Table 2 Summary of the cluster profiles
From: Mind the gap: rigour and relevance in collaborative heritage science research
Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
Size of cluster | n = 58; 28% of respondents | n = 110; 52% of respondents | n = 42; 20% of respondents |
Satisfaction/achievement | Lowest | Highest | High (Average – Above Average) |
Factor scores | Lowest scores for: ‘Ease of Collaboration’, ‘Internal Procedures & Working Practices’, ‘Research Quality’ and ‘Understanding Partners’ Research Approaches’ | High scores on all factors | Lowest scores for: ‘Collaborative Working Style’, ‘Interest in Bridging Disciplines’, ‘Institutional Recognition’, ‘Practice-Focussed Research’ |
Goals | Most likely to choose collections management goals (‘Standards and Guidelines’, ‘Improved Management of Cultural Heritage’) | Least likely to choose the ‘Access to Resources’ goal | Most likely to choose the ‘Access to Resources’ goal |
Most likely to choose ‘Peer Reviewed Journal Articles’ as a goal and least likely to choose ‘Improved Management of Cultural Heritage’ | |||
Least likely to choose ‘Better Understanding of Cultural Heritage’ as a goal | |||
Role | Most likely to report being in a management role, and slightly more likely identify as a Researcher-User | Slightly more likely to identify as a Researcher-User or User | Most likely to identify as a ‘Researcher’, and least likely to be report being in a management role |
Discipline and specialism | Most likely to report being a conservation scientist | Most likely to be identify with Arts & Humanities disciplines and/or conservation | Most likely to report having a STEM subject specialism |
Project size | Largest projects | Small-medium sized projects | Smallest projects |
Experience | Less experienced (but a range of experience) | Most experienced (but a range of experience) | Least experienced |