NAI Blog

I was just asked this challenging question by email and thought I might as well address this big question here. It’s too much for a blog articles, but I’ll give it an effort and you be the judge.  Keep in mind, this is my opinion only and others may land in different places.

In 2006 NAI and about 25 other nonprofit associations and federal agencies dealt with this among other questions in the Definitions Project funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in collaboration with the Institute for Learning Innovation. The result of that effort is a lexicon of definitions hammered out by the group and posted at definitionsproject.com.

A list of definitions alone does not address this question. I personally believe they are closely related fields that have evolved in the hands and minds of people who do both routinely at non-formal sites such as parks, historic sites, zoos, museums, aquariums and tour companies. Still there are some subtle differences.

Interpretation is defined by National Association for Interpretation as a “mission-based communication process that forges emotional and intellectual connections between the interests of the audience and meanings inherent in the resource.” The word “mission-based” in the NAI definition acknowledges that interpreters have to be of service to the organizational mission. In tough budgets we are gone if not of fundamental service in achieving the organizational mission. Many interpretive programs have been created as “interpretainment,” entertaining programming, sometimes with no management function. Invariably these programs die in periods of austerity such as in the current recession.

Forging emotional and intellectual connections indicates the “social marketing” role of interpretation. Tilden introduced that in his classic book, Interpreting Our Heritage. He quoted from a National Park Service administrative manual, “Through interpretation, understanding, through understanding, appreciation, through appreciation, protection.” We are trying to encourage people to understand and think deeply about resources and their meanings. Sam Ham’s recent presentation at the NAI National Workshop and article in the fall 2009 Journal of Interpretation Research explain the social science research that supports this concept. We encourage stewardship of resources through the interpretive approach to communication.

Education is usually, but not always, more oriented toward learning. One definition of education is “Education is the process of developing an individual’s knowledge, values, and skills and encompasses both teaching and learning.” If you view education as gaining knowledge, then interpretation is a bit more oriented toward creating emotional connections along with the gain in knowledge. The environmental education definition from the Definitions Project is, “A learning process that increases people’s knowledge and awareness about the environment and associated challenges, develops the necessary skills and expertise to address the challenges, and fosters attitudes, motivations, and commitments to make informed decisions and take responsible action. (UNESCO, Tbilisi Declaration, 1978)” This adds the responsibility to “make informed decisions and take responsible action.” That is similar to the “building stewardship” responsibility in most interpretive organizations.

When teachers or educators ask an interpreter for a program, they come at it with different motivations. Some want a great inspirational day at the park or museum with their kids. Interpretive programs are usually designed to do that. If a teacher or educator wants experiences that support specific learning objectives at school, that is an educational activity. Good interpreters are educators when they need to be. They know how to work thoughtfully to create activities that help the children do better with specific learning objectives that will be tested against statewide standards. They likely take a somewhat different approach interpretively when the teacher suggests the outing is to have fun and make a connection with natural or cultural resources.

Some natural and cultural heritage organizations define what they do as education and they often state cognitive objectives such as, “The guest will be able to name and describe the three major cultures of aboriginal people who lived in this area.” They want to measure a growth in knowledge or retention of information. The social science research suggests that people do not usually retain facts from programs. Also, there is no well supported relationship between increased knowledge and increased stewardship. You can motivate people to memorize information without any affection for the resource at all.

I personally prefer an emphasis in education on critical thinking skills and inspiring deeper thought and conversations. Both interpretation and education value that in most organizations. Retaining facts or information has its place in interpretation and education, but I don’t think it’s the only thing or necessarily the most important thing in most cases.

Interpretation is a method of communication and effective educators use interpretive approaches that engage the learner. Education is somewhat more focused on intellect and interpretation on emotional connections. Both are important in whole-brained learning where knowledge is integrated with our life experiences to be of greater value.

This is a discussion that has been going on throughout the forty years I have been working in this profession. It is a valuable conversation to have. We should know what we believe about what we do and why we believe it. And I’m sure my thoughts won’t be enough explanation for everyone, but let’s have the conversation. What do you think?

-Tim Merriman