8th November 2005, 12:49 PM
<Rant Mode/On>
I agree with Sniper on this one. It appears lazy if the effort is not made to ensure that spelling, grammar and typos are eradicated from reports. It seems to me that the purpose of a report is to communicate the information contained therein to a wider audience. If the text is ambiguous or difficult to read then the report fails in that purpose. Poor spelling and grammar can contribute to this and I would suggest that with the advent of spelling and grammar checkers there is even less excuse for such mistakes.
I review reports regularly and have found a distressing tendency for them to be poorly written and to require significant amendments to make them "fit for purpose". This is partially due to poor spelling and grammar, and appears to be partially due to a poor editing process at source. Personally, I would be ashamed to send such reports out, even as drafts, because they reflect particularly poorly on the author(s) and their editors, and hence on the unit for which they work.
Going further afield, it seems to me that archaeologists are not being taught to write well these days, and that the report production process is extremely mechanistic, with the result that reports are often rather ?samey? and boring. There is little attempt to produce an interesting, synthetic report that communicates the results of the work appropriately. I know some project managers who do encourage this sort of writing but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule and many of those who write the reports seem unwilling to tread this path. Of course, this is not to say that all archaeologists fail in this regard but there appear to be a significant number who do. This really goes beyond spelling and grammar, and reflects on how archaeologists think about and analyse their sites.
<Rant Mode/Off>
Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique
"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, the ringing's in your head"
I agree with Sniper on this one. It appears lazy if the effort is not made to ensure that spelling, grammar and typos are eradicated from reports. It seems to me that the purpose of a report is to communicate the information contained therein to a wider audience. If the text is ambiguous or difficult to read then the report fails in that purpose. Poor spelling and grammar can contribute to this and I would suggest that with the advent of spelling and grammar checkers there is even less excuse for such mistakes.
I review reports regularly and have found a distressing tendency for them to be poorly written and to require significant amendments to make them "fit for purpose". This is partially due to poor spelling and grammar, and appears to be partially due to a poor editing process at source. Personally, I would be ashamed to send such reports out, even as drafts, because they reflect particularly poorly on the author(s) and their editors, and hence on the unit for which they work.
Going further afield, it seems to me that archaeologists are not being taught to write well these days, and that the report production process is extremely mechanistic, with the result that reports are often rather ?samey? and boring. There is little attempt to produce an interesting, synthetic report that communicates the results of the work appropriately. I know some project managers who do encourage this sort of writing but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule and many of those who write the reports seem unwilling to tread this path. Of course, this is not to say that all archaeologists fail in this regard but there appear to be a significant number who do. This really goes beyond spelling and grammar, and reflects on how archaeologists think about and analyse their sites.
<Rant Mode/Off>
Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique
"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, the ringing's in your head"