ORIGINAL ARTICLE Creativity and interdisciplinarity: one creativity or many creativities? Jonathan Plucker Dasha Zabelina Accepted: 2 October 2008 / Published online: 4 November 2008 Ó FIZ Karlsruhe 2008 Abstract Psychologists and educators frequently debate whether creativity and problem solving are domain-gen- eral—applicable to all disciplines and tasks—or domain- specific—tailored to specific disciplines and tasks. In this paper, we briefly review the major arguments for both positions, identify conceptual and empirical weaknesses of both perspectives, and describe two relatively new hybrid models that attempt to address ways in which creativity and innovation are both domain-general and domain-specific. Keywords Creativity Á Domain-specificity Á Domain-generality Á Problem solving 1 Introduction History is rife with examples of individuals and groups working creatively across disciplinary boundaries. Indeed, the idea of the polymath or ‘‘Renaissance person’’ is one of the most endearing archetypes in the social sciences—and in pop culture more generally. Children’s books are full of stories about the multidisciplinary accomplishments of Leonardo da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc. 1 This fascination with ‘‘universal creators’’ is also pres- ent among those researchers who study creativity and innovation. The question of interdisciplinarity has been among the most interesting and controversial aspects of the nature of creativity. These discussions—which often have become heated debates—tend to focus on whether crea- tivity is domain-general (universal in nature and application across disciplinary areas) or domain-specific (differentiated in nature and application within disciplinary areas). In this paper, we review the current research and thinking on the generality debate, identify aspects of cre- ativity that may be interdisciplinary in nature, and examine implications for education and learning. 2 What is creativity? To begin, we should define our terms. Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow (2004) found that a surprisingly low percentage of creativity articles defined the construct of creativity. Given the existing definitions of creativity, which vary widely in content and focus, Plucker et al. found this lack of precision to be troubling and hypothesized that the lack of definition was a potential cause of the often confusing research on creativity. Simply put, researchers are studying J. Plucker (&) Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47406-7512, USA e-mail: jplucker@indiana.edu D. Zabelina North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA 1 Interestingly, lists of polymaths rarely include women, although many lists are quite multicultural. However, the lists tend to focus within dominant cultures at specific points in time. For example, the lists are heavily populated by Renaissance Italians, Revolutionary-era Americans, Ninth Century Arabs, and Eleventh Century Chinese. When perusing these lists, it appears important to keep in mind that the victors write history. 123 ZDM Mathematics Education (2009) 41:5–11 DOI 10.1007/s11858-008-0155-3