The Sputnik Shock
The next time you are driving to an unfamiliar location, listening to the synthetic tones of your smart phone telling you to âTake next exit onto I-10 East,â spare a thought for the significance of the date October 4, 1957. This date saw the birth of a profound technological revolution, the outcomes of which affect each one of us, every day of our lives. It is the date on which the disparate fields of engineering, technology, psychology, management, and economics began to flow together to give to us an understanding of how and why we develop technological solutions to modern, complex problems, and the value that these solutions deliver to society. It is a date that has had a far-reaching impact on our modern, 21st century lifestyle, influencing our economic security, our physical security, our health, our education, and much more.
You may recognize this as the date of the launch, by the Soviet Union, of Sputnik Iâthe worldâs first artificial satellite. It was more than that, however, because it ushered in the Space Age. Although this may seem a somewhat distant and mundane milestone to Generation Y1 and beyond, it is wise not to underestimate the profound impact that this event had on the Western psyche at the time (Dickson, 2001). Indeed, that impact has been described as the Sputnik Shock (A. J. Cropley, 2001; A. J. Cropley & Cropley, 2009), and Western newspapers at the time roared headlines such as âRed âMoonâ over London!â and âSpace Age Is Here!â Set against the backdrop of the Cold War tension between the Soviet and Western blocs, both sidesâ preoccupation with nuclear weapons technology, and the recent conflict on the Korean peninsula, it is not difficult to imagine the fear and consternation that this technological trump card engendered in Western countries. Dickson (2001) reflects that âit was as if Sputnik was the starterâs pistol in an exciting new race. I was electrified, delirious, as I witnessed the beginning of the Space Ageâ (p. 3).
As interesting as the history of the early Cold War years is, what is the connection between your navigational problems, the disembodied voice on your smart phone, and Sputnik I? For engineers, one obvious link is that this first artificial satellite opened up our minds to the possibilities of new application areas of engineering. Communications, for example, would no longer be bound by terrestrial constraints such as the curvature of the earth, the physical barriers presented by the earthâs oceans, the vagaries of atmospheric conditions, and the like. The idea of bouncing radio signals off satellites to facilitate intercontinental communications has evolved, over the decades since Sputnik, into the Global Positioning System (GPS) network of satellites that is helping you to find the way to your destination. However, the connection between your drive down the I-10 and Sputnik runs far deeper than just the technological possibilities that it opened up. It has much to do with the economic success, and the consequent impact on standards of living, that Western countries such as the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, Australia, and others have enjoyed for more than 50 years. Indeed, the Sputnik Shock is responsible, in many ways, for our modern understanding of what Mokyr (1990) describes as âthe lever of riches.â
In fact, the Sputnik Shock of October 4, 1957, triggered a series of actions and outcomes that first linked creativity (in the sense of the generation of effective novelty), innovation (the exploitation of effective novelty), and engineering (the design and development of technological solutions to problems) together in a systematic and scientific way. It kick-started a rigorous examination of the association between the creation of new products, processes, systems, and servicesâtechnological creativityâand economic progress that has underpinned the development and success of nations for centuries. For the first time, however, it prompted not an economic explanation for this success, but a psychological one. The Sputnik Shock, in short, started a revolution in thinking that has attempted to explain not only the new technology itself, but also who develops the new technology, how and why they develop it, and where this development takes place.
As engineers, we are familiar with the technological consequences of the launch of Sputnik I. This event kicked off the Space Race that reached its zenith in the moon landing of July 1969. It stimulated a large number of novel technological spin-offs that trace their antecedence either directly, or indirectly, to the activities of NASA in the 1950s and 1960s. Memory foam, anti-corrosion coatings, cochlear implants, scratch-resistant eyeglass lenses, insulin pumps, and charge-coupled devices can all be seen as innovations that grew out of the catalyst of the U.S. Space Program,2 itself jump-started by the Sputnik Shock of October 1957.
The Sputnik Shock also had other profound technological effects that have left important legacies in the 21st century. DARPA, the United Statesâ Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, was created in 1958 in direct response to the launch of Sputnik I, and its founding mission was âto prevent and create strategic surprise.â3 DARPA can count Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS), RISC computing, global positioning satellites, and the Internet among its technological achievements. However, while the success of your drive to that unfamiliar location owes a great deal to the impact of Sputnik I, there is, arguably, a more significant impact buried in DARPAâs founding mission that links creativity to engineeringâtechnological surprise.
Even as the direct technological impact of Sputnik I exerted its influence in the West, U.S. lawmakers began to look more deeply for the underlying causes of the Soviet Unionâs strategic achievement. The U.S. government realized, for example, that similar technological achievements could be made only by highly skilled people, and Congress sought to address this aspect of the problem through the National Defense Education Act (NDEA4) of 1958. This legislative solution was designed to address, among other things, a shortage of graduates in mathematics and engineeringâa key resource in the development of new and superior technology. However, the final piece of the puzzle linking creativity, innovation, engineering and technology fell into place as experts began to hypothesize (rightly or wrongly) that the Soviet threat in space was not only a quantitative problem (a shortage of engineers in the United States, for example) but also a qualitative one. In particular, there was a sense that Soviet engineering achievements, and their success with Sputnik I, could be attributed to superior creativity (A. J. Cropley & Cropley, 2009). For the first time, therefore, attention began to turn from economic issues that underpin the growth and development of technologyâfor example, investment and capital/labor ratiosâand instead began to focus on the particular qualities of a product that make it creativeâsurprisingness, novelty, and effectiveness. Attention simultaneously turned to the qualities of the people and organizations that make the technology, and the processes by which they achieve the development of new and effective technological solutions to problems.
It turned out that a scientific foundation linking creativity, engineering, and technologyâin a way that could help to explain the qualitative nature of the connectionâalready existed. The psychologist J. P. Guilford had delivered, back in 1950, a groundbreaking presidential address to the American Psychological Associationâs annual convention. In very simple terms, Guilford (1950) argued that human intellectual ability had been defined too narrowly in terms of factors such as speed, accuracy, and correctnessâwhat he termed convergent thinkingâand instead needed to be conceived of in a broader sense, to include factors such as generating alternatives, seeing multiple possibilities and so forth. In other words, he saw intellectual ability as encompassing both convergent (analytical) thinking and divergent thinking. The latterâdivergent thinkingâis seen frequently as a defining characteristic of creativity. Engineers, in fact, are no strangers to this duality of thinking stylesâdesign, after all, is characterized by the fact that (Horenstein, 2002) â⌠if more than one solution exists, and if deciding upon a suitable path demands ⌠making choices, performing tests, iterating, and evaluating, then the activity is most certainly design. Design can include analysis, but it also must involve at least one of these latter elementsâ (p. 23). Engineering, in short, is all about creative problem solving.
The Sputnik Shock of October 4, 1957, therefore brought together, for the first time, the apparently disparate fields of creativity, with its psychological foundations, and engineering by stimulating recognition of the important role of divergent thinking in the process of designing technological solutions to complex problems. It provided the spark that has seen an explosion of research into what makes people able to devise new and effective solutions to problemsâthe psychology of creativityâand it lit the fuse of technological innovation that has given us GPS, the Internet, and many other systems and products that we now take for granted. There remains, however, one puzzle that is all the more surprising given the common interests of both creativity and engineering as they moved through the Space Age and into in the modern Digital, or Information Age. That puzzle is, simply, why is there not a stronger connection between creativity and engineering in the 21st century? Creativity is concerned with the generation of effective and novel solutions to problems. Engineering is concerned more specifically with generating technological solutions to problems. Despite this, engineering is still frequently seen as predominantly analytical in natureââa common misconception ⌠is that engineering is âjustâ applied math and scienceâ (Brockman, 2009, p. x). It stands to reason that successful engineering must focus not only on analysis and convergent thinking, but also on the vital role that synthesis and divergent thinking play in the creation of technology. Focusing on one at the expense of the other risks not only the integrity of the solutions themselves, but also the skill base of the people involved in the creation of these solutions. This book is concerned with reestablishing and rebalancing the link between creativity and engineering.