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?
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)
My feeling:
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.
I have a quote pertaining to: the none-of-us-has-whole-truth belief:
All are actually right and no one is ultimately right. But being relatively right varies in each instance according to the level of expertise - Quotes Library
What the quote is saying with 'no one is ultimately right' seems to be exactly the point of 'none-of-us-has-whole-truth belief' since all humans lack the full picture from their standpoint of limited mind capacity perspective in time and space. On the other hand, with 'all are actually right' he says that each human's perspectives and intensities is actually not 'wrong' since this is the way this human just 'is' and has therefore a place worthy of love within Creation.
The quote's third statement: 'being relatively right varies... according to the level of expertise' is not about 'whole-truth', but about partial truths held by experts which is the reason why they are consulted, relied on and paid for.
What would be nice though, if more people had the humility to work out with each other to check who is the expert on what. With full cooperation the wise easily spot where they were missing a link that someone of greater expertise / insight did not miss. Such expertise does not necessarily pertain to a whole field, but as the quote points out: 'in each instance'.
Back to the question posed here; there seems to be a good chance that the mechanisms of learning through research and learning through creation can be thoroughly understood. As a consequence, the answer to the question whether and how much each method needs the other, could be found.
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; Pre-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' (depending on whether the value is achieved actively or passively). This is called 'fake it in order to make it'. 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 takes its place. In many instances, the pleasure of the tasteful but unhealthy, turns repulsive. This is the last integrating step of 're-see' in which the integrated value is seen with clarity and intensity so that one is automatically driven to us. Once a value is fully integrated, there is no more need for neither any 'pre-see' research nor any 'do-distance' creation like there is no such need for regular breathing.
Thus, a researcher who is 'a passionate lover of questions' learns through articulating which pertains to the 'pre-see' step and the creator 'who learns through making' is 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 learned through making must ensure that the 'pre-see' which determines that which is learned by the making, be accurate. A researcher may have such sharp clarity of the research results that creation occurs automatically. The same, a creator may have a perfect 'pre-see' intuition not needing articulated learning, but this is very rare.
It was noted 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. In the case of an object for sale as an 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 the arts of two steps required for learning towards full integration of that which is learned which becomes as 'one of one's limbs - 're-see'. 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. As said, that one should not need any analysis and the other no practical learning at all is very rare. People usually differ in their tendencies according to what they need and in what they enjoy more. As teachers, each will usually prefer to teach and will be more effective in the area of one's expertise.