Introduction to the Special Issue: Commemorating Guilford's 1950 Presidential Address
This entire issue of the Creativity Research Journal (CRJ) is devoted to the work of J. P. Guilford. In addition to the two introductions, this issue contains theoretical articles honoring Guilford, followed by empirical investigations that use his ideas or techniques. Some of the empirical articles were not prepared specifically for this issue; they nonetheless honor Guilford by showing his impact on the field of creative studies. Guilford’s (1950) presidential address to the American Psychological Association often is credited with initiating the empirical research on creativity. As Plucker (2000–2001) points out in the second introduction to this special issue, Guilford himself spread the credit out to others working in the field and to the sociocultural context. Indeed, many important empirical efforts preceded Guilford’s. One historical review of creative studies was presented by Albert and Runco (1999). Becker (1995) described the 19th-century antecedents to creative studies. Most recently, Runco (1999) presented a chronology of events and publications that have somehow each been significant for creativity research. Even with numerous earlier efforts, Guilford (1950) himself did a great deal for this field. He argued cogently that we should study creativity, for example, and gave us techniques that could be used to do so. His work was so influential that, although he often is given a great deal of credit, at the same time he also is probably cited less than he should be. He is one of those persons whose work is a staple, and as such it is often taken for granted (and uncited). Consider in this regard his work on divergent thinking. He really pushed this line of work along—although, again, to be perfectly accurate there were earlier empirical studies of divergent thinking (reviewed by Runco, in press)—but Guilford sometimes is not cited in investigations that use measures adapted from his early work. Historiometricians realize that this sometimes happens: Citations are not always a good indicator of impact, because some people are so well known that they are sometimes mentioned but not cited. Guilford is of that stature in creative studies. The work on divergent thinking is represented in the second half of this issue. Be forewarned: A few articles commemorating Guilford will appear in the next issue. I also expect that Guilford’s ideas and work will be cited, discussed, applied, and honored for a long time to come, in CRJ and elsewhere.