Scientific creativity: a review.

Drug Metabolism Reviews

ISSN: 0360-2532 (Print) 1097-9883 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/idmr20

Scientific Creativity: A Review Harold Boxenbaum To cite this article: Harold Boxenbaum (1991) Scientific Creativity: A Review, Drug Metabolism Reviews, 23:5-6, 473-492, DOI: 10.3109/03602539109029771 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/03602539109029771

Published online: 22 Sep 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 35

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=idmr20 Download by: [Australian National University]

Date: 07 November 2015, At: 03:16

DRUG METABOLISM REVIEWS, 23(5&6), 473-492 (1991)

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 03:16 07 November 2015

SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY: A REVIEW* HAROLDBOXENBAUM~ Marion Merrell Dow, Inc. Cincinnati, Ohio 45215-6300 I. INTRODUCTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473 11. WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476 111. WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF “INTELLIGENCES” ASSOCIATED WITH CREATIVITY?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477 IV. HOW DO SCIENTIFICALLY CREATIVE MINDS FUNCTION?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478

. . . . . . 480 PERSONALITY FEATURES OF CREATIVE SCIENTISTS . . 482 FOSTERING SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484 SUMMARY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485 Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486

V. STAGES OF A SCIENTIFICALLY CREATIVE ACT. VI. VII. VIII.

I. INTRODUCTION Perhaps more than anything else, what characterizes the creative scientist is his imagination, originality, and ingenuity in combining existing knowl*This paper was refereed by Frederick J. Di Carlo, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460. tSend correspondence to the author at the address given above. 473 Copyright 0 1992 by Maml Dekker. Inc.


474

BOXENBAUM

edge into a new and unified scheme of things [I]. (Throughout this paper, I use male nouns. pronouns, etc., to generically denote both genders, i.e., in an androgynous sense.) As Schopenhauer noted, the task of the creative mind is “not so much to see what no one has seen yet; but to think what nobody has thought yet, about what everyone sees” [2]. By taking advantage of the ambiguity in the world, the creative scientist brings together two or more facets of reality, and in them discovers a hidden likeness which no one has seen before [3]. The act becomes universal as each of us re-creates it, and by so doing, seizes and identifies with it. After focusing on creative new ideas, our natural instinct is to react in much the same way as Huxley did in 1858 when he first heard of Darwin’s theory of evolution: “How stupid not to have thought of that!” he exclaimed [4]. Inasmuch as creative works resolve complexity and express its essence in a new way 151, they literally transform the constraints of reality (61; in some instances, they actually undermine the very foundation that originally made them discernible [7]. for example, Plank’s theory of quantum energy. This is because creative thinkers do not generally deal with familiar representations, but rather shape a field to their own conception and vision of what they think the field should be [8]. Creativity thus arises from an “inverted” exploration, because, in the view of the creative person, the world is an inverted world. Enveloped in subtlety, creative ideas do not divulge to us theirfull meanings and implications on first viewing, but rather invite continued contemplation [9]. Paradoxically, the more original an idea is, the more obvious and liberating it becomes afterwards [lo, I l l . This is because the creative process is first and foremost a passion for form, a struggle against disintegration [ 121. We admire creative scientists because, whereas most scientists work and live off the meanings previously generated by others, creative scientists “produce” more meaning than they “consume” [13]. Obviously, there exists a continuum of scientists, ranging in talent from the extraordinarily creative on downward. Most scientists fall somewhere in the middle, focusing on a “natural” grouping of phenomena; these individuals articulate current theories relating to these phenomena as well as solving puzzles generated by them [14]. These so-called normal scientists function primarily by demonstrating that ruling conceptual frameworks can be successfully applied to describe and reason about new data. In short, normal science uses past achievement as a model and guide, both in the formulation of new problems and in analyzing forthcoming data [15, 161. Probably the least creative scientist is the narrowly focused, inveterate copycat, who can progress through most or all of his career on what may be termed a “trivial plane” [ I l l . Whether through tyranny of mental habit, the grip of convention, the force of collective standards of value, the obduracy of established perspective, adherence to codes of behavior, entrenchment


SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY

475

within existing paradigms, cognitive atrophy, sheer laziness, or for a myriad of other reasons, the compulsive copycat can reduce himself to the status of a skilled automaton, a victim of indoctrination, content only to show that a small fragment of prevailing thought can be properly and successfully applied to new sets of data [Il, 171. These “tidiers-up” possess limited foresight; they work less upon objective evaluation of the facts than they do in adapting their ideas to the facts [18, 191. “Polish a little and publish a lot, that is the leitmotif of their research careers” [20]. For the majority of these scientists, escape is difficult, for they are unaware of the restraints that operate beneath the level of their awareness [ll]. Although the potential for creatide work exists for all scientists, real thinking, as opposed to a mere rearrangement of prejudices, is a prime requisite. A confluence of changing values, standards, motivations, impulses, etc., are all needed to predispose an ordinary scientist towards originality and creativity. Rogers [21] believes that all individuals possess this creative potential, and that its motivation is self-actualization, that is, an inherent tendency towards self-fulfillment, self-expression and the attainment of autonomy from external forces [22]. By converging on an internal locus of evaluation, being open to new experiences, and by developing an ability to toy with variegated concepts, man can divert and direct his creative tendencies into a basic drive. This self-actualization, growing out of the uniqueness of the individual, can be fostered by an external environment that provides both psychological safety and freedom. In short, for an ordinary scientist to become creative, he must consciously and intensively confront his own conceptions, altering and transforming the constraints of his own hitherto accepted reality, and reorganizing his past mistakes in a new way that works constructively for him [12, 231. In the remainder of this paper, I examine scientific creativity from a broad range of perspectives. These include questions on what constitutes creativity and the nature of its associated “intelligences”; how scientifically creative minds function; the stages that go into the creative act; the personality features of creative scientists; and if possible, how, in a generalized way, one might foster scientific creativity in both children and adults. It is not the purpose of this work to discuss specific ways in which mature, creative scientists can promote creativity in students. For biological laboratory sciences, the interested reader is referred to Garrett [24, 251 for specific recommendations on such things as protocol preparation, seminar participation, brainstorming, etc. While not intending to be comprehensive, it is hoped that this review provides the reader with useful information dealing with fundamental aspects of scientific creativity at the level of the individual (as opposed to group creativity). As noted by Barron [26], the best that can be said regard-

476

BOXENBAUM


ing scientific creativity is that certain uniformities do seem to exist, and that these uniformities suggest useful conjectures. Consequently, there are no concretes here-rhis is an article of speculations. In assembling the material for this work, I have not only drawn information and concepts from sources dealing with scientific creativity per se. but have utilized references, where applicable, that have dealt with creativity in a more generalized context.

11. WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY? As noted by Wilson 191, creativity has both “horizontal” and “vertical” dimensions. The horizontal plane embraces the different types of creativity, whereas the vertical plane encompasses the various levels of creativity. For our purposes, we restrict the horizontal plane to scientific endeavors, with each scientist finding some subdivisions more congenial to his temperament than others [27]. It is in the context of the vertical plane, however, that we must come to grips with some thorny issues. Notwithstanding the view of some that discrimination of the creative from the uncreative remains hardly better than guesswork [28, 291, there does remain the fact that there presently exist over 60 definitions for creativity. These fall into six broad categories, dealing with the following features [30]: the structure of the idea; the resultant end product; the aesthetics involved; the psychoanalytic dynamics of the id, ego, superego, etc.; the method of thinking; and miscellaneous classifications. This author prefers to divide definitions of scientific creativity into two broad categories, the “consensual” and the “conceptual” [31]. From the consensual perspective, a scientific activity is creative to the degree that an appropriate panel of experts independently and subjectively agree to its creativity. From the conceptual standpoint, a scientific activity is deemed creative to the extent that (a) it is both novel and relevant to the task at hand, and (b) the task is heuristic rather than algorithmic; that is, the task does not rely on a clear and readily identifiable path to its solution. Some aesthetic properties of scientifically creative activities include: (1) the discovery of hidden likenesses, a condensation that binds together many complex elements and expresses their essence [ I , 3, 5 , 32, 331; (2) the combination of familiar elements into new solutions to old problems [34]; (3) the product is without precedent, intrinsically related to a particular configuration of mind, a presentation of constellated new meaning [28]; (4) the product defies tradition-it literally forces us to see reality in a different way [6, 321; (5) the product effectively surprises, satisifes, and



477

stimulates us-it entices the viewer to savor its condensation (32, 351; and (6) the product has an intensity of meaning requiring continued contemplation, and its implications are therefore only divulged after a period of sustained study [321. Although not relating directly to the question at hand, it would be helpful to have at least a brief discussion on the relationship between creativity in art and that in science. Both forms of creativity obviously involve explorations [3]. But in art, only the emotional milieu of the artist, his inner mental world, fixes the limits of experience [3, 36, 371. Art, therefore, is mostly about “feeling.” Science is more objective; being forced to concern itself with a more concrete reality, with something “out there,” science is more about “thinking.” And whereas art has the luxury of presenting the richness of the world in ambiguous, multifaceted forms, science must be demonstrable, reproducible, and explicitly communicable [38]. But despite these differences, the creative act, be it in art or in science, invariably involves a merging of the self with the phenomenon-as Barbara McClintock put it, one must “ensoul” what one sees [39].

111. WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF “INTELLIGENCES” ASSOCIATED WITH CREATIVITY? Given the diverse forms in which creativity can be expressed, it is apparent that it can be derived from a variety of “faculties” or “intelligences” [a, 411. In this context, an intelligence is defined as the ability to create products or solve problems in a way that is valued in one or more cultural settings [MI.Gardner “1, in his theory of multiple intelligences, posits a family of seven human intelligences (intellectual potentials) of which all individuals possess some capability by virtue of heredity, training, and their interaction. In broad terms, the “object-related” intelligences include spatial, logical-mathematical, and bodily-kinesthetic. The “object-free” intelligences are language, music, and intra- and extrapersonal. By way of example, spatial ability is required for map reading and painting; logicalmathematical for arithmetic, pattern identification, and much of scientific thinking; bodily-kinesthetic for bodily motion and flying an airplane; language for poetry composition and spoken communication; music for composing and singing; intrapersonal for accessing and understanding one’s own feeling life; and extrapersonal for knowing others, especially their moods, temperaments, motivations, and intentions. The creative mathematician working in isolation draws mostly from logical-mathematical intelligence. A creative research group leader requires extrapersonal intelligence, as well


478

BOXENBAUM

as other intelligences, impacting more directly on his arena of inquiry. A creative logical-mathematical scientist who communicates poorly may be weak in language intelligence. Although Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences provides a useful heuristic for understanding certain aspects of scientific creativity, the theory remains vague vis-it-vis operations conducted by the different intelligences and does not sufficiently consider the computational mechanism that integrates functions performed by two or more intelligences (411. In short, the theory was never intended to explain creativity, but rather to identify fundamental, yet necessary prerequisites. Obviously, scientific creativity depends not only on the levels of one’s intelligences, but also in the manner and dimtion they are applied (vidc inpa). Scientists of equal capacity and opportunity differ markedly in the ways they deploy their intellectual resources, particularly with regards to the kinds of problems they select and the heuristics they employ in coming to grips with data and information (421.

IV. HOW DO SCIENTIFICALLY CREATIVE MINDS FUNCTION? As cogently noted by Fox (431, there probably exist as many creative processes as creative people. Nonetheless, within the literature on scientific creativity, one frequently encounters recurring themes that warrant further discussion. This is not to imply that a prototypical creative scientist possesses all or most of the features to be described, but rather that he possesses a unique constellaton of these characteristics that delineates him from the ordinary. Historically, creative scientists have tended to be conspicuously weak in at least one important dimension [44]. The focus here is on those traits which are predominantly descriptive and only marginally psychological. Deeper psychological aspects of the creative personality are discussed subsequently in a section devoted exclusively to this issue. In both science and art, creativity frequently emerges from an aesthetic, poetic sense of freedom derived from work, an uninhibited, undirected playful activity of exploring a medium for its own sake [3]. There is paradox here, for one must regress to a childhood state of unrestrained play (taking leave of conscious rationality), while at the same time maintaining contact with the adult, rational world [34]. With a preference for irregularities, apparent disorder, and even chaos, the creative individual must ternporarily take leave of his senses, permitting expression of unconfigurated forces of his irrational unconscious, trusting that an ordering principle will float to the surface for conscious scrutiny [45]. What is noteworthy is that



479

the creative scientist courts the irrational in himself, admitting previously repressed, tabooed thoughts and impulses in an attempt to create a complex personal synthesis. This conduct is sometimes referred to as the “playful” element observed in scientifically creative individuals. In play, old rules may be broken and new rules invented without serious consequence; dogma may be suspended and an undifferentiated unity pursued, making the world look different. The scientist can thus be daring, testing the boundaries of the permissible and practical to their fullest [46]. For the great physicist Erwin Schriidinger (1887-1961). research was “a game . . . in which you strive against the imaginary boundary between yourself and the Godheada boundary that perhaps does not exist” [47]. Although the psychological unbalance generated by working at the “edge” is ultimately integrative, the individual may at times appear to others as unbalanced. Although this can at times present difficulties, the creative scientist is a risk taker, a more differentiated individual who has a positive picture of himself and can thus place great store in his own value hierarchy [48]. Interestingly, it appears that only those scientists firmly rooted in contemporary scientific tradition are capable of breaking with this tradition [49]. This creates an “essential tension” in which the scientist moves back and forth from a closed world of rigid configurations (accepted paradigms) to an open world of cognitive ambiguities (mixed signals). This amounts to a kind of internal “wagering,” in which the scientist pits himself against uncertain circumstances, a situation in which his individual effort can be the deciding factor [50]. It’s not so much that creative scientists like disorder per se, but rather that they prefer richness to banality [51]. Sternberg and Davidson [52-551 have argued that creativity and/or giftedness may depend on a special set of skills designated “insightful thinking.’’ Three types are hypothesized: selective encoding, selective combination, and selective comparison. Selected encoding occurred with Fleming’s discovery of penicillin. Rather than focusing on an apparently failed experiment, Fleming encoded it as destruction of bacteria. An example of selective combination is Darwin’s theory of evolution. Many of its precepts were already in existence during the time of Darwin; his major contribution was putting them together in a logically coherent fashion. An example of selective comparison is KekulC’s discovery of the structure of the benzene molecule. Rather than envisaging a straight-chained molecule, KekuM utilized the metaphor of a snake biting its tail and was thus able to visualize a ring structure. Aside from possession of the relevant skills, knowledge, and intelligence, other traits of creative scientists found in a variety of studies include [ I l , 31, 32, 36, 43, 44, 49-51, 56-69]:


480

BOXENBAUM

1. A high degree of autonomy, precocity, intrinsic (inner-directed) motivation, excitement, commitment. independence, discipline, flexibility, good judgment and perseverance. 2. An oceanic sense of wonder. 3. A preference for intellectually challenging situations involving mental manipulations of abstract images and concepts. These symbols, images, and concepts are congenial presences, inwardly evoked, whose function it is to give flat experience a new rational perspective. By virtue of their aesthetic power, they enlighten and exercise our minds. 4. A marked independence of judgment, stubbornness, and unwillingness to be pushed around, traits that sometimes invite disfavor and sanctions by colleagues. 5 . A drive toward elegance of explanation, that is, an aesthetic appreciation. In the creative mind, nature produces a certain inner music, inciting it to contemplate the new and the profound. 6. “Creative worrying” or “mental ferment,” in which the problem is carried around while doing other tasks (“problem bracketing”). 7. The ability to take or borrow from the works of others and improving thereupon. 8. The ability to effectively utilize and manipulate metaphors and analogies, seducing the thinker towards a “network of possible wanderings.” 9. An alternate blending of working styles, for example, traditionalist vs. iconoclast; patience vs. passion, reflection vs. spontaneity, skepticism vs. credulity, generalization vs. particularization, acceptance of one’s ideas vs. rejection of them. 10. Keen skills of observation, particularly those involving incongruity, permitting the scientist to see things in unusual and unconventional ways. 11. An openness to new experiences. 12. A preference to perceiving as opposed to judging. 13. The ability to distinguish between ordinary ideas and good ideas. 14. A disrespect and/or discontent with the obvious. 15. The use of “wide” as opposed to “narrow” categories for the compilation of information.

V. STAGES OF A SCIENTIFICALLY CREATIVE ACT In characterizing a scientifically creative act, it is useful to identify its usual sequential stages, keeping in mind that individuals tend to bounce back and forth between them. I also strongly emphasize that the creative



48 I

process need not always unfold in any given sequence of stages or states [70]. Nonetheless, there is broad general agreement that a particular set of patterned sequences are associated with a great deal of scientific creativity. The concept of stages to creative scientific thought was apparently first described by Hermann von Helmholtz (1821-1894). On the occasion of a talk at a banquet honoring him on his 70th birthday in 1891, this noted physiologist and physicist described the manner in which creative ideas came to him. This consisted of three stages: preparation, incubation, and illumination (711. In 1926 Wallas (711 added a fourth stage, verification. Today, we generally think of six stages: interest, preparation, incubation, illumination, verification, and exploitation ( 1 I , 12, 72-87]. Once an interest in a particular area is established (stage I), the investigator must familiarize himself with the didactic material of that field (stage 11). This is a “getting ready” stage in which the scientist “engages” the principles and problems in the area selected. It is characterized by intense interest and study, problem immersion, curiousness, fascination, and even love. Following a rest from the fatigue of the preparation state, incubation (stage 111) begins; this is probably the most fascinating phase. The period of incubation represents a “reculer pour mieux sauter,” a falling back in order to make a better leap forward. This period is attended by frustrations, tensions, and false inspirations. Sheer force of will proves fruitless in pushing the creative idea towards completion. Rather than beginning with clarity and order, there frequently exists a state of mind described by Alfred North Whitehead as an “imaginative muddled suspense.” Dream and reality are wedded in a largely unconscious process of undefined emotional turmoil, and a manipulative play occurs with incommunicable entities (e.g., vague visual images). Rarely are these incommunicable entities verbal. This unconscious state is superficial, a sort of “antechamber,” quite near the level of consciousness. Unconsciously, the mind is reorganizing accumulated facts, trying new pathways, and eradicating barriers. Reasoning goes underground, so to speak, to a more primitive, child-like state. It becomes more abstract, images attain a wider scope, and there is a selective forgetting to rid the unconscious of the prejudices induced by the tyranny of conservatism, logic, and habit. As with a child, the mind must exercise greater fluidity, versatility, and gullibility. Periodically, these unconscious images, symbols, and loose speculations float to the surface, making transient contact with the fringe or full consciousness. The illumination stage (stage IV) occurs when a uniquely gratifying association is realized, and the unconscious deposits its collection of conceptual transitions of insight into the fringe consciousness. The full consciousness then seizes on it and releases it as a flash of insight or as an act


482

BOXENBAUM

of recognition. This is also sometimes called an “Aha!” or “Eureka” experience. The creator experiences a special joy, a heightened consciousness, an affect that accompanies the actualization of one’s potential. At the same time, one may have a feeling of discomfort, a sense of separation from one’s accustomed self. And although the illumination stage may be viewed by the creator as distinct, it nonetheless reflects the final step of a process that resulted from a complex web of activities involving a dense inner structure. In certain cases the essence of discovery is the unlikely marriage of antithetical, conflictive, or oppositional entities. Einstein, in developing his general theory of relativity, for example, used oppositional thinking in realizing (depending on time perspective) that a man falling from a roof would simultaneously be falling and at rest. Verification (stage V) is essentially a checking of the synthesis; stage VI is exploitation, putting the new product or idea to use. Neither of these last two stages need be conducted by the individual responsible for the creative act.

VI. PERSONALITY FEATURES OF CREATIVE SCIENTISTS Although man is born innocent, societal influence is such that his maturation is confused and complicated. Driven by basic animal fears, by anxieties, and by a fear of being overwhelmed, man is obsessed with his own significance as a distinct entity [88]. These feelings incite him to try and make his mark on the world (88, 891. One task of society, therefore, is to give man a feeling that he is an object of primary value in the world, that he can lead a fulfilling life. But fulfillment is subjective. Since the answers to the problems of existence are in large measure fabricated, all are embedded in a fundamentally arbitrary network of codified meanings, perceptions and symbols (881. The result is a self-propagating cultural system in which people willingly participate, and since just about everyone plays the same game, not many can see through the pretense (881. But on a deeper level, most men have only a tenuous sense of self-they are unsettled. By virtue of prolonged infancy and childhood, man has experienced desires in two contradictory directions. Objectively, children are powerless and therefore totally dependent on others for their sense of self. Subjectively, freed from the limitations of reality, they have experienced omnipotent pleasure indulgence [W]. As a result, men are never really satisfied. Having tasted “the fruit of the tree of life” in infancy, man unconsciously knows that there is something better (901. This is one reason why



483

some split between a man’s inner (unconscious) world and his outer (conscious) world is inevitable. What sets the creative scientist apart is that his frustrations evolve into a rich fantasy world from which springs a discontent, urging him to seek symbolic satisfaction in creative achievement [56]. In creative work he can communicate and play with the world on his own terms. He can establish his own inner reality, a reality that can be far more meaningful than anything external. By compensating in fantasy for what is missing in reality, creativity can be an expressive outlet for feelings of dissatisfaction [68]. The creator does so by imposing order upon a seemingly muddled and chaotic world [68]. Like all of us, creative scientists may be divided psychologically, but because they possess a strong and exacting selfconcept, they can organize, integrate, and even exploit the conflicts within themselves [68]. Failure of psychic adaptation, as in neurosis, is therefore more likely to degrade the quality of one’s creativity than to enhance it [91-931. Some other interesting personality traits of creative scientists include: 1. In males, a high degree of traits traditionally associated with femininity, for example, an openness to feelings, a sensitive intellect, an understanding self-awareness, an appreciation of the nonrational elements in human nature, etc. [36, 51, 641. 2. A relative disinterest in policing either their own impulses or those of others [36, 45, 51, 941. However, when expressing impulses, they generally do so in a careful, controlled fashion. 3. A greater complexity and richness (greater scope) in personality [45. 941. 4. A high degree of personal dominance, tempered with a distaste for personally toned controversy [50, 51, 56. 64, 941. 5 . A greater need to retreat from the social world to a more personal world of challenging, self-delineated mental ideas and constructs (64,951. 6. A strong ego [36, 45, 50, 51, 56, 68, 96, 971, permitting the creative scientist to regress “far out,” allowing child-like or playful fantasies, tabooed impulses, etc., into consciousness and behavior. He can do this because he is secure in the knowledge that he can quickly return to a state of socially accepted rationality. Because he possesses greater emotional stability, he is freer than most and is therefore less concerned about the impression he makes on others, and is more nonconformist in his ideas. 7. A tendency to resist acculturation, relying instead on self-regulation. Rejecting group pressures. the creative scientist behaves in a manner consistent with his own value hierarchies [48, 50, 64, 941.

484

BOXENBAUM


VII. FOSTERING SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY In fostering creativity in children, Amabile [98] lists attitudes and actions of parents of highly creative children. These include: ( I ) in a warm and supportive way, they respect and encourage their child’s opinions, explorations, questionings of things, etc.; (2) they believe a child should think, daydream, and sometimes even loaf; (3) they encourage the child to make his own decisions; (4) they derive pleasure and enjoy their children, and try to have warm intimate times together, that is, they establish congenial, rewarding working relationships; and (5) they compliment and praise the child for trying and accomplishing things, that is, they generally act in an ego-enhancing manner. In primary and secondary school, there are certain principles teachers should follow to encourage creative behavior [70,991: respect unusual ideas, questions, and inquiries, demonstrating that this sort of thinking has value; encourage and reward self-initiated learning; and provide periods of nonevaluated practice and learning. In particular, childrearing techniques should not set up rigid boundaries in the inner-personal regions, for example, in fostering excessive guilt, in demonstrating too much intolerance in deviation from traditional behavior, etc. [loo]. There is a divergence of opinion as to whether creativity can be formerly taught in college, many thinking that it cannot [61]. Nonetheless, there are certainly facilitating factors that enhance, promote, and cultivate student creativity [31, 1011: ( I ) treating students as individuals, (2) encouraging independence, (3) serving as positive role models, (4) spending time with students outside the classroom, (5) encouraging and expecting excellence, (6) demonstrating enthusiasm, (7) accepting students as equals, (8) rewarding creative behavior, (9) being an interesting and dynamic lecturer, and (10) dealing positively with students on a one-to-one basis. Once a scientist has taken a position within an organization, there are both positive and negative conditions that, respectively, promote and discourage creativity. On the positive side, the following actions will tend to promote creativity [44,95, 102, 1031: 1. Provide an atmosphere of psychologic safety, for example, one that emphasizes encouragement, empathetic understanding, freedom of thought, etc. 2. Make innovation and creativity part of the organizational culture. 3. Stop converting talented researchers into mediocre managers, for example, by providing parallel career ladders. 4. Provide the necessary resources for productive work. On the negative side, individual creativity in an organizational structure may be stifled by the following [31, 44, 104-106]:



485

1. A military or command-mode management structure, with an undue emphasis on organization charts and strict superior-subordinate relationships. Institutional rigidity is the bane of a creative scientist. 2. Undue institutional caution, an environment in which the organization fails to recognize or act upon creative or novel ideas. 3. A “don’t rock the boat” mentality. Creative scientists, by their very nature, are individuals dissatisfied with the status quo (vide supra). It takes a certain amount of controlled, institutional “irresponsibility” for creative scientists to find their organizational niche. Deviant views and radical innovations should not be discouraged. 4. An overemphasis on extrinsic (institutional) motivation. Intrinsic motivation is crucial for the self-actualizing process of individual scientific creativity.

Although there is disagreement as to whether one can be trained in scientific or other forms of creativity, there are combinations of circumstances that are present when creativity is achieved. These include the presence of the creative scientist, the requisite skills, the right problem, and an adequate social milieu [69]. At a time when productivity is frequently substituted for, confused with, and more valued than creativity, it is time for universities, private industry, and government to rethink their policies and roles in the creativity arena.

VIII. SUMMARY Aside from possession of the relevant knowledge, skills, and intelligence, what seems to characterize the creative scientist is his imagination, originality, and ingenuity in combining existing knowledge into a new and unified scheme. This creativity frequently emerges from an aesthetic, poetic sense of freedom derived from work, an uninhibited playful activity of exploring a medium for its own sake. We speculate thus: With a preference for irregularities and disorder, the creative scientist temporarily takes leave of his senses, permitting expression of unconfigurated forces of his irrational unconscious, This amounts to a kind of internal “wagering,” in which the scientist pits himself against uncertain circumstances, a situation in which his individual effort can be the deciding factor. When working on a difficult problem, there frequently occurs a “creative worrying” in which the problem is consciously and unconsciously carried around while doing other tasks. This period is attended by frustrations, tensions, and false inspirations. Dream and reality are wedded in a largely unconscious process of undefined emotional turmoil. When a uniquely gratifying association is


486

BOXENBAUM

realized, the unconscious deposits its collection of insights into the fringe consciousness, whereupon the full consciousness seizes on it and releases it as a flash of insight. Because the creative scientist possesses a strong and exacting selfconcept, he can organize, integrate, and even exploit the conflict within himself. By compensating in fantasy for what is missing in reality, creativeness can be an expressive outlet ameliorating the universal, annoying split between a man's inner unconscious world and his outer conscious world. Although there is a divergence of opinion as to whether creativity can be taught, there is agreement that it can be fostered. However, parents, teachers, and institutions must display considerably more flexibility and tolerance towards individually minded persons who behave in seemingly nonconformist ways.

Acknowledgments 1 wish to express my deep appreciation to Dr. Peter Robinson for his critical evaluation and suggestions relating to this paper.

REFERENCES [I] €? Noy, Insight and creativity, J. Am. Psyc..~am Assoc., 7 17-748 (1978). [2] L. von Bertalanffy, Problems of Life. Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1960, p. I . [3] J. Bronowski, Science and Human Values, rev. ed., Harper & Row, New York. 1965. [4] H. E. Gruber and S. N. Davis, Inching our way up Mount Olympus: The evolving-systems approach to creative thinking, in The Nature of Creativity (R. J. Sternberg, ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988, Chap. 10, pp. 243-270. (51 E. Blade, Creative science, in Essays on Creariviry in the Sciences (M. A. Coler, ed.), New York University Press, New York, 1963, pp. 183-206. 161 R. S. Mansfield and T. V. Busse, The Psychology of Creativity and Discovery, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 198 1 . (71 A. M. Bennett, Science: The antithesis of creativity, Persp. Biol. Med., 11, 233-246 (1968).



487

(81 R. J. Sternberg, A three-facet model of creativity, in The Nature of Creariviry (R. J. Sternberg, ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988, Chap. 5 , pp. 125-147. [9] F. C. Wilson, Creativity in medicine-A faculty perspective, Persp. Biol. Med., 29, 3 10-3 15 ( 1986). [lo] E. Becker, Revolution in Psychiatry, The Free Press, New York, 1964. (111 A. Koestler, The Act of Creation, Macmillan, New York, 1964. [12] R. May, The Courage to Create, W. W. Norton, New York, 1975. [13] T.S . Szasz, The Manufacture of Madness, Dell, New York, 1970. [14] F. Suppe, Afterword-1977. in The Structure of Scientific Theories (F. Suppe, d.), 2nd ed., University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, 1977, p ~ 617-730. . [15] G. Gutting, Introduction, in Puradigms and Revolutions (G. Gutting, ed.), University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1980, pp. 1-21. [16] T. S . Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970. [17] K. Popper, Normal science and its dangers, in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, eds.), Cambridge, At the University Press (England), 1970, pp. 51-58. (181 H. Bergson, The Creative Mind (M. L. Andison, trans.), Philosophical Library, New York, 1946. [19] E? B. Medawar, Advice to a Young Scientist, Harper & Row, New York, 1979. [20] E. Borek, The loneliness of the original investigator, Nature, 264, 100 (1976). [21] C. R. Rogers, Toward a theory of creativity, ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 11, 249-260 (1954); reprinted in (1) Creativity and Its Cultivation (H. H. Anderson, ed.), Harper, New York, 1959, pp. 6982; (2) Creutiviry (I? E. Vernon, ed.),Penguin, Harmondsworth, England, 1970, Chap. 13, pp. 137-151; and (3) The Creativiry Question (A. Rothenberg and C. R. Hausman, eds.), Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1976, pp. 296-305. [22] R. Hard and R. Lamb (eds.), The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983, pp. 559-560. [23] T. B. Pawlicki, How You Can Explore Higher Dimensions of Space and Time, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984. [24] E. R. Garrett, A personal appraisal of progress, prospects and perspectives in the pharmaceutical sciences and pedagogy, Am. J. Phurm. Ed., 44, 347-358 (1980). [25] E. R. Garrett, Is it possible to teach scientific creativity in the pharmaceutical sciences? Anecdotes and memorabilia, Drug Inrell. Clin. Phurm., 19, 590-598 (1985).


488

BOXENBAUM

[26] F. Barron. The psychology of imaginaton. Sci. Am., 199 (3, Sept.), 151-166 (1958). [27] J. Levi, Before Paris and after, in The Creative Process (B. Ghiselin, ed.), A Mentor Book, New York, 1952, pp. 62-64. [28] B. Ghiselin, Ultimate criteria for two levels of creativity, in Scientific Creativity (C. W. Taylor & F. Barron, eds.), Wiley, New York, 1963, Chap. 3, pp. 30-43. [29] E. I? Torrance, The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing, in The Nature of Creativity (R. J. Sternberg, ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988, Chap. 2, pp. 43-75. [30] L. C. Repucci, First section of an unpublished 1960 report to Dow

[3 I ] [32]

[33] [34]

Chemical Company titled “Definitions and Criteria of Creativity,” Contained in the Appendix of C. W. Taylor’s chapter entitled “Various approaches to and definitions of creativity,” in The Nature of Creativity (R. J. Sternberg, ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988, Chap. 4, pp. 99-121. T. M. Amabile, The Social Psychology of Creativity, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983. I? W. Jackson and S. Messick, The person, the product, and the response: Conceptual problems in the assessment of creativity, in Creativity and Learning (J. Kagan, ed.), Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1967, pp. 1-19. A. M. Weinberg, Reflections on Big Science, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1967. R. Gorney, The Human Agenda, Guild of Tutors Press, Los Angeles,

1979. [35] J. S. Bruner, The conditions of creativity, in Contemporary Ap-

proaches to Creative Thinking (H. E. Gruber, G. Terrell. and M. Wertheimer, eds.), Atherton Press, New York, 1962, pp. 1-30. [36] D. W. MacKinnon, What makes a person creative?, Saturday Review, 45(kb. lo), 13-17, 69 (1962). [37] R. R. Wilson, Scientific and artistic aspects of creativity, in Creativity in Science-A Symposium (M.R. Raju, J. A. Phillips, and F. Harlow, eds.), L o s Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, 1985, pp. 85-90. [38] A. S. Iberall, On a thermodynamic theory of history, General Systems, 19, 201-207 (1974). [39] E. F. Kellor, A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock, W. H. Freeman, New York. 1983. [40] H. Gardner, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Basic Books, New York, 1985. [41] S. Sutherland, Grand organization in mind [book review of Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, H. Gardner, William HeinemandBasic Books: 19841, Nature, 308, 792-793 (1984).


489


[42] A. J. Cropley and T. W. Field, Achievement in science and intellectual style, J. Appl. Psychol., 53, 132-135 (1969). [43] H. H. Fox, A critique on creativity in science, in Essays on Creativity

in the Sciences (M. A. Coler, ed.), New York University Press, New York, 1963, pp. 123-152. [44]D. N. Perkins, What else but genius? Six dimensions of the creative mind, in Creativity in Science-A Symposium (M. R. Raju, J. A. Phillips, and F. Harlow, eds.), Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, 1985, pp. 15-26. [45] F. Barron, The needs for order and for disorder as motives in creative activity, in Scientific Creativity (C. W. Taylor and F. Barron, eds.), Wiley, New York, 1963, Chap. 12, pp. 153-160. [46] J. Campbell, Grammatical Man, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1982. [47] W. Moore, Schriidinger: Life and Thoughr, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989. [48] M. I. Stein, A transactional approach to creativity, in Scientific Creativity (C. w. Taylor and F. Barron, eds.), Wiley, New York, 1%3, Chap. 18, pp. 217-227. [49] T. S. Kuhn, The essential tension: Tradition and innovation in scientific research, in Scientific Creativity (C. W. Taylor and F. Barron, eds.), Wiley, New York, 1963, Chap. 28, pp. 341-354. [50] C. W. Taylor and F. Barron, Conference Participants-A look ahead: Reflections of the conference participants and the editors, in Scientific Creativity (C. W. Taylor and F. Barron, eds.), Wiley, New York, 1963, Chap. 31. pp. 372-389. (511 D. W. MacKinnon, The nature and nurture of creative talent, Am. Psychologist, 17, 484-495 ( 1962). [52] J. E. Davidson and R. J. Sternberg, The role of insight in intellectual giftedness, Gifted Child Q.,28, 58-64 (1984). [53] R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson, The mind of the puzzler, Psychology Today, 16(June), 37-44 (1982). [54] R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson, Insight in the gifted, Educational Psychologist. 18, 51-57 (1983). [55] R. W. Weisberg, Problem solving and creativity, in The Nature of Creativity (R. J. Sternberg, ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988, Chap. 6, pp. 148-176. [56] J. H. Austin, Chase, Chance and Creativity, Columbia University Press, New York, 1978. [57] F? W. Buffington, Strokes of genius, SKY (Delta Air Lines Inflight Magazine), Feb. 1987, pp. 120-125. [58] N. E. Golovin, Creativeness in the sciences and the problem of national growth, in Essays on Creativity in the Sciences (M. A. Coler, ed.), New York University Press, New York, 1963, pp. 13-41.


490

BOXENBAUM

[59] H. E. Gruber, The evolving systems approach to creative scientific work: Charles Darwin’s early thought, in Scientific Discovery: Case Studies (T. Nickles, ed.), D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1980, pp. 113-130. [60] H. Gruber, Interviewed by H. Gardner: Breakaway minds, Psychology Tday, 15(July), 64-73 (1981). [61] T. H. Maugh 11, Creativity: Can it be dissected? Can it be taught?, Science, 184, 1273 (1974). [62] A. Newell and H. Simon, Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1972. [63] A. Roe, A psychological study of eminent biologists, Psychol. Monog., 65(331), 1-68 (I95 I ) . (641 A. Roe, Psychological approaches to creativity in science, in Essays on Creativity in the Sciences (M.A. Coler, ed.), New York University Press, New York, 1963, pp. 153-182. (651 R. S. Root-Bernstein, Discovering, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989. [66] G. Santayana, The Life of Reason, one-vol. ed., Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. 1955. (671 R. V. Smith, Graduate Research: A Guide for Students in the Sciences, IS1 Press, Philadelphia, 1984. 1681 A. Storr, The Dynamics of Creation, Secker and Warburg, London, 1972. [69] T. Z. Tardif and R. J. Sternberg, What do we know about creativity? in The Narure of Crearivify (R. J. Sternberg, ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988, Chap. 17, pp. 429-440. [70] S. Arieti, Creativity: The Magic Synthesis, Basic Books, New York, 1976. 17 I ] G.Wallas. The Art of Thought, Harcourt, Brace, New York, 1926. [72] F. Barron, Dream to reality: Stages in the creative process, in Crearivity in Science-A Symposium (M. R. Raju, J. A. Phillips, and F. Harlow, eds.), Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, 1985, pp. 29-35. [73] J. Briggs, The genius mind, Science Digest, 92, 74-77, 102-103 (1984). [74] B. Ghiselin, Introduction, in The Creative Process (B. Chiselin, ed.), A Mentor Book, New York, 1952, pp. 11-31. [75] B. Ghiselin, The creative process and its relation to the identification of creative talent, in Scientific Creativity (C. W. Taylor and F. Barron, eds.), Wiley, New York, 1963, Chap. 29, pp. 355-364. [76] N. E. Golovin, The creative person in science, in Scientific Creativity (C. W. Taylor and F. Barron, eds.), Wiley, New York. 1963, Chap. 1 , pp, 7-23.



49 I

[77] H. E. Gruber, On the relation between “Aha experiences” and the construction of ideas, Hisr. Sci., 19, 41-59 (1981). [78] J. Hadamard. An Essay on rhe Psychology of Invention in rhe Marhemutical Field, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1945. [79] F. L. Holmes, Patterns of scientific creativity, Bull. Hisr. Med., 60, 19-35 (1986). [80] H. K. Hughes, Individual and group creativity in science, in Essays on Creativity in rhe Sciences (M. A. Coler, ed.), New York University Press, New York, 1963, pp. 93-109. [81] I? Langley and R. Jones, A computational model of scientific insight, in The Narure of Creativity (R. J. Sternberg, ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988, Chap. 7, pp. 177-201. [82] I? Langley, H. A. Simon, G. L. Bradshaw, and J. M. Zytkow, Scientific Discovery, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987. [83] R. May, The nature of creativity, in Creativity and Its Culrivarion (H. A. Anderson, ed.), Harper, New York, 1959, Chap. 5, pp. 55-68. [84] H. A. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial. 2nd ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 198 I . [85] A. Rothenberg, Homospatial thinking in creativity, Arch. Gen. Psychiatr., 33, 17-26 (1976). [86] A. Rothenberg, Einstein’s creative thinking and the general theory of relativity: A documented report, Am. J. Psychiarr., 136, 38-43 (1979). [87] A. Rothenberg, Janusian process and scientific creativity: The case of Niels Bohr, Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 19, 100- I 19 (1983). [88] E. Becker, The Birrh and Dearh of Meaning, Free Press, New York, 1971. [89] J. Huxley, Evolution in Action, Mentor Books, New York, 1953. [90] N. 0. Brown, Life Againsr Dearh, Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, CT, 1959. (911 H. H. Anderson, Creativity in perspective, in Creativity and I t s Cultivation (H. A. Anderson, ed.), Harper, New York, 1959, Chap. 15, pp. 236-267. [92] L. S. Kubie, Creation and neurosis, in The Creativity Question (A. Rothenberg and C. R. Hausman, eds.), Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1976, pp. 143-148. [93] A. Roe, Personal problems and science, in Scientific Crearivity (C. W. Taylor and F. Barron, eds.), Wiley, New York, 1963, Chap. 10, pp. 132-138. [94] F. Barron. The disposition toward originality, in Scienrific Creativity (C. W. Taylor and F. Barron. eds.), Wiley, New York, 1963, Chap. 11, pp. 139-152.


492

BOXENBAUM

[95] B. S. Bloom, Report on creativity research by the examiner’s office of the University of Chicago, in Scientific Creativity (C. W. Taylor and F. Barron, eds.), Wiley, New York, 1963, Chap. 20, pp. 251-264. 1961 R. B. Cattell, The personality and motivation of the researcher from measurements of contemporaries and from biography, in Scientific Creativity (C. W. Taylor and F. Barton, 4 s . ) . Wiley. New York, 1963, Chap. 9, pp. 119-131. [ 971 J. I? Rushton, Scientific creativity: An individual differences perspective, J. SOC. Biol. Strucr., I f , 140-143 (1988). 1981 T. M. Amabile, Growing up Crearive, Crown Publishers, New York, 1989. 1991 E. I? Torrance and R. E. Myers, Creative Learning and Teaching, Dodd, Mead, New York, 1972. [I001 M. I. Stein, Creativity and culture, J. Psychol., 36, 311-322 (1953). [loll J. A. Chambers, College teachers: Their effect on creativity of students, J. Educ. Psychol., 65, 326-334 (1973). [lo21 T. J. Peters and R. H. Waterman, Jr., In Search of Excellence, Harper and Row, New York, 1982. [I031 B. Rice, Teaching managers the art of creativity, US Air Magazine, 7(9), 54-66 (1985). [ 1041 D. Hoffman (chairperson), Panel discussion on individual creativity, in Creativity in Science-A Symposium (M. R. Raju, J. A. Phillips, and F. Harlow, eds.), L o s Alamos National Laboratory, L o s Alamos, 1985, pp. 36-60. [I051 H . W. Mohrman, Industrial research management and creativity, in Essays on Creativity in rhe Sciences (M. A. Coler, ed.), New York University Press, New York. 1963, pp. 74-92. [ 106) R. L. Simpson, A schema of science, Science, 230, 658-659 (1985).

Note Added in Proof. The “unity amidst diversity” concept discussed in the introduction is beautifully summarized by the first three lines of a delightful poem entitled “The Monk in the Kitchen” (A. H. Branch, Rose of rhe Wind and Other Poems, Houghton Mifflin Co.. Boston, 1910, pp. 136-140):

Order is a lovely thing; On disarray it lays its wing, Teaching simplicity to sing.

Creativity and psychopathology: a systematic review.

psychopathology research - a systematic review.

Varieties of (Scientific) Creativity: A Hierarchical Model of Domain-Specific Disposition, Development, and Achievement.

E-cigarettes: a scientific review.

Is One Dimension Enough? A Response to Simonton's Varieties of (Scientific) Creativity (2009).

How to review a scientific paper.

Testing Scientific Software: A Systematic Literature Review.

? + ? = creativity.

On creativity.

Surgery and pleuro-pulmonary tuberculosis: a scientific literature review.

Applying the neuroscience of creativity to creativity training.

Editorial: in praise of scientific review officers.

Domain-Specificity of Creativity: A Study on the Relationship Between Visual Creativity and Visual Mental Imagery.

Scientific review by the ethics committee.

Smoke-free multiunit housing: a review of the scientific literature.

[Scientific review on novel genome editing techniques].

New drug law to speed scientific review.

A New Tool to Measure Malevolent Creativity: The Malevolent Creativity Behavior Scale.

Creativity in later life.

Creativity and Bipolar Disorder: Igniting a Dialogue.

Neuropsychiatry of creativity.

Placebo can enhance creativity.

Culture and creativity.

Epilepsy treatment and creativity.