Furious activity vs. understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work?

By James C. Kaufman, John Baer, David Cropley, R. Reiter‐Palmon, Sarah E. Sinnett. 2013

144 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Mechanical Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6a3083b0bc732b82296a1ae0125780da6f407fd3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Mathias Benedek
2. Paul J Silvia
3. Aljoscha C. Neubauer
4. Emanuel Jauk
5. Roger E. Beaty
6. Jennifer Diedrich
7. Jeffrey M. Gredlein
8. Emily C. Nusbaum

In Mechanical Engineering

1. Mathias Benedek
2. Emanuel Jauk
3. Paul J Silvia
4. Aljoscha C. Neubauer

Citations in the corpus

• Assessment of real-life creativity: The Inventory of Creative Activities and Achievements (ICAA). (2017, background): “The obvious downside of using an open response format is that responses have to be evaluated by judges, which again should be experts in this domain (Kaufman et al., 2013).”
• Intelligence and Creativity Are Pretty Similar After All (2015, methodology): “The CAT has been extensively applied and evaluated in creativity research (e.g., Kaufman et al. 2013).”