The globalized and Internet-connected world has provided the stage for profound social, cultural and economic changes. In particular, it has witnessed the emergence of new behaviors and a strong and relentless demand for new products and services. A continued search for novelties also takes place in the context of Higher Education (HE), a sector facing the challenge of innovation posed by discourses that suggest there is an encompassing and deep crisis affecting educational institutions. Innovation in educational contexts, however, tends to be conceived, in a reductionist way, as the simple integration of digital technologies in the classroom. Discussion on pedagogical innovation, in particular, needs to move beyond the preconception that teachers are resistant to change. In this sense, the concept of Active Methodologies (AM) is widely disseminated and presented in the specialized literature as a solution to the problem of innovation in education. In this context, the main aim of this research has been to investigate the theoretical-pedagogical conceptions of HE teachers, in order to identify possible uses of active methodologies as a path towards pedagogical innovation in HE. The investigation, of a qualitative nature, had the following specific objectives: 1) to analyze spaces and modes of continuing education undertaken by teachers in HE; 2) to identify practices and meanings of innovative pedagogy in Higher Education; and 3) to examine contributions of active methodologies to pedagogical innovation in Higher Education. Field research was conducted at the Centre for Theology and Humanities at PUC-Rio, where a significant variety of sub-areas of knowledge is represented. Data collection involved the use of a diagnostic questionnaire sent to all teachers at the Centre (N equal 362), as well as in-depth interviews with five volunteers identified from the group of respondents, conducted between October 2019 and March 2020. The corpus of discursive data was examined through a categorical content analysis. The theoretical basis adopted included literature on innovation in HE, in addition to research in the field of Education that presented contributions on the uses of active methodologies in HE. Findings were organized according to the following categories defined for the analysis: pathways in the teaching profession; classroom planning and dynamics; conceptions of innovation; and conceptions of active methodologies. The study concluded that, although teachers do not always claim to be familiar with the concept of AM, which is a relatively recent label, many of the teaching strategies reported by them are consistent with the practices and theoretical foundations of MA discussed in the relevant literature. On the one hand, findings suggest there is space for pedagogical innovation in terms of adaptation to new contexts and demands for education. On the other hand, they also indicate that ideas surrounding stimulating student activity and protagonism may already be an integral, albeit tacit, part of the theoretical and methodological basis of HE teachers much more widely than MA advocacy discourses appear to suggest.