Overcoming obstacles to creativity in science
Keywords:
Abduction, Cognitive bias, Creativity, Epistemological obstacle, Normal scienceAbstract
Creativity is a crucial issue in science. Scientifi c research should not be restricted to the logical development and application of known ideas, but should promote new ideas to expand knowledge beyond the existing frontiers. Stimulating scientifi c creativity means not only giving a boost to creative thinking, but also taking into account the factors that put a brake on creativity. This article is devoted to factors that keep scientifi c creativity in check and how we could address them. We analyze several obstacles lying inside and outside the researcher’s mind. The most important obstacles inside the researcher’s mind are epistemological obstacles and cognitive bias (confi rmation bias). While the most important obstacle outside are the social norms, i.e. the pressure for the scientifi c community and, sometimes, the whole society, to conform to the dominant scientifi c model. We conclude with some proposals to overcome these obstacles.
Downloads
References
Bachelard, G. (1938). La formation de l’esprit scientifique. Paris: Vrin.
Campanario, J. M. (2009). Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: Accounts by Nobel Laureates. Scientometrics, 81(2), 549-565.
Campanario, J. M., & Acedo, E. (2007). Rejecting highly cited papers: The views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(5), 734-743.
Desmet, L., Grégoire, J., & Mussolin, C. (2010). Developmental changes in comparison of decimal fractions. Learning and Instruction, 20(6), 521-532.
Frisch, O. R. (1980). What little I remember (p.95). mCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grégoire, J. (2016). Understanding creativity in mathematics for improving mathematical education. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15(1), 24-36.
Hamad, S. (2007). Creativity: Method or magic? In H. Chen & B. Stemmer, Consciousness and cognition. London: Academic Press.
Kida, T. E. (2006). Don’t believe everything you think: The 6 basic mistakes we make in thinking. Amherst: Prometheus Books.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (p.24). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Luukkonen, T. (2012). Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices. Research Evaluation, 21(1), 48-60.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.
Peirce, C. S. (2011). Philosophical writings of Peirce (p.368). New York: Dover Publications. (Original work published in 1908).
Planck, M. (1949). Scientific autobiography and other papers (pp.33-34). Westport: Greenwood Press.
Sebeok, T. A. (1982). You know my method: A juxtaposition of Charles S. Peirce and Sherlock Holmes. In T. A. Sebeok. The play of musement. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Vartanian, O., Martindale, C., & Kwiatkowski, J. (2003). Creativity and inductive reasoning: The relationship between divergent thinking and performance on Wason’s 246 task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56(4), 641-656.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Jacques GRÉGOIRE
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
