Strategies for Research

The purpose of research is to acquire knowledge. In pure fields such as philosophy or science, the pursuit of knowledge is ideally an open-minded affair engaged in for its own sake. In other activities such as applied research or industrial development, the inquiring mind seeks out new knowledge to support specific objectives. The open-ended nature of research endeavors and their lack of obvious solutions and promising avenues usually qualify them as difficult problems. This chapter explores a number of domain-independent issues and techniques for pursuing research in various disciplines. For the sake of concreteness, much of our discussion in this chapter focuses on the academic environment of graduate research. However, most of the topics and approaches pertain as well to research in other settings, whether a government laboratory or a corporate marketing office. The newcomer to the research enterprise tends to have a simple view of what research entails. He initially believes that following a few suggestions from the advisor will lead to demonstrable results, a series of advances that can be measured by the hour or week. He has a tacit belief that progress will ensue automatically over time, much like attending a hamburger stand, raking autumn leaves, or solving homework problems. How could he believe otherwise? He has little or no prior experience with difficult problems of the magnitude that now face him. Perhaps the most important thing he will learn in the first year or so is the environment of research. Addressing difficult problems requires a new mind-set, a willingness to explore new horizons, maintain an open mind, appreciate small insights, and even enjoy the steady stream of failures as well as successes. Learning to conduct research systematically will be the most important aspect of his education in the first year. If the research effort spans a planning horizon of about two years, the indoctrination will occur in conjunction with an orientation phase during the first half-year, a period for defining the problem and gathering relevant information.

Quality of Ideas and Solutions

We pass judgment on the value of scientific results. For example, we may feel that the periodic table of elements is of greater significance than the understanding that hydrogen is lighter than oxygen. For one thing, the latter fact may be deduced from an understanding of the periodic table. In this way, we may ascribe a measure of quality to an idea. The quality of an idea is subjective, and cannot be assigned an absolute value. However, it is possible to give a partial ordering and claim that idea A is of higher, lower, or equal worth in relation to idea B. The judgment of the relative importance of ideas is made routinely, for example, by an instructor in delivering a lecture or writing a book. The assignment of value occurs implicitly in the selection of topics and their relative emphasis. Once we admit a preference ordering among ideas, we may also assign an arbitrary numerical scale to them. This practice is standard in the field of economics, where a preference ordering among goods suggests a measure of utility. Since each consumer has individual tastes and needs, the resulting utility function varies from one person to another even for the same basket of goods. Further, the preferences are subjective and relative, rather than absolute. As a result, the level of utility can be based only on a conceptual scale. The basic measure of utility is an arbitrary unit called a util. In a similar way, we may assign a quality metric in terms of a granular unit of a qual. A person may assign a particular set of quals to a portfolio of ideas based on his own tastes and predilictions. A second person may offer a completely different set of quality values. This conception of an individual ordering of ideas is consistent with the view of difficulty and creativity as relative rather than absolute parameters. To pursue this line of reasoning, we may also speak of the combined quality of two or more ideas. The value of a set of ideas may be greater than, equal to, or less than the sum of the individual values.

Introduction

The world around us abounds with problems requiring creative solutions. Some of these are naturally induced, as when an earthquake levels a city or an epidemic decimates a population. Others are products of our own creation, as in the “need” to curb pollution, to develop a theory of intelligence, or to compose works of art. Still others are a combination of both, as in the development of high-yield grains to feed an overpopulated planet, or the maintenance of health in the face of ravaging diseases. The word problem is used in a general sense to refer to any mental activity having some recognizable goal. The goal itself may not be apparent beforehand. Problems may be characterized by three dimensions relating to domain, difficulty, and size. These attributes are depicted in Figure 1.1. The domain refers to the realm of application. These realms may relate to the sciences, technology, arts, or social crafts. The dimension of difficulty pertains to the conceptual challenge involved in identifying an acceptable solution to the problem. A difficult problem, then, is one that admits no obvious solution, nor even a well-defined approach to seeking it. The size denotes the magnitude of work or resources required to develop a solution and implement it. This attribute differs from the notion of difficulty in that it applies to the stage that comes after a solution has been identified. In other words, difficulty refers to the prior burden in defining a problem or identifying a solution, while size describes the amount of work required to implement or realize the solution once it has jelled conceptually. For convenience in representation on a 2-dimensional page, the domain axis may be compressed into the plane of other attributes. The result is Figure 1.2, which presents sample problems to illustrate the two dimensions of difficulty and size. Cleaning up spilled milk is a trivial problem having numerous simple solutions. In contrast, refacing the subway trains in New York City with a fresh coat of paint is a formidable task that could require hundreds of workyears of effort.

Factors of Creativity

The dictionary defines a factor as “something that actively contributes to the production of a result.” A number of factors may be attributed to the creative process and its final product. These factors are purpose, diversity, relationships, imagery, and externalization. The ingredients of creativity seem to be the same for diverse domains, from the arts to the sciences and social studies. The factors of creativity are depicted in Figure 4.1. These parameters refer to the purpose of the project, plus four others identified by diversity, relationships, imagery, and externalization. The second and third factors define the structure of the problem and its solution, while the last two relate to representation issues for generating the solution and expressing it in some form. The creative factors are listed in Table 4.1, along with their defining characteristics and prescriptive implications. The operational implications are described for both the human problem solver, as well as for the computer system that might be developed to assist in this task. For example, imagery relates to the development of ideas through sensory mechanisms, whether in actuality or in conception. The prescriptive implication is to generate a series of images in various formats, whether pictorial, auditory, or tactile. Of these, the most powerful vehicle is the visual image which can simultaneously represent numerous objects and their relationships. The operational implication for a computer-based system is a rich store of icons or pictorial images that may be depicted on color screens using versatile graphic techniques. The problem to be resolved defines the purpose of the creative process. The factor of purpose involves the distillation of a problem into its essential elements. This involves the identification of critical attributes and the elimination of extraneous features. For millennia people had yearned to fly. The existence of birds was proof that flight was possible. Man’s straightforward approach to achieving flight was to imitate aviary shapes and motions, especially wings and their flapping. But birds have functional requirements other than airborne motion, such as feeding, fleeing, and reproduction. It was not until the peripheral activities such as wing-flapping were ignored, that man could design a machine allowing him to attain active flight.

Tactics for Individual Productivity

The resolution of a difficult task often follows a series of identifiable steps. Students of creativity have often characterized the process as a four-stage phenomenon: • Preparation: Orientation to the problem and definition of the task. • Incubation: A period of aridity or immersion in unrelated activities. • Illumination: A sudden spark of insight and the recognition of a candidate solution. • Resolution: Assessment of the candidate solution and its implementation. The preparatory phase of a difficult task involves a careful consideration of the underlying problem and a clear specification of the goals. Too often we tackle tasks without an adequate definition of the true problem, and discover too late that the solution resolves an irrelevant problem. A distinguishing feature of challenging tasks lies in their resistance to attack, and solutions do not always spring from a single session of wrestling with the problem. Often difficult issues are resolved, whether gradually or suddenly, over spaced efforts interrupted by unrelated activities. Some students of creativity take the view that incubation is a period of “intermission” in which the problem submerges into the subconscious. The lack of strict conventions in this netherworld allows for the juxtaposition of new objects in novel and even bizarre combinations. The resulting ideas possess the novelty that is an essential ingredient of a creative solution. Other writers take the view that incubation is nothing more than a period of relaxation or recuperation in which a tired mind regains its energies. Still others would claim that the incubation phase is merely a stretch of time that allows the mind to assimilate other stimuli from the environment, whether at the conscious or subconscious level. Whatever the true role of incubation, the fact remains that many of our difficult problems are resolved only after several sessions of conscious effort separated by seemingly unrelated activities. A candidate solution to a difficult problem often occurs suddenly, just like the elementary ideas that constitute them. Such preliminary solutions or “insights,” however, can be misleading or even incorrect. For this reason, the ideas must be properly evaluated.

Attributes of Creativity

As discussed in the previous chapter, the term problem is used in a general sense to refer to any task that requires resolution. These tasks may range from solving a mathematical problem to formulating a business strategy, from generating an engineering prototype to conceiving an artistic design. A problem is called easy if the identification of an acceptable solution is straightforward. The label of easiness refers to the generation of the solution rather than its implementation. According to this view, finding the average value of a thousand numbers is as easy as calculating the mean of two values, since the procedure is equally straightforward. In contrast, a hard or difficult problem is one whose resolution is not readily discernable. A common source of difficulty lies in the fact that the ultimate objective is not known a priori. This situation is reminiscent of the fictional detective rummaging through a ransacked house. “What are you looking for?” asks his companion. “I don't know—but I'll know it when I find it!” In a more sedate context, the same situation applies to an investigator who wants to develop a science of manufacturing but cannot specify beforehand the nature of such a discipline. Manufacturing is one arena which until recently was regarded as a domain so complex that it would remain only an art rather than a science. A second and perhaps more prevalent difficulty in resolving a problem relates to the route rather than the destination: the desired objective may be known, but not its means of attainment. This situation occurs when an automotive engineer must design an electric car that can travel over 1000 kilometers between battery recharges. It also occurs when a federal committee must develop a policy to contain the outbreak of a new epidemic: it is not clear to what extent emphasis should be placed on public education, medical research, governmental regulation, or other mechanisms for prevention and redress. The resolution of such difficult problems requires a creative approach. In fact, we can summarize the preceding discussion in the following definitions.

Conclusion

Previous approaches to creativity have often focused on the person or problem domain, as well as the task itself. In this book, we have focused on the task: a difficult problem is one that has no ready solution or even the means to a solution. Some consequences of this perspective are as follows: • Creativity is a matter of degree. The operant question is not “Is this result creative?” but rather “How creative?” • Creativity is a domain-independent concept. An accountant may be creative, as may a shopkeeper or a musician. • All of us face difficult problems from time to time. We may be creative at one point, and uncreative at another. • Creativity involves purposive novelty. Originality or diversity is a necessary component of creativity, but diversity in itself is not a sufficient factor if it does not resolve the referent problem. • As encapsulated in the Multidistance Principle, the solution must incorporate components exhibiting some properties that are distant, and others that are close. • If creativity is a form of higher-order problem solving, itself a cornerstone of general intelligence, then there exist rational approaches to enhancing creative results. • An effective procedure for dealing with difficult problems lies in the Method of Directed Refinement. • Active failure is the highway to success. • Productivity in project managment involves the pursuit of a select number of parallel activities: too few, and efficiency suffers through slack time; too many, and overhead paralyzes productivity. • Our social institutions, including the educational system, encourage conformity— a homogeneity often leading to mediocrity rather than harmony. For each problem of consequence, we should rather seed myriad ideas and cultivate multiple solutions. • Supervision of creative individuals is a delicate affair involving both intervention and insulation. It calls for inspiring action at a distance, without undermining interest nor tainting intrinsic drive. In this book, we have partitioned the components of creativity into five factors: purpose, diversity, relationships, imagery, and externalization. The purpose of the creative effort defines the problem to be resolved.

Supervising the Researcher

In the first sixteen years or more of our formal education, there is little to prepare us for the rigors of research or the demands of life in general. In lectures we are taught facts and techniques; in homework we develop skills by applying those techniques. Even in project-based courses such as those sometimes found in engineering and business curricula, the experience is relatively structured. In general, the goals are precisely defined as are the alternative paths to the solution. Although more helpful than lectures, such project-based experiences still provide an inadequate preview of the rigors of earnest research. There are courses in logic offered by the philosophy department, cognitive processes in psychology, and artificial intelligence in computer science. But they are not usually core requirements in the college curriculum. Further, even these courses generally deal with facts, figures, and straightforward deductive procedures. These analytical and deductive methods are necessary but insufficient for solving difficult problems. The most challenging problems are, by definition, not straightforward. We are not taught in school how to grope intelligently, to stumble with style. Our educational system, like society at large, discourages creative behavior which necessarily deviates from the norm. The forces of convergence, including the need for group identification and the fear of ostracism, are more numerous and powerful than those of divergence. Teachers, parents, and peers tend to encourage standardized rather than unexpected behaviors. The creative person must have a healthy dose of confidence and self-respect, since risk and creativity go hand in hand. If we learn to think effectively and address difficult problems systematically, our skills spring from personal experience rather than formal education. For our educational system teaches advanced thinking skills in spotty fashion, at best. If we learn to think effectively, it is usually a by-product rather than a keystone of the course work. Studies of 301 historical figures born since 1450 indicate the dubious impact of education on eminence. The sample included 109 leaders, ranging from the American general Philip Henry Sheridan as the most obscure to Napoleon Bonaparte as the most renowned; and 192 creators ranging from the English novelist Harriet Martineau to the French writer Voltaire.

Managing the Project

How does one approach a large, difficult problem? By definition the solution to the problem is ill-defined, and the path to the solution is even more obscure. The poor definition of the problem does not, however, imply the complete lack of operational strategies. It is not sufficient to throw up our hands in despair and go fishing to await divine inspiration. The resolution of difficult problems—and of easy ones—can be facilitated by a coherent strategy. This “rational” nature of problem solving applies to the realm of scientific discovery: . . . However romantic and heroic we find the moment of discovery, we cannot believe either that the events leading up to that moment are entirely random and chaotic. . . . We believe that finding order in the world must itself be a process impregnated with purpose and reason. We believe that the process of discovery can be described and modeled, and that there are better and worse routes to discovery—more and less efficient paths. . . . Purposive activity enhances creative problem solving not only in science, but in nontechnical arenas as well. This chapter discusses a number of strategic issues and techniques for addressing challenging problems. Some failures are productive while others are not. An active failure is one that serves to advance the state of knowledge. Such a result may be used to modify a tentative hypothesis, whether through refinement or outright rejection. Active failures may in turn be classified into two types: definitive or mixed. A definitive failure is a strong result that may be used to overturn a proposition by showing it to be false. To illustrate, consider the question, “Are there stars in our galaxy that are over 15 billion years old?” Suppose that a means were found to give a definitive answer, and the resulting answer was “No.” This type of failure is actually a positive result for the opposite hypothesis. In other words, the negative response is actually a positive confirmation of the query, “Are there no stars in our galaxy over 15 billion years old?” In fact, a statistician might well have begun the investigation with the null hypothesis, “No star in our galaxy is over 15 billion years old.”