Везде
Creativity research in Russia (2000–2017). part i. a methodological analysis
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Creativity research in Russia (2000–2017). part i. a methodological analysis
Annotation
PII
S020595920008506-2-
DOI
10.31857/S020595920008506-2
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
K. Miroshnik 
Occupation: Master’s student
Affiliation: Saint Petersburg State University, Faculty of Psychology
Address: Sankt-Petersburg, Saint Petersburg, Admiral Makarov Embankment, 6, Russia
O. Shcherbakova
Occupation: Associate Professor
Affiliation: Saint Petersburg State University, Faculty of Psychology
Address: Saint Petersburg, Admiral Makarov Embankment, 6, Russia
Edition
Volume 41 Issue 2
Pages
15-25
Abstract

This article reports the results of the study of the most common methodological practices in the field of creativity research in Russia. In this study, methodological practices are understood as research methodology, statistical data processing, and description of results in scientific papers. Using the search query “creativity”, 369 articles with empirical data (N = 377) that were published during 2000–2017 were retrieved from the eLibrary database. A number of methodological indicators and indicators of completeness of the results’ description were evaluated for each empirical study. Frequency analysis was performed based on the collected data. The main results of the present study are the following: (1) most creativity studies were conducted based on quantitative methodology where as very few studies were performed from the perspective of qualitative methodology; (2) divergent thinking tests are the most commonly used measures in creativity research in Russia; (3) using of judges’ subjective scoring for the assessment of divergent thinking is extremely rare; (4) half of the studies are exclusively based on students’ samples; (5) most studies lack the necessary but sufficient description of the sample's characteristics; (6) most conclusions are inferred from the magnitude of p-value while ignoring the confidence intervals and effect sizes. The results are discussed in the context of the future development of Russian research on creativity.

Keywords
Creativity, creativity research, methodology, methodological practices, statistical analysis.
Received
16.02.2020
Date of publication
04.03.2020
Number of purchasers
28
Views
827
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Previous versions
S020595920008506-2-1 Дата внесения правок в статью - 16.02.2020
Cite   Download pdf

References

1. Kornilov C.A., Grigorenko E.L. Metodicheskij kompleks dlja diagnostiki akademicheskih, tvorcheskih i prakticheskih sposobnostej. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2010. Vol. 31. № 2. P. 90–103. (in Russian).

2. Aczel B., Palfi B., Szollosi A., Kovacs M., Szaszi B., Szecsi P., Zrubka M., Gronau Q.F., vanden Bergh D., Wagenmakers E.-J. Quantifying support for the null hypothesis in psychology: An empirical investigation. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 2018. V. 1. № 3. P. 357–366.

3. Benedek M., Christensen A.P., Fink A., Beaty R.E. Creativity assessment in neuroscience research. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2019. V. 13. № 2. P. 218–226.

4. Feist G.J., Runco M.A. Trends in the creativity literature: An analysis of research in the Journal of Creative Behavior (1967–1989). Creativity Research Journal. 1993. V. 6. № 3. P. 271–283.

5. Forgeard M.J.C., Kaufman J.C. Who cares about imagination, creativity, and innovation, and why? A review. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2016. V. 10. № 3. P. 250–269.

6. Long H. An empirical review of research methodologies and methods in creativity studies (2003–2012). Creativity Research Journal. 2014. V. 26. № 4. P. 427–438.

7. Long H., Plucker J.A., Yu Q., Ding Y., Kaufman J.C. Research productivity and performance of journals in the creativity sciences: A bibliometric analysis. Creativity Research Journal. 2014. V. 26. № 3. P. 353–360.

8. Mayer R.E. Fifty years of creativity research. .Handbook of creativity. Ed. R.J. Sternberg. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 1999. P. 449–460.

9. Parnes S.J., Brunelle E.A. The literature of creativity (part I). The Journal of Creative Behavior. 1967. V. 1. № 1. P. 52–109.

10. Reiter-Palmon R., Forthmann B., Barbot B. Scoring divergent thinking tests: A review and systematic framework. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2019. V. 13. № 2. P. 144–152.

11. Runco M.A., Acar S. Divergent Thinking. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Eds. J.C. Kaufman, R.J. Sternberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. P. 224–254.

12. Vacha-Haase T., Ness C., Nilsson J., Reetz D. Practices regarding reporting of reliability coefficients: A review of three journals. The Journal of Experimental Education. 1999. V. 67. № 4. P. 335–341.

13. Wilkinson L., Task Force on Statistical Inference. Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist. 1999.V. 54. № 8. P. 594–604.

14. Williams R., Runco M. A., Berlow E. Mapping the themes, impact, and cohesion of creativity research over the last 25 years. Creativity Research Journal. 2016. V. 28. № 4. P. 385–394.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate