Methods
learning context( Hunter et al., 2007, Oldham and Cummings, 1996, Woodman et al., 1993). Daskolia et al( 2012) also identify issues with defining creativity relative to four components: who is doing the work, which contexts they work in, which processes are involved and what the end point is( Kampylis and Valtanen, 2010). Demir( 2015) argues that scientific creativity involves critical thinking that enables individuals to produce original ideas by drawing on interdisciplinary ideas to solve problems( Demir, 2014, Demir, 2015). Demir connects innovation with creativity and implies that the end product is definitive of the concept. However, there are different perceptions in the literature about what we mean by a product, for example, it has been defined as an initial idea( Amabile, 1988) and the final / end product( Tsai, 2012).
We found that the term‘ innovation’ is commonly used as a popular‘ buzz word’ that is not always explicitly defined( Onyia, 2014, Richards, 2015). However, when it is defined, it is most often associated with specific examples, such as changing the teaching method to gamification( Sanchez- Martin et al., 2018) or to a variety of computer activities( Shi, 2008) or to calculative-analytical tasks, scientific group discussions, etc.( Bondarenko and Isaeva, 2016). In some cases‘ innovation’ is only mentioned in the title, abstract or references( Herrera and Mejías, 2017, Leiman et al., 2015).
Kempe and Reed( 2014) propose that there are fundamental problems with developing an identity as an innovative teacher when the criteria for being innovative are so ill-defined. Loaiza-Aguirre et al( 2017) draw on a citation from the Oslo Manual, which states that innovation can be a product, process or method( Loaiza et al., 2017, Manual de Oslo, 2005). Within these different definitions, innovation is mainly described as relating to the introduction of something new or making a change that results in an improvement.
Amabile( 1988) describes innovation as the successful implementation of ideas and Tang( 1998) proposes that innovation grows out of creativity, while Merx-Chermin and Nijhof’ s( 2005) describe a‘ creation-innovation-learning spiral’( Amabile, 1988, Merx-Chermin and Nijhof, 2005, Tang, 1998). Similarly, Charyton( 2015) argues that, across both art and science, the application of creative ideas results in innovation. Along these same lines,
Byron( 2009) suggests that innovation refers to the management of ideas which involves making creative ideas a reality. He argues that they will only be valued if they are seen through to innovation( Byron, 2009). However, West( 2002) argues that seeing creative ideas through to innovation may be inhibited by other demands placed on teaching staff but, nonetheless, this should be encouraged. Collectively, these papers seem to imply that creativity precedes innovation, with one clear exception( Demir, 2014, Demir, 2015). Additionally, as with creativity, it appears to be the case that the four factors identified by Daskolia( 2012) are also referred to in definitions of innovation; person, disciplines / contexts, processes and product.
West’ s( 2002) proposal that additional factors may inhibit the implementation of creativity and innovation in practice have been raised elsewhere. For example, they may be restricted by political concerns( Berg and Östergren, 2006, Gannaway et al., 2013, Hannan et al., 1999, Jackson et al., 2006, Smith, 2011, Smith, 2012). Furthermore, Smith( 2011) argues that there is no shared understanding about the boundaries between creativity and innovation, which may impact on how they are perceived, understood and implemented. Both Daskolia et al( 2012) and Smith( 2011) highlight the importance of context as they are likely to be used and understood in different ways in different disciplines.
Having identified the main concerns in the literature, being the lack of consensus on clear definitions of the concepts of creativity and innovation and the relationship between them( and noting that making sense of both concepts requires consideration of the person, disciplines / contexts, processes and product) we now describe the methods and findings of our study.
Methods
Data Collection
Our sample comprised staff who had an interest in or worked in UK HE learning and teaching contexts. At the time of the study, both authors worked at the London school of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine( LSHTM), which is a world leading centre for research and postgraduate education in public and global
Article # 3 33