Interpretation of results

The current research aimed to investigate potential influences on the creation and capture of impact at TUS from the perspectives of higher-management and external stakeholders. IM was utilised through identifying, clarifying, ranking, categorising and structuring relations among such influences. Participants identified (i.e. 38), voted upon (i.e. 28) and structured (i.e. 12) a range of impact influences, which fit into the categories of: (1) Funding & Resources; (2) Impact Considerations; (3) Accessibility & Relationship with Service Engagement; (4) Student Influences; and (5) Morale & Motivation.

Results revealed that, perhaps unsurprisingly, Funding & Resources had the greatest perceived influence on impact. In terms of funding, in particular, one participant noted that ‘money is what makes the world go round’, with such perspective being no different for a third-level institute striving to be impactful in their teaching, research (or research equivalent) and service engagement activities. Specifically, such impact was found to depend on: ‘knowledge of what funding is available and what happens (ability to make impact) when the funding stops, for example, with respect to a particular initiative or project’ (Group 2); and funding necessary to ‘follow-through on ideas generated to make impact’ (Group 1). However, funding is not the only resource necessary for impact to happen; indeed, other resource considerations in this category were identified, including: facilities and equipment (physical resources [i.e. typically financed by funding]); available, accessible and centralised data (centralisation of data and relevant information); and requirements, roadmaps and processes applied/placed on TUS in their impact decision-making by other relevant bodies (core requirements and roadmaps). Though funding and resources did not play a significant role in Group 2’s structural map, associated factors within spanned the breadth of Group 1’s map, including its core driver (i.e. core requirements and roadmaps); and cumulatively, represented the overall model’s greatest perceived influence on impact.

The second stage of the influence model is represented by Impact Considerations. Notably, only one of the five ideas generated within the category was actually included in one of the group’s structuring phases (i.e. ability to measure impact), albeit this particular concept garnered the second highest influence score (alongside flow of funding at 6; and behind core requirements and roadmaps at 10). Not unlike funding and resources, the influence of this category is unsurprising, given that the understanding of concepts surrounding impact are vital to its creation and capture. Indeed, the ability to measure impact (i.e. referring to considerations regarding the importance of ensuring a consistent, operationally defined conceptualisation of impact so that a clear target of what is necessary to make and evaluate impact is provided) is a crucial foundation for subsequent impact influences. Indeed, such concern regarding impact conceptualisation and measure has been (and continues to be) considered extensively in related research (e.g. many impact conceptualisations focus on research impact only or fail to account for different focuses of different HEI types [i.e. impact may not ‘look the same’ in a TU as it does in a ‘traditional university’; and many ‘measure’ strategies fail to adequately capture impact by relying too heavily on particular, potentially problematic, indicators [e.g. bibliometrics]; see also Adam et al., 2018; Bell et al., 2011; Martin, 2011; Morgan-Jones et al., 2013; Penfield et al., 2014; Reed, Bryce & Machen, 2018; Reed & Meagher, 2018; Williams & Grant, 2018; Wilsdon et al., 2015).

In Group 2, four influences represented critical drivers of impact, half of which (i.e. visibility and expertise) represented a substantial accounting of the category Accessibility & Relationship with Service Engagement. This category emerged in the third stage of the overall influence model and is interesting to consider because it can be argued to represent two of the three core pillars of impact typology identified in previous research; specifically, service engagement and research. Though the latter pillar may not seem as obvious as the first, it is indeed of vital relevance here. For example, Dwyer and Seery (2024), found that ‘applied industry-focused research’, most often conducted in partnership with external stakeholders, represented the core focus of research at TUS – suggesting that Accessibility & Relationship with Service Engagement ties in well with both pillars – particularly with respect to the expertise shared by TUS, in light of their visibility and accessibility to external stakeholders, leading to such third-party engagement and the regional input yielded, facilitating reciprocal benefits enjoyed by both TUS and their external stakeholders, such as through research and development.

Notably, the second category at the third stage of the influence model, student influences, accounts for the remaining third of the core pillars of impact typology (i.e. teaching-and-learning impact). Student influences represents ideas related to the student body, student accommodation and demographics (and how these can influence and shape the nature of the student body), as well as ideas pertaining to the promotion of [current or past] students’ impact externally as a model of TUS’s influence and student/stakeholder voice (i.e. engagement of student input regarding importance, level of provision, maintenance of student numbers and similar stakeholder engagement). The importance of such influence is echoed by the teaching-and-learning impact pillar regarding outputs, outcomes, influences and transformations yielded from TUS educational activities, regarding, for example, completion, employment, external stakeholder engagement and experience of transformative learning. Moreover, this perspective is further consistent with Dwyer and Seery’s findings regarding TUS’s student-centredness (2024) and transformative learning at TUS (2025).

Finally, the fifth category, morale and motivation, which consisted of ideas pertaining to the positive spirit, confidence, optimism, hope and incentivisation of members of TUS to create and maintain impact (e.g. cases of engaging/collaborating with external stakeholders), emerged as most dependent on the influence of other core impact-related concepts. This is an important concept, because consistent with Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1985; 1991), a desired action/behaviour is dictated by one’s intention/motivation to do it; thus, it is not enough to have members of TUS simply working in accordance with their contractual obligations; rather, they need to be motivated to do so, often in contexts where such actions extend above and beyond what is required of them. Indeed, intrinsic motivation (i.e. the inherent motivation to engage an activity because of, for example, personal meaningfulness) is key for staff to engage activities beyond such ‘obligations’. However, arguably just as important is extrinsic motivation (i.e. motivation to engage activity for external rewards) with respect to opportunities and awareness of them for incentivized engagement beyond contractual obligation. This perspective is further qualified by Dwyer and Seery’s (2024) research regarding current distinction between teaching and research contracts at TUS (which, typically, obligate one activity or the other), as it highlights, in context, the importance of motivation, morale and incentivisation to conduct tasks associated with creating impact and service engagement.

Limitations and future research

Though the current study yielded some interesting findings, consistent with recent research on academic impact and, particularly, TUS Impact, it remains that there are some considerations that may require discussion. For example, one potential limitation that might be considered is the presentation of the current research’s conceptualisation of impact prior to commencement proper of the IM session, which may have in some way biased or primed participant responding. However, consistent with other similar IM research (Dwyer et al., 2014; 2016; 2017), along with the relative abstraction of impact as a concept (in that it could refer to many different things to different people), such presentation was necessary to (1) ensure clarity; (2) promote enhanced likelihood of rich and informative discussion from participants who otherwise might be unfamiliar with impact; and (3) minimise the potential for largely irrelevant ideas to be generated.

Moreover, the current study does not argue that the five categories identified (or indeed, the 38 ideas generated) are the only influences on academic impact creation or capture, nor does it provide ordering of their importance. However, it does provide a foundation for future research to investigate potential pathways to creating impact and considerations for overcoming related barriers. With that, another limitation that requires consideration is that regarding the nature of impact ‘capture’. Though the aim of the current research was to investigate potential influences on the creation and capture of impact at TUS, it could be argued that the findings were primarily focused on creation, as opposed to the implied balance of implications. However, given that approximately half of the participants had non-HEI work-backgrounds (and thus, likely outside the remit of pre-existing knowledge of academic impact beyond that of a novice level) and the other half, though involved in academic policy, may be unfamiliar with the intricacies associated with the research on impact assessment, it might be the case that the aim of investigating capture – in balance with creation – may not have been possible given the context of the cohort. Nevertheless, it remains that issues pertaining to capture were addressed, arguably, to a satisfactory length with respect to Impact Considerations, specifically, in light of concepts regarding ability to measure impact, the nature of ‘capture’ and, perhaps to a lesser extent, understanding of impact and changes in value profile. Despite the level or depth of sufficient discussion, it remains that the primary focus of the findings were on the creation of impact, rather than a balanced focus between the two.

In light of the aforementioned issues, further research on impact is currently underway, which aims to develop and evaluate an online repository platform that collates and updates the various activities (as indicators of impact) being conducted throughout TUS, as well as staff’s extant teaching, research and service engagement. A further aim of the platform is to facilitate collaborative efforts for creating impact and provide a means of representatively capturing impact. Future research should also investigate other means of overcoming barriers to creating and capturing impact as identified in the current research, such as those regarding ensuring visibility and accessibility for third-party engagement, as well as the motivation and know-how regarding active engagement of external stakeholders. In light of funding and resource’s emergence as critical driver of influence, it is recommended that future research, and more practical efforts be made to, create and examine funding-networking opportunities, both in academic circles and across external stakeholder engagement, in order to enhance potential for impact funding and resource maintenance and sustainability, particularly when sufficient rationale and need are demonstrated. It is further recommended that, consistent with both Dwyer and Seery (2024) and current findings regarding morale and motivation, that further examination be conducted on the nature of distinctions within staff contracts, across TUS, in an effort to enhance and promote staff motivation to engage opportunities to create impact above and beyond obligation (e.g. externally, in collaboration with TUS stakeholders).

Conclusion

Overall, the results of the current study provide a narrative consistent with that of extant research: that funding, resources and an understanding of impact conceptualisation dictate the extent of impacts made; that the influences identified here largely map onto the established TU impact typologies; and that the creators of impact must be motivated to do so. Specifically, it can be said that: the first category (Funding & Resources) represents a novel, albeit unsurprising finding, which warrants both future research and efforts to promote the creation and sustainability of impact-related funding; the second category (Impact Considerations) maps the impetus and rationale of the current series of research studies on TUS Impact; the third stage of influence (i.e. categories of Accessibility & Relationship with Service Engagement and Student Influences) helps map the framework of impact established in this series of research studies; and the fifth category (Morale & Motivation), represents some alignment with previous findings regarding the nature of TUS staff’s contracts and warrants future research on the promotion of morale and motivation of members of TUS in efforts to further enhance impact. Such concepts were found to be core in what was perceived to influence impact. With that, while the IM sessions in the current research took place in the context of creating impact in TUS, it must be noted – as did TUS higher-management participants – that the influences discussed likely apply to many, if not most, institutions across the Irish TU sector. This is an important consideration given that research is indeed planned for extension from TUS, in isolation, to the sector, more generally. It also highlights, to reiterate, that, despite potential ‘homogeneity’ across TUs in the sector, the sector is distinct from the traditional university system with respect to their mission, values, culture and outputs – all of which will affect how impact is thought of, created, captured and reported. Thus, further research is necessary to facilitate the TU sector in carving out its own unique impact identity.