Skip to main content

Advertisement

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
  1. Note: Significance testing was used to generate the cluster profiles and all significant findings are included in the table. Italicized text indicates non-significant trends used to interpret the profiles.