Report writing

[Gilraen]

The front cover displays the company name and the title of the project and report, then the second page of the report is a flysheet which (other than lists who the client is, name and Grid Ref of the site) lists who did the work, who wrote the report and who did the illustrations by name. That's what we do, sounds simple enough to me.

[1man1desk]

Posted by Beamo:

quote:But the author of the site report is basing his/her work on the achievements of the labour of anonymous diggers/supervisors etc

That is true - but it applies to excavation reports published in a journal just as much as to 'grey' literature.

Archaeology is a co-operative excersise, so it is probably very rare to have any primary reporting (as opposed to synthetic articles) where the main author is not drawing on work by a whole team. It is particularly relevant in my field (EIA), where all reports are 'grey' and are also multi-disciplinary, often with up to 12 primary authors, only one of whom is an archaeologist (plus me, as the editor).

My view is that the main author or editor, plus those who have contributed actual content for the report, should be identified by name in the report. Acknowledgement of the wider team that has contributed to the project, but not the report, is nice but not essential. However, the policy of my company, is to identify no-one by name.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[gumbo]

I think this is a very interesting topic.

I think everyone who has been involved in the project should be credited in an acknowledgments section with what they did (be that excavation, ilustration etc etc).

I don't necessarily think that the report writers name needs to be on the front cover, but I think it should be on the inside cover at least. I dont like the over corporate 'no credit' approach as I think this somehow dehumanises the process. Ok, so we might actually be doing a 'excavation to assessment to monograph' painting by numbers exercise, but we dont have to admit that...

This brings me onto my main point: its always nice if a report writer (perhaps in conjunction with a specialist or a manager)has gone the extra mile, you know, a well researched, genuinely enthusiastic background section, a bit of stratigraphic reasoning or something on taphonomy that doesnt necessarily have to be there, or tying things into a historical or research priorities framework in a subtle way, or recognising when unusal specialist work or details really do matter etc etc etc I tink it is so noticeable when a report actually has a bit of soul or colour. This is the main reason why I think a report writer should be credited; because report writing is a specific skill that is hard to do exceptionally well.

As for the politics of who gets to write the report, thats another story! In my personal experience there are big issues about talent being recognised and fosterered properly, and we are in danger of losing the art from archaeology (and that doesnt haveto sit uncomfortably with cost effectiveness).

G

[BAJR Host]

quote:My view is that the main author or editor, plus those who have contributed actual content for the report, should be identified by name in the report. Acknowledgement of the wider team that has contributed to the project, but not the report, is nice but not essential.

That is almost my view, with the two exceptions of crediting the team who supplied the primary data... maybe not essential, but perhaps respectful. And of course as an AAI&S member... the Illustrator, who often plays a pivitol role in any report... a good written report can be brought down by bad illustrations and a mediocre written report can be lifted with illustrations that make the points visualy that the written word has failed to convey. The ilustrator is as important - and should be credited as such in the same way as other contributing authors.

Illustration not being an afterthought a hobby or a couple of scribbles and location map...!



"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Gog]

I agree with pretty much everything Gumbo has said. I really can't think of a single valid reason why the author of a report should not be credited. To not do so does cause resentment, which can effect morale - is it really worth risking this just to have a corporate slant, as if we were working for Coca-Cola?

[Oxbeast]

It makes consistent referencing a pain as well, if you have to ref Thingie Archaeology 2007a, b, c, d, etc., and then in the next report they appear in a different order. You can certainly get this problem with authors, but its a lot easier to keep straight who said what where.

[beamo]

Originally posted by beamo
I am very much in favour of grey literature (i.e. client reports) being under the company name, with due acknowledgements given within the body of the report to those who contributed in whatever way. I see no problem with citing such reports as **** Archaeology 2005a, 2005b etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Care to tell us why?

Certainly. The client has probably commissioned lots of reports from any number of consultants with regard to that particular project - eg. ecology, transport strategy, landscape apparaisal etc. for all of these the client has selected the company rather than any particular individual (although there will often be some element of previous contact etc). None of the other reports submitted to the client will have named authors, as they are the product of the company - it is not so much about brand identity (as previously suggested) by about corporate responsibility, i.e the company is responsible for the product (good or bad) rather than the individual. Why should archaeology be any different in this?


Beamo

[vulpes]

Fair enough Beamo. But, as has been shown above it is equally possible to refernce both the author(s) and the company responsible. Notwithstanding the niceties of acknowledgement, this also gives enhanced traceability. You never know, the referenced report may have been written by a colleague in a past job. Authorship is important, companies don't write reports - individuals or groups of individuals do.

Environmental Statements are strange beasties which often struggle to find their ways into HERs, let alone onto OASIS, and the question of their authorship is just one problem on top of their accessible archiving.

[drpeterwardle]

Over the years there has been much pointless discussion about this.

The author of a report should always be identified not putting the authors name on a report can for example hide the fact that somebody too junior produced the report.

As for naming everybody who was involved in a project like the illustrator certainly not. The issue is where do you stop?

The acknowledgements and similar is a different matter.

Peter Wardle

[BAJR Host]

Words without pictures... like a pencil without a lead to badly misquote Blackadder.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu