Imagination is not the opposite of rigour
A 2026 systematic review examines how imagination is defined in creative-process research and how it contributes to creative work.
A systematic review asks what imagination actually does inside creative practice.
The Story
A systematic review by Kristen Lamb and Joseph Puryear examines how imagination is defined in empirical research, its role in creativity, and what an evidence-based definition might look like. The paper was published in July 2026. ([researchgate.net](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/408501195_Imagination_and_the_creative_process_a_systematic_review?utm_source=openai))
The useful reminder for designers is that imagination is not simply a mysterious personality trait. It can be studied as part of a process: forming possibilities, shifting perspective, simulating outcomes, and connecting ideas that do not initially belong together.
That gives Studio Wensday a better language for creative workshops. Instead of asking people to “be more creative,” create conditions for imagining alternatives: change the reference set, suspend premature judgement, make several versions, and return later with sharper criteria.
Studio Wensday Angle
Creativity gets stronger when imagination is treated as a practice with conditions.