Taipei Roleplayers
Campaign Resources

Contact Information
House Rules and General Stuff

Abstract

This paper introduces the split brain phenomenon and examines the implications in the form of the authors personal experiences in both undertaking and supervising higher degree research. Two major and related facts are examined. Firstly that, undue emphasis placed on left brain 'thinking' inhibits right brain creativity. Secondly, that the brain is most productive when its two halves are working in harmony. From this, it is argued that the current education of research students is overly concerned with left brain functions and, as a result, the development of both right brain creativity and left brain thinking is inhibited.

INTRODUCTION

One of the reasons for this late discovery is that the left hemisphere is virtually inarticulate. It 'feels' rather than 'thinks'. It therefore relies on its left partner to describe its sensations, a job which the cold calculating left side is not often equipped or inclined to do. Table 1, reproduced from Ehrenwald (1984), summarises the position. The left hemisphere is characterised by analytic, rational, articulate, three R's, linear, self-sense orientation while right brain is characterised by holistic, intuitive, artistic, inarticulate, musical, gestalt, spatially aware orientation.

Clearly both hemispheres have valuable attributes and, if working together, can rise to great heights. How best to capitalise on the abilities of the two hemispheres, however, is not known with any certainty. What is known is that the relationship between the two hemispheres is, at best, uneasy. They do not live together very comfortably. Even the very notion of comfort is contained in the left brain and therefore very much alien to its neighbour. The left hemisphere, with its superior intellect, analytical and communication skills can, if unchecked, dominate the proceedings. Neuro research has shown that predominant left brain activity can subjugate right brain activity.

Since Newton, left brain attributes have been highly prized. The proposition that all phenomena are determined by fixed 'laws' has led to a seductive mechanistic view of the universe that is difficult for the left brain to resist. As a result, the right brain potential is seldom fully utilised - reminiscent of the feminist complaint today. This applies very much in the field of scientific endeavour, where cold rationality is espoused unremittingly.

And yet counter-examples abound. The double helix discovery is a prime example. While their ardent colleague worked systematically through the data (left brain), Crick and Watson indulged in right brain flights of fancy that would eventually earn them a coveted Nobel Prize. The discovery of penicillin was from a corrupted sample that lay 10 years in Fleming's laboratory waiting for an opportunistic right brain to cash in on serendipity. Similarly, Copernicus' hetro cyclical model of the universe came not from a patient extension of existing theory (although plenty of painstaking data collection and analysis was involved) but a flash of inspiration later to be 'sold' by Gallileo to the unwilling, sceptical world. The examples are never-ending. Archimedes'' "Eureka" was hardly uttered at the end of laborious research programme and Einstein's greatest achievement was in conjecturing relativity through his 'mind games'.

Alright, so times have changed and we have passed the point of hoping for new insights of these magnitudes. But what of the little masters of PhD researcher, beavering away for his or her degree? Is any right brain input needed? Current university systems imply not. The normal, quality assured, process is for the student to provide a statement of goals, even hypotheses and method before enrolling, to satisfy institutional needs for security and minimum risk of incompletion. In my own University, this seems to work well, and completion rates (ratio of enrolments to completions) are higher than average.

But doubts do remain. Why, for example do students intake such an inordinate amount of coffee, or alcohol, or cigarettes, or develop little seemingly counter-productive habits, taboos and aversions, superstitions? To what purpose are these aimed?

'To feel better' seems to be the dictum. It is hard to concentrate over a period of time without a break. The mind wanders and seems to need some form of recreation. But which mind is this? Is it different from the mind that desperately wants to get the PhD. How many minds are there in one head?

Split brain research offers one answer. The two parts of the brain have different needs. One, the right brain, needs to be creative, imaginative, wild, and the other, left brain, needs to analyse, logicise, rationalise, communicate. And yet, the formalities of our educational system so often denies the right brain an existence. This paper aims to investigate the official demise of the right brain further. To see to what extent the right brain is needed in research and what can be done to encourage and legitimise its use.

LEFT-RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS IN RESEARCH

Table 2 summarises my own approach to personal research. Taking the PhD as an example, there seem to be five identifiable stages, (1) Identification of research project, (2) Explore, (3) Devise research objectives, (4): Finalise and (5): Oral Examination. In each of these stages, I have indicated the type of brain function that seems to be needed (LB=left brain, RB=right brain). In the early stages, the personal experience and knowledge of the researcher and supervisors dominate. For low risk projects, a 'stick with the knitting' (Peters and Waterman, 1982) is used. This means minimising the technical learning necessary for both players whilst keeping up motivation for the long trail ahead.

Stage 2 involves exploration by the researcher. It is a journey into the unknown at first, for both players, followed by a gradual recognition of what is possible and not possible, interesting and trivial, what has been done before and all the untested assumptions passed by. For both players, the motivation is in finding something new. A new angle on an old subject. An old method not yet applied. An overlooked detail. A pivotal aspect. A discovery of research tools, and there are many, that have been used often in a different fields. Content analysis, discriminant analysis, econometrics, action research, qualitative data, focus groups, etc.

From all this, maybe 2 and a half years into a three year PhD, sufficient material and know-how is accumulated to think about getting it all down in print. When nothing much new is being added (shades of the value added concept in TQM)) it is time to get finished. As with Tukey's exploratory analyses in statistics, we move towards a formal approach by making at last a definite commitment to formal objectives in stage 3. Once these objectives have been worked out the finalisation stage is entered and the research is done in earnest in stage 4. Finally, where is viva is required, the researcher must rise above the details and once again see the "wood from the trees" in order to anticipate and communicate the work to the waiting critics.

If this analysis is correct, the right brain most certainly has a role. It is needed in the early stages and later stages and least in the formal 'writing up' stage. It is needed in understanding the limitations of the research and the researchers (including supervisor), in 'playing around' with ideas, concepts, what will and will not work, and learning about research. It is needed to keep up motivation and create excitement. Right brain is next needed in creating the thesis structure, maximal use of the learning process and data collected to conjure a set of coherent objectives that best match what has been done. Finally, the researcher needs rest and time to reflect before his battle with examiners. Answers to holistic questions such as "What contributions have you made?", "How would you do it differently next time?", need to be thought out strategically (right brain), followed by a left brain logical details.
Table 2: 'Personal' Research: Left and Right Brain Approaches

Stage 1: Identification of research project

1. Knowledge of available research methods and constraints (LB)
2. Knowledge of subject area and previous work, divided into own and others accumulated beliefs, cases, personal experiences, 'facts', assertions of various credibility, assumptions (RB/LB)
3. Researcher's current and potential attributes, skills, prior knowledge, risk attitude, learning strategies, motivation (RB/LB)
4. Supervisors experience, current and potential attributes, skills, prior knowledge, risk attitude, teaching and learning strategies, motivation (RB/LB)

Stage 2: Explore

1. Stay within sight of land (in familiar territory) unless risk prone. (RB/LB)
2. Play around (up to 5/6th of available time) and follow up interesting and maybe potential fruitful leads (The Columbo Method), stay motivated, get stimulated, look for new ground to break. (RB) Write conference papers on each new idea. (LB)
3. Learn enough about 1-4 above (RB/LB)
4. Reconsider 1-2 above (LB)
5. Look for testable assertions, based in previous work (unless Nobel Prize sought). (LB)
6. Think about thesis structure (LB)
7. Think about likely examiners (LB)

Stage 3: Devise research objectives

1. Short list examiners (LB)
2. Short list aims (general) and objectives (yes/no deliverable) (LB)
3. Find objectives which maximise work done in stage 2 and minimise remaining work to be done (LB)

Stage 4: Finalise

1. Finalise objectives. (LB)
2. Devise logical and unrefutable approach to meeting objectives with supervisor (RB/LB)
3. Do research to meet objectives, repeat any previous work and fill in all gaps. (LB)
4. Select examiners and discuss work done so far, debrief with supervisor (LB)
5. Write thesis in logical sequence, do any missing analyses etc, change emphasis to suit examiners (LB)
6. Split thesis into several 8000 word journal papers , each containing two new ideas/data, finalise papers, use reviewers comments to change/restructure thesis (if time). (LB)
7. Send draft thesis to everyone for comment (assume 25% response rate). (LB)
8. Send draft thesis to examiners if allowed. (LB)
9. Write ARC proposal(s) for funding (LB)
10. Rest and reflect (RB/LB)

Stage 5: Oral Examination

1. Forget about thesis until 7 days before examination (RB)
2. Read thesis ONCE as surrogate examiner, think up "curve-ball' questions, note answers and relevant pages, consider question "What are the three major contributions in your work?" (RB/LB)
3. Treat examiners as equals. Give way on details. Stand firm on big issues. Stay cool. Give comprehensive answers, including as much previous work (with names, dates, etc) as possible. Do not assume the examiners have read everything in great detail - they will have skimmed the thesis. Be tenacious. (RB/LB)
4. Remember, anything better than a major rewrite is a 'success'. Do not forget to celebrate! (RB)

CONCLUSIONS

How best to conjoin left and right brain functions? Perhaps the most important aspect of the left-right brain conundrum is the relationship between the two. How can left brain activity be quietened to allow the right brain to get on with its important creative job? One most popular reported strategy is to keep the left brain somehow employed on non-interfering tasks (eg tennis, coffees). Alcohol and other drugs can help.
Several theories have been proposed to account for optimal left-right brain use. One is that the left brain calls upon the right brain to 'come up' with something for the left brain to analyse. Einstein, Aristotle, Marx are Freud examples. The alternative is that the right brain takes over while the left brain tries to make some sense (articulation) of what it (the right brain) is feeling. Plato, Neitzsche and Jung are examples. Which is best? The answer probably depends on the proclivity of the researcher. Maybe Leonardo had the best approach. He spent spells working with his left brain on mathematical problems (squaring the circle etc) in between spells of artistic work (Mona Lisa et al). The key is not so much in total left or right brain activity but a working partnership between the two, where one or other is dominant depending on the activity.

What are the implications for personal research? In this paper, personal research is chosen because it offers more choices. There is no a priori research goal. In most cases this kind of research comprises a learning process in which what is learned is eventually structured into a thesis, with the 'objectives' coming to light only very late in the proceedings. Contract research, on the other hand, usually proceeds from objects onwards, ie it comprises only the stage 4 of a personal research project. With such greater freedom, more imagination can, and should be used, hence the need for the right brain.

Should the right brain be nurtured? Like Dr Jeckyl (left brain) and Mr Hyde (right brain), the right brain is a potential genie-like force of fearful proportions if fully unleashed. So many right brain dominated people have met sticky ends. Beethoven (deaf and alone), Mozart (buried alone), Neitzsche (insanity), Jung (loneliness and isolation), Kafka (self-induced? death by starvation). And yet an estimated 50 percent of the world's leading creators, past and present, are said to be manic-depressive (right brain dominant). Fifty percent! Considering the proportion of manic-depressives to none manic-depressives is around one or two percent, this is an astounding figure.

How an we include-in the right brain? Stephen Covey's recent and famous "six steps" often discriminates between thinking (left brain) and feeling (right brain). How many of us sometimes find it hard to 'settle' to writing papers, marking scripts, etc. Is this the right brain making a desperate, inarticulate, cry for help, to be included-in? Probably the best way to get is wrong is to simultaneously decry left brain calculating as being too cold whilst refusing to let right brain wildness disturb the peace. In this way we can deprive ourselves of the best of both worlds. The problem is, as with most self-regulating organisations, in avoiding conning oneself. If the left brain is all thinking and the right brain all feeling then there seems to be no part of the brain left to adjudicate between the two. In all likelihood, whichever hemisphere happens to be dominant makes all the decisions.

In my own experience, most people do not do much to develop either hemisphere. We do not respect logic or mathematics enough to studiously develop the left side. Neither do we respect our wild imaginings enough to allow the right side an unhindered, guiltless, development. It seems (feels and thinks) to me both unreasonable and wasteful do pursue such a negative course. And yet human nature fails us. In Rousseau's words "All men are free and yet in chains".

REFERENCES

• Ehrenwald, J., 1984, Anatomy of genius: split brains and global minds, Human Sciences Press, ISBN 0898851483.
• Peters, T.J., Waterman, R.H.J., 1982, In search of excellence, Harper and Row, ISBN 0060150424.
• Sperry, R.W., 1968, Hemisphere deconnection and unity in conscious experience, American Psychologist, 23 723-33.

Email Brian David Phillips at phillips@nccu.edu.tw.