ISSN 1671-3710
CN 11-4766/R
主办:中国科学院心理研究所
出版:科学出版社

• •    

突破性创造力与渐进性创造力真的区分开了吗?基于2011-2024文献的分析

骆南峰, 李统鉴, 陈雯, 张慧君, 刘俊池, 沈子维   

  1. 中国人民大学
  • 收稿日期:2023-12-12 修回日期:2024-06-23 接受日期:2024-07-16
  • 通讯作者: 陈雯

Are radical creativity and incremental creativity conceptually and empirically distinctive? An analysis on the 2011-2024 literature

LUO Nanfeng, LI Tongjian, CHEN Wen, ZHANG Huijun, LIU Junchi, SHEN Ziwei   

  • Received:2023-12-12 Revised:2024-06-23 Accepted:2024-07-16

摘要: 员工创造力一直受到学界的广泛关注,但以往将创造力作为单一变量越来越不能满足理论与实践的需要。2011年Gilson和Madjar迁移创新研究文献中突破性创新和渐进性创新这一对概念,首次提出将创造力区分为突破性与渐进性创造力,随后涌现了一系列理论与实证研究。通过回顾此后十三年的79篇相关中英文文献,全面深入检验了区分两种创造力的理论基础与实证证据。结果表明,在理论方面,多数研究梳理了这两种创造力的理论区别,不过,仅半数研究以这两种创造力的差异性为基础构建研究问题与理论模型;实证检验方面,一部分研究呈现了测量工具的区分效度证据,但多数研究尚未直接检验突破性创造力与渐进性创造力影响差异的显著性。仍有超过四成的研究并没有在理论上进行区分亦或是提供实证依据。总体而言,未来学界应当在理论、研究问题与模型构建、实证检验中协同一致地探究这两种创造力的本质区别与影响。最后,我们指出一系列有助于未来研究更好地区分这两种创造力的研究建议,以及值得进一步探究的研究方向。

关键词: 突破性创造力, 渐进性创造力, 区分效度

Abstract: Employee creativity has attracted academic attention for a long time, yet the treatment of creativity as a uni-dimensional construct raises concerns in related theoretical and practical developments. In 2011, Gilson and Madjar proposed for the first time to divide creativity into radical and incremental creativity. Subsequently, a series of theoretical and empirical studies emerged. By reviewing 79 articles over the last thirteen years, this paper comprehensively and thoroughly examines the theoretical basis and empirical evidence to distinguish these two types of creativity. The results show that, while some studies have delineated the theoretical differences between radical and incremental creativity, only half of the reviewed studies have utilized these differences as the basis for constructing research questions and theoretical models. In terms of empirical examination, some studies have provided evidence of discriminant validity for measurement tools, but the majority have not directly examined the significance of the differential impacts of radical and incremental creativity. Moreover, over forty percent of the reviewed studies either failed to differentiate theoretically or provide empirical evidence of the distinctiveness of these two types of creativity. In conclusion, future studies should aim for coherence across theoretical basis, research question formulation, model construction, and empirical testing in uncovering the fundamental differences and unique impacts of these two forms of creativity. Finally, a set of recommendations is proposed to facilitate better differentiation between radical and incremental creativity, along with suggested research questions for further exploration.

Key words: radical creativity, incremental creativity, discriminant validity