Postgraduate Students’ Perception of Creativity in the Research Process
Keywords:
Postgraduate study, Research, Research problem, Scientific creativity.
Abstract
The purpose of the research was, with the aid of a short questionnaire, to determine how postgraduate students (N = 32) perceive the opportunities for creative research in general, and how they perceive creativity in the preparation of their own research work in particular. Descriptive analysis shows that students (1) perceive a positive study-research climate that encourages creative processes (independence, motivation, intellectual challenges), (2) judge that researchers have numerous opportunities for creative work in the various phases of research and (3) evaluate themselves as highly creative individuals in everyday life. Students perceive themselves as being at their most creative in the definition of the research problem, which they mainly identify with the use of personal strategies (work experience) and take various lengths of time to form, typically up to one year. The most difficult problem in this regard is represented by giving meaning to the problem (breadth, depth, specificity, application). Amongst the perceived encouragement with which mentors motivate students for creative research the most frequent is less directive general guidance in study and research. On the basis of the presented findings, guidelines are suggested for the more effective encouragement of creative research in postgraduate students.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Adelson, B. (2003). Issues in scientific creativity: insight, perseverance and personal
technique: Profiles of the 2002 Franklin institute laureates. Journal of Franklin Institute,
340, 163–189.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A
case for “mini-c†creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 73–79. doi:
10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73
Charyton, C., & Snelbecker, G. E. (2007). General, artistic and scientific creativity
attributes of engineering and music students. Creativity research Journal, 19, 213–225.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Chikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of
creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Collins, R. (2007). The creativity of intellectual networks and the struggle over attention
space. In A. Sales, & M. Fournier (Eds.), Knowledge, communication and creativity (pp.
156–165). London: Sage.
Craig, L. (1990). A guide to increased creativity in research – inspiration or perspiration?
Roundtable. Bioscience, 40, 123–129.
Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 105–123.
Flippo, R. F., & Caverly, D. C. (Eds.) (2009). Handbook of college reading and study
strategies research (2nd ed). New York, NY: Routledge.
Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity.
Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 613–617.
Gardner, H. (2003). Razsežnosti uma: Teorija o veÄ inteligencah. Ljubljana: Tangram.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.
Gulbrandsen, M. (2004). Accord or discord? Tensions and creativity in research. In S.
Hemlin, C. M. Allwood, & B. R. Martin (Eds.), Creative knowledge environments: The
influences on creativity in research and innovation (pp. 31–57). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Rogers, J. D., & Senker, J. M. (2009). Organizational and
institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy, 38, 610–623.
Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Senker, J. M., & Kuhlmann, S. (2007). Identifying creative research
accomplishments: Methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics.
Scientometrics, 70, 125–152.
Hemlin, S. (2009). Creative knowledge environments: An interview study with members
and group leaders of university and industry R&D groups in biotechnology. Creativity and
Innovation management, 18, 278–285. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2009.00533.x.
Hemlin, S., Allwood, C. M., & Martin, B. R. (2004). What is creative knowledge
environments? In S. Hemlin, C. M. Allwood, & B. R. Martin (Eds.), Creative knowledge
environments: The influences on creativity in research and innovation (pp. 1–30).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hennessay, B. A. (2006). Creativity and motivation in the classroom: A social
psychological and multi-cultural perspective. In A. G. Tan (Ed.), Creativity: A handbook
for teachers (pp. 27–46). Singapore: World Scientific.
Hermans, S. (2011). Creativity and innovation in the EU 2020 strategy. Plenary speech at
Hungarian EU Presidential Conference on Talent Support and First European Talent Day,
Budapest, 7.-9.4.2011.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A
quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 69–90.
L’Abate, L., DeGiacomo, P., Capitelli, M., & Longo, S. (Eds.) (2009). Science, mind and
creativity: The Bari symposium. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Leong, F. T. L., & Pfaltzgraff, R. E. (1996). Finding the research topic. In F. T. L. Leong, &
J. T. Austin (Eds.), The psychology research handbook: A guide for graduate students and
research assistants (pp. 3–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Levin, B. B. (2008). Case studies of teacher development: An in-depth look at how thinking
about pedagogy develops over time. Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2008). Creativity. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of
giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 247–270).
New York, NY: Springer.
MateliÄ, U., Mali, F., & Ferligoj, A. (2007). Kreativno okolje in uspeÅ¡nost mladih
raziskovalcev. Družboslovne razprave, 23, 71–94.
Miller, A. I. (2000). Insights of genius: Imagery and creativity in science and art. New York,
NY: First MIT Press.
Neumann, C. J. (2009). Fostering creativity: A model for developing a culture of collective
creativity in science. EMBO reports, 8, 202–206.
Ochse, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence. The determination of creative genius.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
PeÄjak, V. (1987). Misliti, delati, živeti ustvarjalno. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije.
Plucker, J., 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, 83–96. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
Runco, M. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behaviour: The
integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129,
475–494. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.475
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Soler, J. M. (2007). A rational indicator of scientific creativity. Journal of Infometrics, 1,
123–130.
Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge Societies. Sage: London.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51,
677–688.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubard, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Unsworth, K. L., & Parker, S. K. (2002). Promoting a pro-active and innovative workforce
for the new workplace. In D. Holman, T.D. Wall, C. W. Clegg, P. Sparrow, & A. Howard
(Eds.), The New Workplace: A Guide to the Human Impact of Modern Work Practices (pp.
175–196). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Urban, K. K. (2007). Assessing creativity: A componential model. In A. G. Tan (Ed.),
Creativity: A handbook for teachers (pp. 167–186). Singapore: World Scientific.
Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York, NY: Freeman and
Company.
Zgaga, P. (2007). »Bolonjska arhitektura« doktorskega Å¡tudija? Nekatere kljuÄne teme v
novejših razpravah o doktorskem študiju v Evropi. Vestnik – Univerza v Ljubljani, 38, 3–7.
Yusuf, S. (2009). From creativity to innovation. Technology and Society, 31, 1–8. doi:
10.1016/j.techsoc.2008.10.007
technique: Profiles of the 2002 Franklin institute laureates. Journal of Franklin Institute,
340, 163–189.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A
case for “mini-c†creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 73–79. doi:
10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73
Charyton, C., & Snelbecker, G. E. (2007). General, artistic and scientific creativity
attributes of engineering and music students. Creativity research Journal, 19, 213–225.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Chikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of
creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Collins, R. (2007). The creativity of intellectual networks and the struggle over attention
space. In A. Sales, & M. Fournier (Eds.), Knowledge, communication and creativity (pp.
156–165). London: Sage.
Craig, L. (1990). A guide to increased creativity in research – inspiration or perspiration?
Roundtable. Bioscience, 40, 123–129.
Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 105–123.
Flippo, R. F., & Caverly, D. C. (Eds.) (2009). Handbook of college reading and study
strategies research (2nd ed). New York, NY: Routledge.
Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity.
Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 613–617.
Gardner, H. (2003). Razsežnosti uma: Teorija o veÄ inteligencah. Ljubljana: Tangram.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.
Gulbrandsen, M. (2004). Accord or discord? Tensions and creativity in research. In S.
Hemlin, C. M. Allwood, & B. R. Martin (Eds.), Creative knowledge environments: The
influences on creativity in research and innovation (pp. 31–57). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Rogers, J. D., & Senker, J. M. (2009). Organizational and
institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy, 38, 610–623.
Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Senker, J. M., & Kuhlmann, S. (2007). Identifying creative research
accomplishments: Methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics.
Scientometrics, 70, 125–152.
Hemlin, S. (2009). Creative knowledge environments: An interview study with members
and group leaders of university and industry R&D groups in biotechnology. Creativity and
Innovation management, 18, 278–285. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2009.00533.x.
Hemlin, S., Allwood, C. M., & Martin, B. R. (2004). What is creative knowledge
environments? In S. Hemlin, C. M. Allwood, & B. R. Martin (Eds.), Creative knowledge
environments: The influences on creativity in research and innovation (pp. 1–30).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hennessay, B. A. (2006). Creativity and motivation in the classroom: A social
psychological and multi-cultural perspective. In A. G. Tan (Ed.), Creativity: A handbook
for teachers (pp. 27–46). Singapore: World Scientific.
Hermans, S. (2011). Creativity and innovation in the EU 2020 strategy. Plenary speech at
Hungarian EU Presidential Conference on Talent Support and First European Talent Day,
Budapest, 7.-9.4.2011.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A
quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 69–90.
L’Abate, L., DeGiacomo, P., Capitelli, M., & Longo, S. (Eds.) (2009). Science, mind and
creativity: The Bari symposium. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Leong, F. T. L., & Pfaltzgraff, R. E. (1996). Finding the research topic. In F. T. L. Leong, &
J. T. Austin (Eds.), The psychology research handbook: A guide for graduate students and
research assistants (pp. 3–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Levin, B. B. (2008). Case studies of teacher development: An in-depth look at how thinking
about pedagogy develops over time. Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2008). Creativity. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of
giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 247–270).
New York, NY: Springer.
MateliÄ, U., Mali, F., & Ferligoj, A. (2007). Kreativno okolje in uspeÅ¡nost mladih
raziskovalcev. Družboslovne razprave, 23, 71–94.
Miller, A. I. (2000). Insights of genius: Imagery and creativity in science and art. New York,
NY: First MIT Press.
Neumann, C. J. (2009). Fostering creativity: A model for developing a culture of collective
creativity in science. EMBO reports, 8, 202–206.
Ochse, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence. The determination of creative genius.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
PeÄjak, V. (1987). Misliti, delati, živeti ustvarjalno. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije.
Plucker, J., 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, 83–96. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
Runco, M. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behaviour: The
integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129,
475–494. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.475
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Soler, J. M. (2007). A rational indicator of scientific creativity. Journal of Infometrics, 1,
123–130.
Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge Societies. Sage: London.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51,
677–688.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubard, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Unsworth, K. L., & Parker, S. K. (2002). Promoting a pro-active and innovative workforce
for the new workplace. In D. Holman, T.D. Wall, C. W. Clegg, P. Sparrow, & A. Howard
(Eds.), The New Workplace: A Guide to the Human Impact of Modern Work Practices (pp.
175–196). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Urban, K. K. (2007). Assessing creativity: A componential model. In A. G. Tan (Ed.),
Creativity: A handbook for teachers (pp. 167–186). Singapore: World Scientific.
Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York, NY: Freeman and
Company.
Zgaga, P. (2007). »Bolonjska arhitektura« doktorskega Å¡tudija? Nekatere kljuÄne teme v
novejših razpravah o doktorskem študiju v Evropi. Vestnik – Univerza v Ljubljani, 38, 3–7.
Yusuf, S. (2009). From creativity to innovation. Technology and Society, 31, 1–8. doi:
10.1016/j.techsoc.2008.10.007
Published
2011-03-31
How to Cite
Juriševič, M. (2011). Postgraduate Students’ Perception of Creativity in the Research Process. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 1(1), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.446
Section
FOCUS
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
