Bavelas (1987): Permitting creativity in science

My reading for this week was Bavelas (1987): Permitting creativity in science. For some reason, this reading reminded me of Max Ehrmann’s Desiderata. It seems to me that Bavelas is encouraging a more “wholesome" approach to research in a similar way to Ehrmann’s outlining of a way we might best live. Both see the need for gentleness with ourselves and others in the process of work and living. Similarly, both pieces note that we need to have faith in ourselves and in the value of what we are doing so that we can keep focused on that which is of most importance.

The Bavelas reading was essentially a description of dos and don’ts with regard to how we approach our research. This is not presented as a prescriptive list, but rather a guide to how we might pace our research process so that our inchoate thoughts might be given the opportunity to germinate. Bavelas emphasizes the fragility of our ideas and our creativity; that these need to be nurtured and cared for so that they might grow into something more fully formed. I see this approach as being like how one might care for a plant; carefully tending to its needs as it grows, from seed to seedling, and from to young plant to adult plant. We can’t hurry this process; all we can do is provide the right conditions and patiently allow for the natural process to take place.

For Bavelas, research is also a natural process (“full of passion, fumbling and disorderly” p. 308) that we can’t rush. She explains that our research, in the early stages, should not be dismissed as unimportant, pigeonholed into the existing literature, or belittled as insignificant, sterilized through applying statistics and that we need to allow time in the early stages for our thoughts and ideas to develop. She suggests we might do this by keeping an open mind to what we are hoping to learn, to look for similarities and patterns in our examples, to take an archaeological approach (working slowly to reveal what lies beneath what we discover), and to maintain an independence in our thinking by allowing our research to find a place within a usable schema/ class/model.

The focus on gentleness and nurturing our ideas, as if they were in physical organic form, is something that gave me pause. As a first-year grad student, I have found myself dismissing my ideas and questioning my own ability to create something of worth in light of the, seemingly, more competent people around me. These symptoms of Imposter Syndrome feed directly into the don’ts Bavelas outlines and cut us off from the possibility of having our ideas take root; these doubts and fears salt the earth of our creativity so that nothing can grow. 

Another ‘stop’ for me was the lines “when you do not know about bird songs, you seldom hear them…” but when we are involved in our research, “…[everything] becomes full of exactly what it is I am currently interested in” p. 318. This puts into words that feeling when we are living within our research, with an openness and receptiveness to making connections and relationships, so that we can see new possibilities and avenues for exploration. There’s a kind of excitement here; like seeing new shoots appear on a plant, these new ideas represent a healthy and growing exploration of what we are interested in. It happens organically, growing from one seed, with unity, rather than being connected like different Lego blocks which fit together but may not belong together.

Lastly, the line “I always want to be right (first choice) but, if not, then at least wiser (second choice)” p. 321 is a takeaway from this piece. There is value in the research process itself and not just in the “deliverable” which could well turn out very different to how we anticipated.