GUIDELINES FOR PRODUCING TECHNICAL REPORTS
Consultancy reports tend to follow a fairly standard template and some states (such as Victoria and NSW) provide very specific guidance on the appropriate headings for cultural heritage management plans (CHMP) for Indigenous sites. Before you submit your report get feedback, particularly if you are working with other groups who have a vested interest in the project. Feedback may mean submitting a draft report to the client and to any other interested parties, and waiting for responses before you submit the final version. This gives all stakeholders an opportunity to comment. This is particularly important if you are working with Indigenous communities, as they are likely to have definite and often quite specific ideas about what they think are adequate management strategies. Before you submit your report, take your recommendations back to the community and carefully go through them together to make sure that everyone understands what is at stake and has an opportunity to comment on whether, and how, they think the recommendations are suitable or unsuitable.
Remember also that you are not just submitting your report to a client, but also to the government authority who administers cultural heritage in that state. The cultural heritage managers who work for these authorities (usually, but not always, archaeologists) are ultimately the people who will assess your report, and they will assess it according to whether it complies with current best practice guidelines. These are the people who are most likely to ask you for clarification on certain aspects of your work, to rewrite sections of your report or even to request that you do more research or fieldwork before they accept it. You must also satisfy your client, of course, because they are paying for you to do an adequate job in the first place. A client is unlikely to be sympathetic if they have to pay more money because you did a substandard assessment to begin with, which later requires substantial reworking before the state government authority will accept it.
Finally, see how closely your report conforms to these best practice expectations:
Have you used standard measures and terminology to describe sites and artefacts?
Have you defined all your terms and categories, either in the body of the report or in a glossary?
Have you been explicit about how you chose to define a site, and the way that you decided on the site’s boundaries?
Have you outlined the logic of your sampling strategy?
Have you shown clearly on a map where your sampling units/transects/excavation squares were located?
Have you shown clearly on a map the location of all of your sites (unless requested to keep details of sites secret)?
Have you been explicit about your methods during all phases of the project?
If you have used a new method, have you been explicit about how you went about it and what its limitations were?
Have you been explicit about the limitations you encountered during all phases of the project?
Have you evaluated the effectiveness of your survey coverage?
Have you evaluated the usefulness of your historical or ethnographic sources?
Have you provided grid references for all of your sites (unless requested to keep details of sites secret)?
Have you made your data accessible to reinterpretation (e.g. included all supporting material relevant to your data analysis as an appendix, such as your tables of raw data, your database and/or your recording forms)?
Have you included details of all consultation undertaken with any parties or individuals as part of the project?
If you obtained a permit to survey or excavate, have you included details of the permit number in the report?
Copies of reports should be lodged with major and local public libraries as well as government departments. This is not always possible, of course—particularly if your report contains secret/sacred or otherwise confidential information—but ideally you should supply one copy to the client or funding body, one copy to the appropriate state or federal heritage authority, copies to any interest groups who participated in the project, one copy to accompany the finds (if your project involved collection or excavation), and one copy to the nearest appropriate public archive or library (Birmingham and Murray 1987: 92). You should also give copies to Indigenous community groups, volunteer organisations and local historical societies. For some groups you may need to tailor the report and present it as a plain English, or community, report as well as a technical report.
CHECKLIST FOR CONSULTANCY REPORTS
This is only one suggested format for a standard consultancy report. Not all categories will apply in every circumstance.
Title of report.
Client or group for whom it is prepared.
Date.
Author’s name and address.
Acknowledgements
Overview of project.
Overview of results.
Overview of significance.
Overview of recommendations.
Any restrictions on the use of the report or on the information contained within the report.
(Table of) Contents
(Table of) Figures
(Table of) Tables
Brief description of project.
Where the project is located (e.g. brief statement of nearest town, or important geographical feature, state or area of state, borders of study area, etc.) and why the project was commissioned/carried out.
Who commissioned/funded the project.
Aims and scope of the study. Include any formal brief or informal instructions issued as part of the project.
Types of investigation conducted (e.g. field survey, Aboriginal consultation, excavation, document searches, oral histories).
When fieldwork, analysis and report writing took place.
Who undertook fieldwork, analysis and report writing.
Any constraints or limitations which were imposed on the project (e.g. bad weather, limited time, attitudes of landowners, particular instructions which limited the survey in any way, such as instructions from Traditional Owners to stay away from areas).
Any constraints or limitations of the data (including documentary sources) collected during the project (e.g. lack of suitable oral history informants, loss of data, inability to find certain information).
General description of study area (e.g. size, present land use, access, etc.).
General description of environment (e.g. geology/geomorphology, topography, watercourses, flora and fauna, relevant raw material sources, etc.).
Previous impacts on the study area (e.g. past logging, clearing, ploughing, mining, erosion, etc.).
Description of proposed development and associated works, including what activities could be expected to have an impact on the archaeology.
Relevant ethnographic studies and findings within the region and the study area.
Relevant historical studies and findings within the region and the study area.
Relevant archaeological studies and findings within the region and the study area.
Relevant oral histories and findings within the region and the study area.
Research strategy and aims.
Detailed description of fieldwork methods for all stages of fieldwork. Outline clearly the equipment and techniques used to implement the research strategy (e.g. choice and location of sample areas, recording methods, collection methods, storage of artefacts/information, methods of analysis).
Discussion of any problems which arose during fieldwork, analysis or report writing.
Detail of the constraints on archaeological visibility during the survey.
Description of any decisions made in the field or the laboratory which changed the scope of the study.
Details of people involved.
Summary of what was found or achieved (e.g. quantities, types, distribution).
Description of findings based on field notes and recording forms.
Relevant tabulations of data, photographs, illustrations.
Summary of points of interest or major research problems emerging from the study.
Discussion of the evidence in regional and local perspective.
Implications of the findings and areas for future research.
General statements of significance for the study area.
Specific statements of significance for individual sites/areas (including whether further research is necessary to adequately determine significance).
Implications of the probable effects of development on the study area and the findings (including both direct and indirect impacts).
General management recommendations, including alternatives where possible (e.g. dealing with the study area in general or with particular zones or areas within it).
Specific management recommendations, including alternatives where possible (e.g. dealing with individual sites or artefacts).
Discussion of any issues or problems attached to these recommendations (e.g. client’s preferences, difficulties, attitudes, compromises, etc.).
Identification of any legal requirements or processes which must be followed.
References
Relevant additional information, including information which needs to be kept restricted.
A glossary of any technical terms or definitions used in the report (including definitions of artefact types, attributes, measurements, etc.).
Copy of the project brief and any other relevant information from the client outlining the scope of work, etc.
Letters of advice outlining management recommendations/opinions from community groups (e.g. Indigenous Land Councils).
Birmingham, J. and T. Murray, 1987, Historical Archaeology in Australia: A Handbook. National Estate Grant Report. Unpublished report to the Australian Heritage Commission.