Анотація The article demonstrates that over many years of research, scientists have not come to a single definition that fully reveals the concept "creativity". The role that creativity plays in society, as well as in business, science, education, is significant, but has not yet been fully disclosed. A retrospective analysis of foreign studies shows that since the beginning of the last century, numerous attempts have been made to understand the phenomenon creativity, its components, stages of the creative process, functions of both hemispheres of the brain in the creative process, types of thinking. Given the ambiguity of the phenomenon of creativity, the range of points of view on creativity is wide enough.
The theories considered in this article convincingly prove the versatility of the phenomenon of creativity. Each of the theories considers a certain aspect of the problem, starting from the value priorities of the researchers, and, despite the fact that in each of them there is a significant layer of discoveries, observations and substantiations, it is impossible to name them comprehensive and comprehensive. Тhe process of studying creativity as a complex phenomenon is a long-term attempt, spanning several decades of research and evidence. Category creativity is so ambiguous and multi-faceted, after many years of research, scientists have not come to a common definition, fully revealing the concept and analysis of foreign research of the problem of creativity allows us to conclude that the phenomenon of interdisciplinary creativity should be viewed in relationship in all its aspects: identity, process, product, and environment.
Ключові слова:creativity, theories of creativity, definition of creativity
Бібліографічний список
Amabile, T., 1983. The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), pp.357-376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
Amabile, T., Barsade, S., Mueller, J. and Staw, B., 2005. Affect and Creativity at Work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), pp.367-403. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367
Antonites, A., 2003. An Action Learning Approach to Entrepreneurial Creativity, Innovation and Opportunity Finding. Doctor Commercii. University of Pretoria. South Africa.
Azzam, A., 2009. Why Creativity Now? A Conversation with Sir Ken Robinson. Educational leadership, 67(1), pp.22-26.
Runco, M., 2014. Creativity Theories and Themes: Research, Development and Practice. 2nd ed. Amsterdam : Academic Press. DOI:10.1016/C2012-0-06920-7
Runco, M., Hao, N., Acar, J. and Tang, M., 2016. The Social «Cost» of Working in Groups and Impact of Values and Creativity. Creativity. Theories-Research-Applications, 3(2), pp.229-243. https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2016-0015
Sternberg, R., 2006. The Nature of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), pp.87-98. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_10
Taylor, C., 1991. Various Approaches to and Definitions of Creativity. In: R.J. Sternberg, ed. The Nature of Creativity: contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 99-124.
Urban, K., 1991. Recent trends in creativity research and theory in Western Europe. European Journal for High Ability, 1(1), pp.99-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/0937445900010114