The cross that is laid upon us is that at which we ought to work. Our whole life is this work. If the cross is illness, then bear it well, with submission; if it is injury at the hands of men, know how to return good for evil; if it is humiliation, be meek; if it is death, accept it with gratitude.
—Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (1828-1910)
✏️ Letters to a Young Researcher
My dear sir,
I thank you for your kind and candid email regarding your research interests and ambitions. It is a great pleasure for me to read into the minds of the young scientists who will create the world of tomorrow.
You ask me for my opinion on your works, whether they will bear fruit, and which direction you should explore next. I beg you to forget all of this. In science, and in life, the path forward is yours to choose. Listening to the conseils of old men such as myself will only confuse you and lessen your trust in your internal compass. Look into yourself for the big questions: the questions which seem both paramount and insurmountable; the questions which gnaw at your mind day and night. It is only these questions, the ones dear to your heart and passions, that will produce the necessary vigour for sustained exploration and perseverance through obstacles. And, do not be embittered or discouraged if your harvest bears no fruit: hypotheses are to be explored from a position of axiological neutrality, not blindly pursued to the ends of the earth. One should never fall in love with his hypothesis. Secondly is the environment of the scientist: particularly for new researchers, the company of other scientists is essential — it provides inspiration in methods and lifestyle, as well as endless intellectual stimulation and perspective on one’s research. The physical home and psychological environment are of equal importance — a young scientist requires peace, “a quiet and untroubled life1”. The work is sufficient toil in itself: take care that you minimize or remove all unnecessary suffering, anxiety, and stress. A palace of tranquillity will provide optimal conditions for intellectual work and creativity. Lastly, is the balance between employment obligation and one’s contract with the truth. Scientific research, particularly in the early career phase, requires employment and subsequent obligations to one’s employer. However, the young researcher should never allow his employment obligations to distort his commitment to truth or impede his progress toward it. Hypotheses testing can bear bitter fruit for the employer when the results are in an unexpected direction: the young researcher, with tact, should abide by his oath to uncover the secrets of the world, even at the expense of profits or fame. One should be careful to not test his conscience, lest he suffers the fate of Raskolnikov.
The life of a young researcher is filled with potential and excitement. To make even the smallest contribution to our understanding of the world is a great honour, and pleasure for those fortunate enough to experience it. Hone your skills, seek mentors, and be fearless in your quest. And, just maybe, you will stumble upon the light of God.
Yours faithfully & with all sympathy,
Labor omnia vincit.
💡 Food for Thought
You cannot change the past, you can only change yourself.
🧬 Paper of the Week — A Meta-Analysis of the Relation between Creative Self-Efficacy and Different Creativity Measurements
Citation: Jennifer Haase, Eva V. Hoff, Paul H. P. Hanel & Åse Innes-Ker (2018). A Meta-Analysis of the Relation between Creative Self-Efficacy and Different Creativity Measurements, Creativity Research Journal (30:1): 1-16.
This meta-analysis investigated the relations between creative self-efficacy (CSE) and creativity measures and hypothesized that self-assessed questionnaires would have a different relation to self-efficacy beliefs compared to other creativity tests. The meta-analysis synthesized 60 effect sizes from 41 papers (overall N = 17226). Taken as a whole, the relation between CSE and creativity measures was of medium size (r = .39). Subgroup analyses revealed that self-rated creativity correlated higher with self-efficacy (r = .53). The relation with divergent thinking (DT) tests was weak (r = .23). Creativity scales had a medium size relation (r = .43), and was stronger than the relation to verbal performance tasks (r = .27) and figural performance tasks (r = .19). In a comparison between measures focusing on the creative person (r = .47), the creative product (r = .32), and the creative process (r = .27), the person aspect was most strongly linked to CSE. Thus, the relation between self-efficacy and creativity measures is dependent on the type of measurement used, emphasizing the need for researchers to distinguish between different instruments—not the least between self-report scales and more objective test procedures. Conceptual implications are discussed and critique concerning the creativity concept is brought up.
Charity is the sweet and holy bond which links the soul with its Creator: it binds God with man and man with God.
—Saint Catherine of Siena (1347-1380)
Best,
AT
Medawar, P. B. 1915-1987. Advice to a Young Scientist. New York, Harper & Row, 1979.