Enhancing Scholarly Creativity When Developing Research Ideas

Abstract

This study details how 17 introductory psychology and sociology research methods textbooks suggest students develop research ideas. It compares this advice with how social psychologist Stanley Milgram creatively invented five research projects. Of the textbooks that offered advice on idea creation techniques (n = 13), most recommendations conflicted with Milgram’s most relied upon inventive approach. The textbooks promoted a range of inventive techniques, many of which encouraged students to undertake, in their initial area of interest, a review of the previous literature. Milgram’s favored inventive approach differed: often with students, in one sitting he envisioned, developed, and honed research ideas and then scoped out the potential study’s entire methodological design. At best, Milgram’s review of the previous literature came after having settled on a methodological approach. In doing so, he broke a common textbook golden rule: before deciding on the methodological design, the previous literature must be reviewed. The textbooks often warned against the inventive approach Milgram deployed, describing it as imprudent: the idea developed may already have been completed. This valid criticism, however, fails to consider a potential advantage associated with Milgram’s unconventional approach: his ignorance of the previous literature ensured his creative lens remained unadulterated by the powerful influence of what had been done before. It is concluded Milgram’s unconventional approach to idea creation may, at least in part, explain why he was so creative. This paper concludes with a compromise position: researchers should be exposed to the strengths and weaknesses associated with both the most common textbook approaches to idea generation and that of creative high-impact scholars like Milgram.