The study in question examined not only scientific articles, but also patents, which are not academic in nature. So although I emphasized science in my blog, the findings are broader than that; and, published articles in the arts and humanities have shown the same pattern.

Many studies have shown a high correlation between citation, influence, and creativity (as measured in a variety of ways; almost all such measurements include some notion of “value” which I agree is absolutely critical). The leading researcher in this area is Dean Keith Simonton, of University of California at Davis. The idea that many creative ideas are rejected during the creator’s lifetime is largely a myth.

I completely agree that groups are often less creative than individuals. There’s a lot of research showing this, in fact, and I discuss this in Chapter 4 of my book GROUP GENIUS. But there are techniques you can use to avoid those pitfalls. And according to this new study out of Northwestern, on average groups are in fact more creative than solitary individuals, and the advantage to groups has been increasing over time.

The Economist this week has a section on innovation. There is a chart in one of the articles (print edition) and at the top is where most ideas come from (employees) and at the bottom is where the fewest ideas come from (academia).

While there are benefits to team development in the sciences, when it comes to the arts, creativity is more likely to be a solitary pursuit (Solitude, Anthony Storr). But even in groups, there is a danger of groupthink, that is, the tend toward conservatism and compliance rather than going out on a limb. Peer pressure is conformity.