Have you ever wondered why some scientists seem to generate research-worthy ideas on cue while others struggle to come up with just one?
It’s as if they both went to the same game arcade, but the creative scientist has unlimited funds and a Japanese gacha machine, while the struggling scientist got stuck with one token and a Korean claw machine.
Snagging that one creative research idea that is truly your own can feel frustratingly out of reach.
Cognitive psychologists have long studied human creativity. And one in particular has made a career out of studying scientists.
Breaking Creativity into Three Factors
Dean Keith Simonton, a cognitive and social psychologist, has researched science, creativity, and personality factors for over four decades. In a recent-ish (2021) paper in Frontiers in Psychology he summarized his combinatorial framework for analyzing scientific creativity.
Simonton identifies three basic parameters that influence scientific creativity. He frames creativity as a kind of scientific product: a scientist finds themselves in a situation where they need to present a solution. The question is, what kind of solution will they come up with? He models their behavioral options as a combination of three factors (or parameters).
The combination of the three factors determines the outcome. The factors are:
- Their likelihood of using a solution.
- Usefulness of that solution.
- Prior knowledge of that solution’s usefulness.
According to Simonton’s idea, all eight combinations are behaviors we might demonstrate in research. Only one of them counts as scientific creativity. But it’s worth it to consider all eight.
Combinations and Creativity: Understanding the Possible Mixes
The combinatorial creativity framework is really all about approaches to problem solving. The three pieces to combine can be divided into a taxonomy of various types of solutions, each with their own typology.
Simonton breaks it into three classes, covering eight typologies.
Expertise-Driven Combinations We Normally Use
The first class he calls expertise-driven combinations. These are about using your experience to know in advance if something will work (explicit expertise) or won’t work (implicit expertise).
An example of this was when I was training non-science majors at Pearl Harbor to solve introductory physics problems, some with gaps in their math training. The first skill I worked on was to help them recognize legal versus illegal math moves. For illegal math moves an expert knows they don’t have to continue solving the problem that way and then compare the final result to lab data to see if they got it right. It’s an illegal math move- it will automatically end up a failed solution. On the other hand, experts also know that legal math moves may or may not give a correct solution. Helping students recognize these “illegal” moves is sharing our implicit expertise with them. Explicit expertise is all the stuff listed in the course objectives that students get tested on.
Irrational Combinations to Avoid
The second class Simonton calls irrational combinations. There are two kinds.
We might stick with something we already know is unlikely to work (irrational perseveration) and or fail to pursue a viable option due to bias (irrational suppression). Both are dead ends for discovery. So, we should watch out for them in ourselves and in the work of others.
We can all think of examples of this. These are usually memories we would rather avoid.
“Blind Variations” Including Scientific Creativity
The third class Simonton calls blind variations and this includes scientific creativity.
They are named “blind variations” because they require that the scientist have no knowledge of whether their solution attempt will be useful (i.e, they go in “blind”).
The first typology in this class is the lucky guess where we get the right solution accidentally. The second is problem finding where a seemingly surefire solution unexpectedly fails. Simonton links this to Thomas Kuhn’s idea of anomalies in science which can bring down existing paradigms by finding chinks in the existing theoretical armor that suggest a new paradigm is needed.
The third typology is mind wandering or behavioral tinkering. This is where we use solution strategies we know are totally irrelevant and will fail (like binging Netflix instead, daydreaming, or color coding your proposal outline for “clarity”). As Simonton points out, this tactic is not creative in-and-of-itself, but it can lead to a creative result…namely, the fourth typology.
The fourth and final possible combination of our three factors (solution likelihood, usefulness, and prior knowledge) is the creative idea or response. This is where we try a solution we didn’t know would work and were honestly unlikely to try, but find out it’s a winner.
Which leads to Simonton’s definition of personal creativity, including scientific creativity: it’s the product (in the math sense) of the originality of our solution (i.e., that it had a low likelihood of being tried), our prior knowledge (used to pre-vet options), and the element of surprise (how clueless we are going in about whether or not the solution will prove useful).
The stronger those three elements are, the more likely it is we produce a creative solution.
Creativity, Childhood, Education, and Personality
This Simonton paper is not a formal research study. Simonton does reference many of his prior research studies to support his points. His paper is also filled with little snippets of discovery history, which makes for a fun read.
But he does link this framework to three interesting questions and draw some tentative conclusions based on his research experience:
Is there a link between scientific creativity and our-
- childhood experiences,
- our educational background, and
- our personality?
Scientific Creativity May Come from Less Eventful Childhoods
While “eventful” childhoods (such as financial or parental hardship, illness, religious or cultural minority status, orphanhood, or unconventional living or education experiences) have been linked to general creativity, especially in the arts, it’s not clear that the same correlation exists within science. While theories abound about how such early events can shape an author or artist’s perspective and focus, it’s not as clear how it would impact a scientist’s trajectory at the level of their research design or theory choices.
In Simonton’s view the sciences, especially the natural sciences, use very prescribed methods of generating valid and correct ideas, which leaves less freedom to apply individual background-driven nuances to our work.
This doesn’t mean individuals who might fit the eventful childhood category won’t flourish in science. It just means that it may not have the same mythical hold over their career as it does for creatives in the arts, where a good origin story can seem mandatory.
Scientific Creativity May Flourish with More Formal Education
Connected to this idea that the physical sciences use more prescribed methods to produce valid results, Simonton cites prior research that indicates scientific creativity may be more likely to appear in those with more formal training, as compared to in the arts where lack of formal training can be quite common in creative individuals like poets.
Simonton also cites scientific creativity as being more likely to appear among “excellent students in science majors and who attained advanced degrees at top-notch universities”. However, it’s wise to be cautious about assuming an Ivy-league or Russell-group education is necessary for scientific creativity. This may be more about exposure to techniques and opportunities for practice and feedback, which are higher at such institutions compared to organizations with fewer resources. That does not mean, especially in today’s internet and open access age, that a dedicated individual can’t find other means to satisfice this criteria.
Scientific Creativity May Benefit from Openness to Non-Science Interests
Lastly, Simonton talks about scientific creativity as it links to the large body of work on personality. He highlights “openness to experience” as a possible personality dimension with links to scientific creativity. Creative scientists often have strong interests in non-science activities like art. Simonton’s example: Gilleo used his art training in chiaroscuro to discover that shadows on the moon indicated the presence of mountains.
Simonton also points out that openness to experience has been linked to cognitive disinhibition, the inability to filter out extraneous or irrelevant information. This may sound like a negative, but it’s possible it plays a role in serendipity. Simonton cites the example of Fleming failing to throw away his moldy petri dish (like most trained scientists would) and discovering penicillin instead. Cognitive inhibition would normally tell us “dirty dish” = not science relevant. Cognitive disinhibition can mean “dirty dish” = interesting diversion and discovery.
The Actionable Takeaways
Again, this paper is not a research study. It’s a synthesis of ideas from Simonton’s long-running research themes on creativity, genius, and the psychology and lives of high-performing creatives in both the arts and sciences. So, use the ideas with caution. But it gives a lot of food for thought. And there are some useful takeaways:
- Make your implicit expertise top-of-mind instead of back-of-mind.
Implicit knowledge is often the shortcut used to narrow down an overwhelming number of choices to a few working ideas. Be clear on your process for doing that. And remember to occasionally challenge it. That’s the first filter we use to suppress our creativity. It’s possible you may be killing good ideas based on long-standing “that won’t work” assumptions.
- Try surprising options.
Thinking of originality (trying options no one thought to try) as a cornerstone of creativity is a great way to kickstart your efforts or get them out of a creative or technical rut. They don’t even have to be your ideas. Maybe it’s an option someone else suggested in a talk, paper, or podcast but no one has pursued yet. Here’s your opportunity to go for it.
Boot Up Your Pre-Creative Ritual
Creativity in science can feel like a myth that only a few geniuses get to live. But it’s accessible to all of us. Pick one point from Simonton’s ideas that resonates with a science problem you have right now and apply it. It gets easier to try surprising solutions the more we practice. And if you need to take a mind wandering break along the way, just think of it as your “pre-creative ritual”. Even your mind needs a warm up routine sometimes.
References
Simonton, Dean Keith, “Scientific Creativity: Discovery and Invention as Combinatorial”, Frontiers in Psychology, 12, article 721104 (2021).
Permanent link (open access): https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.721104
