According to Kaufman, there are four basic stages in this regard:

Stage 1: Preparation

The preparation stage involves trying to learn lots of things. At this point, rather than searching for magic leaps of understanding, your brain is using attention, reasoning, and planning to gather information.

Stage 2: Incubation

Incubation stage is the one where you might actually want to climb into the bathtub or go for a walk and stop consciously thinking about the problem you're trying to solve.

Stage 3: Illumination

Illumination is the moment when "connections automatically, subconsciously collide and then reach the threshold of consciousness," says Kaufman's words.

Stage 4: Verification

For creativity to reach others and accomplish anything, you need to once again use those critical thinking skills to think about your audience and craft your message or idea.

We should always be ready to expect the unexpected.

i was more referring to development in the sense of personal development or growth, rather than development in the sense of ideas.

how the creativity of the person develops or matures, and particular stages it goes through, rather than the creative stages of an idea.

preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. In the first stage, your brain is gathering information. After all, creative ideas don’t come from a vacuum. In the second stage, you let your mind wander and stretch your ideas. In the third stage, you make connections between ideas. In the fourth stage, creative ideas need to be polished by critical thinking in order to persuasively reach their audience.

Level of Personal Development for Creativity

An author stated four overlapping and interacting phases: Unconscious scanning, intuition, insight and logical formulation of ideas.

Another author similar to one of the responses: Preparation stage which includes a personal desire to be creative and identifying your interest or focus.

Incubation stage which entails learning various process of creativity, information seeking and gathering.

Illumination stage is the filtering stage.

Verification through critical thinking and analysis.

From the responses, i gather the following stages:

1) development of interest in creativity and desire to be creative.

2) development of curiosity, searching and knowledge/ information gathering.

3) development of simple ideas.

4) development of advanced ideas: idea integration, synthesis, evaluation, critique, and improvement.

I dont necessarily find a natural sequence. I think some of the stages may develop concurrently. Yet i am confident each of the stages can be empirically established and evaluated.

It also suggests a difference between innovativeness or innovation potential, and innovation development or innovation experience.

@Heather, your (splendid) point considers and questions whether creativity (interest) can be general/ sustained, or whether it can die and must be induced first. Its longivity.

I think some can be creative in general. They will find something to be creative about. Others may only be creative as long as they are stirred.

Your point also questions whether the individual can self develop in terms of creativity or whether he needs help. Again i think it is both.

Creativity, by definition itself, is not subject to models.

@Roberto, i am going to disagree...

Don't neglect imitation (linked to aspiration) in the early stages.

@Rimsha Khalid , and just to add that at preparation stage, broad exposure to the business environment and the desire to solve problems contributes greatly to a person's creativity.

Dear @Brian Barnard. No doubt the models are useful for understanding reality. Help achieve levels of abstraction. I just wanted to emphasize the strength and dynamics of creativity.

Constructing a framework of creativity would be using creativity in the building of that framework. We take in reality through our nervous systems. Internalising that reality within us, using it as the stimulus to invoke our inward feelings and interpretations, then projecting out those inner reality's into creative mediums of expression to project a story or an emotion.

We can have certain blueprints we follow what allow us to channel this creativity, such as music taking step rhythms or painting using the same colours. Ultimately creativity is our ability to communicate with others and express our inner most feelings and thoughts.

Although there may be a certain level of intelligence needed to part take in the craft of certain arts, fundamentally our feelings we experience stay the same. You could argue the more we think about creativity the more we steer away from its unconscious expression. This is all depending on what the person wants to project.

@Roberto, i understand. Useful and practical point too.

@Perry, i greatly enjoyed your answer. I argues strongly the (personal) interpretation/ perspective view/ aspect of creativity.

@Brian Barnard , thanks.

The question is difficult to answer because it assumes there is only one type of creativity, and thus can be broken down into linear "stages."

The reality is there are many types of creativity, and each has its own unique characteristics.

It's also important to understand that creativity is a natural act in humans and many mammals. Just watch a dog "co-create" a game with you or watch a monkey -- this type of creativity is playful creativity.

Others create as a means of self-expression -- this is identity creativity Some people, such as many artists and musicians, create simply to express themselves.

Still another form is problem-centric creativity. A good car mechanic loves to solve practical problems; it's about "fixing things."

Intellectuals enjoy the creativity of solving abstractions. Think of the absent minded professor whose mind in in a totally different sphere of reality.

Dissatisfaction, not necessity, is often the driver of creative solutions. Thomas Edison was simply dissatisfied with candles and kerosene, and was thus "driven" to invent.In my field, collaborative innovation, we create to solve complex problems that cannot be solved by by one person alone -- this takes multi-dimensional thinking that starts with creative inquiry (Why? What? How? What's Missing? What's Possible, What Shifts in Thinking are Required, etc.) Our aim is to produce value through innovation, not just engage in creativity for creativity's sake.

All the best, Robert

(See http://www.iclinstitute.org/resources/publications/ for more ideas)

@Robert, i dont see how different creativity types or nonlinearity of creativity make it necessarily impossible or difficult to model creativity.

Those who believe in "pure" creativity enjoy this type of argument.

Nevertheless, still a good point.

@ Brian Barnard

You are 100% correct -- any of the different types of creativity can and should be modeled to understand their inner design architecture.

For example, in my field of collaborative innovation, it's widely acknowledged that the having a "culture" that supports innovation is essential to sustain the innovation process .

Our team did an extensive study of what "culture" was essential. We found a consistent pattern -- the Greeks used the same methods that were employed by Thomas Edison and the very best of modern innovation teams that consistently produce the best results.

That study is attached.

Robert

Add files

Creativity requires a mental exercise, therefore it is very difficult to list the steps that follow for its development, however it is very likely that the first step must be the imagination. because imagination is a very concrete mental exercise and can be traced with the help of neuroscience.

@Cecilia, methodology to study creativity (development) may lack because/ if it focuses too much on the immediate or direct.

Creativity is dynamic and multiplex. In a sense it is defined anew with each unique manifestation of the ubiquitous urge to create something "novel and useful" that has, if not historical significance, then surely some personal or adaptive function. That said, there are common features (I tend to avoid the more linear, hierarchical connotations of terms like stages or levels ) to the phenomenon on a continuum from everyday to eminent creativity. In the attached article I suggest a flexible, feedback-inflected model that expands Rhodes' classic 4-P by adding a fifth, Participant/viewer, to his Person-Process-Press-Product, emphasizing the spatiotemporal factor of change over time as 'maker' and 'observer' become co-creatively intertwined with the perceived object/product.

Diane Rosen can you suggest better language, "to avoid the more linear, hierarchical connotations of terms like stages or levels"

Dear Diana,

I am not at all sure that there are clear the stages in creativity. I can only talk as a painter and graphic artist (see derek pigrum home page) and as a researcher into creative practices (see Pigrum 2009 Teaching Creativity: Multi-mode Transitional Practices).One of the most difficult and rewarding aspects of creativity in both science and the arts is the role of serendipity. This is well documented in the sciences but less so in the arts. After more than twenty years of research I find that there are five major aspects of creativity connected to serendipity: the avoidance of premature closure that involves the avoidance of the linearity of method and overcoming the anxiety and intellectual insecurity this generates; how to prepare the mind to expect the unexpected; the development of practices that give us access to the non-identity of objects, including concepts; how to make use of what breaks in upon us or is found; . These four things would seem to lie outside a notion of stages but imply a web of interwoven elements.

Brian, regarding fewer 'hierarchical' connotations-- creative process is largely autopoietic or self-organizing, with multiple factors constantly interacting over time and emergence of unforeseen results that.

(Apologies for accidentally sending incomplete reply). Terminology (features/ factors/ elements/ phases) is less important than a macroscopic view of creativity as largely autopeietic or self-organizing, with mulitple factors interacting over time. With any transformative process-- in the arts and sciences as well as business management/ leadership--feedback and circular causality involve internal-external factors, predictability-chance, known-unforeseen etc. in a nonlinear more often than directly cause-effect path. Even Wallas' (1926) foundational "preparation/ incubation/ illumination/verification," though it is called a 'four-stage model' may be seen in terms interactivity and iterative process. Hope this clarifies

Derek Pigrum ,

"These four things would seem to lie outside a notion of stages but imply a web of interwoven elements. "

i dont think these necessarily fall or lie outside a notion of stages. even this might require development, and this development may still occur in stages. i agree the end result may be interwoven elements. but the primary question is more about creativity development, than creativity.

Diane Rosen ,

agreed.

i would agree with the end result of creativity development as "as largely autopeietic or self-organizing, with mulitple factors interacting over time."

yet, arriving at this, and developing towards, likely is not instantaneous, and likely occurs with stages as stepping stones or steps of a stairway.

I think a better characterisation would be sign posts that are followed but which do not point in a determinate direction or goal. I believe we need to make a fundamental change in our thinking about creativity by playing down the notion of inwardness in favour of a view of the external world as providing the stimulus for our ideas. Heidegger's notion of Entwurf or draft is very important here as its root is the word 'wurf' meaning throw. In other words the draft is a throw that may land in a place quite different to the one intended. When this happens this should be perceived as a signpost and as such should move us away from the linear models of creativity that are in my view worthless to a far more complex understanding of contingency and indeterminacy.

Preparation

Incubation

Illumination

Verification

Brian Barnard

Observation and experience tells us that their is little about creativity that is linear or hierarchical. The process, IMHO is much more attached to the neural network structure of the brain that "triggers" pathways that are attached to pattern recognition, predictability, and comfort zones.

Let me illustrate different triggers -- which are "patterns" for different types of people:

- Urge: some creative artists are triggered by an inner urge to express.

- Identity: some people define themselves by their creative juices.

- Why: some (like me) are still asking why, (72 years after being born). Finding meaning and purpose is attached to this drive.

- How: most problem solvers are always asking the down to earth questions about how things work

- Connectivity and Transformation: many are triggered by what connects with what, and what happens in between, such as how air and gasoline are intermixed, then ignited in a combustion chamber

- Analogy: This is the way Einstein created an analogy to ride a motorcycle at the speed of light; these creative people see the world from the perspective of comparison.

- Dissatisfaction: other creative people (me included) start with a "burr under our saddle" -- somethings just not "right" and there must be a better way to do this -- a question we've not asked, a connection we aren't making, something we aren't seeing.

I don't mean this list to be exhaustive, or even complete -- just a catalyze to thinking about "creative triggers" that kick the brain's neural network into high gear.

Robert Porter Lynch ,

great list.

"Observation and experience tells us that their is little about creativity that is linear or hierarchical. " then this suggests to me that (the notion of) innovation and creativity experience are also not possible. You yourself seem like someone with a lot of innovation and creativity experience. this implies some linear or hierarchical development.

furthermore, anyone can reference your great list and choose to develop some of the aspects mentioned by it.

Brian Barnard

Brian, the idea " suggests to me that (the notion of) innovation and creativity experience are also not possible. You yourself seem like someone with a lot of innovation and creativity experience. this implies some linear or hierarchical development" is indeed intriguing and valuable.

Here's what I'd say: it is only linear and hierarchical viewed in retrospect, but not in the moment of it's occurrence, and only through linear and hierarchical filters.

Think of this analogy: Is "light" a wave? or a photon? The answer is actually both, (and probably really something else), but the reality is "it depends on what you are using as a measurement system."

For example, when looking back at Thomas Edison's massive body of innovation, each of the innovations (after the fact) are explained in logical, scientific, analytic, linear frameworks, but the process of development of the innovation was a mixture of Left Brain (linear, analytic) and Right Brain (non-linear, creative) thinking. In writing a history of Edison's work, its all linear when described, but if you were there with Edison during his 10,000 failures he experienced during his work on the light bulb, you'd see how non-linear was the process. (see the movie on YouTube: Thomas Edison the Man, starring Spencer Tracey.

Similarly, the ideas of creativity and innovation are highly dependent upon the quality of the questions we might ask, the frame of reference we might use, and relationship between one's ego and soul, and the dimensionalities of the people engaged in the process.

For my own personal progression, it has been mired with explorations down rat-holes, failed premises, false assumptions, half-baked questions, and an incessant quest to "crack the code" that's been an enigma for humanity. But year after year, it's been "one step backward, and hopefully two steps forward." (I've attached two papers I've written in the last two weeks that might explain this phenomenon, albeit indirectly.) The quality of the progression has been highly dependent upon the nature of the quest, as outlined in the paragraph above.

This is more like navigating a sail boat versus a power vessel, which goes in a straight line (providing the pilot is not drunk). The sailboat can't sail directly into the wind, uses the forces of the wind differently on different courses, and must also deal with tidal currents that are constantly trying to divert the sailor's course.

One of the main problems in academia, IMHO -- especially the nature of attaining a PhD, (and the reason why so few research papers actually provide any real innovations or breakthrough thinking) -- is because the process is "forced linearity of thinking." Thus academia becomes a haven for linear thinkers, while innovators operate on the "edges of eco-spheres."

Essentially, (as described in the Collaborative Leadership Excellence paper - attached) linear thinking leads us into component thinking, which is inherently reductionist. What people like Edison and Einstein were able to do is engage in holistic thinking, which leads us into systems architectures -- where the breakthroughs are more likely to be realized.

Thanks for the stimulating discussion, Robert

A common distinction that is made in the stages of creativity is:

1. Preparation: preparing the brain to start the journey to create something new (reading, looking for ideas, talking to people, experimentation)

2. Incubation: taking a step back, let everything take different shapes

3. Illumination: then hopefully the eureka-moment, the aha-erlebnis (sudden illumination),

4. Verification: looking critical at the solution, see if it works, testing the validity

Sources:

Graham Wallas (2014). The Art of Thought. England: Solis Press. (first published in 1926).

Albert Rothenberg and Carl L. Hausman (1976). The Creative Question. USA: Duke University Press.

and then the fifth stage:

5. implementation (and improvement): execution, putting it into practice

Everybody can be creative.

I recommend professor Darson's view

All creativity is triggered by desire. If we follow Lacan, this desire is for a lost object that is irrecoverable but at the same time generates an endless series of stand-in objects. However, these objects, whatever form they take, never coincide with the originary lost object.