See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242669323

Musings on mathematical creativity

Article · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

118 1,418

2 authors, including:

Peter Liljedahl
Simon Fraser University
139 PUBLICATIONS 2,681 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter Liljedahl on 14 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

MUSINGS ON MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY

This conversation began when I introduced the two authors niques, such as explicitly applying an algorithm repeatedly.
in a hotel lobby in Cap Roig (Spain) after the close of The third stage (Stage 2) is referred to as creative (concep-
CERME4 [1]. The conversation continued by e-mail well tual, constructive) activity; true mathematical creativity
after the evening had ended. (ed.) occurs and consists of non-algorithmic decision making:
Bharath: I think that the notion of mathematical creativ-
The decisions that have to be taken may be of a widely
ity among mathematicians is distinctly different from the
divergent nature and always involve a choice. (p. 43)
notion of creativity found in the mathematics education lit-
erature. What do you think? Do we even have an agreed Although Ervynck (1991) tries to describe the process by
upon definition of what mathematical creativity is? Is this which a mathematician arrives at the questions through his
important at all? characterizations of Stage 0 and Stage 1, his description of
Peter: I too wish to discuss the defining of creativity. This mathematical creativity is very similar to that of Poincaré
certainly is important. The writings in my dissertation and Hadamard. In particular, his use of the term “non-
express a slightly different parsing of creativity than the one algorithmic decision making” seems to be analogous to
you propose (i.e., among mathematicians, psychologists, Poincaré’s use of the “choice” metaphor.
teachers, mathematics educators). Peter: As I turn my mind back to our conversation thus far
Bharath: I would like to give some background to the many ideas come to the fore. To begin with, you correctly
AHA! moment that you talked about (Liljedahl, 2004). The identify my reductionist attempt at defining creativity as a
literature seems to attribute this construct to Wallas (1926) critique. I find that many definitions (and authors of defini-
and his famous book The art of thought. Some authors erro- tions) rely too much on rhetoric. The discourses that emerge
neously attribute it to Hadamard and Poincaré due to the are like a sieve – they are easily grasped but they don’t hold
popularization of their writings. much water. Attempting to fit actual instances of (perceived)
However, this construct was developed within Gestalt psy- creativity into these discourses, the definitions are often too
chology in Germany in the very early part of the 20th century confining (even rigid). One of the findings that emerged
by Wertheimer, Koehler, and Koffka. Some historians push it from my own work with mathematicians on their AHA!
back to the late 19th century to the writings of Mach (a physi- experiences (and I defined the AHA! experience in the four
cist turned philosopher interested in the physiology of sensory stage Gestaltist way of initiation-incubation-illumination-
perception). There is evidence of written communication verification as discussed in Wallas, 1926) was that the
between Poincaré, Hadamard and the Gestaltists, which could experience was self defining. That is, I did not have to define
lead one to infer that Hadamard was influenced by the devel- the experience for the mathematicians in order for them to
opments and the terminology within Gestalt psychology. know that they had one. As it turned out, this was also true
Hence the use of the 3- or 4-stage model from then on. for undergraduate mathematics students, as well as pre-ser-
I really liked your critique of the reductionist attempt of vice elementary school teachers.
viewing creativity as a confluence of person, process and I wonder if we cannot say the same thing for creativity – cre-
product, as well as your critique of the misconceptions that ativity is self-defining. Unfortunately, such a position does not
occur when using creative or creativity. Should we focus our advance our emerging (or at least attempts at emerging) defin-
conversation on the definition of creativity by considering ition, but it does allow us to include all things that are creative
each aspect (person, process and product) separately and and exclude all things that are not. One of the downfalls of such
then analyze whether this is consistent (or inconsistent) with a reliance on self-definition is the curse of discourse (or as I call
various confluence models that combine the three along with it, discurse). How much of mathematicians’ understanding of
societal variables proposed by researchers in psychology? creativity/invention/discovery is a product of the discourse on
Our attempt could perhaps be to construct a definition of these ideas within their domain? For example, you cite a math-
creativity for the particular domain of mathematics and then ematician (in Sriraman, 2004) as stating that “Opportunity
seeing whether general definitions hold up? knocks but you have to be able to answer the door” (p. 32). I
Incidentally, Ervynck (1991) described mathematical cre- had a mathematician state “Chance will favour those who are
ativity in terms of three stages. The first stage (Stage 0) is prepared.” Aren’t both of these mathematicians parroting Louis
referred to as the preliminary technical stage, which consists of Pasteur’s phrase “Chance favours the prepared mind”? For
some kind of technical or practical application of math- another example consider the following two statements:
ematical rules and procedures, without the user having Perhaps I could best describe my experience of doing
any awareness of the theoretical foundation. (p. 42) mathematics in terms of entering a dark mansion. One
The second stage (Stage 1) is that of algorithmic activity, goes into the first room, and it’s dark, completely dark.
which consists primarily of performing mathematical tech- One stumbles around bumping into the furniture, and

For the Learning of Mathematics 26, 1 (March, 2006) 17

gradually, you learn where each piece of furniture is, found. Craft (2003) used the term “life wide creativity” to
and finally, after six months or so, you find the light describe the numerous contexts of day-to-day life in which
switch. You turn it on, and suddenly, it’s all illuminated. the phenomenon of creativity manifests. Other researchers
(Wiles, 1997) have described creativity as a natural “survival” or “adap-
It is like going into an unfamiliar hotel room late at tive” response of humans in an ever-changing environment
night without knowing even where to switch on the (Gruber, 1989; Ripple, 1989).
light. You stumble around in the dark room, perceive Craft (2003) points out that it is essential we distinguish
confused black masses, feel one or the other piece of “everyday creativity” such as improvising on a recipe from
furniture as you are groping for the switch. Then, hav- “extraordinary creativity”, which causes paradigm shifts in a
ing found it, you turn on the light and everything specific body of knowledge. It is generally accepted that
becomes clear. (Polya, 1965, p. 54) works of “extraordinary creativity” can be judged only by
experts within a specific domain of knowledge (Csikszent-
My final point is that whatever definition we arrive at it
mihalyi, 1988, 2000; Craft, 2003). For instance Andrew
needs to be relativistic. As Hadamard points out,
Wiles’ proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem could only be judged
Between the work of a student who tries to solve a dif- by a handful of mathematicians within a very specific sub-
ficult problem in geometry or algebra and a work of domain of number theory.
invention there is only a difference of degree. (p. 104) Throughout school levels or even the beginning under-
graduate level, I normally do not expect works of
If we use the word creation instead of invention in this quota-
extraordinary creativity. However, I do think it is feasible
tion, the implications become interesting. Creation implies
for students to offer new insights/solutions to a mathematics
creativity. Does this mean that invention presupposes creativ-
problem. Getting back to definitions, in psychology the lit-
ity? I think so. But does it also imply that creativity presupposes
erature defines creativity as the ability to produce unexpected
invention? I don’t think so, and this leads to my stance on rela-
original work, which is useful and adaptive (Sternberg and
tivistic as opposed to absolutist views of creativity.
Lubart, 2000). Other definitions usually impose the require-
Bharath: Your thoughts on having a relativistic definition
ment of novelty, innovation or unusualness of a response to
as opposed to an absolutist definition are interesting and I
a given problem (Torrance, 1974).
will comment on this shortly.
Numerous confluence theories of creativity define creativity
First, I will comment further on the Gestaltists and the fact
as a convergence of knowledge, ability, thinking style, motiva-
that redundancies abound in extant descriptions of creativity. tional and environmental variables (Sternberg and Lubart,
I was recently re-reading Schoenfeld (2002) and, interest- 1996, 2000), an evolution of domain specific ideas resulting in
ingly enough, he points out that insight and structure were a creative outcome (Gruber and Wallace, 2000). Most recently,
central concerns of the Gestaltists. This article also recalls Plucker and Beghetto (2004) offered an empirical definition of
the famous story of Poincaré taking a day trip after having creativity based on a survey and synthesis of numerous empir-
struggled on a problem for a while and his experience of ical studies in the field. They defined creativity as
stumbling upon the solution just as he boards the bus. How-
ever, Schoenfeld’s comments after this anecdote are: the interplay between ability and process by which an
individual or group produces an outcome or product
Poincaré’s story is typical, both in substance and meth- that is both novel and useful as defined within some
ods. With regard to substance the outline of the story is social context. (p. 156)
the basic tale of Gestalt discovery: One works as hard
as possible on a problem, lets it incubate in the subcon- Could a synthesis of these numerous definitions of creativity
scious, has an insight, and verifies it. Similar stories are lead to a working definition of mathematical creativity at
told concerning the chemist Kekulé’s dreaming of a both the professional and school levels? Would one defini-
snake biting its tail, and realizing that benzene must be tion work for both levels? At the professional level
ring-like in structure, and of Archimedes (in the bath) mathematical creativity can be defined as:
solving the problem of how to determine whether King 1. the ability to produce original work that signifi-
Heron’s crown is pure gold, without damaging the crown cantly extends the body of knowledge (which could
itself. With regard to method, what Poincaré offered is a also include significant syntheses and extensions of
retrospective report. (Schoenfeld, 2002, p. 438) known ideas)
In other words, the research carried out by the Gestaltists
was by and large retrospective and relied on mathemati- 2. opens up avenues of new questions for other math-
cians and scientists reporting on their thinking after the fact. ematicians. [2]
Numerous critiques are available on the unreliability of this To illustrate the first point, Wedderburn’s theorem that a
research method. However, the features of creative thinking finite division ring is a field is one instance of a unification
as proposed by the Gestaltists were meaning, insight and of apparently random fragments because the proof involves
structure. Any definition should include these elements algebra, complex analysis and number theory. Hewitt’s
(whether they are ‘measurable’ or how they are identified is (1948) paper on rings of continuous functions led to unex-
a completely different matter). plored possibilities and questions in the fields of analysis
If we move away from the domain of mathematics to the and topology that sustained other mathematicians for
general literature on creativity, numerous definitions are decades. This would be an example of the latter.

18
FLM 26(1) 2/2/06 12:32 PM Page 19

Most descriptions of creativity also include the element of Heaven and earth were born at the same time I was, and
chance. Should this be included in the definition? Although the ten thousand things are one with me. We have
Poincaré attributed his particular breakthrough in Fuchsian already become one, so how can I say anything? But I
functions to chance, he did acknowledge that there was a have just said that we are one, so how can I not be say-
considerable amount of previous conscious effort, followed ing something? The one and what I said about it make
by a period of unconscious work. Hadamard (1945) argued two, and two and the original one makes three. If we go
that even if Poincaré ’s breakthrough was a result of chance on this way, then even the cleverest mathematician
alone, chance alone was insufficient to explain the consid- can’t tell where we’ll end, much less an ordinary man
erable body of creative work credited to Poincaré in almost … Better not to move, but to let things be! (p. 43)
every area of mathematics.
Notes
One question then is how does (psychological) chance [1] Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics
work? I conjecture that the mind throws out fragments Education, Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Spain, 17-21 February, 2005.
(ideas), which are products of past experience. Some of [2] An article entitled ‘Are mathematical giftedness and mathematical cre-
these random fragments can be juxtaposed and combined in ativity synonyms? A theoretical analysis of constructs’, by B. Sriraman is in
press with The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education.
a meaningful way. For example, if one reads a complicated
proof consisting of a thousand steps, a thousand random References
fragments may not be enough to construct a meaningful Chuang Tzu (1968, Watson, B., translator) The complete works of Chuang
proof. However, the mind chooses relevant fragments from Tzu, New York, NY, Columbia University.
these random fragments and links them into something Craft, A. (2003) ‘The limits to creativity in education: dilemmas for the
meaningful (such as Wedderburn’s proof). educator’, British Journal of Educational Studies 51(2), 113-127.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988) ‘Society, culture, and person: a systems view
I agree with your relativistic stance on any definition of of creativity’, in Sternberg, R. (ed.), The nature of creativity: contem-
creativity. It would be difficult (but not impossible) for a stu- porary psychological perspectives, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge
dent (at the school levels) to meet the criteria in the proposed University Press, pp. 325-339.
definition. Instead, could we define mathematical creativity Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000) ‘Implications of a systems perspective for
the study of creativity’, in Sternberg, R. (ed.), Handbook of creativity,
at the school levels as: Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, pp. 313-338.
1. the process that results in unusual (novel) and/or Ervynck, G. (1991) ‘Mathematical creativity’, in Tall, D. (ed.), Advanced
Mathematical Thinking, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Acade-
insightful solution(s) to a given problem or analo-
mic Publishers, pp. 42-53.
gous problems, and/or Gruber, H. (1989) ‘The evolving systems approach to creative work’, in
2. the formulation of new questions and/or possibili- Wallace, D. and Gruber, H. (eds), Creative people at work: twelve cog-
ties that allow an old problem to be regarded from nitive case studies, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.
a new angle (this bears resemblance to Kuhn’s Gruber, H. and Wallace, D. (2000) ‘The case study method and evolving
systems approach for understanding unique creative people at work’, in
ideas). (Sriraman, [2]) Sternberg, R. (ed.), Handbook of creativity, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge
Peter: This final definition that you offer is more palatable University Press, pp. 93-115.
Hadamard, J. (1945) Essay on the psychology of invention in the mathe-
than others I have seen; it has the relativistic quality that I matical field, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
have been seeking. It also has an absolutist overtone with Hewitt, E. (1948) ‘Rings of real-valued continuous functions’, Transactions
regards to “solution(s)”. Perhaps this is necessary. I don’t of the American Mathematical Society 64, 45-99.
know, but I would like to explore it for a moment. Liljedahl, P. (2004) The AHA! experience: mathematical contexts, peda-
Almost all of the definitions make some reference to a gogical implications, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
product, a solution, or an outcome. What is it that a prod- Polya, G. (1965) Mathematical discovery: on understanding, learning and
uct/solution/outcome gives us that makes it so important? I teaching problem solving (vol. 2), New York, NY, Wiley.
suggest that the answer to this question lies in Schoenfeld’s Plucker, J. and Beghetto, R. (2004) ‘Why creativity is domain general,
observation/criticism presented above. Without a product all why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter’,
in Sternberg, R., Grigorenko, E. and Singer, J. (eds), Creativity: from
that remains is a story; a story without an ending. I think that potential to realization, Washington, DC, American Psychological Asso-
the centrality of product has to do with having a tangible and ciation, pp. 153-168.
objective artifact by which to judge the art – by which to Ripple, R. (1989) ‘Ordinary creativity’, Contemporary Educational Psy-
judge the process – by which to study the process. But, cre- chology 14, 189-202.
ative process isn’t about product, it is about process. Our Schoenfeld, A. (2002) ‘Research methods in (mathematics) education’, in
English, L. (ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics
inability to access this most private of processes does not education, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 435-487.
change this fact. Can we be creative without creating some- Sriraman, B. (2004) ‘The characteristics of mathematical creativity’, The
thing? I don’t think we can, but this does not make them Mathematics Educator 14(1), 19-34.
one and the same. The creative process is both inseparable Sternberg. R. and Lubart, T. (2000) ‘The concept of creativity: prospects
and unrecognizable within the creative product. So, the and paradigms’, in Sternberg, R. (ed.), Handbook of creativity, Cam-
bridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, pp. 93-115.
question remains – what is mathematical creativity? Sternberg, R. and Lubart, T. (1996) ‘Investing in creativity’, American
Bharath: Perhaps this very enterprise of trying to define Psychologist 51, 677-688.
this construct falls within your description of a sieve – we are Torrance, E. (1974) Torrance tests of creative thinking: norms-technical
engaged in the discourse, using words that allude to it, but are manual, Lexington, MA, Ginn.
Wallas, G. (1926) The art of thought, New York, NY, Harcourt Brace.
failing to define it adequately. Given the reductionist pitfalls Wiles, A. (1997, NOVA, 1997, updated 2000) The proof, Aired on PBS on
of our enterprise here, I have to resort to the words of the October 28, 1997, http://www.pbs. org/wgbh/nova/proof/wiles.html,
practical yet mystical Chinese Taoist, Chuang Tzu (1968): accessed January 5th, 2003.

19

View publication stats