11th November 2005, 10:00 AM
Quote: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"