Category: Music

STEM is an acronym used in current education policy and curriculum – Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics – to address and stimulate a sector of education that is perceived to have been in decline for decades.

The exclusionary premise of STEM’s tech-only focus inspired the rise of the acronym STEAM – Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics – in an attempt to bring the study of the humanities (art, reading, writing, music, design, etc.) back into the educational spotlight. Websites such as STEM to STEAM (http://stemtosteam.org/) provide links to resources, press releases and case studies (for example, Sesame Street + STREAM and RSID Foundation Studies) in support of the movement.

The Arts & Science core curriculum has been the backbone of educational institutions and a well-rounded education requires study in both. It is not about choosing “arts or science” or “arts not science” or “science not art” and, although the STEM movement provided a much-needed rallying cry for an improvement in educational standards, perhaps a more inclusionary title might have been better received.

Studying the arts – literature, music, visual arts, etc. – introduces subjectivity (not just objectivity), abductive reasoning (not just deductive reasoning), and integrative thinking (not just linear thinking), and it is these qualities that provide the creative foundation for ‘engineers’ to succeed. The Integrative Thinking methodology inherent in artistic study provides an infrastructure that fosters the creative and analytical thought processes required in all aspects of life. Problem solving and critical thinking skills are developed and honed over time through the repeated application of creative thinking.

This is how study in the arts improves the potential success of study in the sciences.

The STEM versus STEAM argument may just be an exercise in semantics. However, we need both arts and science, and evidence shows that STEAM is best for improving the skills of creativity, problem solving and critical thinking.

Roger Martin graduated with an MBA from Harvard Business School in 1981 and spent 13 years as a Director of Monitor Company, a global strategy consulting firm based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He served as the Dean at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, from 1998 to 2013. He continues to receive worldwide recognition for his publications and initiatives and is currently Academic Director of the Martin Prosperity Institute, where his efforts continue with ongoing research in Integrative Thinking, Business Design, country competitiveness and democratic capitalism (http://rogerlmartin.com/).

Integrative Thinking theory was developed by Graham Douglas in 1986. Douglas describes it as “the process of integrating intuition, reason and imagination in a human mind with a view to developing a holistic continuum of strategy, tactics, action, review and evaluation for addressing a problem in any field.”

Roger Martin developed the theory into a practical methodology in 2000 that encourages the Integrative Thinker to utilize a creative approach for decision-making. It provides a framework that rises above the limitations of an “A or B” (or “either/or”) solution and resolves tensions by finding new and creative solutions that accommodate both A and B. He promotes being more aware of possibilities and refers to the variables in a problem as being “salient” components in the decision-making process. He also makes an excellent case for the use of abductive reasoning (sometimes referred to as “gut feeling”) as opposed to relying solely on inductive and deductive reasoning to arrive at decisions. Because of its flexibility and un-tethered freedom from limitation, abductive reasoning is used as a starting and finishing point in the analysis process. Perfect information is a luxury typically unavailable in business and big-picture salience and abductive reasoning play an important role in decision-making.

Roger Martin is convinced that Integrative Thinking can be taught and cultivated through exposure to case studies, classroom modeling and, most importantly, hands-on experience with the process. He distinguishes between integrative thinkers versus conventional thinkers and suggests that we can train ourselves to dig deeply and creatively for less obvious solutions. With increased exposure to the discovery process, he believes we develop a “habit of thought” that becomes our natural method for decision-making in all aspects of our lives.