Chapter 2
Attitudes, Commitments, and Creativity
Robert V. Smith*
Llewellyn D. Densmore†
Abstract
Productive and rewarding research is facilitated by dedicated efforts and experience, influenced by attitudes and commitments. Of importance is the adoption of a take-charge attitude along with a commitment and desire to be creative and productive in research – all supported by priority consciousness about research, and persistence in research and scholarly activities. Helpful practices include breaking larger problems into smaller ones, and achieving overall goals in parts, continual summarization, and careful documentation of results, and tolerance of failure. The resulting commitments “fuel” the creativity necessary for greater accomplishment. Creativity can be characterized by discoveries that are novel and useful, and contain the elements of transformation and condensation. Truly creative abilities take time to develop, but are supported by above-average intelligence, advanced education, and emotional balance. The characteristics of recognized creative scientists include autonomy, personal flexibility and openness, need for originality and recognition, commitment to work, and aesthetic sensitivities.
Keywords
attitude
commitment
creativity
aesthetics
originality
accomplishment
recognition
My life is what I have done, my scientific work; the one is inseparable from the other. The work is the expression of my inner development ... [and the] works can be regarded as stations along my life’s way.
– Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961) Swiss psychologist and psychiatrist
Productive and rewarding scholarship and research do not come easily. They require unique personal traits and practices. Some characteristics must already be part of the individual; other personality features, including creativity, can be improved with experience.
Attitudes and commitments
Research (discovery of new knowledge) and scholarship (creative organization, criticism, interpretation, and reinterpretation of facts and concepts), in and of themselves, can develop commitment. However, to become successful, graduate students must adopt a take-charge attitude, and develop what can be referred to as skeptical optimism – asking tough questions, and looking for alternatives, and ways through problems. In other words, graduate students become successful through commitment, and a desire to be creative and productive in research and scholarship. Furthermore, the commitment and desire may be augmented by involvement in so-called outreach programs (e.g., university–elementary school partnerships in science and math education).
Commitment involves an interesting feedback relationship. Reid [15] noted, “It has been my experience that the most unattractive problem becomes absorbingly interesting when one digs into it … when you really get acquainted with a problem, you are apt to fall in love with it.” Students who achieve the results necessary to earn a degree, and succeed professionally, do so through extraordinary commitment. This commitment, in turn, “fuels” the creativity necessary for greater accomplishment. The Nobel laureate geneticist, Barbara McClintock, noted, “I was just so interested in what I was doing I could hardly wait to get up in the morning and get at it. One of my friends, a geneticist, said I was a child because only children can’t wait to get up in the morning and get at it” [16]. Richard Hoffman, a world-class biologist, noted, “I think that anybody who’s going to make a contribution to science has got to be almost pathologically motivated. A person who is going to be good in science should be as dedicated as a person who’s trying to make the Olympics” [17].
A number of practices and occurrences nurture commitment to research and scholarly efforts. Most importantly, highest priority must be given to research and scholarship. Throughout graduate school, there are great demands on students’ time. Courses must be taken, seminars attended, and other responsibilities (e.g., teaching assistantships) fulfilled. It is easy to get into the position of “not having enough time for research and scholarship,” but research and scholarship are the most important activities in graduate education. Successful students or professionals do not find time for research (scholarship), they make time for research (scholarship). This is accomplished by reserving certain times, each day and each week for research and scholarly activities. Stated differently, a day does not go by without some movement toward these goals. At first, the necessary discipline may be developed by putting in a minimum amount of time, perhaps as little as 30–60 min/day. Within weeks or months, it will become difficult to spend so “little” time at research and scholarship – an investment has been made.
Research and scholarship often involve long-term projects that will require patience to see the projects through. Commensurate commitments are aided by breaking larger problems into smaller ones and achieving the overall goal in parts. A companion to patience is thoroughness. The proof of a hypothesis must come from experiments that test many different possibilities. This may require experimentation and data analysis.
Thoroughness is supported by continual summarization and careful documentation of results. A common temptation is to forget negative results, omitting them from research notebooks or their electronic equivalents. Another temptation is to delay inordinately the recording of research results. These are serious mistakes that can lead to needless repetition of unproductive experimentation. Furthermore, careless attention to the proper documentation of experimentation violates the principles of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) [18] that will be more thoroughly addressed in Chapter 6. Beyond RCR, it is also important to recall that experimental data are typically owned by the institutions or agencies sponsoring your work, thus, there is a need for special stewardship with results emanating from research.
Conducting research requires a certain level of emotional detachment that allows hypotheses to be challenged, and possibly found wrong (and refuted). This is aided by limiting speculation about results, and by admitting ignorance when appropriate. The latter is especially important when engaging in interdisciplinary research in which experiments are performed with unfamiliar methods.
Creativity
Creative scientists produce work that is original and is valued by others in the same field. For the beginning graduate student, these requirements are difficult because of the implied evaluation of published work that might not appear until after the dissertation is written – although such situations are becoming rare in the twenty-first century. There are also intervening evaluations of research by advisors and thesis committee members that help the creative development process.
Creative research and scholarship result in novel ideas or products. Newness alone, however, is not enough. For example, an agricultural scientist might find that precious metal foils provide protection for plants from certain damaging wavelengths of artificially produced sunlight. The cost restrictions of these findings limit their usefulness. Thus, for the applied scientist at least, the idea or product must be novel and useful; both are criteria necessary to secure a US patent. In basic research, by contrast, the usefulness of discoveries may not be apparent for years.
In addition to novelty and usefulness, creative research and scholarship involve transformation and condensation (note the unusual usage, as explained later). Jackson and Messick [19] defined “transformation” as a property that alters the constraints of reality; a work that defies tradition and yields a new perspective – a work that forces us to “see” reality in a new way. Rocha e Silva [20] noted, “To see is to go deep into the meaning of a phenomenon. It is the attitude that leads to the creation of a new theory that may change one’s outlook of the universe.” The scientist who “sees” and believes in a new reality is, at the beginning, alone – mistrusted by colleagues and lay persons [20].
A historically significant example of “transformation” is found in the theory of evolution. Darwin melded ideas from Malthusian economics and his own observations, during a nearly 5-year journey on the Beagle (1831–1836) – especially the insights gained during his travels to South America and through the Galapagos Islands – to develop his thoughts on natural selection [21].
The final necessary characteristic of creative research and scholarship, as noted earlier, is condensation. Works that encompass many ideas exemplify this. Jackson and Messick [19] noted that these works are, “Products [discoveries] that warrant close and repeated examination [and] … do not divulge their total meaning on first viewing. These products offer something new each time we experience them … They have about them an intensity and concentration of meaning requiring continued contemplation.” The theory of evolution by natural selection also represents a work that rates high in condensation because it has helped explain the origins of, and changes in, plant and animal life from discoveries made through a range of research efforts during the past 150 years and more.
People are frequently misled by the term “theory,” as it is used in science, and as it applies to a theory like evolution. The debate on teaching creationism or “intelligent design” versus evolution in schools, for example, often focuses on the notion that evolution is just a theory that is not proved. Yet, scientific theories are never fully proved. Rather, they become more and more accepted as proofs develop and supporting evidence accumulates. Eventually, theories are replaced by broader theories, and the process of proofs continues. In the case of evolution per se, the dichotomy of public versus scientific belief are captured, on the one hand, by a journalist and a marine biologist, Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum [22], respectively, who note: “A distressingly large number of Americans refuse to accept either the fact or the theory of evolution, the scientifically undisputed explanation of the origin of our species and the diversity of life on Earth,” and reinforced by the Pulitzer-prize winning biologist, Edward (E.O.) Wilson [23]: “Virtually all biologists closely familiar with the details find the evidence for human evolution compelling, and give natural selection the commanding role.”
Levels of creativity
The word “creativity” is used loosely in society. It tends to be confused with popularity, productivity, and professional visibility. Also, people may be called creative when they achieve modest goals, such as winning first place in a high school essay contest or science fair. These individuals are better described as amateur creative.
Donald Cram, long-time distinguished Professor of Chemistry at UCLA, Nobel laureate, recipient of the National Medal of Science, and advisor of more than 200 graduate students, for more than four decades [24], differentiated between students who are operationally versus conceptually creative. In Cram’s experience, almost all students are operationally creative, while “Only about 5–10 percent … are conceptually creative. They are the ones that formulate research objectives. They not only know how to get things done, but they know what should be done” [25]. The transition from organizational to conceptual creativity is often signaled by researchers’ descriptions of experimental results. The beginning researcher may comment about a failed experiment: “I tried that approach and it failed. What should I try next?” As experience is gained, an advisor may begin to hear: “I tried that approach and it failed, but I have some ideas for alternative approaches.” With time, effort, and some guidance, the beginner integrates new approaches with new hypotheses – conceptual creativity emerges. And, conceptually creative scientists or “auctors” (from the Latin meaning maker, builder, author, or inventor), as noted by Mansfield and Busse [26], produce works that embody novelty, usefulness, transformation, and condensation.
It might be asked: What traits and practices lead to conceptually creative or auctor-level work? Simultaneously, it should be acknowledged that there are no quantum leaps in creativity, even for auctors. Rather, a continuum of creativity exists from amateur creative to conceptually creative researchers and scholars.
There appear to be three preconditions for auctor-level scientific creativity: above-average intelligence, advanced education, and emotional balance. For graduate students, the first prerequisite is demonstrated through entrance requirements (i.e., grades, GRE scores, and PPI performance) of graduate programs. The need for advanced education is evident, and the importance of commitment has been emphasized previously. Also, the specialization and depth of study required of graduate students takes time. Students should not feel discouraged if they seem initially to lack creative acumen. Sometimes, truly creative insights may only begin to develop during the last 2 or 3 years of graduate study. Moreover, some scientists believe that real creativity only starts to blossom after several years of research.
Roe [27] proposed that a minimum level of emotional adjustment is necessary for creative research and scholarship. Indeed, only the emotionally balanced individual will be able to develop the persistence and commitment that are needed for in-depth study. Some researchers also believe that persistence and commitment are related to the pleasure derived from being alone, and from one’s level of self-confidence. Also, there are researchers who articulate a “knack for making research results happen.” In our experience, the so-called “knack” often comes with experience, such as repeating successfully the results of others.
Many students have the prerequisites for becoming an auctor-level creative scientist. However, to develop perspective, the traits of acknowledged creative scientists are reviewed next.
Characteristics of auctors
MacKinnon [28] described six characteristics that are associated with creative scientists:
1. Autonomy
2. Personal flexibility and openness
3. Need for originality
4. Need for recognition
5. Commitment to work
6. Aesthetic sensitivities
Auctors are autonomous. They display independence and accept nothing on blind faith, or the mere say-so of “authorities.” Autonomy should be promoted in graduate programs, and is nurtured by good advisors and mentors. Indeed, a critical criterion for choosing an advisor should be the advisor’s reputation for fostering graduate student autonomy.
Creative scientists are flexible and open to new experiences and interpretations. They are unconcerned with strict adherence to rules and regulations, and they reject dogmatic behavior. While a lack of dogmatism is critical, the researcher must adhere to prescribed routines of experimental protocols and abide by relevant institutional policies and procedures, many of which are connected with governmental compliance requirements (e.g., responsible conduct of research, animal and human subjects research, conflict of interest) [18]. Also, successful creative scientists adopt a sense of professionalism in meeting deadlines and in dealings with support staff. These characteristics involve habits that should be reinforced during graduate education.
Flexibility and openness require the toleration of uncertainty and complexity. Creative scientists have faith that well thought-out hypotheses, good experimental design, and persistence will lead to the truth through research.
It requires courage to attempt new experimental routines and procedures. For the beginning graduate student, the fear of new methods or techniques can hamper progress in research. This is counteracted, in part, by choosing an advisor who helps overcome these apprehensions. For example, the establishment of a hierarchical structure in research groups offers role models for new graduate students and provides mechanisms for helping all students’ progress. Role models are particularly important for women and underrepresented graduate students. A great research group is one that is diverse, inclusive, and celebrates diversity. Success in such groups is also measured by the subsequent achievements of graduates who become role models for future students of diverse backgrounds. A good advisor also helps students learn the difference between ideas and good ideas. This is indicated, in part, by the quality of the journals that have published work of the advisor’s former students.
Auctors need to be original and novel. They consciously strive to achieve goals that bolster ego and enhance self-esteem. Donald Cram, commenting on his eminent career in chemistry noted: “My early intuitive judgment about self-fulfillment through doing research turned out just as I had hoped – my life has been and still is enormously satisfying, and research has been its core – its center” [24]. The need for originality pertains to scholars in many fields. Thornton Wilder [29], the Pulitzer Prize winning author of Our Town, once noted, “I erase as I go along … I look forward so much I have only an imperfect memory for the past. When your eyes are directed to the future, you have no hurt feelings over the praises or criticism of the moment – because, moment by moment, the present becomes the past. You have a sense of forever beginning your career, of trying to offer something new to interest the community.”
Wilder’s conviction expresses a need for professional recognition that is also a prominent characteristic of creative researchers and scholars. This trait is exemplified by disputes scientists have over priority claims to research findings. In this connection, auctors are more likely to be assertive than humble and they jealously guard their lifestyles, and what they perceive as original ideas and work.
From the earlier discussion, it may not be surprising to learn that auctors show high levels of commitment. Mansfield and Busse [26] described several studies showing that creative scientists work longer and harder, and are more productive, than less creative peers.
The talented biographer, Evelyn Fox Keller [16], noted: “Throughout history, artists and poets, lovers and mystics, have known and written about the ’knowing’ that comes from the loss of self – from the state of subjective fusion with object of knowledge.” Scientists have known it, too. Einstein once wrote: “The state of feeling which makes one capable of such achievements is akin to that of the religious worshipper or of one who is in love.” The commitment necessary to achieve this level of dedication should begin in graduate school.
MacKinnon [28] and Zuckerman [30] note that auctor-level researchers experience aesthetic satisfaction from their work. Stated differently, creative researchers find beauty in science and in solutions to problems. Their commitment is fostered by gratification experienced after proving hypotheses through personally designed and conducted (or directed) experimentation. Shortly before his death, the Nobel laureate in Physics, Richard Feynman [31], spoke fondly of the psychic satisfaction derived from some of his more important research, “I went on to work out the equations on wobbles … I was ’playing’ – working, really – with some old problem that I loved so much, that I had stopped working on when I went to Los Alamos: my thesis-type problem; all those old-fashioned, wonderful things… There was no importance to what I was doing, but ultimately there was. The diagrams and the whole business that I got the Nobel Prize for came from the piddling around with the wobbling plate.” The intriguing link between fond remembrance and work on a “thesis-type problem” will be considered again – later.
In summary, auctor-level scientists need to be original, and seek professional recognition. They are committed to their work, and they display flexibility and openness to experience; they act autonomously and find beauty in their work. This montage serves as a model, and a basis for self-determined improvement.
The plan will be influenced by conscious choices and, to some degree, by chance. Austin [32] has described four types of chance that are relevant to graduate research. Blind luck (Chance I) is independent of personal characteristics, and functions in everyone’s life. Chance II, or good luck, results from general exploratory behavior. The more one reads, experiments, and practices introspection, the greater the chance that random ideas will occur in certain juxtaposition to spark creative discovery.
Chance III is associated with serendipity and with Pasteur’s assertion that “chance favors the prepared mind.” This type of luck occurs with experience and requires a degree of courage to face the initially inexplicable result. Experienced investigators know that research frequently involves pursuit of unusual data points. Many important discoveries were, initially, findings that were discordant with expected findings. The “unprepared mind” has the tendency to discard such results, and begin again, thinking that the experiment went wrong. The more experienced researcher; however, will meet the serendipitous challenge by performing additional experimentation and by modifying hypotheses as necessary.
Chance IV provides fortuitous ideas through individualized action. Business professionals choose sports activities, such as golf because of the advantageous contacts that are made during play. Hobbies or leisure time activities can be chosen to complement scientific work. For example, graduate students in aerospace engineering could reinforce their research pursuits by having an interest in astronomy, skydiving, or piloting aircraft. Marine biology students might take up scuba diving. This can be referred to as “making things count double.”
The development of auctor-level scientists is dependent on choices made throughout a graduate career. Some of these choices will be required during the first few months of graduate school.