Creativity and the Research University:II

This is a continuation of Creativity and the Research University
II. The creative faculty

The issues are different here from those encountered in looking at student creativity, because we are dealing with a class of accomplished scholars who have already shown capacity for creativity.  Thus the environment in which the faculty work becomes a critical determinant of whether or not they can reach their creative potential.

Amabile describes some of the environmental conditions that help to promote creativity.  Among them are:

• stability of employment - this lowers attention to problems not related to the main tasks of research and teaching
• low bureaucracy - similarly, this enables faculty to keep their attention on the important things
• encourage rational intellectual risk taking, accept failure
• encourage interdisciplinary conversations - this help connections into different networks of knowledge
• expectations high but reasonable
• rewards not controlling - faculty choice in tasks, methods

In many ways, we see that the university is set up relatively well to meet most of these conditions. Tenure, for example, provides the desired stability of employment - for those who have it. Faculty are given broad choice by the university in how they will carry out their tasks.  However, even here there are reality constraints that can lessen creativity. For example, funding for the research component of the employment is increasingly difficult to obtain, and faculty generally find themselves devoting larger fractions of their effort to finding needed research funds. The funding, when found, often is narrowly defined and can squeeze out any significant creative flights of fancy. Worst of all, many universities push their faculty to have the largest possible grants at all times - it helps the rankings. Such controlling pressure probably does not lead to the highest creativity.  As Amabile has pointed out, the external funding can be most useful if it comes after the “aha” moment of creativity, since at that point it is not controlling, but facilitating.  Thus some relatively small internal funds to support research through the necessary first idea steps ultimately could lead to increased creativity of proposals.

In addition, other improvements need to be made in the existing university structure.  Bureaucracy, unfortunately, has grown significantly in universities over the years due to both internal and external pressures. Universities tend to have very intrenched administrative systems and groups, and in many institutions strong leadership will be required to create the kinds of administrative restructuring needed to create organizations that more closely meet tomorrow’s needs. For example, on many campuses I hear very vocal complaints about inefficiencies in the research offices, which seem not well organized to meet new requirements of the Federal Government, alert faculty to new research opportunities, provide timely grant financial data, etc.  Internally, the important principle of shared governance has often led to a profusion of sometimes overlapping faculty committees that both demand considerable time on the part of the participants, and lead to frustration on the part of other faculty who feel that their ideas and innovations are being subjected to unfair or confused scrutiny. 

Finally, many of our leaders do not do as good a job as they should of creating a supportive atmosphere of high expectations in their institutions.  Distinguished senior faculty are the most important players in creating this atmosphere of supportive expectations.  For example, I.I Rabi was a Nobel-prizewinning physicist at Columbia, one of the founders of modern quantum mechanics.  He was legendary in his ability to stimulate his colleagues to “try harder”. One of his colleagues was quoted in Rabi’s obituary as saying “The most spectacular thing about Rabi was that during a 15 year period there were four Nobel Prizes all in different fields of physics at Columbia.  Although Rabi wasn’t involved in the specific work, he was the key motivating person.” According to a widely quoted (and perhaps apocryphal) story, Rabi would roam the halls of the department, dropping into offices to ask about the latest research of individual faculty. When it had been explained to him, he would ask, “ Is this the most important problem in your field? If not, why aren’t you working on the most important problem?” With more senior faculty helping to define expectations like that, we would have a much more creative atmosphere!

One of the areas where universities generally are not really good is in encouraging interdisciplinary conversations.  Many claim to do it well, but when you look at it closely, few are actually good at it.  It is interesting to look at the brand new King Abdulla University of Science and Technology (see my comments here and here), which is organized with the goal of actually being at the forefront of  interdisciplinary knowledge creation: 

KAUST is a modern research university unlike any other.  The University is designed to allow physical and human networks – operating largely without regard for organizational or national boundaries – to flourish, thereby creating a critical vehicle for the exchange of ideas and the development of new knowledge.

The KAUST approach is obviously not the only one for increasing interdisciplinary activities and conversations.  However, it does give some feeling for the elements to be considered, and the significant organizational changes that might be required to maximize interdisciplinary exchange of ideas.

Junior faculty are not particularly well served in terms of creativity by our organizations. They don’t have job security, and are reminded often of that fact.  Their quest for tenure usually involves advice from all sides to work hard on some narrow problem related to their thesis.  Their time pressure is high, and failure on a project can make it difficult to reach the goal of tenurable results before the clock runs out.  Interdisciplinary work is dangerous because it can lead them into unfamiliar territory that may not be interesting to the department that hired them, or it can just slow them down because they have to learn something new.   It is amazing that we get as much creative work from junior faculty as we do!  Obviously it is not a good thing to “train” new faculty in an atmosphere that discourages creativity.

In this atmosphere, mentoring of junior faculty becomes very important.  They need to be welcomed into a community of practice that has high expectations, but will help them to achieve. Their mentors must encourage them to think big, about the important problems of their domain, while helping them to walk the narrow line that will lead to eventual tenure.  Mentors are especially important in helping link junior faculty into the networks of their field, so that they can both learn from those networks, and showcase their own works more effectively.  Junior faculty also may need help in time management, since so many pressures that they are experiencing for the first time push them away from creative reflection.

The research university typically demands of its faculty an expertise in both teaching and research.  Many faculty love these dual roles, and can respond with creativity in both.  Other faculty, however, find that, while they can and do fulfill both roles, their passion lies primarily in one.  The role for which they lack passion is therefore likely to be viewed as a distraction from the other role - and following Amabile, that distraction may make it harder to be creative in their preferred role. It may well be worth considering whether anyone is well served by our rhetoric that all of our faculty should fit the teacher-scholar model. A faculty that focused on teaching might be much more effective in helping students to learn various creativity-linked skills than our current approach seems to be, and many research focused faculty could greatly help to increase the creativity of our students by bringing many more students into their research programs.

III. The Creative Region
Some regions show high creativity, with related high job and wealth production. Florida, and Goldstein and Drucker, among many, have studied these areas that are rich in jobs in high tech industry, music, movies, fashion, etc.

Clearly, the reasons that some regions display this characteristic and others do not are many and  complex.  Some of these regions contain universities, and others do not, so universities do not play a defining role in determining where these regions can grow.  However, universities can play a significant role in contributing to a region that is building dynamic creativity- based industry.  

Graduates are the major “output” of any university.  A university whose graduates are creative and  well trained in their domain studies will certainly support the development of a creative region.  Too few universities make courses in entrepreneurship widely available across majors, but that should be done - the next big entrepreneur may well be an English major, not an engineer. Successful research programs that are tied to successful tech transfer offices also are important. Many universities have found that policies that encourage and enable faculty to play a major role in tech transfer, e.g. leaves to participate in start-ups, can be very powerful.   

It is also very helpful to have a structure that helps tie local companies into appropriate departments,  providing not only technical help for the companies, but also an intellectual network that will help the companies hire the best workers.  Universities can also play a role in helping build networks of workers with similar interests around a region, thus increasing the intellectual vitality of the region.  It is important that both universities and companies understand that the role of protection of intellectual property is both important - and very delicate.  Too little control obviously decreases potential for profit, but too much control slows or stops the interchange of information that is the basis for the networks that characterize these creative regions.

The quality of K-12 school offerings are very important in attracting creative companies.  These local school systems provide many of the entry level workers for these industries, and the quality of such workers is important.  In addition, companies will find it much easier to attract and hold many of the key creative workers if there are excellent K-12 opportunities for their children.  The university can play a role in this arena, as well, by getting involved with the local K-12 school systems. In particular, they can bring to these systems knowledge of learning approaches that encourage creativity in the students.  

Florida has emphasized that community atmosphere is important to attracting and keeping creative people - creative people like to be in a place where things are happening.  A university has many resources to share with the community - music performances, general interest lectures, art exhibitions, etc.  Many universities make it difficult for the community to know what events are open to them.  Universities interested in helping to build a community that attracts creative people should make it easy for the community to find interesting campus events, e.g. a link on the first page of the website, brochures that are available at event venues around town.  The university could also partner with local arts and musical groups to increase activities off the campus.

Florida also has found that regional tolerance of difference is critical in attracting the skilled workers that are the basis of a creative region.  Universities obviously cannot determine or define the tolerance levels of a community, but they can provide an important model for the region.

Obviously, the role that a university can play in a creative region is very dependent on the specific  characteristics of the region.  Los Angeles is fundamentally different Austin.  The university that succeeds in playing a significant role in the building of a creative region must therefore do it in real partnership with other regional institutions, organizations, and governments.  The ivory tower won’t do it!