Interpretation

Enhanced Interpretive Techniques and Opportunities — More than ever before interpreters are in a great position to take advantage of possibilities in progressive interpretive development. Our individual styles and techniques thrive within the professional tenets of interpretation. I’ve come to think of this time in interpretive history as the Model T stage.

While Model T cars may seem antiquated today, at the time they debuted they were a profound revolution and revelation in transportation and personal freedom. While more sophisticated today, the car’s foundation has not changed since the Model T. Now that the interpretive profession is established, we are set for similar progress in the years to come with our metaphorical four wheels, vehicle frame and motor.

The Model T was an effective conveyance. It was simple, utilitarian and affordable. Many interpreters seem to take that same approach when creating programs. Simple, practical and easy-to-develop programs are everywhere. Yet, if you put yourself in the shoes of a car buyer, would you choose a Model T over other cars available today? You probably would want something a bit more sophisticated. Model T’s were all the same — seats, wheels, average propulsion, black paint. Want some options? Nope. The Model T got people from point A to B, but without flair or individuality. So I ask: are you providing Model T programs? If you supervise interpreters, are you encouraging innovation in programming? Do your interpreters know enough about their craft to intentionally innovate? Are they given the time to do this?

When interpretive certifiers review products, we first document the tangible and intangible meanings found in the program. After that it’s time to get to opportunities. What opportunities did the interpreter intentionally use to connect audience members with resource meanings? Opportunities start with techniques. A small sampling of techniques include activities, games, irony, paradox, living history, word play or photographs. The best single list of techniques I’ve seen described comes from Peggy Ann Scherbaum’s book, Handles, published by Eastern National. It’s a must-have in any interpreter’s library.

Looking back on the programs I’ve created, supervised and evaluated, I find that interpreters aren’t always stretching to use the techniques available to them. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen interpreters use either the description or explanation (D or E) technique as their weapon of choice when they present tangible and intangible meanings. Why do we do this when there are so many other techniques available? We rely on D or E too much.

Just as interpreters seem to use D or E as a crutch, there is another Model T-style program mechanism we’ve worn down to the nub. What often goes hand in hand with D or E is intellectual understanding. I suspect Ds or Es lend themselves to intellectual connections over emotional ones. All of us have seen or used the formulaic Describe or Explain so visitors Understand (D or E = U).

Of course, any program needs some emotional connection, so interpreters create an intellectual D or E = U program and then attach one or two emotional components to the program to pass the IDP threshold. It’s simple and effective, but not particularly glamorous or progressive. It limits the richness that we can provide to the public. Understanding is just one way to connect to the resource. For example, other intellectual connections include awareness, discernment, reasoning or wisdom. Emotional connections include anguish, bewilderment, gratitude, horror, sympathy and tranquility. With so much to work with why would anyone stick with D or E = U?

I recommend that interpreters assess their programs, write an outline articulating the techniques used to connect visitors to the relevant idea, then decide if those techniques are the best ways to achieve program objectives. If the program relies mostly on D or E to accomplish U, it is time to innovate. Visitors have been exposed to and by now are bored with the D or E = U approach to information sharing. It’s how we were taught at school, and I think we as a society have developed a resistance to this technique. Less common methods will make your program more effective because of the surprise factor.

Unanticipated techniques cut through the visitor experience of perfunctory absorption of information. Using diverse techniques will ensure the vitality of the profession and the relevance of national parks. We should strive to transport visitors not from place to place in a basic way, but take them on a journey to places in their hearts and minds in ways D or E = U can’t.

Protection

Patrolling in the Extreme — We all know that ranger work often means police work. We also know that it sometimes means so much more, and that even the police work we do frequently carries with it a flavor all its own.

For so many police officers, day-to-day patrol typically means covering a beat — district or precinct — via patrol car. Some of the lucky ones get to ride horses, drive patrol boats or fly in helicopters. If they’re really lucky, they get to do it in some pretty cool places.

Rangers, though, are the true lucky ones.

We are charged with patrolling some of the wildest, most remote, most exquisite landscapes — and harshest environments — on earth. To do so, we sometimes have to possess a specialized skill set that allows us to traverse such country successfully and safely.

Whether on the vertical big walls of Yosemite and Zion, the violent whitewater of the New and Gauley Rivers, the ocean swells of Assateague and Padre, or the snowy peaks of Rainier and Denali, park rangers travel those parts with fervor and courage.

Our reasons are manifold, visitor protection being paramount among them. As long as private citizens choose to enter the realm of extreme environments, rangers will roam there, too.

We can’t wait for the rescue call to initiate such patrols, either. We need to go now, before the May Day rings in, so that we’ll know our walls, peaks and rivers in all their varied moods. An old river proverb states it well: “One cannot paddle the same river twice, for new waters are always pouring into it.”

We make dangerous patrols, too, because they make us stronger.

Maybe another force that compels rangers to tread where the fainthearted won’t is the simple knowledge that the public expects it of us. We are national park rangers, and with our job comes a weighty responsibility to carry on the traditions of excellence of rangers who entered the mountains, rivers, deserts and oceans before us.

Parks with extreme patrol operations must continue to advertise ranger positions with KSAs that require the specialized skill sets pertinent to that park’s environment. We can’t staff these parks with cops. We have to provide rangers — rangers who will climb, paddle, dive, cave and trek into the wild.

We can live up to this reputation so long as we continue to attract and recruit generations of skilled rangers who aren’t afraid of the big bad wolf, or if they are, who are willing to accept their fear, embrace it and allow it to make them stronger.

~ Kevin Moses, Buffalo National River

This column will return next quarter.

NOTE: If you work in resource management and are interested in becoming a columnist in this space, please contact the editor at fordedit@aol.com.