Creativity requires freedom from the risks of failure

TERRE HAUTE — Last week I wrote about the themes that emerged from the panel discussion by five Wabash Valley members of the “creative class.” One question posed to the panelists was whether creativity can be taught. One panelist, Michael Tingley, an artist, affirmed that yes it can be and that it is easy, it’s a “simple process” and he gave examples of his success with that process with his students. I don’t doubt Michael’s success, but I suspect if it were as easy as he suggests, that the search for unlocking the incredible creative abilities of every human being would not be so hard.

Apart from certain personality features which seem to lend themselves to creativity, the research on creativity as well as my own biases toward cultural and social explanations leads me to a different, less individualistic explanation of why we find creativity to be so seemingly elusive.

Despite all the research into creativity, we really don’t seem to know very much. But it seems to me, what we know is profound. Creativity requires risk-taking, a willingness to fail — even an expectation of failure.

Last semester I made a presentation to ISU’s honors students. These are the best and brightest academic stars anywhere. These students could have attended any university they wished based on their academic quality. I spoke to them about the importance of failure. Before getting into the meat of my discussion, I asked them a couple of questions; I asked them who considered themselves to be creative? All but a couple raised their hand. I asked them how many of them were good at thinking outside the box? All but a couple raised their hand. Then I gave them a little diagnostic that taps into how comfortable they are with creativity.

It’s a very clever test, really. It asks the students what kind of assessment they would like to be used to grade their learning or understanding of different kinds of material. Everyone but two of the students chose a multiple choice test, the least creative option. This fit with the research I had read on high-achieving college students. Our best students, those who reflect the best that our education system produces, prefer the least creative option when it comes to testing and this suggests they prefer the conventional over the creative. Our very best students are pretty risk averse. Being right is more important than getting it right (eventually) or a unique solution.

A willingness to fail, even an expectation of failure, is something the research shows is a characteristic of creative people. I don’t think that is a personality feature. Rather, it’s the result of being in situations where failure is not punished or even supported. In today’s America, where is “failure” ever supported or encouraged? Parents begin lining their kids up for academic excellence from a very early age. And the pressure to make the grade is intense.

By the way, nothing in the literature suggests that “competition” fosters creativity. Indeed, it can reduce it. So, the competitive nature of our academics today is undermining rather than supportive of a culture of creativity.

Trying new things is also part of developing (or maintaining) creativity. But today, even in children’s play, we over-organize it and specialize. Today kids pretty much are deciding what sports they are going to “play” at very young ages, get into competitive situations and focus just on that sport. Why? In some cases because of scholarships, dreams of going “pro,”  and desires of being “the best,” a narrow hierarchical notion of success.

Books like Malcom Gladwell’s “Outliers: The Story of Success” is popular and I know people who want to follow it. While doing so may be a recipe for success in an increasingly specialized and narrow economy, it’s creativity that is increasingly in demand and such specialization does not seem to be conducive to creativity. The reason why is the investment made in the prevailing conventions and standards of what is “good.” We need more people who can ignore the conventional and redefine things. That requires risk, a willingness to fail and a culture that doesn’t harshly punish failure.

As director of the ISU Center for Student Research and Creativity, my goal is to support undergraduate research and creative projects. Working on a faculty mentored research project or an artistic/performance project frees students from the “tyranny” of grades, allowing them the freedom to “be wrong,” to “take risks” and to “think some outside the box.”

Fostering creativity prime mission in teaching

previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 2/23/14

TERRE HAUTE — As part of ISU’s College of Arts and Science’s Community Semester program, I organized a panel discussion on creativity by a panel of what some would call members of the Wabash Valley’s “creative class.” The panel members were Dennis Evers, of Everstech Consulting — Waste Treatment and Resource Recovery Technologies; Morgan Lidster, owner of Inland Aquatics; Michael Sacopolous, CEO of Medical Risk Institute; Michael Tingley, full-time artist; and Pete Ciancone, Director of the WILL Center, served as a panelist/moderator. The discussion was in Clabber Girl’s Rex Room on Feb. 11.

Three themes emerged from the discussion: crossing boundaries, a willingness to fail and curiosity.

Research suggests that taking experience or knowledge from one area and introducing it into another is a key to creativity. As odd as it sounds, Morgan Lidster more than 20 years ago began mimicking nature in order to grow coral in the Midwest. Rather than model the treatment of water on a water treatment plant, which was once the way, Lidster mimicked the way in which the ocean cleanses itself of waste. It seems so simple really, but in 1993 it was not the way when he opened Inland Aquatics.

Become familiar with Michael Tingley’s art, especially his sculpture, and you won’t be surprised that his father was a mechanical engineer and that Michael also studied engineering. Indeed, I think there is a creative tension between the transformation of art into engineering and engineering into art evident in Michael’s work.

A willingness to fail also emerged in the panel’s discussion. The panelists talked about taking calculated risks and trying new things that didn’t work out. But even more interesting than glimpses into the panelists’ “failures” was how they recognized that the others who are necessary to their own “success,” whether it be a new technology or recognizing a new “risk”, also seek out risk takers themselves.

The panel observed that gatekeepers and decision makers who have been in position for a long time are more risk averse than ones more recent to the position. Dennis Evers and Mike Sacopolous both talked about the importance of finding “early adopters,” or those willing to take risks. It’s not age, per se; those who occupy positions for a longer time have more invested and are less willing to take a risk.

This may be the best argument I have ever heard for term limits and for rotating administrators on a regular basis.

The third theme was curiosity. As a sociologist I focus more on context and relationships rather than personality characteristics. Nevertheless, I have known three of the panelists for years, and each is unquestionably curious. I can also see that same curiosity in Lidster and Evers. I suspect that each panelist spends far more time reading and searching out answers to their questions than watching reality TV or sports.

In preparing for this panel, I read up on the creativity research literature and how to “teach” it. A couple of quotes will sum up what we know quite easily. “If you are not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original” (Sir Ken Robinson). “Every creative person knows that failure is part of the process,“ (Shelly Carson). “Risk is essential to creativity, … but if you want to get into the good college and the good graduate school and the good job, you don't want to take too big a risk. Schools often encourage you to do the opposite of what you’d need to be creative” (Robert Sternberg).

The true reformers of education are not those who ramble on about standards and value-added regression modeling to track teacher, er, student progress. Nor are the true reformers those who call for the transfer of billions of tax dollars to the private market for education (they are nothing more than speculators). The true reformers are those who recognize that teaching people to a multiple-choice test based on the economy of today, when we have no idea what the economy of five years from now will be, is folly.

Hence, the real need is not who can fill in boxes on standardized tests; instead, the real need is to foster creativity in students because they will face an uncertain future. Sir Ken Robinson: “I believe this passionately: That we don’t grow into creativity, we grow out of it. Or rather, we get educated out if it.”

My next essay will discuss how our culture is unsupportive of creativity.