Why Isn't Creativity Being Supported? Distressing Analyses of Grants and Awards for Creativity Research–or Lack Thereof

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

¹“Comments and Corrections” in the CRJ qualify or extend results published previously (e.g., Merrosty, 2013; Runco & Jaeger, 2012). Although the present Comment does not revisit the claim about a creativity crisis using paper-and-pencil test scores, it is very relevant to Kim's (2010) claim, in the CRJ, about such a crisis. The crisis suggested here concerns a lack of support for creativity research. If creativity research is not well supported, it is unlikely that good decisions about the fulfillment of potential can be made.

²Much can be learned by looking within the Abstracts of the NSF proposals which were in fact funded. Several projects did seem to relate to the creative process or the fulfillment of creative potential. Award 0738126 funded a project that mentioned creativity and focused on “research activities in human genetics and nanotechnology” (2009). It used peer nominations in an attempt to understand the career paths of creative researchers. A second focused on computational simulations of the innovation process. A third drew heavily from theories of personality and motivation in an attempt to understand inspiration and its relationship with work efficiency and productivity. A fourth focused on the lifestyle productivity of individuals working in various areas, including the arts, science, and business. Next was a doctoral dissertation project focused on creativity in the field of advertising. It examined socialization patterns but relied on 40 semi-structured interviews rather than tests of creativity potential. Award 0814013 examined divergent thinking and multiculturalism. The last focused on one particular program and the “connectivity of individuals in a network … as related to innovation” (Award 1247971, 2012).

Several of the Abstracts implied that the figures calculated above (e.g., the 17%) may be inflated. That because the Abstracts gave no indication that the research was related to the creative process or the fulfillment of creative potential. Award 0944139 funded project looked at the “tools of genetic engineering and biotechnology” (2009). Another award was for a “continuing grant,” focused on exactly the same issues and using the same methods as a previous grant (the Abstracts are nearly word-by-word identical), so actually these two were not independent awards. Another funded project focused on networks and applied network analytic tools to better understand successful group performance. Similarly, Award 0830261, from 2008, focused on simulation models in the Scientific Commons. One award was for a workshop focused on thinking about the Bolivian constitution. Not surprisingly, the workshop took place in Bolivia.

Then there are Abstracts that suggested that the projects may have touched on creativity but perhaps did not really generate any new knowledge. One award was for a workshop, focused on art, creativity, and learning. This sounds interesting but seems to be more about sharing knowledge rather than generating it. Perhaps conferences like this create a market and thereby increase “demand” for actual research. Another award was a conference in 1999 (award amount $16,710).

Thus, if we eliminate workshops and conferences, studies of networks, simulations, and computer technologies, and recognize that two of the 14 were really one grant (continued in a second award), the 17% reported above may in fact over-estimate how many NSF grants lend support to the creative process and the idea of fulfilling creative potential.

Note. DOE = Department of Education. NSF = National Science Foundation. Amounts given represent millions of dollars (e.g., $24.1 = $24,100,000). The total DOE budget across all 7 topics was $1,130,579,207, which allowed calculation of the percentages (%) given below the dollar amounts. The total NSF budget across the 7 topics was $6,637,798,516, which allowed calculation of the percentages (%) in the bottom row.