In this article it is proposed that approached in the right way, literature reviews can be an opportunity for creative inquiry. The process of the literature review is framed as a participation in a community, a dialogue with those who are part of the community now and with one's “ancestors.” The literature review can also explore the deeper underlying assumptions of the larger community or communities of inquiry one is joining and one's own beliefs, assumptions, and attachments. Three levels are proposed that each provide a different perspective on the construction of knowledge. The article concludes with a brief overview of the way inquiry, specifically in the context of the literature review, can also be an opportunity for self-inquiry.
Adler, P. (1975). The transitional experience: An alternative view of culture shock. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15(4 Fall), 13-23.
2.
Alter, N. (2003). L'innovation ordinaire [Ordinary innovation]. Paris: PUF.
3.
Bachelard, G. (2002). The formation of the scientific spirit. Manchester, UK: Clinamen Press.
4.
Barron, F. (1995). No rootless flower: Towards an ecology of creativity.Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
5.
Barron, F. (1999). All creation is a collaboration. In A. Montuori & R. Purser (Eds.), Social creativity(Vol. 1, pp. 49-60). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
6.
Bateson, G. (2002). Mind and nature: A necessary unity.Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
7.
Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity.(pp. 325-339). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
De Masi, D. (2003). La fantasia e la concretezza. Creatività individuale e di gruppo. [Fantasy and concreteness. Individual and group creativity]. Milano: Rizzoli.
10.
Devereux, G. (1968). From anxiety to method in the behavioral sciences. New York: Mouton.
11.
Diesing, P. (1992). How does social science work? Reflections on practice. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
12.
Fay, B. (1996). Contemporary philosophy of social science. New York: Blackwell.
13.
Guetzkow, J., Lamont, M., & Mallard, G. (2004). What is originality in the humanities and social sciences?American Sociological Review, 69, 190-212.
14.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor.
15.
Hampden-Turner, C. (1995). The seven cultures of capitalism: Value systems for creating wealth in Britain, the United States, Germany, France, Japan, Sweden and the Netherlands. London: Piatkus.
16.
Hampden-Turner, C. (1999). Control, chaos, control: A cybernetic view of creativity. In R. Purser & A. Montuori (Eds.), Social creativity(Vol. 2, pp. 17-32). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
17.
Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, A. (2001). Building cross-cultural competence: How to create wealth from conflicting values. New Haven, CT: Wiley.
18.
Hofstadter, R. (1966). Anti-intellectualism in American life. New York: Vintage.
19.
Huff, A. S. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of scientific inquiry. Methodology for behavioral science. Scranton, PA: Chandler.
21.
Kearney, R. (1988). The wake of imagination: Toward a postmodern culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
22.
Latour, B. (1996). Aramis, or the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
Lubart, T. (1990). Creativity and cross-cultural variation. International Journal of Psychology, 25, 39-59.
24.
Ludwig, A. M. (1992). Culture and creativity. American Journal of Psychotherapy, XLVI, 455-469.
25.
Maslow, A. (1969). The psychology of science: A reconnaissance. New York: Regnery.
26.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1987). The tree of knowledge. Boston: New Science Library.
Mitroff, I. I. (1974). The subjective side of science: A philosophical inquiry into the psychology of the Apollo moon scientists.New York: American Elsevier.
29.
Montuori, A. (1989). Evolutionary competence: Creating the future. Amsterdam: Gieben.
30.
Montuori, A. (1998). Creative inquiry: From instrumental knowing to love of knowledge. In J. Petranker (Ed.), Light of knowledge(pp. 173-210). Oakland, CA: Dharma.
31.
Montuori, A. (2005). Gregory Bateson and the promise of transdisciplinarity. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 12(1-2), 147-158.
32.
Montuori, A., & Purser, R. (1995). Deconstructing the lone genius myth: Towards a contextual view of creativity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35(3), 69-112.
33.
Montuori, A., & Purser, R. (1999). Social creativity(Vol. 1). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
34.
Morin, E. (1990). Science avec conscience [Science with conscience]. Paris: Seuil.
35.
Morin, E. (1991). Le idee: Habitat, vita, organizzazione, usi e costumi [Ideas: Habitat, life, organization, use, and customs.]. Milano: Feltrinelli.
36.
Morin, E. (2001). Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Paris: UNESCO.
37.
Morin, E. (2005). On complexity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
38.
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently... and why. New York: Simon & Schuster.
39.
Perry, W. (1998). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
40.
Popper, K. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Routledge.
41.
Rosenau, P. M. (1992). Post-modernism and the social sciences. Insights, inroads, and intrusions.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
Runco, M., & Albert, R. (Eds.). (1990). Theories of creativity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
43.
Runco, M., & Pritzker, S. (Eds.). (1999). Encyclopedia of creativity.San Diego: Academic Press.
44.
Sampson, E. E. (1977). Psychology and the American ideal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 767-782.
45.
Sampson, E. E. (1988). The debate on individualism: Indigenous psychologies of the individual and their role in personal and societal functioning. American Psychologist, 43, 15-22.
46.
Sampson, E. E. (1989). The challenge of social change for psychology: Globalization and psychology's theory of the person. American Psychologist, 43, 914-921.
47.
Sampson, E. E. (2000). Reinterpreting individualism and collectivism. Their religious roots and monologic versus dialogic person-other relationship. American Psychologist, 55(12), 1425-1432.
48.
Simonton, D. K. (1999). The creative society: Genius vis-a-vis the Zeitgeist. In A. Montuori & R. Purser (Eds.), Social creativity(Vol. 1, pp. 237-264). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
49.
Slater, P. (1991). A dream deferred. America's discontent and the search for a democratic ideal. Boston: Beacon.
50.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity(pp. 3-15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
Stewart, E. C., & Bennett, M. J. (1991). American cultural patterns. Dartmouth: Intercultural Press.
52.
Tatsuno, S. (1990). Created in Japan. From imitators to world-class innovators. New York: Harper Business.
53.
Thompson Klein, J. (1990). Interdisciplinarity. History, theory, and practice.Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
54.
Tulku, T. (1984). Knowledge of freedom. Time to change.Oakland, CA: Dharma.
55.
Tulku, T. (1987). Love of knowledge. Oakland, CA: Dharma.
56.
Von Foerster, H. (1983). Observing systems. Salinas, CA: Intersystems.
57.
Wilshire, B. (1990). The moral collapse of the university: Professionalism, purity, and alienation.New York: SUNY Press.
58.
Wittkower, R. (1973). Genius: Individualism in art and artists. In P. P. Wiener (Ed.), Dictionary of the history of ideas(pp. 297-312). New York: Scribner.
