PwarYuex said:
I think it's supposed to be like a natural science experiment?
You've got an introduction with an aim, description and reasoning for methodology, step-by-step cause and effects (methodology), analysis and conclusions.
It's basically a normal essay but with headings - the difference being that the form allows for things like tables, charts, dot-points, descriptions, appendices, etc, I think. It's also far less concerned with expression, I think.
But I've never really done one. Maybe Sue Spinks' department has some online info about it?
Actually, disregard some of that. I just had time to think about it in the shower.
I think the difference between a normal essay and a report is that an essay generally contains a thesis throughout, whereas a report will only contain a thesis in the conclusion/analysis sections (if there are any).
That is because essays lend themselves to arguing, and persuading, whereas a report lends itself to describing, accounting, and scientific analysing. Someone should be able to pick up a report and get a exhaustive description or account, and then be able to turn to the analysis/conclusion section at the end to get an analysis/conclusion if that's what they want.
That's why archaeological reports are reports - because they seek to be objective and should be able to be reinterpreted.
They also need to utilise (like I said above) things like lists. Having a catalogue of artefacts doesn't work with an essay - you'd just have a chunk of text. Having it in a report, though, means that you can have dot points, numbers, headings for each type of artefact, drawings and photos, etc.
Reports also lend themselves to bigger, original projects. Having something like a 'previous literature' section is a must in most honours theses - a chapter where you just outline the previous works is a must, and shows that you've been exhaustive in research.
Hope this makes sense. If in doubt, look at an archaeological report.
