18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The Sociology of Creativity: Elements, Structures, and Audiences

      1 , 2 , 3
      Annual Review of Sociology
      Annual Reviews

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This review integrates diverse characterizations of creativity from a sociological perspective with the goal of reinvigorating discussion of the sociology of creativity. We start by exploring relevant works of classical social theory to uncover key assumptions and principles, which are used as a theoretical basis for our proposed definition of creativity: an intentional configuration of cultural and material elements that is unexpected for a given audience. Our argument is enriched by locating creativity vis-à-vis related concepts—such as originality, knowledge, innovation, atypicality, and consecration—and across neighboring disciplines. Underlying the discussion are antecedents (structure, institutions, and context) and consequences (audiences, perception, and evaluation), which are treated separately. We end our review by speculating on ways in which sociologists can take the discussion of creativity forward.

          Related collections

          Most cited references171

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.

          R K Merton (1968)
          This account of the Matthew effect is another small exercise in the psychosociological analysis of the workings of science as a social institution. The initial problem is transformed by a shift in theoretical perspective. As originally identified, the Matthew effect was construed in terms of enhancement of the position of already eminent scientists who are given disproportionate credit in cases of collaboration or of independent multiple discoveries. Its significance was thus confined to its implications for the reward system of science. By shifting the angle of vision, we note other possible kinds of consequences, this time for the communication system of science. The Matthew effect may serve to heighten the visibility of contributions to science by scientists of acknowledged standing and to reduce the visibility of contributions by authors who are less well known. We examine the psychosocial conditions and mechanisms underlying this effect and find a correlation between the redundancy function of multiple discoveries and the focalizing function of eminent men of science-a function which is reinforced by the great value these men place upon finding basic problems and by their self-assurance. This self-assurance, which is partly inherent, partly the result of experiences and associations in creative scientific environments, and partly a result of later social validation of their position, encourages them to search out risky but important problems and to highlight the results of their inquiry. A macrosocial version of the Matthew principle is apparently involved in those processes of social selection that currently lead to the concentration of scientific resources and talent (50).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Creativity.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Annual Review of Sociology
                Annu. Rev. Sociol.
                Annual Reviews
                0360-0572
                1545-2115
                July 30 2020
                July 30 2020
                : 46
                : 1
                : 489-510
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Organizational Behavior Department, INSEAD, 77305 Fontainebleau, France;
                [2 ]Department of Management and Organization, Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA;
                [3 ]Management Division, Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027, USA;
                Article
                10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054833
                5216e2bc-3807-4cf1-9a1e-a8ff0612b580
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content165

                Cited by7

                Most referenced authors1,550