This article advances a structural framework arguing that some mythological systems offer structural models that can illuminate aspects of contemporary creative processes in contexts marked by uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. Rather than proposing mythological belief or practice as a source of creative guidance, the article treats mythology as a cultural archive of cognitive structures that encode recurring patterns in human creativity. Drawing primarily on Hindu and Greek traditions, the analysis demonstrates that mythological configurations—such as the Ganesha–Yama dialectic and the system of the Nine Muses—anticipate and illuminate empirically validated dynamics in modern creativity research, including exploration–exploitation tensions, generative–selective cycles, domain specificity, and cross-domain synthesis. By integrating insights from structural anthropology, sociocultural creativity theory, computational creativity, and innovation studies, the article shows that mythological structures function as meta-procedural frameworks rather than prescriptive methods. These frameworks make visible liminal states, escalating constraints, and meaning-oriented judgment processes that remain undertheorized in contemporary models. The article concludes by arguing that structurally informed dialogue between mythological analysis and creativity research can enrich theoretical understanding without romanticizing or mystifying creative work.
AndersonN.PotočnikK.ZhouJ. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.
2.
AtranS.MedinD. L. (2008). The native mind and the cultural construction of nature. MIT Press.
3.
BaasM.RoskesM.SligteD.NijstadB. A.De DreuC. K. (2015). Personality and creativity: The dual pathway to creativity model and a research agenda. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(10), 732–748.
4.
BaerJ. (2015). The importance of domain-specific expertise in creativity. Roeper Review, 37(3), 165–178.
5.
BaerJ. (2016). Domain specificity of creativity. Academic Press.
6.
BennerM. J.TushmanM. L. (2015). Reflections on the 2013 decade award: “Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited” ten years later. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 497–514.
7.
BodenM. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). Routledge.
8.
BorgmannA. (1984). Technology and the character of contemporary life. University of Chicago Press.
9.
BromhamL.DinnageR.HuaX. (2016). Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature, 534(7609), 684–687.
10.
BrownD. E. (1991). Human universals. McGraw-Hill.
11.
CohenW. M.LevinthalD. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
12.
CorazzaG. E. (2016). Potential originality and effectiveness: The dynamic definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 258–267.
13.
CropleyA. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404.
14.
EricssonK. A. (2014). Creative genius: A view from the expert-performance approach. In SimontonD. K. (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 321–349). Wiley.
15.
FischerA.SchwartzB.RichardsA.DavidsonJ. (2016). A cross-national study of implicit theories of a creative person. Education Sciences, 6(4), Article 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci6040038
16.
FloridaR. (2002). The rise of the creative class. Basic Books.
17.
GaboraL. (2017). Honing theory: A complex systems framework for creativity. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 21(1), 35–88.
18.
GaboraL. (2019). Creativity: Linchpin in the quest for a viable theory of cultural evolution. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 77–83.
19.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
20.
GardnerH. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. Basic Books.
21.
GervaisW. M.JewellJ. A.NajleM. B.NgB. K. (2021). A powerful nudge? Presenting calculable consequences of underpowered research shifts incentives toward adequately powered designs. Psychological Methods, 26(6), 659–678.
22.
GladwellM. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. Little, Brown.
23.
GlăveanuV. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17(1), 69–81.
24.
GlăveanuV. P. (2014). Distributed creativity: Thinking outside the box of the creative individual. Springer.
25.
GlăveanuV. P. (2018). Educating which creativity?Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 25–32.
26.
GuptaA. K.SmithK. G.ShalleyC. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.
27.
HargadonA. (2003). How breakthroughs happen: The surprising truth about how companies innovate. Harvard Business Press.
28.
KaufmanJ. C.GlăveanuV. P. (2019). A review of creativity theories: What questions are we trying to answer? In KaufmanJ. C.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 27–43). Cambridge University Press.
29.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
30.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Basic Books.
31.
LavieD.StettnerU.TushmanM. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109–155.
32.
LeaheyE.BeckmanC. M.StankoT. L. (2017). Prominent but less productive: The impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists’ research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(1), 105–139.
33.
LeonelliS. (2016). Data-centric biology: A philosophical study. University of Chicago Press.
34.
LePineJ. A.PodsakoffN. P.LePineM. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764–775.
35.
Lévi-StraussC. (1963). Structural anthropology (JacobsonC.SchoepfB. G., Trans.). Basic Books. (Original work published 1955)
36.
Lévi-StraussC. (1966). The savage mind. University of Chicago Press.
37.
LubartT. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 295–308.
38.
MacIntyreA. (1981). After virtue. University of Notre Dame Press.
39.
MarchJ. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
40.
MarcusG. E.FischerM. M. (1986). Anthropology as cultural critique. University of Chicago Press.
41.
MehtaR.ZhuM. (2016). Creating when you have less: The impact of resource scarcity on product use creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(5), 767–782.
42.
Miron-SpektorE.IngramA.KellerJ.SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26–45.
43.
O’ReillyC. A.TushmanM. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.
44.
OsbornA. F. (1953). Applied imagination. Scribner’s.
45.
PaletzS. B. F.PengK. (2008). Implicit theories of creativity across cultures: Novelty and appropriateness in two product domains. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(3), 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022108315112
46.
RittelH. W.WebberM. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
47.
Root-BernsteinR.AllenL.BeachL.BhadulaR.FastJ.HoseyC.KremkowB.LappJ.LoncK.PawelecK.PodufalyA.RussC.TennantL.VrtisE.WeinlanderS. (2008). Arts foster scientific success: Avocations of Nobel, National Academy, Royal Society, and Sigma Xi members. Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology, 1(2), 51–63.
48.
RuncoM. A.JaegerG. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.
49.
SawyerR. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
50.
ShaoY.ZhangC.ZhouJ.GuT.YuanY. (2019). How does culture shape creativity? A mini-review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1219. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01219
51.
ShoreB. (2016). Culture in mind: Cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
52.
SowdenP. T.PringleA.GaboraL. (2015). The shifting sands of creative thinking: Connections to dual-process theory. Thinking & Reasoning, 21(1), 40–60.
53.
StadlerC.RajwaniT.KarabaF. (2014). Solutions to the exploration/exploitation dilemma: Networks as a new level of analysis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(2), 172–193.
54.
StokesP. D. (2005). Creativity from constraints: The psychology of breakthrough. Springer.
55.
TurnerV. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Aldine.
56.
UzziB.MukherjeeS.StringerM.JonesB. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342(6157), 468–472.
57.
VallorS. (2016). Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford University Press.
58.
VisserB. A.AshtonM. C.VernonP. A. (2006). Beyond g: Putting multiple intelligences theory to the test. Intelligence, 34(5), 487–502.
59.
WallasG. (1926). The art of thought. Harcourt, Brace.
60.
WeisbergR. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Wiley.
61.
WigginsG. A. (2006). A preliminary framework for description, analysis and comparison of creative systems. Knowledge-Based Systems, 19(7), 449–458.
