Journal of Interpretation Research

Abstracts: Volume 13, Number 1 2008
RESEARCH
Practicing What We Preach Robin S. Grenier, Ph.D. The University of Connecticut Neag School of Education Department of Educational Leadership 249 Glenbrook Rd. Unit 2093 Storrs, CT 06269-2093 Phone: (860) 486-9201 Fax: (860) 486-4028 robin.grenier@uconn.edu Abstract Today, environmental, cultural, and historical sites are emphasizing educational and interactive visitor experiences. An institution’s educational philosophy should form the core of volunteer training and in turn be reflected in public programs. This comparative case study examined two training programs at a history and art museum. Data were collected through interviews, training/ promotional materials, and observations. Analysis revealed that the learning theory touted to volunteers for use with the public is not applied by educators during training. Findings suggest a need for aligning an institution’s educational philosophy with its training practices and assessing the impact of such alignment on volunteer training and program delivery. The State of Interpretation in Academia Brenda K. Lackey, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Interpretation College of Natural Resources University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Stevens Point, WI 54481 USA 715-346-2076 Fax: 715-346-3624 brenda.lackey@uwsp.edu Abstract This research reports on how future heritage interpreters are being trained in academic institutions in North America. Faculty and instructors from 130 colleges and universities were asked about the skills taught, textbooks used, types of degrees offered, certification, and accreditation. Respondents were asked about challenges to the profession and ideas for improving the academic arm of the profession. Colleges who responded teach interpretation courses in various academic disciplines around the continent, suggesting some inconsistencies for potential students interested in a professional career in interpretation. Challenges to the profession are discussed regarding the needs of future professionals in the field of interpretation and the potential need for academics to improve marketing of the profession and to collaborate more with professionals in the field who are interested in hiring the latest pool of graduates from colleges and universities.
IN MY OPINION
Should NAI Develop a Program to Accredit University Curricula? (Probably Not Just Yet) Sam H. Ham Troy E. Hall Department of Conservation Social Sciences University of Idaho In the United States, accreditation of academic programs focused on professional preparation is typically conferred by organizations that are closely associated with the field. The NAI represents such a body, as do organizations such as the National Recreation and Parks Association, which accredits parks and recreation curricula, and the Society of American Foresters, which accredits forestry and forest management academic programs. Typically, accreditation is conferred to an undergraduate degree program (BA or BS, for example), but accreditation of minors and options (or “emphasis areas”) also occurs. In all cases, accreditation requires an exhaustive review and evaluation of course requirements, number of teaching faculty members, space, facilities, equipment, and financial resources, as well as certain operational factors (such as record keeping, maintenance of confidential records, etc.). Certification and the National Park Service David L. Larsen National Park Service Training Manager for Interpretation and Education Stephen T. Mather Training Center The field of interpretation is transforming itself into a profession largely by establishing and measuring standards. The National Association for Interpretation (NAI), through a variety of certification programs, makes a huge contribution to the effort by establishing and applying benchmarks to a widely diverse and independent set of practitioners. Many National Park Service (NPS) employees benefit from NAI’s teaching and credentialing. At the same time, the NPS operates a different but also important Peer Review Certification Program. That program, part of the Interpretive Development Program (IDP), can trace its impetus to two primary forces: 1) the desire of NPS interpreters to improve their work and professionalize their place within the NPS, and, 2) the human resource requirements of the federal government. Why We Should Communicate, Rather Than Interpret: A Call to Arms Levi Novey levi.novey@gmail.com I became a national park ranger at age 19. I’m 28 now and have worked as a park ranger for six national parks, as a social science researcher for five others, and as a science communicator for a National Park Service natural resource inventory and monitoring network. I mention these things about myself because I began as a devout believer in interpretive philosophy as I learned it from the National Park Service (NPS). But now I have come to new conclusions about the problems faced by our field and how we should confront them. There is need for innovation.
IN SHORT
NAI’s Certification Program: A Decade of Growth and Change Lisa Brochu Associate Director National Association for Interpretation 888-900-8283 naiprograms@aol.com The National Association for Interpretation (NAI) began doing business under that name in 1988, following a consolidation of two organizations (Western Interpreters Association and Association of Interpretive Naturalists) that already had three decades of history behind them. For at least two of those decades, debates over the value of describing and promoting interpretation as a profession rose and fell among the members. When the two organizations became NAI, an important shift in the mission of the new organization took place, paving the way for this professional organization “to inspire excellence and leadership to advance heritage interpretation as a profession.” No longer could there be any doubt about whether it was the organization’s role to promote a growing profession, but the question of how to do that, specifically in regards to certification, was still a subject of debate.