Creating Social Creativity: Integrative Transdisciplinarity and the Epistemology of Complexity

  • Alfonso Montuori
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture book series (PASCC)


The increasing interest in “social creativity” over the last 20 years, has also led to a reflection on how “creativity” has itself been created by researchers. Different strategies in the study of creativity reflect different underlying assumptions about, among other things, the nature and role inquiry, the fundamental unit of analysis, the relationship between self and society, and the purpose of research. Two approaches are outlined in broad strokes, focusing on simplicity and complexity respectively. The former is inspired by the natural sciences and aims to abstract the essential feature of a phenomenon from unessential elements, with the laboratory as its gold standard. The more recent complex approach addresses context, relationships and connections as well as uncertainty and unpredictability. In order to address the complexity of connections, relationships, emergence, and factors that cannot be contained in one discipline, one of the central characteristics of a complex approach is its transdisciplinarity, and specifically Integrative Transdisciplinarity.


Complexity Epistemology Gender Integrative transdisciplinarity Simplicity 


  1. Adornо, Т. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  2. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.Google Scholar
  3. Amabile, T. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, Sept.-Oct., 179–189.Google Scholar
  4. Amabile, T., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arieti, S. (1976). Creativity. The magic synthesis. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Augsburg, T. (2014). Becoming transdisciplinary: The emergence of the transdisciplinary individual. World Futures, 70(3–4), 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baer, J. (2012). Gender differences in creativity. In M. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research handbook (Vol. 3, pp. 215–250). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  10. Barron, F. (1953a). Complexity-simplicity as a personality dimension. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48(2), 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barron, F. (1953b). Some personality correlates of independence of judgment. Journal of Personality, 21(3), 287–297.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Barron, F. (1963). Creativity and psychological health: Origins of personal vitality and creative freedom. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  13. Barron, F. (1968). Creativity and personal freedom. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  14. Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  15. Barron, F. (1995). No rootless flower: An ecology of creativity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  16. Barron, F. (1999). All creation is a collaboration. In A. Montuori & R. Purser (Eds.), Social creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 49–60). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.Google Scholar
  17. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  18. Bateson, G. (1991). A sacred unity: Further steps to an ecology of mind. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  19. Bateson, G. (2002). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  20. Battersby, C. (1989). Gender and genius: Towards a feminist aesthetics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Becker, H. S. (2008). Art worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Bennis, W., & Biederman, P. W. (1998). Organizing genius: The secrets of creative collaboration. New York: Perseus.Google Scholar
  24. Block, J., & Block, J. (1951). An investigation of the relationship between intolerance of ambiguity and ethnocentrism. Journal of Personality, 19(3), 303–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bocchi, G., & Ceruti, M. (2002). The narrative universe. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  26. Bocchi, G., Cianci, E., Montuori, A., & Trigona, R. (2014). Eureka! The myths of creativity. World Futures, 70(5–6), 276–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Boyer, E. L., Moser, D., Ream, T. C., & Braxton, J. M. (2015). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Brandt, A., & Eagleman, D. (2017). The runaway species: How human creativity remakes the world. New York: Catapult.Google Scholar
  29. Briggs, J., & Peat, F. D. (1989). Turbulent mirror: An illustrated guide to chaos theory and the science of wholeness. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Brown, R. (2004). The authoritarian personality and the organization of attitudes. In J. T. Jost & J. Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology. Key readings. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  31. Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Carroll, L. (1981). Alice in Wonderland. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  33. Carroll, L. (2006). Alice’s adventures in wonderland and through the looking-glass. New York: Bantam Dell.Google Scholar
  34. Castells, M. (2009). The rise of the network society (New Edition) (The information age: Economy, society and culture Volume 1)). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Ceruti, M. (2015). La fine dell’onniscienza. [The end of omniscience]. Roma: Studium.Google Scholar
  36. Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2009). Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives (1st ed.). New York: Little, Brown and Co..Google Scholar
  37. Code, L. (1991). What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Collins, R. (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2015). The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.Google Scholar
  41. Dabrowski, K. (1967). Personality shaping through positive disintegration. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.Google Scholar
  42. Davies, P. (1989). The cosmic blueprint. New discoveries in nature’s creative ability to order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  43. Dietrich, A. (2015). How creativity happens in the brain. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Doi, T. (1973). The anatomy of dependence. Tokyo: Kodansha International.Google Scholar
  45. Donnelly, G. (2016). Navigating the spindrifts of change: A transdisciplinary inquiry into the experiences of a scholar-practitioner. Doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Integral Studies. (UMI 10245952).Google Scholar
  46. Eisler, R., Donnelly, G., & Montuori, A. (2016). Creativity, society, and gender: Contextualizing and redefining creativity. Interdisciplinary Journal of Partnership Studies, 3(2 Spring/Summer), 1–33.Google Scholar
  47. Elliott, A. (2007). Concepts of the self (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  48. Elliott, A. (2008). Making the cut: How cosmetic surgery is transforming our lives. London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
  49. Elliott, A. (2013). Reinvention. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Elliott, A. (2015). Identity: Critical concepts in sociology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Erez, M., & Nouri, R. (2010). Creativity: The influence of cultural, social, and work contexts. Management and Organization Review, 6(3), 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Eysenck, H. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Fay, B. (1996). Contemporary philosophy of social science: A multicultural approach. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  54. Fox, M. (2004). Creativity: Where the divine and the human meet. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  55. Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18(1), 108–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Gardner, H. (1995). Leading minds. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  57. Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2013). The app generation: How today’s youth navigate identity, intimacy, and imagination in a digital world. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Gauntlett, D. (2011). Making is connecting. The social meaning of creativity, from DIY and knitting to YouTube and web 2.0. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  59. George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 439–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships, soundings in social construction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Gergen, K. J. (2000). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  62. Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Glăveanu, V. P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28, 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Glăveanu, V. P. (2011a). Creativity as cultural participation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 41(1), 48–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Glăveanu, V. P. (2011b). On culture and human development: Interview with Barbara Rogoff. European Journal of Psychology, 7(3), 408–418.Google Scholar
  67. Glaveanu, V. P. (2012). From dichotomous to relational thinking in the psychology of creativity: A review of great debates. Creativity and Leisure: An Intercultural and Cross-disciplinary Journal, 1(2), 83–96.Google Scholar
  68. Glăveanu, V. P. (2014a). Distributed creativity: Thinking outside the box of the creative individual. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Glăveanu, V. P. (2014b). Theory and context/theory in context: Towards an expanded view of the creativity field. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 1(2), 268–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Glăveanu, V. P. (2016). The psychology of creating: A cultural-developmental approach to key dichotomies within creativity studies. In V. P. Glaveanu (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of creativity and culture research (pp. 205–223). New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Glăveanu, V. P. (2017a). A culture-inclusive, socially engaged agenda for creativity research. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 338–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Glăveanu, V. P. (2017b). Thinking through creativity and culture: Toward an integrated model. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. Goldberg, E. (2018). Creativity: The human brain in the age of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Greening, T. (1995). Commentary. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35(3), 3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Hale, C. (1995). Psychological characteristics of literary genius. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35(3), 113–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Halstead, J. (2017). The woman composer: Creativity and the gendered politics of musical composition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  77. Hare-Mustin, R. T., & Marecek, J. (1988). The meaning of difference: Gender theory, postmodernism, and psychology. American Psychologist, 43, 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Heller, T. C., Sosna, M., & Wellerby, D. E. (Eds.). (1986). Reconstructing individualism. Autonomy, individuality, and the self in Western thought. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Helson, R. (1990). Creativity in women: Inner and outer views over time. In M. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 46–58). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  80. Jenkins, H. (2008). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  81. Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Boston: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  82. Jost, J. T., & Sidanius, J. (Eds.). (2004). Political psychology. Key readings. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  83. Kaufman, G. D. (2004). In the beginning…creativity. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Publishers.Google Scholar
  84. Kearney, R. (1988). The wake of imagination: Towards a postmodern culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  85. Klein, J. T. (2004). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36(4), 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Lauriola, M., Foschi, R., & Marchegiani, L. (2015). Integrating values and cognitive style in a model of right-wing radicalism. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 147–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Lauriola, M., Foschi, R., Mosca, O., & Weller, J. (2016). Attitude toward ambiguity: Empirically robust factors in self-report personality scales. Assessment, 23(3), 353–373.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. Leadbeter, C. (2009). We-think: Mass innovation, not mass production (2nd ed.). London: Profile.Google Scholar
  89. Lindholm, C. (2007). Culture and identity. The history, theory and pracxtice of psychological anthropology. Oxford: Oneworld Publications.Google Scholar
  90. Markus, H. R., & Conner, A. (2014). Clash!: How to thrive in a multicultural world. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  91. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Marsella, A. J., DeVos, G., & Hsu, F. L. K. (Eds.). (1985). Culture and self. New York: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  93. Martin, J. L. (2001). The authoritarian personality, 50 years later: What questions are there for political psychology? Political Psychology, 22(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Martin, V. (2017). Transdisciplinarity revealed: What librarians need to know. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  95. Maslow, A. (1943). The authoritarian character structure. The Journal of Social Psychology, 18(2), 401–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Maslow, A. (1993). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  97. Matlin, M. W. (2010). Writing (and rewriting) about the psychology of women. Sex Roles, 62(3–4), 166–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. McMahon, D. M. (2012). Divine fury: A history of genius. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  99. Megill, A. (1985). Prophets of extremity. Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  100. Montuori, A. (1989). Evolutionary competence: Creating the future. Amsterdam: Gieben.Google Scholar
  101. Montuori, A. (2005a). Gregory Bateson and the challenge of transdisciplinarity. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 12(1–2), 147–158(112).Google Scholar
  102. Montuori, A. (2005b). How to make enemies and influence people. Anatomy of totalitarian thinking. Futures, 37, 18–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Montuori, A. (2010). Research and the research degree: Transdisciplinarity and creative inquiry. In M. Maldonato & R. Pietrobon (Eds.), Research on scientific research. A transdisciplinary study (pp. 110–135). Brighton & Portland: Sussex Academic Press.Google Scholar
  104. Montuori, A. (2011). Beyond postnormal times: The future of creativity and the creativity of the future. Futures: The Journal of Policy, Planning and Future Studies, 43(2), 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Montuori, A. (2012). Five dimensions of applied transdisciplinarity. Integral Leadership Review, 12(4). Retrieved from
  106. Montuori, A. (2013a). Complexity and transdisciplinarity: Reflections on theory and practice. World Futures: The Journal of Global Education, 69(4–6), 200–230. Scholar
  107. Montuori, A. (2013b). The complexity of transdisciplinary literature reviews. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 10(1/2), 45–55 Retrieved from Scholar
  108. Montuori, A. (2017). The evolution of creativity and the creativity of evolution. Spanda, VII(1), 147–156.Google Scholar
  109. Montuori, A. (In Press). Authoritarianism and creativity: Else Frenkel-Brunswik and The Authoritarian Personality. In V. Glaveanu (Ed.), The creativity reader. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  110. Montuori, A., & Donnelly, G. (2016). The creativity of culture and the culture of creativity research: The promise of Integrative Transdisciplinarity. In V. P. Glăveanu (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of creativity and culture research (pp. 743–765). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Montuori, A., & Purser, R. (1995). Deconstructing the lone genius myth: Towards a contextual view of creativity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35(3), 69–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Montuori, A., & Purser, R. (1996). Context and creativity beyond social determinism and the isolated genius: A rejoinder to Hale. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 36(2), 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Montuori, A., & Purser, R. (1999a). Introduction. In A. Montuori & R. Purser (Eds.), Social creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 1–45). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  114. Montuori, A., & Purser, R. (Eds.). (1999b). Social creativity (Vol. 1). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  115. Morin, E. (1990). Science avec conscience [Science with conscience]. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  116. Morin, E. (2002). Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.Google Scholar
  117. Morin, E. (2008a). La méthode: Coffret en 2 volumes. [Method: Boxed set in two volumes]. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  118. Morin, E. (2008b). On complexity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  119. Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23(1), 13–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Nicolescu, B. (2008). In vivo and in vitro knowledge-methodology of transdisciplinarity. In B. Nicolescu (Ed.), Transdisciplinarity. Theory and practice (pp. 1–21). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  121. Ogilvy, J. (1989). This postmodern business. The Deeper News, 1(5), 3–23.Google Scholar
  122. Ogilvy, J. (1992). Beyond individualism and collectivism. In J. Ogilvy (Ed.), Revisioning philosophy (pp. 217–233). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  123. Peat, F. D. (2000). Blackwinged night. Creativity in nature and mind. Cambridge, MA: Perseus/Helix Books.Google Scholar
  124. Peat, F. D. (2002). From certainty to uncertainty. The story of science and ideas in the 20th century. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.Google Scholar
  125. Peat, F. D., & Bohm, D. (1987). Science, order, and creativity. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  126. Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Ping, C. (2018). A middle way of emptying dualism in social theory. In A. K. Giri (Ed.), Social theory and Asian dialogues: Cultivating planetary conversations (pp. 173–211). Singapore: Springer Singapore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Pope, R. (2005). Creativity. Theory, history, practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  129. Purser, R., & Montuori, A. (Eds.). (1999). Social creativity (Vol. 2). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  130. Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked. The new social operating system. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  131. Richards, R. (2007). Everyday creativity: Our hidden potential. In M. Runco & R. Richards (Eds.), Everyday creativity and new views of human nature (pp. 25–54). Westport, CT: Ablex/Greenwood.Google Scholar
  132. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  133. Roiser, M., & Willig, C. (2002). The strange death of the authoritarian personality: 50 years of psychological and political debate. History of the Human Sciences, 15(4), 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Rosenau, P. M. (1992). Post-modernism and the social sciences. Insights, inroads, and intrusions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  135. Runco, M. (2015). A commentary on the social perspective on creativity. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 2(1), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Runco, M., & Richards, R. (Eds.). (1997). Eminent creativity, everyday creativity, and health. Westport, CT: Ablex/Greenwood.Google Scholar
  137. Sampson, E. E. (1977). Psychology and the american ideal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 767–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Sampson, E. E. (2008). Celebrating the other: A dialogic account of human nature. Chagrin Falls: Taos Institute Publications.Google Scholar
  139. Sawyer, K. (2008). Group genius. The creative power of collaboration. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  140. Simonton, D. K. (1999). The creative society: Genius vis-à-vis the Zeitgeist. In A. Montuori & R. Purser (Eds.), Social creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 237–264). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  141. Slater, P. E. (1990). The pursuit of loneliness: American culture at the breaking point. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  142. Stone, W. F., Lederer, G., & Christie, R. (1993). Strength and weakness. The authoritarian personality today. New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Swimme, B. (1985). The universe is a green dragon: A cosmic creation story. Santa Fe, NM: Bear.Google Scholar
  144. Swimme, B. (1996). The hidden heart of the cosmos: Humanity and the new story. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.Google Scholar
  145. Swimme, B., & Berry, T. (1994). The universe story: From a primordial flaring forth to the Ecozoic era--a celebration of the unfolding of the Cosmos. New York: HarperOne.Google Scholar
  146. Swimme, B., & Tucker, M. E. (2011). Journey of the universe. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  147. Taylor, M. (2003). The moment of complexity. Emerging network culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  148. Traber, D. (2007). Whiteness, otherness and the individualism paradox from huck to punk. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1976). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
  150. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  151. Ward Jouve, N. (1998). Female genesis: Creativity, self and gender. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  152. Weisberg, R. W. (2015). On the usefulness of “value” in the definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27(2), 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Westen, D. (1985). Self and society: Narcissism, collectivism, and the development of morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Westen, D. (1992). Personality, culture, and science: Contexts for understanding the self. Psychological Inquiry, 3(1), 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfonso Montuori
    • 1
  1. 1.California Institute of Integral StudiesSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations