11th November 2005, 11:43 AM
I think you are both making the same point, which is, to quote Eggy
However the person paying for it is not always the person for whom it is intended.
In the case of a PPG16 report, the funder is the client but the audience is the LPA. As Curator Kid points out
If we were just writing reports for the client's own entertainment then 9 times out of 10 we would simply provide a one-page 'Non-technical summary' and a whole raft of appendices.
Equally for published monograph, the funder might be EH but the report is written for a public audience who will include both specialists and non-specialists. And often it is assumed (perhaps bizarrely) that specialists all possess microfiche readers!
Quote:quote: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
However the person paying for it is not always the person for whom it is intended.
In the case of a PPG16 report, the funder is the client but the audience is the LPA. As Curator Kid points out
Quote:quote:if you ask a client why he's paid for a site to be dug and report to be done, he'd usually answer that it's to clear a planning condition and satisfy the County Archaeologist's requirements
If we were just writing reports for the client's own entertainment then 9 times out of 10 we would simply provide a one-page 'Non-technical summary' and a whole raft of appendices.
Equally for published monograph, the funder might be EH but the report is written for a public audience who will include both specialists and non-specialists. And often it is assumed (perhaps bizarrely) that specialists all possess microfiche readers!