The Impact of creativity in science: an investigation into intrinsic value of exposing science to creatitivity through active engagement with the arts

本研究旨在从艺术家与科学家合作实践的角度探讨创造力对科学的影响。在广泛的社会效益的前提下，不断增长的艺术/科学类型正在发展成为一种被广泛接受的实践。通过案例研究调查，本调查旨在审视这些合作的核心：评估它们的运作方式，并提供证据来证实或反驳这些更广泛的断言。艺术/科学合作实践仅仅是一种参与工具，还是通过开发他们的创造潜力来培养更有效的科学家？这些重要的、影响广泛的推论需要在内在层面上进行调查；只有深入研究这些互动实践的核心，才能评估它们的价值。目前还缺乏这种复杂的审查；追求这一探索路线将是理解创造力如何影响科学的重要一步，以及追求社会效益的合作实践趋势是否合理。这项研究以我以前的硕士项目为起点：在那里，我考虑了艺术/科学的流派，并研究了6个案例研究，以研究艺术/科学合作如何影响科学交流。它表明，与艺术和创造力的联系对科学家工作的许多方面都有积极影响，随后可能对经济创新和增长、政策制定、公众参与、教育和文化活动产生影响。理学硕士项目仔细审查了回顾性案例研究，表明协作实践有可能释放未充分利用的技能、才能、特征和观点。各种反复出现的主题值得进一步研究。有些涉及实用技能；通过协作创造掌握、欣赏或应用专业知识的能力（韦伯斯特，2005）。此外，意识形态技能：消除传统限制，允许增加冒险、思想自由和更新灵感和观点（Eldred, 2016）。无形的利益，如解决问题（vall<s:1> - tourangeau, 2016），语言（O'Shea和Sneltvedt， 2006），反思和同理心（Nyffeler, 2009）有助于成功的合作。通过识别和阐明这些暴露于创造力的直接微观影响，艺术/科学合作对更广泛的宏观问题的影响的有效性可能变得明显。持续的艺术/科学时代精神的文化价值的理由可能在于审视其核心的相互作用。在文献中，与艺术/科学的价值研究直接相关的学术工作很少。这里提出的研究代表了一个机会，可以启动一种更有力的方法来评估科学中创造力的内在价值。现有的工作在很大程度上是描述性的，如Cox的可视化项目（Cox, 2008）。一些利用科学本身来调查艺术家和科学家之间的差异，（Andreasen等人，2012）或其他人松散地描述科学家的创造力经验（Eldred, 2016）。最全面的学术论文整理出现在杂志“莱昂纳多”（2016）。各种各样的书籍从不同的角度解决了这个话题：CP Snow的《两种文化之争》（Snow, 1995）， Arthur Miller的《合作艺术运动的历史》（2014），Sian Ede的《2000和2005》对科学作为艺术家资源的探索，David Edwards（2009）关于“创新催化剂”的想法，以及专注于跨学科作品的插图可视化的出版物：（Kemp, 2000， Volvovski等人，2012,Wilson, 2012）。

The research aims to investigate the impact of creativity in science from the perspective of collaborative practice between artists and scientists.The growing genre of Art/Science is developing into a widely accepted practice under the premise of wide ranging societal benefits.Through case-study investigations this enquiry aims to scrutinise these collaborations at their core:evaluating how they function and providing evidence to substantiate or dispute these wider assertions.Is Art/Science collaborative practice simply an engagement tool,or does it have validity in developing more effective scientists by exploiting their creative potential?Such important,wide reaching inferences demand investigation at an intrinsic level;only by delving into the heart of these interactive practices can their value be assessed.Such intricate scrutiny is currently lacking;pursuing this route of enquiry would represent a significant step in understanding how creativity impacts upon science and whether or not the trend towards collaborative practice in pursuance of societal benefit can be justified.This research takes my previous MSc project as a starting point:there I considered the genre of Art/Science and studied 6 case-studies to examine how Art/Science collaborations might impact on communicating science. It suggested that an association with art and creativity has a positive influence on many aspects of scientists' work, with subsequent potential to impact upon economic innovation and growth,policy making,public engagement,education and cultural activities.The MSc project scrutinised retrospective case studies,indicating that collaborative practice has the potential to unleash under utilised skills,talents,characteristics and perspectives. Various recurrent themes emerged worthy of further study. Some involved practical skills; the ability to master, appreciate or apply expertise through collaborative creativity (Webster, 2005). Also Ideological skills: removing traditional constraints allowing increased risk-taking,freedom of thought and renewed inspiration and perspective (Eldred, 2016).Intangible benefits such as problem solving (Vallée-Tourangeau, 2016) language (O'Shea and Sneltvedt, 2006), reflection and empathy (Nyffeler, 2009) contributed to successful collaboration. By identifying and elucidating these immediate micro effects of exposure to creativity the validity of the impact of Art/Science collaborations on wider macro issues may become apparent. The justification for the cultural value of a sustained Art/Science zeitgeist may lie in scrutinising the interaction at its very core.There is a paucity of academic work within the literature relating directly to research into the value of Art/Science. The study proposed here represents an opportunity to initiate a more robust approach to evaluating the intrinsic worth of creativity within science. Existing work is largely descriptive, as in Cox's visualisation projects (Cox, 2008). Some utilises science itself to investigate differences between artist and scientist, (Andreasen et al., 2012) or others loosely describe scientists' experiences of creativity (Eldred, 2016). The most comprehensive collation of academic papers appear in the journal 'Leonardo' (2016). A variety of books tackle the topic from different angles: CP Snow's The Two Cultures debate (Snow, 1995), Arthur Miller's (2014) history of the collaborative art movement, Sian Ede's (2000 and 2005) exploration of science as an artist's resource, David Edwards (2009) ideas of a "catalyst to innovation", and publications focusing on illustrative visualisations of cross-disciplinary work: (Kemp, 2000, Volvovski et al., 2012, Wilson, 2012).