Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In the 21st century, national park interpreters reveal the significance of natural resources while facilitating dialog and audience-centered experiences. Interpreters adopting such approaches encounter visitors’ eager responses to silence to requests for a less interactive form of engagement. At several parks interpreters were simultaneously asked to showcase park-based science using visualizations to invite discussion. Survey and interview data from interpreters participating in the educational initiative Interpreters and Scientists Working on Our Parks (iSWOOP), revealed that interpreters found ways to surmount the challenges they encountered. Accountability theory provides a lens for understanding how interpreters chose to respond when visitors’ expectations conflicted with their assignments. Supervisors’ actions made a difference particularly when they granted a green light for experimentation; allowed the interpreter latitude to shift location and topic; and dedicated time for interpreters to prepare and refine their approaches so they could successfully facilitate richly intellectual and emotional, place-based interpretation with visitors.

Keywords

parks and protected areas science communication environmental interpretation organizational theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

Char

Hristov

Wright

Merson

(2018). Beyond the brown bag: Designing effective professional development for informal educators. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 58(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icy026

Bacher

Baltrus

Barrie

Bliss

Cardea

Chandler

Dahlen

Friesen

Kohen

Lacome

(2007). Foundational competencies for all NPS interpreters. https://www.nps.gov/idp/interp/101/foundationscurriculum.pdf

Brochu

Merriman

(2002). Personal interpretation: Connecting your audience to heritage resources. InterpPress.

Char

Merson

Allen

Hristov

(2020). iSWOOP implementation in national parks: Perspectives from park leaders, interpreters, visitors, and scientists. https://secureservercdn.net/72.167.241.46/593.de9.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/iSWOOP-Report-2020.pdf

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE Publications.

Creswell

J. W.

(2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Crowe

Cresswell

Robertson

Huby

Avery

Sheikh

(2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(100), 100. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Ebrahim

(2010). The many faces of nonprofit accountability (Working Paper 10-069). Harvard Business School.

Hristov

Strohecker

Allen

Merson

(2018). Designing for broad understanding: Of science insights from practice. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 58(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icy033

10.

Kark

(2017). Appreciating Acadia. Legacy, 28(4), 26–29.

11.

Larsen

D. L

. (2002). Be relevant or become a relic: Meeting the public where they are originally presented at the George Wright Society Conference, April 19, 2001. Journal of Interpretation Research, 7(1), 17–23.

12.

Merson

Char

Hristov

Allen

(2017). Seeking park-based science information: Interpreters at the gate. The George Wright Forum, 34(3), 368–380.

13.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE Publications.

14.

National Park Service Advisory Board Education Committee. (2014). Vision paper: 21st century National Park Service interpreter skills. https://mylearning.nps.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Interpretive-Skill-Vision-Paper_FINAL-reduced-file-size.pdf

15.

Parker-Geisman

(2017). Inspiring visitors’ curiosity by transforming an interpreter’s science communication. Legacy, 28(4), 30–31.

16.

Patton

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.

17.

Romzek

B. S.

LeRoux

Blackmar

J. M.

(2012). A preliminary theory of informal accountability among network organizational actors. Public Administration Review, 72(3), 442–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02547.x

18.

Saldaña

(2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications.

19.

Semken

(2005). Sense of place and place-based introductory geoscience teaching for American Indian and Alaska Native undergraduates. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(2), 149–157.

20.

Shea

R. H.

(2015). National parks act as living laboratories. National Geographic News. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150328-national-parks-nps-berkeley-california-conservation-science/

21.

Stern

M. J.

(2018). Social science theory for environmental sustainability: A practical guide. Oxford University Press.

22.

Tilden

(2007). Interpreting our heritage (Revised ed.). The University of North Carolina Press.

23.

U.S. National Park Service. (2017). 21st century interpretation: The shift and the practice. National Park Service.

24.

U.S. National Park Service. (2020). National Park Service visitor use statistics: Annual visitation summary report for 2019. https://irma.nps.gov/STATS/SSRSReports/National%20Reports/Annual%20Visitation%20Summary%20Report%20(1979%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year

25.

U.S. National Park Service Interpretive Development Program. (2016). Foundations of 21st century interpretation. https://mylearning.nps.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Foundations-of-Interpretation-v.2016.pdf

26.

Watkins

Merson

(2017). What don’t we know? Messages about science. Legacy, 28(4), 24–25.

27.

Watkins

Miller-Rushing

A. J.

Nelson

S. J.

(2018). Science in places of grandeur: Communication and engagement in national parks. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 58(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icy025

28.

Zimmerman

H. T.

Land

S. M.

(2014). Facilitating place-based learning in outdoor informal environments with mobile computers. TechTrends, 58, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0724-3

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.40 MB

0.06 MB

0.22 MB

Feeling Accountable: Interpreting Park-Based Science in the 21st Century

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material