Report writing

[Gog]

As a unit, all our reports go out with the name of the author prominently displayed. I have noticed, however, that some of the larger contractors have gone all corporate and produce reports under the company name only, sometimes causing some resentment. My question is:

Should report authors be credited for the work they do?

[kevin wooldridge]

Do you mean should the author's name appear on the front cover?

[Gog]

Absolutely

[tom wilson]

It should be both.

I completely understand the desire among companies to develop brand recognition, which after all is intended to bring in more projects that will help its employees as much as its bosses. Furthermore, if one's reports have been based on company standards and/or pro formas and passed through set peer and line management review stages before being issued, those reports are indeed a product of the company, not simply the author. Furthermore, document control tables in the front of corporate-style reports will include the name of the author (as well as the reviewers who may have made valuable contributions themselves). This being the case, a company might justifiably wonder what the problem is: 'What do you want, a larger font?'. Well, maybe; or authorship on the title page too.

A more serious issue occurs when documents are referenced in other reports or publications. Often, one sees a long list of references for example by 'Borsetshire Archaeology Ltd. 2007d' in bibliographies, which I think is both incomplete and unfair to the author. It also does that individual's career no good whatsoever if the credit for cited work is taken wholly by the company (though some managers may see no business advantage in furthering staff's more academic ambitions). I have always followed the wishes of my employers at the time, but I don't see why the following shouldn't be preferable:
Archer, K, 2007, 'Grey Gables: an archaeological evaluation', (Borsetshire Archaeology Ltd., unpublished client report)
One might consider referencing reports like that against the intentions of the original issuing company/organisation. How much violence to referencing systems could such 'bad practice' do?

Personally speaking, building a corpus of reports is integral to getting where I want to be later in my career. If the fruits of my labours weren't improving my professional standing I would go and find employment where they would. This issue isn't critical for many archaeological career paths, but if you have certain goals then accreditation is that important.

[Gog]

I think building a stock of reports is very important, but to clarify my earlier response I am not so worried about the author's name being on the cover as long as it is clearly identifiable somewhere. I think it is only right, though, that the name is used in the reference, rather than the company.

Perhaps managers who insist that their staff write anonymous reports under the company name might like to do the same when they produce synthetic reports based on staff labours in journals. Not seen one yet.

[beamo]

Perhaps managers who insist that their staff write anonymous reports under the company name might like to do the same when they produce synthetic reports based on staff labours in journals. Not seen one yet.

But the author of the site report is basing his/her work on the achievements of the labour of anonymous diggers/supervisors etc.

I am very much in favour of grey literature (i.e. client reports) being under the company name, with due acknowledgements given within the body of the report to those who contributed in whatever way. I see no problem with citing such reports as **** Archaeology 2005a, 2005b etc.

Published reports in academic journals etc should be attributed to authors, but with due acknowledgments to those that made it possible.


Beamo

[Gog]

quote:Originally posted by beamo


But the author of the site report is basing his/her work on the achievements of the labour of anonymous diggers/supervisors etc.

Bugger - hadn't thought of that. Well squashed, that man.

[kevin wooldridge]

Not that it's the be all and end all of anything, ...the IFA policy on this (Code of Conduct 1.5) is that archaeologists should give 'appropriate credit' to the works of others (and themselves I guess).

Whilst some folk might believe that name, photo and potted biography should be the minimum 'appropriate credit', other views should be considered. Perhaps a clear and detailed credit list somewhere in a report that mentions the contribution of everyone involved. Personally I think authors who duck out of naming excavators are not giving 'appropriate credit' (especially those that credit plant-hire contractors/operators and not their own paid staff).

[tom wilson]

quote:Originally posted by beamo
I am very much in favour of grey literature (i.e. client reports) being under the company name, with due acknowledgements given within the body of the report to those who contributed in whatever way. I see no problem with citing such reports as **** Archaeology 2005a, 2005b etc.

Care to tell us why?

I wholeheartedly agree about acknowledging field staff, and their absence demonstrates a lot about power relations in knowledge production. That is a separate issue though, since they typically are contributors, not authors. Generally, the people who write the words are the ones whose names go on the front of books.

[Gog]

There is an allied issue with illustrators of final reports getting credited , but not necessarily the field staff who drew the original site drawings.

Of course, name-checking everyone was has contributed to a site can end up looking like a massive love-in, and the lazy sods end up with the same pat on the back as the site trojans.