The Importance of Domain-Specific Expertise in Creativity
Abstract
Although creativity and expertise are related, they are nonetheless very different things. Expertise does not usually require creativity, but creativity generally does require a certain level of expertise. There are similarities in the relationships of both expertise and creativity to domains, however. Research has shown that just as expertise in one domain does not predict expertise in other, unrelated domains, creativity in one domain does not predict creativity in other, unrelated domains. People may be expert, and people may be creative, in many domains, or they may be expert, or creative, in few domains or none at all, and one cannot simply transfer expertise, or creativity, from one domain to another, unrelated domain. The domain specificity of creativity matters crucially for creativity training, creativity assessment, creativity research, and creativity theory. The domain specificity of creativity also means that interdisciplinary thinking, interdisciplinary collaboration, and interdisciplinary creativity are even more important than one would assume if creativity were domain general.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Obtaining evaluations from experts is widely considered the "gold standard" when evaluating creative outcomes.
“This is important because obtaining evaluations from experts is widely considered the “gold standard” when evaluating creative outcomes17,18.”
From Establishing the importance of co-creation and self-efficacy in creative collaboration with artificial intelligence (2024) · cites this paper as [18]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 115 · Cited by 263
- Authors
- Baer, J.
- Affiliations
- Rider University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Baer, John
- ORCID
- Baer, John
- Venue
- Roeper Review
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-07-03
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 165-178
- ISSN
- 0278-3193 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-865X
- OpenAlex
- W1824447357
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 115
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 5
- FWCI
- 14.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Roeper Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychological and Educational Research Studies
- Keywords
- domain-specific expertise, creativity, creativity training, creativity assessment, creativity theory, interdisciplinary thinking, interdisciplinary collaboration, expert knowledge transfer
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review