Defining, assessing, and developing creativity in sport: a systematic narrative review

ABSTRACT Research on creativity in sport is gaining momentum, due to a growing interest from coaches and academics in developing strategies to increase unpredictability in individual and collective behaviour which may allow teams to gain an important advantage over their opponents. The purpose of this paper was to conduct the first systematic narrative review of the literature on sporting creativity, critically synthesising 51 years of published research (1967–2018) and proposing avenues for future research. Six databases were used, and 48 documents met search criteria. The findings are organised in four categories: (a) defining creativity, (b) correlates of creativity, (c) assessing creativity and (d) developing creativity. Creativity definitions and assessments have privileged thought processes over the ability to act. A distinction is warranted between creativity about sport and creativity in sport (in action) and aligned assessment methods. The literature does not support a single strategy for the development of sporting creativity but does support its trainability. Evidence of the effectiveness of programmes for the enhancement of sporting creativity is growing but is still limited. Furthermore, while it is recognised that coaches have a pivotal role in the development of sporting creativity, research involving them is still scarce.


Introduction 44
Creativity is a topic that attracts attention from all areas of society and domains 45 of performance (Runco, 2014). Dietrich  Memmert adapted Sternberg and Lubart's investment model (1991) to coin a 153 definition of tactical creativity, which refers to "those varying, rare, flexible decisions 154 that play an important role in team ball sports like football, basketball, field hockey and 155 handball" (Memmert, 2011, p. 94). Tactical creativity (or divergent tactical thinking) 156 differs from game intelligence or convergent tactical thinking, that relate exclusively to 157 the selection of the most effective solutions for a given problem (Memmert, 2010). football. They concluded that other than self-awareness and the cultivation of embodied 179 habits, to be creative "it is also necessary to be absorbed in the other and transcend his 180 or her expectations" (2011, p. 343). Consequently, the emergence of tactical creativity 181 may depend not only on individual or cooperative efforts but also from this relationship 182 with the oppositionthe duel. 183 184 Creativity in sport vs Creativity about sport 185 An aspect of creativity conceptualisation that lacks consensus is the role of 186 performance. Some suggest creativity depends on the final product, creative 187 performance (e.g. Kaufman & Sternberg, 2007), others emphasise the ability to generate 188 ideas, even if these are not materially expressed (see Runco, 2014 for a comprehensive 189 insight on this discussion). Brown and Gaynor (1967) proposed that sporting creativity 190 needs to be expressed through non-verbal motor skills (creativity in action as opposed to 191 creativity about action). These creative motor skills can be expressed individually or 192 collectively, and the level of creative potential of an action depends on its complexity. 193 For example, running 100 meters in a straight line has less creative potential (i.e. less 194 different possibilities for action) than playing a game of basketball. 195 Brown and Gaynor (1967) also argued that the creative processes in sport 196 operate much in the same waypreconscious incubation preceding the emergence of 197 the creative action -as those of other areas which do not require physical exertion (e.g. 198 writing, composing). Recent neuroscientific findings on the impact of mechanisms of 199 brain inhibition on creative performance suggest this may not be the case. In their 200 reticular-activating hypofrontality (RAH) model of acute exercise, Dietrich and 9 Audiffren (2011) argue that the brain uses two different cognitive systems to acquire 202 and represent information: implicit and explicit. The explicit system deals with 203 abstraction and complex problem-solving, being linked to more traditional forms of 204 creative expressione.g. writing, composing. It is rule-based, relates to conscious 205 awareness, and can be expressed verbally. 206 On the other hand, the implicit system, to which motor skills are related, relies 207 heavily on procedural knowledge, which cannot be verbalised, depending therefore on 208 task performance to be expressed. Therefore, sporting creativity, in part, may operate 209 differently to creativity in some other domains because the expression of creativity is 210 through action rather than about action. Furthermore, the unstructured nature of many 211 sports, particularly team sports, demands constant reaction and adaptation to different 212 stimuli. Real-time creativity is limited by time constraints and is necessarily 213 spontaneous . This has implications for the conceptualisation and 214 assessment of sporting creativity as well as the design of interventions to facilitate 215 creativity in sport. 216

Sporting creativity as an emergence 217
The idea of body-mind integration (Brown & Gaynor, 1967 Challenging established ideas of the brain as the trigger of all action, Gibson (1979) 222 argued that information, i.e. spatiotemporally patterned energy flow from the 223 environment, is the key element to locomotion and manipulation and that the interaction 224 between the individual and the environment was critical. In this perception-action 225 system, meaning comes from the individual's ability to detect information in the 226 environment (Araújo, Hristovski, Seifert, Carvalho, & Davids, 2017 The research examining giftedness and creativity has demonstrated that gifted 247 children (IQ>130) tend to express creative behaviour earlier than their non-gifted peers. 248 For example, Memmert (2006) investigated the creative performance of children who, 249 once a week and for six months, underwent a sports enrichment programme which 250 consisted mainly of diversified team ball sports practice (using feet, hands, and a 251 hockey stick) in game forms. Memmert found that while there was no significant 252 improvement in the gifted control group, the gifted experimental group showed a 253 significant increase in creative performance after six months. The non-gifted 254 experimental group did not show a significant improvement as a result of the 255 intervention. However, in a different study with non-gifted children, Memmert  sporting creative performances. The study involved skilled (with a previous degree of 285 experience in team invasion sports) and non-skilled (with no previous experience) 286 handball players aged between 7 and 13 years. He found that inattentional blindness 287 was higher in the youngest children (7 years of age) and performance of attention tasks 288 improved in children between the ages of 8 and 13 years. Memmert also noted an 289 evident plateau in the children between 10 and 13 years, which was attributed to the 290 decrease in the "absolute number and density of synapses as one grows older, making it 291 harder to improve creative thinking" (Memmert, 2011, p.93). 292 Adding further evidence of the relationship between attention and creative 293 performance, Moraru, Memmert, and van der Kamp (2016) manipulated participants' 294 breadth of attention. Participants in the broad focus group were more inclined to use 295 more different modes of locomotion (flexibility), but not invest as much time on finding 296 solutions within a particular mode (persistence). A broader focus did not significantly 297 enhance originality, which is in contrast to results of previous studies on divergent 298 thinking (e.g., Memmert, 2011). This can be explained by the increased difficulty of 299 performing a wider range of motor skills (which is largely limited by existing motor 300 ability) in comparison to thinking (ideation) skills: "if motor ability is insufficient (e.g. 301 only a few people can walk on hands), then the thought of action cannot be performed" 302 (p.10). Orliczek (2013), to investigate the relationship between regulatory focus, expectations 345 and performance, among a more experienced sample. While promotion focused players 346 displayed, once again, significantly higher values in terms of creativity, there was no 347 main effect on expectation nor any significant interaction.

Assessing Creativity 349
This higher order theme captures the methods employed to assess creativity in 350 sporting environments. The theme comprised three lower order themes: paper-and-351 pencil tests, computerised and video tasks, and performance-based situations. on the brain's implicit system suggest that creativity should be conceptualised as 'in 656 sport' -in action -rather than 'about sport' and assessed and developed accordingly. If a 657 driver for examining sporting creativity is the desire to increase unpredictability in 658 performance and therefore a competitive advantage, then the final product of the 659 creative process -performance of the creative action -ought to be a critical feature of 660 how creativity is conceptualised. 661 With regards to developing sporting creativity, research is advancing towards 662 more integrative approaches that can be implemented over an extended period and 663 accompany players' developmental journeys. However, despite encouraging initial 664 results, more research is needed to evaluate the long-term effects of these programmes 665 on creativity due to creativity developing over a long period  The existing literature indicates that sporting creativity can be trained. It does 687 not, however, support a single strategy for its development. So far, a balance between 688 deliberate practice and deliberate play appears likely to be advantageous. Social priming 689 may also be a promising avenue for future research to further our understanding of how 690 creativity is developed. Some programmes for the enhancement of sporting creativity 691 have been recently proposed (e.g. CDF, TCSP) and, although limited, the evidence does 692 support their effectiveness. However, which of the many features of these programmes 693 is responsible for creative development and why remains unclear. Developing this 694 understanding, however, will assist practitioners to implement programmes to develop 695 creativity. Also, while it is recognised that coaches have a pivotal role in the 696 development of sporting creativity, research involving them is still scarce. A potential 'cascade effect' could be investigated, based on the assumption that more creative 698 coaches could develop more creative conditions and, consequently, more creative 699 players. Furthermore, Rasmussen, Østergaard, and Glăveanu (2017) have criticised a 700 perspective of sporting creativity that exclusively emphasises performance, in-game 701 benefits and technical expertise. They propose that creativity should be seen instead as 702 a developmental resource and argue that current performance-oriented visions may lead 703 to overlooking the broader educational benefits that may arise from simply taking part 704 in creative activities, such as increased self-confidence and self-esteem. Along similar 705 lines, Richard and colleagues' (2017) showed that sport diversification and expertise 706 may improve everyday creativity. 707 Our review found that most of the research conducted, thus far, has employed 708 quantitative and experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Additional insight could 709 be gained from employing other methods such as observation, interviews, or 710 ethnographies to examine in situ creativity and its development. This will involve going 711 to the training environment as well as exploring the impact of the broader socio-cultural 712 milieu and personality on sporting creativity. Due to the relative nature of creativity and 713 the importance of domain-specific experts in its understanding and development, such 714 approaches should also engage practitioners (e.g. coaches, scouts) as active participants 715 in all stages of the research process. 716

Conclusion 717
This review has demonstrated the lack, as yet, of a widely accepted definition of 718 sporting creativity. We identified important considerations for the conceptualisation of 719 sporting creativity including the distinction between creative thinking (prominent in the 720 research) and creative action, context-specificity, and its emergent nature. The review 721 also demonstrated the influence cognitive conceptualisations of creativity have had on 722 how creativity is assessed, privileging assessment of creative thinking about sport over 723 creative action. Some researchers are beginning to employ ecologically valid 724 assessment (i.e., game-based situations), although these still have limitations often as a 725 result of the definition of creativity that is operationalised. With regards to correlates of 726 creativity, a small range of variables have been examined. Again, the privileging of 727 cognitive definitions has seen attention and pattern recognition being the most 728 commonly researched variables. The review also identified several strategies and 729 programmes that have been proposed for the development of sporting creativity. These 730 show some promise and suggest creativity is trainable, particularly when they include a 731 combination of deliberate practice and deliberate play or less instruction from coaches 732 thereby encouraging greater self-regulated learning. Much remains to be explored and 733 understood about creativity, which presents a range of exciting opportunities for 734 researchers to contribute to this area and further creativity in sport. 735

Disclosure Statement 740
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.   a) Studies referred to sport, in general, or to team invasion games/rugby/court invasion games/court-divided games as defined by Launder & Piltz (2013) b) Studies were published in peer-reviewed journals and/or conference proceedings and were directly related to creativity or its correlates; c) Studies were original and published in languages spoken by the authors of this review (English, French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish).

Exclusion criteria
a) Non-peer-reviewed books or book chapters and dissertations were not considered due to lower peer-evaluation standards and difficulties in access; b) Documents published by institutions with commercial affiliations (e.g. company foundations) were not included;