perceived to be problematic , but it also points to a lack of understanding and consensus by staff . As one participant put it :
" It ’ s a bizarre thing to have in the postgraduate survey [ a question about creativity and innovation ] because it implies that people have a common understanding of it when in this room we have 27 different understandings of it " ( S2-4 ).
So , the problem is twofold , and if staff treat these concepts as having variable meanings , attempts to embed them into practice are bound to be difficult . The lack of consensus about their meanings was mainly , although not solely , brought out by the SEDA group .
Some participants defined these concepts as different while others saw them as being connected , albeit through a problematic relationship . For example , in one of the SEDA groups it was proposed that : ‘ If you go to the Latin root of the word innovation it implies something new whereas creativity could mean using what you have but in a different way ’ ( S3-3 ). Similarly , in another group it was said , ‘ ‘ They ’ re very different concepts ’ ( S1-1 ), with innovation being about ‘ developing something new , but creativity can be working with existing knowledge but packaging it in different ways ’ ( S1-4 ). This difference was also brought out in the plenary discussion at the SEDA conference by one group who had come to ‘ the conclusion they were different things and not necessarily connected ’ ( SP-S3-1 ). However , some differences of opinion were expressed in the data , with innovation being defined as an ‘ offshoot of creativity but not a necessary , desirable or appropriate one ’ ( SP-S1- 2 ), while creativity was said to be ‘ very messy ’ ( S1-3 ) and involving ‘ thinking that we have to do something amazingly different ’ ( L1-1 ). Others said that ‘ innovation comes with the concept of critique ’ ( S3-1 ) but perceived creativity as coming from ‘ a more positive concept of making things work ’ ( S3-1 ) in ‘ different […] not conventional ways ’ ( S3-2 ). Participants in the LSHTM conference questioned whether it related to ‘ creative approaches or changing a commodity ’ ( L3-4 ). In trying to reach consensus , the SEDA group agreed that there was a lot of scope relating to the ‘ everyday creativity of making things happen that weren ’ t there before ’ ( S2-3 ). While creativity as an everyday process was seen to be a positive development , innovation was described as being ‘ productive and much more goalorientated ’ ( S2-4 ) and as belonging to ‘ an emotional domain ’ ( S3-1 ). In this respect , the relationship between achievements , and the emotional impact that this may lead to , also points to the issue of being judged .
As we can see , whether creativity and innovation are understood to be processes or skills or concepts , they are difficult to pin down in any concrete way but they also have ramifications for individuals working in different contexts . What is notable from the discussion is that the dialogue itself helped participants to draw out some of the nuances relating to how people think about these concepts , which resonated with our own early experiences . An additional , but related concern that emerged , was a problem with claiming that something is creative .
2 . Problems with claiming work as creative or innovative
Two subthemes were identified in relation to claims of being creative or innovative : one concerned receiving value judgements , the other related to how creativity might just be part of day-to-day activities . For example , one participant admitted being ‘ hesitant to say , “ well that was creative ”, because of all the value that gets carried along with having been creative ’ ( S2-2 ). Although the issue is not explicitly stated , the inference here is that the very use of the concept can impact on how creative ( or not ) a piece of work is when judged by others . This was brought out by another participant who thought that the concept ( creativity ) itself is ‘ very value-laden ’ ( S3-3 ). These comments resonate with some of those in the previous section .
In relation to the second subtheme , some participants suggested that the process of creativity is commonplace in day-to-day activities and may even be utilised unreflexively . For example , one participant expressed the view that it was something we ‘ use all the time ’ ( L1-1 ), and others stated that it involved ‘ just doing their job ’ ( S2-2 ), or that ‘ learning is always creative ’ ( S2-4 ). Another participant questioned whether it is ‘ something that we do anyway , like automatically , when you ’ re planning the research project ?’ ( L2-3 ). For some then , the process of creativity is constituted as part and parcel of their general practice . A positive outcome of these interactions was that participants began to reflect
36