Identifying and Prioritizing Strategies for Realizing Reflective Creativity in Universities Using Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)

Subject Areas : Creativity and innovation from psychological, epistemological, educational and pedagogical

Seyed Hedayat Davarpanah ¹ , Reza Hoveida ²

1 - Assistant Professor, Department of Education, Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
2 - دانشیار دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

Received: 2023-08-12 Accepted : 2024-09-16 Published : 2024-11-28

Keywords: Strategy, Reflective Creativity, University, Interpretive Structural Modeling,

Abstract :

Introduction: In the last few decades, several studies have emphasized the necessity of facilitating creativity in higher education and academic environments. However, researchers have rarely studied reflective creativity and how the university institution can creatively reflect on its procedures and activities and evaluate and revise them. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify and analyze the strategies for realizing reflective creativity in academic environments. Method: This research is based on purpose, applied and based on method, exploratory mixed (qualitative-quantitative). The potential participants of the present study included university professors and elites with significant expertise and scientific experience in the field of creativity in higher education. In the qualitative part, the data collection method were semi-structured interviews which was conducted with 25 interviewees using the purposeful sampling method of opting for key experts type and theoretical saturation as a criterion. Also, in the quantitative section, 9 experts responded to the researcher-made questionnaire extracted from the qualitative section using the focus group method. Finally, We employed thematic analysis in the qualitative part qualitative part and the ISM approach in the quantitative part for data analysis. Results:.The results of the qualitative part showed that the strategies for realizing reflective creativity in the university included: 1. Establishing institutional research offices; 2. futurology; 3. Acceptance of pluralism in different dimensions; 4. Free circulation of knowledge and information; 5. Supporting critique and theorizational chairs; 6. Holding open tribune; and 7. designing local creative evaluation systems. The results of the quantitative section also showed that according to experts, the identified strategies are placed in five levels. so strategies 5 and 6 as driver variables at level four; Strategies 1 and 4 as linkage variables at level three; And strategies 2, 3 and 7 were placed as dependent variables at levels two and one. Conclusion: This research has made it possible to better understand the issue and adopt appropriate policies and measures to realize reflective creativity in academic environments by identifying the strategies and leveling and determining the relationships between them.

References:

بشارتی، محمدرضا و گودرزی، غلامرضا. (1393). آزاداندیشی در نگام مقام معظم رهبری. تهران: سخنوران.
بهروزی، ناصر (1385). ضرورت پرورش خلاقیت در آموزش عالی. آموزش مهندسی ایران، 8(29)، 95-81.
تقی زاده، هوشنگ و ضیائی، مصطفی. (1392). ارائه مدل روابط مؤلفه‌های تسهیم دانش در مؤسسات آموزشی با رویکرد مدل‌سازی ساختاری تفسیری. پژوهشنامه مدیریت اجرایی. 5(10)، 60-84
حسن مرادی، نرگس و مهرپارسا، سحر. (1399). نقش آینده‌پژوهی در آموزش عالی در سیاست‌گذاری آموزش و تجاری‌سازی دانش. رویکردهای پژوهشی نو در علوم مدیریت، 18(1)، 62-81.
داورپناه، سید هدایت اله؛ هویدا، رضا؛ بارنت، رونالد و جمشیدیان، عبدالرسول. (1399). واکاوی اشکال خلاقیت دانشگاهی و بسط مدل دانشگاه خلاق. پژوهشنامه مبانی تعلیم و تربیت، 10(2)، 5-27.
زمانی محجوب، حبیب؛ مددی، سید نادر و گرامیان دهدشت، اعظم السادات. (1395). موانع برگزاری کرسی‌های آزاداندیشی در مؤسسات آموزش عالی. پژوهش‌های اجتماعی اسلامی، 22(2)، 132-149.
صادقی، زینب؛ محتشمی، رضا؛ میری، امیر و صادقی، سبحان (1389). خلاقیت در آموزش عالی: گامی اساسی در جهت توسعه پایدار. راهبردهای آموزش در علوم پزشکی، 1(7)، 28-23.
فاضلی، نعمت اله. (1386). فرهنگ نقد و نقادی چیستی و چرایی و چگونگی نقد و نقادی در اجتماعات علمی. آیین، (10)، 47-53.
نبی پور، ایرج؛ مصلح، عبدالمجید و اسدی، مجید (1393). نقش دانشگاه‌های خلاق آینده در مارپیچ سه‌گانه‌ی کریدورهای علم و فناوری. دوماهنامه طب جنوب، 17(6)، 1089-1068.
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.
Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2017). Inclusive knowledge policies when ladders for development are gone: Some considerations on the potential role of universities. In Universities, Inclusive Development and Social Innovation (pp. 49-69). Springer, Cham.
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.
Bakhurst, D. (2011). The formation of reason. Chichester, UK: Wiley‐Blackwell.
Barnett, R. (2015). Towards the Creative University. Buenos Aires - 28 April.
Barnett, R. (2020). Towards the creative university: Five forms of creativity and beyond. Higher Education Quarterly, 74(1), 5-18.
Cropley, A. (2006). Creativity: A social approach. Roeper Review, 28(3), 125-130.
European University Association. (2007). Creativity in higher education. Brussels, Belgium: European University Association.
Gaspar, D., & Mabic, M. (2015). Creativity in Higher Education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(9), 598-605.
Hilala, H. M. H., Husinb, W. N. I. W., & Zayeda, T. M. (2013). Barriers to creativity among students of selected universities in Malaysia. International Journal of Applied, 3(6).
Justyna, E. (2016). Creativity in higher education curriculum: A qualitative case study of pedagogical processes and practices (Doctoral dissertation).
Lawshe, C.H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28, 563-575.
Lund, B., & Arndt, S. (2018). The Creative University: Contemporary Responses to the Changing Role of the University. Brill.
McCluskey, K. W. (2008). Thoughts about tone, educational leadership, and building creative climates in our schools. ICIE.
Means, A. (2013). Creativity and the biopolitical commons in secondary and higher education. Policy Futures in Education, 11(1), 47-58.
Papaleontiou-Louca, E., Varnava-Marouchou, D., Mihai, S., & Konis, E. (2014). Teaching for creativity in universities. Journal of Education and Human Development, 3(4), 131-154.
Parker, L. D. (2002). It’s been a pleasure doing business with you: a strategic analysis and critique of university change management. Critical perspectives on accounting, 13(5-6), 603-619.
Qadir, A. (2016). Higher education, the global governors, and epistemic governance. Studia Humanitatis Borealis, 3(1).
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.
Sharma, E. (2015). Creativity assessment of students pursuing higher education. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 2(1), 146-154.
Shin, J. C., Toutkoushian, R. K., & Teichler, U. (2011). University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education (Vol. 3): Springer Science & Business Media
Warfield, J. N. (1974). Developing interconnection matrices in structural modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, (1), 81-87.
Weber, S. M. (2013). Imagining the creative university: Dispositives of creation, strategies of innovation, politics of reality. In The creative university (pp. 161-192). Brill.