When I answered the posted question in our Discussion Forum about my understanding of the concept of CREATIVITY, and whether creativity can be managed or not, I accidentally provoked a somewhat unexpected almost violent reaction from a devoted classmate—devoted only to her paradigm—and blinded to others’ perspectives. At first, we just went circling around unclear premises. Fortunately, the discussion went very interesting and, I believe, very healthy as well, and even attracted other classmates who claimed to have learned and were enlightened somehow. Thanks to the challenger, the dialogue stretched us both!
In that controversial discussion about whether creativity can be managed or not, I delivered a quite unpopular approach by stating that, “CREATIVITY CANNOT BE MANAGED,” while at the same time explaining how it can be managed. Although the entire argument revolved around the idea that indeed creativity CAN BE MANAGED, I intended to state the opposite . . . to give emphasis on H O W creativity can be managed, that is, management is not done directly to creativity. Rather, if we want to manage creativity, we need to concentrate on its ENVIRONMENT and not to CREATIVITY itself. In other words, it’s the environment that fosters creativity that we can effectively manage. By ensuring that the factors that make creativity possible is what CREATIVITY MANAGEMENT is all about.
In this similar topic—CAN SCIENTISTS MANAGE SCIENCE?—I would like to take a similar approach, but with a little twist. I would argue here that yes, SCIENCE CAN BE MANAGED. And then at the end, I will challenge the very notion I have just established.
Science . . . and Arts
In my previous understanding, SCIENCE and ARTS are two different things. Sometimes I see them as a dichotomy—many things can EITHER be only art or only science. They are opposite. Now I understand there are also more abstract cases where both arts and science coexist. One example is leadership. For me, LEADERSHIP is both an art and a science. Another one is LOGIC—the art and science of correct thinking.
While leadership and logic are both art and science; management in general is mostly science. Also, while creativity is more than an art than a science, its management is more of a science than of an art. Therefore in my post about creativity, I argued that creativity and management are opposite. Here, however, I argue that science can be managed in a sense that both MANAGEMENT and SCIENCE are in the same end of the dichotomy. They are both sciences.
In simple and unelaborated way, science, according to my Encarta Dictionary is a SYSTEMATIC BODY OF KNOWLEDGE. In simpler terms, SCIENCE IS KNOWLEDGE. Now, substituting the synonymous terms in our topic, I would say that yes—SYSTEMATIC KNOWLEDGE CAN BE MANAGED.
Extending further, I consider that knowledge is a tool that we use every day. In that sense—SCIENCE AS A KNOWLEDGE, AND KNOWLEDGE BEING A TOOL—yes it can be managed in some degree.
Managing the evolution
Science has dramatically evolved in the past decades and is continuously evolving today. It didn’t evolve on its own, and it is not evolving on its own today. Science has many branches. We call each branch as a discipline. These diverse disciplines collaborate with one another to MANAGE the evolution of science. We manage science through CREATIVE research. BIOLOGY continues to evolve. This evolution affects the evolution of medicine. Simultaneously, PSYCHOLOGY is also continuously evolving thus affecting also the evolution of both BIOLOGY and medicine and probably other disciplines. ARCHITECTURE’S evolution is affected by the evolution of ENGINEERING which is in turn affected by the evolution of our knowledge of ELECTRICITY, CHEMISTRY and other disciplines as well. Our knowledge in chemistry, as it evolves, also affects the biologists’ knowledge in biology.
Science is one whole big body of knowledge of many branches that are somehow interconnected. Management of one branch affects the other branches. In other words, continuous research in one branch affects other related branches.
Science as a knowledge . . . as a Tool
As knowledge—a systematic body of big knowledge—I believe we can manage science. We don’t need to be scientists to manage our own knowledge. Some are disciplined in the field of medicine, some in architecture, some, in the science of Marine Engineering.
Marine engineers can of course manage their own knowledge in the science of marine engineering. Those engineers on board international vessels continue to be part of the evolution of this branch of science. New discoveries in PHYSICS affect the science of engineering. On board, the engineers continue to catch up to new technologies—modern machines they never thought possible before. Now however, facing the facts, marine engineers need to adjust. They need to manage their own knowledge about this specific knowledge (science in marine engineering), or else, they will be left behind.
Scientists in the maritime field continue to manage the science of marine engineering. And a lot of factors that they consider in their researches are those factors that come from the reports of the actual marine engineers on board, these engineers who keep on adjusting their knowledge just to catch up. As they manage the engine and the entire engine department onboard a vessel, they make lots of analyses and syntheses. These activities are always logged on in official record books. (Now they already have modern computer software that will do some parts of the analyses and syntheses.) Copies of these records are sent to the owners of these vessels and or other authority for continuous study. This will then be the basis for the new research. After the research, implementation follows. Installing of new and modern machines on board the vessels forces marine engineers to take special training and advance their knowledge of the marine engineering science as well. It’s a cycle between the engineers and scientists.
All of these happen because both the scientists and the ones in the field are successfully managing not only the science of marine engineering but science as a whole. As I have said, the branches are interrelated. Our discipline is benefiting from the science of ELECTRICITY and CHEMISTRY.
But . . . let’s think again
Although we can manage science in many aspects, there are areas that we cannot truly manage. Ironically, although science gives us easier life, it also threatens that easy life to end sooner, quicker. In medicine, the invention of pain relievers tremendously affects the psychology of many individuals. We no longer appreciate the gift of pain. Because of these pain relievers, we now tend to condemn PAIN and avoid it as much as possible without ever realizing that pain helps us survive. It affects our attitude.
Modern household technologies make us lazy and make us prone to complain. Because of those technologies that promote speed, we forget the virtue of being slow. We want everything fast and instant. Beauty products that are product of chemistry and biology continue to change how we perceive BEAUTY. Even software like Photoshop distorts our perception of beauty. Natural is no longer natural.
Modern science also brings us problems, dilemmas, and chaos beyond imagination. The wars, modern crimes, new diseases, and unpredictable weather are mostly products of the “successful management of science.”
That’s the irony. We tend to isolate science from arts and other areas of life even from our spiritual life. We tend to look at the past and consider all advances in science as success without realizing its negative effects in other areas of our life. Because of this, we are now in great danger. Global warming is just one, but this is global. It is affecting the entire planet. This global warming, a clear and present danger is just the product of so called DECADES OF SUCCESSFUL MANAGEMENT OF SCIENCE. My personal conviction tells me that if we are truly in control, we will be able to stop instead of aggravate these problems. The whole world is an INDIVISIBLE WHOLE. We cannot manage just one area (like science) while neglecting other areas like our values, ethics, spiritual growth, relationships, and many other areas in our precious lives. We need to integrate all these into one. We need balance.
If we truly believe that we can totally manage science, we better think again.