 |
 |
Dear Keith and all, Have just read Murphy's inaugural lecture and lecture notes arguing for a change of funding to 'small' research and creativity. Is it just me or are there serious problems with the underlying reasoning of Murphy's analysis? Two kinds of problem reasoning seem to recur through Murphy's lecture paper and slides. The first is the ‘part –whole’ reasoning issue that what he is presenting assumes that a partial model of reality can provide truth about the aspects of reality that it does not cover. Alongside this appears phrasing apparently intended to disguise the reasoning faults. Second and linked to it, is a sort of false attribution of causes. This occurs when it is assumed that because event A correlates to event B then there one must be caused by the other. Obviously not necessarily so. These patterns occur in many parts of the lecture and slides. I suggest as a result (and from the reasoning below) Murphy’s reasoning does not support his conclusions. After taking that position, rereading the lecture and slides leaves me with the feeling both his reasoning and his selection and use of evidence is somewhat biased. It leaves me with the questions as to whether is presenting an elitist view, or a bid for changing the world so funding flows to preferred groups or. . .? A detail review of the topic addressed by Murphy's arguments shows some of the issues. First is the problem of scale invariance. Murphy (and Price on whom Murphy's analysis depends) describe various situations central to the conclusion in terms of power law distributions (Lotka's Law and Price's variant of it). A characteristic of power laws is they are scale invariant. That is, *scale* does not matter to the behaviour. Arrangements at different scales of activity will exhibit the same behaviour. Yet, scale is what Murphy tries to lock in as being the determinant of the behaviours. Second, the figures that Murphy uses for eminently skilled people are from a calculation undertaken with particular categorisation of what it means to be eminent, with particular biases, in a particular culture at a particular time (what was considered 'eminent' in English upper class life 150 years ago). There is no obvious reason, and none outlined by Murphy, as to why the ratios of whatever was meant or is now meant by 'eminence' should remain constant, and there are many reasons why it should not be so. There are multiple explanations about why the proportions of population with relevant higher-level expertise and knowledge should vary considerably over location, culture and time, and many reasons why the proportion of the populace seen as 'eminent' can change: it is a public subjective judgement. Third, the situations that Murphy (and Price) describe comprise classic 'S' curve behaviour that is time dependent. This behaviour occurs in small and large organisations alike. One common way this kind of behaviour is typified is that low hanging fruit is more available and easier to pick early in time (earlier on the S curve) and less available and more difficult to access later. Hence, 'discoveries' come more quickly earlier and less so later. The scale of the groups doing the picking is incidental to the 'S' curve behaviours but may well correlate with it. From a system dynamics perspective, the behaviours Murphy (and Price and Lotka) describes can be emulated by a combination of two feedback loops. One, a reinforcing loop, tends to increase the rate of output on the basis of existing output. The output depends on how much you already have. In the case of knowledge and science and technology, you can leverage existing knowledge and technology to extend it. This gives you more knowledge and technology which enables you to extend it more, which gives you even more knowledge and . . . The balancing loop acts in the opposite direction. The more of something you have, the more difficult it is to obtain more of it. Rise in transaction costs with increased complexity is an example. Typically, the effects of the factors supporting the reinforcing loops are greater earlier and when outcomes are small, and the effects of the balancing loop are higher later in the game when outcomes are larger. It is time that dictates where one is operating on a particular 'S' curve, and the scale of effects of the two loops. Organisation scale is commonly incidental. This is nothing new - system dynamics 101. Strategies to create higher levels of output (more knowledge and more creativity) are undertaken by effects of the reinforcing loop and decreasing the effects of the balancing loop. The behaviours and strengths of each of these loops are shaped by a variety of influences. Appropriate strategies to improve outcomes are to modify these influences to increase reinforcing feedback effects and reduce balancing feedback effects. These changes can be done at any level of scale (remember power law distributions are scale invariant) and can be much more effective at larger scale. A brief outline of how this can work in practical ways at a very large scale is at https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20131031003105-24171--googlewins everything-part-1 The above leaves me questioning Murphy's claims, his ways of getting to those claims, and the reasons he wants those opinions to be propagated. I'm interested if the above is mistaken. Perhaps, I've missed something in Murphy's inaugural lecture in which scale of research and creative personnel numbers is proven the causal factor of quality and content of output. Perhaps, the follow up at the State Library of Victoria will clarify things. If anyone goes and it does, I'd appreciate the information. Best wishes , Terry --- Dr Terence Love PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI Honorary Fellow IEED, Management School Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK Director, Love Services Pty Ltd PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030 Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848 Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629 [log in to unmask] -- -----Original Message----- From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of KEITH RUSSELL Sent: Wednesday, 6 November 2013 9:21 AM To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subject: Re: The Creativity Collapse. Why Creativity in the Arts and Sciences is Declining and Why You Should Care Dear Ken, I have pasted an excerpt below from the Prof Murphy inaugural lecture ³The Big Creativity Deficit². It is interesting to contemplate how much of our individual work falls into each of these categories and then to speculate how our fellows would view our work. We might also usefully consider how much time we spend looking after the ecology of dissemination and how much looking after the ecology of creation. It would be interesting to run a self-reporting survey based on these distinctions. Sorry to NOT be in Melbourne for the talk. keith >>>>>>>EXCERPT from Murphy: "As a field grows, knowledge is stripped of imagination. Emphasis tacitly falls on dissemination in place of creation. Knowledge becomes characterized incrementally by ever-larger portions of tepidness, ineffectuality, and inhibition. In such a context, fewer and fewer great works are incubated. The ecology of dissemination is different from the ecology of creation. The larger the field grows, the larger becomes the gap in numbers between core and peripheral contributors. Dissemination, interpretation, and spreading-the-word are crucial to inquiry. Researchers need readers. Yet there is a point at which dissemination feeds back into the discovery core and corrodes it. Intellectual fields are like super-nova stars. Beyond a certain point, their growth is the prelude to entropy and eventual extinction. These fields burn their creative fuel. They die out.² (Murphy, 2012, p. 8 - see link below) >>>>>>>>> On 5/11/2013 11:17 am, "Ken Friedman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Prof. Murphy will follow up on the theme of his professorial inaugural >lecture at James Cook University, The Big Creativity Deficit. > >Those who are interested will find the inaugural lecture and the >accompanying slides in PDF format in the "Teaching Documents" section >of my Academia.edu page at URL: > >http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman > ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------