CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 125Creativity in Education and NeuroscienceDesign Education and PracticeInnovation and Knowledge Management

Toward a Meta-Theory of Creativity Forms: How Novelty and Usefulness Shape Creativity

Open access
Harvey, Sarah, Berry, James W.·2023·Academy of Management Review
DOI 10.5465/amr.2020.0110
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Creativity has long been defined in terms of novelty and usefulness. Surprisingly, however, there is relatively little agreement about the precise meaning of either dimension, the relationship between them, or the process through which they are produced. In this paper, we explore how novelty and usefulness have been used explicitly and implicitly in the creativity literature to reveal three ways to understand the definitional constructs. We propose that these three understandings give rise to distinct but interrelated forms of creativity: creativity as maximization, creativity as balance, and creativity as integration. Each form provides a different way of answering the question: what is creativity? We further theorize that the forms are shaped by the distal relations between novelty and usefulness, context, and process. Fundamentally, our theory suggests that developing a creative outcome for a distant alternative reality is a different form of creativity than developing an idea grounded in the present, so that as creators move through space and time, they also move through different forms of creativity. Our meta-theory furthers our understanding of creativity by revealing the centrality of usefulness in defining creativity; opening up the dynamics of the creative process; and highlighting interdependencies between ideas and context.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/amr.2020.0110

Cites

164 of 164 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The most widely accepted framework evaluates innovation across two primary dimensions: novelty and usefulness.

    “The most widely accepted framework evaluates innovation across two primary dimensions: novelty and usefulness (Amabile, 1982; Doshi and Hauser, 2024; Harvey and Berry, 2022).”

    From AI-assisted design synthesis and human creativity in engineering education (2026) · cites this paper as Harvey and Berry, 2022

    The section “Meta-Theoretical Review of the Literature on Organizational Creativity” calls novelty and usefulness the defining characteristics of creativity and says there is strong consensus on those criteria. The claim applies that framework to innovation, which this passage does not establish. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Creativity is typically assessed across two dimensions: novelty and usefulness.

    “Creativity is typically assessed across two dimensions: novelty and usefulness (11, 12).”

    From Generative artificial intelligence enhances creativity but reduces the diversity of novel content (2023) · cites this paper as [12]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [18]18. Cronin, M.A. & Loewenstein, J. 2018. The Craft of Creativity. Stanford University Press.
  2. [22]22. Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1999. Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. Handbook of Creativity, pp. 313
  3. [44]44. Guilford, J., 1950. Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9): 444-454.
  4. [70]70. Milovac, M. & Sanchez-Burks, J. 2014. Positivity makes for poor pitches: affective tone conveyed by entrepreneurs shapes support for creative ideas. Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2014, No. 1, p. 13086). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
  5. [100]100. Scott, S.G. & Bruce, R.A. 1994. Creating innovative behavior among R&D professionals: the moderating effect of leadership on the relationship between problem-solving style and innovation. In Proceedings of 1994 IEEE International Engineering Management Conference-IEMC'94 (pp. 48-55). IEEE.
  6. [104]104. Silvia, P.J. 2008. Discernment and creativity: How well can people identify their most creative ideas?. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(3): 139.
  7. [117]117. Wallis, S., 2010. Toward a science of metatheory. Integral Review: A Transdiciplinary and Transcultural Journal for New Thought, Research, and Praxis, 6(3).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Harvey, S., & Berry, J. W.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Academy of Management Review
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
2023-07
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
504-529
ISSN
  • 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3807
DOI
10.5465/amr.2020.0110
OpenAlex
W4221038577
Cited by
125
References
154
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7
FWCI
18.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Academy of Management Review (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
Keywords
creativity, novelty, usefulness, creativity theory, creative process, idea generation

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