The Development of Human Creativity as a Way

to Compete Globally and Make Knowledge

Economy More Inclusive

Elina Benea-Popuşoi and Svetlana Duca(B)

Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova, Chişinău, Republic of Moldova

elinabenea@gmail.com, sv.duca@gmail.com

Motto: “Be creative. Men only learnt how to

fly when they stopped imitating birds.”
Paulo Coelho

Abstract. The paper aims at examining the development of human creativity as

a way to compete globally and make knowledge economy more inclusive. The
research reveals that creativity correlates with personality and that personalisa-
tion of human resources is the prerequisite for their transformation into human
capital. The creative thought or behaviour must be both novel/original and use-
ful/adaptive. Although it is difficult to measure and quantify creativity, a series
of models were elaborated, of which the model of the “four Ps of creativity” is
reviewed in the article. The authors reiterate creativity is linked to innovation
since the former produces the latter and there is a large agreement that creativity
is “getting the idea”, while innovation is “doing something about it”. Drawing
on reports’ data, the authors consider the quest for creativity as globally high,
based on people’s growing appreciation of creativity, evidenced creativity gap,
and individuals’ expectations for valorising creativity both in the private and pub-
lic sectors. Theoretically, the process of globalization fosters creativity through
greater openness and exposure, whereas creativity enhances global competitive-
ness at the level of individuals, companies, countries. In practice, the confine-
ments of the knowledge economy should be considered such as its low inclusive-
ness, marginalization of specific social groups and certain countries like Republic
of Moldova, which face an increase in both the risks and opportunities related to
their human capital. The authors conclude the ability of these countries to pre-
serve human capital at home is proportional to their investments in valorising this
capital, also through their educational systems, which besides, have to be adapted
via fostering creativity within the teaching-learning process.

Keywords: Creativity · Quest for creativity · Creativity gap · Creators ·

Non-creators · Innovation · Global competitiveness · Knowledge-based
economy · Knowledge-driven economy · Economic vanguardism · Insular
knowledge economy · Inclusive knowledge economy · Educational system ·
Teaching-learning process

c The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license
to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
J. Xu et al. (Eds.): ICMSEM 2020, AISC 1191, pp. 676–686, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49889-4_52
 The Development of Human Creativity 677

1 Introduction
In the 21st century, the context of knowledge economy requires expanding and deep-
ening the research on human creativity. The concept of creativity is typically examined
in correlation with the concepts of human resources, human capital, personality of the
individual. Personalization of human resources is deemed to be the prerequisite for their
transformation into human capital [4]. Furthermore, personality is viewed as an essen-
tial condition that determines people’s creative and innovative thought and behaviour
[11]. The concept of creativity is being linked to that of innovation since the former
produces the latter and there is a large agreement that creativity is getting the idea, and
innovation is doing something about it [12]. Our research aims to investigate how the
development of human creativity enhances the ability to compete globally, ultimately
expanding the inclusiveness of knowledge economy. Inter alia, we seek to explore both
the supply of creativity and the quest for creativity coming from individuals, compa-
nies, countries. The paper is also meant to supplement the research on the issue of low
inclusiveness of knowledge economy and that on the capacity of the educational system
to address this issue by fostering human creativity, as well.
Apart from introduction and conclusion, our article contains 3 sections, of which
one section conceptualizes creativity; the next one links creativity to global competi-
tiveness, whereas another section focuses on the possibility to expand the inclusiveness
of knowledge economy by fostering creativity within the educational system.

2 Conceptualizing Human Creativity

We believe that human creativity is the capability of the human being to use resources
in an unusual manner, which results in a product or service of unique value. Thus, every
person has the potential to be creative and at a certain point in time can start realizing,
exploring, and valorising this potential.
Evidence has shown creativity considerably contributes to a better world, better life
conditions, also for the vulnerable social groups. Theories and studies on exploring
human creativity started decades ago, though creativity phenomenon is presumably as
old as the universe.
Creativity entails “a network of interactions and may be thought of as a phenomenon
that occurs in the context of multiple systems [21]”. More than an open system, cre-
ativity is a living system that requires interchange for its survival and thriving. The
creative person is not growing in a closed system with little resources. To develop its
creative thinking a person must be open to new experiences, curious to opportunities,
sensitive to the inner and outer environment, be of a complex nature, which is both
anchored in solidity but also anchored in spontaneity [9]. Creative thinkers are para-
doxical by nature displaying dichotomous preferences across the range of traits that
may make them uniquely capable of embracing multiple ways of being and knowing
[7]. “Although creativity is usually thought of in terms of the process of creating an end
product, it is a more profound, yet simple concept and capacity in humans. Creativity is
simply allowing the inputs of new ideas, concepts, and stimulation to enter our living,
open system where they may be reflected upon in service to new possibilities [8]”.
678 E. Benea-Popuşoi and S. Duca

Ultimately, according to M. Rhodes, “the phenomenon to which the term creativ-

ity applies is the phenomenon of synthesizing knowledge. Hope for greater unification
of knowledge lies in the continuance of studies of creativity [23]”. Therefore, we may
conclude by its very nature, the subject of creativity involves and requires an interdisci-
plinary approach.

2.1 Human Creativity Correlates with Personality

To approach creativity in humans, we have to consider the difference between the notion
of human resources which targets the human factor as a whole and the notion of human
capital which is based on the individual’s personality. Thus, the personalisation of the
human resources appears to be the sine qua non condition for their transformation into
human capital [4]. The knowledge economy requires a creative human capital, which is
about nurturing creative human personality, as a source for human capital, that brings
about economic value.
The creative person is also defined as an individual who consciously and systemati-
cally uses his imagination, as well as other spiritual qualities, to create the desired living
and production conditions, but also to directly transform the unlimited energies of the
Universe into tangible goods [19]. Creativity appears to be a supreme form of human’s
personality. In its turn, personality is one of those conditions that make creative and
innovative thought and behaviour more likely in some people and less likely in others.
Creativity’s quality that is both fascinating and yet frustrating is its complexity [11].
Although it is difficult to measure and quantify creativity, researchers have been
quite unanimous in their definition of the concept. Creative thought or behaviour must
be both novel/original and useful/adaptive [26]. Thus, originality by itself is not suffi-
cient - “there would be no way to distinguish eccentric or schizophrenic thought from
creative. To be classified as creative, thought or behaviour must also be socially useful
or adaptive [11]”.
As regards the concept of personality, in psychological terms, it refers to “the unique
and relatively enduring set of behaviours, feelings, thoughts, and motives that charac-
terize an individual [11].” The definition covers two key issues. Primarily, personality
is what differentiates us from each other and makes us distinct. Additionally, person-
ality tends to be long-lasting and coherent. On the whole, “personality is the relatively
enduring unique ways that individuals think, act, and feel”. Studies show that “unique
and consistent different styles of behaving (i.e. personalities)” are characteristic not only
of humans but also of various animal species [11].

2.2 Creativity as Inexhaustible, Renewable Resource and Its Potential to

Generate Innovation
Creativity fundamentally differs from the traditional, tangible factors of production. It
is not a stock of things that can be used up, but an infinitely renewable resource that can
be continually replenished and deepened [13].
Creativity implies that our experience of what we call reality is not predetermined,
but it is a creative construct. “We co-create that reality construction but are largely
unaware of it. We are engaged in a creative process of reality construction all the time”
 The Development of Human Creativity 679

and so we gain the opportunity to set up both our present and future development and
the possibility to reassess our experience [20].
The notorious definition of creativity by Rhodes states that “the word creativity is a
noun naming the phenomenon in which a person communicates a new concept (which
is the product). Mental activity (or mental process) is implicit in the definition, and of
course, no one could conceive of a person living or operating in a vacuum, so the term
press is also implicit [23]”.
Likewise, Rhodes refers to the “four Ps of creativity”, which include (1) Person,
(2) Process, (3) Press (of the environment) and (4) Products [17, 23]. Since creativity
is a “noun naming the phenomenon”, when we seek to teach creativity, inherently, we
attempt to teach a phenomenon. However, in reality, the teaching of a creative process
assumes that we teach about the phenomenon of creativity. As Jonathan Vehar stated,
“One does not teach creativity; one teaches a creative process”. The scholar also sug-
gested that “creative thinking” is a subset of Rhodes’s definition focusing on the “mental
activity (or mental process)”, namely, the process that is necessary for the phenomenon
to occur [29].
Presumably, the creative process or processes result in creative products. In his
research, Barron noted that a creative product must be “original” and “adaptive to real-
ity” meaning useful or valuable [3]. Stein synthesized it by saying that “creativity is a
process that results in a novel work that is accepted as useful by a significant group of
people at some point in time [27]”.
The definition of creativity is linked to that of innovation since the former is sup-
posed to produce the latter. Scholars largely agree that “creativity is getting the idea,
and innovation is doing something about it [12]”. G. Kaufman notes that the criteria for
creativity are novelty and validity (usefulness), whereas innovation implies two addi-
tional criteria: increment, which is defined as an addition to existing knowledge and
realization comprising adoption, implementation, and diffusion [18]. On this line, T.
Rickards points out that “The implicit assumptions in much of the literature suggest
that innovation is a process which begins with a creative idea and ends when that idea
is implemented” [22].

2.3 Assessing People’s Quest for Creativity

In the decades that have elapsed since the 21st century, the number of works published
on the subject of human creativity has grown impressively, including international
reports that evaluate the state of human creativity and implicitly people’s quest for cre-
ativity. Particularly, such reports have been elaborated by national bodies and research
institutes (Great Britain, USA, Canada, and Australia are deemed to lead this field);
international authorities (primarily bodies of European Union, UNCTAD and others);
transnational companies in the private sector, such as Adobe (years 2012–2018), The
Holmes (years 2012–2019), Cannes Lions (year 2019), and others. Overall, the reports
and related surveys suggest people become increasingly aware of the importance of
creativity across all dimensions of their lives. We believe this growing appreciation res-
onates perfectly with the three core values of development sought by all individuals and
societies: sustenance, self-esteem, and freedom [16].
680 E. Benea-Popuşoi and S. Duca

Such growing appreciation represents to us the primary evidence dimension of peo-

ple’s quest for creativity. Thus, people believe being creative is valuable to society and
economy, it also helps make people better workers, leaders, parents, and students. Peo-
ple identify themselves as creators (“someone who creates”) and non-creators respec-
tively. Compared to non-creators, creators are reported to earn more. They are also more
likely to portray themselves as problem solvers, innovative, confident, and happy. Like-
wise, creators say creating allows them to make a difference, whereas being creative at
work makes them feel happy, fulfilled, energized, and successful [2].
Another evidence dimension of people’s quest for creativity may refer to the creativ-
ity gap inferred by the fact that despite people’s perception of creativity’s value, a fewer
number of them depict themselves as creative, and even less consider they are living
up to their creative potential. Although, compared to older generations, younger gener-
ations (approximately 18–35 years), are more likely to describe themselves as creative
and want others to see them as creative [2].
Creativity gap stems from people’s perception of their unfulfilled creative potential.
Apparently, two main sources of the creativity gap may be ascertained. One refers to the
workplace creativity gap, implying there is increasing pressure to be productive rather
than creative at work. People also feel they spend just a small part of their time at work
creating. The educational system is seen as another source for the creativity gap. There
is a universal concern that educational system is stifling creativity [1].
We believe another evidence dimension of people’s quest for creativity refers to
individuals’ expectations for valorising creativity, both in the private and public sectors.
Thus, people globally acknowledge businesses that invest in creativity, are more likely
to increase employees’ productivity, to have satisfied customers, to foster innovation
and be financially successful. Likewise, individuals globally indicate that by investing
in creativity, governments can support innovation, increase productivity, be competitive,
and have happier citizens. Furthermore, to overcome the issue of creativity as being
stifled by the educational system, people consider schools must prioritize learning by
“doing”; creativity over memorization; developing a wide variety of students’ skills [2].
Thus, the need for valorising creativity phenomenon has become evident and cur-
rently requires integrating it across all the dimensions of human life, and throughout
policies in the public and private sector, as well.

3 Human Creativity and Global Competitiveness

Global competitiveness is the capacity to face competition at the international level. It
is shaped by the process of globalization which apparently fosters creativity through
greater openness and exposure. Thomas L. Friedman’s notorious book [14], entitled
with a creative metaphor “The world is flat”, points out several stages of the globalisa-
tion process: countries’ globalizing; companies’ globalizing; individuals’ globalizing.
Implicitly, these stages bring forth the actors seeking to compete globally and inherently
mould them.
The challenges in global competition are very sensitive for many countries, espe-
cially for the developing ones. Building an economy that would be knowledge-based,
or in addition, knowledge-driven constitutes an empowering key element for global
competitiveness.
 The Development of Human Creativity 681

3.1 Global Competitiveness Under the Fourth Industrial Revolution Requires

the Development of Creativity

Capitalism system is held to be in the midst of an epochal transformation from its pre-
vious industrial model to a new one based on creativity and knowledge. In place of the
natural resources and large-scale industries that empowered the industrial capitalism,
the growth of creative capitalism turns on knowledge, innovation, and talent [13].
K. Schwab, the founder of World Economic Forum argues the world enters the
fourth industrial revolution, that is “fundamentally changing the way we live, work,
and relate to one another [25]”. This revolution presumes an accelerating convergence
of our increasingly powerful technological capabilities. Autonomous vehicles, 3D print-
ing, gene editing, robotics, artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, and many more
emerging trends are arising from an unparalleled melding of physical, biological and
digital worlds. These coalescing capabilities are both transforming and being trans-
formed by society.
According to K. Schwab, “if the future is to be one in which inequalities are reduced,
health, well-being and prosperity are increased, and we as a society remain in charge of
our destiny, then public and private leaders need to think and act differently now when
it comes to the potential and perils of increasingly powerful and fast-moving technolo-
gies [25]”. The scholar draws attention to three specific challenges: raise awareness
and understanding of the opportunities and pitfalls of the fourth industrial revolution
across all sectors of society; detect how stakeholders can shape the revolution for cur-
rent and future generations; reorganize economic, political, educational systems to take
full advantage of the chances of the fourth industrial revolution [25].
On the other side, creativity is also defined as the ability to find various solutions
to a problem. The growing interest in creative education is due to the need for critical
thinkers to be able to solve complex problems in all areas. As the world becomes more
interconnected, linear business and policy decisions become outdated. Leaders are look-
ing for people to develop new approaches and ideas. Employers and universities realize
the need to encourage the creativity of the students and workforce accordingly. The soft
competence of creativity has been identified as a key competence for successful activ-
ities. Initially addressed as relatively rare intellectual ability, creativity is now being
considered as a set of skills that can be learned, not directly related to intelligence, but
which dampens as people grow older. Thus, according to the Robinson Report [15, 24],
at the age of 5, creativity represents 98% of the potential; by the age of 10 it decreases
to 30%; at 15 years it is 12%, and in adults, it constitutes less than 2%.
Already lifelong learning has become a core feature of the educational system. In
Canada and the USA, many universities and colleges valorise this form of education,
which is recognized by institutions as an addition to the degree of attainment. Learning
is done in areas and categories valuable to the individuals, based on their interest. There
is a major economic impact from the learning system, including lifelong learning, for all
age groups. Overall the lifelong learners tend to find higher-payed occupations, leaving
monetary, cultural, and entrepreneurial impact on communities. Hence, in an ageing
society, notably under the fourth industrial revolution, developing creativity becomes a
necessity and challenge, especially as people become older.
682 E. Benea-Popuşoi and S. Duca

3.2 How Creativity Enhances the Capacity to Compete Globally

First, an individual’s global competitiveness is assessed through the product or ser-

vice he/she delivers. Under globalization and the fourth industrial revolution, the prod-
ucts/services are increasingly acquiring a unique value, which in its turn is determined
by the human personality and consequently by the supply of and the quest for creativity,
coming from individuals.
Second, a company’s global competitiveness is accordingly set by its capacity to
attract human capital, implicitly by leadership and talents’ management of the company.
Likewise, in this context, we may delineate the supply of and the quest for creativity
coming from companies.
Third, a country’s global competitiveness is essentially determined by its demo-
graphic growth, its human capital, the level of inclusiveness of its economy and society,
implicitly by its capacity to develop an inclusive knowledge economy.
Definitely, these factors are influenced by the quality of governance, also setting
national policies of demand/quest for creative human capital originating either inside
or outside the country. Primarily, Great Britain and USA have succeeded in promoting
such policies. Indeed, “World history provides us examples of nation-states that had
realized the importance of human capital earlier than others and started to promote
“brain-hunting policies”, stealthily causing a “brain-drain” in the rest of the world” [4].
As the globalisation and digitalization of the global economy are leading to the
emergence of the truly global labour market, international talent flows and global talent
market, we see that countries in development, such as the Republic of Moldova, face an
increase in both the risks and opportunities related to their human capital. Moreover, in
the context of the new jobs landscape, the ability of these countries to preserve human
capital at home is proportional to their investments in valorising this capital. In its turn,
such valorising implies the identification of the factors generating human capital in the
country - factors originating from the demographical, educational, and other fields [4].
Likewise, in this regard, creativity is that inexhaustible, renewable resource of the edu-
cational system, allowing it to empower all the actors involved in the learning process:
students and teachers, as well.

4 Expanding the Inclusiveness of Knowledge Economy by

Fostering Creativity Within the Educational System

Traditional economy is fundamentally based on the principle of scarce resources, while

knowledge economy relies on producing and exchanging ideas, knowledge, innova-
tions, which overcome the state of limited resources as long as human personali-
ties valorise their potentials. Additionally, under the traditional economy, the power
resided with a limited number of people who owned the means of production. Whereas
today, the knowledge workers are presumed to become individual knowledge capital-
ists, owning their proper means of production: personal computer, smartphones, internet
access [30].
Yet, scholars have expressed concerns regarding the inclusiveness of the knowledge
economy, in particular, the fact that while some firms and locations are thriving, the rest
 The Development of Human Creativity 683

are frequently left behind. The world countries were reported facing major problems
related to knowledge economy such as rising level of inequality due to non-valorising of
the knowledge assets, stagnant productivity in the economy (the majority of the former
soviet countries exhibit this problem), political anger and alienation of people who feel
they are economically marginalized, which fact brings the increase of emigration, and
multidimensional disequilibrium both in the origin countries of migrants and countries
hosting them.
In the less-developed countries, an accelerating and catching-up economic develop-
ment remains priority in the context of national mentality and governance, although the
approaches and outcomes vary immensely. Particularly, in Republic of Moldova as a
former socialist country, despite the apparently post-industrial structure of its GDP, the
economy is not sufficiently competitive and does not ensure the security and economic
independence of the state. The predominance of the immaterial sectors in the GDP does
not constitute a sufficient argument for belonging to a post-industrial society since the
quality of life and harnessing of human capital remain grossly unsatisfactory. The high
shares of commerce and other services are also due to the excessive emigration of the
most dynamic and productive part of R. Moldova’s human resources and does not indi-
cate a truly post-industrial stage of the Moldovan economy [6].
Besides, to achieve a sustainable positive correlation between science and economic
development, the former requires an amount of funding of at least 1.5 - 2 % of GDP. A
lower level of funding is deemed to provide just an indirect impact of scientific activities
upon the economic evolvement, via the increase in the levels of education and general
knowledge. Compared to the European Union where science funding represents over
3 % of GDP, in R. Moldova this indicator increased to 0.75 % by 2009, but since then it
has steadily decreased [10].
Hence, the effects of the knowledge economy could be deemed small-scale so far.
“Instead of spreading widely, it has remained restricted to vanguards of production,
employing few workers. Entrepreneurial and technological elites control it. A handful
of large global firms have reaped the lion’s share of the profits that it has so far yielded.
If only we could find a path from these insular vanguards to socially inclusive ones we
would have built a powerful motor of economic growth” [28].
Simultaneously, scholars acknowledge that received economic theory proves to be
unable to provide insights on policies required to move from the insular knowledge
economy that we have to the inclusive one that we need. “The effort to think through
the agenda of an inclusive vanguardism prompts us to reassess the alternative futures of
economics as well as the alternative futures of the economy [28]”.
In this regard, the role of the educational system is crucial within the context of
a country’s policies toward keeping young human capital for the sake of the national
economy. As it stands out, many developing and transition countries, witness poor man-
agement of their educational systems, inefficient strategies of investing in education.
Accordingly, they are simply losing their human capital which opts for labour markets
in the developed countries. Related to the role of the educational systems in achieving
an inclusive knowledge economy, scholars, notably A. Montuori, consider that “cur-
rent educational systems reflect forms of thinking and organizing that are not appropri-
ate for the twenty-first century. New transdisciplinary educational approaches should
684 E. Benea-Popuşoi and S. Duca

integrate complexity, creativity, and an awareness of the most recent developments in

the sciences [5]”.
Creativity supposes a systemic approach to complexity, which additionally leads to
new concepts and approaches in education. Handling complexity also requires a new
way to understand a networked society, in which interconnectedness, interdependence,
uncertainty, and emergence play central roles. “It demands reflection and the teaching
of reflection, the development of complex thought; it requires going beyond reduction-
ism, disjunction, and abstraction. Crucially, it requires the integration of the inquirer
into the inquiry and leads to a completely different, transdisciplinary approach. These
are radically different aims from the ones typically proposed by current educational
institutions [5]”.
We believe, fostering creativity in the educational system primarily supposes adopt-
ing a student-centred learning process, providing an individual approach to the person-
alities and capabilities of both students and teachers, which ultimately determines the
formation of a creativity-friendly learning environment. Furthermore, considering that
the global demographic transition and the ageing process of population, more specifi-
cally in the developed post-industrial countries, entail the development of the life-long
learning system, implicitly fostering creativity within this system determines the expan-
sion of the inclusiveness of knowledge economy.

5 Conclusion
Our research has revealed human creativity correlates with personality and we have also
distinguished between the notion of human resources, which targets the human factor as
a whole and the notion of human capital, which is based on the individual’s personality.
Thereby personalisation of the human resources is viewed as an essential condition
for their transformation into human capital. Accordingly, personality is the prerequisite
that makes creative and innovative thought and behaviour more likely in some people
and less likely in others. We have also delineated the concept of personality as the
unique and relatively enduring set of behaviours, feelings, thoughts, and motives that
characterize an individual. Creative thought or behaviour must be both novel/original
and useful/adaptive. Therefore, it is difficult to measure and quantify creativity.
We have examined creativity as inexhaustible, renewable resource and its potential
to generate innovation. Relying on the classic definition of creativity by Rhodes [23], we
have concluded that when seeking to teach creativity, one cannot teach a phenomenon,
one can teach about the phenomenon of creativity, which is in fact teaching of a creative
process.
Pursuant to our investigation, the definition of creativity is linked to that of innova-
tion, since the former produces the latter and there is a large agreement that “creativ-
ity is getting the idea, and innovation is doing something about it [12]”. Innovation is
deemed to be a process which begins with a creative idea and ends when that idea is
implemented.
Based on global reports and related surveys [1, 2], we have ascertained the quest
for creativity as globally high, considering people’s growing appreciation of creativity,
evidenced creativity gap, and individuals’ expectations for valorising creativity both in
the private and public sectors.
 The Development of Human Creativity 685

In line with our exploration, the process of globalization fosters creativity through
greater openness and exposure. Global competitiveness under the fourth industrial rev-
olution, notably in an ageing society, requires the development of creativity. Creativity
enhances global competitiveness at the level of individuals, since the products/services
are increasingly acquiring a unique value, which in its turn is determined by the human
personality and accordingly by the supply of and the quest for creativity, coming from
individuals. Likewise, a company’s global competitiveness is set by its capacity to
attract human capital and develop creativity. Ultimately, a country’s global competi-
tiveness is inter alia determined by the quality of governance, also including national
policies of demand for creative human capital originating either inside or outside the
country. Countries in development, such as the Republic of Moldova, face an increase
in both the risks and opportunities related to human capital. Their ability to preserve
human capital at home is proportional to their investments in valorising this capital,
also within their educational systems.
We have also revisited the confinements of the knowledge economy such as its
insular evolution within the vanguards of production; low inclusiveness owing to the
control exercised by entrepreneurial, technological elites, and accordingly by a limited
number of large global companies; marginalization of specific social groups resulting
in their political anger and alienation, also contributing to emigration; disempowerment
of certain developing countries.
To overcome these confinements, we conclude as well, the educational systems have
to be adapted, also by fostering creativity within the teaching-learning process. This is
particularly important considering that the global demographic transition and the age-
ing process of population, more specifically in the developed post-industrial countries,
entail the universal spread of the life-long learning system. Our research suggests fos-
tering creativity within this system too, determines the expansion of the inclusiveness
of knowledge economy.

References
1. Adobe Report: State of create global benchmark study (2012)
2. Adobe Report: State of create (2016)
3. Barron, F.: The disposition toward originality. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 51(3), 478–485
(1955)
4. Benea-Popuşoi, E.: The transcendence of the human capital towards spirituality. In: Inter-
national Scientific Conference Classical and Innovative Approaches in Contemporary Eco-
nomic Thought: Considerations Regarding the Quality of Life in the Context of A Changing
Europe. ASEM, Chişinău, pp. 109–111 (2016). http://irek.ase.md/xmlui/handle/123456789/
294
5. Bocchi, G., Cianci, E., Montuori, A., Trigona, R., Nicolaus, O.: Educating for creativity.
World Futur. J. New Parad. Res. 70(5–6), 336–369 (2014)
6. Ciobanu, C., Capsîzu, V.: Towards a knowledge-based society - an imperative of our time.
Particularities of its edification in the Republic of Moldova. In: International Scientific Con-
ference Classical and Innovative Approaches in Contemporary Economic Thought: Con-
siderations Regarding the Quality of Life in the Context of A Changing Europe. ASEM,
Chişinău, pp. 81–83 (2016). http://irek.ase.md/xmlui/handle/123456789/294
7. Cooper, T.: Thrive: The Highly Sensitive Person and Career. Invictus, Ozark, MO (2015)
686 E. Benea-Popuşoi and S. Duca

8. Cooper, T.: Toward a creative criticality: revisiting critical thinking. Integr. Leadersh.
Rev., May 2018. http://integralleadershipreview.com/16019-toward-a-creative-criticality-
revisiting-critical-thinking/
9. Csikzentmihalyi, M.: Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention.
Harper Collins Publisher, New York (1996)
10. Duca, G.: Science for sustainable development of society. In: Proceedings of International
Conference “Technology + Society → Future”, Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts,
Podgorica, Scientific Meetings, vol. 138, p. 307 (2016)
11. Feist, G.J.: Creative personality. In: Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, pp. 344–345 (2013)
12. Firestien, R.L.: Leading on the Creative Edge: Gaining Competitive Advantage Through the
Power of Creative Problem Solving. Pinon Press, Colorado Springs (1996)
13. Florida, R., Mellander, C., King, K.: The Global Creativity Index. Martin Prosperity Institute,
p. 8 (2015)
14. Friedman, T.L.: The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. Macmillan,
New York (2005)
15. Gibson, R.: The ‘art’of creative teaching: implications for higher education. Teach. High.
Educ. 15(5), 607–613 (2010)
16. Goulet, D.: The Cruel Choice: A New Concept in the Theory of Development, pp. 87–94.
Atheneum, New York (1971)
17. Gruszka, A., Tang, M.: The 4P’s creativity model and its application in different fields. In:
Handbook of the Management of Creativity and Innovation: Theory and Practice, pp. 51–71.
World Scientific (2017)
18. Kaufman, G.: The Content and Logical Structure of Creativity Concepts: An Inquiry into the
Conceptual Foundations of Creativity Research. Ablex, Norwood (1993)
19. Moldovanu, D.: Economia Imaginaţiei Creative / Economics of the Creative Imagination
(own translation), p. 86. Ştiinţa, ARC, Chişinău (2014)
20. Montuori, A.: Creative inquiry and discovering the unforeseen. California Institute of Inte-
gral Studies (2009)
21. Montuori, A.: Creative inquiry: confronting the challenges of scholarship in the 21st century.
World Futur. J. New Parad. Res. 44, 64–70 (2011)
22. Rickards, T.: The management of innovation: recasting the role of creativity. Eur. J. Work
Organ. Psychol. 5(1), 14 (1996)
23. Rhodes, M.: An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan 42(7), 305–310 (1961)
24. Robinson, K.: The creative enterprise: investing in the arts in the 21st century. New Stateman
arts lecture. The Arts Council of England, London (2000)
25. Schwab, K.: The fourth industrial revolution, 2016. In: World Economic Forum, Switzerland
(2016)
26. Simonton, D.K.: Scientific talent, training, and performance: intellect, personality, and
genetic endowment. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 12(1), 28–46 (2008)
27. Stein, M.I.: Stimulating Creativity. Academic Press, New York (1974)
28. Unger, R.M.: The Knowledge Economy. Verso Books, Brooklyn (2019)
29. Vehar, J.: Creativity and innovation: what is the difference. In: Encyclopedia of Creativity,
Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, pp. 383–389 (2013)
30. Young, R.: Competitive collaboration in a global knowledge economy. In: Knowledge Man-
agement Middle East, Abu Dhabi Conference, pp. 15–16 (2011)