This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 05 December 2014, At: 16:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Roeper ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uror20

Engendering Talent in Others: Expanding Domains ofGiftedness and CreativityErin Morris Miller & LeoNora M. CohenPublished online: 28 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Erin Morris Miller & LeoNora M. Cohen (2012) Engendering Talent in Others: Expanding Domains ofGiftedness and Creativity, Roeper Review, 34:2, 104-113, DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2012.660684

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2012.660684

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Roeper Review, 34:104–113, 2012Copyright © The Roeper InstituteISSN: 0278-3193 print / 1940-865X onlineDOI: 10.1080/02783193.2012.660684

Engendering Talent in Others: ExpandingDomains of Giftedness and Creativity

Erin Morris Miller and LeoNora M. Cohen

Although the support by others of gifted and/or creative individuals has been well documented,what has been overlooked are supportive persons as creative forces in their own right, withthe “object” of creation being the development of others for the greater good: engendering.No literature on engendering as a form of giftedness and creativity has been found that focuseson helping others to become great. This article addresses definitions of engendering, creativityas a social construction, issues of gender, and the tension between traditional and nontraditionalmodels of achievement. It then explores engendering across three realms: the self as creativeobject; the home and family; and the greater society. It concludes with a call for defining,developing, and encouraging conceptions of giftedness and creativity that include engendering.

Keywords: conceptions, creativity, culture, definition, development, gender, gifted, socialconstruction

There is no question that the support given by familymembers, friends, or colleagues is essential to the cre-ative process. There is abundant evidence in the literatureabout the backgrounds and interpersonal relationships ofcreative individuals. Although the social and environmentalcontext of creative lives is far less studied than the cre-ative person, product, process, or domain (Csikszentmihalyi,1988; Harrington, 1990, 1999; Kasov, 1999; Purser &Montouri, 1999; Simonton, 1988), people as environmen-tal catalysts do play an important role in many theories oftalent development and creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999;Gagne, 2005; Renzulli, 1986; Runco & Johnson, 2002;Tannenbaum, 1986). Many researchers recognize the influ-ence of parents, teachers, and other caregivers on the max-imization of creative potential (Gruber & Wallace, 1999;Olszewski, Kulieke, & Buescher, 1987; Olszewski-Kubilius,2002; Runco, 2007; Runco & Albert, 2005; Runco, Johnson,& Gaynor, 1999; Silverman, 1993a, 1993b; Subotnik,Olszewski-Kubilius, & Arnold, 2003).

What has been overlooked is a discussion of support-ive persons themselves as creative forces in their ownright, with the “object” of creation being the develop-ment of others for the greater good: engendering. Yet wehave found no literature on engendering as a domain of

Accepted 16 January 2011.Address correspondence to Erin Morris Miller, Bridgewatter College,

402 East College Street, Bridgewater, VA 22812-1599. E-mail: millerem@jmu.edu

giftedness and creativity that focuses on helping othersto become great, perhaps because it is not measured inproducts or performances in achievement-oriented, corpo-rate, “me-first” Western perspectives. We acknowledge theextensive literature in our field on self-esteem, social andemotional aspects, moral development, philosophical sense,social capital, counseling, compassion, and leadership (i.e.,Ambrose & Cross, 2009; Cross, 2000; Hébert, 2010; Neihart,Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2001; Renzulli, 2010; Schultz,2010; Silverman, 1993a, 1994; VanTassel-Baska, Cross, &Olenchak, 2009), but none explicitly calls for changes inconceptions of giftedness and creativity. Our purpose in thisarticle is to describe the importance of engendering andwhy it should be included and valued in our definitions ofgiftedness and creativity.

Our family experiences, educational backgrounds, andresearch in theoretical and conceptual issues, feminist the-ory, and giftedness and creativity have converged in thewriting of this article, which is conceptual rather thanresearch-based. It addresses definitions of engendering andrelated terms, creativity as a social construction, issues ofgender, and the tension between traditional and nontradi-tional models of achievement. It then explores engenderingacross three realms: (a) the self as creative object; (b) thehome, family, and classroom; and (c) the greater society.It concludes with a call for defining, developing, and encour-aging conceptions of giftedness and creativity that includeengendering.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

57 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

ENGENDERING TALENT IN OTHERS 105

DEFINITIONS OF ENGENDERING

Engendering means to bring forth into existence or propa-gate. The literature connecting giftedness and creativity tothis term almost exclusively focuses on bringing forth cre-ative ideas for products or performances. What if creativitywere no longer so strongly associated with concrete objectsor performances? What if it were understood and valued thatdevelopment of other people was a possible aim of creativ-ity and a type of giftedness? The concept of engenderingaddresses these questions.

Related terms are Erik Erikson’s (1985) generativity,meaning living to help and guide the next generation inthe next-to-last stage of personality development; FrankBarron’s (1988) catalyzing, creativity focused on encour-aging others’ creative thoughts; Silverman’s (1993c, 1994)moral sensitivity or moral leadership, characteristic of giftedchildren who are honest, sensitive, compassionate, fair, andwho have world awareness and concern; Gruber’s (1997)altruism, selfless behavior putting others first; Torrance,Goff, and Satterfield’s (1998) mentoring wherein an indi-vidual is supported in development by a more experiencedother; and Noddings’ (1993) caring and nurturing, a moralimperative, but engendering includes all of these. AlthoughErikson’s term generativity is probably closest, generativ-ity was meant to describe personality development versusstagnation at the next-to-last stage of life (35–65), not dur-ing younger years, and we therefore do not believe that itshould be used. All of these terms are aspects of engen-dering, a quality that begets capacity in others. Certainly toengender requires moral sensitivity, altruism, catalyzing, andcaring. All are important, of value, and too often neglectedin the haste to develop achievement in performances or prod-ucts. We believe that engendering is a type of giftedness andcreativity encompassing these other terms.

CREATIVITY AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION

According to Freeman (2005), there are at least 100 definitionsof giftedness. However, most of these focus on outstandingintellectual or academic ability in childhood or the capac-ity for such abilities. The most recent federal definition of1994 dropped the term gifted altogether and replaced it withtalent (Stephens & Karnes, 2000). Whether engendering is agift or a talent, it is an exceptional quality inherent in someindividuals and it can be developed and nurtured in others.

Although there are likewise many definitions of creativity,which include breaking boundaries, expanding possibili-ties, using metaphors, thinking divergently, and changingparadigms to see the world in new ways, probably the mostagreed-upon definition of creativity involves the produc-tion of something new or rare yet appropriate to a problemthat is valued and accepted in the world (Cohen, 2011),clearly a social construction. To understand the importance

of engendering in creativity, we must first focus on thisconstruct. Westmeyer (1998) described creativity as sociallyconstructed and not an ability of persons, characteristicof thinking processes, or neuronal function. Cohen statedthat this social construction depends on the culture, whichincludes the combination of tradition, values, customs, rules,behaviors, and beliefs, as well as the political, economic,and technological forces that impact a given group in aparticular time and place. Rudowicz (2003) noted that cre-ativity requires commitment to the sociocultural system, notexceeding boundaries to be too foreign or perceived as dan-gerous to that context. She added that traditional cultureswould consider creative products or ideas that counter thevalues and child-rearing practices of their given culture asunacceptable or dangerous. Schoon (2006) found that theparticularities of the time period and historical context fur-ther shape conceptions of creativity. Though some culturesand periods value caring individuals that support others (i.e.,Peterson, 1999), Western culture has not recognized or val-ued the engendering of others as creative, although it is rare,appropriate to a problem, and valued. It also has not definedengendering as a domain of giftedness, although it is anexceptional capacity.

GENDER, CREATIVITY, AND MODELSOF ACHIEVEMENT

It is impossible to discuss the supporting of others and thecreativity of the personal sphere without a considerationof gender issues. West and Zimmerman (1987) arguedthat gender is not something we are but something we do.Gender is an accomplishment that is created and recreatedin social interaction. The current social constructions seemto have a gendered definition of creativity that excludesactivities stereotypically assigned to women, namely, theactivities that call on feminine personality traits (Eisler &Montuori, 2007). West and Zimmerman contended that wedo not always have to live up to normative gender dictates; itis by acting outside of those dictates that we create change inthe gender system. A consideration of research and writingabout gifted women and men through the viewpoint thatdevelopment of others and the self is a creative endeavorand type of giftedness may help in broadening perspectivesof creativity, giftedness, and gender.

Females are considered a special population when dis-cussing creative production because of differences betweenmen and women in self-esteem, achievement, and repre-sentation in high-status positions. Considerable research hasbeen conducted in order to challenge and change these differ-ences (Callahan, 1991; Callahan, Cunningham, & Plucker,1994; Heller & Ziegler, 1996; Kitano & Perkins, 1996; Klein& Zehms, 1996; White, 2000). However, few of these stud-ies looked at the relationship between the construct of genderand the construct of creative achievement.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

57 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

106 E. M. MILLER AND L. M. COHEN

The characteristics associated with the male gender andthe characteristics associated with achievement in Westernsocieties are remarkably similar. Masculine traits includeaggressiveness, independence, objectivity, dominance, activeorientation, competitiveness, use of logic, desire for adven-ture, and being direct. Traits associated with the male genderare more active and feminine traits are more nurturing(Basow, 1992). This nurturing ethic of caring has been dis-cussed as an influence on the lower achievement of girls(Callahan et al., 1994). However, it is possible that the morecentral issue is the similarity between masculine gender traitsand the traits thought to typify achieving students.

Similar characteristics have been used to describe giftedchildren (Clark, 1997; Renzulli et al., 1997) and creativeones, although there is greater gender crossover in thisgroup wherein males exhibit more feminine traits (Helson,1999b). Silverman (2006) described the male perspectiveabout giftedness as focused on achievement leading to emi-nence. For women, giftedness is less ego-driven and morefocused on developmental differences experienced as emo-tional intensity.

The language used when talking about creativity, both theword choice and what is said and left unsaid, colors the mes-sage given about gender and creativity. For example, Reis(2001) used the term diverted to describe the diversificationthat is evident when studying creative women. She discussedthe ways in which women are able to find satisfaction fromtheir creative expression in many different outlets, includ-ing nurturing and service to others, but the term diverted candisparage those different outlets. The synonyms for divertedare unfocused, preoccupied, and sidetracked. A definition ofdiverted is “To turn aside from a course or direction” (TheFree Dictionary, 2012). The implication of using this word isthat the creative energy should be going somewhere else.

Reis (2005) provided a compelling affirmation of giftedwomen in her theory of a feminist perspective of talentdevelopment. But perhaps more power could be gleaned byreplacing the gendered language. There seems little reason toleave men out of this uplifting perspective on talent develop-ment. Talented women are encouraged to cultivate a strongsense of self and a solid working knowledge of their valuesand needs (Noble, Subotnik, & Arnold, 1999). This shouldbe true for all talented people, not just women. The perspec-tive that men are being left out of what may be a powerfulavenue for creativity and self-actualization is an intriguingidea. Responsibility for finding balance and dealing withthe consequences of both mother and father seeking creativeproductivity through work outside the home is portrayed asa women’s issue. No one asks whether men should workoutside the home. By framing employment as a choice forwomen but not men and questioning the impact of womenworking on children’s well-being, the assumption of inequal-ity is set up. Perhaps men are not conflicted and do not reportfacing “difficult choices” because they do not know that theyare giving up something that has value: the opportunity to

achieve creative satisfaction through supporting others anddeveloping the self.

The tensions between traditional models of achieve-ment for creative and talented individuals and nontraditionalavenues of creative self-fulfillment are experienced differ-ently by men and women due to our cultural norms. Thereis a tendency to acknowledge and respect only those talentsand skills that have direct, marketable value and to discountother traits. For talented women, there seems to have beena shift from a focus 40 years ago that discouraged girls toachieve to the necessity for creative and talented women toachieve in a marketable way today. However, talent develop-ment is not a zero-sum game. There is perhaps a fear that ifeducational leaders vocally support, value, and embrace thelife choices made by women who focus on caring professionsand supporting children, feminism will lose ground.

The progress that has been made supporting gifted girls inthe last 35 years is phenomenal, and there is more progressneeded toward full equality, particularly at the higher levelsof achievement and in the science, technology, engineer-ing, and mathematics (STEM) fields. At the same time,there are creative, talented women who find satisfaction inspending at least one period of their lives engaged in therole of nurturer/supporter/developer of another, particularlythe raising of a child (Kirschenbaum & Reis, 1997; Reis,2001, 2003, 2005). There may be more to these life choicesthan apparent self-sacrifice. Ravena Helson (2008), a highlyrespected researcher in the area of the life-span develop-ment of creative women, documented her own life journey,describing her early to late 30s during which she had threebabies as jolting, engrossing, depressing, and rewardingbeyond measure. It was a peak time of change, pain, joy, andrichness that shaped the rest of her life. There may have beenno sacrifice at all. Educators and researchers should seek tounderstand such women and their peak experiences as well.

Women have become familiar with negotiating genderedterrains in a way that men have not (Deutch, 2007). Men donot have a script to follow that would open up the possibil-ity of taking a nurturing role. Intimate, nurturing fatheringwould allow men to develop in themselves feelings that haveso far been available only to women (Silverstein, 1996).Gifted and talented men who do take these roles must chart anew course. They must overcome the fact that boys and menare more powerfully sanctioned for doing feminine thingsthan girls and women are for doing masculine things (Levy,Taylor, & Gelman, 1995; Sargent, 2005; Sirin, McCreary, &Mahalik, 2004). Research with stay-at-home fathers indi-cates that these men have to redefine what it means to bemasculine and are able to create a sense of self that ismore affectionate, emotional, feelings-oriented, aware, andnurturing and in addition report having more authentic rela-tionships (Brandth & Kvande, 2002; Doucet, 2004; Rochlen,Suizzo, McKelly, & Scaringi, 2008). Stay-at-home fatherstend to report satisfaction and contentment in their choicesand find the time to be one of personal growth that mirrors

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

57 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

ENGENDERING TALENT IN OTHERS 107

the perceptions of women (Doucet, 2004; Rochlen et al.,2008). Hébert’s (2000) qualitative study of gifted malesworking in elementary education found that these men had astrong sense of self that included empathy and a comfort withtheir psychological androgyny. They appreciated the caringaspects of their personal identities. They saw the importanceof sensitivity and love. Yet, men who engage in more caringprofessions are not trading one set of traits (the masculine)for another (the feminine); instead, there is an integration ofboth aspects into the psyche resulting in a fuller range ofinner experiences as well as more diversity in relationshipstyles (Galbraith, 1992; Garbarino, 2000; Hébert, 2000). It isimportant that the full range of options of how to use one’screativity and talent is open to both men and women.

For women, it is not a matter of having options and under-standing the tensions involved with making choices; rather,the issue is how these options are valued. Researchers study-ing gifted and talented women make it clear that they believethat all spheres have value (e.g., Noble, 1987; Noble et al.,1999; Reis, 2003), but this does not necessarily reflect U.S.culture in general. Women are expected to integrate manydifferent roles into their psyche. Feminine gender normssocialize women to perform the double roles of provider andnurturer. But for creative and talented women, the role of thenurturer is still not seen as one in which they can fully realizetheir creative potential.

Willard-Holt (2008) spoke to this issue in her study ofgifted women who chose teaching as a career. Many of thesewomen reported having been told by others that they werenot fulfilling their potential. But these women saw the sit-uation differently. The main reasons they reported that theychose teaching was a love of working with children, a com-mitment to engendering the joy of learning, and personalfulfillment. They used their intellectual gifts to sense stu-dents’ needs, stay organized, multitask, and be aware ofothers’ motivations. They expressed their creativity throughdesigning lesson plans and felt that their self-confidence wasan asset to their teaching. The majority found teaching to beintellectually challenging. They did not choose teaching asa fallback.

Engendering talent in others is not a default but, instead,part of the full range of options that should be available to alland equally valued. Yet in the real world, few people are trulyable to choose among the range of choices that include boththe caring and competitive–achievement spheres. Perhapsone of the biggest impediments to equality of women in thepublic world is the lack of men taking on roles in the personalworld (Silverstein, 1996). All roles must be filled. Talentedand creative women have always experienced the difficultyof trying to fulfill every role (Gruber & Wallace, 1999).Gender beliefs can constrain the range of desirable optionsfor both men and women (Delisle, 1998; Hébert, 2000;Leaper & Van, 2008; Willard-Holt, 2008). In order to encour-age men to take roles in the private world, there needs to bea valuing of the private world and the caring, supporting, and

teaching professions as spheres that are worthwhile not juston an emotional level but also on an intellectual and creativelevel. It is for this reason that an exploration of engender-ing talent in others is so important. For women, there isgreater recognition of the range of expression of giftedness.Noble et al. (1999) listed three spheres that are legitimateexpressions of a woman’s giftedness: (a) self and communityactualization; (b) leadership in organizations, institutions,communities, and professions; and (c) eminence in a domain.There needs to be an equal integration of the caring andachievement spheres for men.

This is a change that can happen. The concepts of gender,creativity, and giftedness are socially constructed (Borland,1997; Levant, 1996). They mean what society defines themto mean. But real change for men seems to be at a nascentlevel. Although many men express a desire for a work–lifebalance that involves time devoted to supporting others, therecontinues to be a tacit assumption that women will be thecaretakers in our society and that nurturing for women isobligatory whereas for men it is discretionary (Drinkwater,Tully, & Dornan, 2008; Silverstein, 1996). For instance,women are referred to as working mothers; however, no onewrites of “working fathers.” Seventy-one percent of womenwith children under 18 years old work outside the home com-pared to 94% of men. Of those women who are part of thelabor force, 75% work full time and 25% work part time.Sociologists and psychologists debate the effect of moth-ers working full time and part time but, as pointed out bySilverstein, one could hardly imagine a researcher takingthe position that fathers should only engage in work parttime. Modern society legitimizes women as workers but notmen as caregivers. Men who take the caring role of directlysupporting the development of their children discover thejoy of that relationship (Silverstein, Auerbach, & Levant,2002).

There needs to be a degendering of these life choicesand as suggested by Silverstein et al. (2002), a movementfor men as caretakers (and engenderers) similar to the femi-nist consciousness raising that took place in the 1970s. Thismovement should have room for both neoconservative andprogressive fathering styles as long as it involves “emotion-ally connected, active involvement” (Silverstein, Auerbach,Grieco, & Dunkel, 1999, p. 678) by men in engendering tal-ent. For the fields of gifted education and the psychology ofgifted individuals, the first step in this movement should bean exploration of the meaning of engendering and the realmsin which it occurs.

REALMS OF CREATIVE ENGENDERING

There are three realms in which engendering plays an impor-tant role: the self , an important outgrowth of engendering;the home, family, and classroom; and the greater society thatis benefited by exceptional engenderers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

57 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

108 E. M. MILLER AND L. M. COHEN

Realm I: Self as a Creative Object

The achievement of a satisfying life is central to the firstrealm of creativity, the self as a creative object. This areahas been explored to a greater extent in the past, particu-larly in longitudinal studies of self-actualization in women(i.e., Helson, 1967, 1999a; Kerr, 1994). The inner transfor-mation of discovering the truth of one’s self is a creativeprocess (Piechowski, 1993, 2006). It is problem-finding inthe intrapersonal domain with the self as the object of dis-covery and creation. Connecting the intrapersonal with theinterpersonal, the work of engendering talent and creativityin others can fulfill creative and intellectual drives in the self.The fulfillment of the drives that reside in the self is likelykey to creative achievement, because the goals of the psycheand drive to achieve are interconnected (Roeper, 1996).

This theme of development of self can be seen in thelandmark Mills Longitudinal Study led by Helson (1967,1999a). This study of women beginning in the late 1950s atthe year of their college graduation and continuing through-out the life span has provided invaluable information aboutadult development. Each of the women had been nominatedby college faculty as having the potential for creative con-tribution in the arts, sciences, or humanities. Despite thepossibility of a history effect, namely, the feminist move-ment beginning in the late 1960s and continuing today, andthe fact that study participants were predominately Whiteand of a generally high-economic status, which affects theability to generalize from this study to younger or diversewomen now, the results of the study are informative. Helson(1999a) identified one subgroup of women who had notengaged in a sustained paid career but, rather, were motivatedtoward personal growth, especially through relationshipsand development of the self. This group was very inter-ested in mothering and writing about their experiences withtheir children. We believe that their creative impulses mayhave been directed toward creation of their own lives whileengendering the lives of others.

An important aspect of creating one’s own life is develop-ing a particular way of looking at the world. Gruber (1981)concluded that creativity involves the construction of a pointof view, whereas problem solving does not. He came tothis supposition during his analyses of the works of highlycreative individuals Charles Darwin (Gruber, 1981) andJean Piaget (Gruber & Vonesche, 1977). Mature creativityinvolves both external transformation of a field and internaltransformation of self (Gruber, 1981). External transforma-tion involves sensitivity to a context as well as awareness ofthe limitations of a field and the desire to work hard to trans-form it—in this case, the lives of others—although there arecertainly internal aspects, such as the zeal to put forth effort(Gruber, 1989). Internal transformation involves sensitivityto one’s self and the openness and willingness to modifyone’s present ways of thinking in order to construct thatunique point of view. This is not a meek or passive process

but an active construction of a way of looking at the world(Gruber, 1981, 1989). It is not always conscious, but it isdynamic and effortful. Both external and internal transfor-mation require tolerance of uncertainty or ambiguity outsideand in, being willing to not have answers, to be wrong, totry alternatives. When individuals engender others and findcreative meaning in that work, they likely construct a pointof view, a way of looking at the world that may even allowextension to realms outside the home and the self to thegreater society.

In so doing, the individual may experience flow, a state inwhich the level of challenge and one’s ability to meet thatchallenge are in congruence, where one’s creative energiesare being fully used and one is moving toward a more com-plex self (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). The experience itself isso gratifying that people seek to experience it regardless ofany difficulties and without concern about what they will getout of it in the end. Part of successful teaching, mentoring,and parenting is to create situations where children, students,and mentees can find flow. But flow is also experienced bythe teacher, parent, or mentor through this role of facilitationand the complex interpersonal relationships involved.

Realm II: The Home, Family, and Classroom

The second realm is the home, family, and classroom. Beforediscussing this arena of creativity, it must be made clear thatby creativity in the family environment we are not talkingabout the physical act of bringing another being onto theearth, miraculous as that experience certainly is. Nor are wetalking about endeavors such as interior decorating, the plan-ning of daily meals, or creating costumes for the school play.We are not discussing the creativity of the domestic crafts,although this form of everyday creativity is rewarding and animportant part of human life. And we are not talking aboutelevating the chores involved with the keeping of home andthe tending of children. There is little to stimulate the mindand feed the soul in the drudgery of cleaning or the repeti-tion of meeting the daily physical needs of a child. Further,we are not talking about the act of nurturing another humanbeing as an inspiration for the creation of products, althoughthis can be the case (Kirschenbaum & Reis, 1997). What weare focusing on is how the dynamic and reciprocal effectsof nurturing others can satisfy the creative self and createpotential creators.

Throughout history there are examples of close familymembers who not only played a role in shaping the childbut who also played a role in the creative process itself,such as Darwin and his grandfather Erasmus, Van Gogh andhis brother Theo, Einstein and his uncle Jakob, Wordsworthand his sister Dorothy, Anna Freud and her father Sigmund,and the Brontë siblings (Gruber & Wallace, 1999). Gardner(1993), in his study of the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso,Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi, mentioned that eachhad a matrix of support at the time of their breakthrough.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

57 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

ENGENDERING TALENT IN OTHERS 109

Each gained sustenance from the relationship with a closeconfidant or intellectual circle. These relationships seemedto have an affective dimension in the form of unconditionalsupport and an intellectual dimension in the form of feedbackon the nature of the breakthrough.

Although many parents strive to provide a home that sup-ports creative development, research has also shown thatcreativity may be a response to grief, loss, trauma, or adver-sity in the family (Albert, 1990; Feldman, 1999; Miller,1981, 1989; Ochse, 1993; Runco, 1999; Simonton, 1999).Yet each of these negative lived events can exist in tandemwith many of the values related to creativity. The secondauthor’s mother was an engenderer. She lost both parentsby age 5 and was brought from Russia to the United Statesby an aunt shortly thereafter. At age 9 when the aunt died,she was put in an orphanage. In nursing school, she becameengaged to a young doctor who died of meningitis. Throughher terrible losses and grief, she became incredibly compas-sionate, a fighter for social justice (she started a breakfastprogram in Philadelphia schools), and engenderer of creativ-ity in her composer husband and her children, getting greatsatisfaction in so doing.

It would be difficult to take this role in someone’s lifeif one did not understand creative drives; feel the pain,anguish, or passion of the individual being assisted; or havethe capacity for creativity. So it is likely that these sup-portive individuals are creative in their own right and thatthey are willing to play this sustaining role. But why wouldsomeone choose this role? Some may attribute the choiceto take this role to cultural barriers that hold some indi-viduals back or the differences in personality or personalhistory. It is certain that these factors are in play, because lifecourses are complicated systems (Gruber & Wallace, 1999).But an overlooked area is the possibility that supporting oth-ers through collaboration and interpersonal relationships isin itself creatively satisfying.

Mamykina, Candy, and Edmonds (2002) discussed col-laborative creativity as a partnership in which each personis able to achieve benefit but at the same time retains own-ership of her or his own individual accomplishments andachievements. This sounds very much like a prescriptionfor successful family dynamics. Qualities of strong fami-lies include a commitment to developing the abilities of allmembers, respect for individual opinions, an appreciationfor what each person does well, and a sense of commongoals that all family members contribute toward (Trivette,Dunst, Deal, Hamer, & Propst, 1990). Parents model cre-ative characteristics in the home (Olszewski et al., 1987).Family values related to creativity include freedom, auton-omy, encouragement for originality, nonconformity, respect,parents’ passionate involvement in the talent field, and sup-port for both masculine and feminine traits in individuals ofboth sexes (Amabile, 1996; Runco, 1994). Parents pass thesevalues to their children. What is valued within the familywill be cultivated there. If one is a person who values the

traits of a creative environment, it is likely that these traitsare embraced or embodied in oneself as well.

Parents make choices about investments of resourcesbased on their personal standards or criteria (see Rubenson &Runco, 1992; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991). Nurturing oth-ers requires a great deal of planned and improvisationalcreativity as well as investment. In fact, investment in thedevelopment of others is one of the few areas of humanendeavor that has the potential to involve nearly all of theareas that Csikszentmihalyi (1990) described as ways inwhich one can achieve flow or optimal human functioning:the body in flow, flow of senses, flow of thought, flow of peo-ple, and the flow of the family. The essence of teaching andparenting is to introduce children to the world. In order to dothis one must immerse oneself in experiences as well. Thebody in flow involves the joys of physical exertion as well asthe experiences of the senses. The physical experiences comewhen teaching children games and sharing in their physicalplay. The flow of the senses occurs as one opens oneselfup to experiencing things like a child. Being with childrenallows parents to experience the joy they feel through newsights, sounds, and sensations. Flow of the family occurswhen family members focus their psychic energies on a com-mon goal. This common goal allows for both recognition anduse of an individual’s specific skills as well as cooperativeendeavors. For parents particularly, there are many parts ofthe day in which one must be present physically in a spacesitting quietly watching over ones’ children but not neces-sarily interacting with them or needing to engage in strictvigilance. It is a time that provides a parent with an opportu-nity to find flow of thought through the working of one’s ownmind. There is an enforced slowness to this time that may befreeing for those who find flow in this more introverted way.

The first author came to this exploration of engenderingthrough her experience of growing up in a large family sys-tem that honored engendering and the joys of a family inflow. The heads of the family were her grandfather Elzieand her grandmother Carrie. Together they created a homeconsisting of seven biological children, one adopted child,one long-term foster child, multiple short-term foster chil-dren, and a flow of international students, one of whom theysupported in seeking amnesty in the United States. Theyembodied the principles that one’s intelligence is a joy to beshared, one’s hands are to be used to serve others, and one’sheart should never be closed to anyone in need. In particular,Elzie modeled what it means to be an engenderer and be mas-culine: a strong, loving man. Radiating from these two indi-viduals is a network of open, creative, passionate, and self-confident individuals—several of whom became teachers.

Teachers choose their profession most often because theypassionately want to make a difference in children’s lives.They selflessly engender growth in their students, gainingsatisfaction in this unsung heroes’ work. When teachersengage their students in rich learning experiences, the energyand excitement creates flow of mind and senses, empowering

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

57 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

110 E. M. MILLER AND L. M. COHEN

learning and development of self. Perhaps there is an expec-tation that parents and teachers will explore with childrenthe finding of flow in many if not all the areas described byCsikszentmihalyi (1990) and that, in so doing, will model asatisfied life. Exceptional parenting or teaching may be con-sidered a type of giftedness and/or creativity that results inengendering talents in their offspring or students. Yet formany, a satisfied life and supporting creativity and talentin children is only one step on the journey toward self-actualization. The next possible step is to move toward beingan exceptional engenderer through commitment to largersocietal needs.

Realm III: The Exceptional Engendererin the Greater Society

The third realm is that of the greater society and the workof exceptional engenders. The inspiration for the conceptof engendering as a form of creative giftedness came fromthe story of Clara McBride Hale, known as “Mother Hale.”She was an African American widow with two small chil-dren who began to care for others’ children in order to feedher own. Over time, she raised 40 children because theyneeded a mother. She supported them all in their educationand helped each one of them through college. She then beganto work with drug babies, helping hundreds of others. Shefounded Hale House, which continues to operate today, sup-porting children and parents in need (Lambert, 1992; Lanker,1999). Mother Hale was an exceptional engenderer, hav-ing done work that is rare and world changing. But howdoes one go from being a gifted individual who used her orhis gifts engendering talent on a smaller scale as a mother,father, teacher, or mentor to become an exceptional or giftedengenderer?

Exceptionality in the moral and interpersonal realms isvery rare. Yet the next logical step in describing engen-dering as a domain in which creative and gifted individ-uals can fulfill their talents is to explore how one mightreach exceptionality in this domain. We propose that ini-tially exceptional engenderers are on a similar path as thosedescribed in the previous sections. They have a focus on oth-ers, they see the development of others as legitimate outletsfor their creative energies, and they apply their creativityand intelligence to the caring, supporting, and mentoringof others. Then they may experience trauma, loss, grief, oradversity or perhaps a crucial event or series of events thatpropel them to take creative action.

Through happenstance, the exceptional engender is con-fronted with a moral problem and chooses to make aresponse to that moral necessity. Intentionality is an impor-tant aspect of creativity in the moral domain (Runco &Nemiro, 2003). Individuals, when confronted with some-thing that ought to be done, and realizing that they can dosomething, make an intentional decision to apply their abil-ities to the problem. In the case of Mother Hale, she saw

a need during the Great Depression for someone to takecare of children whose parents had to work full time andshe responded to that need in the fullest way. But the keymoral imperative came in 1969 when, at age 64, Mother Haleopened her door to find a drug-addicted mother and child.The pair had been sent by Mother Hale’s daughter, who hadfound them on the street. Clara Hale then began her missionof caring for drug-addicted mothers and babies, which led tothe founding of Hale House.

As one can see in the example of Mother Hale, her ownterrible loss of her husband led to an intentional responseto the moral imperative, which was then followed by a con-tinued application of creative energies in processing moreeffective ways to help (Mastain, 2006), developing a senseof creative self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Choi, 2004; Tierney& Farmer, 2002). Creative self-efficacy is one’s beliefs aboutone’s ability to create novel and useful outcomes (Tierney& Farmer). In order to be an exceptional engenderer, onemust develop an exceptional level of creative self-efficacyand must act in an altruistic way. These continued acts ofaltruism lead to increases in self-awareness and developmentof the self (Mastain). This self-actualization then fuels thedesire to continue with the work of engendering, thus pro-pelling the individual further toward being an exceptionalengenderer.

CONCLUSION

If giftedness is defined as exceptional ability and capacityfor high performance and creativity is doing something newor rare, appropriate to the problem and of value that ben-efits or changes the world, then engendering is a type ofgiftedness and creativity needing recognition in our concep-tions of these terms and necessary for our troubled world.It is an area of potential development and creative expres-sion that unfortunately has been denigrated for women andignored for men when the focus is on individualism, materi-alism, success, and accomplishment. Like any manifestationof self-actualization, fulfillment through engendering is oftenpredicated on a life in which basic needs such as nutri-tion, safety, love, belonging, and self-esteem are consistentlymet (Maslow, 1954). However, engendering may begin withanguish and lack of basic met needs, like Mother Hale beingwidowed with two toddlers and trying to find a way to feedthem by serving other children.

Self-fulfillment and development of others’ potentialthrough engendering is not for everyone. One needs to havea personality that supports this path. One must have patience,empathy, and be nourished rather than exhausted by theinterpersonal world, a type of giftedness. The road of self-development and fulfillment for creative individuals shouldbe wide. There is room for many different paths. Teachersand researchers should recognize, value, and include the pathof engendering in our definitions of giftedness and creativity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

57 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

ENGENDERING TALENT IN OTHERS 111

Giving children opportunity and encouragement to helpothers through service-learning experiences, tutoring, volun-teering, and other classroom or home activities may awakenthe will to engender others. And there are some childrenwho are natural engenderers who need to be recognized andsupported for creative flowering. We observe them as theyoungsters who take on social causes like insisting on start-ing a food drive, a benefit for a classmate with cancer, or aresponse to a natural disaster. We also see it in children wholove to help their classmates learn, who relish being a buddyfor a child with special needs, or who bring about peace onthe playground.

Gifted individuals apply their advanced abilities to thedomain of engendering where others’ growth is the creativeproduct. In putting forth this concept of engendering, it isour goal to suggest that conceptions of giftedness and cre-ativity encompass an extremely important aspect of humandevelopment: supporting and caring for others.

AUTHOR NOTE

This article arose from a presentation given at the2008 National Association for Gifted Children conferencein Tampa, Florida, by LeoNora M. Cohen, Don Ambrose,Cheryl Ackerman, Erin Morris Miller, and Jean Peterson.The authors would like to thank their co-presenters for theirinspiration.

REFERENCES

Albert, R. (1990). Identity, experience, and career choice among the excep-tionally gifted and eminent. In M. Runco & R. Albert (Eds.), Theories ofcreativity (pp. 13–34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychologyof creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ambrose, D., & Cross, T. (2009). Morality, ethics, and gifted minds. NewYork, NY: Springer.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:Freeman.

Barron, F. (1988). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY:Springer-Verlag.

Basow, S. A. (1992). Gender: Stereotypes and roles (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA:Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Borland, J. H. (1997). The construct of giftedness. Peabody Journal ofEducation, 72(3/4), 6–20.

Brandth, B., & Kvande, E. (2002). Reflexive fathers: Negotiating parentalleave and working life. Gender, Work, and Organization, 9, 186–203.

Callahan, C. M. (1991). An update on gifted females. Journal for theEducation of the Gifted, 14, 294–311.

Callahan, C. M., Cunningham, C. M., & Plucker, J. A. (1994). Foundationsfor the future: The socio-emotional development of gifted, adolescentwomen. Roeper Review, 17, 99–105.

Choi, J. N. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative per-formance: The mediating role of psychological processes. CreativityResearch Journal, 16, 187–199.

Clark, B. (1997). Social ideologies and gifted education in today’s schools.Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3/4), 81–100.

Cohen, L. M. (2011). Adaptation, adaptiveness, and creativity. InR. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd ed.,pp. 9–17), San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Cross, T. L. (2000). On the social and emotional lives of gifted children.Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological studies offlow in consciousness. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience.New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective forthe study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity(pp. 313–335). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Delisle, J. R. (1998). Gifted girls: Who’s limiting whom? Gifted ChildToday, 21(4), 20–21.

Deutsch, N. M. (2007). Undoing gender. Gender & Society, 21, 106–127.Doucet, A. (2004). “It’s almost like I have a job, but I don’t get paid”:

Fathers at home reconfiguring work, care, and masculinity. Fathering, 2,277–303.

Drinkwater, J., Tully, M. P., & Dornan, T. (2008). The effect of gender onmedical students’ aspirations: A qualitative study. Medical Education, 42,420–426.

Eisler, R., & Montuori, A. (2007). Creativity, society, and the hidden subtestof gender: Towards a new contextualized approach. World Futures, 63,479–499.

Erikson, E. H. (1985). The life cycle completed. New York, NY: Norton.Feldman, D. H. (1999). The development of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg

(Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 169–186). New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Freeman, J. (2005). Permission to be gifted: How conceptions of giftednesscan change lives. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson’s (Eds.),Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 80–97). New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

Gagné, F. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model.In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness(2nd ed., pp. 98–119). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Galbraith, M. (1992). Understanding career choices of men in elementaryeducation. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 246–253.

Garbarino, J. (2000). The soul of fatherhood. Marriage and Family Health,29, 11–21.

Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen throughthe lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, andGandhi. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gruber, H. E. (1981). Darwin on man: A psychological study of creativity.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Gruber, H. E. (1989). The evolving systems approach to creative work. InD. B. Wallace & H. E. Gruber (Eds.), Creative people at work (pp. 3–24).New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gruber, H. E. (1997). Creative altruism, cooperation, and world peace.In M. A. Runco & R. Richards (Eds.), Eminent creativity, everydaycreativity, and health (pp. 463–479). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

Gruber, H. E., & Vonesche, J. J. (1977). The essential Piaget. New York,NY: Basic Books.

Gruber, H. E., & Wallace, D. B. (1999). Understanding unique creative peo-ple at work. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 93–133).New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Harrington, D. (1990). The ecology of human creativity: A psychologicalperspective. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity(pp.143–169). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Harrington, D. M. (1999). Conditions and settings/environment. In M. A.Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1,pp. 232–340). London, England: Academic Press.

Hébert, T. P. (2000). Gifted males pursuing careers in elementary education:Factors that influence a belief in self. Journal for the Education of theGifted, 24, 7–45.

Hébert, T. P. (2010). Understanding the social and emotional lives of giftedstudents. Austin, TX: Prufrock Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

57 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

112 E. M. MILLER AND L. M. COHEN

Heller, K. A., & Ziegler, A. (1996). Gender differences in mathematicsand the sciences: Can attributional retraining improve the performanceof gifted females? Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 200–210.

Helson, R. (1967). Personality characteristics and developmental his-tory of creative college women. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 76,205–256.

Helson, R. (1999a). A longitudinal study of creative personality in women.Creativity Research Journal, 12, 89–101.

Helson, R. (1999b). Personality. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.),Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 2, pp. 361–371). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.

Helson, R. (2008). One surprise after another. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 90, 205–214.

Kasov, J. (1999). Attribution and creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker(Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 14–15). London, England:Academic Press.

Kerr, B. A. (1994). Smart girls: A new psychology of girls, women, andgiftedness. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Kirschenbaum, R. J., & Reis, S. (1997). Conflicts in creativity: Talentedfemale artists. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 251–263.

Kitano, M. K., & Perkins, C. O. (1996). International gifted women:Developing a critical human resource. Roeper Review, 19, 34–40.

Klein, A. G., & Zehms, D. (1996). Self-concept and gifted girls: A crosssectional study of intellectually gifted females in grades 3, 5, 8. RoeperReview, 19, 30–34.

Lambert, B. (1992, December 19). Clara Hale, who aided addicts’ babies,dies at 87. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/19/us/clara-hale-founder-of-home-for-addicts-babies-dies-at-87.html?scp=3&sq=clara+hale&st=nyt

Lanker, B. (1999). I dream a world: Portraits of black women who changedAmerica. New York, NY: Stewart, Tabori, & Chang.

Leaper, C., & Van, S. R. (2008). Masculinity ideology, covert sexism, andperceived gender typicality in relation to young men’s academic moti-vation and choices in college. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 9,139–153.

Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, 27, 259–265.

Levy, G. D., Taylor, M. G., & Gelman, S. A. (1995). Traditional and evalua-tive aspects of flexibility in gender roles, social conventions, moral rules,and physical laws. Child Development, 66, 515–531.

Mamykina, L., Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. (2002). Collaborative creativity.In Communications of the ACM, 45(10), 96–99.

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper.Mastain, L. (2006). The lived experience of spontaneous altruism: A phe-

nomenological study. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 37,25–52.

Miller, A. (1981). The drama of the gifted child. New York, NY: Doubleday.Miller, A. (1989). The untouched key: Tracing childhood trauma in creativ-

ity and destructiveness. New York, NY: Doubleday.Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (2001). The

social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know.Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Noble, K. D. (1987). The dilemma of the gifted woman. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 11, 367–378.

Noble, K. D., Subotnik, R. F., & Arnold, K. D. (1999). To thine own self betrue: A new model of female talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly,43, 140–149.

Noddings, N. (1993). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moraleducation (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Ochse, R. (1993). Before the gates of excellence: The determinants ofcreative genius. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Olszewski, P., Kulieke, M. J., & Buescher, T. (1987). The influence of thefamily environment on the development of talent: A literature review.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 6–28.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2002). Parenting practices that promote talentdevelopment, creativity, and optimal adjustment. In M. Neihart, S. M.

Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotionaldevelopment of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 205–212). Waco,TX: Prufrock Press.

Peterson, J. R. (1999). Gifted—Through whose cultural lens? An applica-tion of the postpositivistic mode of inquiry. Journal for the Education ofthe Gifted, 22, 354–383.

Piechowski, M. M. (1993). Is inner transformation a creative process?Creativity Research Journal, 6, 89–98.

Piechowski, M. M. (2006). “Mellow out, they say. If only I could.”Intensities and sensitivities of the young and bright. Madison, WI: YunasaBooks.

Purser, R. E., & Montouri, A. (1999). Organizing as if creativity really mat-tered. In R. E. Purser & A. Montouri (Eds.), Social creativity (Vol. 2,pp. 313–357). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Reis, S. M. (2001). Gifted females in elementary and secondary school. InM. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The socialand emotional development of gifted children (pp. 267–289). Waco, TX:Prufrock Press.

Reis, S. M. (2003). Gifted girls, twenty-five years later: Hopes realized andnew challenges found. Roeper Review, 25, 154–157.

Reis, S. M. (2005). Feminist perspectives on talent development:A research-based conception of giftedness in women. In R. Sternberg &J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 217–245.)New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A develop-mental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). Cambridge, England:Cambridge University.

Renzulli, J. S. (2010, November). Intelligences outside the normal curve.Paper presented at the 57th National Association for Gifted ChildrenAnnual Convention, Atlanta, GA.

Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H. White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., Hartman, R. K., &Westberg, K. L. (1997). Scales for rating the behavior characteristics ofsuperior students. Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Rochlen, A. B., Suizzo, M., McKelly, R. A., & Scaringi, V. (2008). “I’mjust providing for my family”: A qualitative study of stay-at-home fathers.Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 9, 193–206.

Roeper, A. (1996). A personal statement of philosophy of George andAnnemarie Roeper. Roeper Review, 19, 18–19.

Rubenson, D. L., & Runco, M. A. (1992). The psychoeconomic approachto creativity. New Ideas in Psychology, 10, 131–147.

Rudowicz, E. (2003). Creativity and culture: A two way interaction.Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 273–290.

Runco, M. A. (1994). Creativity and its discontents. In M. P. Shaw & M. A.Runco (Eds.), Creativity and affect (pp. 102–123). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Runco, M. A. (1999). Tension, adaptability and creativity. In S. W.Russ (Ed.), Affect, creative experience, and psychological adjustment(pp. 165–194). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.

Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, develop-ment, and practice. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (2005). Parents’ personality and the creativepotential of exceptionally gifted boys, Creativity Research Journal, 17,355–368.

Runco, M. A., & Johnson, D. (2002). Parents’ and teachers’ implicit theoriesof children’s creativity: A cross-cultural perspective. Creativity ResearchJournal, 14, 427–438.

Runco, M. A., Johnson, D., & Gaynor, J. R. (1999). The judgmental basesof creativity and implications for the study of gifted youth. In A. Fishkin,B. Cramond, & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Investigating creativity inyouth: Research and methods (pp. 113–141). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Runco, M. A., & Nemiro, J. (2003). Creativity in the moral domain:Integration and implications. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 91–105.

Sargent, P. (2005). The gendering of men in early childhood education. SexRoles, 52, 251–259.

Schoon, I. (2006). Risk and resilience: Adaptations in changing times. NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

57 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

ENGENDERING TALENT IN OTHERS 113

Schultz, R. A. (2010, November). Philosophical sense and the gifted.Paper presented at the 57th National Association for Gifted ChildrenConvention, Atlanta, GA.

Silverman, L. K. (1993a). A developmental model for counseling the gifted.In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 51–78).Denver, CO: Love.

Silverman, L. K. (1993b). Counseling families. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.),Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 151–178). Denver, CO: Love.

Silverman, L. K. (1993c). Social development, leadership, and genderissues. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented(pp. 291–327). Denver, CO: Love.

Silverman, L. K. (1994). The moral sensitivity of gifted children and theevolution of society. Roeper Review, 17, 110–116.

Silverman, L. K. (2006). Ik ben niet hoogbegaafd, ik ben gewoon vlijtig:Niet erkende hoogbegaafdheid bij vrouwen [I’m not gifted; I’m just busy:Unrecognized giftedness in women]. In A. van Kempen (Ed.), Readerhoogbegaafd-en-werk [Giftedness and work] (pp. 17–31). Voorburg, TheNetherlands: Kuipers & van Kempen. Retrieved from http://www.xi2.nl/bronnen/Resources/I’m%20not%20Gifted.pdf

Silverstein, L. B. (1996). Fathering is a feminist issue. Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 20, 3–37.

Silverstein, L. B., Auerbach, C. F., Grieco, L., & Dunkel, F. (1999). Dopromise keepers dream of feminist sheep? Sex Roles, 40, 665–688.

Silverstein, L. B., Auerbach, C. F., & Levant, R. F. (2002). Contemporaryfathers reconstructing masculinity: Clinical implications of gender rolestrain. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 4, 361–369.

Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius. Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity from a historiometric perspective. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 116–136). New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

Sirin, S. R., McCreary, D. R., & Mahalik, J. R. (2004). Differential reactionsto men and women’s gender role transgressions: Perceptions of socialstatus, sexual orientation, and value dissimilarity. The Journal of Men’sStudies, 12, 119–132.

Stephens, K. R., & Karnes, F. A. (2000). State definitions for the gifted andtalented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66, 219–238.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theoryof creativity and its development. Human Development, 34, 1–31.doi:10.1159/000277029

Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Arnold, K. D. (2003).Beyond Bloom: Revisiting environmental factors that enhance orimpede talent development. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking giftededucation (pp. 227–272). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: a psychosocial approach. In R. J.Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 21–52).Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

The Free Dictionary. (2012). Divert. Huntingdon Valley, PA: Farlex, Inc.Retrieved from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/divert

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its poten-tial antecedents and relationships to creative performance. Academy ofManagement Journal, 45, 1137–1148.

Torrance, E. P., Goff, K., & Satterfield, N. B. (1998). Multicultural mentor-ing of the gifted and talented. Austin, TX: Prufrock Press.

Trivette, C. M., Dunst, C. J., Deal, A. G., Hamer, A. W., & Propst, S. (1990).Assessing family strengths and family functioning style. Topics in EarlyChildhood Special Education, 10, 16–35.

VanTassel-Baska, J., Cross, T. L., & Olenchak, F. R. (Eds.) (2009). Social-emotional curriculum with gifted and talented students. Waco, TX:Prufrock Press.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society,1, 125–151.

Westmeyer, H. (1998). The social construction and psychological assess-ment of creativity. High Ability Studies, 9(1), 11–21.

White, L. (2000). Underachievement of gifted girls: Causes and solutions.Gifted Education International, 14, 125–132.

Willard-Holt, C. (2008). “You could be doing brain surgery”: Gifted girlsbecoming teachers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 313–325.

AUTHOR BIOS

Erin Morris Miller is an assistant professor at Bridgewater College in the Psychology department where she teachescourses in creativity, cognitive neuroscience, behavioral analysis and statistics. Her interests include conceptions ofgiftedness, cognitive development and nurturing her children ages 8 and 5. E-mail: emmiller@bridgewater.edu

LeoNora M. Cohen is an emeritus professor of education at Oregon State University, where she had served asprogram lead for the PhD and Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) programs and taught over 30 different courses.Her interests are in creativity; conceptual and theoretical issues; children’s interests, thinking, and metacognition;coping strategies; practical applications relative to gifted children; and contextual aspects of education. E-mail:cohenl@oregonstate.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

57 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014