emerge solely from the analysis conducted so far, the ontological conditions which theory is required to explain have been further clarified. The augmented model provides assistance in understanding the domain general, domain specific nature of creativity by suggesting that creativity is both a general ability and a specific skill. The model therefore provides the conditions of possibility for theory to ask exactly what it is about creativity that is general and what has to be considered specific.
It has been demonstrated that the discovery of pre-existing potentials underpins all forms of creativity from the discoveries of a six-year-old to the novels and music of artists. What is different between these types of creativity, according to this model, is the number and type of powers and capacities in operation for the discovery to take place. The unique combination of causal powers (both individual and societal) in any one instant of creativity can be regarded as the basis for explaining the specific nature of creativity. Critical realist meta-theory enables consideration of the distinct interactions of causal powers as well as discovery of any general powers in operation. Thus the existence of causal powers which are both enabling and constraining provide the first element of an augmented framework to inform domain general or domain specific creativity theory.
The second element is to ensure that theory takes the stratified nature of the world into account. The act of discovery presupposes, and is entirely dependant on, something to discover and it also suggests that what is discovered was initially hidden. Marx famously claimed there would be no need for science if the essence of a thing was self-evident. Here then, we have one of the fundamental prerequisites for the possibility of human creativity: the nature of the universe needs to be open to discovery but that what is to be discovered may be hidden. This openness to discovery is predicated upon the concepts of stratification and emergence as it recognises that a thing to be discovered can exist at the level of the real, the
actual and the empirical and on the several planes of existence identified by Collier (1994).
We can start with the assumption that the natural and social world (herein the world) contains within it the potential for discoveries that are currently (i) un-actualised, they only exist in potential or (ii) unrecognised, they are actualised but are operating independently of human knowledge or understanding and so on64. Examples of this are the discovery of a previously unknown species or, if one wishes to use examples currently considered as eminent creativity, Einstein’s discovery of relativity theory. Understanding and explaining the domain specific domain general qualities of creativity requires an understanding of the stratified nature of the
social world. Such an ontological commitment was absent from previous research and this model absences that absence.
The human powers and capacities for creativity are also regarded as having a stratified existence. Firstly, it is possible for the mind to have a tacit understanding of the nature of things through what Archer (2000) argues is the primacy of practise. That is to say, through our very being we have an embodied relationship with the world around us, which both precedes our language development and has a primacy over it. This means that it becomes possible to have a tacit understanding about the nature of something through embodied practise in the world, both prior to and also in the absence of the skills necessary to communicate such an understanding. Furthermore, it is possible to argue that these understandings can be regarded as creative if they also fit the criteria of creativity already developed.
In this instance, the existence of creativity is prior to social recognition and can even be prior to self recognition. That is to say, their discovery may be tacit, embodied knowledge of an internal property of the world that is not yet recognised as a discovery. An example of such a discovery could be an athlete who might train in a way that no other athlete has done previously because they intuitively understand it brings world-class performance; the reason they do so can also remain non-verbal or pre-verbal and the properties of the method can exist actualised but not recognised. It is a discovery but it exists prior to its recognition and codification.
This ability to conceive of the agent as stratified is important to acknowledge and means the previous example is able to demonstrate the existence of a new field of enquiry for creativity research. The example means we can assume that ‘front line’ workers in an organisation who are not tasked with management responsibility may have made tacit discoveries which remain hidden to their own recognition and therefore also the organisation. Revealing these tacit discoveries can become another goal of research and theory development through this framework. Especially, what it is about the nature of organisations that prevents them recognising their own discoveries.
It is also through this stratification that we can provide understanding of the possibility of features which can be considered general to all creative acts. Things such as our biological makeup; the nature of the social world to be open to discovery; our cognitive capacities in potential and the ability of our powers to be activated and de-activated can all be explored as universal features of human creativity. When asking what is specific about each instance of
creativity we can explore task difficulty and the unique combination of causal powers that come together to lead to creativity in all its forms.
It is possible that the environment can also have enabling and constraining features that influence the type of skills necessary to make a discovery. This position allows for the fact that creativity is only performed in practise by the few but could be a feature of the many. It enables us to explore how we can better understand the situational and organisational factors that will enable practitioners (workers, managers, teachers, trade unionists, organisational consultants and so on) to get to grips with the potential we all hold and help its development. After all, what is the purpose of human resource management, and especially processes of ‘empowerment’ if not to uncover and develop the latent powers and potentials we all hold.
Creativity, then, is context specific, in the sense that each case of actualised creativity will have its own unique set of events related to it. It is also context general in that the powers and properties that lead to the actualisation of creativity are in their potential state, a general feature of humanity. They can exist un-actualised and are for all human beings arguably based upon the same physical, biological, psychological, social and cultural powers65. The question for policy makers is how best to organise these factors to enable the human powers and capacities for creativity in more of the population.
In an organisational context, market conditions, current scientific knowledge, organisational structure, inventions may all have an impact. It is the power of people in organisations to understand these possibilities, examine them and explore new possibilities that, in part, guides the process of innovation. The definition recognises that creativity can occur in different contexts but allows for the unique skills and knowledge required to operate in one organisational context, as well as the general skills that can transfer across contexts such as the ability to discover previously unknown possibilities. This is important as most Human Resource Management practises are predicated upon these general skills (or powers). Why would a company hire someone from another organisation if their creativity skills were domain specific? It is done on the basis that their powers are capable of transcending domains.
65 To a greater or lesser extent. The study of individual differences reveals that we may be differentially endowed