Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) Strategies for Fostering Intellectual Creativity in Universities: A Mixed-Methods Study
Subject Areas : Education Management
Seyed Hedayat Davarpanah
1
,
Reza Hoveida
2
1 - Assistant Professor, Department of Education, Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
2 - Associate Professor, Department of Education, Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Keywords: Strategy, Intellectual Creativity, University, Interpretive Structural Modeling,
Abstract :
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
