In my PhD defense, I presented my research on how creativity is perceived in complex systems, such as in Education and the Workplace. At some point, and rightly so, one of the jury members commented that “actual” creativity may differ from the perceptions teachers and workers have of it. I agreed, obviously, but reinforced that I only measured their perceptions in the studies and moved on.
However, this comment kept me thinking: Is it possible, under any circumstances, to measure the “actual” creativity?
For example, in the latest OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022, which collected data from nearly 700,000 students from 81 countries, the creative thinking test had to be adapted to each country’s characteristics to avoid bias. On problem-solving exercises that mention an elephant, let’s say, should only be used in countries that actually have elephants, such as countries in Africa and Asia; however, for countries in Europe and the Americas, the same exercise would present a different animal native to these regions.
These kinds of “accuracy” adaptations demonstrate how creativity is rooted in sociocultural constructs, like other broad concepts such as beauty or justice, and help explain why its interpretation may differ from culture to culture. If the expression and evaluation of creativity depend on context, then aren’t measures of creativity always, at least partly, measures of perception?
In my PhD studies with teachers, their perceptions of students’ creative potential shifted from knowledge-based to motivation-based criteria depending on how supportive they perceived the social environment to be. In other words, the evaluation of students’ creativity was highly dependent on how they perceived the learning environment (i.e., the classroom).
From this systemic perspective, reality (the so-called “actual”) seems more like a formality, as we can never fully consider all possible variables. As Walter Lippmann argued, “the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance . . . [People] live in the same world, but they think and feel in different ones.”Similarly, Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann suggested in their book The Social Construction of Reality that what we call reality is nothing more than social agreement on what is expected to happen in certain situations, what gradually forms a group’s culture.
Creativity is no different. As Feinstein explained in Creativity in Large-Scale Contexts, the context in which creativity occurs is extremely rich and diverse, filled with a multitude of elements and almost unlimited possibilities. The challenge, then, is how individuals navigate such incredibly complex contexts (“reality”). For Feinstein, it is all about Guidance; more specifically, guiding conceptions and guiding principles.
Guiding conceptions are mental constructs composed of interconnected elements that form broader, comprehensive ideas. They operate above detailed specificity, which gives them imaginative breadth and creative potential. For example, someone might focus on creating short films about ordinary people performing small, unexpected acts of courage. This guiding conception shapes scenes and characters without dictating every detail. It provides direction while leaving room for interpretation and development.
Guiding principles, in contrast, function as standards or ideals against which creative work is evaluated. They are broadly applicable notions (such as justice, aesthetic harmony, or unity) and are often more widely shared within a field. While guiding conceptions are highly individual and generative, guiding principles tend to be socially reinforced.
“By using broader conceptual thinking in the creative process (guidance),” explains Feinstein, “individuals can navigate in large-scale rich contexts to identify areas rich with creative opportunities and generate seed ideas for projects and then decide which seed projects to pursue.”
When we attempt to consider all variables influencing a situation, variables pile up, and that’s why we need guidance. It’s impossible to see the full picture; we see only part of it, inevitably relying on our perceptions to filter and prioritize what seems most relevant.
For this reason, it may be misleading to search for a purely “actual” creativity independent of perception. The jury member in my PhD defense may have been right in theory, but in practice, perception might be the actual mechanism through which creativity operates. But even if it were possible to measure creativity alone, our perceptions are still what make our creative journey unique.