The nature of creativity is a complex one - especially in those fields that are generally - at least from the outside - not considered to be creative such as science. In fact, science (or at least good science) is a highly creative endeavor, one that requires the scientist to look at both the known world and the not-yet-understood world in new ways and to link the two of them together in innovative but scientifically sound ways. This paper examines what constitutes creativity for the scientist. In no small part, scientific creativity is measured by how good a theory such creative activity produces. One should perhaps at this point define the concept of theory itself. In the simplest and most basic sense, theories are tools. This is easy to forget because the category of tool seems in so many ways to be defined as a universe of tangible objects - large, heavy, metal-edged objects that do something to the world. Nevertheless, theories do something to the world as well: They organize it, explain it, and connect things to each other. They make the world make sense. They even do this when there is not much sense to be made of the world. The best theories are those that are able to make the most sense of the world, and in order to do this often a high level of creativity is required as Young (1991a and 1991b) argues.
Babbie (1989) notes that according to traditional scientific models, a researcher begins the process of theorization by simply becoming interested in some aspect of
11 
)
= 837
= 3 (250 words per page)
