{"title":"解释研究杂志:研究是支撑证据领域的必要条件","authors":"R. B. Powell, M. Stern","doi":"10.1177/10925872211067833","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the years practitioners have asked us: why is research necessary for the field? As the Journal of Interpretation Research reaches its 25th year, we thought it was fitting to answer this question. The practice of interpretation is grounded in the seminal works of Mills (1920) and Tilden (1957), which laid out the vision, mission, and principles for the fledgling field and profession. The art of interpretation and these principles for practice were largely developed from their many years of practice and observation. Over the ensuing decades, the philosophy and principles underlying the profession of interpretation were largely followed based on faith and anecdotal observation by practitioners. In other words, practitioners largely based the practice of interpretation on their judgement regarding the audiences’ enjoyment of their interpretive efforts. As a practitioner, you may ask, what is wrong with that? It is true that one of the key outcomes of interpretation is “enjoyment,” or that a program holds an individual’s attention in noncaptive settings (where the audience can simply walk away). However, if the profession of interpretation is to be based on more than anecdote and accomplish more than mere “enjoyment” (or persistence), research is needed to provide evidence to examine other outcomes, improve practice, support informed decision-making, adapt to changing audiences and social conditions, and justify investments in programming. In its 25th year, the Journal of Interpretation Research stands on the shoulders of the great work of Mills and Tilden, but also dozens of more recent researchers that have advanced our field (we refrain from naming names for fear of leaving anyone out). We are now at another crossroads as interpretation is redefined for a new generation. As the field seeks to “facilitate meaningful, relevant, and inclusive experiences that deepen understanding, broaden perspectives, and inspire engagement with the world around us” (NAI, 2021), research is increasingly important to ensure we meet our mission.","PeriodicalId":364431,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interpretation Research","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Journal of Interpretation Research: Research Is Necessary to Underpin the Field in Evidence\",\"authors\":\"R. B. Powell, M. Stern\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10925872211067833\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Over the years practitioners have asked us: why is research necessary for the field? As the Journal of Interpretation Research reaches its 25th year, we thought it was fitting to answer this question. The practice of interpretation is grounded in the seminal works of Mills (1920) and Tilden (1957), which laid out the vision, mission, and principles for the fledgling field and profession. The art of interpretation and these principles for practice were largely developed from their many years of practice and observation. Over the ensuing decades, the philosophy and principles underlying the profession of interpretation were largely followed based on faith and anecdotal observation by practitioners. In other words, practitioners largely based the practice of interpretation on their judgement regarding the audiences’ enjoyment of their interpretive efforts. As a practitioner, you may ask, what is wrong with that? It is true that one of the key outcomes of interpretation is “enjoyment,” or that a program holds an individual’s attention in noncaptive settings (where the audience can simply walk away). However, if the profession of interpretation is to be based on more than anecdote and accomplish more than mere “enjoyment” (or persistence), research is needed to provide evidence to examine other outcomes, improve practice, support informed decision-making, adapt to changing audiences and social conditions, and justify investments in programming. In its 25th year, the Journal of Interpretation Research stands on the shoulders of the great work of Mills and Tilden, but also dozens of more recent researchers that have advanced our field (we refrain from naming names for fear of leaving anyone out). We are now at another crossroads as interpretation is redefined for a new generation. As the field seeks to “facilitate meaningful, relevant, and inclusive experiences that deepen understanding, broaden perspectives, and inspire engagement with the world around us” (NAI, 2021), research is increasingly important to ensure we meet our mission.\",\"PeriodicalId\":364431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interpretation Research\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interpretation Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10925872211067833\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interpretation Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10925872211067833","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Journal of Interpretation Research: Research Is Necessary to Underpin the Field in Evidence
Over the years practitioners have asked us: why is research necessary for the field? As the Journal of Interpretation Research reaches its 25th year, we thought it was fitting to answer this question. The practice of interpretation is grounded in the seminal works of Mills (1920) and Tilden (1957), which laid out the vision, mission, and principles for the fledgling field and profession. The art of interpretation and these principles for practice were largely developed from their many years of practice and observation. Over the ensuing decades, the philosophy and principles underlying the profession of interpretation were largely followed based on faith and anecdotal observation by practitioners. In other words, practitioners largely based the practice of interpretation on their judgement regarding the audiences’ enjoyment of their interpretive efforts. As a practitioner, you may ask, what is wrong with that? It is true that one of the key outcomes of interpretation is “enjoyment,” or that a program holds an individual’s attention in noncaptive settings (where the audience can simply walk away). However, if the profession of interpretation is to be based on more than anecdote and accomplish more than mere “enjoyment” (or persistence), research is needed to provide evidence to examine other outcomes, improve practice, support informed decision-making, adapt to changing audiences and social conditions, and justify investments in programming. In its 25th year, the Journal of Interpretation Research stands on the shoulders of the great work of Mills and Tilden, but also dozens of more recent researchers that have advanced our field (we refrain from naming names for fear of leaving anyone out). We are now at another crossroads as interpretation is redefined for a new generation. As the field seeks to “facilitate meaningful, relevant, and inclusive experiences that deepen understanding, broaden perspectives, and inspire engagement with the world around us” (NAI, 2021), research is increasingly important to ensure we meet our mission.