While there is agreement that creativity is central to teaching, learning and curriculum in higher education, what is meant by creativity is not always clear. The term is often employed uncritically, in the singular, and is reified. Where creativity is used with specificity, this is often over-determined, so that the term remains limited to person, product or process, where certain uses will be privileged. There is a promising alignment between studies of creativity that refer to legitimating context and social constructionist readings, where plural creativities are described as discursive effects. A typology of ten qualitatively different kinds of creativity is offered, as: (1) Progress, (2) Conservation, (3) Innovation, (4) Transgression, (5) Discipline, (6) Complexity, (7) Inspiration, (8) Serendipity, (9) Negative Capability, and (10) Withdrawal. The typology has its basis in a model first proposed by Hillman (1972) that is critically examined for its epistemological bias leading to educational limitations.