Discussions of the creative process bear a strong similarity to discussions of the interdisciplinary research process. In each, there are a set of conscious steps at the start where the scholar/creator recognizes a problem or opportunity and then gathers and evaluates relevant material. There is then an act(s) of inspiration in which subconscious thought processes dominate and which draws novel connections across the information previously gathered. There follows some more conscious steps in which the – always imperfect – inspiration is evaluated and clarified. The last step is persuasion: this combines conscious and subconscious and is itself a creative act. Some scholars of creativity think that success depends far more on success in persuasion than the power of the inspiration itself. Certainly the history of both art and science is littered with inspirations that were disdained at the time because the creator failed at persuasion. Scholars in general, but perhaps interdisciplinary scholars in particular (who may face some suspicion from disciplinary scholars) should heed the lesson that they need to actively “sell” their research results, and that in doing so a telling anecdote or metaphor may be as valuable as the research findings themselves.
Though scholars of Interdisciplinarity had long recognized that integration was a creative act, the strong parallels with creative processes has not been widely recognized in the literature. Strategies that encourage creativity can be absorbed within the interdisciplinary research process. One is more likely to be creative if one (asks broad research questions or) gathers information widely: One can then connect ideas that have never before been connected. But such a strategy is time-consuming and risky: It may prove impossible to connect widely disparate ideas. The act of visual mapping has long been stressed as a part of consciously comprehending an interdisciplinary research question. The literature on creativity suggests that attempts to diagram the elements of a complex problem may also stimulate subconscious connections. Our subconscious thoughts operate sublingually after all and are often expressed in visual form. The interdisciplinary scholar seeking greater creativity should also be particularly careful about rejecting inspirations that seem unworkable.
The literature on creativity makes a point that we have appreciated when speaking of skills in general in Interdisciplinary Teaching Strategies: that creativity can be taught. That is, there are strategies that we can teach students that will make them more creative. Note that we can enhance both the analytical skills associated with the conscious steps in creative processes and the subconscious inspirations – since the latter come to the prepared mind under the right conditions. The all-important step of persuasion depends on both. Moreover, creativity, like most human activities, improves with practice. Engaging in creative activities encourages superior creativity. We enhance our persuasive powers by engaging in acts of persuasion.
Creativity takes confidence. The interdisciplinary researcher must be sure that they wish to bear the scrutiny that comes with novel arguments and evidence. Otherwise they may subconsciously limit the novelty of the connections that they draw.
I discuss these and many other lessons from the creativity literature in “Interdisciplinary research as a creative design process,” Chapter 2 in Frédéric Darbellay, Zoe Moody, Todd Lubart, Eds., Creative Design thinking from an interdisciplinary perspective, Berlin: Springer, 2017.