Every so often one of our museum comrades--anointed with the responsibility of launching a new interpretive program--asks: "Does (insert technique of choice such as storytelling, first-person interpretation, hands-on demonstration) work?" Now substitute the ideas "theater," "television," "print publication," "hosting a website," or "opening a restaurant." Is there a fixed answer? Each succeeds or fails based on many variables: subject matter, personnel skills, potential audience, resources, etc. Therefore, the prescription for success is larger than the medium. It lies with messages, particularly the way in which we as interpreters of those messages present them to our visiting public.

In the heritage professions, as many of you know, an "interpreter" is one who translates material culture and human or natural phenomenon to the public in a meaningful and provocative way. I started my museum career as one in the National Park Service at the age of nineteen. In those days, all new interpreters were introduced to the philosophy of Freeman Tilden (1883-1980). Tilden was a writer, reporter and commentator who was engaged by the National Park Service to tour, observe, and analyze Park programs across the country in the 1950s. In 1957, The University of North Carolina Press published the results of his work under the title Interpreting Our Heritage. In it, he revealed the larger truths behind the art of interpretation. He insisted that interpretation should be larger than the sum of its parts; it should reveal civilization's "larger truths" and appeal to significant human interests.

The goals of interpretation vary for each program, each exhibit, each site. There are, for example, goals which emphasize the transmission of factual or narrative information; that create a transformation in thinking; that stimulate personal identification and empathy; that encourage visitors to practice new skills and activities; that aim to lure donors and admission-paying visitors; that transcendentally unite visitors with history, art, and/or environment; that provide common social activities for families and other visitor groups, and those that instill environmental awareness and proper usage of site resources.

The mission statements of many museums earnestly insist that their institutions "educate the public," but is this such a realistic claim? "Education," or more appropriately, "learning," occurs in visitors as they compare, contrast, and incorporate new information with what they already know. Although we can employ techniques that aid attention and reception, we cannot guarantee the transmission of knowledge. Sometimes, in fact, we can be so evangelical about our beloved subject specialties and site histories that we may overlook the way visitors process information. We deluge them with content instead of tantalizing their appetites with the most delicious tidbits, suffocating the Muses instead of invoking them!

Back to Tilden. The beauty in his timeless advice applies far beyond heritage interpretation. Truly, his philosophy applies to persuasive communication across media. His six simple principles bear repeating:

Principle #1:

Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being displayed or described to something within the personality or experience of the visitor will be sterile.

Principle #2:

Information as such, is not Interpretation. Interpretation is revelation based upon information. But they are entirely different things. However, all interpretation includes information.

Principle #3:

Interpretation is an art, which combines many arts, whether the materials presented are scientific, historical, or architectural. Any art is in some degree teachable.

Principle #4:

The chief aim of interpretation is not instruction, but provocation.

Principle #5:

Interpretation should aim to present a whole rather than a part, and must address itself to the whole man rather than any phase.

Principle #6:

Interpretation addressed to children (say, up to the age of twelve) should not be a dilution of the presentation to adults, but should follow a fundamentally different approach. To be at its best it will require a separate program.

How? By knowing something about the interests and motivations of visitor subgroups and establishing points of common interest. Then, once common connections are made, audiences can be coaxed further afield into new areas of discovery. For example, we know that many family visitors to historic villages don't arrive by choice. They may find "history" a bore and are present at the insistence of a spouse or parent. Rather than launch straight into a generic introduction, a bit of probing on the part of the interpreter could uncover interests in, say, architecture, child-rearing, economics, life at school, or law enforcement, and so, foster parallels between the visitor experience and the historical one. After achieving a meaningful connection it may then be possible to talk one's way around to the obligatory objectives set out in the site's mission statement or thematic outline. Of course, this also means that staff interpreters must be knowledgeable on many subjects and skilled interpersonal communicators. A person with limited skills and experience trained only with a fact sheet would be extremely challenged to turn a borderline visitor into an interested one.

The information we bestow on our visitors should also REVEAL something of MEANING to the beholder. It should provoke or promote emotional connections, inspire identification, help visualize, surprise, and add something useful to listeners' and observers' existing interests and skills. Tilden emphasized the importance of rhetoric--or storytelling--as the lynchpin of the Interpreters' trade, to be augmented with demonstration and participation. Memorability, too, is important to sustained comprehension. For instance, which of these statements is more likely to stick with you?:

"Almost 30 percent of those who caught smallpox died from it."

Or,

"Look around at your classmates. If you were a young scholar in 1750 and a smallpox epidemic ran through your school, only seven of you would be left alive." (This is even more effective with a physical illustration in which seven children remain standing or are pulled aside.)

There is a dearth of creative thinking in our society. Perhaps this is due to the modernization, industrialization, and Mass Mediazation of American life. Many people have become conditioned to passivity. But as "outcome-based learning" becomes passe, "discovery" and "provocation" will become the new buzzwords of _mainstream education_, too. Tilden targeted the special needs of children at interpretive programs and I expect that every museum educator would agree. We all know that most children have limited experiences to draw upon, cannot think abstractly at younger ages and are often challenged at doing so right into their mid teens. Their value systems and social skills are still developing. They are affected by peer pressure. Their attention spans are influenced by electronic media and fast-paced images. To exacerbate the situation, they are often shipped or dragged to our sites as involuntary chattel rather than by personal decision. Yet, we have a crucial responsibility to make history, natural science, and art important to them if our cultural institutions are to survive into the future. Interpretation that fails to relate to young audiences may be precipitating more damage than no visit at all.

So, instead of wondering if an individual technique is worth doing, we must evaluate its interpretive skill requirements and analyze your resources. Interpretation should connect with visitors, link into what excites them, and lead them into higher levels of understanding. We must look very carefully at the interface between back offices and the public. Ultimately, it will be human. Live interpreters, exhibit designers, script writers, artists. If the skills of these people match the requirements of the chosen technique AND the spirit of Tilden's philosophies, success is within our grasp.

Selected Bibliography:

Collins, Zipporah W., ed. Museums, Adults and the Humanities: A Guide for Educational Programming. (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums, 1981).

Ecroyd, Donald H. Living History. (Eastern National Park and Monument Association, 1990).

Falk, John H. and Lynn Dierking. The Museum Experience. (Washington, D.C.: Whalesback Books, 1992).

Grinder, Alison L. and E. Sue McCoy. The Good Guide: A Source Book for Interpreters, Docents and Tour Guides. (Scottsdale, Arizona: Ironwood Press, 1985).

Hood, Marilyn G. "Leisure Criteria of Family Participation and Non-Participation in Museums," Marriage and Family Review 13:3/4 (1989): 151-69.

Machlis, Gary E. and Donald R. Field, eds. On Interpretation: Sociology for Interpreters of Natural and Cultural History. Revised edition. (Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press, 1992).

Massialas, Byron G. and Jack Zevin. Teaching Creatively: Learning Through Discovery. (Malabar, Florida: Robert R. Krieger Publishing Co., 1983).

Pearce, P.L. The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors In Tourist Settings. (New York: Springer-Verlag 1988).

Regnier, Kathleen, Michael Gross, and Ron Zimmerman. The Interpreter's Guidebook: Techniques for Programs and Presentations. Interpreter's Handbook Series. (Stevens Point, Wisconsin: UW-SP Foundation Press, 1994).

Vukelich, Ronald. "Time Language for Interpreting History Collections to Children," Museum Studies Journal 1:7 (Fall 1984): 43-50.

Tilden, Freeman. Interpreting Our Heritage. (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1984, c1957).

Stacy Roth is currently co-director of History on the Hoof, an independent firm that presents first- and third- person programs on themes in American History for museums, schools, and community organizations. Other services include festival and event organizing, interpretive training, and booking services for freelance living history presenters. She is also chairperson of the Association for Living Historical Farms and Agricultural Museums' First-Person Interpreters' Professional Network Committee.

Roth is also the author of Past Into Present: Effective Techniques in First-Person Interpretation . (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1998), which explores veteran interpreters' strategies for effective first-person, along with many related issues.

Readers can contact Stacy about History on the Hoof or Past Into Present at P.O. Box 421, Burlington, NJ 08016. Tel. (609) 239-2706. Email address: historyonthehoof@verizon.net.

Updated October 17, 1997, email changed February 14, 2007