NOTES FROM THE SESSION ON INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION
INTERPRET EUROPE CONFERENCE
JUNE 7, 2015
The session began with a summary of past conversations on the topic of international
cooperation. This began with a historical overview of previous efforts toward formalizing
international collaboration in interpretation including the declaration that resulted from the
First World Congress on Heritage Presentation and Interpretation held in Banff in 1985; the
“Honolulu Charter” which resulted from the Congress of Heritage Interpretation International
in 1991; and the Freiburg Declaration which resulted from the first annual conference of
Interpret Europe held in 2011.
Turning to more recent events, a brief rundown was given of the small, informal
meetings and resultant conversations that took place at the annual conference of the National
Association for Interpretation in Denver in November 2014 on the topics of international
collaboration and a related issue, international standards. The outcome of these conversations
was the decision to have a more formal presentation of the concept at the upcoming
International Conference on Interpretation being held in Montreal, Canada May 3-7, 2015, in
an effort to determine whether the time was indeed ripe to pursue a formal federation, or
alliance, of international interpretation associations.
Four sessions were therefore held in Montreal during the conference (the proceedings
from these sessions are included as an addendum). A World Café presentation by Amy
Lethbridge was held on the first full day of the conference. After a review of historical
discussions as background, participants were divided into facilitated topic groups covering the
following three questions: 1) What would be the benefits of an international federation? 2)
What would be the goals of an international federation? and 3) What would be the challenges
and opportunities of such a collaboration? Overall, there was confusion concerning the place of
international standards in the discussion, which determined to be a separate issue (to be
discussed on the final day). It was also determined that the conversation should be brought to
the whole gathered community.
Thus a lunchtime discussion was held later in the conference, facilitated by Jane Beattie,
to introduce the idea of using a “federation” model to provide an umbrella mechanism
supporting current and grassroots interpretive organizations around the world. In particular,
the models discussed were the World Federation of Tourist Guide Associations (WFTGA) and
the International Ranger Federation (IRF). The participants were then asked: 1) What other
international federation-style organizations or models in any profession could we also look at?
2) What immediate positives, negatives, opportunities/benefits or challenges come to mind
with using a model similar to the WFTGA or IRF for our interpretive organizations? and 3)
What do you think should be the top goals or priorities that an international federation
representing interpretation should focus on that would benefit any member in any country?
Participants posted their observations on sheets on the wall (included in the proceedings).
The final two sessions took place together on the final morning, in general session.
Facilitated by Chuck Lennox, this panel discussion tackled the issue of international standards.
Each panel member discussed the presence or development of standards, best practices or
guidelines for interpretation in their country or region. Represented were: Association for
Heritage Interpretation, Interpret Europe, Swedish Centre for Nature Interpretation,
1
Interpretation Canada, Interpretation Network of New Zealand, National Association for
Interpretation, Republic of Korea, and Interpretation Australia. Rounding out the conversation,
representatives in the audience from Greece, Costa Rica and Italy briefly mentioned the status
of standards, best practices or guidelines in their country. A lively conversation ensued of the
purpose, focus, structure, and administration of standards.
Wrapping up the day was an exercise facilitated by Jon Kohl that brought the
conversation back to international cooperation to determine association-specific perspectives on
membership, needs and goals of a prospective organization to be considered by a potential
steering committee. Participants were divided into association groups and asked to identify
one principal need/goal/mechanism that an international interpretation collaboration of some
type can meet for each group. Two primary functions were identified: advocacy/promotion of
interpretation as a profession to establish legitimacy and recognition outside of the field, and
support for research and its dissemination as well as better access to best practices and
standards.
Following the summary of past conversations on international collaboration, Bill
Taylor led the group in a discussion of why such a “Thing” might be needed and what “It”
would look like (sidestepping the time-consuming debate on what a collaborative effort might
be called). From the number and content of previous conversations, it seems apparent that
such a Thing is indeed needed, and that it should support global interpretation, advocate for
the profession, and support smaller or nascent interpretive organizations. It has been
suggested that the support of individuals not be a part of the mission as that would be a
different function (already addressed by international interpretive organizations) and would
spread the new thing too thin. Michael Glen of Scotland (UK) reminded the group that in
Montreal the discussion had included some allowance for individuals to join if they were
working toward a national or regional association of some kind in order to offer support for
their efforts.
It was generally agreed that the three general principles of the Thing would therefore
be awareness, advocacy, and support. The conversation then turned to the question of how do
we deliver this Thing? The analogy was drawn of a car driving down a road from point A to
point B and stopping at stoplights – the process would be step by step and one would need to
be completed before the next undertaken (a slow but methodical process of organizational
development). Chuck Lennox of the US suggested that a small group, say of three
organizations, be tapped to get the process started by creating a draft that the larger interested
community could then review and offer input. Poul Hjulman Seidler of Denmark reminded the
group that most of the interpretive associations were all-volunteer with people coming on and
off their leadership positions, and that perhaps it would be better to pick three or more
“determined” people who would commit the time needed. Bill Taylor suggested working with
organizations that are already doing the three agreed principles.
Per Sonnvik of Sweden suggested that rather than start a new organization we should
start with something that is already important to people, such as a definition of heritage
interpretation. Susan Cross of the United Kingdom said that we were assuming that all
organizations were traveling along this path by bus, but reminded us that many are traveling
by bicycle and might make it there differently. Bill replied that if 60% or 80% got there, the
rest would eventually. In other words, not all organizations are going to be ready to jump on
board at the outset, but rather than wait for everyone to be capable of participating the effort
could be begun and others could come on board as it fits in their development. Additionally,
2
that is one of the purposes of the Thing – to help interpretive organizations to develop and
support interpreters in their regions.
Steven Richards-Price of Wales (UK) said that in many countries interpreters do not
have associations but rather networks they work within. A first step might be to revisit the
International Memorandum of Understanding that was created and circulated some time ago,
which eight or more countries have already signed. Nicole Deufel of the UK said that it was
important to record everything that was being discussed, rather than in the future saying “the
group said…” so that individual opinions can be heard. We need to bring representatives from
relevant departments/universities into the conversation as early as possible and make sure to
include that point of view because they are important in bringing the profession forward.
Poul shared his point of view that an international organization should reach out and
fully involve an organization like his division at the university in Copenhagen made up of 12
colleagues within the common field of outdoor life, nature interpretation and heritage. He
pointed out that they work with education, development and research and have substantial
resources to work with and might be able to prioritize international engagement.
Ruth Taylor of the UK wondered if a first step should be to determine for whom we are
advocating? If at the government level, is it for the heritage of a country? For example, there
is the Heritage Alliance in Great Britain that brings people together to protect heritage. Susan
Cross said that we already have principles and definitions of good practices; we need to think of
what the benefits of best practices will be. Poul suggested that we have a small conference of
people who have a real passion for such an international organization, perhaps people from each
region (they would pay the costs to attend themselves) to talk it through and discuss the
framework, goals, etc. The conference or gathering would have no other goal then this –
trying to fit this effort into regional/national/international conferences is not enough. Regan
Forrest of Australia agreed, and said that people would self-select either out or in. Perhaps we
need to ask people and not wait for volunteers. Amy Lethbridge of the United States said that
each association needs to make that decision and select individuals to represent them. Some
individuals have stepped forward already and can volunteer for their organization but they
have to be approved by their leadership body. This can take some time.
Thorsten Ludwig of Germany reminded everyone that there was a process begun out of
Montreal – how would this process be incorporated into that or would this be new? People
have already stepped forward, so we do have something to build on. Willem Derde of Belgium
asked whether we need a definition of the Thing, and there was some indeterminate discussion
of this without a definition being formed. Bill Taylor wrapped up the session by saying that
there was a consensus that we all want this Thing, now we need to determine how to do it.
Amy Lethbridge suggested that a small group who have self-identified as interested in the
concept should get together to work on it. It was agreed that there would be a lunch-time
gathering on the final day of this conference to 1) make sure that those who were not in
attendance at this session could be part of the conversation if they wanted to have input, and 2)
to create a path forward.
Therefore, it was announced in general session on the morning of June 9 that there
would be a gathering at lunch of anyone interested in being a part of the discussion of how to
create an international federation or other form of formalized collaboration. Several tables
were reserved in the courtyard and approximately 20-25 people participated.
3
Discussions were held at the individual tables, focusing on collaborative efforts already
underway between individual countries or regions and how we could build on those. It was
suggested that this should be an exercise in baby steps – that we should not rush off and try to
form a full-fledged organization from the beginning. Some organizations would need to build
capacities before being able to get involved. The suggestion was made once again that three or
four people should sit down and get something on paper to share with the rest and solicit
comments and input, and that this group should look at the existing documents (such as the
Freiburg declaration and the International Memorandum of Understanding or IMU) as a basis.
It was felt that such an approach wouldn’t take a lot of time – particularly to update the IMU.
We need to look carefully at the definition of “association” and make sure that networks
were also included. It was decided that a small group would work together to craft and
circulate something and the larger group could fine-tune it. A rather rushed discussion
followed concerning the make up of the small group (lunch being over). It was suggested that
it would possibly be useful to involve people other than those that were originally involved in
drafting the IMU or 'the usual suspects' for the initial working group, as sometimes having the
same heads think about the same thing simply reproduces the same ways of framing an
idea/organization, and perhaps this would be an opportunity to get a fresh set of eyes looking
at it.
There was a call for volunteers to step forward, representing the major international
regions. Steven Richards-Price volunteered the involvement of the Association of Heritage
Interpretation, with Lisa Keys representing AHI and Steven as backup. Bill Taylor and
Michael Glen volunteered to represent Interpret Europe. Amy Lethbridge said that NAI
would select one or two people to work with the group, and said some individuals who
participated in the Montreal discussions had already been appointed by their associations to
work on this effort and they could possibly be included in the small group (Chris Mathieson
had been selected by Interpretation Canada, Steven Espiner by Interpretation Network of New
Zealand and Scott Killeen by Interpretation Australia). There was recognition that it would be
good to have representation from less developed countries, and representing all of the
continents, as the process progressed, and that it was important to avoid an English-speaking
bias. Ted Cable recommended Marisol Mayorga, one of his graduate students from Costa Rica
who was active in the conversation in Montreal. Others promised to give thought to both
Spanish speakers and also potential representatives from South America and Africa. But the
consensus was that it was also important to get the process underway before momentum was
lost. It was felt that too large an initial group would delay the process and that a very small (23) working group who could begin immediately on the task of synthesizing input to-date was
desirable.
Final Recommended Process:
1. For the sake of expediency, a very small group of association representatives who
participated in the Montreal and Krakow conferences will look at existing documents,
synthesize efforts to date, and draft a statement (possibly including an updated
International Memorandum of Understanding) by the end of summer.
2. This document will then be transmitted to all those who have been a party to the
international collaboration conversation in Denver, Montreal and Krakow for their
input. Delegates appointed by associations/networks representing the major continents
of the globe will incorporate this broader input into a revised draft.
4
3. The resulting consensus will then be distributed to the wider group of associations and
networks throughout the world with active outreach to provide background, context
and answer questions. It is our intention that this process be as inclusive as possible,
and that it incorporates the input of interpretive organizations and networks from all
regions and continents, speaking different languages, that have not yet had the
opportunity to be part of the conversation.
4. It is hoped that a finalized concept and structure for ongoing international collaboration
will be announced at the next International Conference on Interpretation being held in
Wellington, New Zealand April 3-7, 2016.
5