Scientific Creativity as a Combinatorial Process: The Chance Baseline

  • Dean Keith Simonton
Part of the Knowledge and Space book series (KNAS, volume 2)

The goal of this chapter is to formulate a theory of creativity that uses parsimonious assumptions and logical derivations to obtain comprehensive explanations and precise predictions with respect to the most secure empirical results regarding the phenomenon. In short, the plan is to get the most with the least. The specific formulation is founded on a two-part argument. First, I argue that combinatorial models fulfill these strict requirements. That is, models based on combinatorial processes make the fewest assumptions and by logical inferences explain the widest range of established facts as well as make the most precise predictions with respect to those data. Second, I argue that even if combinatorial models are incomplete from the standpoint of one or more criteria, such models must still provide the baseline for comparing all alternative theories. That is, rival theories must account for whatever cannot be accounted for by chance alone—or what exceeds the chance baseline. This position closely parallels the concept of null hypothesis significance testing in statistics, in which researchers must demonstrate that the discovered effects, whether mean differences or correlations, exceed what could be expected by chance alone (Simonton, 2007). The rationale for this view follows from the standard scientific principle known as “Ockham's razor,” or the “law of parsimony.“ Scientists should prefer a simple explanation over a complex explanation when the former suffices to explain the data.

Keywords

Assimilation Social Stratification Suffix 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brannigan, A. & Wanner, R. A. (1983a). Historical distributions of multiple discoveries and theories of scientific change. Social Studies of Science, 13, 417–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brannigan, A. & Wanner, R. A. (1983b). Multiple discoveries in science: A test of the communication theory. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 8, 135–151.Google Scholar
  3. Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 958–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cole, S. & Cole, J. R. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 190–212). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, R. A. (1987). Creativity in neurological publications. Neurosurgery, 20, 652–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dennis, W. (1955, April). Variations in productivity among creative workers. Scientific Monthly, 80, 277–278.Google Scholar
  8. Feist, G. J. (1997). Quantity, quality, and depth of research as influences on scientific eminence: Is quantity most important? Creativity Research Journal, 10, 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feist, G. J. (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hagstrom, W. O. (1974). Competition in science. American Sociological Review, 39, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huber, J. C. (1998a). Invention and inventivity as a special kind of creativity, with implications for general creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 58–72.Google Scholar
  14. Huber, J. C. (1998b). Invention and inventivity is a random, Poisson process: A potential guide to analysis of general creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huber, J. C. (1999). Inventive productivity and the statistics of exceedances. Scientometrics, 45, 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huber, J. C. (2000). A statistical analysis of special cases of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 203–225.Google Scholar
  17. Huber, J. C. (2001). A new method for analyzing scientific productivity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 1089–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huber, J. C. & Wagner-Döbler, R. (2001a). Scientific production: A statistical analysis of authors in mathematical logic. Scientometrics, 50, 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huber, J. C. & Wagner-Döbler, R. (2001b). Scientific production: A statistical analysis of authors in physics, 1800–1900. Scientometrics, 50, 437–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lamb, D. & Easton, S. M. (1984). Multiple discovery. Avebury, England: Avebury.Google Scholar
  22. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16, 317–323.Google Scholar
  23. Merton, R. K. (1961). Singletons and multiples in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 105, 470–486.Google Scholar
  24. Oromaner, M. (1977). Professional age and the reception of sociological publications: A test of the Zuckerman-Merton hypothesis. Social Studies of Science, 7, 381–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Over, R. (1988). Does scholarly impact decline with age? Scientometrics, 13, 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Over, R. (1989). Age and scholarly impact. Psychology and Aging, 4, 222–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Platz, A. (1965). Psychology of the scientist: XI. Lotka's law and research visibility. Psychological Reports, 16, 566–568.Google Scholar
  28. Platz, A. & Blakelock, E. (1960). Productivity of American psychologists: Quantity versus quality. American Psychologist, 15, 310–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Poincaré, H. (1921). The foundations of science: Science and hypothesis, the value of science, science and method (G. B. Halstead, Trans.). New York: Science Press (Original work published 1913).Google Scholar
  30. Price, D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Shockley, W. (1957). On the statistics of individual variations of productivity in research laboratories. Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers, 45, 279–290.Google Scholar
  33. Simon, H. A. (1955). On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika, 42, 425–440.Google Scholar
  34. Simonton, D. K. (1979). Multiple discovery and invention: Zeitgeist, genius, or chance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1603–1616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simonton, D. K. (1985). Quality, quantity, and age: The careers of 10 distinguished psychologists. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 21, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simonton, D. K. (1986). Multiple discovery: Some Monte Carlo simulations and Gedanken experiments. Scientometrics, 9, 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simonton, D. K. (1991). Career landmarks in science: Individual differences and interdisciplinary contrasts. Developmental Psychology, 27, 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, process, and person perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 475–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simonton, D. K. (2004a). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Simonton, D. K. (2004b). Psychology's status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. Review of General Psychology, 8, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simonton, D. K. (2007). Chance. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (Vol. 1, pp. 129–133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. White, K. G. & White, M. J. (1978). On the relation between productivity and impact. Australian Psychologist, 13, 369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dean Keith Simonton
    • 1
  1. 1.Distinguished Professor, Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations