Well, I finally had to resubscribe to Histarch and put in my two cents
worth on this subject, since this has been an issue that has consumed a
considerable amount of my time the last couple of years. I agree that one
size does not fit all. However, for those projects that warrent it, we
should be doing better by the public than we have done--they're the ones
paying us for most of this work after all--particularly given the level of
popular interest in archaeology. The narrative form that Diana Wall refers
to is one way of doing this; like Dr. Wall, I am disturbed that some folks
have played fast and loose with the data--this sort of thing can only
discredit the field in the long run. However, I do think, like Ned, that we
can produce reports that appeal both to the reading public and to the
professional--it's in large part a  matter of presentation. In my own
experience with the narrative form I find that including a few tables or
graphs in the text, with the bulk of the data and number-crunching located
in appendices, works pretty well. The critical point is that we establish,
in the text, the links between our data and our
conclusions/interpretations. This approach doesn't work with every project;
some sites just don't lend themselves to the narrative
treatment--prehistoric sites, for instance. That doesn't mean we have to
produce the same old boring stuff.

Part of the problem, of course, is that we've been trained to write for
each other, and for the reviewers. We're supposed to sound "scientific",
and if we don't then there must be something wrong with our research.
Producing readable reports doesn't mean turning a Phase I survey document
into a novella; trying to make dry holes sound interesting is just a waste
of time.  But for data recovery projects especially, we need to think
beyond the client, beyond the SHPO, to what might interest our various
paying publics. For the really good sites--those with lots of cool data--we
need to think in terms of niche marketing when it comes to publich
outreach. There are readers who want some meat, and they're the ones that
something like the narrative site report is aimed at. Others are probably
perfectly happy with the Cliff Notes version, or the trifold brochure, the
music video, or what have you.  The kicker, of course, is to get the client
and SHPO to accept something different from the run-of-the-mill compliance
report. DelDOT has already been mentioned in that regard, and there are
other agencies open to doing things a little differently. For those that
insist on adhering to the letter of the guidelines in terms of report
organization or verbiage, some lobbying is in order. It's in our interest
as archaeologists and their's as agencies/clients to maintain the publics'
interest in what we do. Producing accessible reports is one of many
approaches to doing just that.