capable of supporting a person who weighs

100Kg?), and it represents an aesthetic solution (e.g. what materials, in what physical

arrangement, make the chair ergonomically and visually appealing to users?). The former is

traditionally the concern of the engineer, while the latter is the concern of the industrial

designer (53).

262
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–pp.
(Online first).
Chair designs are therefore ideal as a means for examining the possible differences in

how engineers and industrial designers recognize, and value, key product characteristics –

functionality (performance) and aesthetics (visual and ergonomics) – and how these may, or

may not, differentially impact on how creativity is recognized and valued in these two related

micro-domains.

In this study, we explore the notion that Engineers’ overall product creativity ratings

will be driven more from their functionality ratings than their aesthetic ratings. Conversely,

Industrial Designers’ overall creativity ratings will be driven more by their aesthetic ratings

than their functionality ratings. From this, we identify three exploratory hypotheses:

 Hypothesis 1.1 Engineers will rate the functionality of products higher than do

Industrial Designers;

 Hypothesis 1.2 Industrial Designers will rate the aesthetics of products higher than do

Engineers;

 Hypothesis 1.3 Engineers and Industrial Designers will rate the creativity of products

differently.

263
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
2. Method
2.1 Participants

The participants in this study of product creativity consisted of 121 junior (3rd year) college

students (120 valid cases) enrolled in either a Bachelor of Engineering degree or a Bachelor

of Design (Industrial Design) degree in one of two universities in Australia. Participants took

part in the study online, as volunteers. The sample included 72 participants (59 male; 13

female; 59.5%) who identified as Engineering students, 48 participants (38 male; 10 female;

39.7%) who identified as Industrial Design students, and one (.8%) who did not indicate a

program of study, and was eliminated from the research study. The most common age group

in the sample was 21-24 years (N=63; 52.1%), followed by 18-20 (N=16; 13.2%).

2.2 Procedure and Measures

Participants were directed to a website where the relevant measures and stimulus materials

were hosted online. Two sets of measures were used in this study, one to assess creativity and

one to assess personality. For creativity, the Consensual Assessment Technique (54) was used

as the basis for the ratings of the chairs. This method has qualified experts (which can include

advanced students; see 55, 56) look at a series of creative products and assign ratings based

on their personal definitions of creativity. The raters do not communicate with each other,

and simply compare products with each other, as opposed to an ideal version of the product.

Participants were presented with a series of 10 photographs of chairs (see Appendix A), and

invited to rate these according to the “functional” and “aesthetic” aspects of each chair

design, on 5-point, Likert-type scales, ranging from “Very Low” through “Medium” and up

to “Very High”. Participants were then invited to rate the “overall creativity” of each chair on

a 5-point, Likert-type scale, ranging from “Very Low” through “Medium” and up to “Very

High”. Although other creative product rating scales do exist (e.g. 42, 57) the focus of this

study – differences in how creativity is perceived in related domains – meant that the

264
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
consensual assessment approach was sufficient. In other words, the purpose of the study is

not to measure the creativity of the chairs; rather it is to understand differences in how

individuals perceive elements of creativity of products more generally.

In the present study, three related measures of the product were used: Functionality

(scale reliability – Cronbach’s alpha – was .706); Aesthetics (α = .789) and Creativity (α =

.777). Following the criteria set out by (58) these values of scale reliability indicate a good

level of internal consistency in the three measures.

The five-factor model of personality was measured using the 50-item version of the

International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; 59, 60). This scale is designed to measure

adjective-derived five-factor personality theory. Extraversion (E) assesses how outgoing,

social and expressive a person is. Agreeableness (A) assesses how cooperative, kind and

altruistic a person is. Conscientiousness (C) assesses how organised, prepared and hard-

working a person is. Emotional Stability (ES), often also expressed as its converse,

Neuroticism, assesses anxiety, mood and emotional resilience. Openness (O), finally,

assesses imagination, adventurousness and willingness to try new things. In the Big Five

Factor Markers, participants rate how well each statement describes themselves on a Likert-

type scale, ranging from “1” (very inaccurate) to “5” (very accurate). Sample statements

include: “Am the life of the party,” “Feel little concern for others,” “Am always prepared,”

“Get stressed out easily,” and “Have a rich vocabulary.” The items were presented in a

random order with positive and negative keying. Scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) in this

study were: Extraversion (α = .815); Emotional stability (α = .869); Conscientiousness (α =

.771); Openness (α = .834); Agreeableness (α = .711). These figures also indicate good

internal consistency according to (58).

265
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
3. Results

Table 1 presents descriptive data for all personality and creativity variables.

Table 1 about here

Test of normality, including measures of skewness and kurtosis, indicated that the

data distributions fell within accepted limits, and the data are thus suitable for further

parametric analysis.

To explore the hypotheses concerning micro-domain differences between Engineers

and Industrial Designers, independent-samples t-tests were conducted for the Functionality,

Aesthetics and Creativity ratings of chairs (Table 2). The t-test is designed to detect

differences between two sample groups on a single variable.

Table 2 about here

These results indicate the following: (a) that hypothesis H1.1 (Engineers will rate the

functionality of products higher than Industrial Designers) is not supported; (b) that

hypothesis H1.2 (Industrial Designers will rate the aesthetics of products higher than

Engineers) is supported, and; (c) that hypothesis H1.3 (Engineers and Industrial Designers

will rate the creativity of products differently) is supported. Furthermore, the observed

differences are statistically significant (i.e. non-random) and show medium to large effect

sizes (the detected differences are sufficiently large to be meaningful and consequential).

These results prompt two important questions. Firstly, why are there differences

between the micro-domain groups (i.e. between Engineers and Industrial Designers)?

Secondly, what do the differences reveal about how different micro-domains perceive

creativity in products?

4. Why are there differences based on micro-domain?

Two plausible explanations for the apparent differences between Engineers and Industrial

Designers in creativity, functionality and aesthetics may be found in differences in

266
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
personality, and differences in gender, between the two groups. Previous research has found

personality differences at the level of general thematic areas, but does this hold at the level of

these micro-domains?

To test these explanations, we first conducted a series of two-way, between-groups

ANOVAs to explore the impact of micro-domain, gender and age on levels of functionality,

aesthetics, creativity (Table 3), and personality (Table 4). The ANOVA test can be thought of

as an extension of the t-test, designed to explore differences between groups when the groups

have more than one defining characteristic (e.g. they differ on both age and gender).

ANOVAs also have the potential to reveal interaction effects – e.g. where the groups differ

on age, but where this is dependent on gender. In other words, the ANOVA can reveal that

older males differ from younger females in a statistically meaningful way.

Table 3 about here

4.1 Functionality

The two-way, between-groups ANOVA (Table 3) confirmed a statistically significant main

effect for micro-domain, with a medium effect size (see Table 2), however, there were no

statistically significant interaction effects for micro-domain x age, micro-domain x gender, or

for age x gender for this variable.

4.2 Aesthetics

The two-way, between-groups ANOVA (Table 3) confirmed a statistically significant main

effect for micro-domain, with a medium-large effect size (see Table 2), however, there were

no statistically significant interaction effects for micro-domain x age, micro-domain x gender,

or for age x gender for this variable.

4.3 Creativity

The two-way, between-groups ANOVA (Table 3) confirmed a statistically significant main

effect for micro-domain, with a large effect size (see Table 2). In addition, there was a

267
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
statistically significant interaction effect (Table 3) for micro-domain x gender, F(1,111) =

3.91, p = .051, η2 = .0316. Figure 1 shows the interaction effect between micro-domain and

gender.

Figure 1 about here

These results suggest that while Industrial Designers rate functionality, aesthetics and

creativity higher than engineers, it is only the differences in ratings of creativity that may be

explained by gender. More specifically, male engineers rated creativity substantially lower

than male industrial designers.

Table 4 about here

4.4 Extraversion

The two-way, between-groups ANOVA (Table 4) indicated a statistically significant main

effect for micro-domain, F(1,101) = 4.73, p = .032, η2 = .05, with Engineers (M = 2.93; SD =

.61) less extraverted than Industrial Designers (M = 3.11; SD = .75). There was also a

statistically significant main effect for age, F(1,101) = 17.40, p = .000, η2 = .15, with 18-24

year old participants (M = 2.83; SD = .62) significantly less extraverted than 25+ year old

participants (M = 3.29; SD = .65). In addition, there was a statistically significant interaction

effect (Table 4) for micro-domain x age, F(1,101) = 4.95, p = .028, η2 = .05. Figure 2 shows

the interaction effect between micro-domain and age.

Figure 2 about here

4.5 Agreeableness

The two-way, between-groups ANOVA (Table 4) indicated a statistically significant main

effect for micro-domain, F(1,103) = 12.25, p = .001, η2 = .11. Results indicated that

16
For readers unfamiliar with statistical analyses of the type used in this paper, the F-statistic tests the equality
of group means. The key figures in the result are the p value, which tells us if the result is non-random (a value
below .05 is usually taken to mean that the result is non-random), and eta-squared (η2) which represents the
“effect size”. A value of around .06 is regarded as a medium effect size, while .14 is regarded as large. The
value M represents the mean of the variable in question, with SD representing the standard deviation.

268
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
Engineers (M = 3.51; SD = .45) were significantly less agreeable than Industrial Designers

(M = 3.82; SD = .57). There was also a statistically significant main effect for age, F(1,103) =

13.05, p = .000, η2 = .11, with results indicating that 18-24 year old participants (M = 3.52;

SD = .53) were significantly less agreeable than 25+ year old participants (M = 3.84; SD =

.46). There were no statistically significant interaction effects for micro-domain x age, micro-

domain x gender, or for age x gender for this variable.

4.6 Conscientiousness

There were no statistically significant main effects or interaction effects for conscientiousness

(Table 4).

4.7 Emotional Stability

There were no statistically significant main effects or interaction effects for emotional

stability (Table 4).

4.8 Openness

The two-way, between-groups ANOVA (Table 4) indicated a statistically significant main

effect for micro-domain, F(1,101) = 51.64, p = .000, η2 = .34. Results indicated that

Engineers (M = 3.40; SD = .54) were significantly less open than Industrial Designers (M =

4.09; SD = .42). There was also a statistically significant main effect for age, F(1,101) = 5.00,

p = .028, η2 = .05, with results indicating that 18-24 year old participants (M = 3.52; SD =

.53) were less open than 25+ year old participants (M = 3.84; SD = .46). There were no

statistically significant interaction effects for micro-domain x age, micro-domain x gender, or

for age x gender for this variable.

Thus, not only do Industrial Designers rate the creativity, functionality and aesthetics

of products higher than Engineers do, but also they are more agreeable, more extraverted, and

more open – could this explain the apparent micro-domain differences?

269
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
5. What do the differences reveal about how different micro-domains perceive
creativity in products?

Earlier, we speculated that a difference between these micro-domains is that Engineers will

tend to focus on functionality as a principal component of creativity, whereas Industrial

Designers will tend to focus on aesthetics. This suggests that, for both groups, functionality

and aesthetics should correlate strongly to creativity, but less strongly to each other. If this

were not the case, it would suggest that functionality and aesthetics are measuring the same

construct and are therefore redundant (see, for example, (61)). Inter-item correlations of

greater than .8 are generally taken to indicate redundancy. Furthermore, if Engineers are more

concerned with functionality as a component of creativity, we might expect this variable to

correlate more highly to creativity, and aesthetics less highly, while for Industrial Designers,

we would expect aesthetics to correlate more highly to creativity, and functionality less so.

Table 5 shows results for these hypothesized correlations between functionality,

aesthetics and creativity. For both groups – Engineers and Industrial Designers – inter-item

correlations were less than .8, suggesting that functionality and aesthetics are measuring

distinct, but related constructs. For Industrial Designers, as expected, aesthetics correlated

more strongly to creativity than functionality. However, contrary to expectations, for

Engineers aesthetics correlated to creativity more strongly than functionality, with a strong

positive correlation also between functionality and aesthetics. It is also possible, of course,

that this finding may differ for more (or less) experienced Engineers and Industrial Designers.

Table 5 about here

As a further exploration of the relationships between micro-domains, and the

measures of creativity, functionality and aesthetics, we used the Fisher r-to-z transformation

to assess the significance of the difference between the correlation coefficients for the

270
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
independent samples of Engineers and Industrial Designers (i.e. in Table 5). Only

Functional/Aesthetics was significant, z = 2.71; p = .007 (two-tailed). We see that for

engineers, functionality and aesthetics show a strong positive correlation (Table 5: .757**).

In scale development terms, this is approaching the level (.8) where it might be suggested that

the two measures are measuring the same construct, and are therefore redundant. However, if

we assume that these measures are valid and reliable (see, for example, (62, 63)), then the

explanation may lie not in the scale items, but in the people using them. In other words,

Engineers may struggle to differentiate between functionality and aesthetics in the way that

Industrial Designers can (whose correlation of the two is much more moderate; .428**).

Simultaneously, we see (Table 5) that Engineers (.592**) associate functionality with

creativity more strongly than do Industrial Designers (.536**), while the latter (.714**)

associate aesthetics with creativity more strongly than do Engineers (.654**). However,

differences between Engineers and Industrial Designers for these comparisons were not

significant (using the Fisher r-to-z transformation).

All of this may be interpreted as suggesting that Engineers tend to conflate the two

measures (functionality and aesthetics), compared to Industrial Designers, who seem able to

differentiate more between them. Industrial Designers, in other words, may be more sensitive

to the differences between functionality and aesthetics. In more colloquial terms, for

Engineers, if something looks nice, they see it as functional (and vice versa), whereas for

Industrial Designers, something can look nice, but not be functional, and vice versa. For

Engineers, looking nice and working seem to go hand in hand, while Industrial Designers

have a more discriminating eye. However, who is right? Is the chair that looks nice also the

best chair in functional terms? Is the true answer determined ultimately by the view of the

customer or end-user? If the findings regarding Engineers and Industrial Designers are

271
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
correct, what does this mean for practical design creativity, and for the education of

Engineers and Industrial Designers?

To attempt to address this issue – who should we believe (is the Engineer correctly

conflating the two, or is the Industrial Designer’s discerning eye correct) – we conducted a

regression analysis of the data (Table 6).

Table 6 about here

For all participants – both functionality and aesthetics were predictors of creativity,

but for Engineers, only aesthetics was a significant predictor, while for Industrial Designers,

both functionality and aesthetics were significant predictors (Table 6). Previously, we

speculated that Engineers conflate functionality and aesthetics in assessing product creativity,

while Industrial Designers discriminate between them. The regression result supports the

same hypothesis – not only do Engineers’ ratings of aesthetics correlate more strongly to

creativity than their ratings of functionality, but their ratings of aesthetics are the only

significant predictor of product creativity. For engineers at least, aesthetics seems to be

irresistible as an indicator of both creativity and functionality!

Industrial Designers, in contrast, show both aesthetics and functionality as significant

predictors of product creativity. This reinforces our earlier assertion that Industrial Designers

have a more discriminating eye when it comes to assessing product creativity.

Our earlier analysis of group differences suggested that elements of personality may

explain differences between Engineers and Industrial Designers; the latter being more

agreeable, extraverted and open than the former. As a further exploration of the differences

between these groups, we conducted a regression analysis of the Big 5 as predictors of

creativity. The results in Table 7 indicate that while openness is a predictor of creativity for

all participants, only agreeableness was a predictor of creativity for Industrial Designers.

Table 7 about here

272
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
The results of this study indicated statistically significant differences in ratings of

functionality, aesthetics and creativity between the two micro-domain groups. The question

of why these differences exist is more complex. On the one hand, there is evidence to suggest

that gender – in this case males – plays a role in explaining differences between creativity

ratings. On the other hand, differences in personality, possibly linked to age, are evident

between the two micro-domains. There is also a causal question here – does the field of

industrial design attract more agreeable, extraverted and open people, or does the micro-

domain make them so? Conversely, are people who are less sensitive to differences in

functionality and aesthetics attracted to engineering, or does the process of training to be an

engineer lead individuals to conflate these two constructs?

6. Limitations and Future Research

Notwithstanding the findings of this study, there are several factors that may limit the

generalizability of these results, and suggest pathways for future research. The stimulus items

selected for this study – the chair designs – may elicit perceptions of functionality, aesthetics

and creativity in different ways than other products. Future research should explore similar

micro-domain differences using a variety of other products, in effect controlling for innate

levels of the variables of interest. A related limitation is the use only of images of the

stimulus items. Is a photograph sufficient as a representation of the design of the product to

allow meaningful judgements of functionality, aesthetics and creativity? Future research

should explore the use of real, physical artefacts as stimulus items. This might also be

extended with the use of eye-tracking to understand differences in how engineers and

industrial designer attend to product features, and how this might affect judgements of the

variables of interest.

7. Conclusions

Although debate continues, there is broad consensus that creativity involves a blend of

273
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
domain-general and domain-specific factors. There seems little doubt that there is a general

set of person- and press-related pre-requisite requirements for creativity – e.g. motivation and

intelligence. As the hierarchy of domains expands from Scientific versus Artistic into more

highly differentiated categories – e.g. maths, biology and physics versus poetry, music and

dance – there emerge more subtle, domain-specific differences in person and environment. In

contrast, the influence of the product, manifest as the creative performance of the individual,

has previously been described only as a factor in specific domains.

In this study, we have found support for micro-domain differences in creativity –

between Engineering and Industrial Design – with evidence suggesting that these differences

are present across components of creativity – functionality and aesthetics – as well is in

overall creativity perceived by these separate, but related, micro-domains. Exploring possible

drivers of these micro-domain differences, the present study found two possible explanations.

First, evidence suggests that micro-domain differences in creativity may be a function of

gender, with statistically significant differences found between males in the two micro-

domains. Second, evidence suggests that micro-domain differences in creativity may be

explained by differences in personality with results suggesting distinct contrasts between

older (25+) industrial designers, in comparison to younger (18-24) engineers.

Exploring underlying causes for micro-domain differences between Engineers and

Industrial Designers, we found evidence to suggest that these may be manifest as an inability

of Engineers to differentiate between functionality and aesthetics, as components of

creativity, in comparison to Industrial Designers, who seem to possess a greater sensitivity to

the components of creativity. A key question emerging from this study asks why – why

should two related micro-domains perceive key elements of creativity so differently? Are

certain individuals attracted to professions such as Engineering or Industrial Design because

of the way that they perceive creativity and its components (functionality and aesthetics), or

274
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
do these disciplines shape the individual to conform to certain domain-based norms, and

ways of perceiving the world around them? Regardless of the possible causal patterns, these

findings contain important considerations for how Engineers and Industrial Designers are

educated, and how their skills and abilities with respect to creativity are developed and

nurtured. An abiding problem in creativity is the persistence of myths and misconceptions

about the nature of creativity, and the factors that characterise the creativity of things (e.g.

64). Education programs in Engineering and Industrial Design will benefit from systematic

attempts to teach students not only the characteristics of a creative product, but also the

cognitive thinking skills required to generate and analysis new product ideas, as well as the

personal attributes that can enhance, or inhibit, the production of novel ideas (see 34, 35).

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Funding
Not Applicable

References

1. Plucker JA. Beware of simple conclusions: The case for content generality of

creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 1998;11:179-82.

2. Baer JM. The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal.

1998;11(2):173-7.

275
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
3. Kaufman JC, Baer J, editors. Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2005.

4. Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL, Singer JL. Creativity: From potential to realization.

Washington DC: American Psychological Association; 2004.

5. Kaufman JC, Glăveanu V, Baer J, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity

Across Domains. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2017.

6. Rhodes M. An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan. 1961;42(7):305-10.

7. Barron FX. Creative person and creative process. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston; 1969.

8. Baer J. Generality of creativity across performance domains. Creativity Research

Journal. 1991;4(1):23-39.

9. Baer J. Divergent thinking and creativity: A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1993.

10. Baer J. Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multidomain training experiment.

Creativity Research Journal. 1994;7(1):35-46.

11. Plucker JA. Reanalyses of student responses to creativity checklists: Evidence of

content generality. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 1999;33(2):126-37.

12. Plucker JA. Generalization of creativity across domains: Examination of the method

effect hypothesis. Journal of Creative Behavior. 2004;38(1):1-12.

13. Baer JM, Kaufman JC. Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park

theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review. 2005;27(3):158-63.

14. Kaufman JC, Baer J. I bask in dreams of suicide: Mental illness, poetry, and women.

Review of General Psychology. 2002;6(3):271.

276
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
15. Kaufman JC, Baer J. The amusement park theory of creativity. In: Kaufman JC, Baer

J, editors. Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2005. p. 321-8.

16. Kaufman JC, Baer J. Intelligent testing with Torrance. Creativity Research Journal.

2006;18(1):99-102.

17. Snow CP. Two cultures. Science. 1959;130(3373).

18. Ivcevic Z, Mayer JD. Mapping dimensions of creativity in the life-space. Creativity

Research Journal. 2009;21(2-3):152-65.

19. Kaufman JC. Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of

Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.

2012;6(4):298.

20. Kaufman JC, Baer J, Cole JC. Expertise, domains, and the consensual assessment

technique. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 2009;43(4):223-33.

21. Feist GJ. A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity.

Personality and Social Psychology Review. 1998;2(4):290-309.

22. Jeon K-N, Moon SM, French B. Differential effects of divergent thinking, domain

knowledge, and interest on creative performance in art and math. Creativity Research

Journal. 2011;23(1):60-71.

23. Kozbelt A, Dexter S, Dolese M, Meredith D, Ostrofsky J. Regressive Imagery in

Creative Problem‐Solving: Comparing Verbal Protocols of Expert and Novice Visual

Artists and Computer Programmers. The Journal of Creative Behavior.

2015;49(4):263-78.

24. Furnham A, Batey M, Booth TW, Patel V, Lozinskaya D. Individual difference

predictors of creativity in Art and Science students. Thinking skills and creativity.

2011;6(2):114-21.

277
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
25. Park G, Lubinski D, Benbow CP. Contrasting intellectual patterns predict creativity in

the arts and sciences: Tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years.

Psychological Science. 2007;18(11):948-52.

26. Kaufman JC. Dissecting the golden goose: Components of studying creative writers.

Communication Research Journal. 2002;14(1):27-40.

27. Pringle CD, DuBose PB, Yankey MD. Personality characteristics and choice of

academic major: Are traditional stereotypes obsolete? College Student Journal.

2010;44(1):131-43.

28. Kaufman JC, Pumaccahua TT, Holt RE. Personality and creativity in realistic,

investigative, artistic, social, and enterprising college majors. Personality and

Individual Differences. 2013;54(8):913-7.

29. Ludwig AM. Method and madness in the arts and sciences. Creativity Research

Journal. 1998;11(2):93-101.

30. Cropley AJ, Cropley DH. Fostering creativity: A diagnostic approach for education

and organizations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press; 2009.

31. Kaufman JC. Creativity 101. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company;

2016.

32. Plucker JA, Beghetto RA. Why Creativity Is Domain General, Why It Looks Domain

Specific, and Why the Distinction Does Not Matter. In: Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL,

Singer JL, editors. Creativity: From potential to realization. Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association; 2004. p. 153-67.

33. Carson SH, Peterson JB, Higgins DM. Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the

Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal. 2005;17(1):37-50.

34. Cropley DH. Creativity in engineering: Novel solutions to complex problems. San

Diego: Academic Press; 2015.

278
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
35. Cropley DH. Nurturing creativity in the engineering classroom. In: Beghetto R,

Kaufman JC, editors. Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press; 2017.

36. Cropley DH, Cropley AJ, Sandwith BL. Creativity in the Engineering Domain. In:

Kaufman JC, Glăveanu VP, Baer J, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity

Across Domains. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2017.

37. Charyton C, Basham KM, Elliott JO. Examining gender with general creativity and

preferences for creative persons in college students within the sciences and the arts.

The Journal of Creative Behavior. 2008;42(3):216-22.

38. Charyton C, Snelbecker GE. General, artistic and scientific creativity attributes of

engineering and music students. Creativity Research Journal. 2007;19(2-3):213-25.

39. Hubka V, Eder WE. Design science: introduction to the needs, scope and organization

of engineering design knowledge. London, UK: Springer Verlag; 1996.

40. Pahl G, Beitz W. Engineering design: a systematic approach. 5th ed. London, UK:

Springer Verlag; 2005.

41. Kim KM, Lee KP. Industrial designers and engineering designers; causes of conflicts,

resolving strategies, and perceived image of each other. 2014.

42. Cropley DH, Cropley AJ. Engineering creativity: A systems concept of functional

creativity. In: Kaufman JC, Baer J, editors. Creativity across domains: Faces of the

muse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2005. p. 169-85.

43. Agogué M, Le Masson P, Dalmasso C, Houdé O, Cassotti M. Resisting classical

solutions: The creative mind of industrial designers and engineers. Psychology of

Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2015;9(3):313-8.

44. Edl S, Benedek M, Papousek I, Weiss EM, Fink A. Creativity and the Stroop

interference effect. Personality and Individual Differences. 2014;69:38-42.

279
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
45. Glăveanu V, Lubart T, Bonnardel N, Botella M, de Biaisi P-M, Desainte-Catherine

M, et al. Creativity as action: findings from five creative domains. Frontiers in

psychology. 2013;4:176.

46. Hekkert P, Snelders D, Wieringen PC. ‘Most advanced, yet acceptable’: Typicality

and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British

journal of Psychology. 2003;94(1):111-24.

47. Yamamoto M, Lambert DR. The impact of product aesthetics on the evaluation of

industrial products. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 1994;11(4):309-24.

48. Creusen ME, Schoormans JP. The different roles of product appearance in consumer

choice. Journal of product innovation management. 2005;22(1):63-81.

49. Sonderegger A, Sauer J. The influence of design aesthetics in usability testing: Effects

on user performance and perceived usability. Applied ergonomics. 2010;41(3):403-

10.

50. Bloch PH, Brunel FF, Arnold TJ. Individual differences in the centrality of visual

product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of consumer research.

2003;29(4):551-65.

51. Horenstein MN. Design concepts for engineers. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 2002.

52. Evans M. What is Industrial Design: Industrial Design Society of America; 2016

[Available from: http://www.idsa.org/education/what-is-industrial-design.

53. Dieter GE, Schmidt LC. Engineering design. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher

Education; 2012.

54. Amabile TM. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1996.

55. Kaufman JC, Baer J. Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is creative?

Creativity Research Journal. 2012;24(1):83-91.

280
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
56. Kaufman JC, Baer J, Cropley DH, Reiter-Palmon R, Sinnett S. Furious activity vs.

understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology

of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2013;7(4):332-40.

57. Besemer SP, O'Quin K. Creative product analysis: Testing a model by developing a

judging instrument. In: Isaksen SG, editor. Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond

the basics. Buffalo: Brady; 1987. p. 367-89.

58. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-

Hill; 1994.

59. Goldberg LR. A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring

the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In: Mervielde I, Deary I, Fruyt

FD, Ostendorf F, editors. Personality Psychology in Europe. 7. Tilburg, The

Netherlands: Tilburg University Press; 1999. p. 7-28.

60. Goldberg LR, Johnson JA, Eber HW, Hogan R, Ashton MC, Cloninger CR, et al. The

International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality

measures. Journal of Research in Personality. 2006;40:84-96.

61. DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applications. California: Sage

Publications; 2012.

62. Cropley DH, Kaufman JC, Cropley AJ. Measuring creativity for innovation

management. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation. 2011;6(3):13-30.

63. Cropley DH, Kaufman JC. Measuring functional creativity: Non-expert raters and the

creative solution diagnosis scale. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 2012;46(2):119-

37.

64. Cropley DH. Teaching engineers to think creatively: Barriers and challenges in STEM

disciplines. In: R. Wegerif, L. Li, Kaufman JC, editors. The Routledge International

281
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
Handbook of Research on Teaching Thinking. New York, NY: Routledge; 2015. p.

402-10.

65. Cohen JW. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2 ed. Hillsdale, NJ.:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

282
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
Appendix A (Chair Designs)
A.1 Barcelona Chair

A.2 Summers Plywood Chair

283
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
A.3 Sacco Beanbag

A.4 Chaise Longue a Reglage

284
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
A.5 Credo Chair

A.6 Balans Chair

285
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
A.7 Louis 20 Chair

A.8 Slice Chair

286
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
A.9 Wasily Chair

A.10 Tripp Trapp Chair

287
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
Table 1: Means and standard deviations for personality and creativity variables

Variable N M SD
Extraversion 105 3.00 .67
Agreeableness 107 3.64 .52
Conscientiousness 105 3.52 .57
Emotional Stability 106 3.14 .73
Openness 105 3.68 .60
Functionality 115 3.20 .51
Aesthetics 115 3.13 .62
Creativity 115 3.46 .57

288
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).

Table 2: Micro-domain differences & creativity: Engineers vs Industrial Designers

Engineers (N = 69) Industrial Designers
(N = 46)
M SD M SD
Variable t test Effect size
Functionality 3.10 .50 3.35 .51 t = -2.63, p < .010 η2 = .06

Aesthetics 2.99 .62 3.35 .55 t = -3.33, p < .001 η2 = .09

Creativity 3.29 .54 3.72 .50 t = -4.37, p < .001 η2 = .14

η2 effect size: .01 = small; .06 = medium; .14 = large (65)

289
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).

Table 3: Functionality, aesthetics and creativity by group (ANOVA)

Variable Group F (x, y) p (two-tailed) η2

Functionality Micro-Domain F(1, 111) = 7.72* .006 .065

Age F(1, 111) = .11 .737 .001
Micro-Domain x Age F(1, 111) = .88 .350 .008
Micro-Domain F(1, 111) = 1.86 .176 .016
Gender F(1, 111) = .87 .353 .008
Micro-Domain x Gender F(1, 111) = 1.32 .253 .012
Age F(1, 111) = .09 .770 .001
Gender F(5, 111) = 1.38 .242 .012
Age x Gender F(5, 111) = .05 .824 .000
Aesthetics Micro-Domain F(1, 111) = 9.83* .002 .081
Age F(1, 111) = .06 .809 .001
Micro-Domain x Age F(1, 111) = .01 .970 .000
Micro-Domain F(1, 111) = 3.81 .053 .033
Gender F(1, 111) = .18 .668 .002
Micro-Domain x Gender F(1, 111) = 1.18 .280 .010
Age F(1, 111) = .02 .884 .000
Gender F(1, 111) = .35 .555 .003
Age x Gender F(1, 111) = .01 .949 .000
Creativity Micro-Domain F(1, 111) = 19.45** .000 .150
Age F(1, 111) = .25 .621 .002
Micro-Domain x Age F(1, 111) = .79 .375 .007
Micro-Domain F(1, 111) = 5.19* .025 .050
Gender F(1, 111) = .945 .333 .008
Micro-Domain x Gender F(1, 111) = 3.91* .051 .030
Age F(1, 111) = .005 .942 .000
Gender F(1, 111) = 2.28 .280 .010
Age x Gender F(1, 111) = .236 .628 .002
η2 effect size: .01 = small; .06 = medium; .14 = large (65)

290
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).

Table 4: Big 5 personality by group (ANOVA)

Variable Group F (x, y) p (two-tailed) η2

Extraversion Micro-Domain F(1, 101) = 4.73* .032 .045

Age F(1, 101) = 17.40** .000 .147
Micro-Domain x Age F(1, 101) = 4.95* .028 .047
Micro-Domain F(1, 101) = .18 .677 .002
Gender F(1, 101) = 2.73 .102 .026
Micro-Domain x Gender F(1, 101) = 1.19 .279 .012
Age F(1, 101) = 14.95** .000 .129
Gender F(1, 101) = .88 .350 .009
Age x Gender F(1, 101) = 2.71 .103 .026

Agreeableness Micro-Domain F(1, 103) = 12.25** .001 .106

Age F(1, 103) = 13.05** .000 .112
Micro-Domain x Age F(1, 103) = 1.34 .249 .013
Micro-Domain F(1, 103) = 6.12* .015 .056
Gender F(1, 103) = .09 .767 .001
Micro-Domain x Gender F(1, 103) = .00 .948 .000
Age F(1, 103) = 3.50 .064 .033
Gender F(1, 103) = .33 .566 .003
Age x Gender F(1, 103) = 1.09 .299 .010

Conscientiousness Micro-Domain F(1, 101) = 2.53 .115 .024

Age F(1, 101) = 3.45 .066 .033
Micro-Domain x Age F(1, 101) = .29 .590 .003
Micro-Domain F(1, 101) = 3.72 .057 .036
Gender F(1, 101) = 1.45 .232 .014
Micro-Domain x Gender F(1, 101) = .79 .378 .008
Age F(1, 101) = 2.35 .128 .023
Gender F(1, 101) = 1.00 .319 .010
Age x Gender F(1, 101) = .00 .955 .000

Emotional Micro-Domain F(1, 102) = .41 .523 .004

Stability Age F(1, 102) = .77 .383 .007
Micro-Domain x Age F(1, 102) = .02 .890 .000
Micro-Domain F(1, 102) = .01 .934 .000
Gender F(1, 102) = 1.03 .312 .010
Micro-Domain x Gender F(1, 102) = .602 .440 .006
Age F(1, 102) = 1.35 .249 .013
Gender F(1, 102) = .82 .366 .008
Age x Gender F(1, 102) = .60 .439 .006

Openness Micro-Domain F(1, 101) = 51.64** .000 .338

Age F(1, 101) = 5.00* .028 .047
Micro-Domain x Age F(1, 101) = 1.33 .251 .013
Micro-Domain F(1, 101) = 25.71** .000 .203
Gender F(1, 101) = 2.72 .102 .026
Micro-Domain x Gender F(1, 101) = .56 .458 .005
Age F(1, 101) = .22 .644 .002
Gender F(1, 101) = 2.50 .117 .024
Age x Gender F(1, 101) = 1.65 .202 .016
η2 effect size: .01 = small; .06 = medium; .14 = large (65)
291
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).
Table 5: Correlations of functionality, aesthetics and creativity by micro-domains

Variable Engineers (N = 69) Industrial Designers (N = All (N = 115)

46)

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Mean --- --- ---

Functional

Mean .757** --- .428** --- .657** ---

Aesthetic

Mean .592** .654** --- .536** .714** --- .603** .709** ---
Creativity
** p < .001

292
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).

Table 6: Regression: functionality and aesthetics as predictors of creativity

R Square Beta P Beta P

(Functionality) (Functionality) (Aesthetics) (Aesthetics)

All .524 .222 .013* .558 .000**

Engineers .405 .196 .169 .479 .001**

Industrial .556 .241 .043* .609 .000**

Designers
**p<.001; *p<.05

293
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).

Table 7: Regression: The Big 5 as predictor of creativity

R Square Beta P

All .144 .260 (Openness) .016*

Engineers .107 --- --

Industrial Designers .137 .380 (Agreeableness) .030*

*p<.05

294
Pre-Publication Version - Cropley, D. H. and Kaufman, J. C. (2018). The Siren Song of Aesthetics? Domain
Differences and Creativity in Technology, Proc IMechE. Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science; vol: pp–
pp. (Online first).

Figure 1: Interaction effect: Micro-domain and gender

295
Figure 2: Interaction effect: Micro-domain and age (Extraversion)

296