Does research stifle creative thinking? Recently at a health care symposium in Canada a designer audience posed the question I have heard repeated numerous times since the emergence of the evidence-based design (EBD) practice model – “will EBD spoil the ‘Aha’ moment of the creative process?” In other words, is scientific research and creative thinking compatible? The architect side of me thoroughly appreciated the question. After all, the creative edge is what makes the difference between winning and not winning a project. If that edge is blunted through the incorporation of scientific research in the creative thought process, shouldn’t one stay away from research?
To answer this question one needs to start with the notion of creativity. Does creativity occur in a vacuum? Is the creative product a result of eliminating all constraints from the thought process? Probably not. There are theories that support the notion that the creative leap occurs within the process of problem solving that includes, rather than eliminate, constraints from the process. Moreover, constraints are not new to design decision-making. Few projects come with unconstrained site conditions, for instance. Design decisions occur within the constraints posed by building codes and design guidelines. Following the normative principle s of LEED rating system has not reduced creativity – rather some phenomenal architecture has resulted from the process. So why is research viewed as constraining, and a threat to the Aha moment, when many of the building codes and guidelines (if not all) are based on scientific research?
Among the contemporary dialogues pertaining to EBD, perhaps the most important is the one on the Aha moment, since, if the concern is true, it could represent the most significant threat to the profession. So, here is my take on why research is not a threat to the Aha moment, and I encourage my colleagues to add their perspectives on the issue.
I see research as contributing to two aspects of the design process – defining the problem and developing solutions. Research can considerably support one’s expertise and experience in developing an unambiguous definition and representation of the problem. Owing to its theoretical foundation it can help explain observed phenomena – and, thus, help comprehend the complex interactions between architecture, operations, culture and behavior. Typically the Aha moment does not occur during problem definition, but a thorough comprehension, definition and representation of the problem at hand can contribute immensely to the germination of the Aha moment.
There are strong arguments that the creative solution (or innovations and inventions) do not occur as a result of a lone scientist thinking deeply over extended periods of time in a basement, behind closed doors. It has been documented that creative solutions are associated with inter-disciplinary and collaborative activities. From that perspective, research can contribute to (rather than stifle) the complex (and to date incomprehensible) processes leading to design creativity. Once again, theories underpinning research studies represent the potential to feed multiple domains of knowledge into the creative thought process, and meaningfully map solutions from other domains that would be difficult to achieve without the theoretical frameworks of research. Does (or should) research studies restrict the thought process only to those solutions that are known? Absolutely not. It rather represents an opportunity to vastly expand the potential solution space – while retaining some element of predictability – which experience alone would not accomplish, since experience lacks the power of theoretical backing. To deny this potential is to deny a bigger ‘Aha’ moment.
Agreed. To say that using “proof of improved performance” limits the creative process, is like saying BMW can’t produce a car with stellar looks, responsive power, and optimal safety. Great design is the combination of form and function…Design 101. Using EBD to inform the creative process is key to creating stellar, responsive and optimal healthcare environments.
I agree with the notion that rather than stifling creativity and innovation, research enriches the process of creation. If one looks at EBD and research as just another design parameter, then it seems like the question is strangely out of place. We would never suppose that technical requirements of a project, or the owner’s functional needs, or that codes and regulations are innovation and design killers. Rather, they are all part of the richness of the design process. To think that design is free from research, logic, and any other constraints is simply not believable.