Peer-reviewed Publishing in Cultural Materials Conservation

[s177]

Dear Colleague,

The Centre for Cultural Materials Conservation is conducting a study on the topical subject of peer-reviewed publishing, and the contribution of your thoughts and experience will be of the upmost value. This research is being undertaken as part of my enrolment in the Master of Cultural Materials Conservation at the Centre for Cultural Materials Conservation (University of Melbourne). The supervising researcher for this project is A/Prof Robyn Sloggett. The project has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (reference number 1339714.1).

The aim of this project is to investigate conservators’ experiences of the current environment of peer-reviewed publishing in the field of cultural materials conservation, looking at the following key questions:

• What value do conservators place on the communication of their research? (i.e. publication in peer reviewed journals, publication in organisation/ institution newsletters, publication in conference proceedings, participation in conferences and workshops etc.)
• What are the obstacles and incentives of publishing?
• What do conservators see as the benefits of publication to themselves and the field?
• How the interdisciplinary nature of the field impacts on the way in which research is communicated and accessed by conservators?

You are invited to participate in this project by completing a biref questionnaire (approximately 15 minutes) available at the following link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FL77WTF

Should you choose to participate please answer all questions as accurately as possible. Participation in this study is voluntary and you are free to withdraw consent at any time and to withdraw any unprocessed data previously supplied. We will protect your anonymity and the confidentiality of your responses to the fullest possible extent, within the limits of the law. The data will be kept securely by The School of Historical and Philosophical Studies for five years from the date of publication, before being destroyed.

Once the thesis arising from this research has been completed, a brief summary of the findings can be made available to you, and you will be invited to attend a presentation of the research project in October 2013. We also hope that the results will be presented at upcoming conferences.

Please contact the researchers if you have any questions or if would like more information about the project.

A/Prof Robyn Sloggett (Principal Researcher)
The Centre for Cultural Materials Conservation
rjslog@unimelb.edu.au

Marie Christodulaki (Student Researcher)
The Centre for Cultural Materials Conservation
marie.christodulaki@gmail.com

If you have any concerns about the conduct of the project please contact the Manager, Human Research Ethics, Office for Research Ethics and Integrity, The University of Melbourne, on ph: 8344 2073, or fax: 9347 6739.

Thank you in advance for your participation!

Sincerely,

Marie Christodulaki

[s177]

Thank-you to all those that participated in the questionnaire circulated earlier this year. We had a good response, which led to some interesting results.

Please see below for a brief summary of the project and results.

Thanks again for your participation,
Marie Christodulaki

Maire.Christodulaki@gmail.com


This research investigated conservators’ experiences of the current environment of peer-reviewed publishing. It examined, in particular, the value conservators place on the dissemination of their research; the obstacles to, and incentives in publishing; conservators’ view of the benefits of publication to themselves and the field; and the impact of the field’s inherent interdisciplinarity. Eighty-six conservators and ten journal editors completed an online questionnaire focusing on the communication of knowledge within the field of cultural materials conservation. Data was analysed using content analysis. Findings suggest that while the peer-review process is valued, this is not flowing through to any critical number of conservators publishing via the peer-review process (or publishing in general). This may be due to a number of factors, perhaps most significantly the incongruity between the female connected approach to communication that defines the space of the conservator, and the maleseparate approach that defines the publishing process. In addition, the publishing process seems to advantage those that see themselves as carrying out ‘research’ as opposed to those that see themselves as working in a more ‘practical’ way. In order for the field to benefit from higher impact and flow-on projects it will need to undergo a shift from viewing specificity and ‘expert’ knowledge as distinct from interdisciplinary practice, to viewing specificity and ‘expert’ knowledge as being vital to an interdisciplinary approach. Refereed outlets for interdisciplinary research are essential to the credibility of the field’s internal dialog, and its potential for future growth. This project suggests that conservators need to collaborate and ‘look beyond their workbench edge’ to take advantage of the unique interdisciplinary position of the field.