A Social Science Plan

for the

Harpers Ferry Center

NATIONAL


PARK


SERVICE

DEPARTMENT


OF THE INTERIOR
A Social Science Plan

for the

Harpers Ferry Center

Gary E. Machlis

National Park Service

Lois H. Silverman

Indiana University

with the assistance of

Elizabeth R. Barrie

Crystal A. Schulte

Patricia E. Smith

September 1997
Contents

Summary i

I. Introduction 1

Extraordinary Challenges for the HFC ..................................................... 2

Overview of the Plan ................................................................................... 3

The Social Sciences Defined and Described ............................................. 4

II. A Policy Rationale for HFC Social Science 7

National Mandate for NPS Social Science ................................................ 7

Harpers Ferry Center Mandate for Social Science ................................. 11

General Management Plans and Interpretive Plans ............................... 13

Summary .....................................................................................................20

III. Prior Social Science Research 21

Communication Theory: An Overview ..................................................22

“Who Says What?”: Communicators and Interpretive Messages .........24

“To Whom?”: Knowing the Audience .....................................................28

“Over What Channel?”: Understanding Interpretive Media ................35

“With What Effects?”: Understanding and Evaluating the Impact of

 Interpretive Media .................................................................................42

Additional Issues ........................................................................................ 47

Summary .....................................................................................................54

IV. Employee and Client Views 57

Group Workshop Procedures ................................................................... 57

Workshop Results: HFC Employees .......................................................58

Workshop Results: NPS Interpretive Personnel .....................................59

Workshop Results: A Comparative Summary ........................................60

Telephone Interviews................................................................................. 61

Interview Results: A Comparative Summary .........................................65

V. A Research Agenda 69

Descriptive Research ................................................................................. 71

Practical Experiments ................................................................................ 78

HFC Formal Evaluation ............................................................................ 81

VI. An Action Plan 85

Stage 1. Organizing for Social Science .....................................................86

Stage 2. Building a Research Base ............................................................ 87
Stage 3. Diversifying the Research ...........................................................88

Stage 4. Completing the Research Program ............................................89

Estimated Budget ....................................................................................... 91

Appendices 93

I. Bibliography............................................................................................95

II. Nominal Group Workshop Results ................................................... 117

III. Telephone Interview Participants .................................................... 122
A Social Science Plan

for the

Harpers Ferry Center

Summary

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide a plan for social science

for the Harpers Ferry Center (HFC) of the National Park Service

(NPS). Effective planning, design and production of interpretive

media requires an understanding of the relationship between

people and interpretive materials. This understanding of people

requires a sound scientific basis. Hence, social science research is

a necessary and important service to the HFC. A plan for HFC

social science can identify and prioritize research needs, increase

the usefulness of research results, improve the delivery of information, and reduce costs. The objectives of this plan are to:

• identify the needs for social science research related to the

HFC,

• propose a research agenda and specific research projects for

the HFC, and

• propose an action plan, schedule, and budget for implementing the research.
The Social Sciences Defined and Described

The social sciences are those disciplines of science that study

humankind in relation to its cultural, social and physical environment. This plan for HFC social science focuses on the following

social sciences: economics, geography, psychology, political

science and sociology. Each has usefulness to the NPS; several

are of direct importance to HFC staff and partners.

A Policy Rationale for HFC Social Science

The rationale for the HFC to support and employ social science

can be found in policies directing the management of the NPS,

in specific HFC mandates, and in individual park unit planning

documents. There is a viable national mandate for social science

research to support the NPS, and the HFC. It emerges from the

NPS Organic Act and mission, enabling legislation, management

policies of the agency, and agency-wide initiatives. Further

rationale for social science research at the HFC can be found in

the mission and policies of the HFC. General Management

Plans and Interpretive Plans provide further rationale for social

science research relevant to the HFC.

Prior Social Science Research

The relationship between audiences and media products in parks

and museums is a process of communication. Therefore, the HFC

has a basic need to answer the fundamental question of communication analysis: “Who says what to whom over what channel with

what effect?” Given the importance of this question to the HFC

mission, the review of prior social science research is organized

into seven sections, which are 1) Communication Theory: An

Overview, 2) “Who Says What?”: Communicators and Interpretive Messages, 3) “To Whom?”: Knowing the Audience, 4) “Over

What Channel?”: Understanding Interpretive Media, 5) “With

What Effects?”: Understanding and Evaluating the Impact of

Interpretive Media, 6) Additional Issues, and 7) Summary.

Within each section, a representative sample of relevant literature is discussed, and additional research needs are identified.

Employee and Client Views

Two group workshops and fifteen telephone interviews were

conducted to obtain input from HFC employees and clients of

ii
HFC products and services. Participants identified key social

science research questions relevant to the HFC.

The nominal group workshops and telephone interviews developed a significant and extensive set of social science research

questions relevant to the HFC. Three broad themes emerged,

including the need to: 1) better understand current park visitors

(including their backgrounds, motivations, and opinions and

preferences), 2) better understand the public at large (including

non-visitors and their values), and 3) better understand the

effectiveness of interpretive media.

A Research Agenda

A social science research agenda for the HFC is proposed.

Research projects are organized into three categories. The first

kind of research project involves descriptive research. A central

focus to this research is the question, “What do curent and future

HFC clients and audiences need?” The second kind of research

project involves practical experiments. A central focus to this

research is the question, “What are the most effective ways of meeting

the needs of current and future HFC clients and audiences?” A third

kind of research project involves formal evaluation. These

evaluations are linked to HFC performance, and focus on the

question, “How effective are HFC products and services in meeting the

identified needs of current and future HFC clients and audiences?”

The research agenda consists of a set of interdependent studies

that involve descriptive research, practical experiments, and

formal evaluation.

An Action Plan

Implementing a social science research program for the HFC

will require several specific actions. Research activities can be

accomplished in four stages and over several years. Stage 1 is

organizing for social science. Stage 2 is building a research base,

followed by Stage 3, diversifying the research. Stage 4 is completing the research program. The total estimated budget for all

four stages is $279,000 in 1997 dollars.

A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center iii
I

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide a plan for social science

for the Harpers Ferry Center (HFC). The HFC is the office of

the National Park Service (NPS) established to plan, design, and

produce interpretive media for all units of the National Park

System. The task is essential to the mission of the NPS, and for

several reasons. Interpretive media are critical to communicating

with the public the need and necessity of preserving resources,

both natural and cultural. Interpretive media are critical to

communicating the special significance of individual NPS sites,

and the National Park System as a coherent representation of the

nation’s heritage. And interpretive media are critical to the

personal experience of visiting national parks and historic sites—

providing visitors with enjoyment, education and a deeper

appreciation of history, culture, nature and themselves.

Effective planning, design and production of interpretive media

requires an understanding of the relationship between people

and interpretive materials. The HFC is essentially in the business

of communication, i.e. planning communication systems, designing communication tools, producing communication products.

An understanding of communication—between the HFC and its
2

clients, between HFC interpretive products and audiences—is a

prerequisite for an effective, creative and productive HFC.

This understanding of people requires a sound scientific basis.

Hence, social science research is a necessary and important

service to the HFC. A plan for HFC social science can identify

and prioritize research needs, increase the usefulness of research

results, improve the delivery of information, and reduce costs.

The objectives of this plan are to:

• identify the needs for social science research related to the

HFC,

• propose a research agenda and specific research projects for

the HFC, and

• propose an action plan, schedule, and budget for implementing the research.

In this report, the focus is on activities of the HFC related to

interpretive media.

Extraordinary Challenges for the HFC

This is a critical period in the history of the HFC, and in the

delivery of interpretive media to units of the National Park

Service. The HFC and its professional staff face extraordinary

challenges:

• significant change in the visiting public and audiences for

interpretive media,

• altered patterns of tourism that impact park visits and opportunities for interpretation,

• rapidly changing technology for designing, producing and

delivering interpretive messages,

• a quickened evolution of public expectations related to communication, i.e. new norms for film, other visual arts, the

written word, and voice,

• significant organizational change within the NPS, and how the

HFC interacts with its clients,
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 3

• the need to meet the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act and other government initiatives

related to customer service and performance, and

• limited budgets, resources and professional staff at all levels of

the NPS.

An effective social science plan for the HFC will provide a

strategy for the HFC to gain the social science research it needs

to accomplish its mission and respond to these challenges.

Overview of the Plan

In this introductory chapter, the purpose and scope of the social

science plan are outlined. The social sciences included in the

plan are briefly defined and described. As stated above, the

objective of this plan is to identify the needs of the HFC for

social science research. Chapters 2-4 provide necessary background for developing a research agenda of social science for the

HFC. Three sources are examined. The first are policy and

planning documents of the NPS, HFC, and several representative NPS units. These reveal a formal mandate and specific

responsibilities for conducting social science in support of the

HFC’s mission, responsibilities, and activities. The second

source is a review of the existing literature, organized around the

central concepts of communication theory. The third source of

information includes a series of employee workshops and interviews conducted throughout the NPS and with HFC contractors.

These workshops and interviews, while not part of a formal

survey, helped identify critical social science research questions

for the HFC.

In Chapter 5, a social science research agenda for the HFC is

presented. A series of specific research projects is proposed. For

each project, a description, purpose, estimated cost, schedule and

potential funding partners are presented.

In Chapter 6, a comprehensive action plan for accomplishing

this program of research is presented. The plan describes how

the work can be accomplished in four stages:
4

1. organizing for social science,

2. building a research base,

3. diversifying the research, and

4. completing the research program.

For each stage, specific and practical actions are recommended.

Also included is a detailed budget for each stage of the proposed

research program. The report includes several appendices.

The Social Sciences Defined and Described

The social sciences are those disciplines of science that study

humankind in relation to its cultural, social and physical environment. They are one of the three main divisions of knowledge,

the others being the natural sciences and the humanities. There

is considerable overlap. History, for example, involves elements

of both humanities and social sciences; geography includes both

physical geography (a natural science) and human geography (a

social science).

While formal listings and opinions vary, several disciplines are

commonly considered as social sciences: anthropology (and

closely related ethnography), archeology, economics, geography

(human rather than physical), psychology, political science and

sociology.

The NPS currently has programs in anthropological and historical archeological research, as well as an established Applied

Ethnography Program. Much work is conducted by these programs in support of NPS cultural resource management, and in

response to legal requirements such as the National Historic

Preservation Act (1966, amended 1992) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990). The above

programs are essential to the NPS, however, their research

agenda and organization are beyond the scope of this plan.

Hence, this plan for HFC social science focuses on the following

social sciences: economics, geography, psychology, political

science and sociology. While these disciplines interact, each

focuses upon certain units of study and driving forces important
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 5

to understanding human behavior. Each has usefulness to the

NPS; several are of direct importance to HFC staff and partners.

Economics (both macro- and micro-economics) treats markets,

industries and economies as key units of study; the driving force

of change is economic value broadly defined. Economics can aid

NPS managers through studies of the costs and benefits of park

policies related to interpretation, and the role of parks and

interpretive media in the tourism industry, local regional and

national economy.

Geography (specifically human geography) treats regions, landscapes and other spatial units (governmental, ecological and so

forth) as critical. The central concern is the spatial distribution of

people, resources and culture. Geography can aid NPS managers through studies of tourist travel patterns, regional development, land use trends and projections, and human impacts upon

park resources, both natural and cultural.

Psychology has the individual as its key unit, and communication

is a central driving force. Psychology can assist NPS managers

through studies of residents’ expectations and visitor experience,

interpretive media and other forms of park communication.

Political science focuses upon institutions of the state (at many

levels); the central engine of change to many political scientists is

power and its use. Political science can benefit NPS managers

through studies of public participation in interpretive planning,

the role of local communities and interest groups, and by improving organization effectiveness.

Sociology treats social groups, organizations and communities as

key units of study, with human behavior its central concern.

Sociology can aid NPS managers through studies of demographic trends, cultural values, visitor behavior and public

opinion regarding park policies.

These social sciences also are important partners in interdisciplinary research. Disciplines such as environmental economics,

conservation biology and human ecology have emerged as
6

important scientific fields relevant to the NPS. Interdisciplinary

research, such as studies of visitor impacts upon wildlife or the

economic impacts of management policies, requires the social

sciences.

Economics, geography, psychology, political science and sociology form the core social sciences discussed in this plan.
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 7

II

A Policy Rationale

for

HFC Social Science

The rationale for the HFC to support and employ social science

can be found in policies directing the management of the NPS in

general, in specific HFC mandates, and in individual park unit

planning documents. The intent of this analysis is to provide

specific detailed examples of relevant policy. The analysis has

three parts. First, national mandates for social science related to

the HFC are presented. Second, HFC policies and mandates are

described. Third, several park General Management Plans and

Interpretive Plans are reviewed, revealing park-level social

science research needs relevant to the HFC.

National Mandate for NPS Social Science

There is a viable national mandate for social science research to

support the NPS, and the HFC. It emerges from the NPS

Organic Act and mission, enabling legislation, management

policies of the agency, and agency-wide initiatives. The Organic

Act of 1916 established the NPS and set forth the mission of the

agency:
8

...to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic

objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the

enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means

as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future

generations (16 U.S.C. sec. 1).

Social science research is clearly mandated by the NPS mission

statement, as it is a necessary tool for protecting resources and

providing for enjoyment. The HFC needs social science research

to insure that the products that are designed and produced help

to protect resources and provide for enjoyment.

In the Historic Sites Act of 1935, Congress declared that “it is a

national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings

and objects of national significance for the inspiration and

benefit of the people of the United States” (16 U.S.C. sec. 461).

The HFC is responsible for preservation work on historic furnishings and museum objects, as well as the production of

interpretive media that help communicate their significance to

visitors. Social science research is needed by the HFC to fulfill

this mandate. For example, studies of exhibit effectiveness are

needed to assess the extent to which visitors understand the

significance of historic furnishings and buildings.

In 1972, Activity Standards were developed for the NPS. A

mandate for HFC social science research emerges from the

standards for printing, publications, exhibits, films and audiovisual media. In establishing the standards for information folders,

the agency stated that the materials would be provided in “quantities to meet visitor demand” (NPS 1972, p. 2). Determining the

nature and scope of visitor demand requires social science

research.

The 1986 Interpretation and Visitor Services Guideline developed by the NPS directed that all sound and video recordings

should “relate clearly to the basic interpretive themes of the

park” (NPS 1986b, Chapter 5, p. 2). In addition, the recordings

are to be “accurate and free of religious, cultural and ethnic

biases” (NPS 1986b, Chapter 5, p. 2). Social science research is

needed to insure that HFC products meet these standards.
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 9

The NPS Management Policies (1988) gives explicit support for

social science research within the agency. The NPS is to gather

scientific data in order to manage the parks:

A program of natural and social science research will be

conducted to support NPS staff in carrying out the mission

of the National Park Service by providing an accurate

scientific basis for planning, development, and management

decisions (Chapter 4, p. 2, emphasis added).

As a unit within the NPS, the HFC needs social science research

to support planning, development, and management related to

HFC functions and products.

The NPS Management Policies also state that HFC products

should be used to “augment and enhance visitor enjoyment and

appreciation of park resources” (NPS 1988, Chapter 7, p. 3).

Social science research is needed in order to understand how to

achieve these goals, as well as assess progress towards them.

The 1994 Restructuring Plan developed by the NPS set forth

seven broad goals for the NPS. Two of the goals are particularly

relevant to the need for the HFC to support and employ social

science:

1. Help people forge emotional, intellectual, and recreational ties

with their natural and cultural heritage (p. 7).

2. Lead in a national initiative to strengthen the recognition and

perpetuation of heritage resources and their public benefits

(p. 7).

The products that the HFC develops are crucial to achieving

both goals. Social science research is needed to determine how

to most effectively meet these goals and to assess the extent to

which they have been achieved.

The National Park Service has recently approved a plan for

furthering social science in the parks, entitled Usable Knowledge: A

Plan for Furthering Social Science and the National Parks. The plan

contains several research questions relevant to the Harpers Ferry

Center, such as: How effective are NPS interpretive, educational
10

and public outreach efforts, and how can they be enhanced?

(NPS 1996f). Specific social science research needs were identified, including the need to:

• analyze visitor expectations, attitudes and evaluations of park

experiences,

• describe benefits of visitor use and park experiences,

• assess the relevance and effectiveness of interpretive programs, media and public contact activities,

• identify issues and topics that require interpretive efforts, and

• assess the effectiveness of visitors centers and museums (NPS

1996f, pp. 22-25).

Implementation of this social science research agenda is critical

to the mission and effectiveness of the HFC.

In response to agency needs and the Government Performance

and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the NPS has recently developed a Strategic Plan (NPS 1996e) which contains mission goals

that the Service will strive to achieve in the next five years. That

plan contains further rationale for social science within the NPS:

The ultimate success of the National Park Service in protecting and preserving the nation’s parks will depend on the

availability of credible scientific and scholarly information

on which to make informed management decisions (NPS

1996e, p. 40).

The social sciences are needed to assist the HFC in obtaining

“credible scientific and scholarly information” to ensure that

their products are most effective in protecting and preserving the

parks. Further, GPRA requires each NPS unit to create and

monitor performance measures. Social science is needed in

order to design and make operational evaluation tools that can

measure customer satisfaction with HFC products and services

as well as the effectiveness of these products and services.
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 11

Harpers Ferry Center Mandate for Social Science

Further rationale for social science research at the HFC can be

found in the mission and policies of the HFC. The HFC

emerged from an organizational study conducted in 1963 (NPS

1963). In their general conclusions, the Organization Study Team

suggested that all activities pertaining to interpretation and

visitor services should be combined into one organizational unit

- the Division of Interpretation and Visitor Services. With the

creation of this new Division, a need developed to geographically center the interpretive production staff. The Harpers Ferry

Interpretive Design Center was created. Director George B.

Hartzog summarized the role of the center in a memo regarding

the establishment of the HFC:

We believe that operation of this Center...will provide an

unparalleled opportunity to develop new and creative park

management techniques...Centralizing our production

efforts in the museum and audiovisual fields will greatly

improve the efficiency of these operations (NPS 1969).

Social science research is needed to assist the Center in developing “new and creative” techniques. For example, understanding

of public attitudes toward and experience with computers are

needed to help guide the design of computer-assisted exhibits.

Social science research is also necessary to assess the operation

of the HFC. For example, studies of organizational communication and employee attitudes can assist HFC management and

lead to improved organizational capacity and efficiency.

The need for the social sciences was reinforced in the role and

function statements for the HFC (NPS 1970):

The role of the Harpers Ferry Center is to furnish leadership

and provide a focus for environmental program innovation

and for maintaining the relevancy of the National Park idea

in a world of change...The functions of the Harpers Ferry

Center are...to undertake special assignments involving

program analysis and environmental planning.
12

Social science research is necessary for the HFC to perform

these roles and functions. For example, understanding of visitors

of diverse backgrounds is needed to identify areas for program

innovation, and to help HFC staff understand how to achieve

relevancy of the national park idea within a multicultural society.

In 1976, a series of organizational changes took place at the

HFC. In the memo announcing these changes, the leadership

role of the Center was described:

The Center sets standards of excellence in the media. It

explores and develops new interpretive techniques and

equipment (NPS 1976).

Social science research is necessary to explore and develop

interpretive techniques and equipment. For example, studies of

visitor opinions and preferences regarding interpretive media are

needed to support development of effective and accessible

media.

In a study of the HFC designed to “determine if improvements

can be made in productivity, responsiveness, and coordination”

(Galvin 1989, p. 1), the need for social science research was

explicitly stated. One of eleven recommendations asserts that

opportunities should be available for research into innovative and effective interpretation techniques. Evaluation of

installed products should be accomplished (p. 4).

Galvin goes on to state that “[i]n the considerable literature that

was reviewed for this report there was no research on visitor

reaction [to HFC interpretation techniques]” (p. 33). A comprehensive program of social science research is needed to address

these limitations.

In the Department of the Interior (DOI) Departmental Manual,

the responsibilities of the interpretation division include the

formulation of “the interpretation and visitor services policies,

standards, programs and procedures designed to increase appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of visitors to the park”

(145 DM 7.2D). The same document states that the HFC “shares
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 13

with the Denver Service Center the responsibility for interpretive

planning” (145 DM 7.2D). Social science research is needed to

evaluate visitor appreciation, understanding and enjoyment, and

support interpretive planning.

According to the 1996 Directory of HFC Products and Services,

the present mission of HFC is

to prepare interpretive prospectuses and plans for parks to

guide their interpretive developments. The Center plans and

produces museum and wayside exhibits, audiovisual

presentations, and interpretive publications. The Center

performs preservation work on historic furnishings, and

develops and evaluates new interpretive techniques and

technologies. (NPS 1996a, p. 1).

Social science research is critical for the HFC to accomplish this

most current mission. For example, studies are needed to understand visitors’ response to historic furnishings, and to evaluate

the effectiveness of museum and wayside exhibits.

General Management Plans and Interpretive Plans

General Management Plans (GMPs) and Interpretive Plans (IPs)

are documents that direct the planning and management at NPS

units. These documents also provide rationale for areas of social

science research relevant to the HFC. Three current GMPs and

three IPs were reviewed as examples, each representing a

different geographical area and type of NPS unit. The plans

revealed objectives, issues and needs relevant to the HFC that

require social science research.

Adams National Historical Park

A review of the GMP for Adams NHP (NPS 1996d) revealed

three areas requiring social science research: a) promoting visitor

citizenship, b) increasing visitors’ knowledge, and c) developing

cross-cultural communication.

The desire to promote visitor citizenship was established in the

GMP management objectives:

to relate the story of four generations of the Adams family,

interpreting and preserving their contributions to the
14

development of the United States in order to inspire visitors

to become active and informed citizens (p. 18).

Social science research can provide valuable assistance in understanding how HFC products might promote visitor citizenship.

Social science research is also required to determine if using

HFC products inspires visitors to become active and informed

citizens.

The need to increase visitors’ knowledge was established in the

GMP. The GMP for Adams NHP clearly calls for interpretive

media to do so:

Through a variety of interpretive media, visitors will learn

the stories of the four generations of the Adamses, their

contributions, and their involvement with local, national,

and international historical events (p. 33).

In particular:

Improved directional signs will guide visitors to each site

sequentially, providing a cogent understanding of the

Adams story as a whole (p. 19).

Social science research is needed so that the HFC can develop

products that effectively impact visitors’ knowledge. For example, social science research can help determine visitors’ level

of understanding and interest in history (including historic

furnishings), and the best way to communicate “the story as a

whole” about a specific park like Adams NHP.

The need to develop cross-cultural communication was apparent in

the Adams NHP GMP. The GMP establishes that the presence

of visitors of diverse backgrounds must influence the development of interpretive materials:

The Boston metropolitan area is host to people from around

the world; therefore, media design and interpretive materials will be developed to serve these diverse groups. The

determination of the languages to be used in informational

and interpretive media will be based on studies of regional

demographics and visitor profiles (p. 29).
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 15

Social science research is required to support the development of

effective cross-cultural communication with visitors.

Lake Mead National Recreation Area

In the Lake Mead NRA GMP (NPS 1986a), one area of social

science research need is evident: increasing visitors’ knowledge.

This goal is fundamental to the management of the park. The

need to increase visitor knowledge is emphasized in the management and interpretive objectives in the GMP.

The primary management objective and the way it is to be

achieved emphasizes visitor knowledge:

The primary management objective of Lake Mead National

Recreation Area is to provide a quality visitor experience in

a manner that will ensure visitor safety and will protect the

significant resources of the area...These objectives will be

achieved by first providing the visitor with adequate and

timely information to understand the beauty, fragility, and

dangers of the desert and water recreation (p. 12).

The GMP establishes the following objectives for interpretation:

Encourage visitor safety and resource protection.

Provide timely information and orientation.

Educate visitors about the recreation area’s resources

(pp. 54-55).

HFC products can play a key role in increasing visitor knowledge. Social science research is required to determine how to

increase visitor knowledge. For example, studies are needed to

compare the effectiveness of different interpretive media for

educating various types of visitors. Social science research is also

needed to determine the extent to which visitor knowledge is

increased by specific interpretive media.

Nez Perce National Historical Park and Big Hole

National Battlefield

A review of the GMP for Nez Perce NHP and Big Hole NB

(NPS 1996b) revealed two areas where social science is crucial:

a) fostering cultural awareness in visitors and b) developing

effective signage.
16

The need to foster cultural awareness in visitors is identified in the

GMP. The foundation of the Nez Perce/Big Hole park complex

is the culture of the Nez Perce peoples and their story. As a

result, fostering cross cultural awareness and appreciation among

visitors is a major goal of the park.

In the section of the GMP discussing the desired results of

interpretive programs, it states that visitors will:

experience the integrity of the site through interpretive

media where necessary and appropriate. Visitors [will]

receive enough information to be able to treat each site with

respect (p. 6).

The social sciences can help determine which media are most

effective, and what kind of information is needed for visitors to

be able to treat the site with respect.

The need to develop effective signage was also established in the

GMP:

Sign guidelines would be developed to indicate the presence

of the National Park Service...Signs must meet current

standards, be of consistent and pleasing design, and reduce

confusion about where the resource is (p. 17).

The HFC can assist in the development of effective signs. Social

science research is needed to inform the development of sign

guidelines, to determine if signs are pleasing to visitors, and to

determine if they reduce visitor confusion.

Everglades National Park

In the Statement for Interpretation developed by Everglades NP

(NPS 1995), two key issues that require social science research

were identified: a) influencing visitors’ attitudes about the environment and b) developing cross-cultural communication.

The need to influence visitors’ attitudes about the environment was

identified in the Statement for Interpretation. This need is

reflected in three of the park’s interpretive themes:
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 17

 The importance of maintaining healthy ecosystems as

environmental baselines with which deteriorating ecosystems can be compared. The development of this concept

should contribute to an awareness that will foster public

support when parklands are in danger from environmental

threats (p. 5).

The contrast between how pre-Columbian man lived in

harmony with the south Florida environment for thousands

of years and how modern man has created havoc in the

same environment in only 50 years. The development of

this concept should create a concern for the future (p. 5).

The responsibility of all citizens to protect the several

species of indigenous fauna... [Interpretation] must

stress...that their preservation is dependent upon the involvement and concern of citizens (p. 5).

HFC media products can play a key role in communicating such

themes and influencing visitors. Social science research is critical

to understanding how interpretive media can influence visitor

attitudes as well as measuring the extent of such influence in the

lives of visitors.

The need to develop cross-cultural communication was identified in

the Statement for Interpretation:

[Foreign visitors] do attend interpretive programs, which can

create unique communication difficulties in mixed

audiences...Preliminary investigation suggests foreigners

purchase English books, although the National Parks book

in German also sells well (p. 29).

Social science research is needed so that the HFC can create

products that communicate effectively with international visitors.

Homestead National Monument

In the Homestead NM Long Range Interpretive Plan (NPS

1996c), three key areas that require social science were identified: a) fostering connections for visitors, b) increasing visitors’

knowledge, and c) identifying visitor demographics.
18

The desire to foster connections for visitors was established as a goal

for Homestead’s interpretive media:

The purpose of the interpretation program at Homestead

National Monument of America is to provide emotional,

intellectual, and experiential connections to homesteading

(LRIP, 1996, p. 7).

Wayside exhibits and the interpretive trail guide add

dimensions to understanding the relationships among

people, plants, and animals and the territory they claim (p.

12).

A variety of interactive exhibits will put people in touch

with experiences of the past (p. 13).

Narrative text provided in the park brochure, exhibits, and

audio-visual programs will offer the visitor an intellectual

experience of connecting a period of history to their understanding of 19th and 20th century events (p. 13).

Social science research is required in order to understand how

HFC products can foster such connections for visitors. Research

is also needed to measure the extent to which this objective has

been achieved.

The need to increase visitors’ knowledge was identified in the

interpretive plan. Among interpretive improvements suggested

in the plan was the proposal to move an exhibit located in the

visitor center to a kiosk to “give visitors a more relevant experience in gaining knowledge about what they actually see outdoors” (p. 36). In addition, the plan calls for new exhibits in the

lobby of the visitor center to “guide the public to other National,

State and regional parks in the Midwest area” (p. 37). Social

science research is needed to develop kiosks and exhibits that

most effectively increase visitors’ knowledge.

A need to identify visitor demographics was also documented in the

interpretive plan:

From 1993 until 1995, zip code information was compiled

from the guest register voluntarily signed by visitors. No

formal scientific, random survey has ever been conducted
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 19

by a research team at the monument in more than ten years

(p. 14).

The survey called for in this plan is clearly a social science

research project. Identifying visitor demographics will assist the

HFC in providing interpretive products that are designed appropriately for visitors.

Rainbow Bridge National Monument

The Interpretive Prospectus (IP) for Rainbow Bridge NM (NPS

1993a) identifies three areas that require social science research:

a) increasing visitors’ knowledge, b) producing effective video,

and c) developing cross-cultural communication.

The need to increase visitors’ knowledge was strongly reflected in

the goals and objectives of the IP. Half of the goals set forth in

the interpretive plan seek to promote visitor understanding.

Examples of these goals include increasing understanding of the

natural resources of the region, and helping visitors understand

that the monument’s resources do not end at the park boundaries (p. 10). Many of the objectives set forth in the IP also relate

to visitor knowledge. For example:

Of the visitors leaving the monument:

Half will be able to identify human impacts affecting

Rainbow Bridge.

Half will know that prehistoric people once lived in and

around the monument (p. 10).

HFC products are needed to meet these objectives. Social

science research is required to determine how best to increase

visitor knowledge, to assess the extent to which such increase is

occurring, and to evaluate the achievement of the IP’s objectives.

The need to produce effective video was described in the IP. The IP

calls for the production of a video that should “emphasize the

preservation and use of Rainbow Bridge as a world class natural

and cultural resource” (p. 13). In addition the video would be

used to “reinforce the idea that Rainbow Bridge is not just part of

Glen Canyon but a special place” (NPS 1993a, p. 13). Social
20

science research is needed to assist in the production of video

which meets these interpretive goals. For example, media studies

are needed to identify factors which enhance the effectiveness of

video, such as narrator credibility, script length, and use of

music.

 The need to develop cross-cultural communication stems from the

sacred nature of Rainbow Bridge to a variety of Native American

tribes. Cross-cultural sensitivity is a major concern at the park.

The IP asserts that “the issues are complex, and [the Native

American] concerns, while deeply felt, are sometimes difficult to

convey to those of another culture with a different perception of

the world” (p. 6). The plan goes on to state that “to be sensitive

to the values and experiences of other people, to bridge the

cultural gap, will be the challenge to interpretive managers”

(p. 7). Social science research is needed to assist the HFC in

cross-cultural communication . In addition, social science research is needed to guide the HFC staff in creating products and

services that demonstrate cross-cultural sensitivity.

Summary

This policy analysis reveals a significant mandate for HFC social

science. The mandate emerges from the GMPs and IPs of

individual parks, from the HFC mission and HFC documents, and

from the initiatives, policies and mission of the NPS.
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 21

III

Prior Social

Science Research

This section reviews prior social science research relevant to the

mission of the HFC. The goal of the review is to summarize

what is known, and identify what further research is needed.

This review is based on a representative sample of social science

work relevant to the activities of the HFC, including pertinent

holdings from the HFC library. The scope is limited to studies

conducted in the United States. A bibliography is included (see

Appendix I).

Given its mission, the HFC staff needs to understand the relationship between potential audiences and the products that the

HFC plans, designs and produces. The goal of much interpretive

media is to enlighten visitors regarding “the significance of

cultural and natural resources” (Knudson et al. 1995), such as

furnishings, artifacts, and landscapes. Therefore, it is critical that

HFC staff understand how this is accomplished, and under what

circumstances. Such understanding is also needed in order to

develop new techniques and technologies that are appropriate

and effective, as well as to know how and on what basis to

evaluate them.
22

The relationship between audiences and media products in

parks and museums is a process of communication (Cameron

1968, Ham 1983, Knez and Wright 1970, Sharpe 1976, Zuefle

1997). Therefore, the HFC has a basic need to answer the

fundamental question of communication analysis: “Who says

what to whom over what channel with what effect?” (Lasswell 1948).

This question is central to the social science needs of the HFC.

Given the importance of this question to the HFC mission, this

review is organized into the following seven sections:

1. Communication Theory: An Overview

2. “Who Says What?”: Communicators and Interpretive

Messages

3. “To Whom?”: Knowing the Audience

4. “Over What Channel?”: Understanding Interpretive Media

5. “With What Effects?”: Understanding and Evaluating the

Impact of Interpretive Media

6. Additional Issues

7. Summary

Within each section, a sample of relevant literature is discussed,

and additional research needs are identified. Throughout the

chapter, the terms used to categorize interpretive media are

those commonly found within the research literature. In some

cases, these terms vary from the terms used by the HFC.

1. Communication Theory: An Overview

Since the 1930’s, studies by psychologists, sociologists and other

social scientists have examined park and museum visitor characteristics, factors influencing the effectiveness of exhibits and

other interpretive media, and learning in parks and museums.

Many studies have also documented how the relationship

between audiences and media products in these settings is a

process of communication (Cameron 1968, Ham 1983, Knez

and Wright 1970, Sharpe 1976, Zuefle 1997). Communication is

generally understood as a process in which meaning is created

and shared (Budd and Ruben 1979, Galvin and Brommel 1982).
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 23

That process involves five key components:

• the communicator, or source of the presentation,

• the content of the communication, or message,

• the audience,

• the media, or means by which the message is presented, and

• the effects on, or responses of the audience.

Hence, the communication process between park audiences and

HFC interpretive media products at a National Park Service site

involves:

• HFC personnel and park staff,

• interpretive messages (usually about cultural and/or natural

resources),

• the public (visitors and non-visitors),

• interpretive media: e.g. exhibits, audiovisuals, presentations,

and publications, and

• effects on, or responses of the public (visitors and non-visitors).

Explanations of how these components interact have changed

significantly over the years. In the major perspective argued in

post-war studies, known as the “effects” perspective, the passive

audience was seen as being “injected” with information by the

sender (Lowery and De Fleur 1983). The “uses and gratifications” perspective followed, which focused on a more active

audience consciously and selectively making use of media to

their own ends (Lowery and De Fleur 1983). Recently, perspectives on the communication process have offered more balanced

approaches. For example, communication is increasingly viewed

as a “text” that can vary dramatically, the meaning of which is a

product of both creator and audience (Iser 1978).

Within each component of the communication process, and

within the interactions among them, there are specific factors

that contribute to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of communication. For example, a visitor’s previous knowledge of a subject

will influence his/her interest in an exhibit; the writing style used
24

in a brochure can influence visitors’ reading behavior, and so

forth. This review examines key factors that have been studied.

2. “Who Says What?”: Communicators and Interpretive

 Messages

HFC personnel, together with park staff, create media which

convey interpretive messages. Hence, in the interpretive media

communication process, they are often the communicators or

source. The communicator provides and shapes the “raw materials” used in making meaning: facts, narratives, objects (such as

furnishings), images and so forth. HFC personnel and park staff

then use these raw materials to create wayside exhibits, indoor

exhibits, audiovisual presentations, and publications, which

visitors then use and respond to. It is difficult to separate

“source” factors from “message” factors, as they are so interrelated. Research and theory suggest five major “communicator/

message” factors of particular relevance to the HFC media

communication process:

• source background and values,

• intentions,

• source credibility,

• message content, and

• message structure.

Source Background and Values

Communication effectiveness can be enhanced by similarity in

perspective and style between source(s) and receiver(s)

(Glucksberg et al. 1966, Ham 1983). Therefore, it is important

for creators of interpretive media to understand the extent and

potential of this similarity. Sociological research suggests that the

values, ideologies, and intentions of creators influence the

messages created (Eagleton 1976, Wolff 1984). Such values,

ideologies, and intentions emerge from the individual, as well as

from the organizational culture of those who work together to

create the product (Wolff 1984).
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 25

While a growing number of studies document the background

and values of the public and of national park visitors, less study

has been made of the background and values of HFC and NPS

personnel, or of the contractors which the HFC sometimes

engage for services. A few studies have examined the attitudes

and values of NPS personnel toward the HFC (Johnson and

Swisher 1991, NPS 1985), of NPS park superintendents toward

various aspects of the parks (e.g. National Parks and Conservation Association and Colorado State University 1994), and of

HFC employees toward their work (e.g. NPS 1987). NPS personnel believe that HFC employees basically share the same

values as other NPS employees regarding criteria for interpretive

media (NPS 1985).

Outside of the NPS, a few studies have examined the ideology

and values implicit in exhibits (e.g. Wallace 1985). No studies

have analyzed the type or extent of ideologies and values reflected in HFC products. An understanding of the specific ways

in which HFC employees, independent contractors, and NPS

personnel shape messages is needed to promote awareness,

reflectiveness, and choice in interpretive media planning, design,

and production.

Intentions

Another “communicator/message” factor of importance for the

HFC is objectives or intentions (Gordon 1971). Virtually all

human communications are attempts to achieve goals, and

intentions shape the message (Singer 1987). Typically, it is on the

basis of intention that the success of communication is judged.

Empirical studies of interpretive media such as brochures, signs,

exhibits, and audiovisuals suggest that interpretive messages

commonly aim to educate, persuade, or both. Specific intentions

include:

• to increase visitor knowledge, such as information about

exhibit content (Korn 1988) and site rules (Gallup 1981),

• to facilitate visitor orientation (Cohen et al. 1977),

• to facilitate visitor wayfinding (Talbot et al. 1993),
26

• to increase visitor psychomotor skills, such as how to use a

computer (Worts 1990),

• to influence visitor attitudes, such as attitudes toward facility

management (Olsen et al. 1984), and

• to influence visitor behavior, such as in what area of a park to

camp (Roggenbuck and Berrier 1982).

Often, several intentions or goals are interwoven. For example, it

may be necessary to first impact a visitor’s psychomotor skills so

that he or she can operate the interactive component of an

exhibit which aims to increase knowledge about history. Many

other goals for interpretation have been described, including

nation-building, identity-enhancement, and spiritual gain

(Knudson et al. 1995). However, interpretive efforts with these

intentions have not been studied empirically.

Source Credibility

Another factor in communication effectiveness is source credibility (Hovland et al. 1953). Source credibility is the degree to

which a communicator is perceived as capable of offering valid

assertions, and intending to communicate that which is most

valid. Low-credibility sources are seen as more biased and more

unfair than high-credibility sources. No empirical studies have

examined audience perceptions of the credibility of the NPS.

Further, the HFC may wish to identify what factors help to

establish source credibility relative to interpretive media.

Message Content

Several studies have looked at ways in which message content

plays a role in the effectiveness of persuasive communication.

Generalizations from this work are:

• Information that is relevant to people and their experiences is

more appealing, interesting, and easily processed than information which is not relevant (Ham 1983, Leippe and Eikin

1987, Tilden 1957).

• Threatening or fear-arousing materials create emotional

tension, and succeed in producing opinion change, and do so
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 27

most effectively when the fear-appeal is kept to a minimal

level. When intense feelings of anxiety are evoked, they can

interfere with an individual’s acceptance of a message

(Hovland et al. 1953).

• Simple messages appear just as effective as complex messages

in reducing depreciative behavior among youthful park

visitors (Vander Stoep and Gramann 1987).

• Dramatized messages may inadvertently encourage, rather

than discourage behavior, due to the nature of social norms

(Cialdini 1996).

• Concrete messages are more effective than abstract messages

at attracting and holding visitor attention at exhibits (Boisvert

and Slez 1995).

Such findings offer useful guidelines to planners, designers, and

producers of interpretive media. However, further research is

needed to identify additional ways in which message content

influences the effectiveness of HFC media communication.

Message Structure

Factors related to message structure have been found to influence communication. Studies have shown that:

• A message with an explicit conclusion is more effective at

producing opinion change than one with an implicit conclusion, except with a knowledgeable audience (Hovland et al.

1953).

• Both sides of an issue, rather than just one, should be included

in a message if it is likely that the audience will be exposed to

subsequent counter-propaganda (Hovland et al. 1953).

• An inquisitive style in an interpretive brochure is just as

effective as a declarative style for increasing visitor learning in

an outdoor setting (Korn 1988).

Further research is needed to identify other message structure

factors that influence HFC media communication.
28

3. “To Whom?”: Knowing the Audience

Communication between people of different cultural groups is

known as intercultural communication (Singer 1987). To a

certain extent, all communication is intercultural (Sarbaugh

1979), given the different experiences, perspectives, and needs of

people. Since culture shapes so much of human experience, the

challenges of effective communication across groups multiply as

cultures differ. Given the diversity of the American public, as

well as the presence of international visitors to the National Park

System, it is useful to understand the audience for HFC products

within the broad framework of intercultural communication.

Four factors are particularly relevant to the HFC:

• the demographic profile of the public, visitors, and nonvisitors,

• knowledge, conceptions, and attitudes,

• motivations for visiting, and

• barriers to visiting.

Demographic Profile

In order to design interpretive products to communicate effectively with audiences of diverse backgrounds, the HFC must

understand the demographic profile of current and potential

visitors. Visitor profiles provide valuable planning information

by indicating the “cultures” to which audiences belong (Machlis

and Field 1984). With whom is the HFC communicating?

Since the national parks were formed to serve the public, the full

range of potential U.S. visitors is reflected in the U.S. population

profile. In 1996, there were approximately 265 million people in

the United States, of which:

• 73.1% were White,

• 12% were Black,

• 10.7% were Hispanic,

• 3.5% were Asian or Pacific Islander,

• 0.7% were American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut,
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 29

• 19.4% had a disability, half of whom had a severe disability,

and

• 13.9% were aged 65 or older (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1997).

In 1996, there were approximately 256 million visits to the

national parks (NPS 1997). A comprehensive visitor profile of

national park visitors is currently unavailable. A database of

statistics regarding national park visitation exists within the

National Park Service (Visitor Services Project 1996). The NPS

Visitor Service Project, begun in 1982, collects and analyzes

information from NPS units on visitor demographics, motivations, opinions, and use patterns. To date, over 85 studies have

been conducted. However, no comprehensive summary of the

entire database has been made. A sample of VSP site survey

reports were included in this review (Fitzgerald and Littlejohn

1996, Fitzgerald and Patterson 1996, Littlejohn 1995, Littlejohn

1997, Patterson 1996, Wall 1996). Based on these reports, as well

as several other sources, it is evident that visitors to sites:

• are predominantly well-educated, middle class, and white with

a general under-participation of minorities (Antunes and Gaitz

1975, Craig 1972, Dwyer 1994, Dwyer 1995, Dwyer and

Hutchison 1990, Hutchison and Fidel 1984, Ittleson et al.

1974, Kelly 1980, Market Opinion Research 1986, McMillen

1983, Stamps and Stamps 1985, Tierney et al. 1996,

Washburne 1978, Wright et al. 1991, Yancy and Snell 1971),

• represent all age groups, with the predominant age range of

26-55 years old (Fitzgerald and Littlejohn 1996, Fitzgerald and

Patterson 1996, Kindlon et al. 1996, Littlejohn 1995, Littlejohn

1997, NPS 1993b, Patterson 1996, Wall 1996),

• represent roughly equal numbers of males and females (Korn

1995, Kindlon et al. 1996, Market Opinion Research 1986,

National Endowment for the Arts 1992),

• are usually accompanied by at least one companion, most

often in family groups (Fitzgerald and Littlejohn 1996,

Fitzgerald and Patterson 1996, Littlejohn 1995, Littlejohn

1997, NPS 1993b, Wall 1996, Wright et al. 1991), and
30

• include international travelers, sometimes as a significant

portion of the total visitor population (Fitzgerald and

Littlejohn 1996, Fitzgerald and Patterson 1996, Littlejohn

1995, Littlejohn 1997, NPS 1993, Wall 1996).

From these data, it is clear that visitors to national parks, outdoor

recreation areas, and museums are not representative of the U.S.

population. Among the non-visiting public are a high percentage

of those in non-white ethnic groups, older adults, and those with

disabilities. This fact is critical, since these are the three groups

projected to significantly increase by the year 2050 (U.S. Bureau

of the Census 1995). And by that year, it is expected that the

median age for the entire population will continue rising and

that 20.4% of all Americans will be 65 or older. The white

population as a proportion of the total will continue to decrease,

while other ethnic populations rise in proportion of the total.

Hispanics will become the largest minority population in the

U.S. (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1995). Given these trends, HFC

staff must learn more about communicating with these populations.

Further detailed study of the demographic profile of national

park visitors and non-visitors is needed to help HFC staff understand current and potential interpretive media users.

Knowledge, Conceptions, and Attitudes

Those who visit the parks (as well as those who do not) possess

knowledge, conceptions, and attitudes relevant to the park

experience. Knowledge, conceptions, and attitudes act as lenses

through which people think about parks, filter information, and

decide what to do (Falk and Dierking 1992). For example, those

who are concerned with and knowledgeable about the environment may be more interested in watching an audiovisual presentation about environmental issues in a national park, more

interested in detailed information, and more likely to agree with

a pro-environment message, than those who are not concerned

with and knowledgeable about the environment. The latter

group may need a more basic level of information in an
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 31

audiovisual presentation, and may need to be shown many sides

of the issue as well as why they should care about the issue.

Understanding the knowledge, conceptions, and attitudes of

visitors and non-visitors relative to parks can help HFC staff

design effective interpretive media strategies.

In a public opinion poll, a sample of Americans “strongly believed in the importance of keeping national parks the special

and protected areas they have been in the past” (National Parks

and Conservation Association and Colorado State University,

1995, p. 2). The value of the parks that was most important to

those surveyed was “providing an important experience for

future generations” (p. 2).

Studies have shown that peoples’ knowledge, conceptions, and

attitudes related to national parks, land, and nature vary by

cultural and sociodemographic background (Roberts 1996).

Tables 1 and 2 present a summary of relevant findings. Such

findings offer useful guidelines to HFC staff for planning interpretive media that communicate effectively with various groups.

For example, to help make parks and interpretive messages

more relevant to females, Hispanics, Native Americans, and

Japanese, exhibit planners and designers could include content

about the spiritual and religious aspects of nature, as this is an

important component of the attitudes and conceptions of these

groups (e.g., Carr and Williams 1993, Goodman 1980,

Henderson 1996, Laidlaw 1991).

Table 1: Knowledge, Conception, and Attitudes of

Selected Groups Related to National Parks

Whites Blacks Native Americans

Places to seek refuge where More likely to find meaning Created by white men and

one can feel close to the in urban parks and want have always been difficult to

origins of human life, more parks in urban areas understand (Meeker 1984)

offering psychological (Market Opinion Research

relief (Meeker 1984) 1986; Meeker 1984) Places of humiliation and

exploitation. Reminders of

Created by white men and the destruction of their

have always been difficult cultural heritage (Meeker

to understand (Meeker 1984) 1984)
32

Table 2. Knowledge, Conceptions, and Attitudes of

Selected Populations Related to Land and Nature

Male Display greater environmental knowledge than women

(Arcury & Christenson 1993; Zimmerman 1996)

Female Spiritually attuned to nature (Henderson 1996; King 1991;

Salleh 1984); socialized to fear it (Henderson 1996; Mitten &

Dutton 1993)

Stronger feelings and verbal commitment to environmental

issues (Arcury & Christianson 1993; Zimmerman 1996)

Places to be rid of self and socially imposed limitations

(Henderson 1993; Henderson 1996)

Urban More knowledge of global environmental issues, equal concern

(Arcury & Christianson 1993)

Rural Less knowledge of global environmental issues, equal concern

(Arcury & Christianson 1993)

People With Encourages sense of freedom from socially imposed limitaDisabilities tions, escape from day to day reality (McAvoy & Lais 1996)

Whites Nature is not sacred. Utilitarian approach to nature. Feel

sanctified by their contact with nature (Altman & Chemers

1980; Machlis 1989; Meeker 1973; Nash 1982; Simcox 1991)

Higher interest in, knowledge of and emotional attachment to

nature & wildlife (Dwyer & Gobster 1992; Meeker, 1973)

Blacks Dense forest areas can be associated with fear among children

(Dwyer & Gobster 1992)

Less knowledge and concern about wildlife, ecological

problems and the natural environment (Hershey & Hill 1978;

Kellert & Berry 1981; Kreeger 1973; Meeker 1973)

Negative attitudes toward nature, wildlife and rural parks and

preserves (Bagby 1996; Cleaver 1970; Dorsey 1972; Kellert

1984; Meeker 1973; Washburne, 1978; Woodard, 1988)

Hispanics Land, religion and family are closely tied (Carr & Williams

1993; Chavez 1996; Garcia 1996; Gramann et al. 1995,

McMillen 1983)

Perceive lower possibility for control over natural forces (DiazGuerrero 1967, 1979)

High environmental concern (Simcox & Pfister 1990);

harmonious approach to nature (Altman & Chemers 1980;

Floyd & Noe 1993; Gudykunst & Kim 1984; Samover et al.

1981)
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 33

Some concepts and attitudes appear to be similar across diverse

groups. For example, the national parks are viewed by many

people as “featuring unique scenery, more things to see from the

car, often crowded and commercialized” (Market Opinion

Research 1986, p. 48). Several studies regarding peoples’ associations with national history reveal that most individuals perceive

it as something boring and remote from themselves, but that

one’s personal or family history is interesting (People, Places and

Design 1990, Silverman 1988, Silverman 1992). These studies

also suggest strategies for effective media communication. For

example, interpretive media about history might be more effective if the content emphasized possible ties between the visitor’s

personal and family history and the site. Further research is also

needed to test the effectiveness of interpretive media strategies

which utilize and address the knowledge, conceptions, and

attitudes of specific demographic groups.

Motivations

Visitor satisfaction is partly determined by the match between

expectations, and perceptions of actual experience (Pearce 1988).

Therefore, it is important to understand visitors’ motivations for

visiting parks. A review of relevant studies reveals the following

common motivations for visits among outdoor recreationists and

national park and museum visitors:

Native Nature itself is sacred, even after ecological destruction by

humans (Laidlaw 1991; Meeker 1984; Redmond 1996)

Custom, practice, and religion are inexorably tied to relationships with the land (Deloria 1969; Gallager 1988; Laidlaw

1991; Redmond 1996)

Asians Japanese groups tend to have a strong spiritual orientation

toward wildlands and forests in particular (Goodman 1980;

Hagino et al. 1987)

Environmental ethics are based on a more harmonious

approach where humans are a part of nature (Altman &

Chemers 1980; Ames 1986; Deutsch 1986; Hajime 1967;

Hideki 1967; Shaner & Duval 1989; Takeyoshi 1967; Zaidi

1981)
34

• to view nature (Carr and Williams 1993, Gramann et al. 1993,

Gramann et al. 1995, Lais et al. 1992, Littlejohn 1995,

Littlejohn 1997, Market Opinion Research 1986, Mills 1985,

NPS 1993b, Schroeder 1991, Wall 1996),

• to see some place new or exciting (Driver et al. 1991, Lais et

al. 1992, Market Opinion Research 1986, NPS 1993b, Tinsley

and Tinsley 1986),

• to learn about history (Fitzgerald and Littlejohn 1996,

Littlejohn 1995, NPS 1993b, Patterson 1996, Wall 1996),

• to get away, escape, or relax (Carr and Williams 1993, Dwyer

and Hutchison 1990, Gramann et al. 1993, Littlejohn 1997,

Market Opinion Research 1986, Schroeder 1991),

• to spend time with family/friends (Carr and Williams 1993,

Fitzgerald and Littlejohn 1996, Gramann et al. 1993, Gramann

et al. 1995, Lais et al. 1992, McMillen 1983), and

• to get physical exercise (Gramann et al. 1993, Littlejohn 1995,

Market Opinion Research 1986).

Visit motivations are linked to cultural values. Some studies have

found that the motive of spending time with family and friends is

particularly strong among Blacks and Hispanics (Carr and

Williams 1993, Gramann et al. 1995, McMillen 1983). The

extent to which visit motivations vary by cultural and demographic background warrants further study.

Additionally, the relationship between visitor motivation and

interpretive goals (such as learning, attitude change, and behavior change) remain to be studied systematically. Understanding

how to acknowledge and accommodate visitors’ motivations

within interpretive design seems likely to enhance the success of

interpretive media communication.

Barriers

Many people are unable or unwilling to visit national parks due

to leisure barriers. Ellis and Rademacher (1986) define a leisure

barrier as “any factor which precludes or limits an individual’s

frequency, intensity, duration, or quality of participation in
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 35

recreation activities” (as cited in Goodale and Witt 1989, p. 440).

The most commonly identified leisure barriers across the population include: lack of interest, lack of facilities, lack of transportation, lack of time, lack of money, lack of abilities, lack of

awareness, and lack of leisure partners (Boothby et al. 1981,

Christensen and Yoesting 1973, Dottavio et al. 1980, Francken

and van Raiij 1981, Godbey 1985, Howard and Crompton 1984,

Jackson 1983, Jackson and Searle 1983, McGuire 1985, Romsa

and Hoffman 1980, Searle and Jackson 1985, Witt and Goodale

1981).

Barriers for minority non-visitors and people with disabilities

include but are not limited to:

• a lack of culturally relevant programs/services (Bitgood and

Thompson 1993, Hood 1993, Roberts and Drogin 1993),

• low representation of their race/ethnicity among staff, other

visitors and/or advertising (Carr and Williams 1993, Didriksen

1973, Dwyer and Gobster 1992, Falk 1993b, Floyd and

Gramann 1990, Godbey and Henkel 1976, Payne and Theo

1971, Roberts and Drogin 1993, Roberts and Drogin 1996,

Simcox and Pfister 1990), and

• experiences or fear of discrimination/racism (Falk 1993b,

Hood 1993, Roberts and Drogin 1993, Roberts and Drogin

1996, Tierney et al. 1996, West 1989), and limited or lack of

services for people with disabilities (Hamilton and Robb

1994).

In planning, designing and producing interpretive media, particularly media that might be accessed by non-visitors (e.g.,

brochures, web sites, films) and/or used for outreach purposes,

the HFC may wish to address these barriers. How to do so most

effectively requires further research.

4. “Over What Channel?”: Understanding Interpretive

 Media

The question of media effectiveness in parks and museums has

been a focus of research for many years. Scholars have recognized that in order for interpretive media to facilitate communi-
36

cation of any intention, several steps or intervening processes

must occur (Koran and Koran 1986). Given a medium such as a

wayside exhibit, a visitor must:

• be attracted to it, or motivated to perceive it (Screven 1986),

• pay attention to it, or spend time with it (Screven 1986), and

• perceive it, or recognize information with ones’ senses (Koran

and Koran 1986).

The processes of attraction, attention and perception are key

precursors to media engagement and subsequent outcomes or

effects (Bettinghaus 1968, Screven 1986).

Based on this understanding, two major groups of interpretive

media studies in parks and museums exist:

• descriptive studies of “baseline” or typical visitor behavior

with interpretive media; and

• observational and experimental studies that have identified

media variables or factors which influence visitor attraction,

attention, and engagement.

Visitor Behavior with Interpretive Media: Baseline

Trends

In order to understand factors that appear to influence visitor

“response” in the communication process, it is helpful to know

how visitors typically use interpretive media in parks and

museums. From the visitors’ perspective, interpretive media are

used for several purposes, including education, entertainment,

orientation, wayfinding (Bitgood 1988a), and circulation or “how

visitors make their way through the facility” (Bitgood 1988a). To

some extent, visitors appear to self-select to media they find most

enjoyable and suitable to the experiences they seek (Mullins

1980, Mullins and Hanna 1981).

The Public Area Recreation Visitor Study (PARVS) examined

the interpretive participation of visitors to NPS sites (Wright et

al. 1991). Data show that approximately half of all visitors

participate in one or more interpretive activities during a National Park visit. The greatest number (37.1%) participate in non-
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 37

personal interpretive activities only. Visiting a museum or visitor

information center is the most common interpretive activity.

Participation in interpretive activities tends to be a family activity.

Participation in interpretive activity varies by certain demographic and background variables (Wright et al. 1991). Those

who participate tend to be white, well-educated, of slightly

higher annual income, and between the ages of 29 and 38.

Those who do not participate tend to be minorities, less welleducated, of slightly lower annual income, and either younger

than 29 or older than 38 years of age. Most non-participants are

first-time visitors. Of particular relevance to the HFC, those who

use non-personal media more than personal media are those in

friendship groups, of slightly lower annual income, and between

the ages of 29-38 (Wright et al. 1991).

 The NPS Visitor Services Project Database (1996) also contains

data on visitor use of interpretive media during a park visit, as

well as opinions regarding the importance of various media.

General preferences may be inferred from these data, which

were gathered through visitor surveys. Other studies have

utilized observational methods to examine visitor behavior with

exhibits, visitors’ centers, labels, maps, directional and informational signs, computers, and audiovisuals. Basic patterns are

presented below, arranged by media.

Exhibits, Visitor Centers, Labels

• In some national parks, many visitors use visitor center exhibits (Fitzgerald and Littlejohn 1996, Littlejohn 1995, Littlejohn

1997, Patterson 1996, Wall 1996, Wright et al. 1991).

• In some national parks, many visitors consider visitor center

exhibits to be extremely or very important (Fitzgerald and

Littlejohn 1996, Littlejohn 1995, Littlejohn 1997, Patterson

1996, Wall 1996).

• In some national parks, many visitors consider wayside

exhibits to be extremely or very important (Fitzgerald and

Littlejohn 1996, Littlejohn 1995, Littlejohn 1997, Patterson

1996, Wall 1996).
38

• In indoor exhibits, visitors show a tendency to continue

walking in the same direction, with a bias toward turning to

the right (Klein 1993, Melton 1933).

• The routes visitors follow often vary considerably from the

intended sequence in indoor exhibits (Falk et al. 1985, Griggs

1983).

• Visitors go through exhibits selectively, stopping at things that

attract their interest (Falk and Dierking 1992, Melton 1933,

Zube et al. 1978).

• Visitors pay little attention to indoor exhibits, with an average

viewing time of approximately 8 seconds (Screven 1986).

• Attention to labels is also low (Cone and Kendall 1978,

Rosenfeld and Turkel 1982, Serrell 1977). Most visitors spend,

on average, only a few seconds reading a particular label,

although some people do read most or many labels (Falk

1982, Screven 1986).

Maps and Directional Signs

• In general, visitors are more likely to consult maps or directional signs than to ask directions of attendants (Cohen et al.

1977).

• Visitors use wall maps to determine which exhibits to visit, not

for wayfinding (Cohen et al. 1977).

• Directional signs are often used for wayfinding, aiding in

reaching specific exhibits chosen from board or wall maps

(Cohen et al. 1977).

• Hand-held maps are the most frequently used device for

wayfinding (Hayward and Brydon-Miller 1983, ShettelNeuber and O’Reilly 1981).

Printed Materials in General (Maps, Brochures, and Handbooks)

• In some national parks, many visitors use printed materials

(Fitzgerald and Littlejohn 1996, Littlejohn 1995, Littlejohn

1997, Patterson 1996, Wall 1996).
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 39

• In some national parks, many visitors consider printed materials to be extremely or very important (Fitzgerald and

Littlejohn 1996, Littlejohn 1995, Littlejohn 1997, Patterson

1996, Wall 1996).

Interactive Microcomputers and Audiovisuals

• Interactive microcomputers are used more by younger visitors

than older ones (Dottavio and Noe 1983, Zales 1985).

• Groups with one adult and children used an interactive

videodisc and computer program more than other groups did;

groups with boys did so more than groups with girls

(Morrissey 1991).

• The average amount of time any one person uses an interactive computer information system within an exhibit or visitor

center appears to be approximately five minutes or less

(Dottavio and Noe 1983, Hilbrunner and Haas 1982, Miller

1982, Zales 1985). For an interactive videodisk and computer

combination, the average is six minutes (Morrissey 1991).

• In some national parks, many visitors view audiovisual slide

shows (Fitzgerald and Littlejohn 1996, Littlejohn 1995,

Littlejohn 1997, Patterson 1996, Wall 1996).

• People use audiovisuals, but most do not do so for long (Beer

1987).

• In some national parks, many visitors consider slide shows to

be extremely or very important (Fitzgerald and Littlejohn

1996, Littlejohn 1995, Littlejohn 1997, Patterson 1996, Wall

1996).

These studies shed light on basic patterns of visitor behavior

toward various interpretive media. However, additional studies

are needed, including studies of wayside exhibit and publication

use. Further explicit study of visitors’ preferences for different

media is also warranted, as are more in-depth studies which

examine interpretive media use by visitors of various demographic backgrounds.
40

Media Characteristics Which Influence Visitor Attraction, Attention, and Perception

A number of studies have determined that certain media characteristics are associated with successful attempts to alter visitors’

basic behavior patterns. In particular, studies have identified

interpretive media factors which influence visitor attraction,

attention, and perception. As these three processes are considered to be precursors to learning, attitude change, and behavior

change, the identification of media characteristics which “make a

difference” is useful to interpretive media planners, designers,

and producers. Related studies have largely employed observation methods, and in some cases, an experimental approach in

which participants are randomly assigned to control and experimental groups. Factors which can influence visitor attraction,

attention, and perception are presented below, by media.

Exhibits

Factors which influence visitor attraction, attention, and perception include:

• linear design: increases the probability that all objects will be

looked at (Bitgood et al. 1991),

• text-only vs. non-text only: exhibits with object displays are

visited more often than text-only displays (Beer 1987),

• order of exhibit: visitor attention to exhibits is highest for the

first exhibits encountered, after which time cognitive fatigue

tends to set in (Bell et al. 1978),

• participatory vs. non-participatory: exhibits which allow the

visitor to make some response are most successful in attracting

and holding visitor attention (Gillies and Wilson 1982,

Morrisey 1991),

• pictorial and/or sensory elements vs. verbal elements: pictures

and sensory features of exhibits such as photos and moving

objects are more likely to attract and hold visitors than verbal

elements (Peart 1984, Shettel 1973),
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 41

• presence of computers: computers in an exhibit attract a

higher percentage of visitors than any other component (Hilke

et al. 1988); and increase amount of time visitors spent in

exhibit (Hilke et al. 1988, Morrissey 1991),

• presence of audiovisuals: visitors are attracted by them (Beer

1987),

• multisensory: exhibits which engage more than one sense

produce longer viewing times (Koran et al. 1986, Peart 1984),

and

• sequencing: exhibits where elements have an “unstructured”

arrangement (i.e. visitor could move freely anywhere in the

exhibit) attract and hold visitors’ attention more than a “structured” arrangement (i.e. visitor is moved through exhibit in a

pre-determined sequence) (Falk 1993a).

Labels

Characteristics which influence visitor attention include:

• length: short labels are read more frequently than longer ones

(Bitgood et al. 1986, Borun and Miller 1980),

• location: labels are more likely to be read if they fall easily

within the visitors’ line of sight in terms of height off the floor

and proximity to objects being viewed (Bitgood et al. 1990), and

• directive vs. non-directive: labels that challenge visitors to

engage in a specific task, such as comparing objects, result in

more label-reading than those which do not (Bitgood et al.

1986).

Maps

A characteristic which influences visitor attention and perception is:

• cognitive simplicity: maps are most effective in engaging

visitors when they involve the least number of “cognitive

steps.” Such steps involve the need to transform the map to

reality, as in black and white maps rather than color, or a map

that is of a different orientation than the space to which it

refers (Pearce 1988, Pearce and Black 1984).
42

Historic Furnishings and Other Objects

Characteristics which influence visitor attraction and attention

are:

• size and movement: people tend to approach large objects,

sounds, and moving objects. Such visual attractors exert strong

influence over circulation patterns (Bitgood et al. 199l) and

also generate longer viewing times (Bitgood and Patterson

1986).

While these findings provide useful guidelines for HFC staff,

further studies of media characteristics are needed. In particular,

studies are needed to examine which characteristics of brochures, historic furnishings, and audiovisual media influence

visitor attraction, attention, and perception. Studies are also

needed which explore the influence of media characteristics on

visitors of diverse backgrounds.

5. “With What Effects?”: Understanding and Evaluating

 the Impact of Interpretive Media

Typically, the main criteria for communication effectiveness of

interpretive media in parks and museums is the extent to which

visitor effect or response matches the intention of the communicator. Some studies have documented the extent to which different interpretive media promote visitor learning, attitude change

or behavior change. Some studies have examined the influence

of a particular medium on visitors, and/or compared the relative

effectiveness of two different media given the same goal. Most of

these studies have utilized observational and experimental

methods. This section presents relevant findings by media, and

reviews key issues related to evaluation of interpretive media.

The Role of Interpretive Media in Learning, Attitude

Change, and Behavior Change

Exhibits

A number of studies have documented that exhibits foster

learning. Many studies have found that exhibits increase cognitive learning in children (Eason and Linn 1976, Gillies and
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 43

Wilson 1982, Herbert 1981, Sneider et al. 1979, Van Rennes

1978) and in adult visitors (DeWaard et al. 1974, Gillies and

Wilson 1982). Interestingly, all of these studies examined participatory or interactive exhibits.

Fewer studies have explored the influence of exhibits on psychomotor learning. Participatory exhibits have been found to promote psychomotor learning in science-related exhibits among

children (Eason and Linn 1976, Sneider et al. 1979).

Maps and Signs

Directional signs are effective in facilitating visitor orientation

and wayfinding, somewhat more so than maps (Cohen et al.

1977). Maps can educate visitors and lead to a reduction in

wayfinding difficulties, provided they are simple (Talbot et al.

1993). In terms of promoting knowledge, informational signs

were found not effective in transmitting management information to visitors at nature preserves (Olsen et al. 1984). However,

signs can influence behavior, by producing increased compliance with certain boating rules in a recreation area (Fritschen

1984).

Brochures

Several studies of brochures have been conducted. Brochures

were successful in impacting visitor knowledge of a botanical

garden in that environment (Korn 1988). Brochures were also

effective in increasing campers’ knowledge of rules (Gallup

1981), and knowledge of nature preserve management (Olsen et

al. 1984).

Several studies have examined the effectiveness of brochures at

influencing behavior. Brochures describing a canoe area

(Roggenbuck et al. 1982) and in a camping area (Roggenbuck

and Berrier 1982) helped to disperse users from crowded locations. Brochures were also effective in reducing tree damage and

litter in a campground (Roggenbuck and Berrier 1982). Brochure

plus personal contact was even more effective than a brochure

alone in this study. While brochures containing cartoons did

increase campers’ knowledge of rules, they did not decrease
44

rates of rule violation in a state park (Gallup 1981). Only one

study documented the impact of brochures on visitors’ attitudes

regarding nature preserve management (Olsen et al. 1984).

Audio

A recorded message had a greater impact on visitor knowledge

than did an informational sign in a visitor center in Mount

Rainier National Park (Wagar 1972). A cassette also increased the

knowledge of first-time visitors at a trail area (Feldman 1978).

Audiovisual Programs

An automated slide program was found to increase visitor

knowledge of the ecological effects of fire in Grand Teton

National Park, and positively influence visitor attitudes toward

park fire management policy (Nielsen and Buchanan 1986). This

study compared the impact of the slide program to that of a

guided tour with interpreter, and found no significant differences

between the two methods. A slide show about services at Colonial Williamsburg, together with a brochure and map, brought

about a considerable drop in orientation questions asked by

visitors, as compared to the map and brochure without the slide

show (Lankford 1995).

Interpretive media have been found to be effective in influencing

visitors’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior in some circumstances. Effectiveness varies by media. For example, participatory exhibits and brochures are effective at increasing visitor

knowledge, while directional signs and maps are less so. Directional signs and maps are effective in promoting visitor orientation. Brochures are effective for influencing visitor behavior.

Since the majority of the studies were conducted with general

samples of visitors, little is known about the extent to which the

findings may differ by cultural or demographic background. In

particular, little is known about the interpretive media-related

behaviors of cultural groups who do not frequent parks. Such

subpopulations deserve further study. Further research is also

needed on the effectiveness of wayside exhibits, non-participatory exhibits, publications, and computers. Further research is
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 45

needed to understand the role of interpretive media in visitor

learning, behavior change, and attitude change.

Evaluation

Evaluating the effectiveness of interpretive media is an ongoing

need for the HFC. The evaluation of interpretation in the National Park Service has been discussed by many writers (Machlis

1986). In determining the best ways to conduct such evaluation,

social science literature suggests four critical factors:

• the basis for evaluation (Screven 1976, Wagar 1976),

• timing (Bitgood 1988b, Neuman 1997),

• methodological approach (King et al. 1994, Neuman 1997),

and

• multiple measures (Ham and Krumpe 1996).

Basis for Evaluation

There are several alternative approaches to evaluating HFC

interpretive media. These include:

• a goal-referenced approach: interpretive media are evaluated

on the basis of source-intended goals, and if possible, design is

adjusted until the goals are met (Screven 1976, Sharpe and

Sharpe 1986),

• visitor reactions (expectations) approach: visitor reactions and

satisfaction levels are evaluated. Satisfaction is likely based on

initial expectations, the experience itself, the actual outcome,

and the attributions one makes about the outcome (Pearce

1988),

• visitor’s goal-referenced approach: interpretive media are

evaluated on the basis of the achievement of visitor’s intended

goals (Parasuraman et al. 1988), and

• NPS client reactions approach: reactions and satisfaction

levels of NPS park unit clients are gathered. This can include

assessments of product quality, timeliness of process, costefficiency, and impressions of visitor reactions (NPS 1985,

Johnson and Swisher 1991).
46

Timing

Evaluation may take place before or during interpretive media

development (front-end evaluation), after installation but while

there is still time to alter the media with the information gathered (formative evaluation), or after the media production is

completed (summative evaluation). Ideally, evaluation should

occur at all three stages (Ham 1986). However, the timing of a

particular evaluation depends upon the type of information

desired (Ham 1986).

Methodological Approach

Evaluation involves gathering information through either a

quantitative or qualitative approach, or both. Quantitative

evaluation uses numbers, scores, or costs to summarize results,

and to capture frequency and breadth of response. Qualitative

evaluation describes what people say or do (Knudson et al.

1996), and can capture feelings, emotions, qualities, context, and

depth. It is generally agreed that effective on-going evaluation

programs will use both approaches, as well as different methods

(King et al. 1994, Neuman 1997, Roggenbuck and Propst 1981).

However, the choice of methodological approach for a given

evaluation depends upon the information desired.

Multiple Measures

Given the complexity of the links between cognition, learning,

attitudes and behavior, multiple measures should be used in

evaluating media effectiveness (Ham and Krumpe 1996). For

example, to assess the impact of an exhibit on behavior change,

it is preferable to measure the extent to which primary beliefs

were altered, as well as gather evidence of attitude change, and

evidence of behavior change (Ajzen 1991, Fishbein and Ajzen

1975, Fishbein and Manfredo 1992).

Social science can provide HFC staff with guidance regarding

effective evaluation. Further research is needed to determine the

most useful and efficient approaches and strategies for evaluating

HFC products and services.
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 47

6. Additional Issues

Social science research sheds light on three additional issues

relevant to the mission of the HFC: organizational communication and attitudes, new techniques and technologies, and the role

of theory.

HFC and NPS: Organizational Communication and

Attitudes

In order to plan, design, produce, and implement interpretive

media products for the public, HFC personnel must communicate effectively with another key population besides the public.

That population includes the personnel of the individual park

units for which the media are created, and contractors that work

with the HFC. These individuals are clients of the HFC.

Effective communication within organizations, or within subgroups of the same organization, is crucial to the perpetuation of

those organizations (Scott 1987, Singer 1987). In the case of the

HFC, three aspects of organizational communication are particularly important, and have been examined through social science

research within the National Park Service:

• intragroup attitudes,

• intergroup awareness, and

• intergroup attitudes.

Intragroup Attitudes

In most circumstances, the more satisfied the individuals in a

group are, the more effectively the group will function (Singer

1987). Hence it is useful for the HFC to monitor the morale of its

employees. An HFC employee survey conducted in 1987 found

that employees “overwhelmingly enjoy the physical setting and

work environment, and share a deep and sincere commitment to

the work of the Center and to the mission of the National Park

Service” (NPS 1987b, p. 1). However, “numerous remarks

concerned poor communication and cooperation among divisions. There was also a feeling that top management was not in

touch with the feelings of employees” (NPS 1987b, p. 1).
48

Intergroup Awareness

In order for the HFC to fulfill its mission, the staff of NPS park

units must be aware of the services available from the Center. A

1991 study indicated that some NPS personnel were not aware

of the range of products and services the HFC provides; “notable proportions of superintendents had no impression or are

unaware of many HFC services” (Johnson and Swisher 1991, p.

28). Further, up to one-fifth of superintendents surveyed who

thought their park would need a particular service in the next

five years did not know it was available from the HFC (Johnson

and Swisher 1991).

Intergroup Attitudes

Studies have examined the attitudes of park personnel toward

HFC organization and products through surveys of superintendents, and park employees (Johnson and Swisher 1991, NPS

1985). These reports present extensive data on the attitudes of

NPS personnel. Generalizations from these studies include:

• HFC is regarded by NPS in a generally positive way,

• HFC is viewed as an essential part of NPS, and as sharing the

same attitudes and values as field personnel,

• consistent positive impressions for all services and products

has yet to be attained, and

• the two major complaints and barriers to use of the HFC are

slow speed of implementing work, and cost.

Studies have also surveyed park superintendents’ perceptions of

national park conditions (e.g. National Parks and Conservation

Association and Colorado State University 1994). Several findings are relevant to HFC. Park superintendents grading the

condition of seven different aspects of parks gave the topic of

“Information Quality” (including interpretive programs and

exhibits and quality of information distributed) some of the

highest evaluations. They gave the topic of “Special Programs”

(including special programs and services for schoolchildren,

senior citizens, people with disabilities, disadvantaged youth,
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 49

non-English speaking visitors, and minority populations) among

the lowest evaluations (National Parks and Conservation Association and Colorado State University 1994).

Continued monitoring of intragroup attitudes, intergroup awareness, and intergroup attitudes can help the HFC improve its

organizational communication. In particular, studies are needed

to determine the extent to which attitudes and awareness levels

have changed or are changing, and to understand how HFC/

NPS relationships affect the process of generating timely and

cost-effective interpretive media.

Toward New Techniques and Technology

A significant part of HFC’s mission is to “develop and evaluate

new interpretive techniques and technology.” The HFC can be

aided in this effort through social science which sheds light on

peoples’ emerging attitudes toward technology and innovation

(such as computers and virtual reality), and on the social process

of adoption and diffusion of innovations.

In general, reactions to new technology appear to be shaped by

an individual’s perception of relevance, usefulness, fun, and ease

of use (Davis et al. 1989, James 1993). However, attitudes also

appear to be correlated with gender, age, socioeconomic status,

race/culture, and experience/ownership.

Computer Technology

Studies of computer technology and people have yielded several

findings:

• In determining intention to use computers, perceived usefulness was more influential than perceived fun in a sample of

graduate students. However, perceived fun correlated more

strongly with satisfaction than did perceived usefulness

(Igbaria et al. 1994).

• Males tend to have more positive attitudes toward computers

and technology than females (Badagliacco and Tannebaum

1989, Kinnear 1995, Kohl and Harman 1987, Krendl et al.

1989, Massoud 1991, Shashaani 1994, Weil and Rosen 1995,

Wilder et al. 1985).
50

• Males have more experience with computers than females

(Arch and Cummins 1989, Badagliacco and Tannenbaum

1989, Hawkins 1985, Kinnear 1995, Rocheleau 1995, Weil and

Rosen 1995).

• Older people have more negative attitudes toward computers

and technology in general than do younger people (Marquie

et al. 1994, Massoud 1991, Pope-Davis and Twing 1991, Weil

and Rosen 1995).

• Adults with less education know less about computers than a

national sample does (Marquie et al. 1994, Massoud 1991).

• Hispanics have more negative attitudes toward, and less

experience with computers than do other ethnic groups

(Badagliacco 1990, Badagliacco and Tannenbaum 1989).

• People with more experience using computers have more

positive attitudes toward them than individuals who have not

used computers (Arndt et al. 1985, Marquie et al. 1994, PopeDavis and Twing 1991, Weil and Rosen 1995).

Virtual Reality

Virtual reality is an environment created by a computer in which

a user feels present (Biocca 1992). The public has responded

with fascination (Churbuck 1990, Diltea 1989), but no systematic

research is available on public attitudes regarding virtual reality.

Virtual reality could be an effective means of learning about the

environment, resulting in improved environmental behavior

(Turkovic 1996). However, “virtual nature” may never replace a

real-world encounter with living objects, and may validate an

artificial sense of reality (Clark 1995). Due to the expense and

technological expertise required to operate a system, virtual

reality is likely to diffuse slowly until further research is conducted (Biocca 1992).

Adoption and Diffusion of Innovations

As the HFC develops new techniques and technologies in

interpretive media, it must communicate about these developments with NPS site personnel as well as the public in order to

see them implemented. To this end, research has shown that
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 51

there are several characteristics that influence the adoption of

innovations (Rogers 1983). These include:

• relative advantage, or the degree to which an innovation is

perceived as better than the idea it supersedes,

• compatibility, or the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters,

• complexity, or the degree to which an innovation is perceived

as difficult to understand and use,

• trialability, or the degree to which an innovation may be

experimented with on a trial basis, and

• observability, or the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others.

HFC staff must consider these factors and attitudes when communicating with NPS personnel and the public alike about

innovations in interpretive media. Further study of attitudes

toward innovations can assist HFC staff in the development and

application of new interpretive techniques and technology that

are likely to be adopted by the NPS.

The Role of Theory

Few studies of interpretive media have offered explanations of

how or why various factors influence visitor behavior or response.

Reasons for this lack appear to be that few studies approach the

subject from a perspective that is grounded in explicit theory.

Theory is critical to good research. Theory-driven research

provides concepts, illustrates the important questions, tests

hypotheses, and facilitates the building of a knowledge base

(Neuman 1997). Such a knowledge base is needed in the area of

interpretive media.

The search for theoretical explanations of interpretive media

effectiveness is complicated by the complex nature of learning,

attitude change, and behavior change. Commonly used in the

research literature, the term attitude change refers broadly to a

range of actions. For example, attitude change can mean the
52

development of attitudes, the replacement of naive notions, and/

or the adoption of new beliefs and related attitudes. Among the

social sciences, social psychology offers several models and

theories that might be used to guide future research.

The Attitude-Behavior Link

Recent social psychology (Ajzen 1991, Fishbein and Ajzen 1975,

Fishbein and Manfredo 1992) explains the multi-step nature of

attitude and behavior:

1. Behavior stems from intentions to behave.

2. Intentions to behave stem from one’s attitudes about three

things:

a) the desirability or undesirability of the consequences of the

behavior;

b) the perceived social pressure relative to the behavior;

c) perceived control over the behavior (does one have what is

needed to perform it?).

3. Attitudes and constructs stem from one’s beliefs about these

three things.

Therefore, to influence behavior, communication must influence

behavioral intentions; to influence behavioral intentions, communication must change attitudes, most importantly, those

beliefs which are most relevant to the behavior. For interpretive

media to influence behavior, the necessary goal appears to be to

first understand and influence the specific beliefs of the target

audience relevant to the desired behavior (Ham and Krumpe

1996, Pearce 1988). For example, to create a brochure that

impacts recycling behavior in parks, one must first understand

the beliefs of the target audience regarding recycling. The

brochure must then be designed to address those beliefs, in order

to influence attitudes, intentions and actual behavior. Generally,

it is new beliefs that can be influenced by interpretation (Ham

and Krumpe 1996). Further research is needed to test these

ideas.
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 53

The Knowledge-Attitude Link

Communication through interpretive media can facilitate integration of new information into beliefs which may affect changes

in attitudes and conceptions (Knudson et al. 1995). Attitudes can

be influenced either by direct experience with the object/issue or

by information from other sources. According to information

integration theory, the relative believability and perceived

weight of new as well as prior information are crucial determinants of attitude (Smith 1982). For example, hearing an audiovisual presentation on the environment narrated by a well-respected expert may be effective at influencing visitors’ attitudes

toward the environment. Research is needed to test these ideas.

The Attention-Learning Link

While knowledge may well influence attitude, what is the relationship between attention and learning? Attraction and even

physical involvement with interpretive media does not necessarily result in mental engagement or learning (Carlson 1995).

Attentiveness and attraction to interpretive media are not reliable indicators of learning (Knudsen et al. 1995). Mindful processing, in which one processes information in an active, rather

than a rote, inattentive way, is needed for long-term learning to

occur (Langer 1989). Perceived control (Ajzen 1991) may influence whether recipients process information in a mindful (attentive) or mindless (inattentive) way (Carlson 1995). For example,

visitors who engage with an interactive computer display about

the historical significance of a site may well process the information in a more mindful way than they would with a non-interactive exhibit.

More research is needed to test this theory, and to explore the

relationships between attraction, perceived control, mindfulness,

and learning with interpretive media in museum and park

settings. Social psychology offers theory that may help explain

why and how interpretive media work and do not work. Other

social sciences, such as sociology, communications, and psychology can also provide theoretical bases for research on interpre-
54

tive media. In order to build a solid knowledge base of on-going

use to the HFC, further theoretically-driven research is needed.

7. Summary

What is Known?

Communication theory provides a framework for examining

HFC products and services, as well as the factors which foster or

impede effective communication with the public. The literature

indicates that message content and structure can influence the

effectiveness of media communication. The literature describes

who is and who is not visiting national parks. It provides an

understanding of some of the potential motives for, and barriers

to visiting national parks. Social science research has examined

the knowledge, conceptions, and attitudes of different groups

relative to national parks, land, and nature.

A number of studies have identified media factors which influence visitor attraction, attention, and perception. These factors

are precursors to achieving complex goals, such as learning,

attitude change, and behavior change. The knowledge of media

characteristics that can “make a difference” is available.

Some, but far fewer studies, have documented the influence of

interpretive media on visitors’ learning, attitude change, and

behavior change. Media have been found to be effective in

meeting these goals in some circumstances. Effectiveness varies

by media. The research literature also offers guidance for effective evaluation of interpretive media.

Existing social science research sheds light on issues relative to

communication between HFC and other units of the NPS, about

public attitudes and communication issues relevant to the development and implementation of new techniques and technologies

in interpretation, and about the importance of communication.

In particular, theory on persuasion and learning illuminates the

complex nature of learning, attitude change, and behavior

change, offering important ways to think about these goals and

how best to achieve them through interpretive media. Existing
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 55

social science research offers answers to many questions relative

to the needs of HFC.

What is Unknown?

The available literature leaves many questions unanswered, and

raises new questions relevant to the HFC. Little is known about

visitors’ knowledge, conceptions, and attitudes regarding historic

furnishings and preservation. Little is known about visitor

preferences regarding interpretive media techniques. While a

number of visitor motivations have been identified, little is

known about the extent to which these motivations vary by

background or the relationship between visitor motivations and

effectiveness of interpretive media. For those who do not visit

the parks, further research is needed on how HFC products and

services might help the NPS address perceived barriers and

negative attitudes.

While a great deal of research has examined visitors’ behavior

with interpretive media, as well as factors influencing visitor

attraction, attention, and perception, the majority of such studies

were conducted with general samples of visitors. Such samples

are not likely to include high percentages of elderly visitors or

visitors of diverse ethnic background. Further research on

specific subpopulations of visitors is needed. What factors

influence attraction, attention, and perception with visitors of

different backgrounds? What media characteristics are effective

across subcultures and with international visitors?

Little is known about the effects of interpretive media on such

goals as learning, attitude change, and behavior change. In

particular, research is needed which develops and applies theoretical models of these complex processes. Relevant to parks,

little is known about the relationships between attraction, attention, and perception, and the goals of learning and attitude

change.

Hence, the literature review offers an extensive body of findings,

with many important gaps. These gaps represent a research

agenda for HFC social science.
56
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 57

IV

Employee and

Client Views

A third source of information on HFC social science needs are

HFC staff, NPS employees and other clients of HFC services. A

formal survey of employees and clients was not conducted.

Rather, representative views were sought to add insight in the

development of a HFC research agenda. Two group workshops

and fifteen telephone interviews were conducted to obtain input

from HFC employees and clients of HFC products and services.

Participants identified key social science research questions

relevant to the HFC. The full results of each workshop are

included in Appendix II. A complete list of telephone

interviewees is included in Appendix III.

In this section, the procedure and results of the nominal group

workshops are presented, followed by the procedure and results

of the telephone interviews. A wide range of research questions

emerged. The questions revealed several key research topics.

Group Workshop Procedures

An important source for identifying research needs are the HFC

staff and clients. Workshops were held at the Mather Training

Center, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia on 15 November 1996 and
58

3 March 1997. The first workshop was conducted for HFC

employees, and 17 employees attended. The second workshop

was conducted for NPS interpretive personnel, and 15 individuals attended. A list of participants is available from the NPS.

Both workshops were conducted by a moderator and followed

the same format. First, the purpose and rationale for developing

a social science plan for the HFC were presented. Second, the

social sciences represented in the plan were listed (economics,

geography, political science, psychology, sociology, and interdisciplinary research), along with examples of potential research

questions. Third, participants were guided through three different worksheets in which they generated, selected, and ranked

research questions.

On the first worksheet, each participant was asked to respond to

the following question: “For the Harpers Ferry Center to more

effectively accomplish its mission and responsibilities, what are

the most important social science research questions that must be

answered?” Each participant wrote a list. Then, participants

presented their research questions to the group. The moderator

helped clarify each question, and the responses were recorded

on flipcharts. Participants were then given a second worksheet

which instructed, “From the posted list, please choose the five

questions you believe are most important.” The moderator

tallied the results of the second worksheet and identified the

research questions that were chosen most often by the participants.

Finally, participants were given a third worksheet which asked,

“From the final list, please give each question a share of 100

points. The more important you think the question is, the more

points it should receive.” The moderator then tallied the results,

and a final list of top research questions—with total scores and

rank as determined by the group participants—was presented to

the group.

Workshop Results: HFC Employees

HFC employees identified, prioritized, and scored the following

social science research questions as most important. They are
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 59

presented here in rank order, with the total score in parentheses

(A complete list of the research questions generated by the group

is in Appendix II.):

1. Do HFC products provoke continued learning and/or behavioral change among visitors? (300)

2. What is the demographic profile of NPS visitors? (265)

3. To what degree do NPS managers know what HFC products

and services are available to them, and how to access them?

(260)

4. What are the most effective media to reach HFC customers?

(250)

5. What do NPS managers want from HFC, and what is most

important to them? (245)

6. Are some media more effective than others in communicating

interpretive messages? (210)

7. Which media are most appropriate for reaching populations

not yet reached? (145)

The questions generated by HFC staff revealed several key

research topics. Highest on the list is the need to understand the

impact of HFC products on visitor learning and behavior. Next

is the need to understand the demographic characteristics of

national park visitors, the main audience for HFC products.

There is a need to understand the knowledge and attitudes of

NPS managers regarding HFC products and services. Finally,

several questions all concern the effectiveness of interpretive

media. For example: Which media reach existing HFC customers? Are some more effective than others? Which media can

reach populations not yet reached?

Workshop Results: NPS Interpretive Personnel

NPS interpretive personnel identified, prioritized, and scored the

following eight questions, presented here in rank order:

1. What can we do to better reach hostile audiences (for

example, given controversial issues like acid rain)? (255)
60

2. How does HFC design products to bring messages to the

widest range of visitor motivations? (245)

3. How can we better understand the meanings and values of

National Parks held by the public? (230)

4. Do visitors get a standardized, cookie-cutter (“McDonald’s”)

feeling from their experience in National Parks? Is that good

or bad? (210)

5. How can HFC gain balanced input from audience, clients,

and resource personnel to design more successful visitor

experiences? (195)

6. What visitor groups do not feel invited to our parks? (175)

7. What values and expectations do young adults perceive in

parks and resources? (150)

8. What is the impact of user fees on the type of visitor? (135)

The eight highest ranked questions generated by NPS interpretive personnel suggest four critical research topics relevant to the

HFC. First, the need to understand and reach diverse audiences

is reflected in several questions, including the two highest ranked

questions. These audiences include “hostile” audiences, those

who do not feel invited to our parks, and visitors of different

motivations. A second key topic is the need to understand the

meanings, values, and attitudes which audiences hold relative to

the parks, particularly among the general public and young

adults. What do the national parks “mean” to Americans? To

young adults? Of particular note, question #4 asks if visitors’

experience of the parks feels “standardized,” and whether or not

this is harmful. A third key theme concerned most effective

personnel and design strategies: how can the HFC gain input

from various sources in order to create more successful visitor

experiences? The fourth key topic reflects the need to understand how user fees influence visitor demographics.

Workshop Results: A Comparative Summary

Examined together, the results of the nominal group workshops

suggest areas of difference as well as similarities. HFC staff

raised the need to understand the impact of HFC products on
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 61

visitor learning and behavior, and the need to understand the

attitudes and knowledge of NPS employees regarding the HFC.

Interpretive personnel raised the need to understand the meanings and values of audiences regarding the parks, and how the

HFC might gain input on its projects from various sources. Both

groups raised the need to understand how to reach those not

currently reached—HFC staff wondered what interpretive media

were most effective for doing so, while interpretive personnel

were particularly concerned with diverse audiences and those

“distant” or even adversarial to the parks. Both groups also

shared the need to understand visitor demographic characteristics—HFC staff wished to have demographic profiles, while

interpretive personnel questioned how those profiles were

influenced by user fees.

Telephone Interviews

A tour of the HFC and discussions with HFC staff at the start of

this project revealed five major categories of HFC clients: 1)

chiefs of interpretation, 2) park superintendents, 3) Denver

Service Center personnel, 4) contractors (who are both clients

and service providers), and 5) park professionals with technical

assistance requests. To obtain input from each of these groups, a

set of fifteen representative clients from diverse geographic

locations and sites were interviewed by telephone. A complete

list of interview participants is included in Appendix III. All

interviews were conducted between 12 May and 29 May 1997

from Indiana University. Interviews averaged 20 minutes in

length.

All interviews were conducted by the same researcher and

followed the same format. First, the interviewer identified herself, and explained the reason for the call. Second, the rationale

for developing a social science plan for the HFC was presented.

Third, the interviewee was asked four questions designed to

solicit opinions and ideas regarding HFC social science:

• For the HFC to more effectively accomplish its mission and

responsibilities, what social science research questions must be

answered?
62

• As you think of issues coming up in the future that might

affect the HFC, what additional social science research questions come to mind?

• What kinds of institutions do you think should conduct the

research on these questions?

• What format(s) would you favor for the dissemination of

research results?

The questions generated by HFC clients revealed several key

research topics and preferences. The topics and preferences

suggested by each of the five client groups are presented below,

along with representative quotes for illustration. This is followed

by a comparative summary of common themes across groups.

Interview Results: Chiefs of Interpretation

Five chiefs of interpretation were interviewed. Their responses

revealed three key research topics relevant to the HFC. The first

topic was the need to understand visitors’ opinions and preferences regarding interpretive media. For example, one chief of

interpretation asked, “What type of publications do people find

beneficial?” Posed another, “Do people really want interactive

video, and to what degree?”

A second research topic raised was that of visitor motivations. As

one chief of interpretation explained, “What are visitors coming

for? There could be people coming for lots of different reasons.

We need to understand those reasons in order to communicate

with visitors.”

A third research topic raised was the need to understand and

reach non-visitors. Said one interviewee, “One of the things

we’ve got to begin dealing with is the people who don’t come to

the park...We’ve got to begin reaching them.”

All five chiefs of interpretation felt that social science research

for the HFC was best conducted by a combination of NPS

personnel and university personnel. All felt that both perspectives were needed. Said one interviewee, “The social scientists

know how to ask and phrase the questions, the park personnel
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 63

know what questions need to be asked...Perhaps (the work could

be done by) a consortium of universities, with a task force or

committee of NPS staffers that would work closely with the

university group.”

All five chiefs of interpretation felt that social science research

for the HFC should be disseminated in a variety of formats.

Almost all favored the combination of a written report and a

conference that would enable face-to-face discussion. Said one

interviewee, “I think that human interaction is still one of the

best ways to communicate”; said another, “Time needs to be

spent on examining, discussing, and setting a course for the

future.”

Interview Results: Park Superintendents

Three park superintendents were interviewed. Their responses

revealed two key research topics. The first topic was the need to

understand visitors’ opinions and preferences regarding interpretive media. For example, one superintendent wondered of

visitors, “Would they prefer more personal interaction, such as

with a ranger, or non-personal interpretation?” Asked another,

“Do people want interpretation via web sites?”

A second research topic raised was the need to understand

visitors of diverse backgrounds. Said one superintendent, “What

of U.S. citizens with a variety of language backgrounds and

cultural backgrounds—do we meet their needs?”

All three superintendents felt that social science for the HFC was

best conducted by a combination of NPS personnel and university personnel. Said one superintendent, “Obviously NPS needs

to be tied in, but the universities...have the expertise.”

All three superintendents felt that social science research for the

HFC should be disseminated through a variety of formats,

including a conference, web pages, and a video. Most mentioned

the value of face-to-face communication in receiving information: said one superintendent, “Some kind of personal

forum...Web pages get deleted, paper gets thrown away, but

people remember discussions.”
64

Interview Results: Denver Service Center Personnel

Three Denver Service Center personnel were interviewed. Their

responses revealed two key research topics. The first topic was

the impact of interpretive media on visitor behavior. Said one

interviewee, “How can interpretation encourage people to follow

rules? To stay on trails for example?” Said another, “What will

visitors do differently after their visit?”

A second research topic raised was the need to understand the

public’s values regarding parks and cultural resources. Said one

interviewee, “What are peoples’ values that they hold about

parks?” Said another, “What do visitors get out of the interaction

with cultural resources?”

All three Denver Service Center personnel felt that social science

for the HFC was best conducted by a combination of NPS

personnel and university personnel. Said one interviewee, “We

need university expertise...But we need them to work with Park

Service folks...it is important that the research meet Park Service

needs, as well as university standards.”

All three Denver Service Center personnel felt that social science

for the HFC should be disseminated in format(s) that are “userfriendly” and “straightforward.” Said one interviewee, “It’s

always useful to read about the study, but I don’t think most

people want to look at that level of detail...It’s probably more

critical to have an expanded executive summary with illustrations about how it can be used.”

Interview Results: Contractors

Two exhibit design and production companies that have worked

with the HFC on a contract basis were interviewed. Their

responses revealed one key research topic. That topic was the

need to evaluate the effectiveness of interpretive media. Said one

interviewee, “I don’t think there are means in place to tell...what

portion of people are getting the interpretive messages.” Said

another of interpretive media, “What’s working, and why?”

Both contractors felt that social science research for the HFC

was best conducted by a combination of NPS personnel and
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 65

university personnel. Said one interviewee: “It’s a matter of who

can capture the objective data. Probably a combination is best.”

Both contractors felt that social science for the HFC should be

disseminated in written formats. One preferred “a very well

written piece...with a direct approach,” while the other suggested

“publishing on the internet so that it’s updatable and retrievable

and accessible.”

Interview Results: Technical Assistance Requests

Two individuals who have received technical assistance from the

HFC were interviewed. Their responses revealed one key

research topic. That topic was the need to assess the public’s

understanding of the preservation of cultural artifacts and resources. Said one interviewee, “What does the public know and

understand about what’s involved in preservation?” Said the

other, “Do people know how these things are done?”

Both interviewees felt that social science for the HFC should be

conducted by a combination of NPS personnel and university

personnel. Said one interviewee, “The NPS knows their audience better than the university, but the university knows better

what they need. It has to be hand in hand.”

Both technical assistance requesters felt that social science

research for the HFC should be disseminated in written formats.

Both mentioned web sites and brochures.

Interview Results: A Comparative Summary

The results of the fifteen interviews provide eight social science

research topics relevant to the HFC:

• visitors’ opinions and preferences regarding interpretive

media,

• visitor motivations,

• understanding non-visitors,

• understanding visitors of diverse backgrounds,

• the impact of interpretive media on visitor behavior,
66

• the public’s values regarding parks and cultural resources,

• evaluating the effectiveness of interpretive media, and

• the public’s understanding of cultural artifact preservation.

Only one of these topics was suggested by more than one client

group. The topic of visitors’ opinions and preferences regarding

interpretive media was suggested by both park chiefs of interpretation and park superintendents. However, the eight social

science research topics further reflect three broad themes across

groups, as described below.

First, the topics reflect the broad need to better understand current

national park visitors. This theme was suggested by the research

topic of understanding visitors of diverse backgrounds, raised by

the park superintendents; by the topic of visitor motivations,

raised by the chiefs of interpretation; and by the topic of visitors’

opinions and preferences regarding interpretive media, raised by

both park superintendents and chiefs of interpretation.

Secondly, the topics reflect the broad need to better understand

the public at large. This theme was suggested by the research topic

of understanding non-visitors, raised by the chiefs of interpretation; by the topic of the public’s values regarding parks and

cultural resources, raised by the Denver Service Center personnel; and by the topic of the public’s understanding of cultural

artifact preservation, raised by the technical assistance individuals.

Third, the fifteen topics reflect the broad need to better understand

the effectiveness of HFC products that support interpretation in the

parks. This theme was suggested by the research topic of the

impact of interpretation on visitor behavior, raised by the Denver Service Center personnel; and by the topic of evaluating the

communicative effectiveness of interpretive media, raised by the

contractors.

All fifteen interviewees felt that social science research for the

HFC was best conducted by a combination of NPS personnel

and university personnel. Most interviewees preferred that the

dissemination of findings of such research through a variety of
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 67

formats, particularly written reports, conferences or workshops,

web sites, and brochures. Interviewees noted that dissemination

efforts should be user-friendly and accessible, and that an opportunity to meet and discuss findings with others was important

and valuable.

The nominal group workshops and telephone interviews developed a significant and extensive set of social science research

questions relevant to the HFC. Three broad themes emerged,

including the need to: 1) better understand current park visitors

(including their backgrounds, motivations, and interpretive

media opinions and preferences), 2) better understand the public

at large (including non-visitors and their values), and 3) better

understand the effectiveness of interpretive media.
68
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 69

V

A Research

Agenda

In this chapter, a social science research agenda for the HFC is

proposed. It is based on the policy analysis, literature review and

public workshops described in the previous chapters. It is organized around a series of specific research projects. These research projects are organized into three categories.

The first kind of research project involves descriptive research.

These projects are intended to describe current and future clients

and audiences of the HFC, to describe the general public (including non-visitors) and their opinions related to the National

Park System and HFC products, and to describe current social

science research and its application to HFC needs. A central

focus to this research is the question, “What do current and future

HFC clients and audiences need?”

The second kind of research project involves practical experiments. These projects are intended to answer specific questions—

about what media/products work, why certain media work (or

do not), and what impact HFC products have upon public

knowledge, attitudes, behavior and enjoyment. A central focus to
70

this research is the question, “What are the most effective ways of

meeting the needs of current and future HFC clients and audiences?”

A third kind of research project involves formal evaluation.

These projects are intended to design, develop and conduct

formal evaluations of HFC products and services. These evaluations are linked to HFC performance, and focus on the question,

“How effective are HFC products and services in meeting the identified

needs of current and future HFC clients and audiences?”

All three of these research categories are important to the HFC

mission. With limited resources, the HFC efforts should focus on

servicewide needs (rather than region or cluster-based studies).

Figure 1 presents a conceptual model for HFC social science,

and illustrates the need for descriptive research and experimental studies to assist in the design and development of HFC

products. The development and production of HFC products

and services is followed by the formal field evaluations conducted as an additional and integrated component of the research program. The conducted research has direct application

and leads to adaptive management—e.g., new approaches to

accomplishing objectives—by the HFC. The use of the research

provides feedback to create learning by HFC staff, and if

needed, new science needs.

Figure 1. A Conceptual Model for HFC Social Science

Hence, the research agenda consists of a set of interdependent

studies that involve descriptive research, practical experiments,

and formal evaluation. Each are discussed below. For each

Application of research and adaptive management

HFC

Social

Science 

Plan

Descriptive

Research

(What do HFC

clients and

audiences

need?)

Practical

Experiments

(What are the

most effective

ways of meeting

those needs?)

HFC

Products

and

Services

Formal

Evaluation (How

effective are HFC

products and 

services in meeting 

identified needs?)

Feedback, learning, and new science

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 71

project, an objective, general description, estimated budget,

schedule and potential funding partners are described.

Descriptive Research

General Public Survey

The American public represents the major potential audience for

HFC products (international tourists are another, and dealt with

in a different project). The American public is experiencing

significant shifts in age, ethnic composition, economic class and

cultural values. If HFC products are going to fulfill the communication model described in Chapter 3, HFC staff need to have

an accurate understanding of American public opinion, attitudes,

values and behavior.

A general public survey is proposed. It should be constructed to

provide data on:

• the general population,

• the portion of the public that visits the National Park System,

• subpopulations within the public that visits the National Park

System (such as seniors or local residents), and

• subpopulations within the public that do not visit the National

Park System (such as the urban poor).

The survey should provide the HFC staff with specific information, such as:

• a profile of visitors that use HFC products,

• a profile of visitors and the general public that does not use

HFC products,

• a description of the source credibility, content, interpretive

approaches, and media preferred by visitors and the general

public, and

• a comparison of how visitor subpopulations differ in their

preferences and needs.

The results of this general public survey are critical to:

• documenting visitor needs and preferences for HFC products,
72

• selecting, designing, producing and evaluating appropriate

products,

• identifying possible approaches to developing HFC products

for specific subpopulations and non-visitors and the general

public,

• identifying the role of HFC products in the visitor experience,

and

• creating a baseline of data to monitor changes in public

opinions, attitudes, values and behaviors.

The project could be implemented as a research partnership

with the NPS Social Science Program and other units of the

NPS, for such a general survey has value to the NPS beyond

assisting the HFC. The HFC should serve as a major partner in

the project; HFC staff should be significantly involved in survey

design. The research should be conducted by an independent

university (public or private) or a nationally-recognized polling

firm. The survey instrument should undergo careful review by

social scientists and HFC staff. The survey should be repeated

every three years.

Approximate Cost: (HFC share of total cost) $15,000

Duration: 12 months

VSP Database Analysis

Since 1988, the Visitor Services Project has conducted studies in

over 80 units of the National Park System. Data from these

individual studies have been compiled into a comprehensive

database with over 40,000 records. A significant portion of the

data is relevant to HFC needs, yet has not been systematically

analyzed. A detailed database analysis is proposed. The analysis

should use the database to:

• document visitor use and evaluation of various interpretive

media,

• compare the use and evaluation patterns of visitor subpopulations,
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 73

• identify trends in visitors that do not use or evaluate poorly

interpretive media, and

• identify visitor preferences and needs for interpretive media.

The analysis should be applied to:

• improve the selection, planning, design, production and

evaluation of HFC products,

• identify ways HFC products can reach visitors currently not

using interpretive media,

• creating benchmarks or standards for formal evaluations of

HFC products and services, and

• monitoring change in visitor opinions, attitudes and behaviors

relevant to HFC products.

The project could be implemented in partnership with the

Visitor Services Project and the Division of Interpretation. The

HFC should be a major partner in the project, and HFC staff

should provide guidance to the researchers examining the

database. The work should be conducted by a university (public

or private) and is appropriate for a graduate student under

faculty supervision. The project need not be carried out by VSP

staff. The VSP should provide the database to both the researchers and the HFC in electronic form.

Approximate Cost (HFC share of total cost): $8,000

Duration: 6 months

Augmented VSP Studies

Each year, the Visitor Services Project conducts a detailed visitor

study in 10 units of the National Park System. While there is a

core of questions dealing with visitor demographics, park staffs

are free to choose additional questions. Many but not all park

staffs choose some questions related to interpretive services and

HFC products (hence, the VSP database can be useful to the

HFC, as described above).

Additional use of VSP studies as a way of gaining critical information for HFC needs can be timely and cost-effective. An
74

“augmentation” of VSP studies is proposed. In this effort, the

HFC would offer directly to parks conducting VSP studies

funding assistance in exchange for the opportunity to include

HFC-related questions on the park surveys. Data from these

augmented VSP studies should be used to:

• document visitor use and evaluation of various interpretive

media,

• compare the use and evaluation of HFC products in different

parks,

• compare the use and evaluation patterns of visitor subpopulations, and

• identify visitor preferences and needs for interpretive media.

The analysis should be applied to:

• improve the selection, planning, design, production and

evaluation of HFC products,

• identify existing HFC products that are successful or in need

of improvement,

• document performance for formal evaluations linked to

GPRA and the NPS Strategic Plan, and

• monitor change in visitor opinions, attitudes and behaviors

relevant to HFC products.

The project should be implemented as a partnership with the

Visitor Services Project. The HFC should have a member on the

VSP Advisory Committee, which helps guide the VSP and

selects the parks to be studied each year. For up to 5 parks per

year, $3,000 assistance should be made available. Funding

assistance should go directly to the participating parks, or if

necessary, to the VSP as identified for assistance to a specific

park.

Approximate Cost (HFC share of total cost): $15,000 per year

for two years

Duration: 12 months
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 75

Special Needs Studies

As the policy analysis, literature review and interviews demonstrated, there is a significant need to ensure that HFC products

are effective in reaching the full diversity of NPS visitors and the

general public. While general studies of visitors (such as the VSP

described above) are useful, their reliance on probability sampling makes it difficult to gain detailed knowledge about subpopulations not well-represented in the general population

studied. Of particular importance is an understanding of:

• seniors that use the National Park System,

• children in school (linked to the Parks as Classrooms

program),

• American subcultures and ethnic groups, particularly Hispanic

Americans, African Americans, and the urban and rural poor,

• local residents in gateway communities,

• visitors that rely on the tour industry to visit national parks,

• international tourists that visit national parks, and

• citizens that do not use nor support national parks.

An accurate understanding of special subpopulations with

potentially different or unique needs requires specific research

efforts. A series of Special Needs Studies is proposed. The

purpose of these studies is to:

• identify special populations that are current or potential

audiences for HFC products,

• describe these special populations with specific attention to

their opinions, attitudes and behaviors relevant to national

parks and HFC products,

• identify potential techniques for improving the effectiveness of

existing HFC products in reaching these populations, and

• identify potential techniques for reaching these populations

with new and future HFC products.
76

The results should be applied by the HFC to:

• improve the selection, design, production and evaluation of

HFC products,

• identify existing HFC products that are successful or in need

of improvement in reaching these special populations,

• develop, if needed, new and targeted HFC products, and

• monitor change in visitor opinions, attitudes and behaviors

relevant to HFC products.

Each of these studies should be independently designed, and use

a variety of social science research methods, from quantitative

surveys to qualitative field methods such as participant observation or ethnographic analysis. The HFC should identify which

special populations are highest priority, and support those

studies first. Approximately three studies should be conducted

during the next three years; each has the approximate cost of

$15,000. The Division of Interpretation may wish to be a partner

in such studies, as the results will have considerable value to

interpretation and interpretive training. The work should be

conducted by universities (public or private), and is appropriate

for a graduate student under faculty supervision.

Approximate Cost: $15,000 per year for three years

Duration (each separate study): 18 months

New Research Synthesis

As the literature review illustrates, there is a continually growing

body of social science research related to communication, and

much of this research has potential usefulness to the HFC.

Converting research done for other organizations or purposes to

usable knowledge for the HFC is both timely and cost-effective.

A new research synthesis is proposed. Each year, a contracted

researcher would review, summarize and apply current developments in communication research to HFC needs. The synthesis

would result in both a written document and small annual

workshop. Unlike academic and professional meetings (such as

the Visitor Studies Association’s annual meeting), the focus
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 77

would be on transferring new knowledge to HFC staff quickly

and inexpensively.

The synthesis should be applied to:

• improve the selection, design, production and evaluation of

HFC products,

• identify new opportunities for HFC products and services, and

• enrich the professional development of HFC staff.

The Division of Interpretation and the Mather Training Center

may wish to be partners in this effort. The work should be

conducted by a university (public or private), and a three year

project should be implemented.

Approximate Cost (HFC share of the total cost): $6,000 per year

for two years

Duration: 6 months

Information and Technology Transfer through

Training

If social science research is to be useful to HFC staff, it needs to

be delivered in effective ways and at frequent intervals. Many of

the interviews identified the need for training, both formal and

informal. A modest training program is proposed. The Mather

Training Center may wish to be a partner in this effort. The

purpose of the training program is to:

• ensure that HFC social science is converted into usable

knowledge by HFC staff,

• provide HFC staff with professional development opportunities, and

• assist HFC staff in the development of new and improved

HFC products and services.

A series of three half-day training workshops should be provided

throughout the year, and for three years. These workshops

should be conducted and coordinated by the HFC social science

consortium and its project leader. The workshops should focus

on specific topics, such as:
78

• new technologies and their potentials for HFC,

• current trends in visitor use of national parks,

• techniques for formal evaluation, and

• special populations.

The workshops should be carefully evaluated by HFC staff.

Approximate Cost: $1,000 per year for two years

Duration: 12 months

Practical Experiments

Current Media Test Series

As described in the policy analysis and interviews, the HFC has

a critical need to test the effectiveness of the interpretive media

that it employs. Such tests are important to:

• improve the selection, design, production and evaluation of

HFC products,

• evaluate the effectiveness of current media in achieving HFC

and NPS objectives,

• satisfy GPRA and NPS Strategic Plan requirements, and

• maintain national and international leadership in interpretive

media development.

A series of media tests is proposed. The effectiveness of current

and common media should be tested. Such media include:

• brochures,

• video and film,

• maps,

• exhibits, and

• signs.

These tests should be organized as practical field experiments,

with careful experimental designs that will allow strong inferences as to the comparable effectiveness of current media. HFC

staff (particularly media specialists) should be significantly
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 79

involved in study design and planning. The tests should be

interdependent and conducted at several NPS sites and situations. Effectiveness should be measured in terms of visitor

learning, changes in visitor attitudes and behavior, level of visitor

enjoyment, as well as other measures. Each test (involving

several current media) should cost approximately $15,000. At

least two tests should be conducted.

The tests should be conducted by universities (public or private),

and are appropriate as graduate student projects under faculty

supervision. The Division of Interpretation may wish to be a

partner in these projects.

Approximate Cost: $30,000

Duration: 18 months per test

New Media Test Series

As described in the policy analysis and interviews, the HFC has

a critical need to test the effectiveness of new and emerging

technology and interpretive media. Such tests are important to:

• improve the selection, planning, design, production and

evaluation of HFC products,

• evaluate the potential effectiveness of new media and technology in achieving HFC and NPS objectives,

• guide HFC investment in research and development of new

technology and media, and

• maintain national and international leadership in interpretive

media development.

A series of media tests is proposed. The effectiveness of new and

emerging media should be tested. Such media include:

• interactive computers,

• web sites, and

• cutting-edge technologies, such as virtual reality systems, highdefinition television, and new combinations of existing media.
80

These tests should be organized as practical field experiments,

with careful experimental designs that will allow strong inferences as to the comparable effectiveness of new and emerging

media. HFC staff (particularly media specialists) should be

significantly involved in study designs and planning. The tests

should be treated as pilot efforts, and conducted at a limited

number of NPS sites. Effectiveness should be measured in terms

of visitor learning, changes in visitor attitudes and behavior, level

of visitor enjoyment, as well as other measures. Each test (involving a single new emerging media) should cost approximately

$15,000. At least two tests should be conducted.

The tests should be conducted by universities (public or private),

and are appropriate as graduate student projects under faculty

supervision. The Division of Interpretation may wish to be a

partner in these projects.

Approximate Cost: $30,000

Duration: 18 months per test

Interpretive Impact Study

The current and new media tests described above are important

to HFC development of effective products. By focusing on

individual media, they can provide specific and practical guidance to the HFC. However, the impact of each of these media

upon visitors and the public is not independent—visitors receive

brochures, read maps, view exhibits and film, and participate in

a wide range of interpretive programs. The synergistic and

overall impact of the “interpretive experience” provided to

visitors is both important and in need of study.

An interpretive impact study is proposed. This project would

carefully document the impact of the interpretive experience

provided at several sample NPS sites. Selection of the test sites

would be based on choosing a relatively common mix of interpretive media and opportunities. HFC staff (particularly media

specialists) should be significantly involved in study design and

planning. Impact would be measured in terms of changes in

visitor knowledge, attitudes and behavior. Results of the study

would be used to:
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 81

• improve the selection, design, production and evaluation of

HFC products,

• evaluate the effectiveness of current interpretive experiences

in achieving HFC and NPS objectives,

• guide the HFC and Division of Interpretation in creating

effective combinations of interpretive media and program to

achieve NPS objectives, and

• satisfy GPRA and NPS Strategic Plan requirements.

The work should be conducted by a university (public or private). The Division of Interpretation may wish to be a partner in

this project.

Approximate Cost: $25,000

Duration: 18 months

HFC Formal Evaluation

Research and Development on Alternative Evaluation Approaches

The policy analysis and interviews revealed an HFC mandate

and responsibility for evaluating its products and services. In

particular, GPRA, the NPS Strategic Plan and other government

initiatives (such as the National Performance Review) have

created a need for cost-effective, accurate, useful and understandable forms of evaluation. The develop of evaluation approaches useful to the HFC requires a research and development effort.

A project of research and development on alternative evaluation

approaches is proposed. It should be focused on providing HFC

staff with carefully designed and appropriate evaluation tools.

Several different evaluation criteria should be examined, including:

• audience learning,

• public opinion, attitude or values change,

• change in visitor behavior,

• audience enjoyment, and

• client satisfaction with products and services.
82

Different evaluation methods should be examined, from formal

surveys of visitors, the public, and HFC clients to more informal

focus groups, observation and other techniques. The work

should be conducted by a university (public or private), and

HFC staff should work closely with the research team. The

results should be used to provide HFC staff and NPS managers

with a set of evaluation tools most appropriate and practical for

use in the field.

Approximate Cost: $12,000

Duration: 6 months

GPRA-based Evaluation

The policy review makes clear that the responsibility for formal

evaluation of HFC products and services will increase in scope,

intensity and frequency over the next 3 years. The HFC will

require formal evaluations, done in timely and cost-effective

ways that yield useful results. Such evaluations should be based

on the research and development project described above, and

include evaluation by:

• visitors that use HFC products,

• NPS managers that use HFC products and services, and

• suppliers, partners and other clients of the HFC.

The evaluations should be conducted by a university (public or

private), and HFC should work closely with the evaluation team.

The results should satisfy GPRA requirements, other policy

requirements, and be useful to HFC staff improving the selection, design, and production of HFC products.

Approximate Cost: $7,500 per year for two years

Duration: 9 months
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 83

Employee Feedback System

The interviews revealed a strong interest and value in encouraging employee involvement in HFC planning, organization and

operations. Employees are motivated to provide constructive

feedback on such issues as:

• improvements to HFC products and services,

• improvements to HFC organization and procedures,

• workplace morale, and

• HFC mission and alternative futures.

An employee feedback system is proposed. The feedback system

should be inexpensive, practical to implement, and result in

constructive opportunities for employee involvement. The

feedback system should be developed by a university (public or

private) or a consulting firm with experience in such employee

systems. The system should be put in place for three years, and

managed internally by HFC staff.

Approximate Cost: $3,000

Duration: 6 months
84
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 85

VI

An Action Plan

Implementing a social science research program for the HFC

will require several specific actions. Not all actions can or should

be accomplished immediately; a long-term action plan should be

formally approved and implemented. Research activities can be

accomplished in four stages, described below. While each stage

could be accomplished within a one-year period, the HFC may

wish to extend the length of a particular stage due to limited

budgets, resources or staff. The HFC should select researchers

and university partners through open, competitive bidding

processes. There are several reasons:

• the need for a wide range of research skills available at universities,

• access to graduate students, who can assist on research

projects at low cost,

• the independence and objectivity of university research,

particularly on issues of evaluation, and

• an expanded constituency for HFC activities.

An estimated budget is provided at the end of this chapter.
86

Stage 1. Organizing for Social Science

1.1 A social science coordinator for the HFC should be appointed from

existing staff. Initially, this is .20 FTE assignment. The

coordinator’s responsibilities should include:

• coordinating HFC social science activities including, contracting, technical assistance, peer review, archiving, training and

application of research results,

• serving as HFC representative for HFC partnership activities

related to social science,

• ensuring that HFC staff are significantly involved in all stages

of the research projects, from study design to final reports,

• serving as liaison with the NPS Social Science Program, and

• implementing this HFC social science plan.

Training and assistance from the NPS Social Science program

should be sought.

1.2 A social science consortium of universities should be established for

the HFC, and a .25 FTE social scientist from a cooperating university

should be contracted to serve as project leader for the consortium. Under

the new Social Science Program being developed by the NPS, a

system of “virtual research organizations” is being created to

serve the needs of NPS units. Each of these consortiums will

have a host university, partner universities, a mission statement,

four-year plan and NPS managers committee. The mission of the

HFC consortium should include research, technical assistance

and education (including both information transfer and training)

related to the HFC.

More specifically, the HFC social science consortium should:

• provide research capabilities for conducting the research

projects proposed in this plan,

• ensure that HFC staff are significantly involved in all stages of

research projects,

• offer technical training in the social sciences for HFC employees,
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 87

• provide technical assistance to the HFC on issues related to

social science, and

• develop and maintain an archive of social science research

results, reports and databases for use by HFC managers and

other NPS professionals.

The .25 FTE social scientist should:

• coordinate the activities of the HFC social science consortium,

• serve as liaison between the consortium’s universities and the

NPS,

• conduct portions of the research projects and assist in other

portions as needed, and

• provide technical assistance and training to the HFC.

Existing cooperative agreements with universities could be

integrated into the HFC social science consortium. The host

university and project leader should be selected through open

competitive bidding. Technical assistance in the RFP, proposal

evaluation and selection process should be sought from the NPS

Social Science Program. The NPS Chief Social Scientist should

provide significant assistance to the HFC in establishing the

consortium, at HFC request.

Stage 2. Building a Research Base

2.1 The VSP Database Analysis should be initiated. Because the data

for this analysis already exists in an organized database, this

project can provide the HFC with an initial analysis of visitor

attitudes and behavior toward current HFC products. The

project could be contracted with the VSP, as the staff of the VSP

have easy access and intensive background in the data. Alternatively, the project could be contracted through the HFC social

science consortium.

2.2 The Augmented VSP Studies should be initiated. VSP studies

currently under development and planned for upcoming years

represent an important opportunity for the HFC to gain useful

visitor information at very low cost. The augmentation of up to
88

five VSP studies should be undertaken as soon as possible, and

the HFC should make funds available directly to park superintendents for this purpose.

2.3 The General Public Survey should be initiated. The need for

comprehensive data on the general public (including visitors,

non-visitors and special populations) makes the General Public

Survey a critical element in building a social science research

base for the HFC. The survey should be conducted in partnership with the NPS Social Science Program, and funding can and

should be sought from the National Park Foundation.

2.4 The Research and Development on Alternative Evaluation Strategies should be initiated. Because formal evaluation of HFC products and services is both mandated by GPRA and valuable to

HFC activities, the design of alternative evaluation tools should

be implemented early in the HFC social science program. The

project should be contracted through the HFC social science

consortium.

2.5 The GPRA Measurement Program should be initiated. Based

upon the research and development of alternative strategies for

evaluation, the HFC should implement its GPRA-based performance measurement. Work should be coordinated with the NPS

Strategic Planning Office, the NPS Social Science Program, and

the Division of Interpretation. The work should be contracted

through the HFC social science consortium.

2.6 The HFC Employee Feedback System should be initiated. By

putting the formal employee feedback system in place at the

beginning of the research program, HFC employees will have an

early opportunity to use social science methods, offer advice and

opinions on HFC mission, organization and procedures, and

create a baseline of information to monitor changes in employee

attitudes and opinions.

Stage 3. Diversifying the Research

3.1 The HFC social science consortium should be expanded to include

additional partner institutions. As the research program progresses,

additional partners with specialized capabilities (such as media
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 89

laboratories, experience with special populations, and so forth)

may need to be included through new cooperative agreements.

3.2 The HFC social science coordinator (.20 FTE) and the consortium

project leader (.25 FTE) should continue to provide coordination and

direction to the research program. The project leader should initiate

activities to increase the research base of the program, and

provide usable knowledge to HFC staff. The new research

synthesis should be initiated and the first workshop conducted.

The information and technology transfer through training should

be initiated, and training sessions developed and conducted.

Other activities might include:

• encouragement and support of student theses on HFC research topics,

• coordination of HFC research and the NPS Social Science

Program, including use of the NPS Social Science Web site

(now under construction), and

• regular briefings for HFC managers and staff.

3.3 The Special Needs Studies should be initiated. These detailed

studies of special populations will build upon earlier descriptive

efforts, and should provide specific and detailed information

about special populations useful to the HFC. HFC staff, working

with the consortium project leader, should select special populations to be studied first. The work should be contracted through

the HFC social science consortium.

3.4 The Current and New Media Test Series should be initiated.

These studies would be the first set of practical experiments

supported by the HFC under this plan. The tests would provide

specific and detailed information on the relative effectiveness of

various interpretive media used by HFC. While independent,

the current and new media tests could be initiated simultaneously, and should be contracted through the HFC social

science consortium.

Stage 4. Completing the Research Program

4.1 All of the research projects described above should be completed, and

the new research synthesis and information and technology transfer
90

should be continued. The HFC liaison should ensure that all

reports, databases and other materials are properly archived for

future use. Briefings, workshops and informal discussions should

be conducted to ensure the conversion of research results into

usable knowledge for HFC staff.

4.2 The Interpretive Impact Study should be initiated. The new and

current media tests to be completed in Stage 3 will provide

critical information on the effectiveness of specific interpretive

media. Based on these independent studies, the Interpretive

Impact Study will focus on the comprehensive impact of the

visitor’s “interpretive experience.” The project should be coordinated with the Division of Interpretation and the NPS Social

Science Program, and additional funding sought from the National Park Foundation. The study should be contracted through

the HFC social science consortium.

4.3 The HFC social science consortium should complete its development, and fully diversify its research, technical assistance and training

program for the HFC. The new research synthesis workshops

should be continued. Training workshops related to completed

research projects should be conducted for NPS managers and

staff.

4.4 The HFC social science program should undergo a careful evaluation. The evaluation should be conducted by the HFC

consortium’s managers committee, along with the NPS Social

Science Program. The review group should include HFC staff,

NPS managers and external social scientists. The review should

focus on identifying accomplishments during Stages 1-3, weaknesses and problems in the program, and constructive recommendations for improvement.

4.5 Based on a favorable review, the HFC social science program

should be extended. The cooperative agreements should be renewed, and a new research agenda should be prepared, focusing

on emerging problems that require social science. In some cases,

research projects should be revised and repeated (particularly

the VSP Database Analysis and the General Population Survey).
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 91

Table 3. HFC Social Science Program

Estimated Budget

Task Estimated

Costs

(In Thousands)

Stage 1. Organizing for Science

1.1 Appoint HFC social science coordinator (.20 FTE) 0

1.2 Establish HFC social science consortium 4

1.3 Contract project leader (.25 FTE, 1 year) 15

Subtotal 19

Stage 2. Building a Research Database

2.1 VSP database analysis 8

2.2 Augmented VSP studies (2 years) 30

2.3 General public survey 15

2.4 Research and development on alternative evaluation approaches 12

2.5 GPRA based evaluation (2 years) 15

2.6 HFC employee feedback system 3

Subtotal 83

3. Diversifying the Research

3.1 Expand HFC social science consortium 0

3.2 Continue HFC liaison and consortium project leader (1 year) 15

3.3 New research synthesis (2 years) 12

3.4 Tech transfer training (2 years) 2

3.5 Special needs studies 45

3.6 Current and new media test series 60

Subtotal 134

Stage 4. Completing the Research Program

4.1 Complete contracted research projects 0

4.2 Interpretive impact study 25

4.3 Continue HFC consortium, HFC liaison &

 consortium project leader (1 year) 15

4.4 External evaluation of HFC social science program 3

Subtotal 43

TOTAL 279
92
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 93

Appendices
94
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 95

Appendix I. Bibliography

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes 50:179-211.

Altman, I., and M. Chemers. 1980. Culture and Environment. Monterey, CA:

Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Ames, R. 1986. Taoism and the nature of nature. Environmental Ethics

8(4):317-350.

Anderson, R., D. Klassen, K. Krohn, and P. Smith-Cunnien. 1982. Assessing

Computer Literacy Publication No. 503. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium.

Antunes, G., and C. Gaitz. 1975. Ethnicity and participation: A study of

Mexican-Americans, Blacks and Whites. Journal of Sociology 80:1192-1211.

Arafat, I., and D. Allen. 1986. Student rating of computer benefits in high

school. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology 14(2):132-134.

Arch, E., and D. Cummins. 1989. Structured and unstructured exposure to

computers: Sex differences in attitude and use among college students. Sex

Roles 20(5-6):245-254.

Arcury, T., and E. Christianson. 1993. Rural-urban differences in environmental knowledge and actions. Journal of Environmental Education 25(1):19-25.

Arndt, S., J. Clevenger, and L. Meiskey. 1985. Students’ attitudes toward

computers. Computers and the Social Sciences 1(3-4):181-190.

Averill, J. 1973. Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to

stress. Psychology Bulletin 80:286-303.

Ayres, R. 1994. Technological trends. National Forum 74(2):37-42, 48.

Badagliacco, J. 1990. Gender and race differences in computing attitudes and

experience. Social Science Computer Review 8(1):42-63.

Badagliacco, J., and R. Tannenbaum. 1989. Computing: Gauging gender and

race differences in experience and attitudes, and stratification in access.

American Sociological Association paper.

Bagby, R. 1996. African American naturifocal values. In Nature and the human

spirit: Toward an expanded land management ethic, eds. B. Driver, D.

Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner and G. Peterson, 135-144. State College, PA:

Venture Publishing, Inc.
96

Beard, J., and M. Ragheb. 1983. Measuring leisure motivation. Journal of

Leisure Research 15:219-228.

Beer, V. 1987. Great expectations: Do museums know what visitors are doing?

Curator 30(3):206-215.

Bell, P., J. Fisher, and R. Loomis. 1978. Environmental Psychology. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.

Bettinghaus, E. 1968. Persuasive Communication. New York, NY: Holt,

Rinehart, and Winston.

Bickford, A., Z. Doering, and S. Smith. 1992. Spiders are Coming!: An

Exhibition Background Study for the National Museum of Natural History.

Report 92-4. Washington, D. C.: Institutional Studies, Smithsonian

Institution.

Biocca, F. 1992. Communication within virtual reality: Creating a space for

research. Journal of Communication 42(4):5-22.

Bitgood, S. 1986. Effects of Label Characteristics on Visitor Behavior. Technical

Report No. 86-55. Jacksonville, AL: Jacksonville State University.

Bitgood, S. 1988a. Problems in visitor orientation and circulation. In Visitor

Studies 1988: Theory, Research, and Practice, eds. S. Bitgood, J. Roper, and

A. Benefield, 155-170. Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.

Bitgood, S. 1988b. Visitor evaluation: What is it? Visitor Behavior 3(3):6-7.

Bitgood, S., A. Benefield, and D. Patterson. 1990. The importance of label

placement: A neglected factor in exhibit design. Current Trends in Audience

Research. Chicago: American Association of Museums.

Bitgood, S., W. Hamberger, J. Hines, and W. Ford. 1991. Visitor circulation

through a changing exhibits gallery. In Visitor Studies: Theory, Research,

and Practice 4, eds. A. Benefield, S. Bitgood, and H. Shettel, 103-111.

Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.

Bitgood, S., G. Nichols, M. Pierce, and D. Patterson. 1986. The Effects of

Instructional Signs on Museum Visitors. Technical Report No. 86-70.

Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.

Bitgood, S., and D. Patterson. 1986. Principles of orientation and circulation.

Visitor Behavior 1(4):4.

Bitgood, S., and D. Thompson. 1993. Multicultural pluralism and visitor

evaluation. Visitor Behavior 8(2):3-4.
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 97

Boisvert, D., and B. Slez. 1995. The relationship between exhibit characteristics

and learning-associated behaviors in a science museum discovery space.

Science Education 79(5):503-518.

Boothby, J., M. Tungatt, and A. Townsend. 1981. Ceasing participation in sports

activity: Reported reasons and their implications. Journal of Leisure

Research 13:1-14.

Borun, M., and M. Miller. 1980. What’s in a Name? Philadelphia: The Franklin

Institute Science Museum.

Budd, R., and B. Ruben. 1979. Beyond Media: New Approaches to Mass

Communication. New Jersey: Hayden Book Company, Inc.

Bultena, G., and D. Field. 1978. Visitors to national parks: A test of the elitism

argument. Leisure Sciences 1:395-409.

Cameron, D. 1968. A viewpoint: The museum as a communications system

and implications for museum education. Curator 11(1):33-40.

Carlson, S. 1995. From hands-on to minds-on: Model for learning in educationally oriented recreation facilities. Legacy 6(2):6-12.

Carr, D., and D. Williams. 1993. Understanding the role of ethnicity in outdoor

recreation experiences. Journal of Leisure Research 25(1):22-38.

Casey, E. 1993. Getting Back into Place: Toward a Renewed Understanding of

the Place-World. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Cheek, N., D. Field, and R. Burdge. 1976. Leisure and Recreation Places. Ann

Arbor, MI: Science Publishers.

Christensen, J. 1990. Interpretation can target everyone. Legacy 1(1):11-15.

Christensen, J., and D. Yoesting. 1973. Social and attitudinal variants in high

and low use of outdoor recreation facilities. Journal of Leisure Research 5:6-15.

Churbuck, D. 1990, February 5. The ultimate computer game. Forbes, pp. 154-

155.

Cialdini, R. 1996. Activating and aligning two kinds of norms in persuasive

communications. Journal of Interpretation Research 1(1):3-10.

Clark, N. 1995. Being consoled? Virtual nature and ecological consciousness.

Futures 27(7):735-747.

Cleaver, E. 1970. The land question and black liberation. In What Country

Have I? Political Writings by Black Americans, ed. H. String. New York,

NY: St. Martin’s Press.
98

Clough, P., J. Shepherd, and R. Maughan. 1989. Motives for participation in

recreational running. Journal of Leisure Research 21:297-309.

Cohen, S., G. Winkel, and R. Olsen. 1977. Orientation in a museum - an

experimental study. Curator 20(2):85-97.

Cone, C., and K. Kendall. 1978. Space, time and interaction: Visitor behavior

at the science museum of Minnesota. Curator 21:245-258.

Copp, J. 1975. Why hunters like to hunt. Psychology Today 9:60-62, 67.

Craig, W. 1972. Recreational activity patterns in a small Negro urban community: The role of the cultural base. Economic Geography 48:107-115.

Crompton, J. 1979. Motivations for pleasure vacations. Annals of Tourism

Research 6:408-424.

Davis, F., R. Bagozzi, and P. Warshaw. 1989. User acceptance of computer

technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science

35(8):982-1003.

DeFleur, M. 1970. Theories of Mass Communication. New York, NY: David

McKay Company.

DeWaard, R., N. Jagmin, S. Maisto, and P. McNamara. 1974. Effects of using

programmed cards on learning in a museum environment. Journal of

Educational Research 67:457-460.

Deloria, V., Jr. 1969. Custer Died for Your Sins. New York, NY: MacMillan.

Department of the Interior. 1944. Laws Relating to the National Park Service.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Deutsch, E. 1986. A metaphysical grounding for natural reverence: East-West.

Environmental Ethics 8(4):293-299.

DiMaggio, P., and F. Ostrower. 1990. Participation in the arts by black and

white Americans. Social Forces 68(3):753-778.

Diaz-Guerrero, R. 1967. Psychology of the Mexican: Culture and Personality.

Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Diaz-Guerrero, R. 1979. The development of coping style. Human Development 22:320-331.

Didriksen, R. 1973. Minorities in professional forestry schools. Journal of

Forestry 73:283.

Diltea, S. 1989. Inside artificial reality. PC Computing 101:90-91, 93-95, 98-99.
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 99

Doering, Z., and K. Black. 1989. Visits to the National Air and Space Museum

(NASM): Demographic Characteristics. Report 89-1. Washington, D.C.:

Institutional Studies, Smithsonian Institution.

Dorsey, A. 1972. A survey study of the comparative status of understanding

and reasoning in conservation concepts by ninth grade students in the

public schools of South Carolina. Ph.D. thesis, University of Virginia.

Dottavio, F., and F. Noe. 1983. Executive Summary Report: Evaluation of

Interactive Touch Computer Systems at 1982 World’s Fair. Atlanta, GA:

Southeast Regional Science Center.

Dottavio, F., J. O’Leary, and B. Koth. 1980. The social group variable in

recreation participation studies. Journal of Leisure Research 12:357-367.

Driver, B., H. Tinsley, and M. Manfredo. 1991. The paragraphs about leisure

and recreation experience preference scales: Results from two inventories

designed to assess the breadth of the perceived psychological benefits of

leisure. In Benefits of Leisure, eds. B. Driver, P. Brown, and G. Peterson,

263-286. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Dwyer, J. 1994. Customer diversity and the future demand for outdoor

recreation. In Proceedings, 1993 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium April 12-18, ed. G. Vander Stoep, 59-63.

Dwyer, J. 1995. Customer Diversity and the Future Demand for Outdoor

Recreation. General Technical Report RM-252. Fort Collins, CO: USDA

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Dwyer, J., and P. Gobster. 1992. Recreation opportunity and cultural diversity.

Parks and Recreation 22-32, 128.

Dwyer, J., and R. Hutchison. 1990. Outdoor recreation participation and

preferences by black and white Chicago households. In Social Science and

Natural Resource Recreation Management, ed. J. Vining, 49-67. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press.

Eagleton, T. 1976. Marxism and Literary Criticism. London: Methuen.

Eason, L., and M. Linn. 1976. Evaluation of the effectiveness of participatory

exhibits. Curator 19(1):45-62.

Edwards, P. 1981. Race, residence, and leisure styles: Some policy implications.

Leisure Sciences 4(2):95-112.

Ewert, A. 1985. Why people climb: The relationship of participant motives and

experience level to mountaineering. Journal of Leisure Research 17: 241-250.
100

Falk, J. 1982. The use of time as a measure of visitor behavior and exhibit

effectiveness. Roundtable Reports 7(4):14-17.

Falk, J., and L. Dierking. 1992. The Museum Experience. Washington, D.C.:

Whalesback Books.

Falk, J. 1993. Assessing the impact of exhibit arrangement on visitor behavior

and learning. Curator 36(2):133-146.

Falk, J. 1993. Leisure decisions influencing African-American use of museums.

Visitor Behavior 8(2):11-12.

Falk, J., J. Koran, L. Dierking, and L. Dreblow. 1985. Predicting visitor

behavior. Curator 28:249-257.

Fedler, A. 1984. Elements of motivation and satisfaction in the marine recreational fishing experience. In Marine Recreational Fisheries, ed. R. Stroud,

Vol. 9. Savannah, GA: National Coalition for Marine Conservation.

Feldman, R. 1978. Effectiveness of audiovisual media for interpretation to

recreating motorists. Journal of Interpretation 3(1):14-19.

Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An

Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Publishing.

Fishbein, M., and M. Manfredo. 1992. A theory of behavior change. In

Influencing Human Behavior-Theory and Applications in Recreation,

Tourism and Natural Resources Management, ed. M. Manfredo, 29-50.

Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Fitzgerald, K., and M. Littlejohn. 1996. Manassas National Battlefield Park

Visitor Study: Summer 1995. Report 80. National Park Service Visitor

Services Project.

Fitzgerald, K., and M. Patterson. 1996. Adams National Historic Site Visitor

Study: Summer 1995. Report 78. National Park Service Visitor Services

Project.

Floyd, M., and J. Gramann. 1990. Cultural and Structural Assimilation and its

Effect on Outdoor Recreation Behavior Among Mexican-Americans.

Presented at the Wildland Recreation and Urban Culture Workshop,

Ontario, CA.

Floyd, M., and F. Noe. 1993. The new environmental paradigm and Hispanic

cultural influence. In Culture, Conflict, and Communication in the Wildland-Urban Interface, eds. A. Ewert, D. Chavez, and A. Magill, 85-98.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 101

Francken, D., and W. van Riij. 1981. Satisfaction with leisure time activities.

Journal of Leisure Research 13:337-352.

Fritschen, J. 1984. Interpretation for management. In Supplements to a Guide

to Cultural and Environmental Interpretation in the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers. Vicksburg, MS: Environmental Laboratory, Recreation Research

Program, Instruction Report R-84-1.

Gallagher, T. 1988. Native participation in land management planning in

Alaska. Alaska 41(2):23-27.

Gallup, T. 1981. The use of cartoons in interpreting rules to campers. Program

Papers of the Association of Interpretive Naturalists, Western Iinterpreters

Association. Colorado: AINNW, 27-31.

Galvin, D. 1989. A Study of the Interpretive Design Center, Harpers Ferry

Center, Harpers Ferry, West Virgina. Washington, D.C.: Department of the

Interior.

Galvin, K., and B. Brommel. 1982. Family Communication: Cohesion and

Change. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Garcia, M. 1996. Hispanic perspectives and values. In Nature and the Human

Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Ethic, eds. B. Driver, D.

Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner, and G. Peterson, 145-152. State College, PA:

Venture Publishing, Inc.

Gillies, P., and R. Wilson. 1982. Participatory exhibits: Is fun educational?

Museums Journal 82:131-135.

Glucksberg, S., R. Krauss, and R. Weisberg. 1966. Referential communication

in nursery school children: method and some preliminary findings. Journal

of Experimental Child Psychology 3(3):333-342.

Godbey, G. 1985. Non-participation in public leisure services: A model.

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 3:1-13.

Godbey, G., and D. Henkel. 1976. The manpower study: A report. Parks and

Recreation 11:23-27.

Goodale, T., and P. Witt. 1989. Recreation non-participation and barriers to

leisure. In Understanding Leisure and Recreation: Mapping the Past,

Charting the Future, eds. E. Jackson, and T. Burton, 421-449. State College,

PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Goodman, R. 1980. Taoism and ecology. Environmental Ethics 2(1):73-80.
102

Gordon, G. 1971. Persuasion: The Theory and Practice of Manipulative

Communication. New York, NY: Hastings House.

Gramann, J., M. Floyd, and R. Saenz. 1993. Outdoor recreation and Mexican

American ethnicity: A benefits perspective. In Culture, Conflict, and

Communication in the Wildland-Urban Interface, eds. A. Ewert, D.

Chavez, and A. Magill, 69-84. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Gramann, J., S. Shaull, and R. Saenz. 1995. Cultural assimilation and the

importance of family-related and nature-related recreation experiences

among Hispanic Americans in California. Paper presented at the Symposium on Leisure Research, October, San Antonio, Texas.

Greene, T. 1996. Cognition and the management of place. In Nature and the

Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Ethic, eds. B.

Driver, D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner and G. Peterson, 301-310. State

College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Griffiths, M. 1988. Strong feelings about computers. Women’s Studies International Forum 11(2):145-154.

Griggs, S. 1983. Orienting visitors with a thematic display. International Journal

of Museum Management and Curatorship 2:119-134.

Gudykunst, W., and Y. Kim. 1984. Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York, NY: Random House.

Hagino, G., M. Mochizuki, and T. Yamamoto. 1987. Environmental psychology

in Japan. In Handbook of Environmental Psychology, eds. D. Stokols and I.

Altman, 2:1155-1170. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Hajime, N. 1967. Basic features of the legal, political and economic thought of

Japan. In The Japanese Mind: Essentials of Japanese Philosophy and

Culture, ed. C. Moore. Honolulu, HI: East-West Center Press.

Ham, S. 1983. Cognitive psychology and interpretation: Synthesis and application. Journal of Interpretation 8(1):11-25.

Ham, S. 1986. Social program evaluation and interpretation: A literature

review. In Interpretive Views, ed. G. Machlis, 9-38. Washington, D.C.:

National Parks and Conservation Association.

Ham, S., and E. Krumpe. 1996. Identifying audiences and messages for

nonformal environmental education-a theoretical framework for interpreters. Journal of Interpretation Research 1(1):11-23.

Hamilton, E., and G. Robb. 1994. Access Indiana: Integration Through

Recreation Model. Report. Martinsville, IN: National Center on Accessibility.
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 103

Hawkins, J. 1985. Computers and girls: Rethinking the issue. Sex Roles 13(3-

4):165-180.

Hayward, G., and M. Brydon-Miller. 1984. Spatial and conceptual aspects of

orientation: Visitor experiences at an outdoor history museum. Journal of

Environmental Systems 13(4):317-322.

Heim, M. 1995. The design of virtual reality. In Cyberspace, Cyberbodies,

Cyberpunk: Cultures of Technological Embodiment, eds. M. Featherstone

and R. Burrows, 65-77. London, England: Sage Publications Limited.

Henderson, K. 1993. A feminist analysis of selected professional recreation

literature about girls/women from 1907-1990. Journal of Leisure Research

25(2):165-181.

Henderson, K. 1996. Feminist perspectives, female ways of being, and nature.

In Nature and the human spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management

Ethic, eds. B. Driver, D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner and G. Peterson, 154-

162. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Herbert, M. 1981. The water pushes it and the wheel turns it. Curator 24:5-18.

Hershey, M., and D. Hill. 1978. Is pollution ‘A white thing’? Racial differences

in preadults’ attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 41(4):439-458.

Hideki, Y. 1967. Modern trend of Western civilization and cultural peculiarities

in Japan. In The Japanese mind: Essentials of Japanese Philosophy and

Culture, ed. C. Moore. Honolulu, HI: East-West Center Press.

Hilbruner, R., and G. Haas. 1982. Final Report Evaluation of the TouchSensitive Computer System rfp r2-10-81-78. Fort Collins: Colorado State

University.

Hilke, D., E. Hennigs, and M. Springuel. 1988. The impact of interactive

comupter software on visitors’ experiences: A case study. ILVS Review

1(1):34-49.

Hollender, J. 1977. Motivational dimensions of the camping experience. Journal

of Leisure Research 9:133-141.

Hood, M. 1993. The African-American museum visitor: Who comes, who does

not come, and why?: The art museum visitor and non-visitor. Visitor

Behavior 8(2):5-10.

Hovland, C., I. Janis, and H. Kelley. 1953. Communication and Persuasion.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
104

Howard, D., and J. Crompton. 1984. Who are the consumers of public park

and recreation services? Journal of Park and Recreation Administration

2:33-48.

Hutchison, R. 1988. A critique of race, ethnicity, and social class in recent

leisure-recreation research. Journal of Leisure Research 20(1):10-30.

Hutchison, R., and K. Fidel. 1984. Mexican-American recreation activities: A

reply to McMillen. Journal of Leisure Research 16:344-349.

Igbaria, M., and S. Parasuraman. 1989. A path analytic study of individual

characteristics, computer anxiety and attitudes toward microcomputers.

Journal of Management 15(3):373-388.

Igbaria, M., S. Schiffman, and T. Wieckowski. 1994. The respective roles of

perceived usefulness and perceived fun in the acceptance of microcomputer

technology. Behaviour and Information Technology 13(6):349-361.

Iser, W. 1978. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ittelson, W., H. Proshansky, L. Rivlin, and G. Winkel, G. 1974. An Introduction

to Environmental Psychology. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,

Inc.

Jackson, E. 1983. Activity specific barriers to recreation participation. Leisure

Sciences 6:47-60.

Jackson, E., and M. Searle. 1983. Recreation non-participation: Variables

related to the desire for new recreational activities. Recreation Research

Review 10(2):5-12.

James, K. 1993. Enhancing the perceived self-relevance of technology to

influence attitudes and information retention. Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science 29(1):56-75.

Johnson, D., and S. Swisher. 1991. An Evaluation of the Attitudes of National

Park Service Field Personnel Toward the Harpers Ferry Center.

Subagreement No. 11. NPS CPSU University of Washington.

Kaplan, R., and J. Talbot. 1988. Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: A

review and recent findings. Landscape and Urban Planning 15:107-117.

Kellert, S. 1984. Urban perceptions of animals and the natural environment.

Urban Ecology 8:220.

Kellert, S., and J. Berry. 1981. Knowledge, Affection and Basic Attitudes

Toward Animals in American Society: Phase III. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, #024-010-100-625-1.
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 105

Kelly, J. 1980. Outdoor recreation participation: A comparative analysis.

Leisure Sciences 3(2):129-154.

Kindlon, A., A. Pekarik, and Z. Doering. 1996. Visitors to History: A Report

Based on the 1994-95 National Museum of American History Visitor Study.

Washington, D.C.: Institutional Studies Office, Smithsonian Institution.

King, R. 1991. Caring about nature: Feminist ethics and the environment.

Hypatia 6(1):75-89.

King, G., R. Keohane and S. Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific

Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Kinnear, A. 1995. Introduction of microcomputers: A case study of patterns of

use and children’s perceptions. Journal of Educational Computing Research

13(1):27-40.

Klein, H. 1993. Tracking visitor circulation in museum settings. Environment

and Behavior 25(6):782-800.

Knez, E., and A. Wright. 1970. The museum as a communications system: An

assessment of Cameron’s viewpoint. Curator 13(3):204-212.

Knudson, D., T. Cable, and L. Beck. 1995. Interpretation of Cultural and

Natural Resources. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Kohl, J., and M. Harman. 1987. Attitudes of secondary school students toward

computers, access and usage: Do gender and socioeconomic status make a

difference? American Sociological Association paper.

Koran, J., and M. Koran. 1986. A proposed framework for exploring museum

education research. The Journal of Museum Education: Roundtable Reports

11(1):12-16.

Koran, J., M. Koran, and S. Longino. 1986. The relationship of age, sex,

attention and holding power with two types of science exhibits. Curator

29:227-235.

Korn, R. 1988. Self-guiding brochures: An evaluation. Curator 31(1):9-19.

Korn, R. 1995. An analysis of differences between visitors at natural history

museums and science centers. Curator 38(3):15-160.

Kreeger, J. 1973. Ecology and black student opinion. The Journal of Environmental Education 4(1):31.

Krendl, K., M. Broihier, and C. Fleetwood. 1989. Children and computers: Do

sex-related differences persist? Journal of Communication 39(3):85-93.
106

Laidlaw, R. 1991. A Native American concept of land ethics. Trends 28(3):12-14.

Lais, G., L. McAvoy, and L. Fredrickson. 1992. Wilderness Accessibility for

People With Disabilities: A report to the President and the Congress of the

United States on Section 507 (a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Washington, D.C.: National Council on Disability.

Langer, E. 1989. Minding matter: The consequences of mindlessness/mindfulness. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. L. Berkowitz, 50-

89. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Lankford, S. 1995. Colonial Williamsburg foundation orientation study I:

Assisting the visitors’ geographical orientation. Visitor Behavior 10(2):15.

Lasswell, H. 1948. The structure and function of communication in society. In

The Communication of Ideas: A Series of Addresses, ed. L. Bryson, 37-51.

New York, NY: Harper and Brothers.

Leippe, M., and R. Eikin. 1987. When motives clash: Issue involvement and

response involvement as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology 52:280-287.

Leitman, R., E. Cooner, P. Risher. 1994. N.O.D./Harris Survey of People With

Disabilities. New York, NY: Louis Harris and Associates, Inc.

Leutner, D., and P. Weinsier. 1994. Attitudes towards computers and information technology at three universities in Germany, Belgium, and the U.S.

Computers in Human Behavior 10(4):569-591.

Littlejohn, M. 1995. San Juan Island National Historical Park Visitor Study.

Report 70. National Park Service Visitor Services Project.

Littlejohn, M. 1997. Everglades National Park Visitor Study: Spring 1996.

Report 84. National Park Service Visitor Services Project.

Lowery, S., and M. DeFleur. 1983. Milestones in Mass Communication

Research: Media Effects. New York, NY: Longman.

Machlis, G. Ed.. 1986. Interpretive Views. Washington, D.C.: National Parks

and Conservation Association.

Machlis, G. 1989. Managing parks as human ecosystems. In Public Places and

Spaces, Human Behavior and Environment, eds. I. Altman and E. Zube,

10:255-275. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Machlis, G., and D. Field. Eds. 1994. On Interpretation: Sociology for Interpreters of Natural and Cultural History. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University Press.
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 107

Machlis, G., and N. Medlin. 1995. Serving the Visitor: 1995. A report on

customers of the National Park Service. The National Park Service Visitor

Services Project.

Machlis, G., M. Littlejohn, and G. Gill. 1996. Serving the Visitor: 1996. A

report on customers of the National Park Service. The National Park Service

Visitor Services Project.

Makrakis, V. 1992. Cross-cultural comparison of gender differences in attitude

towards computers in Japan and Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 36(4):275-287.

Market Opinion Research. 1986. Participation in Outdoor Recreation Among

American Adults and the Motivations which Drive Participation. Washington, D.C.: Market Opinion Research.

Marquie, J., B. Thon, and B. Baracat. 1994. Age influence on attitudes of office

workers faced with new computerized technologies: A questionnaire

analysis. Applied Ergonomics 25(3):130-142.

Massoud, S. 1991. Computer attitudes and computer knowledge of adult

students. Journal of Educational Computing Research 7(3):269-291.

McAvoy, L., and G. Lais. 1996. Hard-to-define values and persons with

disabilities. In Nature and the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land

Management Ethic, eds. B. Driver, D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner and G.

Peterson, 351-365. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

McGuire, F. 1985. Constraints in later life. In Constraints on Leisure, ed. M.

Wade. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

McGuire, F., J. O’Leary, and F. Dottavio. 1989. The importance of selected

facilities, programs, and services to older visitors to National Parks. Journal

of Park and Recreation Administration 7(3):1-9.

McMillen, J. 1983. The social organization of leisure among Mexican-Americans. Journal of Leisure Research 15:164-173.

Meeker, J. 1973. Red, white, and black in national parks. North American

Review 3-7.

Melton, A.W. 1933. Studies of installation at the Pennsylvania museum of art.

Museum News 10(15):5-8.

Melton, A.W. 1972. Visitor behavior in museums: Some early research in

environmental design. Human Factors 14(5):393-403.
108

Miller, G. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on

our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(2):81-97.

Miller, W. 1982. Evaluation of the Touch-Sensitive Information System at

Denver Stapleton Airport. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University.

Mills, A. 1985. Participation motivations for outdoor recreation: A test of

Maslow’s theory. Journal of Leisure Research 16:338-343.

Mitten, D., and R. Dutton. 1993. Outdoor leadership considerations with

women survivors of sexual abuse. Journal of Experiential Education 16(1):7-13.

Mullins, G. 1980. Participation and non-participation in interpretive events. In

Proceedings of the 1980 Association of Interpretive Naturalists Annual

Workshop, 199-203. October, Cape Cod, MA.

Mullins, G., and J. Hanna. 1981. Participation in interpretive activity subgroups. Journal of Interpretation 6(1):25-31.

Morris, J. 1994. Computer training needs of older adults. Educational Gerontology 20(6):541-555.

Morrissey, K. 1991. Visitor behavior and interactive video. Curator 34(2):109-

118.

Nash, R. 1982. Wilderness and the American Mind, 3rd ed. New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press.

National Endowment for the Arts. 1992. Arts Participation in America: 1982-

1992. Report 27. Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts.

National Park Service. 1963. Organization Study. Washington, D.C.: Department of Interior.

National Park Service. 1969. Memo from George Hartzog dated September 18.

Washington, D.C.: Department of Interior.

National Park Service. 1970. Role and Function Statements for Harpers Ferry

Center. Washington, D.C.: Department of Interior.

National Park Service. 1972. Activity Standards. Washington, D.C.: Department

of Interior.

National Park Service. 1976. Memo regarding Harpers Ferry Center dated

August 2. Washington, D.C.: Department of Interior.

National Park Service. 1985. Harpers Ferry Center as seen by interpreters,

superintendents, and regional chiefs of interpretation. Washington, D.C.:

Department of Interior.
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 109

National Park Service. 1986a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Lake

Mead National Recreation Area. Washington, D.C.: Department of Interior.

National Park Service. 1986b. NPS guideline number NPS-6. Publication

Number 717-585/01060. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

National Park Service. 1987a. Department of Interior Manual. 145 DM 7.2D.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Park Service. 1987b. Employee Questionnaire: Report of Results.

Harpers Ferry, WV: Harpers Ferry Center.

National Park Service. 1988. Management Policies. Publication Number

1992.331.357/70238. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Park Service. 1993a. General management plan, development plan

and interpretive prospectus for Rainbow Bridge National Monument.

Washington, D.C.: Department of Interior.

National Park Service. 1993b. National Parks for the 21st Century: The Vail

Agenda. Report D-726. Post Mills, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

National Park Service. 1994. Restructuring Plan for the National Park Service.

Publication Number 647-103/M7588. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

National Park Service. 1995. Statement for Interpretation for Everglades

National Park. Washington, D.C.: Department of Interior.

National Park Service. 1996a. Directory of HFC Products and Services.

Washington, D.C.: Department of Interior.

National Park Service. 1996b. Draft general management plan environmental

impact statement for Nez Perce National Historical Park and Big Hole

National Battlefield. Washington, D.C.: Department of Interior.

National Park Service. 1996c. Draft long range interpretive plan for Homestead

National Monument of America. Washington, D.C.: Department of Interior.

National Park Service. 1996d. General management plan for Adams National

Historic Site. Washington, D.C.: Department of Interior.

National Park Service. 1996e. National Park Service strategic plan final draft.

Washington, D.C.: Department of Interior.

National Park Service. 1996f. Usable Knowledge. Washington, D.C.: Department of Interior.
110

National Park Service. 1997. Frequently asked questions about the National

Park Service. Http://www.nps.gov/pub_aff/faqs.html.

National Parks and Conservation Association and Colorado State University.

1994. National Park Conditions: A Survey of Park Superintendents.

Washington, D.C. and Fort Collins, CO: National Parks and Conservation

Association and Colorado State University.

National Parks and Conservation Association and Colorado State University.

1995. National Public Opinion Survey on the National Park System.

Washington, D.C. and Fort Collins, CO: National Parks and Conservation

Association and Colorado State University.

Neuman, W. 1997. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches, 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Nielsen, C., and T. Buchanan. 1986. A comparison of the effectiveness of two

interpretive programs regarding fire ecology and fire management. Journal

of Interpretation 2(1):1-10.

Oliver, S., J. Roggenbuck, and A. Watson. 1985. Education to reduce impacts

in forest campgrounds. Journal of Forestry 83(4):234-236.

Olsen, E., M. Bowman, and R. Roth. 1984. Interpretation and nonformal

environmental education in natural resources management. Journal of

Environmental Education 15(4):6-10.

Parasuraman, A., V. Zeithaml, and L. Berry. 1988. SERVQUAL: A multiple

item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of

Retailing 68(1):12-40.

Patterson, M. 1996. Booker T. Washington National Monument Visitor Study:

Summer 1995. Report 81. National Park Service Visitor Services Project.

Payne, B., and D. Theo. 1976. Black foresters needed: A professional concern.

Journal of Forestry 69:297-298.

Pearce, P. 1988. The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist Settings.

New York, NY: Springer-Verlag Inc.

Pearce, P, and N. Black. 1984. Dimensions of national park maps: A psychological evaluation. Cartography 13(3):189-203.

Pearce, P., and G. Moscardo. 1985. Visitor evaluation: An appraisal of goals

and techniques. Evaluation Review 9(3):281-306.

Peart, B. 1984. Knowledge gain, attitudinal change and behaviors at a variety of

exhibit types. Curator 27(2).
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 111

People, Places and Design Research. 1990. Audience Research for the Minnesota History Center. Northampton, Massachusetts.

Pope-Davis, D., and J. Twing. 1991. The effects of age, gender, and experience

on measures of attitude regarding computers. Computers in Human

Behavior 7(4):333-339.

Redmond, L. 1996. Diverse Native American perspectives on the use of sacred

areas on public lands. In Nature and the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Ethic, eds. B. Driver, D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G.

Elsner and G. Peterson, 127-134. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Roberts, E. 1996. Place and spirit in public land management. In Nature and

the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management ethic, eds. B.

Driver, D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner and G. Peterson, 61-80. State College,

PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Roberts, N., and E. Drogin. 1993. The outdoor recreation experience: Factors

affecting participation of African American women. The Journal of Experiential Education 16(1):14-18.

Roberts, N., and E. Drogin,. 1996. Attitudes and experiences of women of

color in the outdoors. Paper presented at the National Recreation and Park

Association Leisure Research Symposium, October, Kansas City, Missouri.

Robinson, J., C. Keegan, M. Karth, and T. Triplett. 1986. Public Participation in

the Arts: Final Report on the 1985 Survey, Volume 1 Overall Project Report.

Washington, D.C.: Prepared for National Endowment for the Arts.

Rocheleau, B. 1995. Computer use by school-age children: Trends, patterns,

and predictors. Journal of Educational Computing Research 12(1):1-17.

Rodin, J. 1985. The application of social pscyhology. In Handbook of Social

Psychology, eds. G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, 805-82. New York, NY:

Random House.

Rogers, E. 1983. Diffusion of innovations 3rd edition. New York, NY: Free

Press.

Roggenbuck, J., and D. Berrier. 1982. A comparison of the effectiveness of two

communications strategies in dispersing wilderness campers. Journal of

Leisure Research 14(1):77-89.

Roggenbuck, J., and D. Propst. 1981. Evaluation of interpretation. Journal of

Interpretation 6(1):13-23.
112

Roggenbuck, J., W. Hammitt, and D. Berrier. 1982. The role of interpretation in

managing for recreational carrying capacity. Journal of Interpretation

7(1):7-20.

Romsa, G., and W. Hoffman. 1980. An application of non-participation data in

recreation research: Testing the opportunity theory. Journal of Leisure

Research 12:321-328.

Rosenfeld, S., and A. Terkel. 1982. A naturalistic study of visitors at an

interactive mini-zoo. Curator 25:187-213.

Salleh, A. 1984. Deeper than deep ecology: The ecofeminist connection.

Environmental Ethics 6:339-345.

Samover, L., R. Porter, and N. Jain. 1981. Understanding intercultural communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Sarbaugh, L. 1979. Intercultural Communication. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden

Book Co.

Schroeder, H. 1991. Preference and meaning of arboretum landscapes:

Combining quantitative and qualitative data. Journal of Environmental

Psychology 11:231-248.

Scott, W. 1987. Organizations - Rational, Natural, and Open Systems.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Screven, C. 1976. Exhibit evaluation: A goal-referenced approach. Curator

19(4):271-290.

Screven, C. 1986. Educational exhibits: Some areas for controlled research.

The Journal of Museum Education. Roundtable Reports 11(1):7-11.

Searle, M., and E. Jackson. 1985. Recreation non-participation and barriers to

participation: Considerations for the management of recreation delivery

systems. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 3:23-36.

Sensales, G., and P. Greenfield. 1995. Attitudes toward computers, science, and

technology: A cross-cultural comparison between students in Rome and Los

Angeles. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 26(3):229-242.

Serrell, B. 1977. Visitor observation studies at the John G. Shedd Aquarium.

Master’s thesis, Governors State University.

Shaner, D., and Duvall, R. 1989. Conversation ethics and the Japanese

intellectual tradition. Environmental Ethics 11(4):197-214.

Sharpe, G. Ed. 1976. Interpreting the Environment. New York, NY: John Wiley

and Sons, Inc.
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 113

Sharpe, G., and Sharpe, W. 1986. Evaluating the role of interpretation. In

Interpretive Views, ed. G. Machlis, 95-97. Washington, D.C.: National Parks

and Conservation Association.

Shashaani, L. 1994. Gender differences in computer experiences and its

influence on computer attitudes. Journal of Educational Computing Research 11(4):347-367.

Shettel, H. 1973. Exhibits: Art form or educational medium? Museum News

52:33-41.

Shettel, H. 1992. Front-end evaluation: Another useful tool. ILVS Review

2(2):275-280.

Shettel-Neuber, J., and J. O’Reilly. 1981. Now Where? A Study of Visitor

Orientation and Circulation at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum.

Technical Report No. 87-25. Jacksonville, AL: Jacksonville State University.

Silverman, L. 1988. Toward “The Hall of History”: A Survey of Visitors’

Backgrounds, Interests, and Opinions Regarding Current and Future

Exhibits. Harrisburg, PA: State Museum of Pennsylvania.

Silverman, L. 1992. The pilot study report: People and the past. Mosaic 1(2-

3):2-5, 12.

Silverman, L. 1995. Visitor meaning-making in museums for a new age.

Curator 38(3):161-170.

Simcox, D. 1991. Land ethics: Philosophical background and cultural variations. Trends 28(3):15-20.

Simcox, D., and R. Pfister. 1990. Hispanic Values and Behaviors Related to

Outdoor Recreation and the Forest Environment. Technical Research

Report.

Singer, M. 1987. Intercultural Communication: A Perceptual Approach.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Smith, M. 1982. Persuasion and Human Action: A review and Critique of

Social Influence Theories. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Smither, J., and C. Braun. 1994. Technology and older adults: Factors affecting

the adoption of automatic teller machines. Journal of General Psychology

121(4):381-389.

Sneider, C., L. Eason, and A. Friedman. 1979. Summative evaluation of a

participatory science exhibit. Science Education 63(1):25-36.
114

Stamps, S., Jr., and M. Stamps. 1985. Race, class, and leisure activities of urban

residents. Journal of Leisure Research 17:40-56.

Steuer, J. 1992. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence.

Journal of Communication 42(4):73-93.

Takeyoshi, K. 1967. The status of the individual in the notion of law, right and

social order in Japan. In The Japanese Mind: Essentials of Japanese Philosophy and Culture, ed. C. Moore. Honolulu, HI: East-West Center Press.

Talbot, J., R. Kaplan, R. Kuo, and S. Kaplan. 1993. Factors that enhance

effectiveness of visitor maps. Environment and Behavior 25(3):743-760.

Taviss, I. 1972. A survey of popular attitudes toward technology. Technology

and Culture 13(4):606-621.

Tierney, P., R. Dahl, and D. Chavez. 1996. Cultural diversity in use of undeveloped natural areas. Paper presented at Leisure Research Symposium,

October.

Tilden, F. 1957. Interpreting our Heritage. Chapel Hill, NC: University of

North Carolina Press.

Tinsley, H., and D. Tinsley. 1986. A theory of the attributes, benefits, and

causes of leisure experience. Leisure Sciences 8(1):1-45.

Trachtman, L., M. Spirek, G. Sparks, and C. Stohl. 1991. Factors affecting the

adoption of a new technology. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society

11(6):338-345.

Turkovic, V. 1996. The significance of visualization of environmental issues.

Socijalna Ekologija 5(2):243-254.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1995. Population Profile of the United States: 1995,

Current Population Reports, Series P23-189. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division. 1997. United States Population

Estimates, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, 1990 to 1996, Publication number PPL-57. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Van Rennes, E. 1978. Educational techniques in a science museum. Curator

21:289-302.

Vander Stoep, G., and J. Grammann. 1987. The effect of verbal appeals and

incentives on depreciative behavior among youthful park visitors. Journal of

Leisure Research 19(2):69-83.
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 115

Visitor Services Project. 1996. Visitor Services Project Database User’s Guide.

Moscow, ID: University of Idaho.

Wagar, J. 1972. The Recording Quizboard: A Device for Evaluating Interpretive Services. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Range and Experiment

Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Wagar, J. 1976. Evaluating the effectiveness of interpretation. Journal of

Interpretation 1(1):3-10.

Wagner, F., and T. Donahue. 1976. The impact of inflation and recession on

urban leisure in New Orleans. Journal of Leisure Research 8(4):300-306.

Wall, C. 1996. Chiricahua National Monument Visitor Study: Spring 1996.

Report 85. National Park Service Visitor Services Project.

Wallace, M. 1985. Mickey Mouse history: Portraying the past at Disney World.

Radical History Review 32:33-57.

Washburne, R. 1978. Black underparticipation in wildland recreation: Alternative explanations. Leisure Sciences 1:175-189.

Washburne, R., and P. Wall. 1979. Cities, wild areas, and black leisure: In

search of explanations for Black/White differences in outdoor recreation.

Unpublished paper. Intermountain Forest and Range Station Experiment

Station, U.S. Forest Service, Missoula, Montana.

Weil, M., and L. Rosen. 1995. The psychological impact of technology from a

global perspective: A study of technological sophistication and

technophobia in university students from twenty-three countries. Computers

in Human Behavior 11(1):95-133.

West, P. 1989. Urban region parks and black minorities: Subculture, marginality, and interracial relations in park use in the Detroit metropolitan area.

Leisure Sciences 11(1):11-28.

Wilder, G., D. Mackie, and J. Cooper. 1985. Gender and computers: Two

surveys of computer related attitudes. Sex Roles 13(3-4):215-228.

Williams, D., M. Patterson, J. Roggenbuck, and A. Watson. 1992. Beyond the

commodity metaphor: Examining emotional symbolic attachment to place.

Leisure Sciences 14(1):29-46.

Williams, D., R. Schreyer, and R. Knopf. 1990. The effect of the experience use

history on the multidimenshional structure of motivations to participate in

leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research 22:36-54.
116

Witt, P., and T. Goodale. 1981. The relationship between barriers to leisure

enjoyment and family stages. Leisure Sciences 4:29-49.

Wolff, J. 1984. The Social Production of Art. New York, NY: New York

University Press.

Woodard, M. 1988. Class, regionality, and leisure among urban black Americans: The post-civil rights era. Journal of Leisure Research 20(2):87-105.

Worts, D. 1990. The computer as catalyst: Experiences at the Art Gallery of

Ontario. ILVS Review 1(2):91-108.

Wright, P., G. Mullins, and M. Watson. 1991. The Public Area Recreation

Visitor Study and the National Park System: Interpretive participation at

National Park Service Sites. Columbus, OH and Washington, D.C.: The

Ohio State University and the National Park Service.

Yancey, W., and J. Snell. 1971. Parks as aspects of leisure in the inner city: An

exploratory investigation. Paper presented at the meeting of the American

Association for the Advancement of Science, Philadelphia.

Zaidi, I. 1981. On the ethics of man’s interaction with the environment: An

Islamic approach. Environmental Ethics 3(1):35-47.

Zales, W. 1985. Communication With Visitors Center Users: Applications of a

touch-sensitive computer system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. State

College, PA: Pennsylvania State University.

Zimmerman, L. 1996. Knowledge, affect, and the environment: 15 years of

research: 1979-1993. The Journal of Environmental Education 27(3):41-44.

Zube, E., J. Crystal, and J. Palmer. 1978. National park visitors centres. In

Environmental Design Evaluation, eds. A. Friedmann, C. Zimring, and E.

Zube. New York, NY: Plenum.

Zuefle, D. 1997. Taking Tilden seriously: On the differences between interpretation and environmental education. Legacy 8(1):5-6.
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 117

Appendix II. Nominal Group Workshop Results

Two nominal group workshops were conducted to obtain input

from HFC employees and clients about social science research

needs for the HFC. The nominal group process resulted in the

selection and ranking of 7-8 top research questions for each

workshop. The purpose of this appendix is to present all of the

social science research questions that were generated at these

workshops.

Workshop participants identified many important social science

research questions. Some questions were mentioned in both

workshops. The following lists include all questions raised at the

workshops. In some cases, they have been edited for conciseness.

Harpers Ferry Center Employee Nominal

Group Workshop

Friday, 15 November 1996

1. Who is giving HFC the most feedback about its services?

2. What proportion of the visitor population uses each of the different media?

3. What’s the most important thing or idea that visitors want to take away?

4. Does park staff review of HFC products accurately reflect visitor views?

5. Do HFC interpretation products lessen the negative impacts of visitors on

resources?

6. What are the goals of visitors vis-a-vis interpretation at pre-visit, during a

visit, and post-visit?

7. What is the average age of park visitors?

8. What is the most effective media to reach HFC customers?

9. Who are the HFC and NPS customers?

10. How much do visitors enjoy interacting with original objects verses

different media, and do they prefer one over the other?

11. What do NPS managers want from HFC, and what is most important to

them?

12. Are HFC products effectively communicating safety information (and

perhaps additional visitor information)?
118

13. Are the staff talents at HFC most appropriately and effectively being

utilized?

14. What do international visitors want, and how can NPS better provide it?

15. Which media are most appropriate for reaching populations not yet

reached?

16. Do visitors perceive an effective relationship between indoor media and its

contents, and park resources?

17. Do HFC products have a differential impact upon various audiences? (e.g.,

rural vs. urban, historical vs. national)

18. What methods can HFC use to get effective feedback from its direct

customers (e.g., superintendents)?

19. Do HFC products successfully link the individual park site to the wider

world and visitors’ individual lives?

20. Do HFC products provoke continued learning and/or behavioral change

among visitors?

21. What’s the most appropriate mix of HFC media? Does this mix vary by

kind of site and location?

22. To what extent should HFC products address cognitive learners and/or

intuitive learners?

23. Is the NPS ready to explore using virtual reality technology in order to

control impact on resources?

24. Are HFC products worth the financial cost?

25. To what degree do NPS managers know what HFC products and services

are available them, and how to access them?

26. What does HFC need to do to maintain its leadership internationally

(philosophical, technical innovations) in interpretive media development?

27. What are the educational levels of visitors that use HFC products (by

media)?

28. Does the location of HFC affect frequency of NPS requests for service?

29. How have fees altered visitor profiles, and is there an impact upon HFC?

30. What specific techniques can HFC use to ensure “Tildensque”

interpretation?
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 119

31. To what extent do HFC media effectively fulfill interpretative media

planning goals?

32. Do NPS sites consider HFC an expensive middle person, or an important

link to acquiring quality products?

33. Given new options in place, how inclined are parks to come to HFC for

service?

34. Are some media more effective than others in communicating interpretive

messages (in general, as well as specific sense)?

35. To what extent are resource changes understood as interpretive messages

by a broad range of HFC customers (NPS managers, visitors, etc.)?

36. To what degree do customers (direct and indirect) recognize the quality

and value of HFC products?

37. Are visitors’ values affected by HFC interpretation?

38. Are the pedagogical techniques used in HFC interpretation effective?

39. What is the demographic profile of NPS visitors?

40. What is the public’s perception of the NPS mission, and how can HFC

contribute its communication?

41. How can the HFC develop innovative media to research new audiences?

42. How much is the HFC seen as a leader among NPS managers in the

delivery of services?

43. How would college recreation students improve media in the National

Parks?

44. How best can HFC present rapidly changing information?

45. How do visitors compare visitor center experiences with urban museum

experiences?

46. How computer-literate is the American people, what access do they have

to computers, and what are the implications for HFC?

47. Where and how should visitor orientation and interpretation overlap?

48. How do direct customers rate HFC products and services, will they

continue use HFC services, and why?

49. What specific techniques can HFC use to raise awareness of the HFC

among direct customers?

50. Do visiting parents want to see more children’s interpretation?
120

National Park Service Interpretive Personnel Nominal Group Workshop

Monday, 3 March 1997

1. How can HFC best evaluate visitor reactions (outcomes) to interpretive

media?

2. What can HFC do to influence interpretive media with respect to critical

resource issues?

3. How do changing demographics (ethnicity) affect how people view

resources?

4. What’s the time line for the production of a new park brochure?

5. What role should the public have in interpretive planning?

6. Why do so many visitors avoid NPS interpretive media?

7. Do visitors find meanings in interpretive media, and what kinds of

meanings do they find?

8. What types of products and services demonstrate “timelessness” to a wide

audience?

9. Is there accountability to bring HFC projects to completion?

10. What level of influence does the location of a park play in planning?

11. Do visitors get a standardized cookie-cutter (“McDonalds”) feeling from

their experience in National Parks? Is that good or bad?

12. How are changing recreation practices influencing land conservation?

13. How does HFC design products to bring messages to the widest range of

visitor motivations?

14. How has change in family structure influenced park use/activities?

15. What is the impact of user fees on the type of visitors?

16. How can HFC take leadership in presenting controversial public history

issues?

17. How can we better understand the meanings and values of National Parks

held by the public?

18. How are we keeping pace with computer technology in exhibits?

19. How does peoples’ experience with computers influence their experience

with traditional exhibits?
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 121

20. Who/what determines the priority for HFC jobs?

21. How can HFC help parks reach people who don’t visit the parks?

22. How does media contribute/detract from visitor experiences?

23. How does the HFC/contractor/client relationship affect the interpretive

product?

24. What target audiences need to be reached for specific critical resource

topics, how?

25. How do various visitors learn most efficiently?

26. How much do elected officials affect the priority setting of HFC projects?

27. How do economic partnerships in parks affect the content of interpretive

media?

28. How effective are HFC media in meeting their stated outcomes?

29. What values and expectations do young adults perceive in parks and

resources?

30. How do society’s ills affect visitor experiences?

31. How can HFC include regional cultural differences in their exhibits?

32. How can HFC gain balanced input from audience, clients, and resource

personnel to design more successful visitor experiences?

33. Does park vandalism vary relative to part of the country or type of park

location (city, rural, etc.)?

34. How many visitors, and who, are not satisfied with the depth and sophistication of interpretive media?

35. What can we do to better reach hostile audiences (e.g., given controversial

issues like acid rain)?

36. How can HFC affect the behavior of park staff in producing their own

media?

37. How can interpretive media be judged accurately?

38. Why are visitors so attached to the full color brochure?

39. How does reorganization affect the ability of HFC to accomplish its

mission?

40. How do entry experiences of facilities influence visitor perceptions and

expectations of a park and resources?
122

41. Is HFC setting realistic work goals given their staff/work loads?

42. How does people’s view of federal land ownership affect their visitor

experience?

43. What visitor groups do not feel invited to our parks?

44. What factors motivate a spontaneous decision to visit a park?

45. How are parks prepared for changing age demographics?

Appendix III. Telephone Interview Participants

A tour of the HFC and discussions with HFC staff at the start of

this project revealed five major categories of HFC clients,

namely 1) chiefs of interpretation, 2) park superintendents, 3)

Denver Service Center personnel, 4) contractors, and 5) technical assistance requests. To obtain input from each of these

groups, a set of fifteen representative clients from diverse geographic locations and sites were interviewed by telephone. The

purpose of this appendix is present the names and affiliations of

the fifteen telephone interview participants. Interviewees’ names

are presented in alphabetical order within each category.

Park Chiefs of Interpretation:

Stephanie Dubois

Chief of Interpretation

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Arizona

Neal DeJong

Chief of Interpretation

Everglades National Park, Florida

Carolyn Keinath

Chief of Interpretation

Adams National Historic Site, Massachusetts

Jim Mack

Chief Park Interpreter

Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado

Kay Rhode

Chief of Interpretation

Lake Meade National Recreation Area, Nevada
A Social Science Plan for the Harpers Ferry Center 123

Park Superintendents:

Beverly Albrecht

Superintendent

Homestead National Monument of America, Nebraska

John Debo

Superintendent

Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, Ohio

Frank Walker

Superintendent

Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho

Denver Service Center Personnel:

Billy Garrett

Chief of Architecture

Denver Service Center, Colorado

Marilyn Hof

Planner

Denver Service Center, Colorado

Sam Vaughn

Lead Interpretive Planner

Denver Service Center, Colorado

Contractors:

Jack Biesiek

Principal

Biesiek Design Associates, California

Bruce Geyman

Dearborn, Geyman and Company, Virginia

Technical Assistance Requests:

Doris Hamburg

Senior Conservator

Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Ann Poulos

Curator/Collections Manager

Tempe Historical Museum, Arizona