High Ability Studies

Vol. 22, No. 2, December 2011, 219–231

Educational researchers’ personal explicit theories on creativity

and its development: a qualitative study
Slavica Maksić* and Jelena Pavlović

Institute for Educational Research, Belgrade, Serbia

The aim of this paper is to investigate implicit theories of educational

researchers on creativity and the potential to support creativity in schools. We
used qualitative thematic analysis of material produced by 27 educational
experts from Serbia. Personal explicit theories about manifestations of creativity
are mainly based on qualities and behavior of a creative person, while there are
notable differences in manifestations of creativity at different ages. There is a
prevalent belief that the school can contribute to the development of creativity
to a large extent. The paper broadens the field of investigation into implicit the-
ories on creativity, from exploring the creative personality to a developmental
dimension of creativity and to the possibilities of supporting creativity in the
school setting.
Keywords: creativity; implicit theories; educational researchers; qualitative
study

Introduction
Formal, ‘official’ or explicit theories on creativity are constructions created by psy-
chologists and researchers, who usually rely on data obtained from investigations
into creative persons, processes and products (Cropley, 1996; Gardner, 1994;
Sternberg, 1999; Urban, 1995). It seems that the ‘systems’ model of creative
process contributes to a better understanding of creativity as the product of social
systems (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). While development of creativity is implicit in
Csikszentmihalyi’s theory, in Feldman’s non-universal theory development is
explicitly present (Feldman, 1999). Dimensions of creative development range from
individual cognitive, social, and emotional development, its family and education,
to characteristics of the domain and field of subject matter, and other societal,
cultural, and historical influences that the individual is exposed to. However, the
relationship between early creative activity and later productive contributions is still
not well understood and the impact of creativity research on education has been
slight, due to its focus on basic research and theoretical questions (Feldman &
Benjamin, 2006).
Apart from explicit theories on creativity and its development, it can be said that
every one of us develops certain implicit theories. Implicit theories are our personal
constructions, which are quite often not fully verbalized and articulated, but upon
which we rely to identify certain people, behavior or products as creative, and to

*Corresponding author. Email: smaksic@ipisr.org.rs

ISSN 1359-8139 print/ISSN 1469-834X online

Ó 2011 European Council for High Ability
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2011.628850
http://www.tandfonline.com
220 S. Maksić and J. Pavlović

form specific attitudes towards the stimulation of creative tendencies. Although

implicit theories of creativity do not have to be public, systematic or backed up by
data, they are a guide to practical action and, as such, become the topic of investi-
gation (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995; Kelly, 1955; Polovina & Pavlović, 2010).
Unlike explicit theories on creativity, implicit theories are not ‘created’, but need to
be ‘revealed’ through research (Sternberg, 1985).
Over the course of the past few decades, there has been an increase in the num-
ber of research papers in the field of implicit theories on creativity. Most of these
studies are based on the social validity paradigm, which has two separate stages
(Runco, 1999). In the first stage, researchers ask open-ended questions (e.g., What
are the characteristics of creative persons?), in order to include the most commonly
emerging characteristics in a questionnaire. In the second stage, participants rate the
extent to which the characteristics from the questionnaire are significant in manifes-
tations of creativity. Certain variations are also possible, such as asking participants
to rate the desirability of the given characteristics of creativity. More complex
designs contain lists of characteristics of creative and uncreative individuals, asking
various groups of participants to respond to them. Qualitative analysis is used less
frequently in research on implicit theories on creativity (Spiel & Korff, 1998).
Studies in implicit theories of creativity are primarily investigations into creative
personalities (Sternberg, 1985). Key characteristics of the creative personality identi-
fied in studies across different countries are related to ‘curiosity’, ‘imaginativeness’,
‘originality’, ‘independence’, ‘being energetic’ and ‘daring’. A high degree of simi-
larity was found in research on implicit theories of American and Serbian university
students, in terms of their views on the creative person, as well as in the positive
attitude of both groups of students toward creativity (Kankaraš, 2009). The conclu-
sion on cultural similarities was also drawn from a comparative study on the impli-
cit theories of Indian and American parents and teachers (Runco & Johnson, 2002).
Unlike American and Japanese teachers, it has been found that Chinese teachers
identified negative characteristics of the creative personality, such as arrogance, con-
stant attention-seeking, stubbornness, and being rebellious and self-centered (Chan
& Chan, 1999).
There are a few studies on implicit theories of creativity which have compared
opinions of ‘lay people’ and scientists who study creativity. These studies reveal
significant differences between these two groups in the complexity and precision
with which they describe creativity. It has been suggested that we cannot refer to
experts’/researchers’ theories as ‘implicit’ theories in the original sense of the term,
because experts formulate explicit theories by progressively articulating their impli-
cit theories (Runco, 1999). Given that the line between explicit and implicit theories
is less clear in experts than it is in other categories of participants, it has been sug-
gested that the experts’ theories should best be referred to as ‘personal explicit theo-
ries’. Research on scientists’/experts’ personal theories is of great importance,
because these personal theories have impact on formulating explicit theories. Per-
sonal theories of educational experts can and do influence their work. For example,
personal theories shape the whole research process, from the definition of the prob-
lem, to research design and interpretation of data. Moreover, educational experts are
in a position to influence implicit theories of other people, such as teachers, parents
and the general public, as well as to participate in the process of creating
educational policies which will support creativity.
 High Ability Studies 221

In the attempt to address the need for further understanding of the process of
creativity development and the need for a higher impact of creativity studies on
education, we were interested in ‘mapping’ relevant characteristics of educational
experts’ personal theories of creativity and its development. The aim of this paper
was to investigate educational experts’ implicit theories – that is, their personal
explicit theories on creativity and possibilities for stimulating creativity in schools.
More precisely, we were interested in the ways in which experts’ personal theories
answer the following questions:

(1) What is creativity?

(2) What are the characteristics of creative persons and production?
(3) In what way does creativity manifest itself from childhood to adulthood?
(4) To what extent and in what ways can the school support creativity of students?

The focus of our study was on the manifestations of creativity at different ages,
with a hypothesis that uncovering implicit knowledge of educational experts about
these developmental manifestations could bridge the gap between child and adult cre-
ativity, which currently exists in the theory of creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996;
Feldman, 1999; Sternberg & Davidson, 1986). Findings from this study may lead to
a better understanding of the development of creativity from childhood to adulthood,
which is currently considered as the key issue in the field of creativity research.

Research methodology
Research participants
In February of 2009, a letter asking for participation in this research was electroni-
cally sent to 33 researchers in the field of education. Over the course of two
months, 27 replied (20 females and 7 males). All the participants were educational
researchers in Serbia. Thirteen of the participants held a PhD; 10 held a masters
degree; and four were PhD students. Twelve participants were psychologists; 12
were pedagogues; and some were experts with basic degrees in the fields of social
science, humanities or science. The age range of the participants was between 25
and 68 (average age of 411). Average work experience was 162 years working in
the field. Work experience ranged from less than one year (two participants) to over
40 years (one participant). The majority of the participants have spent most of their
career doing scientific research, and the rest of the time working as professional
staff in schools, as subject teachers or university lecturers.

Data collection and steps in analysis

Participants were sent a questionnaire with open-ended questions concerning gen-
eral definitions of creativity, its manifestations throughout the life span and ways to
encourage the development of creativity in the school setting. Given the explor-
atory character of our study, we decided to use qualitative analysis of the data
obtained.
Our analytical procedure can broadly be categorized as qualitative thematic
analysis, which searches for dominant patterns in the data obtained from the partici-
pants (Fook, 2002; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Persson, 2006). In order to gain
insight into the main themes in experts personal theories, without imposing the
222 S. Maksić and J. Pavlović

researchers’ perspective, we did not use a predefined coding scheme. We started

the analysis by repeatedly reading data to get immersed and gain a sense of the
whole. For each open-ended question we read answers word-by-word and derived
codes by highlighting words that captured important meaning. In some instances
categories and codes were based on keywords, while in the majority of cases they
were based on key themes and topic conveyed by several lines or sentences. From
the keywords in the answers to the question about the nature of creativity we
derived key descriptors of creativity. From key themes and topics in the answers to
questions about manifestation and development of creativity at school we derived
the following categories: types of creativity; person-centered characteristics associ-
ated with creativity; manifestations of creativity at different life stages; teacher
activities associated with supporting students at school. Almost all categories were
quantified in order to assist our understanding and provide an additional sense of
the data. We used only descriptive statistics (frequencies) and based our conclu-
sions on qualitative data, without relying on statistical conclusions. We quantified
more than one answer per participant, which made the total of frequencies larger
than the total number of participants. All participants’ answers were considered in
the analysis because of the explorative character of our study. To keep the coding
process transparent, we provided specific examples of participants’ answers from
which each code was derived. During the coding process, we made constant com-
parisons between our categories and experts’ initial responses. Finally, we com-
pared our findings with other data, such as explicit theories on creativity and
findings of other relevant research in the field of creativity.
The authors of the paper performed the coding process and analysis through a
three-phase process: initial individual coding, discussions on both coding, and
reaching final codes consensually. Both authors are psychologists, working in the
field of educational research for 25 years (the first author) and five years (the sec-
ond author). The first author, as an expert in the field of giftedness and creativity,
initiated the study by constructing the questionnaire. The second author was
involved in the study as one of the research participants – but at the moment of par-
ticipation, she did not know that she would be engaged in the analysis. The field of
her expertise is qualitative analysis and its application in the field of child develop-
ment and education.

Data analysis and discussion

Experts’ personal theories: implicit or explicit?
The most frequent form of experts’ responses was relatively comprehensive,
clearly articulated and elaborated descriptions in the form of sentences or para-
graphs, rather than keywords. In their answers participants used words which
implied personal involvement was seldom. Words such as ‘I’, ‘my’, ‘personal’,
‘my opinion is’ were used only seven times. Therefore, it can be said that
experts’ personal theories largely resemble explicit theories on creativity in the
ways in which they are phrased and their degree of formalization. This is not
surprising, given that previous research also noted that experts’ personal theories
on creativity are not entirely implicit (Runco, 1999). Low levels of personal
involvement in the defining of creativity were also obtained in research on the
implicit theories of German and Austrian scientists (Spiel & Korff, 1998).
 High Ability Studies 223

Creativity and its manifestation

Key descriptors of creativity
Our analysis pointed out that the key aspects of creativity in experts’ personal theo-
ries were the terms originality, novelty and difference, which was consistent with
many explicit theories on creativity (Lubart & Sternberg, 1998; Sternberg, 1999;
Šefer, 2007). Table 1 presents the key descriptors of creativity, together with fre-
quencies which refer to the number of participants who used a certain descriptor.
Each of the following descriptors: uniqueness, authenticity, imagination and ratio-
nality, was used only once. Moreover, three participants did not refer to any
descriptor of creativity in the form of adjectives, but instead used nouns: idea,
inspiration and personality. One participant did not provide an answer to this
question.

Everyday and eminent creativity

Participants most frequently referred to key descriptors of creativity as de-
contextualized characteristics, partly due to the instruction to describe the general
characteristics of creativity. As Table 2 points out, the majority of participants did
not provide any reference either to eminent or everyday creativity. Among the
answers in which this reference was provided, everyday creativity definitions pre-
vailed. Everyday creativity manifested itself in various activities and situations such
as one’s job, hobbies, socialization, and free time. Examples of creative products
which experts considered to be evidence of exceptional creativity were socially rec-
ognized products, such as pieces of art, scientific theories, technical discoveries and
inventions, as well as nonstandard solutions to everyday problems. It is also
interesting that participants did not elaborate on the differences between exceptional
scientific and exceptional artistic creativity. It seems that experts in our study
considered and described eminent creativity in general, rather than domain specific
characteristics.
The existence of everyday and eminent creativity in experts’ personal theories is
consistent with explicit theories and research on creativity, which also points to dif-
ferences between creativity with a capital ‘C’ and creativity with a lower case ‘c’
(Kaufman & Sternberg, 2007). In this way, the concept of creativity is broadened
and the developmental nature of creativity is emphasized (Beghetto & Kaufman,
2007). Our participants may have been more focused on everyday creativity
probably due to the fact that their field of expertise was child development and
education.

Table 1. Key descriptors of creativity.

Key
descriptors Frequency Example
Originality 13 Trying to overcome an obstacle in an original way.
Originality is seeing things in a way no one had seen them before.
Novelty 13 Introducing a novelty which changes, improves and enriches life.
Creating something new which has not been present in the
individual’s experience.
Difference 5 Doing things differently.
Seeing things from a different angles.
224 S. Maksić and J. Pavlović

Table 2. Types of creativity.

Type of creativity
Everyday
Eminent
No reference either to eminent
nor everyday manifestations
Frequency Example
9 Daily manifestations of creativity, even in the
most ordinary everyday situations.
From the perspective of understanding
creativity in everyday life, creativity is
‘producing’ something new, introducing a
novelty which improves/enriches everyday life.
2 Artistic products, scientific theories, technical
discoveries.
Original way of connecting different elements
of a whole or creating a new whole
(composition, picture, text).
16 The way of approaching a situation/task/
problem, way of looking at a situation/task/
problem and the alternatives.
Openness, flexibility, readiness for challenges,
imaginativeness, independence, motivation.

Characteristics of the creative persons and products

From experts’ personal theories, we can infer manifestations of creativity based on
characteristics of the ‘creative person’ rather than on creative products. The distribu-
tion of frequencies of specific manifestations of a creative person in experts’ per-
sonal theories was as follows: personality traits (24), behaviors (7), intelligence (4)
and knowledge (3). Only eight participants answered the question about creativity
manifestations by giving a description of creative products.
We have grouped the person-centered characteristics related to manifestations of
creativity into four categories (Table 3). In experts’ personal theories, divergent
thinking had the most important role in defining the creative person. Manifestation
of creativity in experts’ personal theories was highly connected to individual open-
ness, courage, and being daring and ready to take risks. Experts’ personal theories
also pointed to the initial expression of curiosity and interest and in terms of addi-
tional motivational factors (‘perseverance’, ‘readiness to put in effort’, ‘self-
discipline’ and ‘dedication’) which direct and channel creative activities, making

Table 3. Personality characteristics associated with creativity.

Creative personality Frequency Example
Divergent thinking 26 Aptitude to make unusual connections among things,
and imagination ability to see things from the different perspectives.
Inventiveness.
Openness and 24 Openness towards novelty and difference, courage.
courage Spontaneity, openness, readiness to take risks.
Motivation 16 Creative individual has to be self-disciplined, persistent
and devoted to work.
Creativity is manifested through remarkable intrinsic
motivation, high degree of self-discipline and
commitment.
Independence and 12 Having a personal attitude about issues.
individuality Being unique, different from the majority.
 High Ability Studies 225

the complete cycle of creative production possible. Finally, in their personal theo-
ries, experts described creative persons as having a tendency to be ‘independent’,
‘self-sufficient’ in interpersonal relationships, but also ‘different’, ‘not fitting into a
mold’ and ‘idiosyncratic’. The same characteristics that were connected with crea-
tive person-centered characteristics were repeated in the description of creative
behavior and products. Two participants referred to humor in their description of
creative persons; one participant mentioned cooperativeness; and one participant
included mild anxiety and neuroticism. Three participants gave no reference to any
characteristics of personality.
Previous research on implicit theories on creativity points to the fact that people
use implicit theories to primarily assess the creative personality (Kankaraš, 2009).
Categories we identified are largely consistent with characteristics of the creative per-
son which exist in explicit theories of creativity, such as Batey and Furnham (2006).
Moreover, motivational factors were ranked most highly in research on implicit theo-
ries of creativity researchers (Runco, Nemiro & Walberg, 1993). Explicit theories
also point to the importance of perseverance or persistence in creative people (Lubart
& Sternberg, 1998). It is interesting that in experts’ personal theories negative char-
acteristics of a creative person were almost completely absent, which suggests a very
positive attitude of experts toward creativity. The qualities of a creative person which
were not mentioned in our study, but were identified in previous research, were
aggressiveness and psychoticism and other unwanted characteristics in his or her
social milieu (Chan & Chan, 1999; Gotz & Gotz, 1973; MacKinnon, 1965).

How is creativity manifested from childhood to adulthood?

In experts’ personal theories, there were significant differences in manifestations of
creativity at different ages (Table 4). These explanations were mostly directed at dif-
ferences in processes and general attitudes of creative persons, while the explicit
theories and research mainly focused on differences in the quantities and qualities
of creative production (Lubart & Sternberg, 1998).
Experts defined creativity during the preschool years primarily through curiosity
and imagination. Preschool creativity was described as everyday creativity that was
manifested through the child’s openness and spontaneity, playing, asking questions,
giving unusual responses, and exploration. Some of the products of preschool chil-
dren’s creativity were drawings, songs, and dramatic expression.
At the beginning of formal education creativity was mainly defined through cre-
ative expressions in the school setting. In this regard, at this particular age level, we
can refer to creativity as everyday school creativity. Curiosity remains an important
characteristic of creativity, but it is channeled into specific interests in specific cur-
ricular or extra-curricular activities within the school setting.
In experts’ personal theories, secondary school years were seen as a period in
which creativity is demonstrated primarily through different forms of experimenta-
tion. Along with the experimentation, curiosity and interests are further developed.
This is still an everyday creativity, with an emphasis on specific behaviors rather
than completed products.
Starting university was marked as a period in which creativity is expressed
through becoming independent and self-sufficient in different contexts of life. Criti-
cal ‘voice’ and creative formation of personal identity represent the characteristics
of everyday creativity in higher education students. However, in experts’ personal
226 S. Maksić and J. Pavlović

Table 4. Manifestations of creativity from childhood to adulthood.

Developmental stages and key
descriptors
Preschool: Curiosity and imagination
Elementary and middle school: Finding
and developing interests
High school: Experimenting and
searching for personal expression
University: Mastering the content and
independence in thinking and acting
Post-university/at work:Initiative and
contributions
Manifestations of creativity
Asking questions; giving unusual answers;
openness to new experiences; spontaniety;
exploration of the world; games which the child
creates; drawings; making up songs with
interesting rhymes; plays on words; imitation;
imaginative ways to show love, etc.
Wanting to find out more about various topics; a
variety of hobbies; special tendencies and abilities
in specific areas.
Experimenting with new styles and interests in
life: fashion, new friendships, new ideas, new
ways to develop social and family relationships.
Independence; finding individual ways to
understand new ideas; critical ‘voice’; readiness
to debate; creating one’s own unique and distinct
lifestyle along with questioning of the existing
lifestyles; independence in chosing one’s career,
university studies; personal and emotional ties.
Need to change things once something new has
been learned or finding a different solution to a
problem; readiness to master new approaches and
work techniques; readiness to learn from younger
colleagues; significantly contributing to the field
of one’s work; introducing innovations; offering
original solutions in various aspects of work;
setting personal and professional goals and
projects; attempting to master a particular field;
self-determination.

theories there was an expectation that, at this stage, creativity would be more likely
to manifest through concrete products. In other words, at the level of post-second-
ary education, fewer people were considered ‘creative’ – those who in a way set
themselves apart with their accomplishments.
After the completion of formal schooling, experts’ personal theories connected
job related creativity with the need to change things, after gaining insight into a
new approach or a new solution to a problem. Even more so than at the previous
stage, concrete, often institutionalized products of the creative activity were
expected.
In previous research and contemporary theories, child creativity is clearly distin-
guished from adult creativity (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986). Csikszentmihalyi
(1996) pointed to the difficulty of finding any consistent childhood pattern in his
studies of eminent creative persons. He found that being a prodigy is definitely not
a requirement for later creativity and that the most important childhood characteris-
tic is unusual curiosity. This is consistent with the emphasis on curiosity at pre-
school level in experts’ personal theories. In general, our findings are consistent
with Necka’s view (1986) about child creativity. Namely, creativity of children is
based on their ability to think in original and productive ways, which is accompa-
nied by motivation to create in adolescence, and in adulthood it also includes the
skills necessary for successful completion of a creative act.
 High Ability Studies 227

A more recent study on childhood creativity readdressed the question whether

children could be creative (Glǎveanu, 2011). In this study, two cultural representa-
tions of child creativity were unraveled. A view of children as active and creative
beings, who develop their forms of creative expression in interaction with adults and
through play and experimentation, was contrasted with the passive and receptive
image of children. In light of these two contrasted cultural representations, experts’
personal theories are more in line with the image of an active and creative child.
Experts expressed a positive view of child creativity, which is in a slight contrast
with the view of creatively gifted children in Finnish public discourse as absent-
minded or aggressive (Laine, 2010). Moreover, child creativity in personal explicit
theories is inclusive of the mini-c concept, which refers to novel and personally
meaningful interpretation of experiences, actions and events (Kaufman & Beghetto,
2009). Finally, experts’ personal theories of creativity at workplace include eminent
or Big-C creativity and professional creativity that represents professional level
expertise, without reaching the eminent status (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009).

To what extent can the school contribute to the development of creativity?

In experts’ personal theories there was an overwhelming belief that the school could
considerably contribute to the development of creativity. Out of 27 participants, 20
responded that the school could contribute to the development of creativity ‘a lot’.
The most relevant question for the school was how to make it possible for the child
to be exposed to, recognize and develop a passion for a particular field and content,
in ways which would be best expressed in the context of regular curricular content
and activities (Maksić, 2006). The answer to this question lies in the diversity and
flexibility of school curricular plans, programs and procedures (Maksić, 2007).
According to the experts’ personal theories, teachers would have the most prom-
inent role in this process: 22 participants referred to teacher role in their answers to
the question about contribution of school to the development of creativity. We clas-
sified specific teacher activities into several categories (Table 5).
Teachers were expected to develop themselves into creative professionals with a
‘creative outlook on the world’. Teachers were also expected to play an active role
in the creativity guidance system, to become able to recognize and nurture creativ-
ity. Teachers were seen as key factors in the implementation of adequate curricular
activities, such as interactive and dialogue methods; encouraging student questions;
multiple-perspective teaching and encouraging divergent thinking through open-
ended questions; encouraging critical thinking; innovativeness and experimentation.
Specific forms of professional development were suggested in order to support
teachers to take a more active role in stimulating creativity. Apart from stimulating
instruction, organizing stimulating extracurricular activities was also suggested (e.g.,
creativity week). Finally, teachers were seen as being responsible for creating a
school environment which stimulated the expression of creativity. Such an environ-
ment includes the development of the value of pluralism; encouragement of free
expression and encouraging humor and imagination; creating an accepting environ-
ment; developing tolerance to different opinions and a higher degree of student par-
ticipation in school activities.
Experts’ personal theories also listed factors which negatively impacted the
development of creativity in the school setting: teacher rigidness, indifference,
decrease of intrinsic motivation in students; offering ‘ready-made’ solutions, critical
228 S. Maksić and J. Pavlović

Table 5. Teacher activities associated with supporting student creativity.

Activities Frequency Example
Teaching and learning
methods
Professional development
Promoting creativity
Identification and
guidance of student
creativity
Extracurricular activities
Unspecified answers
34 Learning through games. . . Learning through
formulation of problems and giving different
solutions to these problems.
Using interactive teaching methods and
interdisciplinary activities.
12 School should enhance teacher creativity. . . but this
issue requires a systemic approach and changes in
the traditional teacher role.
Development of the creative viewpoint among
teachers.
10 Promoting democratic and supportive atmosphere
at school where each student and his or her answer
is considered as valuable and useful.
Pointing to the significance of creativity for the
person and for the society.
6 Screening and supporting student potentials.
Appropriate and timely identification [of creative
students].
2 Diverse offer of extracurricular and optional
activities for students.
The school can to some extent contribute to the
development of creativity through extracurricular
and out-of-school activities.
6 Total reform of the educational system.
By changing the conception of the educational
paradigm.

evaluation in initial stages of the creative process, ‘holding students back’, ‘limit-
ing’ them and ‘fitting them into a mold’ of teacher’s expectations, ‘dry’ lectures
unfitted to student interests; evaluating students’ responses solely based on the
right/wrong criterion; teaching aimed at the ‘imaginary average’, frontal way of
teaching; insisting that the students who show creativity in a certain area ‘waste
their energy’ on the subjects they are not interested in; encouraging stereotypes.
It seems the teacher is a key figure supporting the creativity of students, which
is in line with explicit theories and research data (Torrance, 1981). Investigations
into conditions for expression and fostering of creativity in schools bring us to a
model for a reform of the entire school with teachers as key actors (Braggett, 1998;
Gardner, 1985; Renzulli, 2000). These models promote highly successful learning,
based on students’ interests, their commitment to learning and readiness to engage
in creative production. The main curricular goals become enabling the student to
think efficiently and express his or her thoughts effectively (Montgomery, 1996).
The best kind of learning involves students in the process of acquiring knowledge
by constructing it (Clark, 2000).

Conclusion
This paper reports on qualitative data about educational experts’ implicit theories
of creativity and its development. Research data support the view that educa-
tional experts’ implicit theories should be taken as personal explicit theories.
 High Ability Studies 229

If we consider our research participants as members of a research team, we may

outline one integrated educational experts’ theory of creativity. In this theory
novelty is considered to be the essence of creativity and it includes everyday as
well as eminent manifestations of creativity. Creativity is associated with the cre-
ative person, rather than with the creative product itself. Manifestations of crea-
tivity throughout the life span can be considered as a continuum, starting from
preschool curiosity and imagination, through development of interests and search-
ing for personal expression during primary and secondary schooling. In adult-
hood, independence stands out as the key indicator of creativity, as well as
initiative at work. School can contribute to the development of students’ creative
capacities to a significant degree and the main figures in this process are their
teachers.
The contribution of this paper is in the broadening of the field of investigation
into implicit theories on creativity, from exploring the creative personality to a vari-
ety of different topics, such as creative products, developmental dimensions of crea-
tivity and the possibilities of stimulating creativity in the school setting. Our
findings represent an elaboration of a developmental ‘map’ from child creative
potentials to adult creative contributions, by which we have overcome the gap that
exists in current theory on creativity. Unraveling this ‘map’ held by educational
researchers, as stakeholders who have the opportunity to impact educational policy,
clarifies possible goals and directions for supporting creativity in schools. If our
findings about the existence of a developmental line that starts from preschool to
adulthood, with different aspects dominant at different ages, were confirmed by
future research, they could be used as useful tool for teachers. For example, if
teachers were more open to students’ interests in primary school, they would be
more in a position to support development of their creativity.
Several important directions for future research emerge from this study. In
order to expand on these developmental signs of creativity, focus groups could be
carried out with different stakeholders. Research results could be used as a basis
for constructing a questionnaire for screening creativity manifestations in different
school subjects. Other expert groups engaged in education, such as policy-makers
and teachers, could be invited as research participants in order to explicate their
personal theories. Eliciting and articulating views of different stakeholders could
bring about complementary perspectives and assist policy-makers in clarifying
goals and choosing approaches to supporting creativity. Research into develop-
mental manifestations of creativity in different cultures may also be a useful
direction for future studies. Therefore, the findings from our study point to the
development of future explicit theories of creativity, as well as to the future
research on implicit theories of creativity of relevant subjects contributing to
childcare and development. We need further explication of implicit theories of
creativity that can make all of us more responsible and willing to support and
recognize creativity, not only asking for it.

Acknowledgements
This article is the result of the projects ‘Improving the quality and accessibility of
education in modernization processes in Serbia’ (No. 47008) and ‘From encouraging
initiative, cooperation and creativity to new roles and identities in society’ (No. 179034),
financially supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of
Serbia.
230 S. Maksić and J. Pavlović

Notes
1. M = 41.48, SD = 12.13.
2. M = 15.81, SD = 12.17.

References
Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence and personality: A critical review
of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132,
355–429.
Beghetto, R.A., & Kaufman, J.C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case
for ‘mini-c’ creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 13–79.
Braggett, E. (1998). Gifted education: A total school approach involving all teachers. Paper
presented at 5th Asia-Pacific Conference, Psychology Unit, Department of Education,
University of Delhi, Delhi, September 1–5.
Chan, D.W., & Chan, L.K. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers’ perception of
student characteristics in Hong Kong. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 185–195.
Clark, B. (2000). The gifted brain: A guide to optimizing learning. Paper presented at NACE
Annual Conference ‘The able child, a new era’, The University College of Ripon and
York, York, Great Britain, June 30–July 2.
Cropley, A. (1996). Recognizing creative potential: An evaluation of the usefulness of crea-
tivity tests. High Ability, 7(2), 203–219.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and psychology of discovery and invention.
New York: HarperCollins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativ-
ity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dweck, C.S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and
reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285.
Feldman, H.D. (1999). The development of creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of
creativity (pp. 169–186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feldman, H.D., & Benjamin, A. (2006). Creativity and education: An American retrospec-
tive. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 319–336.
Fook, J. (2002). Theorizing from practice. Qualitative Social Work, 1(1), 79–95.
Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: A theory of multiple intelligences. London: Paladin.
Gardner, H. (1994). Five forms of creative activity: A developmental perspective. In N.
Colangelo, S.G. Assouline, & D.L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development (pp. 3–17).
Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press.
Glǎveanu, V. (2011). Children and creativity: A most (un)likely pair? Thinking skills and
creativity, 6(2), 122–131.
Gotz, K.O., & Gotz, K. (1973). Introversion–extraversion and neuroticism in gifted and
ungifted art students. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 36, 675–678.
Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualita-
tive Health Inquiry, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Kankaraš, M. (2009). Implicitne teorije kreativnosti: kros-kulturalna studija [Implicit theories
of creativity: A cross-cultural study]. Psihologija, 42(2), 187–202.
Kaufman, S.B., & Sternberg, R.J. (2007). Giftedness in the Euro-American culture. In S.N.
Phillipson & M. McCann (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives
(pp. 377–411). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kaufman, J.C., & Beghetto, R.A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The Four C Model of
creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12.
Kelly, G.A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
Laine, S. (2010). The Finnish public discussion of giftedness and gifted children. High
Ablity Studies, 21(1), 63–76.
Lubart, T.I., & Sternberg, R.J. (1998). Life span creativity: An investment theory approach.
In C. Adams-Price (Ed.), Creativity and successful aging: Theoretical and empirical
approaches (pp. 21–41). New York: Springer-Verlag.
 High Ability Studies 231

MacKinnon, D.W. (1965). Personality and the realization of creative potential. American
Psychologist, 20, 273–281.
Maksić, S. (2006). Podsticanje kreativnosti u školi [Fostering creativity in school]. Beograd:
Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.
Maksić, S. (2007). Darovito dete u školi [Gifted child at school]. Beograd: Zavod za udžbe-
nike.
Montgomery, D. (1996). Differentiation of the curriculum for the highly able. High Ability
Studies, 7(1), 25–37.
Necka, E. (1986). On the nature of creative talent. In A. Cropley, K. Urban, H. Wagner, &
W. Wieczerkowski (Eds.), Giftedness: A continuing worldwide challenge (pp. 131–140).
New York: Trillium Press.
Persson, R. (2006). VSAIEEDC – A cognition-based generic model of qualitative data anal-
ysis in giftedness and talent research. Gifted and Talented International, 21(2), 29–37.
Polovina, N., & Pavlović, J. (2010). Odnos teorije i prakse: od neproduktivnog rascepa do
obogaćujuće uzajamnosti. In N. Polovina & J. Pavlović (Eds.), Teorija i praksa profe-
sionalnog razvoja nastavnika [Theory and practice of teacher professional development]
(pp. 105–126). Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.
Renzulli, J. (2000). A rising tide lifts all ships: Applying gifted education know-how to the
development of high potential in all students. In K. Maitra (Ed.), Towars excellence,
developing and nurturing giftedness and talents (pp. 3–33). New Delhi: Mosaic Books.
Runco, M.A. (1999). Implicit theories. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
creativity (pp. 27–30). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Runco, M.A., & Johnson, D. (2002). Parents’ and teachers’ implicit theories of children’s
creativity: A cross-cultural perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3/4), 427–438.
Runco, M.A., Nemiro, J., & Walberg, H. (1993). Personal explicit theories of creativity.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 43–59.
Spiel, C., & Korff, C. (1998). Implicit theories of creativity: The conceptions of politicians,
scientists, artists and school teachers. High Ability Studies, 9(1), 43–59.
Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607–627.
Sternberg, R.J. (1999). A propulsion model of types of creative contributions. Review of
General Psychology, 3(2), 83–100.
Sternberg, R.J., & Davidson, J.E. (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Šefer, J. (2007). Slavic conceptions of giftedness and creativity. In S. Phillipson & M.
McCann (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness: Sociocultural perspectives (pp. 311–347).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Torrance, E.P. (1981). Predicting the creativity of elementary school children (1958–1980)
and the teacher who ‘made the difference’. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(2), 55–61.
Urban, K. (1995). Different models in describing, exploiting, explaining and nurturing crea-
tivity in society. European Journal for High Ability, 6(2), 143–159.
Copyright of High Ability Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.