Research on interpretation should endeavor to enhance the practice of the field as well as the theory and principles that guide it. There are innumerable ways for researchers to accomplish these goals in terms of the research questions they ask and the disciplinary lenses and methodological approaches they employ, especially when these elements are considered in partnership with the practitioners. To aid in this process, this manuscript aims to delineate key parts of the broader system that bear influence on these goals and connections between them. Depicting, or mapping, the system of interpretation research in this way can potentially illuminate the wide diversity of worthwhile research questions in service of the profession.As reflected in the diverse manuscripts published in this issue, drastically different questions, disciplines, and approaches are both appropriate and necessary to advance the field of interpretation. For example, Hvenegaard et al. ( 2024) address the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on visitor intentions to attend interpretive programs within Alberta's provincial parks in Canada through quantitative survey research. Their research captures a specific point in time with the potential to reveal broader lessons for similar societal disruptions in the future. Meanwhile, Bixler and Shipley (2024) undertake a thought-provoking exercise comprised largely of reflection and review of the literature to examine the importance, diversity, and quality of different ways of developing and delivering conclusions in live interpretive programs. Each reveals meaningful insights for the practice of interpretation.Developing a systematic framework for a field of study is not an uncommon undertaking, particularly for complex and interdisciplinary areas of inquiry. For example, the Human Ecosystem Model (Burch et al., 2017;Machlis et al., 1997) identifies key components of the human social system (social institutions, social cycles, and social
