1.1 Creativity and radical creativity

What is creativity? What makes creativity radical?

---

To determine what radical creativity is, we should first define the core concept: creativity.

Creativity scholars usually define creativity as the human ability to develop something novel and useful (Sternberg and Lubart, 1999, Amabile, 2018). Diedrich et al. (2015) argue that the more novel an idea is, the more creative it is. Some researchers also claim that the outcome of creativity must have a surprising (Simonton, 2012), authentic (Corazza, 2016), or aesthetic value (Kharkhurin, 2014). Each of these helps assess the level of creativity associated with performances in different areas of expertise and culture.

Scientific investigations of creativity consider the combination of novelty (originality) and usefulness (appropriateness) essential for an idea, product or service to be creative (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). By this definition, ideas that are useful but familiar aren’t creative, and new ideas are evaluated based on how useful they are.

One way to think radical creativity is to contrast it with incremental creativity. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘incremental’ as occurring through small additions or changes. The word is synonymous with ‘gradual’ or ‘step-by-step’ change. So, incremental creativity refers to creativity where the change builds on what already exists. Essentially, incremental creativity results in modifications to existing practices and products.

The word ‘radical’ is defined as proceeding from the root or related to the origins, and the word is synonymous with ‘fundamental’. By radical creativity, we are talking about creativity that challenges, upends, or fundamentally changes something that already exists. For example, Gilson & Madjar (2011) define radical creativity as ‘ideas that differ substantially from existing practices and alternatives’ and as ‘new and set-breaking frameworks and processes.’

Another way to think of radical creativity is as the highest degree of novelty. For example, Kaufmann (2003) proposed that for an idea, work, or object to be considered creative, its novelty needs to be complemented by the rejection of previously accepted ideas. For Hausman (1987), the concept of creativity itself already invokes a sense of radical novelty which differs from incremental novelty that involves minimal differences and variations on the status quo.

Creating change

What is radical creativity for?

---

So, we know that creativity is intrinsically linked with change. We also know that when creativity is radical, it leads to useful actions by changing existing practices and enabling a breakthrough (Gilson & Madjar, 2011).

According to Janne Halme, a physics lecturer at Aalto University, radical creativity manifests as ‘perhaps a way of thinking so very unconventional that it catches people by surprise.’ An interviewee in the CREATnet – Conceptualizations of Radical Creativity in Transdisciplinary Networks research project’s Toward Radical Creativity report used a similar description: ‘radical means that you’re really changing the paradigm of what you’re doing’ (Björklund et al., 2022).

The fields of information systems and human–computer interaction have long identified and differentiated between paradigm-breaking (or paradigm-modifying) and paradigm-preserving creativity. Importantly, the creativity style in terms of a paradigm is independent of the creativity level (Eloranta et al., 2024). In other words, radical creativity doesn’t just mean more creativity but a different kind of creativity.

In this course, we use radical creativity to mean paradigm-changing creativity, creativity that has the quality of being disruptive, groundbreaking, or otherwise involves major changes compared to what is usual, typical, or assumed. But we also talk about creativity in general—about creative identity, creative processes and creative culture, for example. Even then, our aim is to discuss creativity as a force that changes the world, whether in the form of technological innovations or social movements.

The word radical can have negative connotations and is sometimes associated with being aggressive or adversarial. Likewise, creativity—radical or incremental—can be used with both positive and negative intentions. The core definition of radical creativity doesn’t address whether the change is inherently good or bad. Instead, the burden is on us as  creators to be aware, critical, and intentional with our creativity. This course aims to explore, discuss, and practice radical creativity as a means for significant positive change in the world.

Recognizing the radical

Who decides what counts as radical?

---

Since creativity can be applied to so many things, this paradigm change in radical creativity is highly contextual. An idea can be radically creative, and so can an outcome, or a method of doing something. Creativity can be utilized in planning and in execution, and in wildly different fields and areas.

Take cellular phones as an example. For younger generations, it may be hard to believe that in 1995, owning a handset was not commonplace in Finland. In its invention, a portable telephone was revolutionary. In 1983, Motorola Dynatac 8000X, known also as ‘the brick’, was the first handheld mobile phone that changed the paradigms of telephone communication.

As time marched on, mobile phones evolved. Towards the turn of the millennium, the camera phone was invented, and the Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) first allowed for limited internet usage on mobile phones for the common user. Then, in 2007, Apple released the first iPhone, with a user-friendly touch screen, which was a divergence from the mobile phones designed at that time.

Looking back, these changes can very well be thought of as incremental. After all, phones with cameras, internet, and touch screens are the undeniable norm these days, so much so that their history can seem like simple natural progression. But at the time, waves were made in the telecommunication industry. And if you think about it, all three inventions ended up fundamentally impacting the way we communicate.

It’s not always easy to tell if something is radically creative or not. Radically creative ideas don’t always get recognised or succeed, either. In many ways, it can often feel easier and safer to pursue incremental change and adapt to the status quo. But that would mean forfeiting the enormous possibilities that come with radical creativity.

So, who decides what is radically creative and what isn’t?

Well, that depends on the context as well. Radical creativity can be recognised and evaluated on several levels: by the audience of the creative work, within the field the creativity relates to, by the team involved with a creative project, and the individual creator.

The audience are the people who receive the work, such as leaders, work communities or end users. Sometimes, the audience gets a sense of radicality at the first exposure — as soon as they learn about the new idea or product, they realize that it will significantly change the way they think, work and live. At other times radicality is only understood in hindsight. The consequences can be radical for our entire society, as in the case of social media and mobile phones, and the effect isn’t always entirely good. This is a reminder to take the recognition of radical creativity seriously – it can be powerful.

Recognition in the field happens through the experts in an area of knowledge or practice. Csikszentmihalyi (2015) introduced the concept of gatekeepers in a field of knowledge, the experts who filter what creative works become acknowledged and included in a specific domain. Nowhere is this as clear as in the field of visual arts, where there are no easily defined objective criteria for a good piece of art, and where the role of gallerists, curators and grant committees is central. When radical creativity is valued in a field, it also threatens the existing paradigm and the parties that benefit from it. This is where the values and vision of the gatekeepers is crucial: they can empower their field to be open to new creative flows and positive change.

The third level is the team. While creativity is often understood as an individual skill, the development of a creative idea usually involves a group of people who co-create with complementary skills. A team that’s open to radical creativity will embrace everyone’s creative behaviour (i.e., risk-taking and experimentation) and get excited and offer support whenever they detect signs of radical creativity.

Radical creativity can also be recognized by the creative individual themself. We all can have distinctive perceptions and beliefs about what is radical, depending on our expertise, experience, cultural background, and values.

For a radically creative idea to make a large-scale impact on our world positively, it needs to be recognized, valued, and fostered at all of these levels.

Scale of radical creativity

Creating change for yourself and others

---

While the efforts of creative individuals are important in creating change, radical creativity for large-scale change is a team sport that needs to be supported at all levels. But that doesn’t mean radical creativity has to be big — it can happen on different scales.

For example, developing a groundbreaking technology for a global audience could be radically creative, but so could something with a more limited reach, like a change with a major impact within a small community or a single social circle. It can even be something individual, like tackling personal challenges in radically creative ways.

Creativity has traditionally been associated with self-expression. The outcome of this kind of creativity could be a beautiful and touching masterpiece or something more everyday, like making music with friends. This traditional view of creativity as self-expression differs from the way creativity is mostly discussed in this course, which is as a source of change, even radical societal change. Radically creative social change can be an everyday activity, slowly creating change in contexts like families and workplaces, or it can be something exceptional and immediately impactful.

Everyone is creative, and everyone can be radically creative. We believe that creativity and radical creativity can be taught.

References

1. Amabile, T. M. (2018). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Routledge.
2. Björklund, T. et al. (2022). Toward Radical Creativity report. Aalto university.
3. Corazza, G. (2016). Potential Originality and Effectiveness: The Dynamic Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 28:3, 258-267.
4. Csíkszentmihályi, M. (2015). The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Springer.
5. Diedrich, J., Benedek, M., Jauk, E., & Neubauer, A. C. (2015). Are creative ideas novel and useful? Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts, 9(1), 35.
6. Gilson, L.L., & Madjar, N. (2011). Radical and incremental creativity: Antecedents and processes. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 21.
7. Hausman, C. R. (1987). Philosophical perspectives on the study of creativity. In SG Isaksen (Ed.). Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics, 380-389.
8. Kaufmann, G. (2003). What to Measure? A new look at the concept of creativity. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47:3, 235-251.
9. Kharkhurin, A.V. (2014). Creativity. 4in1: Four-criterion construct of creativity. Creativity research journal, 26(3), 338-352.
10. Runco, M. & Jaeger, G. (2012). The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24:1, 92-96.
11. Simonton, D.K. (2012). Taking the US Patent Office criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creativity research journal, 24(2-3), 97-106.
12. Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1998). The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms. In R. Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of Creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.