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