9th April 2008, 12:11 AM
This thread could go in various directions: cost cuts, cheap jobs on low winning tenders, poor training, lower standards, poor peer review, IFA, County Archaeologists, blah blah blah. Each job has its own constraints and targets. However....
As 1Man says, the effort for grey literature often reflects the costs but I also think that overall retrieval of information from site is at a low ebb and this may be mirrored in reports. On the other hand, I have noticed on several projects which I have 'observed' that the reports bore little resemblence to what I had witnessed on site. Nice reports but works of fiction. So, do we commend people for decent report writing in that instance?
I am often puzzled by the definition of what people's define as a good report. For example, I once knew of two neighbouring county units who often worked in each other's areas. County archaeologist X didn't really appreciate other commercial units, barr those from county council Y, working in their patch. County archaeologist Y didn't really care as long as the job was to acceptable standards. The problem was that county Y was a quite a comercial area with lots of developments wheras county X was more rural. However, county unit X often worked in Y's area. It was noted by the county archaeologist Y that county unit X's report were sometimes rubbish in comparison with the units that county mounty X thought were unworthy of working in their area. Confused?
So, I'm often left wondering where's the consistency particularly when there is obvious discrimination by those who are meant to maintain standards.
How is one county archaeologist's good report another one's toilet paper? Where is the standard?
As 1Man says, the effort for grey literature often reflects the costs but I also think that overall retrieval of information from site is at a low ebb and this may be mirrored in reports. On the other hand, I have noticed on several projects which I have 'observed' that the reports bore little resemblence to what I had witnessed on site. Nice reports but works of fiction. So, do we commend people for decent report writing in that instance?
I am often puzzled by the definition of what people's define as a good report. For example, I once knew of two neighbouring county units who often worked in each other's areas. County archaeologist X didn't really appreciate other commercial units, barr those from county council Y, working in their patch. County archaeologist Y didn't really care as long as the job was to acceptable standards. The problem was that county Y was a quite a comercial area with lots of developments wheras county X was more rural. However, county unit X often worked in Y's area. It was noted by the county archaeologist Y that county unit X's report were sometimes rubbish in comparison with the units that county mounty X thought were unworthy of working in their area. Confused?
So, I'm often left wondering where's the consistency particularly when there is obvious discrimination by those who are meant to maintain standards.
How is one county archaeologist's good report another one's toilet paper? Where is the standard?