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 (also referred to as realist synthesis) is a theory-driven approach for synthesising evidence from diverse study designs to develop and refine explanations about how and why outcomes occur in different settings (Pawson et al., 2005; Wong et al., 2013). Realist review aims to generate explanatory insights that can inform practice and policy by identifying the mechanisms through which outcomes are generated (or not), and the contextual conditions that shape those mechanisms (Wong et al., 2013).

A core analytic tool in realist review is the Context–Mechanism–Outcome Configuration (CMOC) framework, which describes how outcomes arise when particular mechanisms are triggered in particular contexts (Pawson, 2013b; Wong et al., 2013). In this review:

For example, in a context where departmental culture supports shared governance and time is formally allocated for partnership work (C), involving students as genuine decision-makers in assessment design may trigger a greater sense of agency, legitimacy, and trust among student and staff partners (M), leading to stronger engagement and clearer assessment expectations for direct participants, and potentially improved learning design quality for the wider cohort (O). In less supportive contexts (C), similar activities may trigger perceptions of tokenism, risk, or reduced ownership (M), resulting in weaker, absent, or contradictory outcomes across stakeholder groups (O).

Consistent with the aims of this review, outcomes will be examined separately for (a) direct participants in SSP activity (students and staff who participate) and (b) indirect beneficiaries affected by partnership-informed changes (e.g., cohorts or staff groups experiencing changes in educational design, supports, or practices). Outcomes may be absent, mixed, or even contradictory across stakeholder groups depending on how SSP is enacted and supported.

Combining these elements into CMOCs enables a deeper explanatory account of SSP by identifying patterns in what tends to work, for whom, and under what conditions (Pawson, 2013a). Realist review also serves as a foundational step for realist evaluation by developing programme theories: testable hypotheses about the relationships between contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. These programme theories can then be refined through subsequent empirical research, such as realist evaluation (Pawson, 2013a; Pawson et al., 2005).

The use of realist review in higher education

Realist review is emerging as a valuable approach in HE for studying complex educational programmes and practices where outcomes are contingent on contextual conditions and stakeholder responses. Educational theories that explain the application, interpretation, and purpose of learning underpin teaching and learning activities (Artino & Konopasky, 2018). These theoretical concepts help explain learning processes, inform educational approaches, curricula, and assessments (Khalil & Elkhider, 2016), and enable evaluation of approaches to teaching (Albert et al., 2007; Rees & Monrouxe, 2010). While systematic reviews have examined the concept of SSP in teaching and learning (Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017) and developed theorisation related to partnership praxis (Matthews et al., 2018), these syntheses often summarise outcomes and enabling practices but do not consistently develop and test explanatory programme theories that account for why similar SSP approaches produce different outcomes across contexts and stakeholder groups. In addition, definitional variation and the breadth of SSP purposes and forms can limit the transferability of generic recommendations. Building on this foundation, this review will explicate how outcomes are generated through mechanisms operating in specific contexts and for whom (direct and indirect stakeholders). A broader, theory-driven design is required to explain how and why SSP approaches generate outcomes and under what conditions they are more or less likely to do so (Suri & Clarke, 2009; Wong et al., 2012). Realist review is particularly suited to this purpose because it seeks to explain to what extent, how, why, for whom, and in what circumstances complex educational programmes and practices generate outcomes.

Realist review in education has previously been used to develop programme theory related to 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 to examine the generalisability of programme theories across borders (DeSouza, 2016). More recently, realist reviews have been applied to topics such as how social prescribing approaches operate in the UK’s HE context (Wallace et al., 2020), how feedback processes function in open-ended tasks such as essays and reports (Ajjawi et al., 2020), the communication skills of social work students (Reith Hall, 2022), online faculty development offerings (Keiller et al., 2022), and engagement in synchronous online learning (Mosher et al., 2023).

Together, these studies illustrate the potential of realist review in HE for unpacking the mechanisms, contextual factors, and outcomes that enable programmes and practices to succeed or falter, supporting institutions to develop responsive, evidence-informed initiatives. Realist review is a suitable method for researching SSP approaches in HE because these approaches are complex, context-dependent, and involve multiple stakeholders. SSP approaches, which aim to engage students in co-creating aspects of their learning experiences, are more than one-size-fits-all solutions (Healey et al., 2014). Their outcomes depend on how they interact with specific educational contexts (e.g., institutional culture, teaching practices, and student characteristics) and the mechanisms they trigger (e.g., motivation, sense of ownership, reciprocity, and collaboration). By using CMOCs, a realist review can reveal how and why SSP approaches generate different outcomes across settings and stakeholder groups, providing explanatory insights that can inform improvement and adaptation across diverse HE contexts (Pawson & Tilley, 1997; Wong et al., 2013). This protocol paper details the methods we will undertake to complete a realist review of the literature on SSP approaches in HE.

Irish policy context for subsequent realist evaluation

Although the realist review is international in scope, it forms the theory-building phase of a wider inquiry that will include a subsequent realist evaluation in an Irish university setting. For transparency about this broader programme of work, we report relevant Irish policy context here (rather than in the Background), and treat it as a contextual layer in later theory testing and refinement.

In Ireland, the origins of SSP can be traced to the Higher Education Authority (HEA) report Enhancing Student Engagement in Decision-Making (2016), which promoted students as partners in Irish higher education rather than treating them as consumers or passive recipients, and outlined principles for strengthening student–staff engagement and partnership in institutional decision-making. Subsequently, the National Student Engagement Programme has been instrumental in translating this vision into action nationally (Higher Education Authority, 2021). “Student success” was one of four strategic priorities of the National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (2019–2021), with its vision of success developed in partnership with students (National Forum, 2019). The National Forum came under the aegis of the HEA in January 2022, and the HEA’s Student Engagement and Teaching & Learning Committee was established thereafter. In this sense, SSP remains at the heart of national higher education policy in Ireland.

SSP has been increasingly adopted across Irish HEIs, with published examples spanning teacher education and institution-level partnership initiatives. Brennan (2021), for example, describes partnership work in Irish university-based teacher education through the Student Teacher Educational Research (STER) project, highlighting both pedagogical benefits and implementation challenges. Munro et al. (2022) document a student–staff partnership initiative at Maynooth University and Maynooth Students’ Union, illustrating how partnership can support institution-level development work while also surfacing practical challenges and learning for participants. Together, these studies suggest growing activity and institutional interest, while also underscoring the need for context-sensitive analysis rather than assumptions of uniform sector-wide implementation. More broadly, institutions in Ireland and internationally have embraced SSP programmes, values, and objectives to varying degrees. While the literature suggests a general consensus regarding the benefits of partnership, there remains variability in how central values and concepts are defined across publications (Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017). This review will therefore attend to how policy and institutional conditions shape the enactment of SSP and the mechanisms and outcomes that follow across different contexts.

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. As some SSP-focused journals may be inconsistently indexed in major databases, database searching will be supplemented by targeted hand-searching of key SSP journals and their websites (e.g., International Journal for Students as Partners, Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal, Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change). Databases will be searched from 2014 onwards, reflecting the consolidation of Students as Partners as a named field following the publication of a seminal text in 2014 and the subsequent growth in SSP-focused scholarship (Healey et al., 2014). To ensure foundational and conceptually relevant work published prior to 2014 is not missed (including studies using adjacent terminology), we will use forward and backward citation chasing/“pearl growing” (Haddaway et al., 2022) from seminal papers and key reviews to identify earlier influential sources where relevant to theory development. The search will be 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 support transparent reporting of the search process and study selection, including documentation of screening decisions and presentation of a PRISMA flow diagram (Page et al., 2021). Realist review conduct, synthesis and reporting will be guided by RAMESES standards, which are specific to theory-driven evidence synthesis and the development and refinement of Context–Mechanism–Outcome configurations (Wong et al., 2013). The search strategy and study selection will be reported in alignment with PRISMA (Page et al., 2021), and the overall review will be reported in accordance with RAMESES guidance to ensure transparency and methodological rigour (Wong et al., 2013; Teeling et al., 2021, 2025).

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. To distinguish meaningful partnerships from pseudo-partnerships, full-text screening will include an explicit “partnership authenticity” assessment using predefined criteria (e.g., evidence of reciprocal contribution, shared decision-making influence, and student involvement beyond consultation). Where necessary, disagreements will be resolved through discussion to reach consensus. Studies will be categorised as partnership/partial partnership/consultative involvement, and this categorisation will be used both to support inclusion decisions and to interpret CMOCs (including explaining mixed or negative outcomes). All potentially relevant papers will be assessed against the following SSP definition (Adapted from Cook-Sather, Bovill and Felten, 2014, pp. 6–7) and categorised according to the degree of partnership: “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.

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. To ensure outcomes are interpreted in relation to who is affected, CMOCs will be developed and reported with explicit “for whom” tags, distinguishing between direct participants in SSP initiatives and indirect beneficiaries affected by partnership-led changes. Where reported, contradictory or mixed outcomes across these groups will be examined as part of theory refinement. 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.

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.

Dissemination of 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. 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.