Exploring the Impact of Student-Staff Partnerships in Higher Education: A Realist Review Protocol.

Realist inquiry

We have adopted realist inquiry as the method for this study because it effectively unpacks the mechanisms of complex systems, providing actionable insights that benefit all stakeholders (Wong et al., 2013). Realist inquiry is a methodology designed to understand complex interventions by exploring the “how” and “why” behind outcomes in specific contexts (Wong et al., 2017). Unlike traditional evaluation approaches that focus on whether interventions work, realist inquiry delves deeper into the mechanisms that produce outcomes, considering the influence of various contexts (Teeling et al., 2021). It is beneficial for evaluating interventions in dynamic, multifaceted settings, such as healthcare, where multiple factors influence results (Pawson, 2013a; Wong et al., 2013; Manzano et al., 2017).

A fundamental principle of realist inquiry is that interventions do not work in a vacuum. Their success or failure is not merely a result of the intervention itself. However, it is significantly influenced by the context in which they are implemented and the mechanisms activated within that context (Wong et al., 2017). This approach emphasises understanding why and how interventions work, offering a more nuanced understanding than simple cause-effect evaluations (Pawson & Tilley, 1997).

Realist inquiry consists of two main components: realist review and realist evaluation, each serving distinct but complementary roles (Teeling et al., 2021). Realist reviews are used to synthesise existing evidence and develop programme theories, while realist evaluations test and refine these theories in specific settings (Pawson et al., 2005; Marchal, 2012). Together, they offer a comprehensive framework for understanding interventions' complexities and outcomes. This protocol paper outlines the rationale and methods for using realist review to explore the complex dynamics of SSP in HE.

Realist review

Realist review, or realist synthesis, is a methodological approach to review existing evidence and refine theories about how and why interventions work (Pawson et al., 2005). This approach is especially suited for synthesising evidence from diverse studies and understanding the complexities of interventions in real-world settings. Realist review is theory-driven and aims to generate insights that can inform practice and policy by identifying the mechanisms through which interventions achieve (or fail to achieve) their outcomes (Wong et al., 2013).

Realist reviews are guided by the principle that interventions do not work in a vacuum; their success or failure depends on the context in which they are implemented and the mechanisms activated in that context. The review focuses on understanding the interactions between the context, mechanisms, and outcomes (CMO), thus offering a more nuanced understanding of how SSPs lead to different outcomes in different settings (Wong et al., 2013).

One of the core concepts of realist inquiry is the CMOC (Context-Mechanism-Outcome Configuration) framework, which describes and explains how an intervention produces its effects. The CMOC approach is based on the idea that an intervention's success or failure depends not only on the intervention itself but also on how it interacts with its context and activates specific mechanisms to produce outcomes (Pawson, 2013b; Wong et al., 2013).

Combining these three elements—context, mechanism, and outcome—forms the CMOC configuration, which describes how an intervention produces results in specific settings. This configuration provides a deeper understanding of the intervention by explaining the underlying causal processes (Pawson, 2013a). Understanding CMOCs is essential because they allow for predictions about the conditions under which interventions may or may not work and for whom (Pawson, 2013a).

A realist review also serves as a foundational step in realist evaluation by developing programme theories. These theories hypothesise about the mechanisms at play and the contexts in which they are activated. They are then tested and refined in real world situations through further research, such as a realist evaluation (Pawson, 2013a). The realist review described in this protocol paper will inform a subsequent realist evaluation.

The use of realist review in higher education

Realist review is emerging as a valuable approach in HE for evaluating complex initiatives that aim to foster improvement and well-being within institutions.

Educational theories that explain the application, interpretation, and purpose of learning and education underpin usual teaching and learning activities (Artino and Konopasky (2018). These theoretical concepts help explain the learning process, inform educational approaches, curricula, and assessments (Khalil & Elkhider, 2016) and enable evaluation of methods of teaching (Albert et al., 2007; Rees & Monrouxe, 2010). While systematic reviews have examined the concept of SSP in teaching and learning (Mercer et al., 2017) and developed theories related to the partnership praxis (Matthews et al., 2018), a broader study design is required to explain how and why SSP might work and in what contexts they are successful (Suri & Clarke, 2009; Wong et al., 2012). Realist review is particularly suited to this purpose and is an emerging area in the scholarship of teaching and learning that seeks to understand and explain to what extent, how, why, for whom, and in what circumstances complex educational interventions produce their effects. As a methodology, it can provide an important step for educators to understand how to tailor educational offerings and the university experience to meet the needs of different learner groups and academic faculty and staff. In addition, developing programme theory in teaching and learning facilitates a localised realist evaluation specific to local contexts.

Realist review in education has previously been used to help develop programme theory related to the factors affecting teaching and learning for medicines supply management training (Brown et al., 2013), to study how structural and cultural elements combine to build a “quality culture” in HE (Bendermacher et al., 2017) and as a means to examine the generalisability of programme theories across borders (DeSouza, 2016). More recently, it has been used in studies related to understanding:

Together, these studies illustrate the effective use of realist review in HE for unpacking the mechanisms, contextual factors, and outcomes that enable programs to succeed, enabling institutions to create responsive, evidence-based initiatives. Realist review is a suitable method for researching SSP initiatives in HE because these initiatives are complex, context-dependent, and involve multiple stakeholders. SSP initiatives, which aim to engage students in co-creating their learning experiences, are more than one-size-fits-all solutions (Healey et al., 2014). Their success depends on how they interact with the specific educational contexts (e.g., institutional culture, teaching practices, and student characteristics) and the mechanisms they activate (e.g., student motivation, sense of ownership, and collaboration with faculty). Realist review, with its focus on understanding the "how" and "why" behind outcomes, allows researchers to explore the varied impacts of SSP initiatives across different settings, helping to identify which elements are most effective for specific groups of students or institutional environments (Pawson & Tilley, 1997; Wong et al., 2013). Using the Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) framework, a realist review can reveal the underlying processes that drive success or failure in these initiatives, providing actionable insights for improving and scaling SSP programs across diverse educational contexts. This protocol paper details the methods we will undertake to complete a realist review of the literature on SSP initiatives in the HE setting.

1. Define the Scope of the Review and Develop Initial Theories

In a realist review, initial theories are developed by creating candidate programme theories (CPTs). These theories offer a structured approach to examining the causal mechanisms of interventions and how they produce specific outcomes within particular contexts (Teeling et al., 2021). Therefore, the first step in conducting a realist review is developing CPTs that explain how the designers and implementers of SSP initiatives expect them to work and why (Pawson & Tilley, 1997).

Locating key literature

Before undertaking a realist review, it is necessary to identify key literature to support developing CPT, and we will conduct an initial high-level scoping of the literature (Kent and Ajjawi, 2022), to facilitate the identification of key literature to map the existing body of research on SSP in HEIs. This review will identify key themes, debates, and gaps in the literature, providing a broad understanding of how SSP has been conceptualised and implemented. The scoping review will use a systematic search strategy to identify relevant studies, reports, and frameworks and will involve conducting a preliminary background search in key databases by searching article titles, abstracts, keywords, and subject headings to guide the development of the CPTs (Wong et al., 2013). Findings from the scoping review will highlight key contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes (CMOs) reported in the literature and inform CPT development.

Advisory groups

Two advisory groups will be convened to provide complementary perspectives and guide the scope of the research and the development of the CPT:

Preliminary theories will be developed by synthesising insights from the scoping review and feedback from the advisory groups. These theories will be articulated as CMO configurations (Pawson, 2013a), hypothesising how specific mechanisms (e.g., shared decision-making, co-creation of curricula) interact with contexts (e.g., institutional culture, disciplinary norms) to produce outcomes (e.g., enhanced student engagement, improved teaching practices). These initial theories will guide data extraction and synthesis in subsequent stages.

2. Develop the search strategy

A comprehensive and systematic search strategy will capture a wide range of evidence on SSP in HEIs. The search will cover academic databases, including ERIC, Scopus, ProQuest (social sciences), Web of Science, and PsycINFO, using combinations of keywords and Boolean operators. Databases will be searched from 2014 onwards since the seminal publication on SSP was published in 2014, and the origins of SSP in HEIs in Ireland post-dates that (Healey et al., 2014; Higher Education Authority, 2016). This will involve an evidence search guided by keywords developed from the CPTs identified in the scoping phase (Dada et al., 2023). The PCC framework (Population, Concept, Context) is a structured approach used for scoping reviews and systematic searches to define key elements of a research question (Peters et al., 2020). It is recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) for scoping reviews, helping researchers clearly identify:

The search strategy is illustrated in Table 1.

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines will be used to provide a systematic framework for synthesising evidence across various study designs, including observational and interventional research (Page et al., 2021). While PRISMA is typically associated with systematic reviews with meta-analyses, its adaptability makes it valuable for realist reviews, which focus on exploring the mechanisms and contexts of complex interventions rather than solely assessing effectiveness through controlled trials (Teeling et al., 2021). The search strategy and findings will be reported (Teeling et al., 2025) in alignment with PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021) and the standards for realist reviews (Wong et al., 2013), ensuring transparency and methodological rigour.

3. Review primary studies and extract data

Search results will be independently screened by two reviewers in two stages: (1) title and abstract screening, followed by (2) full-text screening using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. This screening will be facilitated by Covidence systematic review software, (2025). an online systematic review management software designed to facilitate the screening, data extraction, and management of literature reviews. In a realist review, it supports the iterative and collaborative nature of screening by enabling reviewers to efficiently apply inclusion and exclusion criteria, track decisions, and manage conflicts (Teeling et al., 2021). Studies will be included by consensus if they explicitly examine SSP initiatives in HEIs and report relevance to IPT or their constituent CMOC. Only papers that describe SSP initiatives based on the following definition (Adapted from Cook-Sather, Bovill and Felten, 2014, pp. 6-7) will be eligible for inclusion: “a collaborative, reciprocal process through which students and faculty or professional staff have the opportunity to contribute equally, although not necessarily in the same ways, to curricular or pedagogical conceptualisation, decision-making, implementation, investigation, or analysis, or in university access and support structures”. The studies selected for inclusion will be critically appraised using the RAMESES quality appraisal criteria (Wong et al., 2013). This appraisal will ensure that data extraction is focused on studies of sufficient rigour and relevance to the research questions.

To streamline data extraction in alignment with realist review principles, the IPT under investigation will be made explicit by creating and applying custom-designed data extraction forms (Rycroft Malone et al., 2012). These forms will be tailored to the specific requirements of the realist review, acknowledging that the design of such tools varies depending on the theoretical framework being applied (Pawson et al., 2004). Standardised forms are often unsuitable for realist reviews due to their theoretical specificity; hence, bespoke forms are developed to capture context-specific insights effectively (Hunter et al., 2022). These tailored forms will guide extracting and analysing information critical to refining the IPT by identifying contextual factors, mechanisms, and outcomes related to the research questions. The data will be used to collect information on:

Data will be imported to NVivo software (version 14) to organise and manage qualitative data (Castleberry, 2014). The review will aim to identify evidence that supports, refutes, or refines the initial programme theories.

4. Synthesise evidence and develop conclusions

A realist synthesis will be conducted to analyse and integrate the extracted data. This synthesis will focus on identifying patterns in the developing CMOC and refining the IPT. The synthesis process will include:

This stage will aim to produce refined theories that explain how SSP initiatives generate their effects, under what conditions, and for whom.

5. Refine theory iteratively and disseminate findings

The theories will be refined iteratively, with ongoing input from the local reference group and expert panel. Feedback from these groups will ensure that the findings remain grounded in practical experiences and theoretical rigour.

6. Dissemination of findings

Findings will be disseminated through:

Efforts will also be made to produce accessible resources, such as infographics and video summaries, to reach a wider audience of students, educators, and institutional leaders.