The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going? Taking Stock in Creativity Research
Abstract
The dedicated work of numerous scholars has, over the last 10 years, led to some radical advances in our understanding of the nature and implications of creativity. This work has been summarized in 2 recent handbooks-Mark Runco's Creativity Research Handbook and Robert Sternberg's Handbook of Creativity. In this article I use these handbooks as a starting point to take stock in both what has been accomplished and what still needs to be done in our attempts to understand creativity. I begin by noting that both handbooks clearly describe the major approaches being used in studies of creativity and the findings resulting from each approach. A careful review of the chapters presented in these handbooks, however, brings to the fore a number of issues. For example, we need critical comparative tests contrasting the merits of different methods and theories, elaboration and extension of our traditional samples and our traditional measures, and more attempts to develop integrative models. However, some topics, such as the demands of practical innovation, cross-field differences in the nature of creative thought, and the effects of creativity on people and social systems need more thorough treatment. By laying a foundation for cumulative research along those lines, publication of these handbooks represents an important step toward development of a coherent, scientific model of the creative act.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Guilford, J. P. (1950) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0063487 · Cited by 3,588
Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes
Campbell, D. T. (1960) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0040373 · Cited by 2,329
Leadership skills for a changing world
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(99)00041-7 · Cited by 888
Self-citation
Cited by
Gong, Y., Huang, J.-C., & Farh, J.-L. (2009) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2009.43670890 · Cited by 1,914
Measuring Innovative Work Behaviour
De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010) · Creativity and Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x · Cited by 1,644
The neuromodulator of exploration: A unifying theory of the role of dopamine in personality
DeYoung, C. G. (2013) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00762 · Cited by 387
A Dynamic Definition of Creativity
Walia, C. (2019) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2019.1641787 · Cited by 238
Kajzer Mitchell, I., & Walinga, J. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.162 · Cited by 164
Metadata
- Authors
- Mumford, M. D.
- Venue
- Creativity Research Journal
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-07
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2-3
- Pages
- 107-120
- ISSN
- 1040-0419 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6934
- OpenAlex
- W1985046490
- Cited by
- 812
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going? Taking Stock in Creativity Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10400419.2003.9651403
- The paper
- Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going? Taking Stock in Creativity Research. Creativity Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2003.9651403
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.