Research Curtails Creativity

This concern has been posed to me multiple times and, hence, my current attempt at digging deep. Does it? Or, should it? The definition of ‘research’ here pertains to the environmental design field.

To have a meaningful discourse on any issue, definitions matter; in this context especially three to begin with – ‘creativity’, ‘creative problem solving’, and ‘innovation’. All three are critical to the health of the architecture/design profession and play a decisive role in the success of professional service firms. ‘Creativity’ has been defined in multiple ways by leading design professionals. The other two terms appear to enjoy a more common understanding. With due acknowledgment and respect for varying opinions, here is what I deduced from my short web-based scrutiny:

Creativity: Pertains to one’s innate ability to think new. It has been generally interpreted from an artistic perspective. The ‘ability to think new’ could be in one or more of the various domains of human perception/sensation. The fundamental issue is that just possessing creativity (one’s inherent ability) may not automatically and necessarily translate to a new end product. [Key words: ability, imagination, artistic].

Creative Problem Solving: Pertains to a process, which includes new and imaginative ways of identifying, defining, and approaching problems and solutions. [Key words: process, innovative way, searching for a previously unknown solution to a problem].

Based on my limited and unscientific web-based scrutiny, champions of ‘creative problem solving’ have not necessarily demanded ‘creativity’. The reverse is also true – champions of ‘creativity’ have not necessarily demanded ‘creative problem solving.’ Which raises the core question – are clients only seeking ‘creativity’ (the innate ability of a designer they hire) or ‘creative problem solving’ (the process that the hired individual/firm adopts during facility procurement)? I assume that in most cases (maybe not all) clients are expecting innovation in return for their money.

Innovation: Is something new that has been introduced, which may be a new product, service, technology, model – necessarily value adding. [Keywords: new, introduced, application].

I assume my colleagues will generally agree that ‘reaching an innovation’ necessarily requires both creativity AND creative problem solving. The key question, then, is what do we refer to as innovation in the environmental design field? Is it one that is in the domain of human senses – addressing softer (albeit very important) aspects of human experiences, or does it extend beyond sensory perceptions to address the harder (and equally important) aspects of organizational decision making and business processes? Research is needed in both. The former may involve research in the domain of the arts, building technology, building sciences, materials, etc., for true innovation. The latter do need research (including, excluding, or in addition to the aforementioned) in operations, psychology, sociology, economics, business, and so forth. In either situation, research is central to innovation.

If the aforementioned assertion is agreed upon in the environmental design professions, two related concepts warrant deliberation: (1) what is research, and (2) who are the audience. The term ‘research’ is understood in numerous different ways in the design professions. In general English language, Marriam-Webster describes research as careful and diligent search, collection of information about a particular subject, as well as studious inquiry or examination. Similar variations in what is conceived of as research also exists in the design fields. There are inquiries that focus on exploring association and examining causations. Other inquiries may focus on describing a phenomenon, evaluating design solutions, enabling stakeholder involvement in design, or on developing tools for policy decision-making, among others. The breadth of study typologies is vast. The philosophical and epistemological foundations of the studies also contribute to the variations. Consequently, it is not unusual to witness disagreements among designers, design educators, and design researchers pertaining to what constitutes true research. Stay tuned for more discussions on what constitutes research in the future.

Perhaps, the question on the audience may help streamline the intra-profession disagreements about the definition of research. More specifically, who are we conducting research for, whatever the definition of our specific ‘research’ may be. Research could be conducted purely for one’s own pleasure, given the availability of time and resources, in which case the researcher and possibly family members and friends constitute the audience. In many instances corporate entities conduct in-house research. The findings of such studies, however, are not shared and are treated as confidential intellectual property rendering competitive advantage.

The vast majority of study findings, however, are disseminated, which also relates to the fundamental need for replicability from many philosophical perspectives (not all) of identifying truth. In essence, when most studies are concluded, the authors, implicitly or explicitly, assert that they have gathered verifiable evidence of what may constitute truth – the true nature of a phenomenon, a causal relationship, etc. Presenting in professional forum and dissemination through public media are ways to subject the ‘truth’ assertion to criticisms and verifications. Stay tuned for more discussions on what constitutes ‘truth’ in the future.

While criticisms from one’s peers in the profession are vitally important, the ultimate audience of any study is almost always outside the discipline of the researcher. Such audience base includes clients and design team members who mostly have non-design backgrounds. As a result, how we define research in the design fields is perhaps a less important question. The key issue is whether our clients believe the evidence we generate in support of our contention regarding truth – in our case the relationship between one or more of our design decisions and outcome/s of interest to our clients. So long as our clients agree with the nature and quality of evidence supporting our assertion of truth, we are on firmer grounds in the world of design creativity, creative problem solving, and innovation. Stay tuned for more discussions on whether research curtails creativity in the future.