Science + Creativity = Innovation

In December 2016 I attended a most significant conference in Seoul, hosted by KOFAC and supported by many science engagement organisations including the British Council. Speaking at the conference were some great thinkers and practitioners in the area of science, creativity and innovation from across the globe.

Some themes and perspectives emerged during the conference. Upon reflection I felt it might be of value to share some of these, but they might be summed up by the proposition that –The quality of our lives depends on innovation and the informal STEM sector has a critical role in not leaving innovation to chance. We all recognised the importance of innovation to improve and maintain the quality and richness of our lives. Governments, industries and centres of research and development from most countries see innovation as essential to drive economic growth. In an increasingly dynamic and disrupted world, innovation is seen by some as a way of surviving the change, and by others as the means by which they can take advantage of the opportunities that will emerge.

The quality of our lives depends on innovation and the informal STEM sector has a critical role in not leaving innovation to chance.

Many countries and companies have made significant investments in supporting innovation, and have worked hard to maximise the benefits. While the approaches to supporting innovation are different country to country and industry to industry, one challenge faces all of these initiatives, and that is the availability of highly skilled creative people.

Industry and research organisations have in some instances been quick to embrace change, and adopt new approaches. Multi-disciplinary teams, problem oriented research, new forms of collaboration, co-design, open sourcing and in-job education, are all strategies adopted by organisations. Again the innovative output delivered by these measures is often constrained by shortages in people with the right skills and attitudes to drive and manage these new approaches.

Governments and other stakeholders recognise these limitations. They look to the formal education systems as incubator for the talented people they need. Developed and Developing countries value education and it consequently receives significant funding. A focus on formal education as part of the equation in dealing with global competition, innovation and economic transformation is understandable. In many countries direct attention has been given to how the education system can best meet these demands and a range of measures have been implemented. Yet, some of the assumptions, expectations and international comparisons that have shaped these changes have in many cases not yet achieved all that was desired.

In fact, in many countries the gap between industry’s demands for skilled people and the outputs from their education systems has been progressively widening. For example, data contained within the global innovation index (2015) shows Singapore as being in the top 10 - of 140 for innovation, yet in terms of efficiency it is around 120. It is increasingly reliant on importing skills, and leveraging its significant world class infrastructure to commercialise products and services. Many other highly developed industrial nations are moving in the same direction.

The formal educational systems of many countries have been benchmarked for a range of outcomes (notably via PISA, TIMMS and similar systems). These metrics - give educational systems a measure of outcomes, but the relevance of these numbers to in-job performance or readiness to drive innovative or creative industries has not been validated. They do give policy makers a benchmark for the basic capacity and skills of their students. Unfortunately these scores – or more particularly – the quest to narrowly pursue their improvement – has not allowed for the re-tooling of the education systems to the point where sufficient graduates have the right mix of skills to actively support and participate in innovation and economic transformation.

It is very likely the formal education system alone will not be able to meet these demands, and should not be expected to. The need to maintain traditional academic excellence, the inertia of many educational systems, and the time available within a full and often narrow curriculum limits the ability of the formal education system – by itself - to address this need. Much of the current teacher workforce ( as a global generalisation) has been trained to deliver specific academic outcomes, and do not themselves have the skills, experience or teaching models to support the growth of the capabilities being sort by industry and society more generally.

In each country there are exceptional teachers and schools and exceptional students. But success needs more than this.

Several Science centres around the world, along with emerging centres for informal education, recognise these gaps, and are gaining experience and understanding of approaches that will help societies address these demands. A benefit of working in the informal sector is our ability to try new approaches, form new types of collaborations. We can innovate, study - fail and adjust. We are also a point of intersection between government, industry and education. While we limited in our scale – we are increasingly seen as having influence, and value, being able to explore and support new approaches and explore how they translate into aspects of the formal education system.

In developing programs to foster innovation, problem solving, creativity and design thinking, program development staff within these organisations have begun to more deliberately apply these approaches to the conception, design and delivery of these and other programs, in what has become a virtuous circle.

The informal learning sector has some attributes that make it very valuable as part of the bigger innovation agenda. Because the informal learning sector has also largely been voluntary, and self-selected, the groups providing these opportunities have relied on engagement. Engagement has many parents - curiosity, relevance or personal meaning, challenging, self-expression, open-ended. Typically they can be pursued individually or collaboratively, and often involve both mind and body.

All these qualities would equally apply to any genuinely Creative activity.

Questacon, in common with many science centres and similar institutions, has over the years developed, run and refined a range of exhibits and programs, that work to engage, and ignite the curiosity of its visitors. Initially these programs have evolved, through a combination of intuition, observation, refinement.

Now with powerful insights from our collaborations across the global network of science centres, and science of learning research academics, our programs are being increasingly designed using strategies informed by understandings of how to support creativity, and maximise the skills and confidence required to become innovative and lifelong learners and problem solvers. The Questacon Smart skills initiative is one of the more comprehensive programs in this space.

Delegates from across Korea and Australia saw great potential for our two nations to further collaborate. Historically each country has a strong but unique approach to innovation, but our informal engagement approaches now have much in common, and much to learn from each other. The discussions also saw that the benefits in working together to help other countries in the region.

Questacon has in recent years supported international programs and professional development in southern Africa, Vietnam, Indonesia, Brunei, and Thailand, Japan and Islands in the South Pacific. This year saw Questacon and its long term partners CPAS – the Centre for Public Awareness of Science – within ANU take its program of simple exhibits and great activities back to southern Africa,starting the project in Mauritius.

Discussions in Korea quickly identified that such programs might be ideal for countries such as Mongolia. A country with a recently reformed education system, a booming mineral and resources economy – limited by skilled workers and professionals. A Significant amount of the highly skilled work in the country is done by skilled foreign workers. Mongolian policy makers and educators are working to improve the situation and train and graduate more local technicians and STEM professionals. Progress is happening, but like everywhere the gap between demand and supply is of concern. If a country ever had the culture of innovation, mobility and resourcefulness it is Mongolia.

What would a hands on - science, technology, engineering and maths ultra-portable educational program look like – developed by Korea, Australia and Mongolia to serve the needs of that rapidly developing country?

What would it take?

And who is up for the challenge?