good point!

 

I would suggest the standard should apply to reporting on archaeological fieldwork (field walking, geofizz, Trial trenching etc) whoever done it (Contractors, amateur group, academic) and for whatever reasons (development, research, fun), and in whatever format (Gl hard copy, online article, journal article, Monograph, etc).

 

That said the standard should make it clear that it applies to the version which is going to be THE report.

 

So for example, if THE report is in a journal, the standard applies, but if THE report is GL, and a journal article is written from it, maybe the standard shouldn't apply as strictly (so that you don't have lots of duplication).

 

Off the cuff thoughts, but I think it is important to suggest that the standard might apply more to reporting of work, rather than just GL, there are some published articles which omit what I would consider to be useful data about the event (like when it was done - how often do you see "in the summer of XXX" for example?

best wishes

 

Nick Boldrini

 

Historic Environment Record Officer

Durham County Council

Tel: 0191 3708840

Fax: 0191 3708897

 

)

 

From: The Forum for Information Standards in Heritage (FISH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CAMPBELL, Gill
Sent: 18 August 2010 09:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FISH] Standard for Grey Literature

 

Dear fishers,

 

To throw the cat amongst the pigeons (or the Felis catus amongst the Columba livia) should be we looking at a standard for grey literature or a standard for reports whatever their intended dissemination route?

 

 

 

From: The Forum for Information Standards in Heritage (FISH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of LEE, Edmund
Sent: 18 August 2010 09:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FISH] Standard for Grey Literature

Hi Jenny,

 

Thanks for checking and commenting. What I envisage in no way should be seen as undermining the status or value of IfA standards (I'm a MIfA myself and work closely with IfA on their standards and guidance). They are, as you say, well established and familiar to archaeologists.

 

Could you perhaps expand on where you see the Watching Brief guidance covering areas which I've suggested that it does not? I'm keen to get this right.

 

One general point on IfA S&G is that in my opinion they are intended primarily for the archaeological practitioner. To tie in with initiatives such as PPS5, we need to be considering practice in the the whole historic environment sector.

 

With all good wishes

 

Ed

 

From: The Forum for Information Standards in Heritage (FISH) [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jenny Hall [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 17 August 2010 23:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FISH] Standard for Grey Literature

 I am surprised that there isn't much reference in these discussions to the published standards and guidelines of the IfA, such as those for Watching Briefs which can be seen online at http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/codes/watch2.pdf

 

Comparing Annexe 1 in the IfA, 2008, Watching Brief Standards and Guidelines pages 6 - 7, with the Excel spreadsheet provided in the file area, I am a little confused as most of the headings in the spreadsheet are in fact covered, which isn't the impression that the spreadsheet gives.

 

In our experience the Standards and Guidance work well.  Annexe 1  in the Watching Brief Standards and Guidance seems to be a very good resume of what should be included in any decent report and similar Standards and Guidance exist for desktop and excavation reports, which probably  overs most types of archaeological grey literature. 

 

I have just looked again at the IfA Standards and Guidance and the relevant parts seem to give a good basis for any guidance on the structure of Grey Literature.  They are clear, not too prescriptive but still include most things you would need to include in a report.  I would suggest that a way forawrd would be to work with the IfA to develop a S&G for a Report Structure.  The IfA leading an initiative would be all inclusive - it would represent all nations of the UK, also all sectors such as curatorial, commercial and academic.  The basis for such a thing already exists and it would be a question of consultation of what ought to be included.

 

Jenny



Help protect our environment by only printing this email if absolutely necessary. The information it contains and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are only intended for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may be unlawful for you to use, share or copy the information, if you are not authorised to do so. If you receive this email by mistake, please inform the person who sent it at the above address and then delete the email from your system. Durham County Council takes reasonable precautions to ensure that its emails are virus free. However, we do not accept responsibility for any losses incurred as a result of viruses we might transmit and recommend that you should use your own virus checking procedures.