Perceptions of Creativity in Software Engineering Research and Practice
Open accessAbstract
Software engineering, especially design and requirements engineering, is intensely creative. However, practitioners and researchers appear to perceive creativity differently, hindering knowledge transfer. To explore and understand these perceptual differences, this paper combines a systematic mapping study of SE research literature with an interview study of practitioners. The subsequent analysis of 84 primary studies and 17 semi-structured interviews reveal some agreement (e.g. creativity is a process that produces novel and useful ideas). However, it also reveals important differences in the way creativity is conceptualized, measured and improved. These differences undermine evidence-based techniques to enhance and measure creativity in SE research and practice.
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?
Creativity in software engineering is understudied.
“Understudied [6], creativity in software engineering is at a watershed moment, as the emergence of Generative AI (GenAI) could have a major impact on individuals, employers, and the products they build.”
From The Impact of Generative AI on Creativity in Software Development: A Research Agenda (2025) · cites this paper as [91]
Cites
The standard definition of creativity
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.650092 · Cited by 3,895 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Impact of Generative AI on Creativity in Software Development: A Research Agenda
Jackson, V., Vasilescu, B., Russo, D., Ralph, P., Prikladnicki, R., Izadi, M., D’Angelo, S., Inman, S., Andrade, A., & van der Hoek, A. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3708523 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Self-citationDeveloper productivity for humans, part 8: Creativity in software engineering
Inman, S., D’Angelo, S., & Vasilescu, B. (2024) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/ms.2023.3340831 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mohanani, R., Ram, P., Lasisi, A., Ralph, P., & Turhan, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Oulu (FI)
- University of Auckland (NZ)
- Brunel University of London (GB)
- Venue
- 2017 43rd Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2017-08
- Pages
- 210-217
- OpenAlex
- W2736173719
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.05
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- bura.brunel.ac.uk
- Locations
- Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA) (publishedVersion)
- Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
- Keywords
- creativity, software engineering, creativity assessment, creativity promotion, knowledge transfer, requirements engineering, software design, conceptualization of creativity
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
