The sociology of creativity: Part I: Theory: The social mechanisms of innovation and creative developments in selectivity environments

1Background¹

This work has three purposes: (1) to argue that key factors in creative activity are socially based and developed; this implies that sociology can contribute to understanding and explaining human creativity; (2) to apply sociological systems theory, in particular, Actor-Systems-Dynamics (ASD), in conceptualizing multiple interrelated institutional, cultural, and interaction factors and mechanisms in describing and explaining creativity;² (3) to enable linking through the application of the systems approach in a systematic and coherent way the disparate social factors and mechanisms that are involved in creative activity and to describe and explain different forms and mechanisms of creativity and innovative development.

We introduce in this first part of the article a theoretical model taking into account the social embeddedness of agents, either as individuals or groups, in their creative and innovative productions [41]. The agents are socialized agents, carriers of socio-cultural knowledge, including some of the knowledge potentially useful in concrete innovative/transformative processes. In their creative activities, they manipulate symbols, rules, technologies, and materials that are socially derived and developed. Their motivation for doing what they do derives in part from their social roles and positions; in part in response to situational incentives and opportunities, many of which are socially constructed, shaping their interaction situations and domains. Their capabilities including their social powers derive from the culturally and institutional frameworks in which they are embedded. In carrying out their actions, agents mobilize resources through the institutions and networks of which they are a part. As social agents, they are carriers of multiple values and motives and culturally established ideas, strategies, and practices (a “cultural tool kit”) [68]. Their innovative activities are social actions, given meanings in cultural and institutional terms in the domains or fields in which they engage in creative activities.

The article applies the sociological systems framework, ASD, to describe and analyze creative activity and innovative developments which are diverse and illuminating of human creativity.³ The approach shares with key psychological system theory approaches in the area of creativity consideration of major concepts such as “persons”, “leaders,” “processes”, “products”, and “places “ (see Table 2) but extends these to include additional factors such as social structures and material resources, social powers, selection mechanisms (e.g., acceptance or rejection), and institutionalization. Moreover, the complex of factors identified and analyzed are specified in this article in sociological terms. The models enable us to distinguish between and analyze processes of creative origination/formation, on the one hand, and processes of institutional acceptance and realization, on the other hand. In addition, the work introduces and applies major sociological concepts such as rules and rule regimes – norms, roles, institutions, and cultural formations – in general, social structure.⁴ Moreover, it identifies among the components of rule regimes socially based creativity production functions that are likely to generate innovations. Finally, power considerations are part and parcel of the analyses, for instance the role of the state as well as private interests and social movements in initiating, facilitating and/or constraining innovations and creative developments in society.

In our sociological systems perspective,

In sum, our sociological systems approach identifies multiple contextual factors – material, social, normative, economic and political – which play a role in driving, facilitating, and realizing creative initiatives, on the one hand; or, constraining or blocking creative processes and developments, on the other hand. It stresses multiple drivers: curiosity, fun, need, challenge of solving a problem, the drive for finding better or more optimal solutions, the pursuit of fame and fortune, competition and conflict among agents, and more. It also identifies the actors and mechanisms that play a significant role in the acceptance, incorporation, and institutionalization of innovations and creative developments in given social contexts as well as key determinants of non-acceptance and blockage of the acceptance and institutionalization of innovation. Throughout, there is a consideration of power and resource control, interest configurations, and oppositional processes.

2Creativity and creative operations

1. What is creativity, creative action?

Creative human action is universal (see, for example, Table 1).⁵ It relates to innovation, invention, discovery, design, creation, formation, origination – there is a complex of such terms and concepts. It is observable in the actions of individuals, networks, groups, organizations, entire communities, but, as we stress, it is above all social in character – hence, the importance of sociological treatments of it, as we propose in this article [44].

Creativity entails a process of originating, transforming, or adapting ideas, artifacts, systems, a sector or domain, states of the world, or any other entity which is constructed as differing or deviating from what already exists in the context, for instance, a particular field or institutional domain.⁶ As Boden states [8:1], “ideas” encompass concepts, poems, musical compositions, scientific theories, cooking recipes, choreographs, jokes, etc.; “artifacts” include paintings, sculptures, steam engines, vacuum cleaners, pottery, cosmetics, platform shoes, jewelry (see Table 1 below).

Our conception emphasizes process as well as product: creativity involves one or more creativity production functions; novelties are the products or outputs.⁷ Also significant are the agent(s) involved in the process, their particular capabilities and access to resources (materials and technologies) used in originating, shaping, generating innovations and creative developments.

Note that our conception implies that an “innovation” need not be a first instance – it may have been already created in another time and place. But to be defined as a novelty, it needs to deviate from, or be original in relation to, existing entities in the context in which it is produced – it is “new to the context.”

Our conception does not – in contrast to most approaches – require that the innovation be useful-adaptive, valuable, appropriate or accepted for inclusion in a field or domain. These processes of acceptance and institutionalization entail other mechanisms and development, as formulated in out models in Parts II and III.

Innovations or created entities entail concepts – typically with names – in the agent’s or agents’ cognitive framework. Typically, it has a defined purpose or purposes (although it may fail to function according to purpose). It also has a structure with one or more components or subsystems that serve its practical functioning or overall purpose. Associated with any such systems is a complex of rules concerning practical matters of use (how to use and possibly how to maintain); other rules concern access and ownership (who has rights to access and use, and when and where).

Our conceptualizations and models as well as selected illustrations are elaborated below (as well as in Parts II and III).

2. The Extraordinary Creativity of Human Agents

There is an extraordinary diversity of human creations and innovations, distinguished by their originality, their usefulness in many instances, and their aesthetics. Through their interactions and initiatives, actors produce to varying degrees innovations encompassing not only new technologies and socio-technical systems, new products, but social or user practices as well as cultural discourses, narratives, and symbols. An innovator tries or tests alternative(s), for instance, out of curiosity or playfulness with others; or, the innovator(s) solve(s) hitherto unsolved problems, or develops solutions to problems others have solved differently, or develops novel products – the entity created or produced is referred to as an innovation or creative development.

In principle, the variety/diversity of creations is unlimited and continually expanding, as human agents develop new concepts, new powers, new technologies and techniques. One basis for continual innovation and creativity is the ceaseless identification through observation and research of new types of causal and control mechanisms. Many new powers are constructed by controlling or harnessing causal mechanisms or operations (discovered or constructed) [20]. Examples of new “types of power” include: (i) Utilizing the knowledge of the life sciences (for example, genetics, genetic engineering) there is increasing power to manipulate, change, reconstruct life processes of plants, animals, and humans. (ii) Using knowledge of psychology and the other social sciences, humans have developed new powers to influence behavior including forms of advertising, propaganda, brainwashing and, for example, utilization of the “Stockholm Syndrome”. (iii) The WWW and other social network technologies enable individuals and groups to reach large populations. Thus, there have emerged forms of mass persuasion and the mobilization of people and resources in order to influence politics and policies. NGOs are very active in all of this as are the social network media.

Innovation has two main themes according to Arthur [3:164] “One is this constant finding or putting together of new solutions out of existing toolboxes of pieces and practices. The other is industries (sectors, domains, fields), constantly combining their practices and processes with functionalities drawn from newly arriving toolboxes, and new domains. This second theme, like the first, is about the creation of new processes and arrangements” (our italics). The result is a cascade of new processes and arrangements, new ways of doing things, not just in one area of application but across the economy and society. Such diversity of creativity – conceptually and empirically – - is illustrated below and especially in Part II.

Table 1 emphasizes the range and variation of creativity, in all areas of human activity, extending from science and mathematics, practical as well as recreational technologies,⁸ administrative and other organizational apparatuses,⁹ diverse forms of entertainment,¹⁰ artistic perspective and practices¹¹ the creation over centuries and across continents of multitudes of monsters,¹² etc. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to overemphasize the locus of creativity in the arts as well as in technology and science. However, in our perspective, creativity is the hallmark of human adaptation, survival, and development. Many opportunities for creativity emerge in the context of diverse and ever-expanding needs or problems to be solvedand the solutions that are generated, as suggested inthis work.

When it comes to major societal innovations, there is typically a cascade of developments:¹³ diversecreative-destructive processes resulted from, for instance, the invention of the automobile or the transistor or assembly line production robots. Arthur [3:179] points out, “ ...  the transistor entered the collective around 1950 (step 1); replaced the vacuum tube in most applications (step 2); set up needs for the fabrication of silicon devices (step 3); caused the vacuum-tube industry to wither (step 4); became a key component of many electronic devices (step 5); and caused prices and incentives for electronic equipment to change (step 6) ...  . listing events this way makes them look too neatly sequential. In practice, they do not follow each other in a tidy way. Often they operate in parallel ...  And of course many of these events take time to play out.¹⁴ A technology takes time to diffuse through the economy, and the economy in turn may take several years to adjust itself to the novel technology.” The formation of the “factory system” provides an example of a very large-scale cascade. It entailed a complex of interrelated innovations and transformations. Typically in such transformations there was no simple predetermined sequence unfolding but, nevertheless, a social, economic, political, and technical logic to the initiatives and developments [5, 20].

3Selected systems approaches to creativity

Systems approaches to creativity are several (see Table 2). They stress that creativity and innovation results from multiple interrelated factors in dynamic interplay. In psychology, there are arguably two leading system approaches: Csikszentmihalyi [28, 30] and Puccio et al. [57] (also see Sawyer [62, 63], and Sterling’s Handbook of Creativity [67] which contains articles presenting systems approaches). Both of these approaches see creativity as a systemic process which results in a novel idea or product that is recognized and accepted by others. Puccio et al. [57] combine persons, processes, and leadership in an “environment” or field to produce creative changes (e.g. change in personal, innovation in technologies including built environments, etc). Csikszentmihalyi’s approach ([28, 30]) focuses on the interaction behavior between individuals, cultural domains and institutional fields, resulting in creative initiatives and developments (see also Montuori [52] and McIntyre [51]). From the cultural domain, rules and practices are transmitted to, and incorporated in, individuals. The creative products of persons – contributing to variation in an evolutionary sense – are selected for eventual inclusion in the cultural domain through institutional fields involving agents of judgment, for instance“gatekeepers,” including experts (this approach shares several commonalities with the sociological systems approached presented below).¹⁵

The sociological systems perspective (ASD) identifies a few key social components of creative activities. Socially contextualized creative activities call for specification of context(s), the embedded creative agents, the inputs in relation to them (necessary materials, knowledge, knowledgeable agents, etc.) and agents’ translation of the inputs into the innovation activities and their outputs – potential creations, transformations, and recombinations (see Figs. 1 and 2). Drawing upon earlier work on the sociology of creativity and innovation (see Section II), we focus attention on the social nature of creative agents (whether individuals or groups), the social character of their actions and interactions (including mobilizing and exercising power, cooperating, competing, and conflicting), the institutional-cultural conditions (social structures) that facilitate or constrain or possibly block creative action, and the conditions that make for receptivity and acceptance of creative action or its products, on the one hand, or its rejection or suppression in the larger societal context, on the other hand. We highlight then the social systemic features of creative action and its possible products. Key features of our sociological systems framework (ASD) are indicated in Figs. 1 and 2 and Tables 2, 3, and 4.

While there are parallels in the sociological and psychological system approaches, there are substantial differences: (1) Social actors, individuals as well as collectives, in the sociological systems framework are not only embedded in social systems but also construct, adapt, and transform such systems including those of which they are a part. They are the major endogenous factors in the construction and evolution of systems and in the production of creative acts and innovation. Such agency is largely social, and its actions and interactions are sociological in character although individual cognitive and evaluative/judgment processes – socially grounded – play a significant role.¹⁶ (2) ASD theory incorporates in a natural and coherent manner – as compared to psychological approaches – the conceptualization of institutions and cultural formations. In general, in sociology there are elaborated structural theories, and applications of these to the analysis of, institutions and culture and, in general, social structures. The ASD approach conceptualizes as foundational in sociological structural analysis social rules and rule regimes. While the latter are systemic in character, they are carried and applied/interpreted in many cases individually. (3) The ASD approach does not assume that creativity – or creative actions and their products – are predicated on social usefulness or even immediate applications – as do most key psychological system theories. Application, receptivity, and judgment of usefulness relate to later phases in innovation developments (see the phase model of creativity and innovation, Fig. 2 and Table 3). This is because social acceptance, judgments of usefulness, and institutionalization of innovation are typically key social processes in themselves – often distinct from the phases of creation and innovation per se. The processes making up the “receptivity context” require specification and analysis in order to understand the response to creativity in its social (and economic and political) context. (4) Like other systems approaches, ASD theory recognizes multiple interrelated processes and causal mechanisms, but it particularly attends to and elaborates the causal mechanisms of social agents and social as well as material structures (institutional arrangements, cultural formations, technologies and socio-technical systems) [20]. Social structural and agential factors and mechanisms in the “context of invention” enable or block to a greater or lesser extent initiating actions and the availability of resources and powers.

The three systems approaches – two psychological and one sociological – are summarized below in a comparative table specifying multiple key variables.¹⁷ The third column lists the “four Ps”, multiple factors that several psychologists working in the field of creativity research have identified as universal aspects in their investigations and analyses of creativity and which comprise a system of variables constructed by induction [4, 35, 58, 62, 63].

The sociological systems model of creativity is elaborated in the following sections, stressing the social character of each of the factors of creative action and also the qualitatively differentiated phases of the creative process, whether a single individual is involved or one or more groups and organizations. The theory emphasizes key sociological features from the initial recognition or identification of a problem or idea or want – which is often the point of departure of creative attempts – to its realization in “creative or innovative initiatives.”

4Sociological systems models of creativity

1. Background

Most scientific work on creativity has been in the fields of psychology and management [1, 26–30, 57, 62, 63–66, 71], among others). Sociology cannot be said to have had an explicit focus on “creativity;” rather, innovation has been the preferred rubric. Nonetheless, there is a body of relevant literature in sociology ([5, 17, 22–25, 32, 34, 43, 44, 54, 55, 74], among others, addressing sociological aspects of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship.¹⁸ The particular innovation/creation models, which we present here, derive from a sociological systems framework (as presented in [11, 18–20, 22]). They combine the idea of directed problem-solving and adaptation, innovation and evolution in complex selective environments (Burns and Dietz [13, 14]). The models describe and explain innovation and adaptation, transition, and transformation through the operation of such key factors as human agency and social and material structures.

2. Context-Dependent Creative Social Action: ASD Input-Output Model

The ASD sociological systems approach contrasts in a number of ways to psychological systems approaches to creativity emphasizing (as outlined in the previous section):¹⁹

The model below (Fig. 1 and Table 3) specifies contextual factors as well as the key input-output factors: in particular, knowledgeable, capable, and self-confident agent(s) of creative action; creativity production functions (see Section 3, below); appropriate technologies and materials; it suggests creative outputs occurring with varying degrees of likelihood, depending on input factors and production processes (discussed below).²⁰ The field F consists of an action and interaction context with particular actors and their relations, rule regimes,²¹ established socially shared concepts and models, technologies and materials, and production functions (John Parker and Ugo Corte, “Placing Collaborative Circles within Fields,” ms2014).

The complex of key interrelated factors presented in the ASD input-output model below are – in a nutshell (see Table 3).

3. Creativity and Innovation Production Functions

A production function is a rule complex (see Fig. 1). It is characterized by such rules as: (1) those directing and regulating the performance of a process related to a purpose, value, or goal; (2) participatory rules specifying the appropriate actor (or actors) to engage in the process (in the case of multiple actors, their role relationships and tasks in the production are typically specified); (3) rules concerning the appropriate technologies and resources (materials) deployed in the activity; (4) usually the rules also specify the particular time and place for the production activities [15].

Production functions, as rule complexes, vary in their degree of specification, organization, and coherence. For instance,

The following section presents a selection of creativity production functions.

4. The Modalities and Diversity of Creativity Production Functions

Creativity production functions are highly diversified in part because they are context sensitive, differing in different fields of activity and organizational contexts and with respect to different objects of innovation. In the course of trying to solve problems, an agent or agents initiates innovative activities with different ambition levels, strategies, means or “toolkits” [68],and resources. The core idea is that of a general problem-solving model whereby new solutions anddiscoveries may be found, or established older solutions may be adapted or transformed.

There are at least five basic modalities of creativity production: origination/formation, transformation, combinatorics, adaptation, and dialectics. Typically, there are composite forms. Below we specify and provide selected illustrations of the different types of creativity modalities:

A. Origination/Formation. Origination/formation entails a process of originating more or less “from scratch” a completely new idea, artifact, or phenomena [3]. One starts out with a problem or challenge without established models or designs for solving it. A motivated innovator or entrepreneur may try any of the dialectical modalities such as trial and error, experimentation, or “heuristics” (see below). Origination entails forming in a particular social time-and-space context an element or complex of elements that did not exist previously, whether a symbol (for instance, the 0, 1, and ∞ symbols), concept (atom, nucleus, game conception, cognitive dissonance concept), entirely new technology or socio-technical system (nano technologies, genetically modified food), built environment (nuclear energy facility, a new research construction such as the proton accelerator (ESS) in Lund, Sweden), institution (a legal or other rule system), new forms of social power based, for example, on psychological or pharmaceutical means). For instance, the concept of limited liability for all joint-stock companies was established in the U.K. by the Joint Stock Companies Act 1856; such companies limited liability for individual shareholders as opposed to a partnership with complete individual responsibility for all participants – also such joint stock companies were defined as “persons.” Or, the poisonous mustard gas in the First World War (first created and applied by Germany, 1917); the “Bessemer process” (1856) entailed a new method for making purified steel by blasting compressed air through molten iron to burn out excess carbon andimpurities.

Generally speaking, much origination/formation is realized through “capturing” and controlling or manipulating existing natural, technical, social phenomena for particular human purposes or goals. The phenomena may be gravitation or the flow of water, which can be harnessed for energy or agricultural purposes; or human relationships may be established – or existing ones manipulated – so as to realize opportunities for gain or to avoid losses.

B. Innovative Transformation. Transformation entails restructuring or remaking an element or complex of elements so that it differs qualitatively and quantitatively from what there was before the transformative action – whether we are considering the transformation of an artifact, concept, belief system, or rule and symbol system.²³ (i) One may take a copy of an entity and modify or transform some or many of its properties and mode of functioning, particularly in relation to a new context of application. (ii) In genuine innovative transformations, one replaces one or more components and/or relationships with a substantially different or new component or linkage, adding to, subtracting, or replacing parts and wholes.²⁴ (iii) Reframing an existing element or complex of elements so that it is treated or used in a significantly different way than previously. For example, tanks (from World War I development) were combined into a new kind of military unit, the “Panzer division” rather than being deployed simply as an “iron horse” accompanying troops [46]; in the field of art, a porcelain urinal (“Fountain”) in 1917 was made into an “art object” (Marcel Duchamp). (iv) Radical transformation typically entails a paradigm shift from an old paradigm (complex of dimensions) to a new one [22]. The new revolutionary paradigm is originated on the basis of an entirely new conception or principle, new methods, and production processes but also adaptations. Examples are many of the socio-technical innovations in the industrial revolution, quantum and relativity theories in physics, the germ theory, the theories of genes and DNA, radically new technology developments such as nuclear energy, nano-technologies, and GMOs(several of these to be discussed in Parts II and III).

C. Combinatorics. Combinatorics entail types of transformation, combining and re-combining components and linkages of a system. The resultant system differs significantly from the original (dissimilar in qualitative and/or quantitative terms).

We find many instances of transformative combinatorics derived from following particular forms and procedures, for instance: (i) An entity AB is differentiated into separate and distinct entities, A and B.²⁵ Or, the operation of fusion where A and B, as separate entities, are brought together into a single unit AB (this will involve solving interlocking or integration problems): for example, hybrids, fused biochemicals, or fusion of social organizations and networks. In general, these transformations encompass new ways of interweaving and interlocking – or alternatively, separating – different kernels of knowledge, ideas in science and culture, or combining musical themes and voices (Bach’s polyphonic music was based on combining different “musical voices”), verses, styles, story genres, social organizations and networks. (iii) The quality or structure of a complex of elements is changed by adding or removing, or replacing some or all of the elements with different elements, or by changing, removing, or replacing relationships.

In general, new elements (concepts, designs, technologies, socio-technical systems, rule and symbol systems, social systems) may be constructed or deconstructed from elements that already exist, that is, these are available as possible building blocks – elements for the construction of still further elements and systems. For example: radio transmitters and receivers, in conjunction with other elements, made possible an entirely new complex invention, the socio-technical system of radio broadcasting [3:167-168]. In the human formation and evolution of new complex structures, combinatorics is prominent and common.

D. Adaptation/Modification. Adaptation of an concept, technology, symbol, or entity X entails, for instance, applying it under similar circumstance but doing so differently than in the past – making adjustments in it so that application is feasible, such as changing the values of its parameters.

Simply applying X in a new context typically requires making some adjustments so that X “fits” properly the new context, and this entails innovating.²⁶ For instance, (i) In the construction of the automobile, the horse-drawn wagon or carriage was adapted to use with an electric or gasoline driven motor and a steering device, among other technological adaptations. (ii) The establishment of Xerox’s PARK PC unit entailed adapting a taskforce model of social organization to the IT setting with the intent to develop a PC, engaging a creative task force, and, among other things, introducing explicit norms about group sharing of data and intensive collaboration (they eventually succeeded in developing a PC but marketing it was rejected by Xeros (see Part II). (iii) In general, existing systems may be adapted parameter-wise or structurally so that they can be used for purposes or in a context other than that for which they were designed or originally envisioned. Even in starting an origination process from what appears to be scratch, an innovator may have confronted similar problems in the past and may be able to adapt earlier innovations for her present purposes, for instance, in developing a vaccine, as now in the current efforts to create a vaccine against ebola; procedures are being tried that have been developed in earlier vaccine development such as using live but weakened pathogens, using dead pathogens, or utilizing genetically manipulated pathogens.

E. Dialectical Production Functions and Strategies for Creativity. Dialectics encompass less directed, more fluent creativity strategies and production modalities than those presented above; nevertheless, they may lead to innovation and creative development. In our perspective, “dialectics” concerns fostering the interplay between different perspectives or paradigms, problem-definitions, solution-complexes so as increase the likelihood of generating innovations and creative developments. This is suggested by the “Hegelian/Marxian” formula, thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Dialectics is illustrated in processes such as: (1) the development of knowledge through debates and scholarly defenses and dialogues; (2) initiating alternative exploratory investigations combined with hypothesis generation and critical analyses; (3) initiating “trial and error” strategies as well as more systematic forms of experimentation to gain insight, to make discoveries, and gain understanding for purposes of generating ideas and innovations; (4) recruiting diversity and “mixing” in contact or communication networks participants with new or different perspectives or with special knowledges (consultants, experts from other fields or other traditions) in order to generate innovation and creative development; (5) arranging brainstorming & articulation of competing alternatives; (6) using one or more heuristics including “rules of thumb” [69];²⁷ (7) arranging play and visionary experiences among participants to provide openings to and stimulation of the imagination;²⁸ (8) introducing or activating social norms and values to encourage innovation and creative development as well as alertness to potential and opportunities (see below).

Such dialectical strategies and modalities of action are intended to help generate ideas, alternative conceptions of existing entities, proposals for creative initiatives – at the same time, they require for success the encouragement of alertness to chance happenings and possible discoveries, to unintended developments, to serendipity, to mistakes and accidents in one’s own explorations and experiments as well as those among competitors or others working in the field or related fields.

A principle idea in back of the multiple modalities of creativity is that they make up a spectrum of socially established and available processes for constructing new entities or rearranging entities or transforming them. Typically they involve operating on and with a set of already existing objects, rules, representations, paradigms, or notations as well as institutionalized methods, strategies, and production functions (see Part II).²⁹

5. The ASD Phase Model of Creativity Production and Acceptance/ Institutionalization

An innovation or creative production process typically consists of a series of activities differentiated into phases (Fig. 2 and Table 4 highlights the qualitatively different activities). The ASD model of creative production processes identifies the multiple phases (seven) in creative action and innovation as well as reception/acceptance, legitimation, and institutionalization.³⁰ Two major contexts of social action and interaction are distinguished in the phase model: (A) the context of creation (Phases I, II, and III) and (B) the context of social acceptance (or rejection), legitimation and institutionalization (Phases IV, V, VI, and VII). Note that Figs. 1 and 2 specify agency (actions of an innovator or entrepreneur (individual or collective)), resources, institutional and group structures (rule regimes), interaction/communications including leadership relating to producing novelty as well as relating to “acceptance” (or rejection) and possible institutionalization of novelty or a creative development.

The creativity production process is not linear— but loops backwards and forwards. For instance, negotiation or blockage in Phases IV, V, VI, or VII may lead participant(s) to return to earlier phases, possibly restarting the process in Phase I, II, or III. Also, creative processes may be aborted, for instance in a particular phase, because key agents exit or essential resources cease being available or are not obtainable, or the process and/or its products are suppressed because of external pressures. Even key participants in an innovative development may decide, for instance in Phase IV, to terminate an innovation initiative because they morally reject the creation or fear the reaction of powerful agents in their environment (or, on the basis of further analyses, they anticipate the unsustainability of the creation (see discussion in part II about the personal computer case).

5Conclusions

The approach distinguishes in Part II a number of different social organizational contexts of creativity, which opens the way to apply group [25, 32] and organizational theories [7, 15, 23, 74] as well as social network [24, 54] and societal transition theories [13, 14, 20] to the description and analysis of creative activity in different contexts.

In Part III we analyze the context of receptivity, selection, and institutionalization of innovations and creative developments and suggest the likelihood that innovations are successfully introduced and institutionalized.