Scientific Creativity and the Arts: Some Observations

Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist—those elements are the stuff of scientific creativity, according to Dean Keith Simonton at UC Davis. Simonton's 2004 book Scientific Creativity examines the people, contexts, and underlying processes associated with original discoveries that have a significant impact on scientific knowledge and practice. He says chance "appears to be the most proximate cause" of scientific discoveries while "logic, zeitgeist, and genius impinge upon, intensify, modify, and qualify or in some other manner adjust the operation of chance." In other words, the more original a discovery is, the "less likely it is that logic played a causal role in the event." (Of course, this doesn't mean scientists just roll the dice. It's just that the factors are so complex and there are so many possible interactions that it appears random for all intents and purposes.)

Does Simonton's analysis of each component underlying scientific discoveries and innovative breakthroughs—and how those components interrelate—add potential value to dialogue about developing students' creative and innovative thinking skills? I'd like to share some of my preliminary conclusions about that based on points from the book.

1. Simply improving science and math knowledge and skill is not enough. American education also must produce more STEM graduates who are creative thinkers. Simonton says that within any scientific domain, there is a small creative elite (about 10%) that accounts for something like 50% of publications. This suggests that STEM education should look not only at how to produce more students who have mastered advanced science knowledge but also at how to increase the percentage of those students who exhibit scientific creativity. In fact, wouldn't doubling the number of STEM majors exhibiting a high degree of scientific creativity give U.S. global competitiveness a bigger bang for the buck than doubling the number of STEM majors? Of course, both would be preferable, but considering the analysis of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, America can't lead economically unless it leads in innovative breakthroughs.
   


2. Building time into the school day for generating and playing with ideas may be part of the solution. Simonton says the process of scientific creativity consists of associative play followed by justification of the best ideas. "First," he says, "the scientist freely plays around with ideas, the logic participating only after the associative process has converged on a good combination." Also, he says most creative scientists generate more ideas than other scientists. Interestingly, the ratio of successful ideas to unsuccessful ones is about the same for the most creative and least creative scientists. In other words, creative scientists have more good ideas largely because they have more ideas. Should't we get students used to idea generation?
   


3. Building creative thinking into the science curriculum may be only part of the answer. A visual art, dance, theater, or music composition class—or projects that integrate these with science—might also be useful. Simonton says the most creative scientists are more likely to be working on several diverse projects at the same time and to have more outside interests. He also says that revolutionary contributions often come from people who are new to the field. Frans Johansson makes a similar observation in The Medici Effect: The most extraordinary innovative ideas are "intersectional"—that is, they are found where domains, disciplines, and cultures intersect. We need a complete curriculum!
   


4. The kinds of thinking creative scientists exhibit can be developed in an arts context. In comparing artistic and scientific creativity, Simonton says scientific paradigms place more constraints on scientific creativity and suggests that creative scientists exhibit more analytical intelligence than creative artists. But his analysis of how creative scientists think suggests to me that the actual creative ways of thinking in science and the arts are similar. Creative scientists, says Simonton, form a flatter hierarchy of associations (which means they connect ideas that other people would not connect) and are more open to "irrelevant stimuli." Michael Gelb and Sarah Miller Caldicott make a similar point in their book Innovate Like Edison. They call it "kaleidoscopic thinking"—generating lots of ideas, letting them flow, playing with them. I think arts activities outside of science can be an excellent "brain gym" for such thinking in general, and arts integration can be a way to introduce creative thinking into the science classroom.
   

I think creating strong arts education programs AND increasing instructional time in the arts is a good starting point, along with a commitment to studying arts integration. Students need the content knowledge and rigor they get in math and science classes. Taking too much time out of that to play with ideas—especially before teachers have received the professional development they need to do this effectively—could weaken the foundation of academic achievement in science.

In short: An expanded arts learning environment may be the better incubator for more purposeful instruction in creative thinking. Tomorrow, I will explore this further.