Dialogue on Needs of Associations for International Interpretation CollaborationGeneral Assembly Session Goal

Identify actionable steps toward international cooperation integrating association-specific perspectives into products for first time for consideration by a pending steering committee

Participants Some 30 participants, including all association leaders. Many people missed exercise to check out and did not return. Others were organizing post-conference trips.

Facilitation Jon Kohl, Coordinating Facilitator, PUP Global Heritage Consortium under auspices of the Heritage Interpretation Development Program. http://pupconsortium.net/pup-consortium-programs/heritage-interpretation-development-program/

Assumptions of Activity

Membership would be by association not individual, at least at first. Associations in different countries have different needs for

international cooperation. Minority association needs are as important as majority needs to build

global support. Breaking down needs by association will give us more useful

information for building a membership than collapsing all needs into one list.

Meeting needs of multiple associations has greater chance of promoting ownership and support than just a few.

Needs and goals will be given to a steering committee as soon as it exists.

Preparations 1. Ensure have a complete hour to carry out activity.2. Identify a big room with a lot of floor space, no chairs or tables.3. Check the association group divisions with Sue Ellen and Margo.

InterpCanada Consultants and Designers InterpCanada government InterpCanada non-governmental sites NAI staff NAI non-profit NAI private sector Interpret Europe/AHI AIP/Portugal New Zealand and Australia Asia (South Korea and Hong Kong) Togo

4. Show example cards. Country/Association + Need > Goal > Structure5. Example 1: NAI: World must understand interpretation to accept it >

Interpret interpretation > Interpretation BP video series in UN languages (write association in corner of each card) (did not use)

6. Example 2: Less developed country (i.e., Costa Rica): Political legitimacy > Make interpretation profession visible internationally > Interpretation Declaration in UN languages

7. Create “chains” of 4 letter-sized sheets taped together, where the first

sheet mentions the region/association, then blank need sheet, blank goal sheet, and blank mechanism

8. Put chains on floor in circular fashion to symbolize wisdom of a sunflower or clock to represent that we are on limited time.

9. Ask group to move tables and chairs during break of previous activity to raise anticipation of an interactive session without saying what will happen

Methodology 1. Move tables and chairs, if not already done.2. State the general goal to produce something that moves us closer to

international interpretation collaboration without labeling it a “federation” or other particular model.

3. Objective for hour: Generate program ideas based on needs of different associations. Seek overlap of different needs to identify priority actions that meet the needs of the greatest number of potential members.

4. State transparent facts: no one transcribed WC or lunch time data. These will be warm up ideas for those who participated.

5. Results of all three will be put in proceedings for this conference.6. State assumptions of activity.7. Need everyone to break up into the following association groups.8. Task is to identify one principal need/goal/mechanism that an

international interpretation collaboration of some type can meet for your group.

9. Show examples. Cards 5-7 words. Write neat, use entire card. Lay them on floor. Specific.

10. 15 minutes to do this.11. Form big circle around floor.12. Lay chains alongside examples, starting with smallest groups first.13. Interview chains (read, clarify, understand)14. Organize chains by needs, largest to smallest. Needs are more

fundamental than goals and structures and are less likely to change and evolve as goals and structures, thus more appropriate for an organizing criterion.

15. Within chain groups, organize by goals.16. Does anyone see patterns of needs emerging?17. Are these results different from what you discussed yesterday at

lunch?18. What insights can we get from this pattern with respect to what the

federation should be doing?19. What recommendations can we make based on this exercise?20. Volunteers to transcribe these results to computer.

Results Togo team did not participate. Otherwise all teams save Canada Government and NAI staff had at least two participants. Two or three groups included two ideas on their chains rather than one as per example (but Jon did not specify one per chain). When chains were laid out, group identified two overriding functions: advocacy/promotion of interpretation to establish legitimacy and

recognition outside of field as well as research and dissemination.Limitations 1. Significant participant attrition due to the overlap of the activity and

check out time and preparation for post-conference trips2. The conference itself was not a fair representation of the

interpretation community and the activity did not fairly represent the conference. On the other hand, all association leaders were present at least during part of the activity.

3. One hour was too short a time to achieve an in-depth conversation4. There was a discontinuation between the prior two activities during

the conference and this one. They should have been planned out in concert well before the conference.

Conclusion Though time and participants were short, the exercise served as exploratory research that while not based on a representative sample of the interpretive community, did allow for the emergence of some qualitative and interesting nuances on the theme of international collaboration in interpretation.

If one point alone might have achieved consensus, it was that our field needs greater recognition and legitimacy outside of our field. For developed countries, we see individual interpreters find themselves often at the base of a management totem pole, with little power over management decisions. We find associations with little power to influence management structures in terms of defending functions against the advance of non-interpretive fields into interpretive work or arguing against outsourcing interpretation to commercial interests. Others find it difficult to lobby against policies at the local and national levels that do not take interpretation into consideration or that misrepresent its potential. One current example is the discussion among Spanish interpretation association members over a recent policy on guiding in the state of Galicia that ignores interpretation. In developed countries, national governments may create guiding standards with no mention of interpretation or universities do not include interpretation among any of their curricula. Certainly for the entire profession, interpretation suffers internationally such as with the almost complete lack of mention of “interpretation” at the World Parks Congress in Sydney last year, according to Amy Lethbridge. ICOMOS created an interpretation charter without formal participation of any interpretation bodies.

Some participants argued that this recognition need implies active advocacy and promotion of interpretation such as with international heritage organizations, while others such as Scott from Australia says that international cooperation does not necessarily have to lobby. Rather, by simply commanding legitimacy, the cooperation allows national and sub-national interpretation entities to feel empowered to do their own lobbying.

Lobbying does seem to imply some formal structure. Don Enright argues that any kind of lobbying or advocacy requires consensus in our field and we don’t even have that with the definition of interpretation. Someone noted that

national governments respond more positively to initiatives when there is a legitimate entity to advocate on their behalf. Clearly institutions have mechanisms to deal with other institutions, but not necessarily loose, informal confederations of similarly-minded groups (such as we have now).

The second area of great concern was that of research and dissemination. Though NAI, InterpCanada, AHI, and AIP have formal publications (while Interpret Europe has a newsletter), there are also a variety of other publications that either have commercial interests or are limited in their scope and ability to serve the community. Many agreed, such as Stephen from New Zealand, that much good research exists but doesn’t make it to the hands of practitioners. Others want better access to good practices and standards (whether obligatory or not, theme of the previous session on standards). So the general consensus is that communication and information flow is relatively poor among broad sectors of the international interpretation community.

The activity assumption that different associations have different needs did seem to hold true. In fact, a North-South or developed-less developed difference was evident. Lesser developed countries and associations require a great deal more legitimacy from international entities to even get a foot in the door. It seemed (considering the poor sample size) that they might prefer more formal structures than developed associations who are more cautious about the idea, and feel that some if not many of these functions might be developed without an over-arching formal organization. Similarly in countries of fewer resources, the need for assistance in seeding and cultivating associations is great. Jon and Marisol cited such cases in Portugal, Colombia, and Costa Rica, among many others. In fact, if legitimacy in part depends on the number of organized members, then the international interpretation community should have great interest in helping to create new allies in countries where no associations exist (such as the entirety of Latin America and Africa).

There is an assumption that the conversation about a federation which has been going on for a while (several cited a conference discussion of the topic in 2007) means that we could continue where we left off. This is question because:

Many present in 2007 and those present today are not the same people.

The lapses in conversation have generated obvious discontinuities in consensus and motivation.

The assumptions then are not the same assumptions now (for example when we look at international cooperation through eyes of different associations versus looking at it through a monolithic interpretation community).

All this means that we cannot simply jump into the conversation with the proposal of a federation or that people want it or that it is the correct mechanism. In fact starting with a needs analysis (as suggested by Chris Matthieson in the World Café session) indicates that some needs in fact do not require an international federation or any formal body to enact. In summary, it might be fair to say that this international cooperation has reinitiated starting in the Denver NAI conference (November 2014) rather than at some point prior.

Other options short of a federation?

Amy says that although a federation may not be the mechanism, NAI does need some formal structure to exercise internationally. It does not think it is appropriate to do so directly, a sentiment echoed by associations around the world, cautious of NAI’s imposition of American-style approaches and values. Therefore NAI desires a formal “mediator” that establishes rules for how different associations interact.

Per notes that an on-going dialogue or forum may be the best way to start small. This forum can establish a framework for communication and doesn’t need much power. “Forum” sounds safer to Michael’s ears. Chuck also emphasizes the need to start smaller when he warns his clients about building buildings for which there is nothing to fill them. Chris pointed out that forums are usually well-intentioned but often do not sustain conversations, eventually dying out.

Along the lines of a formal entity for discussion without power seemed consistent with Marisol’s suggestion of an umbrella organization which gives non-interpretive folks a place to turn when they have questions or inquiries (as varied as UNESCO, guiding associations, protected area agencies, and individuals such as companies or individuals interested in the theme, etc.). Currently there is no central resource.

Others mentioned a research and information portal as a dissemination mechanism.

A final note on participation in the collaboration, if indeed some kind of association of associations should result, those without any association representation need a way to participation. Marisol suggested, for example, a Costa Rican chapter so Costa Ricans would not be excluded. The international organization might admit small groups of people who meet minimal requirements of a nascent association to represent their countries or regions.

Next Steps Distribute these proceedings as soon as possible to allow for

modification by participants while conversation is fresh and as a sign of respect for participant ownership of material.

Create a temporary steering committee with representation of all interpretation associations and affiliated pre-associations and possibly significant others interested in promoting the process such as Chuck Lennox and his company, the US Park Service, UNESCO advisor, or Jon Kohl and the PUP Global Heritage Consortium to name only a few.

Carefully establish the facilitation team for Krakow which should study these results, and create a well defined plan that meshes with the programming of the conference to take best advantage of the time. It should identify potential steps forward, remaining open to consensus and emergence. What has killed some initiatives in the past appear to be lack of adequate facilitation and continuation of the process (which is related to facilitation as well). Good facilitation illuminates assumptions and blocks in the process as well as maintains equity and opportunity between different associations and other stakeholders.

Cards Produced by ParticipantsAssociation/Group

Need Goal Mechanism/Structure of International Collaboration

Less developed country (example)

Professional legitimacy in home nation

Increase respect and visibility of interpretation in country

Interpretation declaration in all UN languages

Canada-Government

Awareness of interpretation as profession with standards/competencies

End audiences/consumers know what interpretation is and value the offer/exp/product

National +/or international standards

NAI NGOs Prove/demonstrate efficacy of interpretation to funders, decision-makers and practitioners

Share results of research from around the world

Website clearinghouse with accessible summaries and link to research

Canada non-governmental sites

Access to research and knowledge sharing and best practices and status/respect for profession

Provide opportunities for knowledge sharing/status building

Platform to access a compilation of research/info/book reviews –website?International symbol of interpretation programs

Canada Consultants and

Sharing Best Practices

Advocacy and education

Gather and disseminate global best practices

Bank of best practices that users can promote, demote, add to, discuss

Designers about the profession Increase awareness, appreciation and heritage interpretation — its role and value

online and free

Lobbying funding bodies and governments to recognize and help impose best practices for funded projects

Asia (Korea and Hong Kong)

Fund raising and standardized training materials

Protect: natural and cultural resourcesDiscovery: value of resources!

Certification and accreditation for interpretation by NAI/govt/NGO

NAI private sector

Identify individual organizations who have needs for interpretation training and capacity building

Connect with people and organizations and understand what they’re looking for

Opportunities for networking-in person-web chat etc.-listserve, structure, directory-Craigslist for interp

Identify what needs are for different audiences

Raise profile of profession

Create tools for lobbying and reaching influencers and allies (advocacy training)

AIP and Portugal

Political alignment/leverage. Services?Mentoring association creation

Create mentoring capacity for new associations

Committee and guidelines and mentors to assist new associations

NAI staff Manage/admin international request to certify in other languages (primarily CIG)

Support individuals internationally wo want to be certified with us but in their own language

Development of individual standards of excellence in interpretation

Interpret Europe/AHI

Recognition of the role of interpretation

General endorsement of the contribution of interpretation

1. Create common understanding

2. Communication (common database, social media)

3. Lobbying/advocacy

4. Marketing mechanism

New Zealand & Australia

Sharing information, resources, and research related to the practice of interpretation

To create a central ‘repository’ for ideas, research, discussion, and advancement in

Online portal that each region maintains their relevant section

interpretationAdvocate the professional practice

Successful lobbying at national level. Being heard and valued

Formalised global network that brings together national/regional oganisation.

Participants discuss by interest group high priority needs that could be met through international collaboration.

Participants write down their ideas.

Participants discuss overriding themes emerging from exercise.

Most of the cards.