On the La Source homepage, the carriers of those two actions are defined as follows:
a researcher is a passionate lover of questions
a creator is one who learns through making
The question here is; are those two qualities totally different roads in the ways of learning or can / must they be compatible / complementary?
"We are conscious enough to destabilize our beliefs, and our traditional patterns of action, but not conscious enough to understand them. If the reasons for the existence of our traditions were rendered more explicit, however, perhaps we could develop greater intrapsychic and social integrity."
- Jordan Peterson Maps of Meaning (1999), p. 234
JP speaks of explicitness as a means to keep the values of traditions that are often thrown away along the obsolete parts of traditions like the baby poured out with the dirty water. This gives an insight on the importance of research -which is done through explicitness- for saving values that would be otherwise trashed with the obsolete. It is the same at the other end with creation. @Aron Mueller 's last sentence points to clarity of research and accurateness of creation as an ideal level of learning. At such a level, one -whether research or creation- would automatically cause the other. However when with any of the two we are conscious enough to change the course of motivation, but not conscious enough to fully satisfy us, we need the other to complement the lack of clarity and accuracy reached with the one. Which of the two is the one lacking and which is the one complementing can vary from issue to issue and from person to person or from tradition to tradition.
Both; research and creation are necessary arts for carrying humans forward to progress. Research clarifies the map, creation improves the driving. It is like with driving lessons, the best and most integrated theory lessons including clear illustrations and demonstrations of the driving itself, do not suffice (do not make us conscious enough) for the actual driving. To overcome the challenges present while driving, whether from the road or from our mental and physical dispositions, our own training is needed.
If one doesn't want to endlessly wait for research to reach ultimate clarity or for creation to reach ultimate accuracy, both must be combined. The day for 'research so clear that it automatically emerges in creation and creation so accurate that it illuminates the research' is still far ahead. Both; research and creation not being crystal clear, still need a level of intuitive trust of their making sense.
In my (hopefully) humble perspective, both; research and creation are part of a three step learning process of cogitating, taking-to-heart and integrating awareness, be it verbal or sub-verbal. This process can be called PDR, meaning; P/re-see // Do-Distance // Re-see. One first learns to 'pre-see' an ideal value (not yet acquired) and one is then driven towards it. If the target is viewed with enough clarity and intensity - like in breathing, the drive happens automatically. However, in cases with an unclear and not intensive enough view of the value (there being a conflicting factor, if only because of comfort vs. effort), there needs to be another element in the progressing process. Without such other element the value is not yet intensely wanted and one is not yet automatically driven to it, but the ideal value is rather only 'wanted (or hoped) to be wanted' vs. the actually wanted that is chosen over the ideal (like comfort).
At this point comes the next taking-to-heart step of 'do-distance' ('do' for a value that is achieved actively and 'distance' for one that is achieved passively). This is called 'fake it in order to make it'. Focusing on and applying the 'wanted to be wanted' value, gradually intensifies its presence - like in dieting. The more one trains in the 'wanted to be wanted' value, the more it replaces the 'actually wanted' and eventually takes its place. In many instances, the pleasure of the tasteful but unhealthy, turns repulsive. Of course this process is not always as smooth as described. If the 'do-distance' is done for the wrong reason, it means that 'pre-see' has gone wrong. P/re-see premises must therefore be constantly re-checked, reset and updated, Hence the slash in 'p/re-see', meaning this necessity for 'p/re-see' to constantly be re-pre-seen.
The last integrating 're-see' step is one of maturity, in which the integrated value is seen with clarity and intensity so that one is automatically driven to it. A fully integrated value has no more need for neither any 'pre-see' research nor any 'do-distance' creation like there is no such need for regular breathing. However, the success of this process depends on full maturity being reached, like with adults who don't have any tendency to return to infantile attitudes and behaviors. Thus, with deep rooted habits (as goes the saying: 'once addicted - always addicted'), full integration may not be reached. With such habits one needs to constantly return to the first two (PD) steps of the process.
Back to the question; a researcher who is 'a passionate lover of questions' learns through articulation which pertains to the 'pre-see' step and the creator 'who learns through making' is more into the taking-to-heart 'do-distance' step.
A researcher who finds answers to questions still needs the taking-to-heart 'do-distance' step of the creator in order to reach full integration and not remaining a non-practicing preacher. A creator who learns through making must ensure that the 'p/re-see' which determines that which is learned by the making, be accurate. Theoretically, a researcher may have such sharp clarity of his research conclusions so that creation occurs automatically. The same, a creator may have such a perfect 'pre-see' intuitive vision so that articulated learning is not needed, but this is practically very rare.
It is noticed in communication therapy that people differ in what each means with the very same expression. Two people may say 'I love it' about something; one means it in principle and one means it practically. Both don't mean that they fully love each and every aspect of the target of their love, but that in the totality of the target, the loved aspects are enough to love (appreciate -> accept) the target in general. Regarding an object for sale for example, the former expresses the principle, but does not yet say if the love is enough to purchase it. The latter when saying 'I love it', expresses the practical intention to buy it. The former's expressions are rather a starting point of consideration / discussion, while the latter's are a practical conclusion. The former is focused on analytical purity relying less on intuition and the latter is focused on lived experience relying more on intuition and less on interrupting analysis. The former is a typical researcher while the latter is a typical creator.
In conclusion; research and creation are arts of two steps (PD) required for a fully integrated learning, which like breathing becomes as 'one of one's limbs - 're-see' (R). As noted about the difference of focus between analytical purity and lived experience, it may be that for one person one of the two arts is worked on and the other occurs automatically, but as said, no need for any analysis and no need for any practical learning at all is very rare. People usually differ in their tendencies according to needs, capacities and aptitude. As teachers, each will usually prefer to teach and will be more effective in the area of one's expertise.
More is said -in a separate discussion- about how the researcher & creator within each of us unite as one. That unity is described in yet another discussion: ... research so clear that it automatically emerges in creation and creation so accurate that it illuminates the research,
I think it is for all of us to decide (this will be likely my initial response to everything, in alignment with the none-of-us-has-whole-truth belief)
they are distinct, but also compatible in co-existence, and additionally likely to be nourishing for one another (therefore potentially complementary).
There is a popular tendency (to which I 'fais partie') to imagine different 'focal points' in method or motive or orientation...
the mind (universe of thoughts, language, meaning, sense, story)....
the heart (universe of connection, receptivity, compassion, and feeling)....
the body (universe of the hands, physical doing, concrete action, sensation and sensorial experience)....
the 'spirit/soul/breath/energy' (universe of being, of acceptance, of flow, of spaciousness)...
I am frequently referring to these as 'the 4 bodies.'
In my estimation ALL can research and create... but certain are more likely partners... ie - it is 'natural' that the mind would engage in research and the body/hands with creation.... HOWEVER, one can easily (and delightfully) imagine a research of the heart or a creation of the spirit.... or even a research of the body and a creation of the mind (we might even call this day-dreaming).
In any case, I am filled with excitement to FIND OUT... and to see concretely which pairings emerge actively and evidently in the research and creation of La SOURCE residents.