Mind the gap: rigour and relevance in collaborative heritage science research

Kalliopi Fouseki,Andrew Thompson,Catherine Dillon,Nancy Bell,Matija Strlič,Pip Laurenson

doi:10.1186/2050-7445-2-11

Abstract

Background: This paper examines if there is a ‘rigour-relevance gap’ in collaborative heritage science research and what enables and impedes effective collaboration between academic researchers and users of research evidence in practice. A quantitative attitudes questionnaire was distributed amongst the heritage science community: 210 responses were received. Respondents answered in relation to one project they had worked on in the UK in the previous five years. They were asked about their personal goals in relation to the project and whether these were achieved, satisfaction levels in relation to project outcomes and impact, level of agreement with a series of attitude statements to ascertain what helped and hindered projects, personal characteristics and project characteristics. The questionnaire was analysed using a factor analytic, segmentation and profiling approach. Results: Most respondents sought both rigour and relevance in collaborative research, were generally satisfied with the outcomes of projects and reported positive experiences of collaboration. However, respondents were less satisfied that the impact of projects would be realised. Practice-focussed goals were associated with lower levels of self-rated achievement than academic goals and a sizeable minority reported challenges in collaborative research. Furthermore, researchers and users differed in terms of their goals, experiences and level of satisfaction. Users had high expectations that research would translate into practice, but did not always feel this was realised. Conclusion: Results from this project will inform how to improve heritage science research collaborations.

Highlights

The boundaries of what constitutes collaborative research and who counts as a collaborator are not well defined, but at a basic level there must be direct co-operation between two people [1]
Is there a rigour-relevance gap in heritage science? most respondents reported a positive experience of collaborative research and aspired to both rigour and relevance in their projects, there were four key pieces of evidence to suggest that there is a rigourrelevance gap in heritage science research
Do researchers and users differ in their experiences of collaborative research? The analysis further explored the rigour-relevance gap in heritage science research by comparing the experiences of academic researchers and users of research evidence in practice

Summary

Introduction

The boundaries of what constitutes collaborative research and who counts as a collaborator are not well defined, but at a basic level there must be direct co-operation between two people [1]. Collaboration between researchers and practitioners is integral to heritage science, which encompasses all technological and scientific work that can benefit the heritage sector, through improved management, enhanced understanding of cultural heritage or increased public engagement [6]. The vision of the UK National Heritage Science Strategy (2010) was that the understanding and preservation of material cultural heritage would be enhanced by collaborative science and technology research [7]. Respondents answered in relation to one project they had worked on in the UK in the previous five years They were asked about their personal goals in relation to the project and whether these were achieved, satisfaction levels in relation to project outcomes and impact, level of agreement with a series of attitude statements to ascertain what helped and hindered projects, personal characteristics and project characteristics. The questionnaire was analysed using a factor analytic, segmentation and profiling approach

Methods

Results

Conclusion