Results
Group 1 generated 21 distinct ideas (i.e. without significant overlap); 16 of which received at least one vote. Group 2 generated 17 distinct ideas; 12 of which received at least one vote. Table 2 presents the list of impact influences generated for each group.
Table 2: Ranked influences of impact
| Idea # | Votes | Influence | Description |
| Group 1: TUS Higher-Management | |||
| Selected for Structuring | |||
| 1a | 10 | Core Requirements & Roadmaps | The requirements, roadmaps and processes applied/placed on TUS in their impact decision-making by other relevant bodies (e.g. Higher Education Authority, Government, funding bodies, etc.) |
| 2a | 8 | Flow of Funding | The availability of funding to follow-through on ideas generated to make impact |
| 3a | 7 | Regional Input | The engagement between TUS and the local region with respect to the needs of region, what TUS can offer to help facilitate these needs and the cyclical relationship between the two for mutual benefit |
| 4a | 6 | Physical Resources | Facilities and equipment that facilitate the creation of impact |
| 5a | 6 | Ability to Measure Impact | Given the level of abstraction associated with impact and how it can represent different concepts to different people and groups, measure of impact is often diverse and imprecise, if measured at all. Having a means of operationally defining impact, in a consistent manner, alongside a means of capturing the concept is a core influence |
| 6a | 4 | Centralisation of Data and Relevant Information | Available, accessible and centralised data are necessary for identifying, capturing and, subsequently, creating further impact |
| 7a | 4 | Morale | The positive spirit, confidence and optimism of staff and students are necessary to create and maintain impact |
| Did not receive sufficient voting for structuring: | |||
| 8a | 3 | Ability to Impact | Adaptability and flexibility to make impact with respect to changing needs, additional efforts, resourcing, etc. |
| 9a | 3 | Understanding of Impact | Staff’s understanding of to what impact refers, how they are making it and how they can report it |
| 10a | 2 | Third-party Engagement | Creation and prioritisation of collaboration and engagement with organisations external to TUS |
| 11a | 2 | Perception | Perspectives of TUS held by students, potential students, external organisations, potential collaborators as well as staff |
| 12a | 1 | Process Development | Internal processes and programmes that can influence (positively or negatively) the achievement of impact |
| 13a | 1 | Value Alignment | The many views on and forms of impact, across TUS, are diverse and vary in terms of value; thus, requiring alignment |
| 14a | 1 | Contractual Obligation | TUS contracts and promotion strategies do not currently facilitate incentivise efforts to create impact beyond the requirements of the contract |
| 15a | 1 | Student Body | Student numbers, demographics, efforts and variance in these influence impact opportunities |
| 16a | 1 | Changes in Value Profile | Variances within the relationship between the TUS profile (activities, outputs and outcomes) and broader societal values influence opportunities to impact
|
| A further 5 distinct influences were identified during NGT, but received no votes, including: ‘responsibility’, ‘impact perspective without TUS’, ‘willingness to report impact’, ‘traditional institute of technology perspectives’, and ‘internal communication’. | |||
|
Group 2: External Stakeholders |
|||
| Selected for Structuring: | |||
| 1b | 9 | Student/Stakeholder Voice | The nature of such voice with respect to its importance, level of provision, maintenance of student numbers and similar stakeholder engagement |
| 2b | 8 | Expertise | Accessibility of expertise provided by TUS and accessibility of such expertise to external stakeholders as a pathway to outcome achievement |
| 3b | 8 | TUS Staff Motivation | Motivation of individual TUS staff members to engage and collaborate with external stakeholders |
| 4b | 8 | Student Impact | Promotion of (current or past) students’ impact externally as a model of influence |
| 5b | 6 | Visibility | Access for external stakeholders to relevant TUS contacts, TUS marketing; visibility to/access for disadvantaged populations; communication to parents |
| Did not receive sufficient voting for structuring: | |||
| 6b | 3 | TUS Culture | Focus on the nature of TUS smaller community as unique |
| 7b | 3 | “TU” Distinction | The ability to differentiate a TU from a traditional university for external stakeholders |
| 8b | 3 | Funding | With respect to knowledge of what is available and what happens when the funding stops (e.g. with respect to a particular initiative or project) |
| 9b | 3 | Reciprocal Benefit | Understanding the nature of the relationship between TUS and any given external stakeholder |
| 10b | 2 | Demographics | Awareness of external stakeholder demographics |
| 11b | 2 | Student Accommodation | Provision of facility for students, particularly with respect to housing |
| 12b | 1 | The Nature of ‘Capture’ | Though a desirable function of creating impact, capture can represent a barrier with respect to becoming a box-ticking exercise. |
| A further 5 distinct influences were identified during NGT, but received no votes, including: ‘provision of and access to confidence’, ‘central applications office policy’, ‘time-related bureaucracy’, ‘the marketing of networking opportunities’ and ‘multi-campus unity’. | |||
Structural models generated
Two structural maps were generated based on the deliberation and voting that took place during the ISM sessions (see Figures 1 and 2). The structural maps generated by the groups are to be read from left to right, with arrows indicating ‘significantly influences’. In Group 1, the influence of core requirements and roadmaps emerged as the most fundamental driver of other influences on impact. The core ideas most influenced by others were morale and regional input. In Group 2, the influence of expertise, TUS staff motivation, student impact and visibility emerged as the most fundamental drivers on impact, with the most influenced by others being student/stakeholder voice.
Figure 1: Structural map of TUS Higher Management’s perspective of influence on impact
Figure 2: Structural map of external stakeholders’ perspective of influence on impact
Category analysis of impact influences
In total, the two sessions generated a total of 28 ideas that received at least one vote. Consistent with reporting above, 12 of these 28 had been selected for structuring. A separate content analysis session including both members of the research team was used to generate a total of six categories based on the commonality among all ideas receiving at least one vote (see Table 3).
Table 3: Categorisation of influences identified by both groups
| No. | Category | Influence | Source (Group) |
|
1
|
Accessibility & Relationship with Service Engagement
|
Visibility* | 2 |
| Expertise | 2 | ||
| Third-party Engagement | 1 | ||
| Regional Input | 1 | ||
| Reciprocal Benefit | 2
|
||
| 2
|
Student Influences
|
Student Accommodation | 2 |
| Student Impact | 2 | ||
| Student/Stakeholder Voice | 2 | ||
| Demographics | 2 | ||
| Student Body | 1
|
||
| 3
|
Morale & Motivation
|
Morale | 1 |
| TUS Staff Motivation | 2 | ||
| Contractual Obligation | 1 | ||
| 4
|
Funding & Resources
|
Flow of Funding | 1 |
| Funding | 2 | ||
| Process Development | 1 | ||
| Core Requirements & Roadmaps | 1 | ||
| Physical Resources | 1 | ||
| Centralisation of Data and Relevant Information | 1 | ||
|
5
|
Impact Considerations
|
The Nature of ‘Capture’ | 2 |
| Ability to Measure Impact | 1 | ||
| Understanding of Impact | 1 | ||
| Ability to Impact | 1 | ||
| Changes in Value Profile | 2
|
||
| 6
|
TUS Identity | “TU” Distinction | 2 |
| TUS Culture | 2 | ||
| Value Alignment | 1 | ||
| Perception | 1 |
*Bold font denotes appearance in one of the groups’ structural maps
Meta-analysis: influence model
The 12 influences appearing in the maps generated by the two groups spanned five of the emerging six categories. Notably, these 12 were largely associated with four categories (i.e. [1] Accessibility & Relationship with Service Engagement; [2] Student Influences; [3] Morale & Motivation; and [4] Funding & Resources) and one (i.e. Impact Considerations) to a lesser extent. TUS Identity was the only category consisting of factors not included in either group’s structural map (i.e. not representing core influences); and thus, not eligible for modelling. A structural meta-analysis of the maps was conducted to develop a higher-order influence model of categories. In order to conduct the meta-analysis, the following scores were computed to estimate the influence of each category:
- Position Score: Each structural map places ideas in stages (Broome, 1995). Ideas to the far right are assigned the lowest position score (i.e., 1) and those in the left-most stage are assigned the highest score (i.e. depending on the number of levels in the structure).
- Antecedent Score: The number of influences lying to the left of a particular influence, in which the former will ‘enhance’ the latter.
- Succedent Score: The number of influences lying to the right of an influence, which are ‘enhanced’ by the former.
- Net Succedent/Antecedent Score: The net succedent/antecedent (Net SA) score is the succedent score minus the antecedent score. If the Net SA score is positive, it means that the function is a net source of enhancement. If the Net SA score is negative, it means that the function is a net receiver of enhancement (Broome, 1995).
- Influence Score: The sum of the position score and the net SA score.
Influence scores were calculated for each of the ideas appearing in the structural maps. Total category influence scores were calculated by summing these influence scores for each category. Average category influence scores were then calculated by dividing the total category influence score by the number of factors in the category. The resulting model, yielded from the average category influence scores, is presented in Figure 3. Results from the meta-analysis revealed that the influence of funding and resources had the greatest perceived influence on impact (and to a lesser extent, impact considerations; thereafter, student influences and accessibility and relationship with service engagement); whereas morale and motivation was seen as most dependent on the influence of other categories.
Figure 3: Influence Model of Ideas pertaining to Creating Impact
