By Heidi Bailey
“I am sure that over the centuries to come, the word ‘interpretation’ will…change its meanings to cover a broadened horizon of thinking and to fit new needs and practices.”
—Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage
Have you ever noticed how similar the words interpret and Internet are? They only differ by a couple of letters. Yet they are vastly different in concept. Or are they?
The prefix inter means between, among, mutual, or reciprocal. These definitions imply interaction. At its best, interpretation creates an interactive experience between interpreters and visitors. But can it do more?
One thing I’ve learned from social media is that people like to have a voice. They like to be heard by others and connect with others. The proliferation of social media sites like Facebook is proof. What can interpreters learn from this?
In Social Media is a Cocktail Party, authors Jim Tobin and Lisa Braziel discuss the evolution of the Internet as a communication tool. The Web began as a place to present information for users to click and view. Then the birth of the search engine added an interactive element to the Web, allowing people to control the way information was presented. When social media came along, Internet users could do more than interact with information on the Web—they could create their own content. The Web user suddenly had a voice.
Interpretation can be thought of as a communication tool similar to the Internet. Museum programs and exhibits have always presented information for visitors to view. Interpretation added an interactive element by allowing visitors to discover information through sensory and emotional experiences. Now it may be time for interpretation to evolve again.
Visitors don’t necessarily want to always hear the voice of an agency interpreter. They might also be interested in listening to the voices of ordinary people: other visitors, residents, children, elders. Maybe we should follow the example of the Web and give people a voice. Perhaps we can provide opportunities for social interaction and invite the public to create their own interpretive content.
On a blog called Museum 2.0 (http://museumtwo.blogspot.com), creator Nina Simon writes, “I believe that museums have the potential to undergo a similar (r)evolution as that on the Web, to transform from static content authorities to dynamic platforms for content generation and sharing. I believe that visitors can become users, and museums central to social interactions.”
In an article in The Interpreter magazine (“Do What We Say, Not What We Do,” March/April 2005), researcher Doug Knapp tells readers about a study of interpretive programs at five national parks:
[Interpretation’s] clear emphasis on promoting connections with the visitor…counters the “one-way” communications I consistently found in observing park programs. Therefore, a recommendation I would make regarding my observations is that the field look at an interpretive approach that is based on a constructivist learning theory that promotes interactions between the…interpreter and the participant…. In essence, a constructivist-style…program would [lead] to a dialogue with the participants and not at the group.
This is interpretation’s quandary—how do we turn exhibits and programs into a dialogue? Our current paradigm in the field of interpretation is not conducive to two-way communication. We design our exhibits on virtually indestructible panels that are meant to last for years. We stand up in front of a room and talk at visitors during programs. Despite our goals of interacting with visitors, interpretation remains more of an educational activity than a social activity.
In our quest to craft the most thought-provoking theme, convey the perfect message, and achieve the outcomes dictated by our strategic plans, we sometimes forget to be people talking to people. In The National Parks, Freeman Tilden tells us that interpretive talks “are chat, but never chatter.” As interpreters, we have the choice to chat with or chatter at our visitors. Tilden says that visitors want to “mingle with folks” while they enjoy a national park. People mingle at parties, not in programs.
Social media is nothing more than a conversation between people. Since conversation and dialogue are what we are striving for, perhaps we can learn a few things from social media. Interactive exhibits and programs may no longer be a novelty for visitors. Perhaps the time has come for sites to evolve into centers for “social interpretation.”
Tweeting Visitors
Tweets are messages that people send to one another over the Twitter website. Tweet messages are limited to a mere 140 characters of text.
The two sentences you just read would qualify as a Tweet. Together, they are fewer than 140 characters (including spaces) in length and contain 25 words.
Perhaps we should impose a similar limit to interpretive text on signs and exhibits. We live in a world of tweets and text messages and sound bytes for a reason—people want short bursts of information.
“If your audience is willing to dedicate time to read a 30-word museum label, but you have provided a 75-word label, then you have written 45 words only for yourself” writes Alan Leftridge in Interpretive Writing.
I love to read books and magazines. Yet I don’t love reading exhibits. I love looking at them. I am attracted to signs that contain a minimal amount of text. In this age of digital imaging, we have an unprecedented opportunity to make interpretation an entirely visual experience.
Interpretive sites will not be dumbing exhibits down by cutting out the text. Interpretive centers are not schools—most visitors do not want to read. They want to engage in sensory experiences by looking, touching, and feeling.
Remember that even if every exhibit panel only contains 25 to 30 words, an entire interpretive center will still contain many paragraphs of text when combined. Using such a small amount of text is not easy for the interpretive writer, but it is easy on the reader.
When you design your next exhibit, I encourage you to try sending interpretive “Tweets” to your visitors. If you are having difficulty conveying your meaning, look for graphic design solutions rather than adding more text. Convey your theme through the exhibit’s title.
Here are examples of “Tweets” from Joseph Cornell’s Sharing Nature with Children:
A Tweet about a sea turtle:
When I’m born, I race to the ocean to find safety. To lay my eggs, I return to the same beach where I was born.
A Tweet about a whale:
When I’m a baby I weigh seven tons and I’m about 24 feet long. I gain 200 pounds every day! That’s nine pounds an hour.
Social Interpretation
In this section, I play around with common social media terms in an effort to spark some ideas and discussion about the evolution of interpretation.
Interp 2.0—A new paradigm in the field of interpretation that transforms a visitor center from a place to house exhibits into a place to house conversations. Rather than just offering collections of exhibits, interpretive centers now create connections between people.
MyPlaces and iSpaces—Exhibit areas that contain interpretive content created by the public. Visitors, residents, businesses, organizations, and schools are encouraged to create exhibits that describe a place in terms that make sense to them. This approach encourages multiple points of view and makes interpretive content more personalized, meaningful, and accessible. Visitors become co-creators rather than passive recipients of interpretive content.
iThemes—A part of an interpretive site’s strategic plan that allows for continuously evolving themes that are generated by the interests and needs of visitors. Researchers and managers evaluate comments in blogs and other public forums to identify topics and themes that are important to visitors. This allows members of the public to participate in the interpretive process starting in the planning and design stage.
Interpreter’s Chat Room—A place where visitors can interact with interpreters in a social setting. An interpretive site can incorporate chat room-style programs into its daily interpretive line-up. As an example, during a recent visit to Canyon de Chelly, I saw a morning coffee break—where visitors could talk to an interpreter over a cup of coffee—included on their list of interpretive programs.
Glog—A new spin on the guest log book. Visitors post their thoughts and experiences on a blog at a computer terminal in the visitor center or from home. Interpreters use this information to create and adapt interpretive content.
PlaceBook—A new twist on the traditional friends group. An interpretive site creates a lively online community using a website like www.ning.com, which allows users to create a “social network for anything.” Members of the public have an opportunity to talk to previous visitors and engage in conversations with real interpreters.
Visitor Bookmarks—A place where visitors can “bookmark” their favorite places from an interpretive site and the surrounding communities. Visitors write about a favorite place and post it under the appropriate category in a three-ring binder, on a bulletin board, or on a computer. This encourages visitors to interpret a place to one another.
VisFlicks—Visitor center films that are created from photos, video clips, and artwork collected from visitors. An interpretive site provides a way for visitors to post images and videos to a computer or website and selects the best to create an exhibit or film. I saw an example at the Denver Art Museum, where a photography exhibit was created from pictures uploaded onto their website by visitors.
Micro-exhibit—Exhibit text compressed into text-message-size bits of information. It’s a fact that many exhibits are too text-intensive for visitors. Micro-exhibits could be attached to interpretive panels throughout a visitor center. Visitors short on time could be instructed to view the micro-exhibits.
Intrigued? Do you want to read more? Try the article “Can Museums Allow Online Users to Become Participants?” on the American Association of Museums website.
Are you doing any of these things at your site? I want to hear about it!
Heidi Bailey is the author of Putting Interpretation on the Map: An Interpretive Approach to Geography. She holds a bachelor of science degree in geography from New Mexico State University and a master of science degree in recreation, parks, and tourism from West Virginia University. Contact her at geointerpretation@yahoo.com.
By Ethan Rotman
Birding as Competition: New Jersey’s World Series of Birding Pits Geeks Against Nerds
By Phil Broder
Photo by Joan Kocur.
You know your competition has reached critical mass when it’s big enough to be mocked by Steve Carell on an episode of “The Daily Show.” Because, like the National Spelling Bee, it’s only a few short steps from a head-to-head geek smackdown to being the subject of an award-winning documentary to going live on ESPN. If Jon Stewart and Comedy Central love you, you’re on your way.
That’s the case with the World Series of Birding. It’s the Super Bowl of “pssshing,” the World Cup of binocular-toting nerds, the Olympics of clapper rail calling. And if the mere concept of competitive birdwatching has you doubled over with laughter, then you need to pick up your Nikons and head to Cape May, New Jersey, for this rite of spring.
Organized by the New Jersey Audubon Society, the WSB enters its 27th year in 2010. At its core, the concept is simple: During a designated 24-hour, midnight-to-midnight period in May, teams of birders scour New Jersey in an effort to see and hear the most species of birds. Teams compete in several categories (adult, youth, corporate sponsored, etc.) and various geographic regions (whole state, Cape May County only, Cape Island only, etc.). A system of checks and balances keeps teams from cheating. Teams rush to the finish line at the West Cape May firehouse to turn in their final tallies before midnight, and it usually takes between 220 and 250 species for a team to raise the coveted Urner Stone Cup.
And it would all be just that easy, if this weren’t an event based in serious enviro-geek bird-nerd culture. First, you have to pick a killer name for your team—like the Lagerhead Shrikes, the Marshketeers, Mighty Mighy Turnstones, the Limping Limpkins, Wacky Willets, Duck Duck Duck Duck Duck Brant!, and Nine Inch Rails. Printing up team shirts doesn’t hurt, and tastefully decorating your team vehicle isn’t frowned upon either.
Second, the top teams are sponsored. Nikon, Swarovski, Zeiss, and Steiner Optics all have teams, as do WildBird Magazine and the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. My own team of fourth graders was happy with the 49 species they logged, but they weren’t even close to the 117 birds tallied by a team of “professional” fourth graders sponsored by Steiner Optics. After the competition, you’ll find ads in birding magazines touting the binoculars and spotting scopes used by the winners. Bragging rights are on the line.
Third, while this is only a one-day event, it really isn’t. Top teams send scouts a week in advance to poke through forests and marshes, mapping out where birds will be. Using rare bird hotlines and computer forums, teams spend days figuring out where to spend valuable minutes. Every team is going to see the common birds; winners are those who find red-footed falcons that have blown in from Siberia. Road maps are covered in red ink, laying out the shortest route between short-eared owls and northern gannets. And somebody has to stock up on everything from snacks to toilet paper. Planning is everything.
Fourth, practice your bird calls. Winners usually identify about two-thirds of their birds by song, not sight. The competition begins at midnight, so expect to spend the first six hours before daylight listening for owls, rails, and anything else that goes chirp in the night. Mark Garland of the Cape May Bird Observatory has built his career around being able to hear birds that nobody else can.
Finally, just for kicks, you can use your birding to make a statement. Some teams now compete only on foot, running from birding hotspot to hotspot, reducing their carbon footprint (and there’s a special trophy for these crazed, scope-toting marathoners). Others specialize in water birds, limiting their competition to what they can see from boats. Still others practice digiscoping, taking digital photos of every bird they see. One team of senior citizens counts only the birds that fly by the park bench on which they sit all day. It never hurts to have a gimmick.
To say that the competition is cutthroat doesn’t convey the bloodlust that competitive birding engenders. It’s not unheard of for teams to practice dirty tricks like parking in the middle of a road leading to a popular birding area, blocking everyone else’s access. Giving out misinformation is fairly common, although recent advances in iPhones now allow every team to get up-to-the-minute bird sightings sent directly to them. GPS has put an end to teams doling out phony directions.
So, what’s the result of all these avifauna obsessives spending a spring day chasing warblers? The event’s founder, Pete Dunne, realized the moneymaking potential of the World Series. Teams raise pledges (25 cents per bird sounds like a bargain, if you aren’t aware that last year’s winners had 229 species), which can go toward the conservation group of their choice, or to New Jersey Audubon. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been raised this way. There’s also a great deal of scientific data being collected, as the World Series amounts to a Christmas Bird Count during the May nesting season. And 18 youth teams competed last year, which presents a great opportunity for education. The winners, a Nikon-backed high school squad, had 211 species (and probably get beaten up by the football team on a regular basis).
In Cape May County, considered to be one of the world’s best birding spots, ecotourism (mostly birdwatching) brings in upwards of $32 million annually. If any other TV shows want to make fun of the World Series of Birding, the chamber of commerce would welcome them to town. Competitive birding may be the ne plus ultra of geek chic, but as long as money talks, this sort of nerdiness is just fine.
Phil Broder is the director of education with the Wetlands Institute in Stone Harbor, New Jersey. For more info about the WSB, visit www.birdcapemay.org. To find the July 18, 2000, “Daily Show” video about the World Series, just Google “World Series of Birding.” Or buy a copy of the film “Opposable Chums: Guts and Glory at the World Series of Birding” at www.opposablechums.com.
Posted in Commentaries, Interpreting Sports