Hey everyone,

I’m still working on the second edition of Organizing Creativity.

It takes longer than expected (it is a spare time project), so, I’m putting the current draft version online.

It contains the content of the wiki I had here, so I have removed it.

Like I said, it’s a rough draft — some parts are (almost) finished, others are missing in part or completely — but to make the best of the longer work process, posting it online gives me the opportunity to ask for feedback. This is your chance to influence the final version. What do you think of the content and/or the layout? Any suggestions for improvement? I’d like to hear them. Drop me a line at danwessel@organizingcreativity.com or write a comment.

All the best

Daniel

Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.
Mark Twain

Looking back at the advice I did get, I didn’t get, I wish I had gotten, I think that a good adviser, when giving advise, looks at:

• who the young scientist is (i.e., where she is in her career, what her attributes are, her character, strengths and weaknesses, etc.),
• how the field is in the area this person wants to be successful in (i.e., the specific research community),
• the possible advantages and (more relevant) the problems this specific young scientist will have if she wants to be successful in this specific field,
• (ideally) possible ways to improve the persons chances, e.g., strengthen the positive aspects and overcome the problems, and
• a way to convey valuable feedback to the young scientist in a way that the young scientist can accept this feedback.

Personally, Andy van Dam, who was the mentor of Randy Pausch exemplifies this kind of mentorship for me. He said (as quoted in the wonderful book: “Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams” by Randy Pausch):

“Randy, it’s such a shame that people perceive you as being so arrogant, because it’s going to limit what you’re going to be able to accomplish in life.”
Andy van Dam to Randy Pausch

Randy Pausch commented this feedback as perfectly worded, because he did not say: “Randy, you’re being a jerk.”, but he identified the core problem of the person in the field he wanted to work in, and he conveyed the message in a way his student could accept.

This kind of advice is very, very rare in my opinion, and after having taught students for a few semesters and some student assistants, also very, very hard. But it is also very, very important if you want to improve yourself.

Note: This posting replaces a previous one, in which I essentially said the same thing, but which was also very emotional and angry. Looking back, I can see why I wrote it is that tone, and seeing it now I can see that it does not fit to person who I like to be(come).

I have translated the poster I did for the MinD-Akademie 2011 in English. I love it — it shows on one (very large) page the whole concept that I try to convey with “Organizing Creativity”. If you prefer it in German find the German version here.

I will probably do a similar version for the second version of the Organizing Creativity Book (still working on it) and use it as navigation help for the Organizing Creativity Wiki (likewise still working on it). But until both are ready, have fun with this poster (note: due to the size — DIN A0 — it is about 7 MB).

The poster shows the different steps that are necessary in organizing creativity. While the process goes top down (yellow arrow in the horizontal center), each step is also another occupation with the topic (yellow arrows upwards to occupation with the topic), which leads to further ideas. I have left the footer for the moment — in case you are wondering it translates as “MinD-Academy 2011 — Future and Research”.

English Note: This posting is about a poster I did submit to the MinD-Akademie 2011, showing on one (very large) page how one can organize one’s creativity. It was accepted and well received. The poster is in German, but I will do a translation soon. [Update: Translation is finished and available in this posting here.]

Das Poster zeigt die verschiedenen Punkte die wichtig sind, um Kreativität zu organisieren. Während der Prozess von oben nach unten läuft, ist jeder Punkt auch eine Beschäftigung mit dem Thema (gelbe Pfeile nach oben) und führt entsprechend zu weiteren Ideen (mittige Pfeile nach unten). Auf das Poster oder hier klicken, um das Poster als PDF in DIN-A0 zu sehen (die Bilder selbst sind runterskaliert, so dass die Datei “nur” ca. 7 MB groß ist). Die Datei ist in der Dateigröße reduziert, die Bilder sollten aber trotzdem in druckbarer Qualität sein. Das Poster, das ich ausgestellt hatte, habe ich in Hannover gelassen (vielleicht hat es ja ein nettes Heim gefunden, sonst wurde es halt entsorgt). Ich musste los, habe mein Poster nicht gesehen (oder ich war grad blind) und ich habe mich auch von einigen Leuten nicht (bzw. nicht richtig) verabschieden können (war auch was k.o., auch wenn’s/weil’s riesigen Spaß gemacht hat). Ich hoffe, ich sehe ein paar Personen bald wieder, auch gerne mal zu Besuch in Tübingen, auch wenn ich die Namen grad nicht verfügbar habe (ich denke, ich habe den Networking-Workshop wirklich gebraucht — war gut und eine gute Erinnerung).  Ich wünschte halt, ich hätte mir die Namen notiert, von den Personen, mit denen ich interessante Unterhaltungen geführt hatte (hmm, in der Badewanne eben gab’s eine nette Idee für eine App bzw. die Fortführung einer älteren Idee dazu  … ).

“I took a speed reading course and 
read ‘War and Peace’ in twenty minutes.
It involves Russia.”
Woody Allen

Last weekend, I did a presentation for the MinD-Akademie in Germany with the topic: “The Future of Your Research — How to organize a scientific work?”. It was a lot of fun creating the presentation and even more fun holding it (great audience ). Over the next few days I’m going to put the material online here. As this takes a while, here the cited literature:

Science in General and Advisers/Colleagues

• Cham’s “PhD Comics”: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php
  I could have done the whole presentation with PhD Comics, but no one would have believed that they actually describe “real” situations (“real” because it’s a little over the top, but always with a nugget of gold). Great to get a humorous view on academia.
• Sternberg’s “Psychology 101½”: Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Psychology 101 1/2 The Unspoken Rules for Success in Academia. Washington, DC: APA.
  A very good book by a distinguished professor about life in academia. While written with psychology in mind (he is psychologist), some aspects can probably be applied to other domains.
• Pausch’s “Last Lecture”
(Video & Book): Pausch, R. (2008). Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams. New York: Hyperion. [Video here on YouTube]
  A brilliant presentation about a person’s life in academia (and in general) — it shows what you can accomplish and what is needed. For all who think that a job in academia is more than just making money to life by (badly in many cases).
• Schwartz’s “The importance of stupidity in scientific research”: Schwartz, M. A. (2008). The importance of stupidity in scientific research. Journal of Cell Science, 121, 1771. Available at http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/121/11/1771
  A one page article about the necessity of feeling stupid while doing research. Should be required reading by every PhD student just to get the “but I did study it, why don’t I know the answer in advance” out of one’s mind.
• Patterson’s “Your Students Are Your Legacy”: Patterson, D. A. (2009). Your Students Are Your Legacy. Communications of the ACM, 32(3), 30-33. doi:10.1145/1467247.1467259
  A brilliant argument for good advisory — and what makes good advisory. Should be required reading for everyone who advises students.
• Schmidt & Richter’s Artikel von 2008 und 2009: Schmidt, B., & Richter, A. (2008). Unterstützender Mentor oder abwesender Aufgabenverteiler? – Eine qualitative Interviewstudie zum Führungshandeln von Professorinnen und Professoren aus der Sicht von Promovierenden. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 30(4), 34-58. und Schmidt, B., & Richter, A. (2009). Zwischen Laissez-Faire, Autokratie und Kooperation: Führungsstile von Professorinnen und Professoren. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 31(4), 8-35.
  Both articles are in German but they are very interesting — more information on them in a posting about them.

Finding a Topic and Planning the Research

• Perry’s Criteria for a good dissertation topic: Perry, C. (1998). A structured approach to presenting theses. Available online at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/art/cperry.html
  An excellent text about doing a thesis with some very good points on selecting the right topic.
• Booth, Colomb, & Williams’ “The Craft of Research”: Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2003). The Craft of Research. (Second Edition). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  More on the basics of what research is and how to do it — applicable for many domains.
• Ullman’s “Advising Students for Success”: Ullman, J. D. (2009). Advising Students for Success. Communications of the ACM, 52(3), 34-37.
  Another great text about advisory — with more focus on choosing a relevant topic.

Managing Literature

• Reference Manger Overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_reference_management_software
• citavi: http://www.citavi.com
  A very interesting reference manager, because it offers more than a database for storing reference information. It offers a way to organize knowledge taken from the articles, which is something few reference manager do. Very interesting!
• Sente: http://www.thirdstreetsoftware.com
  A reference manger that offers intelligent note taking capabilities. More in this posting.
• Zotero: http://www.zotero.org
  An interesting reference manager because it works in the browser. But there is still the problem of storing more than just the articles.
• Mendely: http://www.mendeley.com
  Interesting because it is also a social network. You can get information what people who read similar articles have read. Very interesting and the way of the future.

Capturing and Managing Ideas and Data

• Organizing Creativity: http://www.organizingcreativity.com
  I hesitate to recommend my own book (still working on the second version and it is just — wrong). But it was written to cover this topic. Get the PDF here.
• Circus Ponies Notebook: http://www.circusponies.com
  Beautiful digital notebook with a great outliner. Get more information on working with it in these postings: 
  • Circus Ponies Notebook: The Best Tool for Structuring Creative Writing Projects (esp. Research Projects)
  • Circus Ponies Notebook for Academic Writing (e.g., Thesis Writing)
  • Circus Ponies Notebook and Scrivener for Writing
• Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software
  Wikipedia has a very good overview of the different Wiki (engines) available.
• DokuWiki: http://dokuwiki.org
  A very good and easy to manage wiki engine.
• DEVONthink: http://www.devon-technologies.com/products/devonthink/
  A very interesting note management system. Read more in this posting.
• Scrivener: http://www.literatureandlatte.com/scrivener.php
  Personally the best writing application I know of — way, way better than word and well worth a look. Read more in this posting.

Preparing Studies and Analyzing the Data

• Field’s “Discovering Statistics Using SPSS”: Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (2nd Edition). London: Sage.
  My statistics book was the Bortz (German book) — which was … not that suited to learn what statistics is about and why it is interesting and useful. Field manages to do both en passant — a very well written book and highly recommended.
• Pallant’s “SPSS Survival Manual”: Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual. McGraw-Hill, Open University Press.
  Everything you need to know to do the standard tests in statistics for psychologists. Looks cheap but is the best practical handbook I know. Very, very useful.
• Goodwin’s “Research in Psychology”: Goodwin, C. J. (2009). Research in Psychology. Methods and Design. New York: Wiley.
  Good basic text about research.
• Wright’s “Making friends with your data”: Wright, D. B. (2003). Making friends with your data: Improving how statistics are conducted and reported. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 123-136.
  Something every researcher should know — very interesting text.
• example for a “strange” but very valuable source: Froman, R. D. (2001). Elements to Consider in Planning the Use of Factor Analysis. Southern Online Journal of Nursing Research, 2(5). Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://www.snrs.org/ publications/SOJNR_articles/iss05vol02.pdf.

Writing

• Silvia’s “How to Write a Lot”: Silvia, P. J. (2007). How to Write a Lot. Washington D.C.: APA.
  Read this to avoid delaying your writing. A brilliant text that smashes the typical excuses of why not to write and gives very useful hints to write.
• Alley’s “The Craft of Scientific Writing”: Alley, M. (1996). The Craft of Scientific Writing (3rd Edition). New York: Springer.
  The best text I know of regarding the criteria for scientific writing and a very convincing text that technical writing (e.g., all research papers) is craft, not art, i.e., you need to get your facts straight, not divine inspiration.
• Bem’s “Writing the Empirical Journal Article”: Bem, D. J. (1987). Writing the empirical journal article. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Darley (Eds.), The compleat academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (pp. 171-201). New York: Random House.
  Can be found online in a different version (which I did read). The standard text for psychologists working in research.
• Yaffe’s “How to Generate Reader Interest in What You Write”: Yaffe, P. (2009). How to Generate Reader Interest in What You Write. ACM Ubiquity, 10(7).
  An interesting text to capture the reader.
• Lamott’s “bird by bird”: Lamott, A. (1994). bird by bird. New York: Anchor Books.
  A very good book about (fictional) writing, but with helpful hints for academic/technical writing as well — esp. to write a “shitty first draft”, you can always improve it later.
• Academic Phrasebank: http://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk
  If reading articles does not give you the necessary vocabulary or you struggle with the right phrases, this site will help.

Reviews

• Trafimow & Rice: Trafimow, D., & Rice, S. (2009). What If Social Scientists Had Reviewed Great Scientific Works of the Past? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 65-78. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01107.x
  A brilliant article about how tough and irrational the peer review process is in the social sciences. More in this posting or look directly in the article — very humorous and highly recommended.

Presentations

• Reynolds’ “Presentation Zen” & “The naked presenter”: Reynolds, G. (2008). Presentation Zen: Simple Ideas on Presentation Design and Delivery. Berkeley, CA: New Riders. and Reynolds, G. (2011). The naked presenter. Delivering Powerful Presentations With or Without Slides. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
  Brilliant books to avoid death by Powerpoint.
• TED talks: http://www.ted.com
  Great for inspiration — many of the speakers can convey not only their message/the facts but also why they love this topic.

I stumbled over two great articles regarding leadership — or the lack thereof — in academia. Unfortunately, both are in German, but they key points were (translating and paraphrasing the authors):

• Using the classification of leadership in laissez-faire, autocratic and cooperating leadership behavior works. It must not be seen as either-or, but as present to varying degrees.
• Leadership behavior is not a matter of personal preference, but has consequences on multiple measures, e.g., affective commitment, achievement motivation, fluctuation, quality of the work relationship, and total work performance of the department. Leadership behavior that is high in cooperative, low in autocratic and low in laissez-faire style leads to the best results.
• There are many good examples of great leadership, of professors who support their staff and help them to become good or even great scientists by opening doors, giving advice and encouragement.
• However, many academics do not see themselves as leaders and do not think that they should show leadership behavior. Often the reason is the (false) argument that academic freedom and training independent scientists precludes leadership, thus resulting in no (i.e., laissez-faire) leadership behavior. However, mentorship — giving advice and feedback — allows the advancement of skills and work and keeps the independence and self-directed work of the young academics.
• Bad leadership behavior is usually not the tyrant who plays god in his department, but the lack of systematic (i.e., targeted, deliberate, reflective) leadership behavior. For example,
  • giving critic without constructive recommendations for change and encouragement,
  • making optimistic estimations regarding whether something can be implemented without giving the necessary support and impulses of how to transform an optimistic estimation to a measurable success,
  • pressing for the implementation of their own visions without gaining commitment by their staff first, and
  • academic thesis advisers who are usually not available.
• Bad leadership wastes potential, because it is a main reason that doctoral students quit their dissertation and leave academia.
• Great leadership combines support/advice with promoting values which are consistent and lived in the everyday work and can be experiences by the staff, e.g., promoting ethical values like respect, transparency, fairness and setting a good example.
• Training of leadership behavior in academia was neglected but — apparently — this is going to change.

I think the articles are highly relevant for anyone working or planning to work in academia, as post-doc or professor. The climate of a department can make or break great science and leaders strongly contribute to it. And as Kurt Lewin, who started research in leadership behaviors, said: “There is nothing so practical as a good theory.” and the texts are great to make sense of leadership behavior in academia.

Highly recommended.

Sources

Schmidt, B., & Richter, A. (2008). Unterstützender Mentor oder abwesender Aufgabenverteiler? – Eine qualitative Interviewstudie zum Führungshandeln von Professorinnen und Professoren aus der Sicht von Promovierenden. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 30(4), 34-58.

Schmidt, B., & Richter, A. (2009). Zwischen Laissez-Faire, Autokratie und Kooperation: Führungsstile von Professorinnen und Professoren. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 31(4), 8-35.

It’s been a few years since I wrote “Organizing Creativity” and in the meantime I have learned a lot. I am also critical of the style of the book — I wanted to write everything I knew, I did and it shows. It contains a lot of information, but it is not exactly easy to read.

So, I am currently working on a new version, more concise and more useful for practical application. For this version I would like to ask you for your input. How do you organize your creativity? What skills and tools did help you? What gave you a boost in working. The questions are very broad and no matter how trivial or supposedly widely known it is, I really like to hear about it.

Thank you in advance

Daniel Wessel

Cut from “The West Wing”

The cut above reminds me of something we often lose: Take a breath for a second, step back and ask yourself: What are you doing? Are you really doing what you want to do? What is important for your? What makes your heart beat faster? What motivates you to get out of bed with a smile?

Don’t get me wrong, no job, no matter which, will always be fun, always be great, nor will you always succeed in it. But there are two things that should characterize any worthwhile job, and I include creative work in the past time to this:

• Over a medium time-frame (let’s say up to six months), the balance of the job in terms of enjoyment vs. dissatisfaction should be positive.
• The job should have consequences that go beyond the work itself — be it people inspired, making the world a little less hostile or complicated, etc. pp.

If you are doing something that is not worthwhile, creating something each and every day that does not move your heart, then perhaps it’s time to stop and think — and find an alternative solution.

“State your name, rank and intention.”
“The Doctor, Doctor, Fun.”
Dr. Who

A few years back I stumbled over the series “Dr. Who“. I don’t own a TV, so it was mostly Wikipedia entries and some other references. Thing is, it confused me. What I couldn’t understand was, how someone could like such a series. It didn’t make sense to me. Stupid aliens, a box that’s bigger on the inside, story lines that seemed unbelievable. It kept nagging in the back of my mind until I decided (more or less on a whim a few weeks ago) to buy the first four seasons of the relaunch. I went to work somewhat sleepy for the next days because I watched the episodes whenever I could — usually until late in the night/morning. I now own seasons 1 to 5, including the specials.

Thing is, once you start watching the episodes you discover well thought out story lines — which discuss issues that go beyond the things you see (and, with the tenth doctor, someone with a stylish sense of dress).

I was reminded of the usual reaction as a child/teenager when I said that I loved watching Star Trek (TNG & DS9). For most people, Star Trek is just bad actors badly dressed with masks claiming to be aliens and some space battles. Only when you start seeing the topics they deal with — human nature, issues like prejudice, hate, fear, sanity and much, much more — it goes beyond deep. It uses the age-old trick of telling stories which are highly relevant in a way that makes dealing with the issues no-threating. Nobody is offended if “aliens” do something that everyone with half a brain recognizes immediately as playing on a common human trait or at the behavior of a specific country. And, seriously, the idea of illustrating the stupidity of prejudice based on skin color by having an alien race have either the right side of their body in white and the left in black or vice versa (actually a TOS episode) … brilliant. I learned more about ethics and morality from Star Trek than from anywhere else, including the years of “catholic religion”/”ethics” in school.
I don’t think that Dr. Who is similarly deep (sorry), but it has something — it’s very stimulating and raised questions and brought me ideas. And I nearly missed it, because I reacted with rejection when it made no sense to me at first.

So, what do you miss out because it seems ridiculous to you at first glance?

I have had the pleasure and privilege of meeting with hundreds of students across the country, many of whom have struggled for years against severe depression, manic-depressive illness, or alcoholism. A disturbing number have nearly died from their suicide attempts. Rarely do their parents or professors have any idea of the extent of their suffering or what it takes for them simply to show up for class, take their examinations, or write their papers.
Kay Redfield Jamison

The following short TED talk is quite interesting — I have written some postings about/related to suicide on this blog (for example, about the “It get’s better” project or somewhat related the TED Talk by Elizabeth Gilbert), partly because I think that creative people are more prone to it than others, and it is a shame when a creative (or almost any other) voice is lost. The following talk highlights a problem that is usually not talked about, but felt deeply by those involved, by someone closely involved:

For me an eye-opening experience was reading the book quoted at the beginning of the posting: “Night Falls Fast — understanding suicide.” by Kay Redfield Jamison (1999, New York: Vintage Books). I sincerely think that suicide is an option and a freedom every person must have — one has the right but not the obligation to live, but I also think that in most cases suicide isn’t a “free” decision, it’s the symptom of an illness. People are driven to suicide by psychological disorders like depression or schizophrenia. It’s not a rational choice or freedom, but impaired judgment and a skewed world-view. It’s coercion, not freedom of choice. I can highly recommend Jamison’s book in this regard — it’s not nice to read, it’s not a book to enjoy, but it’s eye-opening.