Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-rn2sj Total loading time: 1.007 Render date: 2022-08-12T09:34:19.117Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

15 - Creativity in the Engineering Domain

from Part III - Creativity in the Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2017

James C. Kaufman
University of Connecticut
Vlad P. Glăveanu
Universitetet i Bergen, Norway
John Baer
Rider University, New Jersey
Get access



Engineering can claim an important association with the birth of the modern creativity era. The Sputnik Shock of 1957 led to the identification of creativity not only as a valuable quality in general, but also as a vital element of practical, successful problem solving. The engineering domain epitomizes the interdependence of the Four Ps of creativity – Person, Product, Process, and Press – highlighting the necessity of each as a component of generating effective and novel solutions to problems.

In this chapter, we discuss both what makes engineering unique as a domain of creativity, and also how important the core, psychological constructs of creativity are to this domain. We discuss, in particular, two facets of creativity – the characteristics of creative products, and the measurement of divergent thinking – where insights from the domain of engineering add value to the understanding of creativity as a systems phenomenon.

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Agogué, M., Le Masson, P., Dalmasso, C., Houdé, O., & Cassotti, M. (2015). Resisting classical solutions: The creative mind of industrial designers and engineers. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(3), 313318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 9971013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amabile, T. M., & Tighe, E. (1993). Questions of creativity. In Brockman, J. (Ed.), Creativity. The Reality Club (Vol. 4, pp. 727). New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Badran, I. (2007). Enhancing creativity and innovation in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5), 573585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J. M. (2010). Is creativity domain specific? In Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 321341). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, K., Surovek, A., Jensen, D., & Cropley, D. (2014). Individual creativity and team engineering design: A taxonomy for team composition. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, Madrid, Spain.CrossRef
Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. (1987). Creative product analysis: Testing a model by developing a judging instrument. In Isaksen, S. G. (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 367389). Buffalo: Brady.Google Scholar
Blanchard, B. S., & Fabrycky, W. J. (2006). Systems engineering and analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Buhl, H. R. (1960). Creative engineering design. Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., & Butcher, H. J. (1968). The prediction of achievement and creativity. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Charyton, C., Jagacinski, R. J., & Merrill, J. A. (2008). CEDA: A research instrument for creative engineering design assessment. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(3), 147154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, P. T. Jr, & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cropley, A. J. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cropley, D. H. (2014). Engineering, ethics and creativity: N’er the twain shall meet? In Moran, S., Cropley, D. H., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), The ethics of creativity (pp. 152169). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan Ltd.Google Scholar
Cropley, D. H. (2015). Creativity in engineering: Novel solutions to complex problems. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 207219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept of functional creativity. In Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (Eds.), Faces of the muse: How people think, work and act creatively in diverse domains (pp. 169185). Hillsdale: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cropley, D. H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Measuring functional creativity: Non-expert raters and the creative solution diagnosis scale. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(2), 119137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cropley, D. H., Kaufman, J. C., & Cropley, A. J. (2011). Measuring creativity for innovation management. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 6(3), 1330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 325339). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313335). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dieter, G. E., & Schmidt, L. C. (2012). Engineering design (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving (Dashiell, J. F., Ed., Vol. 58). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association Inc.Google Scholar
Goclowska, M. A., Baas, M., Crisp, R. J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014). Whether social schema violations help or hurt creativity depends on need for structure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(8), 959971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., & Solmon, S. (1999). Toward identifying the inventive templates of new products: A channeled ideation approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 200210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, H. E., & Wallace, D. B. (1999). The case study method and evolving systems approach for understanding unique creative people at work. In Sternberg, R. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 93115). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haught, C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2003). Creativity and constraints: The production of novel sentences. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
Heinelt, G. (1974). Kreative Lehrer/kreative Schüler [Creative Teachers/Creative Students]. Freiburg: Herder.Google Scholar
Horenstein, M. N. (2002). Design concepts for engineers (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Ihsen, S., & Brandt, D. (1998). Editorial: Creativity: How to educate and train innovative engineers. European Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 2047). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of creativity. Psychological Review, 69, 220232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A. I. (1992). Scientific creativity: A comparative study of Henri Poincare and Albert Einstein. Creativity Research Journal, 5(4), 385414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishra, P., & Henriksen, D. (2013). A NEW approach to defining and measuring creativity: Rethinking technology & creativity in the 21st century. TechTrends, 57(5), 1013.Google Scholar
Mokyr, J. (1990). The lever of riches: Technological creativity and economic progress. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moreau, P., & Dahl, D. W. (2005). The impact of constraints on consumers’ creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onarheim, B. (2012). Creativity from constraints in engineering design: Lessons learned at Coloplast. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(4), 323336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 8396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 4873). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305310.Google Scholar
Sagiv, L., Arieli, S., Goldenberg, J., & Goldschmidt, A. (2010). Structure and freedom in creativity: The interplay between externally imposed structure and personal cognitive style. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 10861110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandwith, B. L. (2015). The influence of structure and personality on creativity in a military context. University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
Stokes, P. D. (2008). Creativity from constraints: What can we learn from Motherwell? From Modrian? From Klee? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(4), 223236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, I. A. (1975). An emerging view of creative actions. In Taylor, I. A. & Getzels, J. W. (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 297325). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Technical norms manual. Lexington, MA: Personnel Press.Google Scholar
Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1996). Test for Creative Thinking – Drawing Production (TCT-DP). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Cited by

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats