The Psychology of Professionalism: From Mastery to Creativity

Bogoyavlenskaya D.B.

Psychological Institute
Russian Academy of Education
e-mail: mro-120@mаі1.гu

Using the aircraft pilot profession as an example, V.A. Ponomarenko, in his typology of human attitudes to work, identifies three categories: Workers, Specialists, and Professionals. Workers are individuals who formally perform their duties. His differentiation of the concepts of "specialist" and "professional" establishes a new gradation of professionalism by introducing the criterion of "personality significance" into the very definition of this concept [2; 11]. While a Specialist possesses high qualifications in his specialty, a Professional, according to V.A. Ponomarenko, is distinguished by his personal position on his mission: for example, for an aircraft pilot, this is preserving the lives of passengers, which sometimes requires a heroic act. V.A. Ponomarenko's identification of specific and universal forms of a single form of labor, using the example of a single form of labor, allows him to formulate the generic essence of man, his mission in the universe as knowledge leading to creativity.

The works of E.A. Klimov [8; 3, p. 12] can be considered classics in the study of professionalism. He examines the subject of labor within the context of social context. This approach allows the author to view a profession as a way of life for a professional. This is characteristic of all types of labor. E.A. Klimov asserts that a person's direction and their sense of place in life stem from their understanding of existence.

On the path to becoming a professional, E.A. Klimov identifies several phases. Let's relate these phases to V.A. Ponomarenko's typology. The Adaptant phase corresponds more closely to the Worker type. The Internal and Master phases, having mastered a profession, belong to the Specialist type. The Authority and Mentor phases can be associated with the Professional type. Due to the orientation of their personality, E.A. Klimov points to the presence of strategic (supra-situational) activity, rather than situational one [8, p. 163]. Since a person, according to E.A. Klimov, is a self-regulating system, he points to what he considers important regulators of human activity: needs, ideals, ideological convictions, and interests. That is, everything that determines the personality's orientation and determines its reflection of reality.

The concept of "supra-situationality" deserves special consideration. In contemporary scientific literature, supra-situationality is inappropriately equated with creativity as a manifestation of cognitive (intellectual) activity, "selfless risk," and above-normal activity (see Brief Psychological Dictionary, 1985, p. 11). This broad definition of the concept can be explained by its author (V.A. Petrovsky), who attempted to demonstrate in his experiments that the severity of the cause-and-effect relationship between supra-situationality and risk is determined by the subject's level of aspiration within the context of the task being performed. We emphasize that the connection with creativity is not obvious here.

At the same time, when analyzing the problem of professionalism, it is necessary to clarify this concept. Moreover, A.V. Petrovsky, along with creativity, also pointed to cognitive (intellectual) activity, which is revealed by suprasautory activity [9; 10].

In my theory of creativity, intellectual activity is the primary concept, which explains a person’s ability not only to perform an accepted activity, but to further develop it. This is a "unit of analysis" of creativity, corresponding to the call of L.S. Vygotsky: "Psychology, wishing to study complex unities, must replace the methods of decomposition into elements with methods of analysis that dissect into units" [5, p. 29]. Within the framework of this theory, I have developed a typology of creativity according to three levels of cognition, identified by G. Hegel, and collectively used in the creation of the "Creative Field" methodology [1].

 

EXPERIMENTAL MODEL

Identifying an individual's inherent potential through experimentation necessarily requires a framework that allows for the exploration of thought beyond the solution of the presented task. Such a model cannot be represented by a set of different tasks, as is typical in tests. In this model, tasks must be simultaneously similar and different to ensure variability in activity. A system of similar tasks meets this requirement. There is only one way to solve them, despite the fact that they differ in some parameter. This system allows for the process of mastering an activity to be tracked: 1. by learning parameters and all its indicators (speed of solving the first task, rate of progress, number of trials and errors); 2. by the level of generality of the method and efficiency (optimization of the solution method); 3. awareness of actions; 4. independence, manifested in the detection of errors.

The listed indicators allow one to assess one's intelligence level more accurately than is possible with tests. This is largely due to the fact that the subject is presented with system tasks.

At the same time, this is the initial level that ensures mastery of the activity presented to the individual, without which it is impossible to observe its further development. The next stage of the experiment is marked by a presentation of the process that follows the subject's optimal mastery of the activity and allows for the identification of the phenomenon of creativity as a spontaneous transition beyond the initial situation.

A system of similar tasks, like any system, inevitably possesses a number of common patterns. Their presence enables the construction of a two-layer model of activity. The first layer is the task assigned to the subject, which involves solving a series of specific, similar tasks—the superficial layer. The second layer, the deep layer, is masked by the superficial layer and is therefore not obvious to the subject. It is the deep layer that facilitates the identification of hidden patterns contained within the entire system of tasks, but which, we emphasize, are not required for solving the presented tasks. The deep layer itself creates the space that allows the experimenter to observe the development of activity, i.e., creativity.

TYPOLOGY

The introduction of two layers of activity into scientific analysis allowed us to develop a new experimental method, "Creative Field." This name seems appropriate given the method's focus on new possibilities. Unlike the problem-solving method, which aims to capture productive activity while solving problems, the "Creative Field" method allows us to identify different levels of work. By differentiating the heterogeneous and complex phenomenology of productive activity, our method also reveals creative capacity.

Thus, the methodological approach we've described, crucially, also enables the development of a typology corresponding to the levels of cognition proposed by Hegel. In his classification, the first level of cognition is focused on a specific situation and is thus performed at the level of the individual. Within our approach, this level encompasses human activity, including high levels of skill (in the experiment, this is the rapid solution of a problem and optimization of a method). Moreover, this activity is stimulated externally by us in the form of a presentation and request to solve a problem. This explains the name given to this level. stimulus-productive.

It is characteristic that the attention of the subjects at this level is clearly focused on the success of their work: «"You haven't turned off the stopwatch, and I've already decided."». This is rivaled only by concern about the success of other participants in this study. With high intelligence scores, the achievement motive dominates, blocking the possibility of selfless development of activity—creation.

This was clearly demonstrated in the dissertation of our graduate student M.R. Ginzburg [6], where the results of subjects obtained using the «Creative Field» method were compared in two variants: a neutral experiment and in a competitive situation. Of the 17 students, even those who demonstrated the dominance of cognitive motivation (heuristic level see below), only 9 maintained their performance in the choice situation: «work for analysis» or «work for winning».

A similar experimental picture was observed when the same students were offered an experiment using H. Heckhausen’s projective method «Achievement Motivation» [Ibid.].

Entering the second level marks activity that develops on the initiative of the individual. Here, patterns are revealed that, in the words of S.L. Rubinstein, can be described as "exploding the layers of existence." In scientific and artistic literature, this is how talent is characterized. According to G. Hegel, this activity is at the level of the special, and it characterizes the Professional. We define this level as heuristic.

It should be noted that in the experiment to identify the level of aspirations using F. Hoppe's method, heuristics made choices in accordance with their capabilities [7], without focusing on the success indicators that subjects of the first, stimulus-productive level focused on.

On the third, creative At this level, the patterns discovered at the heuristic level are subject to theoretical proof. This allows us to characterize it as the level of theory construction and the formulation of new problems. According to Hegel, this is the level of the universal; it is what enables cognition of the essence of an object. Understanding the essence of a phenomenon allows us to predict qualitative leaps in its development. This, in turn, determines the subject's prognostic abilities, their ability to forecast over the long term. This is how we usually define genius. A subject's prognostic abilities characterize the highest level of knowledge and the pinnacle of professionalism. The secret of creativity as the highest form of professionalism lies in the ability to act without responding, in cognition beyond the bounds of a given situation.

Subjects at this level can be characterized by the words of V. Frankl: "If you want to see the world, forget about yourself" [12]. Successful activity at the reference level of implementation indicates a high level of intellect, which ensures masterful execution. In V.A. Ponomarenko's typology, this is the specialist level. Activity at the heuristic and creative levels is characterized by creative abilities as a result of depth of knowledge, which correlates it with the level of a professional [2; 11].

An example of such a diagnosis is the emergence of heuristic thinking among innovators. Moreover, the plant's chief engineer, who held 100 patents for inventions, was not among them. During the interview, he admitted that the ideas weren't his, but he had assisted in filing the applications, as the workers lacked the necessary training.

A chief engineer like this is a shining example of a specialist who has knowledge, but no ideas!

Below is a comparative analysis of the typologies described above (Table 1).

Table 1

Comparative analysis of typologies of professionalism

Typology V.A. Ponomarenko	Typology E.A. Klimova	Typology creativity
Worker	Adaptant	Stimulus-productive (average indicators)
Specialist	Internal, master	Stimulus-productive (high performance)
Professional	Authority, mentor	Heuristic and creative

 

Let us now compare our understanding of creativity as the development of activity on one's own initiative with the concept of suprasituationality. V.A. Petrovsky, in his research, studied the active-maladaptive behavior of people, the so-called phenomenon of "selfless risk" [10]. The author notes that some people (who constitute the main sample) engage in activity intentionally, without expecting to achieve a goal. They are motivated simply by the possibility of experiencing risk. Risk allows them to confirm that "I exist." For such people, risk, knowledge, and creativity are a testing ground for their subjectivity. Maladaptation as "testing oneself as a fully living person," "constantly rising above the situation." After all, a person always wants everything, and just a little bit more [Ibid., p. 114].

How far is V.A. Petrovsky's definition of creativity from the feat of an airplane pilot as understood by V.A. Ponomarenko? I believe that even E.A. Klimov would disagree with this understanding of his Mentor. It's strange that such a subtle thinker and poet as V.A. Petrovsky doesn't understand that he's generalizing only based on the results of a study of a small group of people who perceive the challenge presented in an experimental situation as an indication of entering a risk zone only if the target stops. This celebration of the motive of achievement is a far cry from V. Frankl's search for meaning. In fact, it asserts a motivation whose appeal lies in an unpredictable outcome. Perhaps disappointment and failure await, which, rather than being repulsive, stimulates.

In my opinion, in V.A. Petrovsky’s experiment there is no development of activity as an indicator of creativity, although the motive for achievement is diagnosed very beautifully, more subtly than in generally accepted test [4]. In this seemingly simple task of "stopping the target," human activity is determined by the person's guiding motive: to respond to the "challenge," to take a risk. Replacing the "stimulus" with a "challenge" (in V.A. Petrovsky's terminology) does not oblige the person solving the general task of stopping the target to respond to the indication of the risk zone in the task conditions. Entering the forbidden zone can result in an electric shock (as in the famous experiments of S. Milgram). V.A. Petrovsky's texts describe the subject's experiences before deciding to take a risk in an almost artistic manner. Such a decision indeed indicates the presence of maladaptive activity. When considering suprasituationality as maladaptive activity, V.A. Petrovsky concludes that it characterizes creativity [9].

But here there is no going beyond the requirements of the situation. The subject performs what is required using the stated condition in the given situation. Therefore, the development of the situation (in my understanding, creativity), as a phenomenon of "going beyond the requirements of a given
"situations" due to the development of the activity itself on its own initiative, are not present in the statements of V.A. Petrovsky.

Literature

1. Bogoyavlenskaya D.B. Once again about the concept of creativity and giftedness // Psychology of giftedness and creativity: monograph / Edited by prof. L.I. Larionova, prof. A.I. Savenkov. M., St. Petersburg: Nestor-History, 2017. Pp. 21-36.
2. Bogoyavlenskaya D.B. Typology of V.A. Ponomarenko as a model of levels of professionalism // Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin, 2018. No. 4. Pp. 115-122.
3. Bogoyavlenskaya D.B. Formation of the subject of labor // Education of the individual, 2016. No. 4. P. 12-14.
4. Bogoyavlenskaya D.B. Trans-situational activity: range of disclosure // 125 years of the International Poetry Association: RPO Yearbook, 2010. Vol. 1. Pp. 254-256.
5. Vygotsky L.S. Thinking and speech. Moscow: National Education, 2016.
6. Ginzburg M.R. On the problem of motivational components of intellectual initiative // Questions of Psychology, 1976. No. 4. Pp. 128-132.
7. Zhukova E.S. The role of the level of aspirations in the development of giftedness at an early age // Education of the personality, 2015. No. 3. P. 88-103.
8. Klimov E.A. Introduction to Labor Psychology. Moscow, 1998.
9. Petrovsky V.A. «Stimulus – reaction» or «challenge – choice»?// 125 years of the MRO: RPO Yearbook, 2010. Vol. 1. P. 291-293.
10. Petrovsky V.A. Subject in search of a predicate // 125 years of MPO: RPO Yearbook, 2010. Pp. 113-115.
11. Ponomarenko V.A. Country Aviation – Black and White. Moscow: Nauka, 1995.
12. Frankl V. Man in Search of Meaning. Moscow, 1990.

References

1. Bogojavlenskaya DB. Eshhe raz o ponjatii tvorchestva i darennosti // Psihologija darennosti i tvorchestva: monografija / Pod ed. prof. LI Larionova, prof. AI Savenkova. M., SPb: Nestor-Istorija, 2017. P. 21-36.
2. Bogojavlenskaya DB. Typology of V. A. Ponomarenko as a model of levels of professionalism // Jaroslavsky pedagogical bulletin, 2018. No. 4. P. 115-122.
3. Bogojavlenskaya DB. Stanovlenie sub#ekta truda // Obrazovanie lichnosti, 2016. No. 4. P. 12-14.
4. Bogojavlenskaya DB. Supersituational activity: range of disclosure // 125 years of the RPO: RPO Yearbook, 2010. Vol. 1. P. 254-256.
5. Vygotskij LS. Thinking and Speech. Moscow: National Education, 2016.
6. Ginzburg MR. On the problem of motivational components of intellectual initiative // Questions of Psychology, 1976. No. 4. P. 128-132.
7. Zhukova ES. The role of the level of skills in the development of giftedness at a young age // Personality Education, 2015. No. 3. P. 88-103.
8. Klimov EA. Vvedenie v psihologiju truda. M., 1998.
9. Petrovskij VA. «Stimul – reakcija» ili «vyzov – vybor»?// 125 let MRO: Ezhegodnik RPO, 2010. V. 1. S. 291-293.
10. Petrovskij VA. Subject in search of a predicate // 125 years of MPO: RPO Yearbook, 2010. S. 113-115.
11. Ponomarenko VA. Strana Aviacija – black and white. M: Nauka, 1995.
12. Frankl V. Man in Search of Meaning. M. 1990.