{"title":"Supporting Broad Access to High Quality Research in Interpretation","authors":"M. Stern, R. Powell","doi":"10.1177/10925872211058604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Having worked intensively (primarily as outside researchers and consultants) with interpreters and other nonformal educators for the past two decades, we have become accustomed to calls by managers at all levels for evidence that clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of different interpretive approaches as well as the value of the field’s collective work to various stakeholders. Oftentimes, these calls are based on the perceived needs to base training and programmatic decisions on the best available science as well as justify budget allocations, to generate sustainable financial support, or to make inroads or strengthen commitments with new or existing audiences. The research literature is littered with empirical articles and reviews that can speak to the value of various educational experiences (see Ardoin et al., 2018, 2020; Stern et al., 2014; Stern and Powell, 2021 for key reviews in the fields of environmental education and heritage interpretation). Within the field of interpretation, the most recent systematic literature review identified 41 articles published within the Journal of Interpretation Research (JIR) alone that measured outcomes of specific interpretive interventions between 2010 and 2019 (Stern and Powell, 2021). So why are managers still asking for evidence when it already exists? We believe one answer lies in the accessibility of the research. Accessibility can be both physical, in terms of ability to obtain reports and articles, and cognitive, in terms of the ability of researchers and practitioners to effectively communicate evidence. JIR is available to all members of the National Association for interpretation. Moreover, authors are always at liberty to share their articles directly with anyone who asks for them. This latter element of physical accessibility is often unknown by practitioners in the field. While authors cannot broadly re-publish a peer-reviewed journal article (e.g., on a website of their own), they can share their manuscripts directly with individuals and make pre-prints (unformatted versions) of their manuscripts available elsewhere.","PeriodicalId":364431,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interpretation Research","volume":"255 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interpretation Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10925872211058604","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Having worked intensively (primarily as outside researchers and consultants) with interpreters and other nonformal educators for the past two decades, we have become accustomed to calls by managers at all levels for evidence that clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of different interpretive approaches as well as the value of the field’s collective work to various stakeholders. Oftentimes, these calls are based on the perceived needs to base training and programmatic decisions on the best available science as well as justify budget allocations, to generate sustainable financial support, or to make inroads or strengthen commitments with new or existing audiences. The research literature is littered with empirical articles and reviews that can speak to the value of various educational experiences (see Ardoin et al., 2018, 2020; Stern et al., 2014; Stern and Powell, 2021 for key reviews in the fields of environmental education and heritage interpretation). Within the field of interpretation, the most recent systematic literature review identified 41 articles published within the Journal of Interpretation Research (JIR) alone that measured outcomes of specific interpretive interventions between 2010 and 2019 (Stern and Powell, 2021). So why are managers still asking for evidence when it already exists? We believe one answer lies in the accessibility of the research. Accessibility can be both physical, in terms of ability to obtain reports and articles, and cognitive, in terms of the ability of researchers and practitioners to effectively communicate evidence. JIR is available to all members of the National Association for interpretation. Moreover, authors are always at liberty to share their articles directly with anyone who asks for them. This latter element of physical accessibility is often unknown by practitioners in the field. While authors cannot broadly re-publish a peer-reviewed journal article (e.g., on a website of their own), they can share their manuscripts directly with individuals and make pre-prints (unformatted versions) of their manuscripts available elsewhere.