傑出科學家及藝術家之比對研究

Analysis and Comparisons of Personality, the Creative Process and Professional Careers between Distinguished Scientists and Artists

本研究乃邀請五位傑出理化科學家及六位表演藝術家成為研究參與者，經由深度訪談及蒐集其相關文件的方式進行複式個案研究，據以分析比對傑出科學家及藝術家之人格特質、創造歷程以及專業生涯歷程，試圖找出此兩種專業之相同點與殊異點。（一）人格特質之比對藝術家與科學家之相同特質為具有專注力、認真執著、變通性、創新性以及不斷學習的精神；在殊異特質方面，國內及西方的研究結果頗具一致性，科學家的特質多半為具有理性的思考特性，而藝術家則以情緒性特質居多。（二）創造歷程之比對在進行比對國內科學家與藝術家的創作歷程中，可發現該二領域中具傑出成就者對於尋找和發現欲解決的新問題都具有極強的動機；然其最大之殊異點為科學家是透過理性的邏輯思考歷程建立科學的新結構與秩序，而藝術家則經由感性的主體精神抒發以及理性的客觀條件與技術配合，在長時間的醞釀與粹煉下交揉成藝術的新精神。（三）專業生涯歷程及環境影響因素之比對科學家與藝術家之專業生涯歷程及環境影響因素之殊異點以下列四點進行比對：家庭環境之影響、啟蒙階段、定向發展階段、學習場所。而二者之共通點為他們對工作皆抱持有高度的承諾與熱誠；在專業生涯的學習歷程中皆遇到貴人、良人、益友之引導；大多在匱乏環境中引動起追求突破與卓越的企圖心。

Participants consisted of five distinguished scientists and six performing artists. The case study was characterized by in-depth interviews and documentation collection so as to analyze and compare personality， the creative process， and professional careers between distinguished scientists and artists and therefore pinpoint differences and similarities between the two groups.PersonalityArtists and scientists shared some traits， such as concentration， perseverance， flexibility， creativity and working hard. In the case of unique traits， as revealed by domestic and studies abroad， most scientists’ traits involved thinking， whereas artists’ are emotion-based.Creativity ProcessIn their creative process， both groups demonstrated great motivation for raising new problems and searching for answers. Their differences were found in the process when problems developed. More specifically， while scientists employed rational and logical thinking and hence constructed new scientific structures and order， artists resorted on the one hand to sensation for spiritual outlet and combined this with rational， objective requirements to achieve new artistic spirit on the other.Professional Careers and EnvironmentsWith respect to professional careers， they differed in the following areas：familial influences， head-start education， orientation and learning places. Despite the above group discrepancies， they had something in common. To illustrate， both showed high enthusiasm and dedication， had mentors for support， and most important developed their resolutions for breakthroughs and ambitions in adversity.