Vlad Petre Glăveanu

This article addresses a methodological gap in the study of creativity: the difficulty of capturing the microgenesis of creative action in ways that would reflect both its psychological and behavioral dynamics. It explores the use of subjective camera (subcam) by research participants as part of an adapted Subjective Evidence-Based Ethnography (SEBE). This methodology combines (a) obtaining first person audio-visual recordings of creative action with a miniature video-camera worn at eye-level, (b) accessing the subjective experience of the participant through a confrontation interview based on the recording, and (c) formulating interpretations and discussing them with the participant. Illustrations of the technique are offered from a study of craft creativity, chosen as a test ground for its micro-level forms of creative expression. Findings exemplify how the technique enables microscopic description of creativity at both process and content levels. The benefits, limitations, and possible applications of the method are considered in the broader context of creativity studies.

The present article addresses the question of ‘When can we say something is creative?’ and, in answering it, takes a critical stand towards past and present scientific definitions of creativity. It challenges an implicit assumption in much psychological theory and research that creativity exists as an ‘objective’ feature of persons or products, universally recognised and independent of social agreement and cultural systems of norms and beliefs. Focusing on everyday life creative outcomes, the article includes both theoretical accounts and empirical examples from a research exploring creativity evaluations in the context of folk art. In the end, a multi-layered perspective of creativity assessment emerges, integrating dimensions such as newness and originality, value and usefulness, subjective reception and cultural reception of creative products. Implications for how we understand and study creativity are discussed.