sections , any quotations from group members have been labelled using ‘ L ’ for LSHTM and ‘ S ’ for SEDA ( in parenthesis ). The number following each letter corresponds to the group the participant was in within each of the workshops : L1 , L2 , S1 , S2 , and so on . The number following this , after the hyphen , indicates the specific individual in that group . Comments from the plenary discussions are labelled as LP or SP , as a prefix , for the LSHTM or SEDA workshops , respectively .
Data Analysis
The recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis ( TA ) which is a method for identifying patterns and themes within qualitative data ( Braun and Clarke , 2006 ). Being highly flexible , TA lends itself to any epistemological context ( Alholjailan , 2012 ). Given the disciplinarydiverse character of our sample and research focus , we thought that it might work well as it has been defined as being advantageous for studies of learning and teaching ( Maguire and Delahunt , 2017 ). We used a deductive approach to avoid a common issue with TA , whereby data analysts use the main research questions as themes ( Clarke and Braun , 2013 ). So , rather than starting with any preconceived ideas , we were led by the data and therefore had no predefined hypotheses to test .
We used a six-stage framework for the analysis ( Braun and Clarke , 2006 ). We started by listening to the recordings and transcribing them to familiarise ourselves with the data ( stage i ). We then made notes individually to generate initial themes ( stage ii ). We used open coding as we had no predefined codes , developing and modifying them as we worked through the data ( Maguire and Delahunt , 2017 ). As coding is an interpretive process ( Saldana , 2008 ), and there were two data analysts , we anticipated differences in what we would find but agreed that this could ultimately lead to more robust findings . After initial coding , by which we mean numbers of times a category was mentioned , we discussed our respective findings , noted similarities and differences and then revisited the data individually , to look for overarching themes ( stage iii ). By overarching themes , we mean not just the number of times a category was mentioned but also how it was contextualised , for example through interpretations of its meaning by participants .
According to Braun and Clarke ( 2006 ), there is no fixed way of identifying themes and there may be some overlap between codes and themes , especially with small data sets ( Maguire and Delahunt , 2017 ) such as ours . We found this to be the case and had multiple discussions about how to describe the overlap in published work . Having identified our initial themes , we then reviewed them together ( stage iv ), asking ourselves how could we resolve any differences of opinion and what we meant by each theme . We agreed the final themes by defining what the substantive character of each one meant to us ( Maguire and Delahunt 2017 : 33511 ), and we have now written this up ( stage vi ).
Results
We focus on four themes that we think are most useful for highlighting the issues associated with creativity and innovation for both staff and students . Some of the themes are cross-cutting between disciplinary contexts and concepts , hence we discuss the relationship between them . We also consider how our findings might inform both staff and student learning , knowledge and skills development . The first theme relates to mixed understandings about what these concepts mean in practice .
1 . How creativity and innovation are understood
The following quotation summarises a problem that underpins perceptions about these concepts :
" I think that higher education as a practice for the last 20 years has been shackled by the need to innovate and lots of perfectly good teachers feel that they ’ re being devalued because they need to do something new …. whereas creativity is a different thing altogether " ( S3-1 ).
This participant makes a clear distinction between the two concepts , contending that innovation requires doing something new , whereas creativity does not . He also points to the potential issue for teachers who are judged negatively as a consequence of a shifting HE landscape that requires them to be innovative ( Brennan et al ., 2014 , Blass and Hayward , 2014 ). In this respect , it is not only the students ’ lack of skills , knowledge and understandings of these concepts that are
Article # 3 35