Making Room for Serendipity
T.M. Race1 and S. Makri2, 1New College of Florida, Sarasota, FL, United States, 2City University London, London, United Kingdom
Abstract
Serendipity is strongly linked to creativity and innovation. Many of the same factors that encourage or discourage creativity and innovation encourage or discourage serendipity as well. These factors may be internal, generated primarily by an individual. Or factors may be external, created by something outside of an individual’s control. Making room for serendipity involves learning to manage or manipulate these internal and external factors in ways that cultivate happy accidents. These ways include attitudes, designs, and even personal strategies.
Keywords
Creativity; curiosity; divergent thinking; innovation; serendipity
Introduction
While we may not always label it “serendipity,” serendipity is a “regular, but rare” occurrence (McBirnie, 2008, p. 607). Whether we experience serendipity as we engage in everyday conversation, business transactions, scientific research, or finding information, these moments of accidental discovery can be consequential—making a positive impact on our lives. Serendipitous experiences are positive and energizing. They are opportunities for creativity and innovation. Recognizing these potential positive outcomes, how can we make room for serendipity in our busy lives, where there are already more opportunities than time to seize them? What factors can potentially enable serendipity and, conversely, what barriers are likely to inhibit it? These are the questions discussed in this chapter.
Serendipity, Creativity, and Innovation
Serendipity is strongly linked to creativity and innovation (which we define as the implementation of a creative idea into a new product or service). Just as serendipity involves an “aha” moment of insight (Makri & Blandford, 2012), so too do creativity and innovation. However, while serendipity always involves unexpected circumstances (Makri & Blandford, 2012), creativity and innovation may or may not. Johnson (2010) identifies serendipity as one of the seven pathways to innovation and recognizes that insight is a catalyst for innovation. Csikszentmihalyi and Sawyer (1995) describe insight as a “subconscious shift,” and a key element of creativity. This “subconscious shift” leads to new knowledge, and/or recognizing new problems or solutions. Serendipity creates a similar shift—the happy accident of discovery can stimulate a new perspective. Many of the same factors that encourage or discourage creativity and innovation encourage or discourage serendipity as well.
Factors That Can Enable Serendipity
Cultivating serendipity depends on personal, internal factors, as well as external factors. Internal factors are those which can be managed or generated primarily by an individual. Examples of internal factors include individual focus and mental state, subject knowledge and level, or hurriedness or stress (vs feeling unhurried or relaxed). External factors are created by something outside of an individual’s control. Examples of external factors include organizational structure, task requirements and complexity, or the design of physical or digital information environments (which may facilitate or hinder serendipity).
Internal Factors
Cultivating serendipity depends on personal internal characteristics. People who make room for serendipity are generally:
• curious (Keller, 2007),
• observant (Makri, Blandford, Woods, Sharples, & Maxwell, 2014),
• alert (Cunha, 2010; Makri et al., 2014),
• assiduous (Cunha, 2010; Makri et al., 2014).
One creative professional described their own serendipity-receptive state as being “attuned” to their surroundings and possibilities (Makri et al., 2014). Being open to the possibility of serendipity is key to its occurrence. And the more it occurs, the more we may become aware of its importance—becoming more open to it as a result. Serendipity can be self-fulfilling.
Curiosity
Keller (2007) emphasizes that serendipity depends on curiosity. A researcher who lacks curiosity may be quick to dispel outlier or anomalous data that could be triggers for accidental discovery. If they lack curiosity, funding agencies, researchers, and their associated administrative structures may fail to support projects that explore beyond what we already know to be feasible. Students who lack curiosity ingest information lazily, skipping key steps that lead to personal discovery—such as analyzing, connecting to prior knowledge, and exploring implications.
Accepting the described and identified boundaries of knowledge as immutable is self-limiting. Being curious helps to push beyond these limits, and creates potential openings for accidental discovery. Despite documented accounts of happy accidents of discovery, researchers are often disinclined to challenge the current body of knowledge: “Important scientific findings frequently arise from serendipitous findings. Unfortunately, many scientists are not prepared to take advantage of unexpected results and to question established paradigms, and this prevents them from capitalizing on their good fortune” (Keller, 2007, p. 1). Adopting an attitude of curiosity and constantly questioning what we think we know can make room for serendipity.
Topical Knowledge and Sagacity
Being open to the possibility of serendipity entails knowing enough to recognize the significance of an accidental discovery and successfully exploiting the moment (Heinström, 2006; Makri et al., 2014). “Knowing enough” implies some level of topical, or domain, knowledge. But it is not sufficient on its own; sagacity—an astuteness in mental judgment—is required to make useful links between existing knowledge and the unexpected circumstances that gave rise to the potentially serendipitous opportunity.
The amount of topical knowledge required to create an “aha” moment of insight in response to unexpected circumstances varies across people, topic areas, and the nature of the circumstances. Lacking topical knowledge means that one cannot fully appreciate the value of the accidental discovery in the same way that a person with more knowledge might; Edison was not the first scientist to have the idea of the light bulb. But he was its innovator, as he had enough of the right type of knowledge to turn it from an idea to a product.
While knowledge within a particular topical domain area or discipline is important for cultivating serendipity, so too is interdomain knowledge. Johnson (2010), in linking serendipity and innovation, discusses the importance of “cross-pollination”—the connecting of ideas between disciplines. Making connections between ideas from different domains, whether a result of accidental discovery or a concerted effort, can result in creative insight; “creative insights typically move the integration of perspectives from more than one domain” (Csikszentmihalyi & Sawyer, 1995, p. 96). This suggests the importance of “relaxing our boundaries” of knowledge (Makri et al., 2014)—expanding our knowledge horizons beyond the topics we already know something about and beyond our existing domains of expertise.
Time
Several authors describe time-related factors—amount of time, sense of time, use of time—as critical in supporting or limiting serendipity. Time blends internal (eg, sense of hurriedness) and external (eg, deadlines) factors. Loosely planned or free time can make room for serendipity (Csikszentmihalyi & Sawyer, 1995; Johnson, 2010). Creative professionals describe finding and recognizing patterns and connections as key to serendipity (Makri et al., 2014). These kinds of associations and bisociations happen best during less structured, or unstructured, free time—particularly when the mind is not focused on a mentally demanding activity. Conversely, being overcommitted or in a rush discourages exploration, limits associations and bisociations, and curbs serendipity (Csikszentmihalyi & Sawyer, 1995).
With regard to research and information discovery, exploration is an important part of the prefocus state needed to define a problem or a research question (Kennedy, Cole, & Carter, 1999). In terms of the creative process, Csikszentmihalyi and Sawyer (1995) label this the “preparation stage,” where ideas are being developed and connections are explored. George (2005) ties these preparations to the research process, acknowledging the endemic messiness, and recursiveness of research that stimulates accidental discovery.
Solitary, idle quiet time, or time spent doing repetitive activities, like gardening or walking, fosters ideas, problem-finding, and problem-solving (Csikszentmihalyi & Sawyer, 1995; Johnson, 2010). It can also help create “mental space” that can cultivate serendipity (Makri et al., 2014). Active, simple, task-based activities allow one’s mind to wander, unfocused. As these kinds of activities are not mentally demanding, the brain is free to make associative connections between ideas and memories (Johnson, 2010, p. 116).
Investing time to follow-up on potentially useful serendipitous opportunities is vital (Makri & Blandford, 2012). However, with regard to serendipity, this can be regarded as a high risk investment with the possibility of a high reward. Investing time in serendipity is risky because serendipity by nature is unpredictable; there are no guaranteed outcomes. However, the potential reward—new ideas, insights, and perspectives can make the investment worthwhile (Makri & Blandford, 2012).
Communication
Communication, when defined broadly, can also cultivate serendipity. Johnson (2010) describes the value of “deep reading” (thoughtful and deliberate reading) as a way to encourage innovative thinking. Reading can be regarded as an act of communication—as a dialog between the author and the reader where the reader interprets the author’s words and ideas. However, arguably, the reader’s job should not be simply to “interpret” information, but to interpret it in light of their previous knowledge and experiences. Therefore reading can also be considered a form of internal communication within the reader. Johnson (2010) suggests complementing deep reading by creating a personal notebook archive of thoughts and ideas—which can later be reviewed to stimulate the making of connections.
Communicating with other people is instrumental to accidental discovery. Conversation and networking with others stimulates insight (Csikszentmihalyi & Sawyer, 1995). Sharing ideas helps to kick-start ideas and determine possible, often accidental, connections. In enterprise, businesses encourage innovation by sharing, rather than protecting, ideas (Johnson, 2010). Describing an idea to others, an “elaboration,” has the potential to propel the idea into usefulness—something that is important both for encouraging serendipity and creativity (Csikszentmihalyi & Sawyer, 1995; Makri et al., 2014). Earlier we highlighted that the “cross-pollination” of ideas across disciplines (Csikszentmihalyi & Sawyer, 1995) can cultivate serendipity. In practice, this can be achieved through communication; discussions between people from different disciplines can result in knowledge, techniques, or approaches from one discipline being adopted or adapted in another discipline.
External Factors
System Characteristics
McCay-Peet and Toms (2011) describe characteristics of interactive systems that encourage accidental discovery. Systems that cultivate serendipity enable connections, introduce the unexpected, present variety, trigger divergence, and induce curiosity (McCay-Peet & Toms, 2011). While designing systems specifically to “create” serendipity can potentially destroy it by “ruining the surprise” or undermining the value of outcomes (Makri et al., 2014), it is possible to design systems that create opportunities for serendipity—while shifting some or all of the agency of “making connections” to the user.
Johnson (2010) notes the value of “enabled connections” exemplified by the World Wide Web, linking serendipity to the ability to traverse easily between and across information. While access to a vast amount of information can increase opportunities for accidental discovery, it can also be overwhelming—information-seekers can feel as though they are drowning in a sea of information. Personalized filtering can help reduce the information burden, but it can also reduce the opportunity for serendipity, by the very act of reducing the overall volume of available information. It can also reduce opportunities for serendipity by creating “filter bubbles” (Pariser, 2012) of information—delivering users with information similar to their existing interests and therefore making it difficult for them to broaden their knowledge horizons. Makri et al. (2014) suggest that search and discovery systems should be designed to “burst” the filter bubble and create more opportunities for serendipity.
Serendipity Strategies
It is possible to take each of the factors that can enable serendipity, both internal and external, and ask ourselves “how can I leverage ideas related to this factor to create opportunities for serendipity?” While serendipity cannot be controlled, it can be influenced (Makri et al., 2014; McBirnie, 2008). Manipulating the “influencing factors” we have discussed is a potential way of influencing accidental discovery. We can put deliberate strategies into place to try to achieve this. This is with a view of fostering and nurturing new behavioral habits and shaping our attitudes of mind so we can create and seize more opportunities for serendipity. Spanning across the influencing factors we have discussed (and to some extent blurring the boundaries between internal and external factors), Makri et al. (2014) identified various strategies creative professionals put in place to create opportunities for serendipity:
• Varying their routines—for example, by working in and visiting different environments, taking different routes home or to work, speaking to new people.
• Being observant—using and rehearsing their senses so that they might notice triggers in the environment (McCay-Peet & Toms, 2011) that may give rise to serendipity.
• Making mental space—stepping back from what their mind is currently occupied on, for example, by going for a walk or practicing yoga or meditation.
• Relaxing their boundaries—both physical and intellectual; visiting places they might not have usually visited—a concert by an unfamiliar artist, a restaurant serving a cuisine they did not normally like, etc. Also taking an interest in a broad variety of domain areas—recognizing that no knowledge is “useless” knowledge.
• Drawing on previous experiences—comparing their previous life experiences with their current experiences and each other.
• Looking for patterns—actively trying to observe connections between things that, at first glance, are seemingly unconnected. Might practice in two different disciplines share a similar approach? Might novels from two different genres examine common themes?
• Seize opportunities—taking advantage of (often risky) opportunities and take actions aimed at ensuring they come to fruition. Taking the old school friend you bumped into after many years for coffee, arranging follow-up phone calls or meetings. Putting the effort in.
Factors That Can Inhibit Serendipity
It is perhaps unsurprising that, as well as factors that can enable serendipity, there are also factors that can act as “barriers”—inhibiting rather than encouraging it. Like the enabling factors we have discussed, these barriers can be loosely divided into “internal” and “external” categories.
Internal Barriers
Personal Characteristics
Heinström (2006) examined personal characteristics in relation to accidental information discovery. Heinström identified indifference, boredom, negative emotionality, idleness, and fast surfing as “the most impenetrable barriers against unexpected discoveries” (p. 591). In addition, Heinström included lack of topical knowledge as a barrier to serendipity. These internal characteristics overlap with those identified by Csikszentmihalyi and Sawyer (1995) as internal barriers to insight: lack of strong interest, curiosity, and/or intrinsic motivation, and lack of domain knowledge or expert association. One needs curiosity to really drill down on a problem or concept, to push beyond what is known in order to achieve insight (Csikszentmihalyi & Sawyer, 1995, p. 96; Keller, 2007). Csikszentmihalyi and Sawyer (1995) also describe the need to have an internal sense of “opportunity or inclination” to explore the insight—evaluate the possible implications and potential usefulness of an idea. The value of a serendipitous discovery lies in its perceived usefulness. In fact, accidental discovery does not really qualify as serendipity unless the outcome is somehow useful, beneficial, or valuable to the person experiencing the happy accident (p. 90).
Stress
Another internal characteristic that limits one’s experience of serendipity is level of emotional stress. Heinström (2006) notes that divergent thinking can be blocked by stress (p. 580). Stress, or “negative emotionality,” reduces flexibility in thought and free exploration—both characteristics that encourage accidental discovery (Berlyne, 1971; Csikszentmihalyi & Sawyer, 1995; Debono, 1990).
Working Memory
McCay-Peet and Toms (2011) discuss the amount of working memory, or attentive memory, as a potential barrier to accidental discovery. Working memory is the attention portion of our short-term memory. Working memory supports our navigation as we explore digital information systems, so that we retain key pieces of information while not losing our way and becoming disorientated. The more limited our working memory becomes (eg, due to confusing information organization or navigation), the less attention we pay to the information on the screen—processing more superficially and less creatively. While the amount of working memory is an internal characteristic, and varies with the individual, it also represents one of the potential impacts of system design on serendipity. This is an example where an internal barrier (an individual’s working memory limitations) intersects with an external barrier (the structural limitations of a system).
External Barriers
The design of the environment (whether physical or digital) can act either as a serendipity barrier or enabler. Physical libraries can be designed to showcase new or frequently borrowed books, to encourage patrons to browse the returns shelf or to utilize a classification system such as the Dewey Decimal System (where books on similar topics are shelved together). If they are not designed in a way that facilitates exploration and the making of connections, this can act as a barrier to accidental information discovery. Similarly, digital information systems that provide scope for activities such as exploration and making connections can enable serendipity (McCay-Peet & Toms, 2011), while lack of support for these activities can inhibit it. Two barriers related to the design of digital information systems are:
1. Rules that constrain what information is made available to the user (ie, what information they can access or are shown).
2. Information organization and navigational support. These constrain the extent to which users can explore and make connections within the digital information system, and possible approaches for doing so.
Rules
Various types of rules can constrain what information users are permitted access to, or are shown on-screen. These rules may take the form of licensure agreements or special embargoes that exclude access to particular information. Some digital information systems (eg, digital libraries) only provide access to specific information sources. For example, while they include much overlapping content, digital law libraries LexisNexis and Westlaw also contain “exclusive” sources that can only be accessed through one library but not the other. This can inhibit serendipity by creating knowledge silos (vs providing access to a broad range of sources) and by increasing the level of effort required to explore a broad range of courses (potentially discouraging exploration).
Other “rules” that can act as barriers to serendipity may take the form of algorithms—the processes by which search tools take the user’s inputs (eg, the search query terms they submit) and turn them into outputs (eg, a list of ranked search results). As this process is usually purposefully nontransparent, it is difficult if not impossible for users to know how their search terms gave rise to a particular result or result set. This lack of transparency does not restrict accidental information discovery in itself; it is possible to stumble upon information related to a topic of interest while conducting a search on a seemingly unrelated topic. But it does make it difficult for users to ascertain just how “related” their results are to what they were searching for. This is important for making connections between results, which can aid understanding of the search topic. This is also important for determining which search (or “discovery”) environments are most likely to provide users with “serendipitous” results; environments with algorithms that favor providing a breadth of results only somewhat related to the search query are likely to facilitate serendipity better than those that favor providing a set of precise results that are highly related to the search query. Google, for example, is very effective in returning highly related results. But it does not yet offer the option for users to alter the degree of “relatedness” of the results returned (other than, perhaps, by skimming beyond the first results page). This can act as a barrier to serendipity. While these rules may not completely block accidental discovery, they do limit possibilities in ways that we cannot easily detect and therefore might remain unaware of.
Information Organization and Navigation
Digital information systems with poorly thought-through information architectures, where information is organized in ways that hinder rather than support findability, are potentially less likely to facilitate serendipity. This is because users are likely to find exploration difficult without a clear mental model of how information is organized. Similarly, McCay-Peet and Toms (2011) discuss the dangers of becoming distracted and disoriented within a digital information system. Systems with poor navigational support can lead to users feeling “lost” and being unable to find their way. While this might result in some users making useful accidental discoveries when headed in an unknown direction, like poor organization, it can also potentially hamper deliberate attempts at exploration.
Conclusion
We can “make room” for accidental information discovery by adopting behavior and an attitude of mind that can encourage it. We can also enable serendipity through the design of our environments—both physical and digital. By considering the factors that enable serendipity and how we can incorporate them into our work and daily lives, we can potentially increase our chances of experiencing serendipity. While we should not try to “engineer” serendipity directly into our environments—such attempts may be perceived as too contrived—we can design environments that support users to create their own opportunities for serendipity. As individuals, we have the opportunity to influence our own experiences and outcomes. We can make room for serendipity while still preserving its accidental beauty.