standard of new graduates

[1man1desk]

I think I agree with both Eggy and Mercenary.

The detailed stratigraphic description is important, and should be written before doing any of the discussion and interpretation bits. So far, so good Mercenary.

However, for the practical user of (for instance) a trial trenching report, it is better for that detailed description to be separated from the discussion and interpretation - whether that means putting it in a separate chapter or in an appendix. I'm probably closer to Eggy on this aspect.

Two key reasons:

1. It is good practice to separate factual information from discussion and interpretation - too many archaeological reports make no distinction, so that interpretations become 'facts' that inform other interpretations.

2. Something like an evaluation report is not an academic report, it is a tool to aid the planning process. It should therefore be structured in a way that makes its main information content and conclusions easily usable and accessible for all its users, who will include people who do not need or want to wade through the stratigraphic detail.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[eggbasket]

quote:Originally posted by sniper

like I always include a catalogue of skeletons in the main body of my analysis reports. {snip} Non-osteos may find it very long and tedious, but a good descriptive and fact filled burial catalogue is incredibly useful to other osteos.

I have seen this argument from a variety of finds and enviro specialists. The question is, are you writing your report for the client or for others in your specialist discipline (clue: who is paying for it)? And following on from that, what is the actual intended function of the report? Answering these questions should show where the emphasis of the report ought to lie and how its content ought to be structured.

My main argument really was that many authors use the strat description to pad out the report instead of writing a report that is appropriate to the quantity and quality of the remains discovered. I do not dispute that the strat should be examined properly and if writing descriptions of it helps you do that, then go for it. On the other hand, it should be remembered for whom the report is being written and what the report's function is. Ultimately, the style and content of the report must reflect and help it achieve its function, be that academic publication or evaluation report. If the strat text obscures the main information that you are trying to convey than you have failed.

As far as templates for reports are concerned, it seems to me that there is room for manoeuvre within the template to tailor its content to suit. I do not really have any problems with such templates and find that they can actually help sometimes, although they can have a tendency to hinder the thought process.

Interestingly enough, I have had these discussions with a variety of staff over the years and it has become quite clear that many authors have their own agenda when writing their section of a report that has little to do with the client's needs. It has also become clear that many authors of reports receive little or no instruction in actually structuring and writing their reports.

I understand that not everyone agrees with my applied approach, but I still think that the basic principle is sound. Essentially, this is a plea to authors of reports to actually think about what they are writing, and how it will be used. This will make for more user-friendly reports that should achieve their goals. Actually, this would probably be fertile ground for a conference or workshop in its own right since most people will have their own opinions on the subject.

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, the ringing's in your head"

[Curator Kid]

I'm not sure I agree with where you're heading with this argument eggy. Whilst it's true that the reports are paid for by the clients, and designed to answer planning questions, the actual primary users of the reports are people like me, who are required to check all the details of the project's work and assess whether its been conducted properly. The function of the report is to present the results of the on-site work, and to fulfill this objective the stratigraphic information, finds catalogues and all the rest of the "boring" details are essential. How else can I know if the work's being done competently - from a half hour site visit? You'd be surprised how much of this information is just plain wrong when I get the chance to see it presented unexpurgated. Besides, if you ask a client why he's paid for a site to be dug and report to be done, he'd usually answer that it's to clear a planning condition and satisfy the County Archaeologist's requirements. The vast majority of them couldn't care less about the archaeology unless it looks pretty or they can flog it to someone. I agree that the synthesis part of reports could be written better however - if this section's as tedious as the CBM catalogue (and some are) then the report's failed dismally.

[Post-Med Potterer]

I think you are both making the same point, which is, to quote Eggy

quote:it should be remembered for whom the report is being written and what the report's function is. Ultimately, the style and content of the report must reflect and help it achieve its function, be that academic publication or evaluation report

However the person paying for it is not always the person for whom it is intended.

In the case of a PPG16 report, the funder is the client but the audience is the LPA. As Curator Kid points out

quote:if you ask a client why he's paid for a site to be dug and report to be done, he'd usually answer that it's to clear a planning condition and satisfy the County Archaeologist's requirements

If we were just writing reports for the client's own entertainment then 9 times out of 10 we would simply provide a one-page 'Non-technical summary' and a whole raft of appendices.

Equally for published monograph, the funder might be EH but the report is written for a public audience who will include both specialists and non-specialists. And often it is assumed (perhaps bizarrely) that specialists all possess microfiche readers!

[eggbasket]

CK, I don't think I expressed myself very well then. Basically, the report is paid for by the client and has a function to fulfil for that client, which is usually to clear a planning condition, as you state. To this end it should be focussed on providing you with the information that you need to state that the investigation's objectives have been achieved. I have never said that the "boring" detail should be omitted. My contention is, however, that it has little place in the main body of the text unless it highlights an important point to be made and contributes to the interpretation of the site. As a user of reports, I want to read the main body of the text and come away with an understanding of the site, which is why I would like to see a synthetic text that takes into account the results of all aspects of the work. Detailed context descriptions of unremarkable fills make for stultifying reading and can hinder this understanding if placed in the main part of the report. As such, I am advocating their placement in the appendices together with the site matrices and all the other supporting information that needs to be recorded. One way of dealing with this issue might be to consider the different sections of the report as follows:

The main body of the text deals with the site on a micro / area level.
The conclusions deal with the site on a macro scale, providing broader interpretations of the whole site.
Appendices provide the basic building blocks; the catalogues and lists, etc.

As an aside, I know of one publication report that is being produced as a monograph where all of the supporting information, including the context lists and finds catalogues is being placed on a CD to be included with monograph when it is finally published. This has led to some rather strained discussions between the project manager and several of the finds specialists, although it seems to me that the CD will have greater utility since it will be more readily searchable than hardcopy.

I am not at all surprised at how much of the basic information can be wrong. After all, part of my job involves reviewing reports in detail too, which occasionally leaves me wondering if the report was even edited before it was sent to me.

Right now to start on the structure of context lists ... }

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, the ringing's in your head"

[eggbasket]

quote:Originally posted by Post-Med Potterer

I think you are both making the same point,

{snip}

Equally for published monograph, the funder might be EH but the report is written for a public audience who will include both specialists and non-specialists. And often it is assumed (perhaps bizarrely) that specialists all possess microfiche readers!

Thanks, PMP. I did not see much difference in my view to that of CK. I am just more verbose and really should remember that "brevity is the soul of wit".

Would it be easier for specialists if the information was provided on CD/DVD instead? In these days of home computers that would seem to be a logical solution.

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, the ringing's in your head"

[mercenary]

quote:However, for the practical user of (for instance) a trial trenching report, it is better for that detailed description to be separated from the discussion and interpretation - whether that means putting it in a separate chapter or in an appendix. I'm probably closer to Eggy on this aspect

Separation of the descriptive and interpretive parts is done as a matter of course. (It is specified in the brief for one region in which I work)

In answer to the question of who the report is intended for I consider it to be the curator. I have had curators request that info is not hidden away in the appendices, but is integrated in the text, as it is then easier to judge whether the archaeology was dealt with properly. Of secondary importance is the readability and interest to the developer and other parties. I try to satisfy both, but the curator gets precedence. If the descriptive parts are boring to the layperson they can ignore them and skip to the discussion and conclusions.

[sniper]

quote:Originally posted by eggbasket Would it be easier for specialists if the information was provided on CD/DVD instead? In these days of home computers that would seem to be a logical solution.

I personally will always prefer hardcopy to a CD, easier to look through and less chance of eyestrain whilst trying to hunt through pages and pages of info. I would also agree that the client may be paying for the report, but they are not really interested in what it contains, and the reading audience is going to be other archs. The site report is often the only way that other specialists find out about a site and its associated finds. As the EH/CoE guidelines say, the initial report is not the end of work on sites, but very often the impetus for other researchers to do work on the material. In order for this to happen, the report certainly needs to to contain all the necessary info, however dull it may be to non-specialists.

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[1man1desk]

I'm not sure that I agree with the idea of the curator as the main user and audience for an archaeological report. You have to think first about what sort of report it is.

If it is an evaluation report, then it is principally aimed at the curator, to help them advise the planning authority on how to treat a planning application. However, clients or their consultants and scheme designers will also have a genuine interest in the content, particularly if it is part of an Environmental Impact Assessment project, as they may need to take it into account in some of their decision-making. In addition, it will eventually appear as a public document in the SMR.

If is is the report on a piece of mitigation work (i.e. following a planning condition or equivalent), but is not to be published, then the curator will indeed use it to check that the work has been done properly. However, that is not its primary purpose - what it is meant for is to put the information into the public domain through availability in the SMR.

If it is a publication report, then its principal audience is all the subscribers to the journal or library users. The journal editor will presumably have their own ideas about what should be in appendices etc.

You need to think about all of the above before working out how to structure your report.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[1man1desk]

quote:However, for the practical user of (for instance) a trial trenching report, it is better for that detailed description to be separated from the discussion and interpretation - whether that means putting it in a separate chapter or in an appendix.

- originally posted by 1man1desk

quote:Separation of the descriptive and interpretive parts is done as a matter of course.

- originally posted by Mercenary

Well, it should be done as a matter of course, and it would be nice if it was. However, I receive and review lots of reports from different contractors, and it is amazing how many authors do not appear to know the difference.



1man1desk

to let, fully furnished