Читать книгу Researching Serendipity in Digital Information Environments - Lori McCay-Peet - Страница 10

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Mention serendipity to anyone anywhere and it congers up an immediate pleasurable reaction. Many have stories to tell about serendipitous moments when something materialized—an idea or opportunity—often from an interaction with an object or person in the immediate environment. Sometimes it appeared, as though by magic, as a lightning-bolt, thought-in-head. But, whatever it was, it was perceived as value-added, and not previously contemplated or considered.

When we think of serendipity, we associate it first with scientific discoveries and inventions such as dynamite, rubber, penicillin, microwave, photography, X-rays, radioactivity, Liquorice Allsorts, Post-it notes, Viagra, laughing gas, Velcro, Teflon, and Nylon. Arguably, Columbus’ discovery of North America occurred when he was looking for a new trade route to the Orient—a serendipitous find. In this book, we start from those early explanations and understanding of serendipity and consider the concept in the context of digital information environments.

But when is something truly serendipitous? Serendipity is often associated with chance, blind luck, fortuitous events, and accidental coincidences, but these words are not synonymous with serendipity, as many authors have lamented (see, for example, De Rond, 2014; Merton and Barber, 2004; Shaprio, 1986). As you will discover on reading this book, for an event, process, outcome, or experience to be serendipitous, it needs several conditions.

• A person is exposed to an object that is unusual, but is meaningfully unusual.

• The person has the sagacity to observe, identify, and extract elements from the object, and the mental space and tenacity to re-use them in a new way.

• The outcome is unanticipated such that under normal circumstances it would not be predicted.

In short, we are looking at “planned insight coupled with unplanned events” (Fine and Deegan, 1996, p. 435). There is an element of surprise and chance, but an element that can only be acted on by someone capable of understanding, extracting and using that chance finding.

Serendipity may have global impact such as the discoveries and inventions mentioned earlier. But equally it may be very individual such that the chance discovery enabled a similarly unexpected (to the person) find that may not have consequences beyond that person’s sphere.

In this chapter, we examine the concept of serendipity, its historic roots, its problematic nomenclature, and how something that is characterized as serendipitous unfolds.

1.1 ORIGINS OF SERENDIPITY

Serendipity has its roots in the 18th century, but was not popularly used until the second half of the 20th century. Today a search of Google will net over 30 million occurrences, and Google Scholar outputs over 100,000 occurrences in the scholarly literature. This is in contrast with Merton and Barber (2004) who identified only 135 people from the word’s origin to the mid-20th century who had used the word in print. Remarkably, there is no equivalent word in some languages (Martinez, 2011).

The first use of the word, serendipity, appeared in a letter dated January 28, 1754 from a man of letters and politician, Horace Walpole, known for his neologisms, to his friend and diplomat, Horace Mann. In that letter, Walpole was commenting on his search for an image about a Venetian coat of arms. He writes:

This discovery indeed is almost of that kind which I call serendipity, a very expressive word, which as I have nothing better to tell you, I shall endeavour to explain to you: you will understand it better by the derivation than by definition. I once read a silly fairy tale, called The Three Princes of Serendip: as their Highnesses travelled, they were always making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of: for instance, one of them discovered that a mule blind in the right eye had travelled the same road lately, because the grass was eaten only on the left side, where it was worse than on right—now do you understand serendipity? One of the most remarkable instances of this accidental sagacity (for you must observe that no discovery of a thing you are looking for comes under this description) was of my Lord Shaftsbury, who happening to dine at Lord Chancellor Clarendon’s, found out the marriage of the Duke of York and Mrs. Hyde, by the respect which her mother treated her at the table (as quoted in Remer, 1965, p. 6).

The key point of the story is that three odd observations led the princes to identify the characteristics of a mule even though they had neither seen the mule, nor were looking for a mule. It was a case of insightful observation and inference (Merton and Barber, 2004). Similarly, in the second also unusual example over dinner, shrewd observation coupled with sagacity led to an unexpected conclusion (and one would need to be an expert in the etiquette of the day to fully grasp the logic). Walpole’s seemingly innocuous reflections informed the concept of serendipity that we still use to this day, a concept that intertwines acute mental discernment and accident to explain a discovery.

Walpole’s concept remained a private communiqué between the two friends, until Walpole’s correspondence was published in the 1830s. It took another 40 years before the word resurfaced in a public medium. In 1875, it appeared in formal print in the English language in the journal Notes and Queries, where Edward Solly introduced it into literary groups (Merton and Barber, 2004). Even though many incidences of serendipitous findings occurred in science during this period (e.g., vulcanization of rubber, coal tar dye mauve), the word, serendipity, was not used to describe them. In 1909, serendipity had its first appearance in a dictionary, The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, (the precursor to the Encyclopedia Britannica) and in 1913 it appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary. From the early 1900s to about 1935, serendipity remained used almost exclusively by literary scholars. In the mid-1930s, scientists and, in particular, Cannon (1945) at the Harvard Medical School popularized its role in scientific discovery (Merton and Barber, 2004). The pendulum swung from a dominant use in describing discoveries in science, although serendipity is now widely used throughout all disciplines.

In 1958, Merton and Barber wrote a detailed account of serendipity, but the book languished as a manuscript until 2004 when it was published shortly before Merton’s death. This work, however, remains the most comprehensive discussion of the concept. Since that time, Walpole’s “very expressive word” has entered everyday conversation to describe everything from surprises to random occurrences and unexplained but happy outcomes (Merton and Barber, 2004, p. 4). But we believe that the common use in everyday language has led to dilution in its meaning, which challenges its application in research.

1.2 ON DEFINING SERENDIPITY

Part of the confusion over what is meant by serendipity can be attributed to Walpole (Remer, 1965; Merton and Barber, 2004) who did not make clear how the concept was to be defined and thus used. Merton and Barber (2004) examined its appearance in dictionaries from its conception to the end of the 20th century and concluded that it had been perceived as an “esoteric word” given that it did not appear in any of the abridged dictionaries until 1951.

How it appears in dictionaries illustrates its lack of specificity as these examples demonstrate.

1. An aptitude for making desirable discoveries by accident; good fortune; luck (“serendipity,” n.d.-a).

2. The faculty of making fortunate discoveries by accident; the fact or occurrence of such discoveries; an instance of making such a discovery (“serendipity,” n.d.-b).

3. The faculty or phenomenon of finding valuable or agreeable things not sought for (“serendipity,” n.d.-c).

4. The occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way (“serendipity,” n.d.-d).

5. The faculty of finding valuable or interesting things by chance or where one least expects them (“serendipity,” 1932).

The challenge with these definitions is their use primarily of adjectives (e.g., desirable, fortunate, valuable, agreeable, happy, interesting) that are difficult to operationalize. While the use of the words faculty and aptitude in the definitions suggest ability on the part of the individual experiencing serendipity, sagacity and the prepared mind are missing, suggesting that to be serendipitous is, largely, to be lucky. From a research perspective, we need to deconstruct and operationalize the terminology so that we recognize the phenomena that we are investigating. For greater clarity, we look instead to how serendipity is deployed by those who research it.

For an incident to be described as serendipitous, or for an outcome to claim to be serendipity, it will have the following five conditions:

1. There is an observation that is unanticipated, anomalous, unexpected, unpredictable, or inconsistent with existing findings or theories. This is a core condition and is generally agreed on by all who have researched serendipity (see, for example, Danzico, 2010; Foster and Ford, 2003; Makri and Blandford, 2012; McCay-Peet and Toms, 2015; Merton and Barber, 2004; Toms, 1997). But it is not the only characteristic. Many discussions of serendipity stop here, but in doing so interpret serendipity as simply synonymous with surprises and apparently happy random accidents; “without an element of chance, ‘discovery’ is nothing more than verification; without sagacity, it is mere happenstance” (Arvo, 1999, p. 183).

2. The individual involved must have the human cognitive capacity and ability or knowledge and experience to make that observation—the prepared mind—which is often an observation that many have failed to notice, recognize, or even consider. From penicillin to dynamite, and microwave ovens to Post-it notes and Velcro, the “know-how” of the person making the observation is integral to the discovery. Chemist Paul Flory, on receiving the 1977 Perkin Medal, noted,

Significant inventions are not mere accidents. The erroneous view [that they are] is widely held, and it is one that the scientific and technical community, unfortunately, has done little to dispel. Happenstance usually plays a part, to be sure, but there is much more to invention than the popular notion of a bolt out of the blue. Knowledge in depth and in breadth are virtual prerequisites. Unless the mind is thoroughly charged beforehand, the proverbial spark of genius, if it should manifest itself, probably will find nothing to ignite (Flory, 1977, p. 4).

Similarly, medieval historian, Julian Luxford (2009) was researching two topics at once (sources for his book on medieval drawings and decoration in Carthusiasn manuscripts) when he stumbled upon a rare negative reference to Robin Hood in the marginalia of a 13th century medieval manuscript in the Eton school library. Even though other medieval scholars had examined the same manuscript, only he both recognized the find, and went on to write about the out-of-the-ordinary discovery. His knowledge of the era and context enabled him to recognize the value of the scribble. Pasteur astutely reached the same conclusion illustrated above a century earlier; it is not about luck and chance, but also about knowledge and experience. In a 1854 speech to the Faculté des Sciences at Lille, Pasteur made his now famous quote in describing the discovery of the technology underlying the telegraph. As he relayed it, Orsted observed the movement of a magnetic needle “suddenly by chance, you might say, but remember, that in the sciences of observation, chance favors the mind which is prepared.”¹

In all of these cases there was an “intellectual preparedness” (Fine and Deegan, 1996) that enabled the researcher to understand the value of the observation, and then to allow for the “ah ha” moment to occur. If a person only sees what one is looking for, then one may miss the chance discovery.

3. While the individual needs the ability based on knowledge and experience to sense the anomaly and its import, the individual also must have the human mental space at that time to absorb it, and recognize its value, and the perseverance to then act on it. Fleming (1964) in his 1945 Nobel speech described his discovery:

…I prefer to tell the truth, that penicillin started as a chance observation. My only merit is that I did not neglect the observation and that I pursued the subject as a bacteriologist (p. 83).

It takes a person in the right “mental space” to observe, interpret and seize the opportunity.

Surprises and accidents and incidental information encountering occur every day to everyone. But not everyone can turn that surprise or accident or new piece of information into a significant outcome. From the examples mentioned earlier, how many other people were exposed to the same or similar set of circumstances but failed to see the relevance? “The “natural tendency of the unprepared mind is to discard the unusual” (Rosenau as quoted in Merton and Barber, 2004, p. 179).

Perhaps the most fitting example is the case of the floppy rabbit ears (Barber and Fox, 1958). Two eminent medical research groups separately and nearly simultaneously noticed that the normally stiff upright ears of rabbits flopped when the rabbits were injected with a particular enzyme. Both considered it abnormal and anomalous, and initially put the observation aside. Five years later, one of the researchers, Lewis Thomas, followed up on his curiosity noting that the enzyme also attacked the cartilage in bones and joints and led him to connect the observation to his interest in human disease and its relevance to rheumatoid arthritis and emphysema (Bashyam, 2007). One researcher followed up on the observation, while the other ignored it. Both were equally capable and had the knowledge to pursue it.

4. Incubation, consumption, and follow-up time is a factor in all phenomena described as serendipitous, and it is this factor which exacerbates our ability to research serendipity. While we often delight in Archimedes “Eureka!” it is a rarity that an observation is made and a discovery is realized in the blink of an eye. There is a gestation period so that the anomaly or surprise can be explored, interpreted, and analyzed, as the case of the floppy ears attests; this aspect is typically attributed to the creative process (Herrmann, 1989). Pasteur was purported to have said “Let me tell you the secret that has led to my goal: my strength lies solely in my tenacity.”

5. There is a valuable outcome. In the sciences, it may have global ramifications such as the discovery of penicillin, radioactivity and smart dust. But at the individual level, it may lead to a change in direction, or personal problem solved. It is in the outcome that the relationship between serendipity and creativity become apparent: “creativity involves coming up with something novel, something different. And, in order to be interesting, it must be something intelligible and must relate to that which we know before” (Boden, 1996, p. 165), but it most likely will be something that no one has thought of before (Shaprio, 1986). However, serendipity is not a mirror image of the creative process; serendipity is a divergent process that may also discover a problem (Campos and de Figueiredo, 2002) that does not fit the usual creative process.

In summary, for an event, outcome or process to be serendipitous, it is initiated with an anomalous observation by a person who has the requisite skills to observe its irregularity, and the mental space to follow through on the observation, taking whatever requisite time is required to turn it into an unexpected finding. This is a time-tested process well documented in the physical world in science, medicine and technology in particular. This now serves as a basis for our examination of serendipity in digital information environments. Table 3.1 illustrates how five research groups who have studied serendipity in digital information environments have conceptualized the elements of serendipity primarily as a linear process, but influenced by additional elements. Chapter 4 shows how we have adapted the physical world perspective described above to the digital information environment.

1.3 HOW SERENDIPITY HAPPENS

From the origins and use of the concept to date, three potential interpretations of how serendipity unfolds have emerged. They serve as a useful approach in understanding and deconstructing the process. Rather than enter that debate (e.g., is pseudo serendipity really serendipity?), we instead associate all three with serendipity although each has its supporters and naysayers. The three types are described below and illustrated in Figure 1.1. Examples are provided for each, all drawn from the sciences because they provide concrete illustrations of the three ways serendipity has been described to date. These types will be further explored specifically in relation to digital information environments in Chapter 4.

• Type A. From Observations to Solution

An individual makes an observation that leads to the discovery of something novel; neither the observation nor the outcome is the objective of the investigation. This was the basis on which Walpole created the concept. In his description of the tale, the three princes were not looking for anything; they were able to solve a problem once they were presented with the clues. This has been described as abduction—“a form of reasoning to discover something new” (as discussed in Van Andel, 1994, p. 636), but regardless of the reasoning process, Type A meets the five conditions discussed in Section 1.2.

Examples:

° When Spencer stood near a magnetron, a vacuum tube that generates microwaves to boost the sensitivity of radar, he noted an odd sensation; the chocolate bar in his pocket had melted, and a bag of popcorn popped. A year later he had patented the technology for a microwave oven (e.g., Leslie, 2012);

° George de Mestral was out walking his dog when he noted the prickly seeds from shrubs that got caught in the fabric of his clothes, which led him to wonder why which they stick, and after investigation to go on to invent Velcro (e.g., Pease et al., 2013)

Neither reportedly set out to solve the problems; they made astute observations which when combined with their own knowledge led to surprise outcomes.

• Type B. From Problem I to a Solution for Problem II

In this variation, an individual is looking for a solution to a problem, but instead finds a solution to another problem. This is the interpretation of Solly and the literary scholars of the 19th century (and it was interpretation that was first quoted in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1913) and continues to be perhaps the most popular interpretation today.

Examples:

° Fleming was growing Staphylococcus bacteria in a petri dish when it became contaminated with a spore of Penicilliusm fungus. His deep understanding of bacteria (his sagacity) led him to observe how the mold in his petri dish killed the surrounding bacteria, and thus led to one of the most important advancements in health in the early 20th century (e.g., Roberts, 1989);

° Art Fry was trying to develop a superglue when he accidentally devised a very weak glue that enabled two pieces of paper to be pried apart which led to development of Post-it Notes (e.g., Pease et al., 2013).

In both these cases, the researchers were working diligently on a particular problem when an observation led them in a different direction, resulting in a novel solution to a problem that they had not initially intended to solve.

• Type C. Unexpected Solutions

An individual is looking for a solution to a particular problem, but the solution does not come from expected sources. The solution discovered by accident is found in an unusual or surprising way that could not have been predicted at the outset. This has also been called pseudo-serendipity (Roberts, 1989).

Example:

° Goodyear was seeking a solution to the problem of rubber. In winter it hardened, while in summer it melted. As the story goes, he accidentally dropped rubber on a stove and observed on cooling that it turned into a charred leather-like substance with an elastic rim. From this unexpected event, he invented vulcanized rubber that is still in use today (e.g., Halacy, 1967).

Serendipity Types A, B, and C share common features as illustrated in Figure 1.1. In their examination of serendipity, de Figueiredo and Campos (2001) provide a parsimonious mathematical notation to describe each. The types are typically distinguished by whether there was intent to solve a problem or find a solution to a new or existing problem (Napier and Vuong, 2013; Foster and Ford, 2003; Cunha et al, 2014; De Rond, 2014). All types emerge out of a context, which may be any work or pleasure environment, with variable starting points, and all get to a solution; if this were the only ingredients, then we would be dealing with ordinary problem-solving. What distinguishes these types from ordinary problem solving are the two key points in the process:

• the startling, anomalous observation(s); that leads to

• an unexpected, unpredictable outcome.

These elements, thus, become the defining characteristics that separate the ordinary from the serendipitous.

Figure 1.1: Three ways serendipity happens.

1.4 WHAT DO WE MEAN BY SERENDIPITY IN DIGITAL INFORMATION ENVIRONMENTS?

A digital information environment can be any piece of digital technology that enables a “sense of place” and enables user interaction with information objects (McCay-Peet, Toms, and Kelloway, 2014). This may be any software application, from desktop to the Web. How does this environment differ from those in which we typically discuss serendipity? Most examples from science and engineering described earlier deal with human interactions with physical objects that have visually revealing characteristics, e.g., mold, burrs, floppy ears, burning rubber. When the anomalous or unexpected observation occurs in a two-dimensional digital space such as a computer, tablet or phone display, those anomalous and unexpected cues emanate from a combination of text, icons, images and sounds that make up an information object, and thus must be cognitively interpreted. There are (at present) no tangible tactile elements in a digital environment. In this volume, it is this digital environment in which we explore serendipity.

1.5 REST OF THE BOOK

In the remainder of the volume we consider the motivation for researching serendipity, and the value and implications for doing so. In Chapter 2, we examine why it is pertinent and timely to study serendipity. In Chapter 3, we deconstruct the concept of serendipity, and consider its use and interpretation, e.g., as an event, a behavior, a process, an outcome. In Chapter 4, we consider how to facilitate it in digital environments, answering the question can we design for serendipity. In Chapters 5 and 6, we look at how various methods have been deployed to study it and how it has been or could be assessed when it has occurred. We end the book with a reflection of the research to date and a framework for explaining the concept, thus providing a basis for future research.

¹ This is the English translation of the comment made in French: “a Dans les champs de l’observation le hazard ne favorise que les esprits préparés.”