مدلسازی ساختاری تفسیری (ISM) راهبردهای تحقق خلاقیت فکری در دانشگاه‌ها: یک مطالعه آمیخته
محورهای موضوعی : مدیریت آموزشی
سید هدایت اله داورپناه
1
*
,
رضا هویدا
2
1 - استادیار، گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان ، ایران
2 - دانشیار گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان ایران
کلید واژه: راهبرد, خلاقیت فکری, دانشگاه, مدلسازی ساختاری تفسیری,
چکیده مقاله :
بی‌شک خلاقیت در حوزه پژوهش به‌عنوان محرک نوآوری مستحق توجه ویژه است و تعیین اینکه چه نوع محیط‌های کاری برای بروز و تجلی خلاقیت فکری بیشتر مساعد است و چگونه می‌توان این شرایط را مهیا کرد، مفید خواهد بود. از همین رو، پژوهش حاضر باهدف شناسایی و تحلیل راهبردهای تحقق خلاقیت فکری در محیط‌های دانشگاهی انجام شد. این پژوهش از نوع تحقیقات کاربردی است که در آن از روش آمیخته- اکتشافی متوالی استفاده شده است. به‌طوری‌که در بخش کیفی مشارکت‌کنندگان بالقوه شامل استادان و خبرگان دانشگاهی دارای تخصص و سابقه علمی در حوزه خلاقیت در آموزش عالی از کشورهای منتخب بودند. روش گردآوری داده‌ها نیز مصاحبه نیمه ساختاریافته بود که با استفاده از رویکرد نمونه‌گیری هدفمند (صاحب‌نظران کلیدی) و معیار اشباع نظری با 25 نفر مصاحبه صورت گرفت. همچنین جامعه آماری بخش کمی را کلیه استادان و خبرگان آموزش عالی در دانشگاه‌های ایران تشکیل می‌دادند که 9 نفر به روش هدفمند انتخاب و با روش گروه کانونی به پرسشنامه محقق ساخته مستخرج از بخش کیفی پاسخ دادند. درنهایت تجزیه‌وتحلیل داده‌ها در بخش کیفی با تکنیک تحلیل مضمون و در بخش کمی با رویکرد مدلسازی ساختاری تفسیری انجام شد و نتایج نشان داد که طبق نظر خبرگان راهبردهای تحقق خلاقیت فکری در محیط‌های دانشگاهی به ترتیب سطح و اهمیت عبارت‌اند از: مأموریت گرایی در حوزه پژوهش، تشکیل کارگروه‌ها/خوشه‌های پژوهشی فرارشته‌ای، برگزاری سمینار و همایش‌های مسئله محور، توسعه پارک‌های علم و فناوری و مراکز رشد و تأیید اهمیت فرایند خلاق نسبت به محصول خلاق. طبق یافته‌های به‌دست‌آمده دانشگاه‌ها در راستای توسعه چارچوب‌ها و استراتژی‌های عملی برای تحریک و پرورش خلاقیت در فعالیت‌های پژوهشی خود می‌توانند راهبردهای شناسایی‌شده را برحسب اولویت و اهمیت موردتوجه قرار دهند و متناسب با هرکدام از آن‌ها، سیاست‌گذاری لازم را انجام دهند یا سیاست‌ها و برنامه‌های موجود خود را تقویت و بازنگری نمایند.
Undoubtedly, creativity in the field of research acts as a vital catalyst for innovation, warranting special attention. Therefore, it is beneficial to identify the types of work environments that are more conducive to the emergence and manifestation of intellectual creativity and understand how these conditions can be provided. Therefore, the present study aimed to identify and prioritize the strategies for realizing intellectual creativity in academic environments. This research is applied in terms of purpose and exploratory mixed (qualitative-quantitative) in terms of method. In the qualitative part, the data collection method was semi-structured interviews which were conducted with 25 interviewees using purposeful sampling method of opting for key experts type and theoretical saturation as a criterion. Additionally, in the quantitative phase, 9 experts responded to the researcher-made questionnaire extracted from the qualitative section using the focus group method. Finally, thematic analysis was employed in the qualitative phase and the ISM approach in the quantitative part for the data analysis. The results indicated that, according to the experts' opinions, the strategies for fostering intellectual creativity in university environments, ranked by their level and importance, include: mission orientation in the field of research, formation of transdisciplinary research groups/clusters, holding issue-oriented seminars and conferences, developing of science and technology parks and growth centers, and emphasizing the importance of the creative process compared to the creative product. The findings revealed that universities and institutions of higher education can consider the identified strategies according to their priority and importance to develop frameworks and practical strategies to stimulate and cultivate creativity in their research activities and make the necessary policies according to each of them, or strengthen and revise their existing policies and programs.
Key Words
strategy, intellectual creativity, university, interpretive structural modeling
Creativity serves as the driving force behind the birth of new ideas, the discovery of innovative solutions, and the continuous advancement of knowledge (Burbiel, 2009). Barnett (2020) further conceptualizes creativity within research as "intellectual creativity"—a rational and reflective form—highlighting it as a foundational element of the creative university.
- Introduction
In the 21st century, as science governance or science policy-making and the organization of the knowledge system is expanding at an unprecedented and continuous pace (Karbalaie et al, 2023), enhancing the efficiency of the research system has emerged as one of the most important challenges in any society. Undoubtedly, the effectiveness of the research system plays a crucial role in responding to the needs of society, resolving the problems across the public and private sectors and improving the knowledge-based economy and technology (Azizi et al, 2023). Given that universities serve as the main axis of scientific production (Park & Leydesdorff, 2010), they are expected to be the primary source of most scientific and technological innovations. Undoubtedly, innovation in research activities requires both creativity and breaking boundaries. More precisely, creativity is considered as the driving force of innovation and progress, and it is through creativity that new ideas are born, innovative solutions are discovered, and knowledge is improved (Burbiel, 2009). Barnett (2020) proposed creativity in the field of research as intellectual creativity (rational, thoughtful) and one of the important forms of the creative university.
Therefore, it can be well claimed that creativity is essential for conducting successful research and identifying university environments that are more favorable for the emergence and manifestation of intellectual creativity. Establishing conditions to encourage and accelerate creativity in research activities of universities is therefore a critical undertaking, with significant social and economic benefits already obtained. In light of this, the current research with an interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach seeks to identify and analyze the strategies for realizing intellectual creativity within academic environments.
- Literature Review
Intellectual creativity relies on the cognitive abilities of the person (creative person) and largely depends on the mental abilities related to cognition, productive-divergent thinking and value-creating (Kieran, 2018). This type of creativity refers to the ability to generate unique and original ideas, think outside traditional patterns, and solve problems in innovative ways (Strauch & King, 2022). It is often unconscious and habitual, relying on affective responses and breaking away from established thought patterns (Cooke, 2023). According to Baehr (2018), intellectual creativity has a generative or productive dimension and includes an act of creation; it is closely related to originality and innovation. In fact, “intellectual creativity is a disposition to gain, keep, or share truth, knowledge, or understanding in ways that are new and epistemically valuable” (Strauch & King, 2022, p.100). In short, intellectual creativity deals with processes of knowledge creation, and in fact, it is the creation of new knowledge or the combination of existing knowledge in completely new ways (Baehr, 2018). Therefore, intellectual creativity can be attributed to universities and higher education institutions as the main axis of knowledge creation.
In general, the research literature indicates that the study of creativity in higher education and specifically the importance of fostering creativity and identifying the challenges and factors facilitating creativity in academic environments, in particular, in the field of teaching and learning, has always been the focus of various researchers (EUA, 2007; Gaspar & Mabic, 2015; Tsai, 2015; Mohebi & Rabiei, 2015; Miller & Dumford, 2016; Justyna, 2016; Alencar et al, 2017; Robinson et al, 2018; Karpov, 2018; Barnett, 2020; Davarpanah et al, 2021; Khorramy et al, 2022; Rahbar et al, 2022; Rassouli et al, 2023; Rae, 2023; Fischer & Barabasch, 2023; Okraj, 2023; Craven & Frick, 2024; Karunarathne & Calma, 2024; Villalustre et al, 2024) However, intellectual creativity and how the university institution can act creatively in its research activities have been less noticed by researchers.
- Methodology
This study employs an exploratory mixed-methods design, with the data collected in two stages (qualitative and quantitative). In the qualitative phase, potential participants included university professors and experts in the subject area of research from all over the world. Subsequently, a semi-structured interview was conducted using a targeted sampling method (critical case) and a guided by the theoretical saturation criterion. The participants included 25 university professors who had characteristics such as teaching and research experience at the university, book authoring, and dissertation guidance and supervision in the field of creativity in higher education. The data collection and analysis were carried out concurrently, employing thematic analysis to extract meaningful patterns. Finally, to ensure the validity of the data and the network of the obtained themes, the researchers drew upon the qualitative trustworthiness criteria of credibility, dependability, and transferability.
In the second phase (quantitative phase), structural-interpretive modeling (ISM) was used to determine the relationship between the strategies extracted from the qualitative phase. In the quantitative phase, to collect the data, nine experts who also participated in the qualitative part responded to the researcher-made questionnaire extracted from the qualitative section using the focus group method. Following the validation of the researcher-made questionnaire using Lawshe's (1975) method, the questionnaire was adjusted according to the ISM method. It was then structured in the form of a square matrix and distributed to the participants. Finally, the collected data were analyzed quantitatively using ISM software.
- Result
The results of the first phase (qualitative phase) of the research showed that, according to the experts, the strategies of " establishing transdisciplinary research groups/clusters ", "developing science and technology parks and growth centers ", " holding issue-oriented seminars and conferences", " mission orientation in the field of research" and " emphasizing the importance of the creative process compared to the creative product" are the most important indicators and strategies for the realization of intellectual creativity in universities and higher education institutions. The results of the second phase of the research also showed that the strategies for realizing intellectual creativity are placed at four levels based on the level of importance. Therefore, derived from the interpretive structural model obtained, among the strategies identified based on the level, the fourth, third, second and first levels have more importance and influence on intellectual creativity in research activities. This leveling can serve as a basis for prioritizing the identified strategies, their focused attention and effective implementation.
- Discussion
In general, a university that truly values its intellectual creativity can be regarded as a prime example of an energized university. This would be a university that deliberately developed knowledge policies and strategies that stimulated an internal climate of epistemic abundance (Feyerabend, 2001 cited in Barnett, 2020). As the findings showed, experts in higher education, suggest that universities and institutions of higher education should consider the identified strategies according to their priority and importance in order to develop frameworks and practical strategies to stimulate and cultivate creativity in their research activities and formulate necessary policies accordingly, or strengthen and revise their existing policies and programs.
Conflict of interest: none
Alencar, E. M., Fleith, D. d. S., & Pereira, N. (2017). Creativity in higher education: Challenges and facilitating factors. Temas em Psicologia, 25(2), 553-561. doi:10.9788/TP2017.2-09
Alikaei, S., & Nouri, S. (2022). Identifying and Analyzing Spatial Qualities Affecting Students' Creativity in the Educational Environment. Urban Design Discourse-a Review of Contemporary Litreatures and Theories, 3(2), 24-42. [In Persian]. http://udd.modares.ac.ir/article-40-62499-fa.html
Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., & Mininno, V. (2012). Risk assessment in ERP projects. information systems, 37(3), 183-199. doi:10.1016/j.is.2011.10.001
Ariannejad, M. (2017). Remove the ritual from the promotion regulations. Letter of the Academy of Sciences(2), 111-121. [in Persian]. http://www.ias.ac.ir/images/98/98PDFs/letter-of-academy-2.pdf
Ayre, C., & Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and evaluation in counseling and development, 47(1), 79-86. doi:10.1177/0748175613513808
Azizi, A., Sarmast, A., & Askarii, M. (2023). Pathology of university researches in solving the country's problems and indexing problem-oriented researches. Department of Education and Culture Studies, Islamic Council Research Center, 1-28. [in Persian]. https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/2039224
Baehr, J. (2018). Intellectual creativity. In Creativity and philosophy (pp. 42-59). Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781351199797-3
Barnett, R. (2020). Towards the creative university: Five forms of creativity and beyond. Higher Education Quarterly, 74(1), 5-18. doi:10.1111/hequ.12231
Behrozi, N. (2006). The necessity of raising creativity in higher education. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education, 8(29), 81-95. [In Persian]. https://ijee.ias.ac.ir/article_504.html
Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2018). The influence of regulatory frameworks on research and knowledge transfer outputs: An efficiency analysis of Spanish public universities. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 47, 68-80 . doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2018.01.003
Brazdauskaite, G., & Rasimaviciene, D. (2015). Towards the creative university: Developing a conceptual framework for transdisciplinary teamwork. Journal of Creativity and Business Innovation, 1. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=8302918842377974707
Burbiel, J. (2009). Creativity in research and development environments: A practical review. International Journal of Business Science & Applied Management (IJBSAM), 4(2), 35-51. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/26592509
Cooke, E. F. (2023). Is creativity an intellectual virtue?. in pragmatic reason (pp. 182-194). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters /edit/10.4324/9781003165699-12
Craven, A., & Frick, L. (2024). Boredom as a basis for fostering creativity in higher education: A call for pedagogical bravery. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(1), 168-180. doi:10.1080/14703297.2022.2134171
Davarpanah, S. H., Hoveida, R., Barnett, R., & Jamshidian, A. (2021). Investigating the Forms of Academic Creativity and the Expanding the Model of Creative University. Foundations of education, 10(2), 5-27. [In Persian].doi:10.22067/fedu.2021.31362.0
Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., León, L. R., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (Eds.). (2021). Global innovation index 2021: tracking innovation through the covid-19 crisis. WIPO. doi:10.34667/tind.44315
Fazli Farkoosh, S. (2022). Investigating and analyzing the relationship between entrepreneurship education and mental creativity among students. Master's thesis in strategy business management, Alborz University. [In Persian].https://ganj.irandoc.ac.ir/#/articles/1210b48b097c5a00989d178bdc9a84d0
Fischer, S., & Barabasch, A. (2023). Conceptualizations and implementation of creativity in higher vocational teacher education–a qualitative study of lecturers. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 15(1), 1-16. doi:10.1186/s40461-023-00144-y
Gaspar, D., & Mabic, M. (2015). Creativity in Higher Education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(9), 598-605. doi:10.13189/ujer.2015.030903
Gholaamee, A., & Kaakaavand, A. (2010). The relationship between creativity and the ability to tolerate ambiguity. The Journal of New Thoughts on Education,6(4),153-168.[In Persian].https://www.magiran.com/ paper /912855
Ghourchian, N. G., Jaafari, P., Ganeni, M., & Shayan, S. (2014). Teaching-Research Nexus in the World’s Top Universities: a Review Study with Presenting a Conceptual Model. Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 14(8), 715-730. [In Persian]. http://ijme.mui.ac.ir/article-1-2652-en.html
Golmakani, E., Nabavi, S. H., & Ahmadpour, S. H. (2014). Pathology of academic research: A missed chain of science to technology. Journal of North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, 5(4), 905-909. [in Persian]. http://journal.nkums.ac.ir/article-1-151-fa.html
Hosseinpour, M. (2011). Research pathology of humanities faculty members. Irainian Journal of The Knowledge Studies in The Islamic University, 16(1), 46-64. [In Persian]. https://ensani.ir/fa/article/304672
Justyna, E. (2016). Creativity in higher education curriculum: A qualitative case study of pedagogical processes and practice, 1-150. http://hdl.handle.net/2346/67036
Karbalaie Hoseein Fallah, F., Ghaffari Hashjin, Z., Beginia, A. R., & Nourmohammadi, H. A. (2023). Pathology of the Research Activities of Political Science Faculty Members of Tehran State Universities in the Framework of the Higher Education System. Research Letter of Political Science, 18(1), 169-206. [In Persian].doi:10.22034/ipsa.2023.477
Karpov, A. O. (2018). The Creative Space of University as a Cognitive-Generative System. In International Conference on Intelligent Human Systems Integration (pp. 727-732). Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-7388
Karunarathne, W., & Calma, A. (2024). Assessing creative thinking skills in higher education: deficits and improvements. Studies in Higher Education, 49(1), 157-177. doi:10.1080/03075079.2023.2225532
Khorramy, F. A., Mahmoodi, A. S. E., & Mokhtabad, M. (2022). Evaluating Creativity and Success among Architecture Students at the University of Tehran Based on the Four-Quadrant Brain Dominance Model of Ned Herrmann. Journal of Iranian Architecture Studies, 10(20), 117-133. [In Persian].doi: 10.22052/JIAS.2022.111899
Kieran, M. (2018). Creativity as an epistemic virtue. In The Routledge Handbook of Virtue Epistemology (pp. 167-177). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315712550
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563-575. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
Miller, A. L., & Dumford, A. D. (2016). Creative cognitive processes in higher education. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(4), 282-293. doi:10.1002/jocb.77
Mohebi, S., & Rabiei, M. (2015). Grounded theory of idea of the quality of teaching creative vision student Nursing and Human Sciences. Journal of Qualitative Research in Health Sciences, 4(3), 244-255. [In Persian]. https://sid.ir/paper/223395/fa
Okraj, Z. (2023). Twórcze nauczanie i nauczanie do twórczości w doświadczeniach wykładowców innowatorów. e-mentor, 5(102), 38-47. doi.org/10.15219/em102.1637
Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Longitudinal trends in networks of university–industry–government relations in South Korea: The role of programmatic incentives. Research Policy, 39(5), 640-649. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.009
Plekhanova, I. I. (2015). Intellectual type of creativity (poetry), 7(8), 1351-1359. doi:10.17516/1997-1370-2015-8-7-1351-1359
Powell, J. (2007). Creative universities and their creative city-regions. Industry and higher education, 21(5), 323-335. doi:10.5367/000000007782311867
Rae, J. (2023). Connecting for Creativity in Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education, 48(1), 127-143. doi:10.1007/s10755-022-09609-6
Rahbar, A., Imamjomeh, M., Assareh, A., & Hosseinidehshiri, A. (2022). Explain the Elements of a Creativity-Oriented Curriculum for Student-Teacher Education (Synthesis Research). Journal of Innovation and Creativity in Human Science, 11(4), 25-48. [In Persian]. https://sanad.iau.ir/Journal/ichs/Article/929985
Rassouli Saniabadi, E., Afrooz, G. A., Yaryari, F., & Lavasani, M. (2023). Preparing and Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Creative Educational Program on Spiritual Happiness, Creative Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills in University Students in Mashad. Journal of Educational Psychology Studies, 20(49), 47-21. [In Persian].doi: 10.22111/jeps.2023.42317.5027
Robinson, D., Schaap, B. M., & Avoseh, M. (2018). Emerging themes in creative higher education pedagogy. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 10(3), 271-282. doi:10.1108/JARHE-08-2017-0099
Sadeghi, Z., Mohtashami, R., Miri, A., & Sadeghi, S. (2010). Creativity in higher education a basic step to stable development. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences, 3(1), 9-10. [In Persian]. http://edcbmj.ir/article-1-74-en.html
Saidi, G. (2022). Research and educational needs in Armani University. . Paper presented at the The first national conference of Armani University in the second step of the revolution, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, 1-14. [In Persian]. https://civilica.com/doc/1409745/
Shafranskyi, V. (2020). Creativity as a psychological phenomenon and its conceptual reinterpretation. Psychology & society (Psihologìâ ì suspìlʹstvo), 2(80), 89-97. doi:10.35774/pis2020.02.089
Strauch, R., & King, N. L. (2022). Intellectual Creativity, the Arts, and the University. Scientia et Fides, 10(2), 99-119. doi:10.12775/SetF.2022.022
Sutanto, S., Christy, A. Y., & Sandi, D. K. (2021). Creative University: A Definition and Activities Management Based on the Completion of Key Performance Indicator (KPI). Journal of technology management & innovation, 16(3), 13-20. doi:10.4067/S0718-27242021000300013
Taghizadeh, H., & Ziai, M. (2014). Presenting the relationship model of knowledge sharing components in educational institutions with an interpretive structural modeling approach. Journal of Executive management, 5(10), 60-84. [in Persian].doi: 20.1001.1.20086237.1392.5.10.3.4
Talebi, F., Jahed, H., & Sari Khani, N. (2021). Components and Indicators of Improving the Quality of Research in the Iranian Higher Education System. Public Policy In Administration, 12(41), 147-162. [In Persian]. https://www.sid.ir/paper/409835/en
Tsai, K. C. (2015). A Framework of Creative Education. in education, 21(1), 137-155. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1246791.pdf
Villalustre, L., Cueli, M., & Zarzuelo, D. (2024). The Bidirectional Relationship between Meta-Creativity and Academic Performance in University Students. Education Sciences, 14(3), 252. doi:10.3390/educsci14030252