Figure 1
Schematic overview of work flows in our participatory lab (see Figure 2) developed for high school students with the involvement of local museums and university professionals. The figure presents two integrated flow lines. First, the archaeological leather samples from local museums were subsampled into five replicates with a minimum of three being analysed. Next, the samples were prepared for mass spectrometry (MS) by a pipetting robot, and then university professionals (project partners) conducted the MS. Finally, the students received the results of their work for further analysis and interpretation. The second column presents how students prepared before arriving in the lab. Once in the lab, they received training and an introduction before they performed lab work. In the final step, they received their own results and got access to results from the other classes visiting the lab.
Figure 2
A concept for co-creation in participatory science presented as a flow model showing the co-creational dimensions (local museums and high schools) and how interactions between parties improve outcomes. The process is facilitated by a core project team (facilitator team) who takes part in all processes and secures implementation of proposed research questions, ideas, and concepts thus ensuring relevance for local museum partners, teachers, and high school students. Figure highlights how the concept provides value (a) during project development, (b) for project expansion during the project, and (c) for further development into future project phases.
Figure 3
Plot displaying the number of replicates produced per object. Data is based on a subsample of 679 objects spread across 2,279 samples extracted between February 1, 2022 and May 14, 2024. The average number of replicates per object is 3.50 ± 1.05 SD. Objects with one or two replicates were primarily from the initial co-creation phase of the project (tests, etc.), before the sampling and analyses were standardised by university professionals. Objects with 6, 9, and 12 replicates originate from objects of special interest, where extended sampling was deemed necessary.
Figure 4
Graph illustrating the inter-student performance per object in terms of peptide markers count (maximum of nine) based on a subsample ranked by average peptide marker count. The x-axis displays the object ID (n = 68), while the y-axis represents the number of peptide markers observed. Smaller dark dots (n = 190) represent each individual student’s retrieval of peptide markers. Larger dark dots and their respective lines illustrate the mean peptide marker per specimen and the standard deviation. The light green line highlights the maximum peptide marker observed per object.
Figure 5
After a full day in the lab, students were asked to self-evaluate their own performance and understanding of the research project (n = 1,368). Overall, respondents indicated that they provide results of scientific value, demonstrating a high understanding of the scientific project, and think of their work as of great value. (a) Students were asked to rate the scientific value of their work on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating the least usefulness and 5 indicating the greatest usefulness (n = 1,245, excluding 123 No reply). 94.78% (n = 1,180) students gave a score of 3 or more, indicating that they are providing outputs of scientific value. Only 5.22% (n = 65) gave a score of 2 or less, indicating they see no scientific value in their work. (b) Students were asked to rate their understanding of the scientific issues related to their work on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating the little to no understanding and 5 indicating a complete understanding (n = 1,243, excluding 124 No reply). 91.07% (n = 1,132) gave a score of 3 or more, regarding themselves as being fast and having a good or complete understanding of the scientific issues. Only 8.93% (n = 111) of students gave a score of 2 or less, demonstrating a more negative view of their own skills after participating in the project. (c) Students were asked to rate their skills in conducting scientific work on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating not good and 5 indicating very good (n = 1,244, excluding 123 No reply). 90.52% (n = 1,126) of students gave a score of 3 or more, or scored themselves as doing a sound scientific job, while only 9.49% (n = 118) gave a score of 2 or less, indicating that they were not performing well.