Results
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