Questionnaire Summary
1. There were a total of 20 responses to the questionnaire: 12 from academics and 8 from
museum/heritage staff.
2. This summary reports the findings for the four questions that asked respondents to assess
the significance of the eight themes/issues that formed the basis for the first round-table that
was held in November 2013.
3. Responses to questions 10, 11 and 12 were ranked by assigning the following scores to each
level of importance that respondents identified: very important (4), important (3), minor
importance (2), unimportant (1), irrelevant (0).
4. Responses to question 14 were ranked on the basis of the average ranking assigned to each
theme/issue. This was required as there were a variable number of responses to each
element of ranking.
5. On the basis of these scores the eight themes/issues were then ranked in order of the
priority attached to them by: all respondents, heritage/museums respondents, and academic
respondents. Spearman’s rho was then calculated to statistically assess the extent to which
there were real differences between the responses of heritage/museum and academic
respondents. These findings are reported below.
1
6. Question 10: Importance of each theme/issue to the respondents own institution (from
most important to least important):
Total
Museum/Heritage
Academic
Education
Education
Education
External Engagement
External Engagement (2=)
External Engagement
Finance
Finance (2=)
Finance (3=)
Identity
Identity
Identity (3=)
Authenticity
Authenticity (5=)
Citizenship
Ownership
Ownership (5=)
Authenticity
Citizenship
Conservation
Ownership
Conservation
Citizenship
Conservation
Spearman’s rank order correlation = 0.833 (r squared = 0.694)
(Significant at the .02 level on a two-tailed test)
2
7. Question 11: Importance of each theme/issue to respondents own role or research on a
day-to-day basis (from most important to least important):
Total
Museums/Heritage
Academic
Education
Education (1=)
Education
External Engagement
Finance (1=)
External Engagement (2=)
Finance (3=)
External Engagement
Identity (2=)
Identity (3=)
Identity (4=)
Finance
Authenticity
Authenticity (4=)
Citizenship
Citizenship
Ownership
Authenticity
Ownership
Citizenship (7=)
Ownership
Conservation
Conservation (7=)
Conservation
Spearman’s rank order correlation = 0.766 (r squared = 0.586)
(Significant at the 0.05 level on a two-tailed test)
3
8. Question 12: Importance of theme/issue to communities (from most important to least
important):
Total
Museums/Heritage
Academic
Identity
Identity
Identity
Ownership
Authenticity
Ownership
Authenticity (3=)
Ownership (3=)
Finance
Education
Education (3=)
Citizenship
Citizenship (5=)
External Engagement
Education
Finance (5=)
Finance
Authenticity
External Engagement
Citizenship
External Engagement
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Spearman’s rank order correlation = 0.494 (r squared = 0.244)
(No statistical significance)
9. Averaged rank order of the absolute importance attached to each theme/issue (number of
respondents in brackets)
Total
Museums/Heritage
Academic
Finance (18)
Finance (1=) (7)
Identity (11)
Identity (8)
External Engagement (1=) (7)
Finance (11)
Education (18)
Education (7)
Ownership (10)
Authenticity (17)
Authenticity (7)
Education (11)
External Engagement (16)
Conservation (7)
Authenticity (10)
Ownership (17)
Identity (7)
Citizenship (10)
Conservation (17)
Ownership (7=) (7)
External Engagement (9)
Citizenship (17)
Citizenship (7=) (7)
Conservation (10)
Spearman’s rank order correlation = -0.059 (r squared = 0.035)
(No statistical significance)
4
10. The results of this demonstrate that there is a definite relationship between the views of
museums/heritage staff and academics about the importance of these themes/issues for both
their own institutions and their own work on a day-to-day basis. The presence of statistical
significance for both of these demonstrates that this agreement is the product of shared
values/beliefs/opinions between both sets of respondents rather than anything else.
11. The very slight negative correlation in terms of personal rankings of the themes/issues by
museums/heritage staff and academics (in terms of the absolute significance of these
themes/issues in themselves) reinforces the idea that there is something meaningful arising
from the findings of the questionnaire. These findings effectively support the idea that the
strength of the agreements that there are on these themes/issues in terms of their own
institutions and their own work is capturing something that extends beyond simple statistical
agreement, and demonstrates that the differences between museum/heritage staff and
academics are capturing something meaningful about how the themes/issues are understood
by each group.
12. As such it can be accepted as a fair conclusion that making use of the themes/issues that
have been identified so far can provide the basis for exploring meaningful differences
between the two groups of actors. Developing effective strategies for investigating the
importance of these differences in terms of both museum practice and academic research is,
of course, the next step. At the moment we intend to use these findings to contribute to
the deliberations of the second round-table, to take place in April, where we will be
extending the discussion to consider issues involving ethics and communities.
Clive Gray/Charlotte Woodhead
University of Warwick
January 2014
5