Page 287 - Manual for Activities directed at the Underwater Cultural Heritage

286
the reader can quickly distinguish what is factual information, what – rightly or wrongly – are basic assumptions, and what are interpretations that follow from structured analysis. Personal opinions should therefore be recognizable as such. If they are given at all, they should be revealed in the interpretations. They should not be concealed in bluff like: “it is obvious that...”.
Usually, if the writing is selective, accurate, objective, concise, clear and consistent, it will also be simple. It is essential to keep the audience in mind and to keep asking whether they will be able to follow the logic of the report. All in all, the following recommendations should be kept in mind.
- Write clearly and concisely, and make ap- propriate, consistent, and economical use of other methods of data presentation such as tables, plans or photographs. Innovative presentation methods may increase publication costs, but improve comprehensiveness or attractiveness. The format should be adapted to the audience targeted with the report.
- Present information about what was found in a well-balanced, logical, accessible, and structured way. It should be immediately understandable to those who know nothing about the site. It should reflect the importance of the results of the project and deal adequately with the site’s social, political, and historical context.
- Specialist reports and their supporting data should be given proper place and value. Specialist contributors must be involved in or informed of editorial decisions affecting the presentation of their work in print.
- Deliver accurate and verifiable information. Justify the interpretation of the site with evidence. Ambiguities in the data should be discussed, and where more than one interpretation is possible, the alternatives should be presented.
- Explain the extent to which the objectives of the project have been fulfilled and evaluate the methodologies employed.
Reporting