Comment

Comment by Brian Forist on January 31, 2013 at 7:11pm

Eric, You got it!

Comment by Eric Knackmuhs on January 31, 2013 at 7:08pm

I think I see where you are coming from and I can agree that more people need to be served in parks not solely through interpretation. But I do believe that increasing interpretive program attendance is one important and effective way to serve more people.

The research Merriman cites in the Legacy article is Sam Ham's work. He cites the Galapagos case study as successfully using 'carefully crafted themes to improve tourists' understanding of the threats to the Galapagos Islands..." Merriman also cites the JIR  article below that cites several studies that did collect data from visitors about interpretive experiences, including an article about the Galapagos study.

Ham, Sam. "The Galapagos Conservation Fund: A Case Study in Developing a Strategic Interpretive Campaign for Travelers' Philanthropy." 2009. Invited address to: Business Enterprises for Sustainable Tourism (BEST), Dominican Republic.

Ham, Sam, "From Interpretation to Protection: Is there a Theoretical Basis?" Journal of Interpretation Research, 14(2): 20-23. 2009. NAI: Fort Collins, CO.

Regarding the 1970s Illinois cuts, what I think Merriman was saying was that the brass eliminated the interpretive division because they didn't understand the value of it. They left some programs in place (and interpreters to give them) because they would have taken heat from the public over eliminating them.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I understand that you advocate a different approach to evaluating interpretation. You're working with Doug Knapp, right? I've talked to him too and have applied to join you at IU in fact so I agree the NAI/NPS IDP evaluation has limits, specifically that it evaluates our performances rather than the outcomes/impacts to visitors. Roving, informal interp and other services may potentially have much greater impact on a vistor's experience in the short and long-term. Am I in the ballpark?

Comment by Brian Forist on January 31, 2013 at 6:33pm

I lost a couple of words. We must have greater numbers of people understand our management goals...

Comment by Brian Forist on January 31, 2013 at 6:30pm

Show me the "research" that Merriman writes about. I have heard him say the role of research is to prove the value of interpretation. That seems to be a case of putting the horse well before the cart. Research does not begin with results and then work backward. That is antithetical to scientific methods.

I think we should have more visitors served in our parks. It may be with interpretive programs, it may be with interpretive media, informational services, orientation, new media, etc. It may be through informal services. That is where we need the visitor research, real research, to guide us.We must have greater numbers of people to management goals, and to understand and appreciate the parks. That is, of course, critical to the collective preservation of American natural and cultural heritage. It grows in importance each day.

I was not indicting you for making decisions based on what the ranger likes but look at Merriman's article.What he describes has been done in more than a few places. It implies program decisions in Illinois were based on personality. 

I'll take on NAI at another point in time, 

Comment by Eric Knackmuhs on January 31, 2013 at 6:18pm

Brian, I think you miss my point. I don't believe that increasing program attendance should be done because it is more fun for the interpreter. If interpretation helps people form a connection to a park, if it helps them care about it and care for it then through interpretation we ensure the survival of the national park system. The more people who feel that way, the better! Also, it has always been a struggle for interpretive managers to justify their personnel budgets when 96% of visitors do not attend any programs. Tim Merriman wrote a great piece about this in the latest issue of Legacy Magazine called "Interpretation is Management". He explained how in a budget crisis in the 1970s almost the entire interpretive division of what was then called the Illinois Department of Conservation (now the Illinois Department of Natural Resources) was laid off to save money. A few were spared because their programs were so popular that they believed teachers and the general public would have complained. He goes on to explain how the professionalization of the field during the last 40 years through the development of NAI, including training and evaluation methods and research showed that interpretation is a useful way to accomplish management goals. 

You cite the purpose of interpretation as stated by Machlis (1992) is “to assist the visitor, to accomplish management goals, and to promote public understanding and appreciation". Why wouldn't we want to assist more visitors? Why wouldn't we want to more people to understand management goals? Why wouldn't we want to increase the number of people who understand and appreciate our parks?

How do you get more people to programs? That will probably vary widely from park to park. As Doug said changing offerings to match visitation patterns or visitor interests and needs is one way. Maybe increasing attendance at existing programs through better advertising is another. Maybe increased social media presence is a way. Lastly, the country's demographics are becoming more diverse while park visitor demographics are not. Are there programs we could offer that would bring "non-traditional" park visitors into our parks? Why wouldn't we want to do that? 

Comment by Brian Forist on January 31, 2013 at 5:13pm

Doug,

Kudos to you for responding to the visitors rather than the rangers in making programming decisions.

I am a heretic who has not fully accepted the "meaning-making" paradigm of interpretation as defined by the Interpretive Development Program within the National Park Service. I also believe that information IS interpretation. I subscribe to the Machlis and Field statement that, “interpretation is largely a service for visitors to parks, wildlife refuges, museums, zoos, aquariums, and other such leisure places. Its practical objectives are straightforward: to assist the visitor, to accomplish management goals, and to promote public understanding and appreciation" (Machlis, 1992, p. 2).* That said, the purpose is pretty clear. It is a constant balancing act but I believe the desires of the interpreter should have nothing to do with the calculation regarding what services to provide or discontinue. As I see it, our role in the National Park System is threefold: to protect park resources in an unimpaired fashion; to serve the visitors (and other stakeholders, present or not); and to use the American people's money in an efficient and thoughtful fashion. Period!

*Machlis, G. E., & Field, D. R. (1992). On interpretation: Sociology for interpreters of natural and cultural history (G. E. Machlis, & Field, D. R. Ed. 2nd ed.). Corvalis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Webmaster Comment by Doug Lowthian on January 31, 2013 at 3:22pm

Brian: That begs the question, what is the purpose of the interpretive offerings in a park. Is it to help further a management goal, is to help engender a culture of stewardship among the visitors, or is it entertainment for folks who visit? Do we do programming because it is what the visitor wants or do we do it to convey a message, influence behavior and thought, or address a resource protection issue in the park? If the latter, do we keep on at it if the visitor just doesn't care?

We traditionally offered evening programs in 3 campgrounds 2 nights a week all summer. Many of the interp staff loved it and for many years so did the visitors. However, visitors change. When it became clear that Friday night was poorly attended and one of the three campgrounds just could not get more than a half a dozen people, I recommended we abandon the traditional offerings and reduce to 1 or 2 campgrounds once a week. However, we will be increasing our afternoon offerings at the Nature Center as the few we have done were very well attended. Our needs to convey certain resource protection messages did not change but we did change up our schedule and, I suspect, at the end of the summer our total number of visitors attending programs will be higher.

We addressed our needs as a park as well as meeting the visitor needs to have a program at a certain time and place. I guess the lesson I learned is that trying to get more people to attend current offerings may be a losing proposition, but finding a new set of offerings may increase attendance and still meet park needs. The benefit is for both.

Comment by Brian Forist on January 31, 2013 at 3:10pm

Doug: I am a big proponent of looking at informal interpretive/visitor service contacts. My intent is to focus my dissertation research on that...and know of no work done on it to date.

Comment by Brian Forist on January 31, 2013 at 3:01pm

Eric: Why do we need to increase program attendance? Is that good for the visitors or good for us? I love being the performer and totally thrive on the gratification that comes with being "on." However, that meets my needs, and perhaps my needs alone. It is a lovely moment when meeting our needs seem to bounce off of the needs of visitors. However, remaining conscious of being a public servant must remain at the front of our thoughts AND actions!

Comment by Eric Knackmuhs on January 31, 2013 at 2:03pm

I think that we need to make increasing program attendance a priority in national parks. I don't have any real data to back me up on this but I think most visitors view a ranger program as more of an educational lecture than a fun, enjoyable, activity. We need to dedicate ourselves to shifting that perception by shifting our program goals to creating more enjoyable and memorable experiences. I have a lot of ideas, opinions and questions on that topic that I'll address in a separate post in the coming days. Also, many of those visitors might be interested in a ranger program but might not know about them. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page