Fostering creativity. A model for developing a culture of collective creativity in science - 0 views
-
Scientific progress depends on both conceptual and technological advances, which in turn depend on the creativity of scientists
-
creative processes behind these discoveries rely on mechanisms that are similar across disciplines as diverse as art and science
-
research into the nature of creativity indicates that it depends strongly on the cultural environment
- ...48 more annotations...
-
create optimal conditions in a research organization with the aim of enhancing the creativity of its scientific staff
-
Creativity has been traditionally associated with art and literature but since the early twentieth century, science has also been regarded as a creative activity
-
Measuring creativity is a challenging task owing to its complex and elusive nature
-
Measurement of brain activity showed that creativity correlates with two brain states: a quiescent, relaxed state corresponding to the inspiration stage, and a much more active state corresponding to the elaboration stage
-
models of creativity
-
have a common feature: they depend on a balance between analytical and synthetic thinking, and usually describe the creative process as a sequence of phases that alternate between these states
-
Most research on creativity has focused on the individual
-
However, more recent studies suggest that creativity also depends strongly on the social and cultural context
-
breakthroughs depended on collaboration and social support
-
social environment in business organizations affects the creativity of their employees
-
Although creative individuals are essential, the strong link with the environment indicates that creativity might be greatly enhanced by generating a culture that supports the creative process.
-
Many of the interviewees repeatedly emphasized three main qualities necessary to be a good scientist: rigorous intellect, the ability to get the job done and the ability to have creative ideas.
-
almost all interviewees characterized their breakthrough moment as an abrupt leap in understanding
-
Although breakthroughs in science depend on such an ‘internal' conceptual shift, they also rely on ‘external' experimental results. However, most interviewees described their breakthroughs as largely internal:
-
Only two scientists expressed the view that their breakthroughs were purely external events, based on the observation of novel data.
-
intuition
-
must be combined with rational thinking to be effective
-
Although the synthesis of a new concept relies on intuition, which is based on subconscious mental processing, it must be subjected to conscious examination and analysis
-
specific mental skills or attitudes
-
ability to make unexpected connections
-
ability to choose relevant possibilities from an infinite set of irrelevant ones
-
interest in the unknown'
-
enjoyment of the creative process
-
stimulation by interacting with colleagues
-
undoubtedly the most crucial trait for creativity, which thrives on the exchange of ideas
-
The majority felt that the individual and the collective are equally important:
-
what interactions are optimal for creativity
-
The majority of interviewees answered that other people provided them with ‘inspiration to do something new'
-
positive feedback after the emergence of a new idea is almost as important as the inspiration that triggered it
-
collective provides the individual with technical expertise
-
Therefore, scientists would value a culture of interaction and mutual inspiration more highly than access to technology, although the latter is essential for their experiments.
-
At the end of the interviews, each scientist was asked to describe the best possible conditions for generating creativity at a research institute.
-
Cross-fertilization is absolutely essential
-
These results indicate strongly that an interactive environment is the single most important factor for stimulating creativity
-
interacting with people doing very different things
-
interacting with colleagues informally
-
interactions within any institution are strongly affected by its organization
-
Several interviewees described ‘an open hierarchy' as an important factor for creativity
-
hierarchy is based on genuine respect because people are great scientists, but at the same time they're very approachable and open towards what you have to say
-
These results suggest that the best conditions for scientific creativity come with a free-flowing hierarchy and a highly developed culture of interaction to guarantee the exchange of ideas and inspiration.
-
Furthermore, interdisciplinary interactions lead to the generation of new and unusual ideas
-
Finally, because of the freedom to try new things, these ideas can be tested and eventually generate new insights.
-
Creativity can be described as an emergent phenomenon
-
nonlinear phenomena
-
Emergence depends on dynamic interactions between individual agents within the system
-
The importance of a ‘freedom to try new things' and a ‘free-flowing hierarchy' further supports the idea that individual components in an emergent system must be able to interact flexibly without central control
-
During the interviews, it became apparent that although a culture of interaction and creativity exists at EMBL, this itself is not often the subject of discussion. The values on which this culture is based are seemingly implicit rather than explicit
-
Potentially, the EMBL culture of interaction could be strengthened further by consciously expressing and discussing the values on which it is based
-
Lectures in preparation for the presentation on Open Science. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lCEl7cU-oA5IlJ8xiOQ3jyyc_xiJ0216kkt46xhNMek/edit#slide=id.g36f1fcffd_014
