11th November 2005, 12:05 PM
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"
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"