Heresies of an Interpreter

The presumed purpose of interpretation in the national parks is to add depth to the scenery. Not visual depth, but the depth of understanding. Interpretation is meant to give visitors a new, more informed context to accompany the scenery; a context which transcends the veil of beauty to expose the interaction of natural and human history within the scenery. Good interpretation leaves the visitor with a better base of knowledge, an enticed sense of curiosity, and an interest in the continuing preservation of the place that has inspired them.

Any discussion about interpretation in the national parks is destined to come across the name of Freeman Tilden. As the “father” of modern interpretation, one of Tilden’s most important points was that interpreters should not make things up to fill gaps in their knowledge. Falsifying information reduces interpretation to mere theatrics, perhaps giving the interpreter an ego boost, but certainly not giving visitors an honest impression of the park.

The difference between factual and fictional interpretation gets muddled with the inclusion of what I call non-facts. These are more misinformation than they are lies. When important information is allowed to go unexamined over a long period of time, it can easily become misinformation in light of subsequent research or other changes in the understanding about park resources.

A prime example of how information has to be reexamined is provided in the article by Ron Mastrogiuseppe and Steve Mark. They point out the difference between radio-carbon dates and calendar years. This is significant because the date of the climactic eruption serves as the watermark for the recent geological past in Oregon and elsewhere. It has been used in the reconstruction of prehistoric environments and to place other geological events within a chronological sequence. Differences between radiocarbon dates and calendar years are important to the interpretation of Mazama’s climactic eruption because the roughly 800 year “correction” puts this event at 7,700 calendar years ago. Previously we had been using the radiocarbon date of 6,845 years and assuming that estimate was equivalent to calendar years.

Correcting misinformation is one aspect of strong communication. It is also evident to me that interpreters need to be strong communicators and involved researchers. The emphasis in the National Park Service over the past three decades, however, has been on the communication side of interpretation. Facts are now merely what the interpreter communicates, not something in which they arc directly involved. This is particularly true for interpreters hired for the summer season because their job is so heavily structured toward communicating information in a variety of settings, leaving little time for research or participation in resource management.

Another reason for the weakened relationship between communication and research is the formal bureaucratic separation of interpretation from resource management within the National Park Service. At Crater Lake, interpretation is its own division while resource management is part of a division that houses law enforcement functions. Most of the scientific research in the park takes place through the auspices of resource management staff who are given little incentive within the structure of their job to frequently update interpreters about what they are doing.

In the interest of updating our knowledge about the park and its resources and keeping it current, I think it is time for a closer relationship between resource management and interpretation. This would allow interpreters to give equal attention to the facts, as well as being better able to effectively communicate them without misinformation. If this strong link is not provided, interpretation will fail to add much depth to the scenery.

L. Howard Crawford, Nature Notes, Vol. IX, No. 1, July 1936.

***previous***