For many people, scientific writing is considered a dreary and boring task field, which is further restricted by strict formalities and precise method specifications.
Admittedly, the scope for unconventional associations, for daring mental experiments and plastic metaphors is limited in most scientific fields. An overly free dealing with thoughts and ideas quickly gets the reputation of being dubious. But also a lack of creativity is noticeable in many works: The consequences consist in an inflexible methodology or a blind authority faith, which contains no deviation from the arguments of classical authors.
However, a scientific text will only be perceived as successful if the originality and creativity presented have a solid foundation, namely the methodology that is perfect in terms of craftsmanship and the consideration of scientific working methods; A pianist will hardly be able to play successful improvisations unless he has previously gained the necessary experience and acquired his crafting skills.
Therefore, students of the first semester – whose urge to discover and creative enthusiasm are given high priority – are sometimes expected to hold back a little: the evaluation of homework is based on comprehensible criteria. For lack of measurement and comparability, creativity is usually not one of them, and it is also questionable to what extent the responsible lecturer is even receptive to it. It is also important to be warned against a false application of creativity: Sweeping thoughts should not be annulled by artificial formulations. As much as the linguistic and stylistic side of the text is appreciated by the reader – an overly sophisticated, striving for linguistic perfection formulation is sometimes unnatural or boring.
Scientific creativity has many different types: flexibility, originality and skillful interplay of methodology, research and conclusions are the friendly faces of creativity – dissimulation, exaggeration and artificiality the ugly ones.