teresa lefko spraguecreativesprague.weebly.com/.../6/0/9/1/60910867/sprague_bigquesti… · crs 625...

SPRAGUE BIG QUESTION 1

Teresa Lefko Sprague

The Creativity Crisis in America: What is it Really About?

CRS 625

November 23, 2016


Abstract

It is no secret to creative professionals that there is a creativity crisis looming

in America. Mainstream media has brought more attention to this matter, pointing

the finger solely at a public education system that now teaches to a test, while

ignoring other possible factors for the crisis. While new education practices that

reduce enriching learning experiences should shoulder a portion of the blame for

America’s current situation, the crisis comes from a plethora of other factors too.

Everything from immigration policies to the United States economy needs to be

considered and addressed as well. Furthermore, are we as a community of creative

professionals helping or hindering the challenge ourselves?


Introduction

In 2010, Newsweek published an article entitled “The Creativity Crisis,” finally

bringing widespread public attention to an issue all too familiar to the creativity

community: America is experiencing a creativity crisis. This article was in response to

the 2008 findings of the longitudinal Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, demonstrating

for the first time in American History that the creativity of our children was in decline.

Creative professionals will most likely tell you they are not surprised by these findings,

for a variety of reasons, and while education in America has changed in a way that does

not support creativity, are our school systems the only place to lay blame? Or, is the once

innovative powerhouse of America struggling to support creative thinking in other ways

too? While it is critical for important learning to start at an early age to create and form

good thinking styles that will grow over a lifetime, America is fraught in other important

areas to enhance and cultivate creativity.

Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Findings

Beginning where this large public debate started is to understand the findings

discussed in Newsweek’s article. Kyung Hee Kim of The College of William and Mary,

published the findings of the 2008 renorming of the Torrance Tests of Creativity in an

article titled “The Creativity Crisis: The Decrease in Creative Thinking Scores on the

Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.” Results showed that as of 2008, while IQ scores

were on the rise, creative thinking scores had significantly decreased since the 1990 and

1998 renorming – most significantly for kindergartners through third graders (Kim, 2011,

pg. 285). Figure 1 in the Appendix shows the Total Fluency, Originality, Elaboration,


Abstractness of Titles, and Resistance to Premature closure scores for Years 1966, 1974,

1984, 1990, 1998 and 2008 by grade level. Figure 2 in the Appendix demonstrates the

Fluency, Originality, Creative Strengths, and Elaboration scores for Years 1974, 1984,

1990, 1998 and 2008. The visual representation of these facts is clearly understood from

these charts; creativity in American youth is on the decline.

Torrance suggested that decreases in the Creative Thinking Tests would occur

when children in Western cultures are faced with new stresses or demands to conform to

classroom regulations and peer pressure, thus discouraging their creative abilities (Kim,

2011, pg. 287). Conclusions drawn from this research dictate that younger children are

becoming less capable of critical thinking processes of synthesis and organization while

also being less capable of capturing the essence of problems. Furthermore, the results

indicate that children tend to grow up more narrow-minded, less intellectually curious,

and less open to creativity (Kim, 2011, pg 292). We certainly have a creativity crisis on

our hands when we look at today’s youth, which is concerning when we consider this

stunts abilities that we hope will mature over a lifetime (Kim, 2011, pg 293).

Education as a Public Policy

Intelligence tests and Torrance’s test have been taken for years, by millions of

people. With intelligence there has been a phenomenon called the Flynn effect, for each

generation the scores go up about 10 points, demonstrating that enriched environments

are making kids smarter (Bronson & Merryman, 2010). Creative thinking scores were on

a similar path until 1990, at which point they started steadily inching downward, so what

happened? We can blame it on video games, or too much TV; both taking valuable time


away from engaging in creative activities. However, the larger issue is a lack of creative

development in our schools (Bronson & Merryman, 2010).

A move to standardize educational practices to supposedly raise the overall

quality of education for all has occurred, intending to reduce the likelihood of the least

privileged students falling through the cracks. However, this change is measured in high

scores on tests, not on finding ways to engage students in meaningful learning

experiences that ultimately teach and practice creative thinking (Burnett & Haydon,

2016). Educators are teaching to a test, not teaching viable skills. Finding time to teach

arts isn’t about doing art for art’s sake, it’s about “developing skills for careers and

lifelong learning (Kowarski, 2013, pg. 77).” Seeking and capitalizing on opportunities for

teaching thinking skills, not just content, is not a priority.

A 2010 survey by IBM identified that one of the most necessary skills in the

modern workplace, and one of the best predictors of career success, is in fact creativity.

Problem solving and innovating were also identified as two skills of desirable employees,

as stated by business people on a Creativity and Innovation forum (Kowarski, 2013, pgs.

77-78). These are skills and traits that should be instilled in American youth from a

young age, as part of regular, everyday learning, yet we are failing to do so. Strangely the

researchers, industry representatives, and the same state and federal policy makers

structuring standardized, content-based educational practices are also demanding that

teachers equip our students with twenty-first century skills – among them, creativity

(Burnett & Haydon, 2016).

American teachers warn they are overwhelmed by new curriculum standards,

stating that there is no room in the day to add creativity (Bronson & Merryman, 2010).


Something is clearly being lost in translation, and if America cannot rely on its youth to

maintain the innovative powerhouse it built, who will carry on the legacy?

The Crisis is Not Purely Homegrown

For generations the United States of America has been known around the world as

a land of opportunity and innovation. The United States led the world into the era of

high-tech industry, a path of successful economic growth and prosperity. While America

began this wave, it by no means manifests a destiny to stay on top (Florida, 2004, pg. 1).

America did not propel to the top of the global stage because of a great

endowment of natural resources, nor the size of the market or an innate level of ingenuity.

The success of the United States falls squarely on one key factor: an openness to new

ideas. This principle and the ideas that followed have allowed America to mobilize and

harness the creativity of so many of its people for decades (Florida, 2004, pg. 1).

Economist Paul Romer has long argued, “Great advances always come from ideas. Ideas

do not fall from the sky; they come from people (Florida, 2004, pg. 1).” To stay at the top

of this innovation game, America must continue to have the world’s sharpest minds, and

if, as we have seen, the United States is not cultivating and educating those persons

themselves, they will need to attract these individuals to their country. Until recently a

tremendous portion of America’s talent has been an influx of scientific, intellectual,

cultural and entrepreneurial immigrants (Florida, 2004, pg. 2). Furthermore, once in

America these individuals mix with others, creating a breeding ground for diversity, that

in turn propels a plethora of openness and new ideas. Unfortunately, the war on terror has


led America to abandon its once rich belief in an open society, strongly regulating the

borders.

New Zealand’s minister for research, science and technology said with regards to

their country that, “We no longer think of immigration as a gate keeping function but as a

talent attraction function necessary for economic growth” (Florida, 2004, pg. 2). While

this statement was 12 years ago, regarding a different country, as the world deals with an

international refugee crisis, the “gate keeping” of the American borders is only

strengthening, truly limiting the ability to attract talent. While America works to limit

immigration, other countries are strategizing to embrace it, recognizing that creativity and

competiveness go hand in hand. America once held that belief too.

In the initial 1995 Global Innovation Index, the United States ranked as the most

competitive nation in this field (Florida, 2004, pg. 3), while the recently published 2016

Index, found in Figure 3 of the Appendix, places America in fourth place behind

Switzerland, Sweden and the United Kingdom (Dutta et. al., 2016). The indexes for 2013,

2014 and 2015 place the United States in similar positions, demonstrating a troubling

trend that has been going on for years.

Finally, the talent gap is growing from other sources as well, namely American

universities. The same policies ruining the ability for innovative giants and start-ups alike

to attract creative talent are also placing great burdens on universities. College students

have often been considered the leading indicator of global talent flows, and the regions

that can attract them have an automatic leg up in retaining their talent after graduation

(Florida, 2004, pg. 5). Previously international students flocked to the United States to


take advantage of a world-class education, but applications have been dropping for years,

for a variety of reasons (Florida, 2004, pg. 5).

Individually, none of these facts would be too alarming for the United States.

However, taken together all of this data certainly paints a rather unsettling picture for the

creative future, and all of the economic benefits that come along with that, for America.

Roberta Ness (2015) perhaps said it best, “Recognizing that caution is obligatory to the

sustenance of society and organizations, I argue that we have simply become too fearful.

Our (America’s) desires to maintain economic productivity, a social status quo, and

ethical purity have enveloped us in an excessive wariness that suffocates disruptive

creativity” (pgs. 5-6). Furthermore Ness describes what is called the “yin and yang” of

modern science: amazing possibility on one hand, yet frustrating inaction on the other.

Generative innovation of gizmos and gadgets are being developed through the creative

thinking of a few, yet a lack of imagination is preventing solutions to the greatest

scientific puzzles that threaten the existence of the world (Ness, 2015, pg. 5).

Creativity-for-Profit

In his book, Crises of Imagination, Crises of Power: Capitalism, Creativity and

the Commons, researcher Max Haiven (2014) explores how the creative class and

capitalism are working in today’s society. He begins by noting that today “the value of

individuals is best imagined through the price of their time in the form of wages, or that

the value of schools, universities and other public institutions is to be measured in the

fiscal ‘return on investment’ they afford their ‘customers.’ Everywhere money becomes

the measure of the imagination, the means by which we comprehend the act upon the


world that we share” (Haiven, 2014, pg. 4). This thought process by no means gives

individuals the opportunity to feel their ideas and individual creativity have valuable

merit. This issue is multifaceted, which is reinforced by the fact that Haiven was able to

write an entire book on the topic. However, focusing our attention on one individual, Bill

Gates, sheds a lot of light on how this topic contributes to America’s creativity crisis.

Capitalism thwarts society-wide creativity, only the ideas of the wealthy prosper,

while the majority of society works in low-end jobs producing and marketing these

products. Capitalism is a highly effective economic stream for a nation, giving an

enduring benefit to their humanity, yet it fails to solve problems for individuals and

countries without capital. The purpose of capitalism is to seek profit, therefore

monetizing imagination, and streamlining its purpose in a way that shares successes with

only those that can afford to buy it. Thus, it is intriguing that the term “creative capitalism”

has been pioneered and promoted by Bill Gates, one of the richest people in the world

who amassed his fortune at Microsoft, creating products that are notoriously proprietary

and profitable.

When the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation discusses creative capitalism they

mean that in the name of capitalist self-interest, wealthy individuals and corporations

should pool their resources to create market incentives for the private sector to solve

some of the world’s most pressing problems (Haiven, 2014, pg. 204). Today’s society has

the world at their fingertips on a variety of high-tech devices, yet we have not solved

global problems like Malaria and malnutrition. Issues such as these need a great deal of

creative ingenuity, but fail to receive it because solving these problems serves humanity,


not bottom lines. Utilizing creativity solely in a profit-driven manner truly limits the

scope and problem solving abilities these thought processes and efforts can contribute.

Haiven (2014) goes on to state that, “Real creativity is the ability to change the

world together. Or, more accurately, it is the ability to see collective creative efforts

realized in reality. So while today we have more opportunities than ever to ‘be creative,’

we have less and less of an ability actually to control our fates. ‘Be as creative as you

like,’ the system tells us, ‘Just colour inside the lines of the individualist, consumerist,

capitalist system’” (pgs. 211-212). How can America address these larger systematic

rules at play in the economy, and work to transform capitalism in a way that

simultaneously allows for the “Bill Gates” of the country as well as the common man, to

contribute ideas?

The Creative Confusion

The standard and widely accepted definition of creativity is the generation of

useful and novel ideas. However, as the field of creativity has advanced in the last few

decades new theories have been constructed, which has created larger and broader

definitions. While refining terminology with research advancements is an important

building block for the field, it is also creating confusion (Burnett & Haydon, 2016). To

better promote creativity across all of the aforementioned areas, and others, in America,

we as a research community need to do a better job. Simplifying our conversations and

providing guidelines teachers, administrators, economists and policy makers can

understand and readily utilize may be the most important first step we, as a creative

community, can take to begin rectifying the creative crisis America is facing.


Conclusion

The creativity crisis in America is real. The powerhouse the United States has

long been known as across the world is threatened. Until America can properly address

this disheartening situation it will struggle to survive and thrive in an ever-changing

greater global community. The widely publicized scapegoat of educational practices and

systems harming the United States creativity certainly has merit. However, simply

addressing this one component of a multi-faceted issue fails to appreciate all of the

United States’ shortcomings. The creativity crisis has sprung from a variety of places and

America must realize that everything from immigration policies to economic systems

need be rethought and transformed to compete in today’s world. In order to address these

issues sooner rather than later, I feel it is the responsibility of the creative community of

researchers and professionals to assist by simplifying and packaging our findings and

research in a meaningful and applicable way that can be more easily shared and

implemented.


Appendix Figure 1: Total Fluency, Originality, Elaboration, Abstractness of Titles, and Resistance to Premature Closure scores for Years 1966, 1974, 1984, 1990, 1998, and 2008 by grade level.


Figure 2: Fluency, Originality, Creative Strengths, and Elaboration scores for Years 1974, 1984, 1990, 1998, and 2008.


Figure 3: 2016 Global Innovation Index


Resources

Bronson, P. & Merryman, A. (2010, July). The creativity crisis. Newsweek.

Burnett, C. & Haydon, K. (2016). Do we need a revolutionary approach to bring

creativity into education? Buffalo, NY.

Florida, R. (2004). America’s looming creativity crisis. Harvard Business Review.

Dutta, S., Lanvin, B. and Wunsch-‐Vincent, S. (2016). Global innovation index: 2016

Report. Retrieved from https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-‐2016-‐

report

Havien, M. (2014). Crises of imagination, crises of power: Capitalism, creativity and

the commons. New York, NY: Firewood Publishing.

Helding, L. (2011). Creativity in crisis? Journal of Singing. 67(5). 597+.

Isaksen, S., Murdock, M., Firestein, R. & Treffinger, D. (1993). Nurturing and

developing creativity: The emergence of a discipline. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Publishing Corporation.

Kim, K. H. (2011) The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on

the torrance tests of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285-‐

295.

Kowarski, I. (2013, December). Educators combat "creativity crisis": arts education

produces innovative students with critical thinking skills. District

Administration, 49(12), 77+.

Mansfield, R. & Busse, T. (1981). The psychology of creativity and discovery.

Chicago, IL: Nelson-‐Hall.


Ness, R. (2015). The creativity crisis: Reinventing science to unleash possibility.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sociologist claims U.S. economy suffers from a crisis of creativity. Pain and Central

Nervous System Week. (September, 2010).

Sternberg, R., Kaufman, J. and Pretz, J. (2002). The creativity conundrum: A

propulsion model of creative contributions. New York, NY: Psychology Press

Ltd.

teresa lefko spraguecreativesprague.weebly.com/.../6/0/9/1/60910867/sprague_bigquesti… · crs 625...

Documents