NAI Blog

I’m a book junkie. I read incessantly while also watching TV, cruising the Internet, eating breakfast in the morning, and especially at medical offices, where they put you on physical hold for inordinate periods of time. These days I download new books to my Kindle II or book applications to my iPhone instead of cruising the aisles at Borders or Barnes & Noble.

I just started reading Malcolm Gladwell’s newest book, Outliers, on the Kindle and couldn’t put it down until I finished it. I thought Blink was great and enjoyed Tipping Point as well. Gladwell’s a great interpreter in that he makes you think, reveals things you might miss on your own, and he uses stories to illustrate his point of view.

In Outliers he writes about the seeming uniqueness of a genius, an outlier, someone with an incredibly high IQ and capacity to process complex concepts and ideas or an extraordinarily talented person or group. He uses modern iconic entrepreneurs to explain his beliefs, such as Bill Gates and the Beatles. He explains that the seeming good luck of being being born with a great mind or musical talent is not enough to end up a billionaire computer software entrepreneur or musical pied pipers. Both Bill Gates and the Beatles have extraordinary talent as do many others, but uniquely they had the opportunity to practice their crafts more than 10,000 hours before seeming to be overnight successes in their chosen fields.

I won’t summarize the book. It’s much more fun to read it, but I was fascinated by the work ethic theme and the importance of community in creating success. Gladwell writes about the role that a supportive family and community play in the seeming success of a genius and how the lack of that support can result in unrealized dreams for equally bright and capable people. As a culture, we love the rags to riches storylines, but he suggests that these rarely occur unless there are many other supportive elements at play.

He also writes about “The Matthew Effect,” a phenomenon that suggests that “the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.” He documents how those who get identified as “talented” are given all of the advantages of practice, extra tutoring, and access to unique competitions that turn them into stars. Those categorized as “not talented” get none of these advantages and the prophesy endures – they go nowhere without the help.

I’ve heard interpreters say, “Great interpreters are born that way, not trained.” Gladwell might suggest that they may be born with natural communication skills but other factors make the difference. Great communicators get community support to train and chances to practice and hone their skills and those factors make the difference in making them great at what they do.

A professional community like NAI is unique in that the newest practitioner can easily meet the top trainers, researchers, practitioners and thinkers at regional, national and international workshops. In most professions the very best in the business are seen only from a great distance. You can read their book or get their autograph, but not have a coffee or beer with them and chat about the profession. And yet our best known minds in the heritage interpretation field tend to be very accessible.

Some challenging first jobs in interpretation are those with huge audiences, continual repetition and long hours in front of the public (think step on bus guide at a large park, docent at a large aquarium, bus driver/guide for a tour company, etc). But that gives the new interpreter the practice to hone skills and improve substantially if good training also helps them understand what they are training to do.

A basic value of the Certified Interpretive Guide (CIG) course is that experienced professionals help new interpreters get a good foundation for what they are doing. A community of trainers has developed in NAI (more than 450 Certified Interpretive Trainers) and they serve as mentors and coaches to a very large community of frontline practitioners (6,673 CIGs now). We will still have dazzling individual performers who are seeming naturals at what they do, but community support will make them even better. And with no practice and coaching, that individual may not improve and may not compete well for future jobs.

Most of us who discuss the “nature versus nurture” question believe that it really isn’t a reasonable choice. Success includes both our natural gifts and how we are supported in becoming better. Those who seem to be an outlier in getting very famous or very good overnight usually have a backstory of very hard work and extraordinary family and community support. That’s a good thing in my book – and Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Outliers. Have you read it? What do you think?

-Tim Merriman

I want to thank Mike Adams, Region 3 Director, for a very important and timely reminder.  Mike’s article in the latest Region 3 newsletter mentioned the importance of attention to details in creating a great visitor experience.  Those details can contribute to a good experience, or they can be significant detractors.  You have to pay attention to both in order to create and maintain a quality experience.

We’re all familiar with the positive cues that contribute to the guest experience: open body language, eye contact, smiling, sharp uniform, good grooming.  We pay attention to the quality of images, layout, text and writing in signs, labels and print materials that also represent us.  And we invest a good deal of research and development in our programs, not to mention attention to the finer points of delivering a great interpretive presentation.  In training and managing interpretive staff, we focus a lot of attention on these positive points to ensure we’re putting a top image in front of our guests and providing the best experience we can.

All that’s important, but there’s more.  We also have to pay attention to negative cues, the details that can detract from a visitor’s experience.  Litter—either inside a facility or out on the grounds—is something that frequently catches my eye.  Dirty or damaged facilities or exhibits that don’t operate properly also stand out.  Even traffic, inadequate signage or parking, bad road conditions–even though those things are usually beyond our control–can also detract from the guest’s experience.

So as an interpreter, why should I care about the potholes in the parking lot outside?  All those positive and negative cues have everything to do with the frame of mind of your audience members when they engage in an interpretive experience or program.  Remember that old 5-phase model of the recreation experience—anticipation, travel to, onsite experience, travel from, and recollection.  While the interpreter has a lot to do with the onsite experience, those other four phases are just as important in creating the complete experience.  So any time we can influence those other four phases, we can improve the odds that the overall guest experience is the best it can be.  And remember that these positive and negative cues are going to vary according to age, culture and other aspects of each individual’s background.

In many parts of the United States, summer is the peak of our visitor season.  That means that right now is our best opportunity to make the best impression on the largest portion of our audience.  So while you’re driving or riding in to work in the next few days, put on your visitor hat and take a critical look at the details along the way that are shaping the image and experience of visitors headed for your facility.  They take a slow walk around your place and look for those small details that make a good or not-so-good impression on your audience.  Can you address any of the negative cues immediately?  How soon can you remediate the others, or at least minimize their impact as detractors?  What features of your staff, programs, facility support a good experience?  Can you increase or accentuate these further?

If you’d like to know more about designing a great guest experience, you might want to visit the Experiencology web site: http://experienceology.blogspot.com.  NAI member Stephanie Weaver has elevated the guest experience to the level of science, and she provides a lot of great resources to examine your own guest experience.  And if you sign up for the ZWPA webcast on August 11, I’ll be discussing the concept of designing guest experiences in zoos and aquariums.

Freeman Tilden III contacted us recently by email to congratulate the winner of the Tilden Award at the upcoming NAI National Workshop in Hartford, CT. I was delighted to learn that a grandson of Freeman bears his name. This gentleman serves as Training and International Sales Director for Anderson Wood Floors out of Greenville, South Carolina. I would enjoy meeting Freeman Tilden III and to hear his stories of growing up around his very interesting grandfather.

I just missed meeting Freeman Tilden in 1980 at the Cape Cod Association of Interpretive Naturalists National Workshop. I was out on a whale watching trip that stayed out late due spyhopping whales just a few feet from our boat. Personally I was so seasick on the fantail with a bevy of other blue-green interpreters, that I was just praying we would one day walk on land again. When we disembarked and learned we had missed the lobster and crab cookout on the beach, I also learned that Freeman Tilden had also just left. Bummer. Seasick, missed a great cookout, missed meeting a legendary figure in our field – so it goes. I even missed the spyhopping whales.

Another  legendary writer and trainer in our field, Dr. Sam Ham, will be at the National Workshop in Hartford from November 17-21 to speak about, what else – Tilden Was One Sharp Cookie. Actually that’s my title, not Sam’s title for the talk. I’m not sure what a “sharp cookie” is but I’ve always liked the sound of that. Sam will speak on, “From Interpretation to Protection: Is There a Theoretical Basis?”

Tilden is certainly best remembered for the six principles he put forth in his well known book, Interpreting our Heritage (1957). It’s still one of our best selling books at NAI. In it he quotes a National Park Service administrative manual that said, “Through interpretation, understanding, through understanding, appreciation, through appreciation, protection.” Sam will carefully walk us through the social science research that relates to that statement. Sam’s message is very compelling and useful. Don’t miss his Thursday morning plenary keynote.

In the Certified Interpretive Guide course we teach a social marketing model that looks like stairsteps with “curiosity” on the lowest step on the left and then “awareness” on the next step, “understanding” on the next, then “care about” and finally “care for.” This depicts the varied states of interest our audience has for our messages and ideas. I always like to point out that there’s an even lower step below “curiosity” called “dragged along.” Some of our audience are unwilling participants who are not even curious. Our challenge is to move people up these stairsteps from no interest to caring about and for the resource – stewardship at this highest level. This social marketing model is really the same notion as Tilden’s message about using interpretation to build understanding to appreciation to protection.

I’m looking forward to Sam’s talk about this important idea in Tilden’s book. I do think Tilden was one sharp cookie. I hope to see you there. If you know the origins of “one sharp cookie,” please let me know.

- Tim Merriman

In some ways I view faith as a very different realm than science.  But when considering global environmental issues that are difficult to measure or observe directly, I have to put my faith in science and what scientists are telling us.  I guess that makes me a science “believer” if you want to look at it that way.

This is certainly the case with the issue of climate change.  I can’t see much of a difference in the climate where I live in Monterey—yet.  There’s no conclusive proof that our climate is changing, but there’s a growing body of evidence that something is going on.  So the question is, “Do I choose to believe what scientists are predicting?” In my case I’m willing to trust the process of science and the credibility of scientists, and try to reduce my carbon footprint.

As interpreters, we frequently ask our audiences to trust our accuracy and credibility, whether it’s believing our account of an historic event, or accepting our explanations of natural processes.  There may be conflicting accounts or contradictory explanations, but we exercise due diligence in researching our material and our audience usually respects what we say—at least as long as we’re saying things that don’t conflict significantly with the worldviews of our audience.  However, when we venture into interpreting controversial topics our credibility is really put to the test as we challenge traditional views and values.

So I was interested in a recent report from Earthjustice entitled Re:Green, The Ecological Roadmap, A Guide to American Social Values and Environmental Engagement.  Based on traditional market segmentation techniques, this research identifies segments of the American public based on their environmental worldviews.  These segments cover a range of acceptance and activism on environmental issues, including:

• Greenest Americans, Idealists and Caretakers, which support conservation actions, even though they may not always identify themselves as environmentalists.
• Traditionalists, Driven Independents and Murky Middles, that don’t think about the environment much, but aren’t necessarily opposed to conservation actions.
• Fatalists, Materialists, Cruel Worlders and UnGreens.  These four groups are focused on immediate priorities and day-to-day realities that may conflict with conservation behaviors.

This report goes on to describe each segment in more detail, their values and lifestyles.  It also suggests strategies for addressing each segment and more effectively engaging them in environmental activism.

These audience segments walk into your park or your facility every day.  If our job as interpreters is to forge stronger connections between the interests of audience and the meanings inherent in the resource, then it’s helpful to understand the interests of the audience as well as we can.  If you’d like to learn more about this particular aspect of our audience, you can download a pdf of  Re:Green from the Earthjustice website at: http://scp.earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/ReGreen%20Exec%20Summary.pdf .

In the United States we read and hear about the awesome power of specific groups to influence Congress. The National Rifle Association (NRA)  and Gun Owners of America (GOA) exemplify the ultimate in this citizen influence. A recent Congressional bill pushed by the GOA approved  concealed carry of weapons in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. The bill was crafted during the Bush Administration years but it was signed by President Obama because it was attached to a credit card regulatory bill that the new administration wanted. Gun lobby organizations exert great influence because of the numbers of people they represent and the money behind them used to lobby. We can hope this doesn’t lead to shootings in parks and refuges resulting from escalating disagreements among visitors but it likely will.

We have largely lacked both the money and the will to use collaborative influence in the fields of heritage interpretation and environmental education until recently. Richard Louv’s book, Last Child in the Woods (2005), stimulated collaboration of a more political nature that is beginning to pay dividends. The book and resulting keynotes by Louv at many gatherings of professionals and parents led to a political groundswell to get children outside. The No Child Left Inside movement is coordinated by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and now includes more than 1,300 organizations, including NAI, and more than 45 million Americans. Those numbers begin to draw attention among elected leaders.

Abby Ybarra and Lucas Johnson are the Grassroots Coordinators and they have been great about getting out Action Alerts that suggest how we can most be of help in getting Congress to pass the No Child Left Inside Act (NCLIA – Senate Bill 866). This bill was recently  introduced by Senator John Reed (D) of Rhode Island. It has 15 Senate Co-sponsors, but needs 51 ideally. Two Republicans, an Independent and twelve Democrats are the current cosponsors.

If you support the NCLIA, you can help by emailing your senator to urge her or his cosponsorship of S.866 right away, before the August recess. The existing cosponsors are:

Sen. John Reed [D-RI]
Cosponsors [as of 2009-07-13]
Sen. Michael Bennet [D-CO]
Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]
Sen. Robert Casey [D-PA]
Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]
Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
Sen. John Kerry [D-MA]
Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]
Sen. Blanche Lincoln [D-AR]
Sen. Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]
Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]
Sen. Bernard Sanders [I-VT]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]

Advocacy of this kind has not been a regular part of our role at the NAI National Office, but as a 501(c)3 charitable organization, we  are allowed some limited rights to these efforts. With the blessing of our Board of Directors we do lend NAI’s support for legislation that benefits all Americans and the many working professionals in cultural and natural heritage. I have just written to Senator Udall (D) of Colorado to urge his support as a cosponsor of S. 866. You can learn more about the S. Bill 866 at this site.

We often see the power of collaboration as being something that lobbyists or interest groups do. This bill is a chance for all of us who care about getting children outdoors for enriched experiences to make our voice heard through a collaborative effort. For more information on No Child Left Inside or to add your organization to the growing list of supporters click here. We can make a difference by making our feelings known to elected officials in a timely manner. The time for support of S.866 is now.

- Tim Merriman

Most of you have probably heard about California’s budget crisis by now.  Seems like this is almost a perpetual story in recent years, made particularly acute by the sagging state economy and serious decline in revenues to government at all levels in the state.  In an effort to make up a shortfall in excess of $23 billion, the governor has proposed some draconian cuts, including closing 220 of the 279 state park units in California.

Now you may be thinking There but for the grace of God go I.  I sincerely hope that the agency or organization that supports your position and programs is in good financial shape and that you’re not in immediate fear of losing a job or a program.  Whether your programs are secure or shaky, you may want to pay some attention to what’s happening in California.

California State Parks has a very active support group, the California State Parks Foundation, and many of the individual park units have auxiliary or friends groups that help raise funds and awareness for the parks.  These support groups have ramped up an extensive public awareness and advocacy campaign to fight the closure of state park units.  Similar efforts are underway for various local and county park systems around the state.

Park advocates point out that the cost of operating parks is but a fraction of one percent of the overall state budget, and that many parks bring in significant revenue, earning back a large part of their operating cost.  In an economy where many families are relying on state and local parks to provide camping opportunities, summer day camps and other inexpensive family recreation, closing parks and programs may have huge social costs as well.In another wrinkle on this complex story, the National Park Service has informed the state the federal government may take over six state parks that were created on former federal lands.  In transferring the land to California State Parks, there is a requirement that public access to the sites be maintained.  Some feel that closing these state parks would violate that agreement and the land should revert back to federal management (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/01/ap/national/main5127931.shtml).

The drive to rescue 220 state parks from the budget crisis is a good case study in justifying your existence in the political and socioeconomic arena.  The campaign has some well-developed and effective strategy—and a lot of supporters that are gathering momentum.  You never know when your staff and programs may be put in a similar position, and we might do well to watch the California campaign to gather successful ideas and strategy if we ever need them.

Here are a few web sites where you can learn more:

California State Parks Foundation: http://ga3.org/campaign/budget_may09

Save Our State Parks Campaign: http://www.savestateparks.org/

What is Output-itis? I clearly made it up. I haven’t been to dictionary.com, but I’m pretty sure you won’t find it there. But like Stephen Colbert’s “truthiness” it may be a useful addition to the language – or not.

Ouput-itis is the urge to deliver products or programs with no clear outcomes or impacts in mind. We brainstorm, design and deliver media of all kinds, personal and non-personal, without any specific expectation of results. We hope it does good and assure supervisors it will and has in the past. This is how interpretation has been done for decades.

Nowadays most organizations want RESULTS, measurable RESULTS. Many foundations require a Logic Model of measurable results  in the application for a foundation grant. They have limited funds (especially after the recent stock market slide into the magma) and they want to know what RESULTS they’ll get for their investment.

As we developed the professional certification courses at NAI, we embraced the idea that interpretation is purposeful – it’s management. We encouraged planning with outcomes in mind, but our terminology in the early years was not consistent with other terminology about results-oriented programming and management.

Conversations with Dr. Tom Marcinkowski of Florida Institute of Technology and NAI’s own Jim Covel led us to the emerging use of logic models. In 2004 Tom wrote a monograph on the use of a logic model to review and analyze an environmental education program and it’s available from the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE). Jim told us of the importance placed on logic models by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. The Kellogg Foundation helps teach about Logic Models through their website.

Logic models vary some so we adopted the language being used in the environmental education community for three kinds of objectives – outputs, outcomes and impacts. Output objectives are what we do, like “conduct 4 new programs each month, complete three new exhibits, etc.” Outcomes demonstrate changed behaviors by our audiences such as ” ten guests will become volunteers, book sales on the Civil War will increase 20%, guests will donate $,1000 per month to our scholarships for children, etc.” Impacts are the changes for the organization or the resource such as “conservation easements will increase by 5,000 acres, vandalism of the historic site will decrease by 50% per year, etc.). These objectives have to be very measurable and something we care about.

It’s tempting to measure knowledge or cognition in outcome objectives, “The guest will know the three major landforms in the valley.” Since people tend to not remember facts from interpretive experiences, why would we measure their recollection of them unless it has some importance to the management of the site. “The guest will be able to distinguish brook trout from rainbow trout.” This measure of knowledge is useful to the guest and management if its legal to take home the rainbow trout to eat but not the brook trout. Cognitive objectives can be useful outcomes but usually they are not.

You can also think of these tiered objectives as “if then” statements. If we do our “sea turtles can’t digest plastic bags  program” four times a month (output), then ten volunteers will stay after each program and help clean up the turtle beach (outcome), and that results in no dead sea turtles on this beach this year (impact).

The use of logic models in interpretive planning adds a whole new dimension to it. We identify evaluation of our interpretive experiences within the plan and then manage the programming and/or products to get the RESULTS we want.

Output-itis is easy and that’s the problem. It’s too easy to deliver interpretive experiences with no accountability to anyone. But then comes the economic crunch and our programs go away because they lack value for management. Logic models used well are a cure for output-itis and they include their own rewards. It’s comforting to know that what we planned has delivered desirable outcomes and impacts for the resource and organization. It’s great to get the RESULTS we wanted.

- Tim Merriman

P.S. Lisa Brochu’s new BLOG on Interpretive Planning has begun at http://www.interpretiveplans.com. Check it out!

First, some good news: The U.S. Traveler Sentiment Index recently reported an increase in the number of adults planning at least one trip of two or more days for leisure purposes.  The number of leisure travelers this year was 63%, up from 60 % in 2008—not a huge increase, but a hopeful sign that travel may be picking up this summer and fall.  Since many of us work in settings that depend on travel and tourism to provide part of our audience, this is a nice change from months of reports of declining tourism. To learn more about this survey, check the ypartnership web site at: http://www.ypartnership.com/#news.

It’s important to remember that most of us compete in the leisure travel market.  So our competition is not only the other nearby parks, nature centers or museums, but also theme parks, spectator sports and anything else a family may do with their leisure time and money.  In a recent interview with Funworld magazine, Joe Pine talked about the value of authenticity in the leisure experience.  (Joe Pine and Jim Gilmore are the authors of The Experience Economy and more recently, Authenticity: What Consumers Really Want.  That authenticity is partially a function of expectations—is the experience what people expect it to be?  It may be important to manage expectations so potential visitors aren’t set up with contrived images or stories that lead them to anticipate an experience that doesn’t exist.  Authenticity is also a function of fit—does the experience fit the location and the organization?  For example, attending a campfire program may be perceived as a more authentic experience in a national park than playing miniature golf.

In addition to authenticity, Pine ranks the social value of an experience very highly in leisure venues.  Most of our guests are visiting with friends or family, and the opportunity to share the experience among one’s social group is an important value.  Participating in the experience together is a way to create memories and reinforce relationships.

I believe that participating in interpretive programs and/or visiting interpretive facilities can be a value that can compete with any other top attraction in this country.  We can enhance the value of interpretive experiences for our audiences by emphasizing the authenticity of the opportunities we offer.  Interpreters are the “curators of authenticity” in many sites and programs, and we should play to that strength.  In addition, making sure that we create a sense of audience whenever possible, and/or including opportunities for social groups to interact in our programs or interpretive activities, will maximize the value for our visitors.

-Jim Covel