Can systematic mapping be a creativity tool in research?
The thinking surrounding systematic mapping can be a tool to trigger creative ideas in research
Systematic mapping is a tool used in the context of research synthesis when the question being asked is rather broad and when the focus is more on asking what has been done rather than what the (quantitative) result of research was. Systematic mapping is thus a great way to achieve an overview of a research field.
In my MSc course ‘Creativity’ this semester we spent one afternoon discussing if systematic mapping can also be used as a creativity tool, and to cut a long story short: the answer was yes!
Let me break down what the students1 and I discovered together. Here are points that we thought were relevant to view systematic mapping also as a creativity exercise.
Coming up with the broad question already has inherent value, since it broadens one’s research niche, providing a bird’s eye perspective of a broader research area. This is a change in perspective from a more narrow research focus, and changes in perspective are often key for creative insights.
Designing the categories for the systematic screening is a process similar to that underpinning the ‘Zwicky-Box’ or ‘morphological analysis’, a well-known creativity technique. Things are broken down into categories (attribute listing) with different values (or sub-points), and the very act of doing this can reveal new connections between points. In contrast to the Zwicky-Box, where many connections and combinations may be non-intuitive, the links made here already directly reflect the reality of research.
One of the hallmarks of systematic mapping outputs is that they can reveal research gaps, once the right questions of the data have been asked. Coming up with these questions is a creative act in the first place, often driven by observations made in papers, and revealing and demonstrating the research gap can immediately give rise to ideas for future studies. For example, in our lab’s systematic mapping on surfactant effects in soils it became obvious that there was a complete lack of lab studies that included an incubation phase. This was certainly not obvious before the systematic mapping was completed.
The result of a systematic mapping exercise is a snapshot of the state of knowledge in a particular field. As creativity involves making connections among things that are known in ways that result in something novel and useful, the output of such a mapping provides the substrate or starting point for making such connections. For example, one could just overlay on this landscape of knowledge any new additional factor/ concept and look for interesting connections.
During the process of collecting and reviewing the literature for the systematic mapping one is likely to encounter papers that the broad search term discovered that maybe one wouldn’t have found otherwise. These papers may themselves be the source of new ideas, strongly connected to the general topic that is being studied.
Often, starting with a creative process is not easy. The advantage of a systematic mapping (in any of the stages, but in particular the design phase, i.e. formulating the question, and coming up with the initial screening categories, the listing of attributes) is that it can provide an excellent, well-organized and structured process that serves as a starting point for thinking about a topic in broader terms.
These were the main points. Other points that came up in the discussion were that systematic mapping is a way of ‘democratizing’ having an overview over a body of literature: you don’t need to work in a field for decades. Systematic mapping is a way of obtaining this overview fast, as a result of the structured process that drives it. An experienced researcher would get there faster, but also early career researchers can get there reasonably quickly through this structured thinking. This is a way to broaden participation by researchers, which likely would have positive effects on creative output at a more general level, for a field as a whole. Finally, the very act of thinking about synthesis, building on the collective output of the entire community of researchers, can create a positive atmosphere and mindset that can also be conducive to the development of creative ideas.
What do you think? Have we forgotten something?
The students that contributed to the discussion that led to this list here were: Clara Biskaborn, Klara Stegmann, Samuel Reichert and Anna Klaus.
I am always so inspired about my own research (completely different field) after reading your thoughts about yours!
Great post ! I've also found over the years that these kinds of techniques are essential for doing good research. In theoretical domains of ecology sometimes the historical/socio/economic contexts are important to be aware of. For example, we are wrapping up a project on cetacean dives and ended up with a huge conceptual map that draws on old whaling literature, optimal energy theory's origins in economic reasoning, human-free diving metabolism, sports medecine, and conservation law.