A Comparison of Traditional and Facilitated Dialogue Programs in Grand Teton National Park: An Evaluation for the Future of Interpretive Programs

Abstract

As part of finding their path for the next hundred years, the National Park Service is exploring diverse ways to engage the public and help create systemic changes in the way that the public interacts with each other. Facilitated dialogue in interpretive programs has been one of those ways. Traditionally, the public has embraced programming based on the expert and delivery, whereas the new direction leans toward an audience-centered, facilitated experience. To determine how this shift is affecting the experience related to interpretation in the parks, Grand Teton National Park (GRTE) conducted a study in 2015 and 2016. This multi-method study (this article presenting one slice) is based on the research model by Stern, et al (2012), which examined program and visitor characteristics among 56 live interpretive programs in Grand Teton National Park. Our goals were to compare traditional program with facilitated dialogue programs and to compare program characteristics over these two years. Findings indicate that traditional programs were significantly more attended than facilitated dialogue programs. However, when examining program characteristics, facilitated dialogue programs received significantly higher program evaluation scores than traditional programs. Adherence to the four-step Arc of Dialogue model was strongly and positively correlated with program characteristics.

Taking Stock of Interpretation Research: Where Have We Been and Where are We Heading?

“…This provides endless opportunities for examining emerging practices in a timely fashion. For example, recent trends have included an enhanced emphasis on dialogic techniques, such as facilitated dialog (Williams et al, 2018) and distance learning efforts (Bruch et al, 2011;Merritt et al, 2020). We urge practitioners and researchers to collaborate on evaluating these programs on an iterative basis as they develop.…”

“…, Van Winkle (2012),Williams et al (2018) Organizational topics 19Bixler et al (2011);Bowling (2013),Burris (2019),Caplow (2018),Danwandee et al (2015),Ernst (2012),Goodrich and Bixler (2012),Hansen et al (2017),Hvenegaard et al (2016),Ivey and Bixler (2013),Morgan and Kai (2016),Pan et al (2012),Powell et al (2017),Stern et al (2011,Tesdahl (2017),Tschaenn et al (2014),Wolins (2012), Bowling (2013,Burris (2019),Harrison et al (2010), (2017),Ivey and Bixler (2013),Knapp and Forist (2014), Merson et al (2016), Pan et al (2012), Powell et al (2017), Powell and Stern (2013a), Stern et al (2013), Tschaenn et al (2014), Yamada (2014), Yamada and Skibins (2019) Diversity, equity, inclusion and justice 12 Caplow (2018), Clark et al (2011), Hansen et al (2017), Lee et al (2019), Montero et al (2018),Morgan and Hwang, (2014)…”

Methodological Bricolage and COVID-19: An Illustration From Innovative, Novel, and Adaptive Environmental Behavior Change Research

“…The PI advised a dialogic-based narrative approach (Williams et al, 2018) to video production that would incorporate elements of community-based social marketing (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000) and self-serving bias theory (Van Winkle & MacKay, 2008). This approach highlights both barriers and benefits relating to behavior change in visitors.…”

Curiosity, Humility, and the Drive to do Good in Interpretation Research and in Interpretation

“…Third, curiosity and humility enable us to keep learning, to stay energized, and to collaborate with our audiences to continually improve our programs. This is the essence driving much of what have been described as audience-centered experiences (Merson et al, 2022; Williams et al, 2018). Curiosity , humility , and the drive to do good enable interpreters to balance mission achievement with the desires of diverse audiences.…”