Content uploaded by Robert Root-Bernstein
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert Root-Bernstein on Dec 09, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Correlations Between Avocations, Scientific Style, Work Habits, and Professional Impact of Scientists
Creativity Research Journal
Abstract
Forty male scientists (including 4 who eventually won Nobel prizes) were interviewed four times between 1958 and 1978 concerning their work habits, use of time, hobbies, attitudes toward the arts and humanities, scientific attitudes, and related issues. The 38 who were still alive in 1988 then filled out a questionnaire concerning their use of various forms of thinking (e.g., verbal, visual, kinesthetic), their avocations, forms and extent of physical exercise, and when they were most likely to have significant scientific insights (e.g., while working on a problem directly, while working on other problems, while relaxing, on waking). The questionnaire and interview information was then collated and statistically analyzed with regard to the impact of each scientist to determine if any correlations exist between scientific success and avocations, preferred modes of thinking, use of time, energy, or related factors. Significant correlations were found between scientific success and particular modes of thinking (especially visual ones), between success and various hobbies (especially artistic and musical ones), between particular hobbies and use of particular modes of scientific thinking, between success and having a broad range of avocations and forms of physical exercise, and between success and the efficient use of time to manage many competing vocational and avocational demands. We conclude that successful scientists have highly integrated networks of enterprise, whereas less successful colleagues tend to have fewer nonscientific activities that they do not integrate. They develop nonfunctional networks of enterprise in which activities compete against, rather than sustain, each other.
... The understanding of the creative arts has a potential for significant positive benefits to the engineering student. A number of authors [2][3][4][5] have studied the relationship between scientific success and engagement in ancillary hobbies. The studies indicate a strong correlation between scientific success and participation in one or more of the arts (art, music, etc). ...
... Paradigmatic training does not prepare the individual for such surprises and colleagues within the discipline often meet the resulting innovations with scepticism or even down-right antagonism. Such significant innovations usually involve an individual trained in more than one paradigmi.e., a polymath (Root-Bernstein et al., 1995, 2008, 2019Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 2004, 2020, 2021) -or a collaborative group that melds practices from multiple disciplines (Sawyer & DeZutter, 2009;Sawyer, 2017). In such cases, novelty often results from identifying problems posed by anomalies, exceptions, contradictions, paradoxes or gaps among or between paradigms that are not obvious (or which are ignored) from within any single one. ...
... It is where incubation appears, energy is recharged, and elements from other fields combine with those of the problem. Elisondo (2018), Csikszentmihalyi (1990), Root-Bernstein et al. (1995), Davis et al. (2014), Wolfradt & Pretz (2001), and Cotter et al. (2016) confirm that people who engage in leisure activities are more creative than those who do not. In the Hobby House, the mind ceases to be consciously preoccupied with the problem, the censorship of consciousness disappears, and the problem is revealed as it is in consciousness (Csikszentmilhalyi, 1990). ...
Wallas’ (1926) model, The Art of Thought , is the most popular model of the creative process, coexisting with other later models. It encompasses only cognitive processes: preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification, within a limited stage of the process, excluding other crucial non-mental activities, such as the materialization of the idea or its communication. The 25 models of the creative process analyzed in this study apply a linear temporal framework to a process that is inherently nonlinear. The most popular tests and programs to evaluate and enhance creativity primarily intervene in the ideation stage, and by ignoring other parts of the creative process, they are not effective. Unlike previous models, The Houses of Creativity identify the phases with a conceptual rather than a temporal criterion, structured in a honeycomb pattern, addressing the non-linearity of the process. Additionally, its phases apply not only to creative production but to all tasks susceptible to the process. It includes: supermarket (selecting), temple (observing, perceiving, questioning), library (informing), cabin (ideating), bar (distracting and socializing), warehouse (stockpiling), hobby house (enjoying), laboratory (developing and verifying), and gallery (communicating and convincing). A person who is only good at ideation in the cabin (according to Torrance tests) will not be able to successfully complete the creative process. This theoretical research could pave the way for developing personalized tools to assess and enhance creativity, or to form interdisciplinary teams that incorporate them.
... As Root-Bernstein et al. [33] remind us, more than fifty years ago, the Nobel Prize winner van't Hoff [34] proposed a correlation between creative activities outside of science and scientific imagination. Other studies have shown that a positive association exists between creative activities and success in science [35]. More generally, adopting art practice in elementary schools, has proven to enhance young children's learning in science [36]. ...
REINFORCE (Research Infrastructures FOR Citizens in Europe) is a Research & Innovation Project, supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 SwafS, ‘Science with and for Society’ work programme (GA872859). The project, which ran from December, 2019, to November, 2022, engaged the public in a variety of innovative ways. Four citizen-science demonstrator projects were developed on the world-leading Zooniverse platform, each focussing on a different area of frontier physics: gravitational waves; neutrino astronomy; particle physics; and muography. A range of art and science events were launched and undertaken. A data-sonification tool— sonoUno —was developed in order to improve the accessibility of the data used in the four demonstrator projects. A course on critical thinking and a history of the Second Scientific Revolution was provided on YouTube and in podcast form, while a senior-citizen-science course was designed, co-developed and implemented. These initiatives were supported by a detailed engagement plan, a dedicated communications and dissemination strategy, and a constantly evolving assessment and evaluation approach. The experiences garnered during the project, in conjunction with consultations with project participants, volunteers and stakeholders, were built into the form of a policy roadmap explaining how to integrate citizen science into research infrastructures in Europe. The roadmap identifies a series of policy objectives and related policy gaps, associated challenges and lays out a series of recommendations. This article describes the results of the REINFORCE project and draws together the experiences of each of the involved twelve partner organisations.
... This work cited a number of other studies that demonstrated in controlled studies that arts and crafts improve STEM learning, although it is notable that many of the specific crafts mentioned, such as woodworking and metalworking, are more often associated with men, while crafts generally associated with women were not specifically called out (Bottia et al., 2015). Furthermore, an earlier work by the same researcher that studied correlations between avocation and scientific qualities focused exclusively on data from interviewing 40 male scientists, and therefore it did not capture women's experiences (Root-Bernstein et al., 1995). Later work, again by the same researcher, did include women. ...
In the past, there was a widely held belief that women lacked the aptitude for STEM careers, including engineering. Activities traditionally associated with women were perceived as less technical and rigorous than those associated with men. “Masculine” hobbies like woodworking and metalworking were seen as good preparation for engineering. In contrast, traditionally feminine hobbies like sewing, quilting, and knitting were considered preparation for homemaking. However, many traditionally feminine crafts require and develop mathematical knowledge and technical aptitudes, which are essential for success in engineering. This paper explores parallels between traditionally feminine crafts and technical aptitude. By analyzing information from various sources, including books and magazines related to these crafts, we demonstrate how these activities can develop technical aptitudes and explain this in the context of career theory, which is fundamental in comprehending how individuals navigate their professional paths. Childhood, early adult, and later experiences, such as engaging in craft and hobby activities, can significantly impact skill development that carries over into other phases of life. According to career construction theory, individuals actively shape their careers through various self-regulatory competencies. This theory posits that career adaptability, a key competency, can enhance job crafting behaviors, ultimately increasing work engagement. By understanding how these activities can enhance technical aptitudes, the engineering community can better identify and support individuals who may have a natural inclination for engineering, broadening our perception of what engineering aptitude looks like and encouraging individuals from diverse backgrounds, including a greater proportion of women, to pursue engineering careers.
... - Root-Bernstein et al. (1995) reported that Nobel Prize winners in science were 15 to 25 times more likely to have multiple adult avocations than the average U.S. scientist. ...
This study examined domain specificity among 306 high-school students using the Creative Activity and Accomplishment Checklist (CAAC). The CAAC provides both the quantity of activity and quality of accomplishment scores, allowing an empirical test of possible polymathy among students, some of whom were gifted. This investigation’s two objectives were to replicate domain specificity studies with the newest version of the CAAC, which included new domains (i.e., technological and everyday creativity) and quality and quantity scores, and to use it to test for polymathy among students. Previous work with adults suggested that polymaths are creative in multiple domains. They often invest in creative avocations that support their professional creativity. Some evidence of polymathy was uncovered; however, it was not common in this sample. Support for domain specificity was reasonably clear in the present results, yet it was not all-or-nothing but rather a matter of degree. Domains overlapped to varying degrees. The degree of overlap varied with the level of talent and from domain to domain. The clearest support for polymathy came from regression analyses which revealed a significant relationship between the quantity of activity in some domains and the quality of creative accomplishment in others. Limitations and future directions are discussed.
... Polymathy occurs when an individual performs creatively in more than one domain. Root-Bernstein et al. (1995) reported that in a sample of Nobel Prize winners and members of the US National Academy of Science, the 11 individuals representing the highest level of eminence reported using their avocations in their professions. Twelve individuals in the same sample reported that the avocations were a waste of time. ...
The stereotype of an expert is someone who thoroughly understands a field, such as mathematics, and has a great deal of experience in that field. Are there individuals who are exceptional in two or more fields? Sometimes there are people who are good at more than one thing and labeled some sort of "Leonardo". Leonardo da Vinci was certainly exceptional at art, engineering, medicine, and so on, but it was easier in the Renaissance to master more than one field. The amount of information in all fields was much less than today. And yet, even today there are polymaths. A polymath has a high level of skill in more than one field. This entry discusses examples of polymathy, the various definitions of polymathy, and the debates concerning polymathy.
... (Araki, 2018, p.69) -See beyond the vocational dichotomy: Whereas non-polymatic people tend to see the vocational and non-vocational activities as separate topics, polymatic try to integrate all of them to achieve different enterprises. Consequently the use of time used in these activities brings them positive results such as personal satisfaction instead of the feeling of a waste of time, hence they use the experiences and new ideas to expand their talents (Root-Bernstein et al., 1995). ...
As knowledge moves forward, ideas should be revised. The goal of this thesis, is to examine the concept of polymath in current society, resulting in a new proposal for the definition of the term "polymath".
Meanwhile, as objectives other hypothesis of polymathy will be put into place with results such as: a person can be a polymath if it doesn´t have achievements in several disciplines, being a polymath is a life project and it demands habits linked to intrinsic motivation and responsibility that help to develop through brain plasticity the abilities such as creativity that a polymath needs, or the idea that being a
polymath is not related at all with the result a children had during education among others.
Among the conclusions, the development of polymathic abilities is needed in nowadays complex and changing societies but traditional education and technologies, although it should be helpful for polymathic development (education) and polymathic achievements (technology) are mostly harmful.
Polymath’s current definition is limited. It has always been written from the perspective of these abilities are only a means for polymaths and not an end. Since are their ends (related to intrinsic motivation) what moves polymaths to be polymaths. Polymathic definition should be written from that perspective.
Keywords: polymaths, education, technology, intrinsic motivation, passion
... Polymathy occurs when an individual performs creatively in more than one domain. Root-Bernstein et al. (1995) reported that in a sample of Nobel Prize winners and members of the US National Academy of Science, the 11 individuals representing the highest level of eminence reported using their avocations in their professions. Twelve individuals in the same sample reported that the avocations were a waste of time. ...
This study examined domain specificity among 306 high-school students using the Creative Activity and Accomplishment Checklist (CAAC). The CAAC provides both the quantity of activity and quality of accomplishment scores, allowing an empirical test of possible polymathy among students, some of whom were gifted. Polymathy occurs when an individual performs creatively in more than one domain. This investigation’s two objectives were to replicate domain specificity studies with the newest version of the CAAC, which included new domains (i.e., technological and everyday creativity) and quality and quantity scores, and to use it to test for polymathy among students. Previous work with adults suggested that polymaths are creative in multiple domains. They often invest in creative avocations that support their professional creativity. Some evidence of polymathy was uncovered; however, it was not common in this sample. Support for domain specificity was reasonably clear in the present results, yet it was not all-or-nothing but rather a matter of degree. Domains overlapped to varying amount. The amount of overlap varied with the level of talent and from domain to domain. The clearest support for polymathy came from regression analyses which revealed a significant relationship between the quantity of activity in some domains and the quality of creative accomplishment in others. Limitations and future directions are discussed.
Innovation represents an essential component of economic growth, and countries aspire to be innovative nations. However, innovation is only really possible with the commitment of a particular kind of people, those who have the necessary attributes and skills as well as the opportunities to be in a position to be able to innovate. Inventors and innovators are crucial to this whole process so how does a nation best identify, understand, support and nurture such inventive and innovative individuals throughout education and in doing so instil a love of learning, empower creativity, the development of “self” while also embracing their challenges to systems and orthodoxy.
The sciences and arts were once, not so very long ago, considered to be very similar, certainly complementary, and sometimes even overlapping ways of understanding the world. No longer. Today we accept such generalizations as that the sciences are objective, analytical, and rational whereas the arts are subjective, emotional, and based on intuition. But I am a controversialist. The fact that arts and sciences are not widely perceived to be similar does not mean that they are not. Fashions often dictate perceptions of beauty and knowledge alike, and fashions are notoriously changeable. Thus, I am willing — indeed eager — to challenge the new fashion of separating sciences and arts into two, uncommunicating and even antagonistic camps. I believe that such a challenge is not only necessary if we are to develop a viable theory of thinking, but also healthy, for it should create controversy. Unlike some people, who believe that knowledge is best advanced by the slow accumulation of validated and undoubtable bits of information, I believe that we learn most by challenging conventional wisdom with the biggest and best arguments we can muster. This is my style. Sometimes it fails; sometimes it succeeds. But in either case, the process of trying to undermine dogma often reveals new aspects of knowledge, or forces it to be utilized in new and innovative ways that justify the rethinkings.