Creative Thinking in Scientists vs. Engineers: Two Types of Professional Thinking

The psychology of creativity and cognitive psychology share the same methodological problem: they both interpret creative thinking as a universal ability, leaving out the fact that the creative thinker represents a particular professional field, which affects the regulatory mechanisms of creative thinking. The authors reconstructed creative processes preferred by scientists and engineers as two qualitatively different types of professional thinking, with different mechanisms of conceptual and regulatory reorganization. The cultural-historical and activitybased approaches made it possible to describe thinking as an activity mediated by its objects, goals, means, and conditions. The leading mechanisms of creative thinking proved to depend on the profession of the thinker: scientists were prone to conceptual and semantic reorganization, while engineers demonstrated regulatory-project reorganization. These mechanisms differed in the type of uncertainty, self-regulation methods, timing, success criteria, and attitude toward errors. Distinguishing between these professional forms of creative thinking may yield new research perspectives and differentiated academic programs for scientific and engineering personnel.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
SibScript
Published
2026-11-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21603/sibscript-2026-28-5-972-981
Primary Topic
Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
article

Creative Thinking in Scientists vs. Engineers: Two Types of Professional Thinking

Andrei V. Churbanov, Elena B. Vesna, Alexey Larionov
SibScript
Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
article

Creative Thinking in Scientists vs. Engineers: Two Types of Professional Thinking

Andrei V. Churbanov, Elena B. Vesna, Alexey Larionov
article en

Abstract

The psychology of creativity and cognitive psychology share the same methodological problem: they both interpret creative thinking as a universal ability, leaving out the fact that the creative thinker represents a particular professional field, which affects the regulatory mechanisms of creative thinking. The authors reconstructed creative processes preferred by scientists and engineers as two qualitatively different types of professional thinking, with different mechanisms of conceptual and regulatory reorganization. The cultural-historical and activitybased approaches made it possible to describe thinking as an activity mediated by its objects, goals, means, and conditions. The leading mechanisms of creative thinking proved to depend on the profession of the thinker: scientists were prone to conceptual and semantic reorganization, while engineers demonstrated regulatory-project reorganization. These mechanisms differed in the type of uncertainty, self-regulation methods, timing, success criteria, and attitude toward errors. Distinguishing between these professional forms of creative thinking may yield new research perspectives and differentiated academic programs for scientific and engineering personnel.

SibScriptVol. 28(5)
Gnessin Russian Academy of Music (RU), National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (RU)
Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon