Interpretation in Tourism Literature
Although many definitions of
have beenproposed in the tourism literature, no single definition hasbeen universally accepted. A review of the literature sug-gests that interpretation can be defined as the transmissionof information from the presenter to the viewer in anattempt to educate the latter. Referring to heritage settings,Howard (2003, p. 244) argues that interpretation “covers thevarious means of communicating heritage to people.”Focusing on tour guides, Cohen (1985) differentiatesbetween information and interpretation. Alderson andLow’s (1976) definition is of importance as it emphasizesthe role of management in the provision of interpretation.They defined interpretation as a “planned effort to create forthe visitor an understanding of the history and significanceof events, people, and objects” (p. 3). The use of the words
is noteworthy, as it recognizes that thereare different heritages “out there” in the public arena andthat management of heritage sites decides what to present.Studies dealing with on-site presentation and interpretationoften reveal that the information presented is not the truth,challenging the possibility that objective reality exists(Reisinger and Steiner 2006). The differences between the“real thing” and the presentation are the result of two mainfactors. The first is the fact that the display justifies and val-idates the version of history as seen by those in power ignor-ing other versions, an idea derived from a feminist researchperspective (e.g., Hall 1994; Poria 2007). This research per-spective has an effect on tourism research in general andrecognizes the need to provide those without power theopportunity to influence heritage presentations (e.g.,Pritchard and Morgan 2001; Pritchard et al. 2007). The sec-ond factor refers to managerial considerations arising fromthe need to attract visitors and raise revenues. However, thisfactor is often ignored. A possible reason could be itsincompatibility with often-cited theories that overestimatethe role of “power” in heritage presentation and ignore therole of heritage tourist attractions as a source of income.Heritage settings must compete with other tourist attrac-tions and be profitable. In line with the above, they areforced to present the past as an interesting and appealing“show,” thus introducing modifications and manipulations,distancing the presentation from the “real thing” (i.e., pre-vailing historical facts). This happens, for example, whentour guides at heritage setting manipulate the narrative tosuit the specific audience. Studies suggest that narrativemanipulations are geared to increase tips, increase returncustomers, and enlarge customers’market share potential(e.g., Guter and Feldman 2006).Similar to general tourism studies, literature that cen-ters on interpretation also points to the difficulties in defin-ing interpretation. Beck and Cable (2002) argue thatinterpretation encompasses many possibilities in manydifferent places. Tilden (1977, p. 7) argues that a definitionof interpretation is either too inclusive or fails to empha-size that “which we believe is vital.” Instead, in Tilden’swords, “I am prepared to define the called Interpretation”as follows: “an educational activity which aims to revealmeanings and relationships through the use of originalobjects, by firsthand experience, and by illustrative media,rather than simply to communicate factual information”(pp. 7-8). Beck and Cable (2002) defined interpretation“as an informational and inspirational process designed toenhance understanding, appreciation, and protection of our cultural and natural legacy” (p. 1). Based on the above,and in line with conceptualizations from communicationtheories (Kotler 1984), the working definition of interpre-tation adopted in this study is the following:
Interpretationis the process of the transmission of knowledge, its diffu-sion, and its reception and perception by the individual.
This definition intentionally implies that interpreta-tion is a process that begins with the information chosento be presented by heritage site management (whether itis “real,” “objective,” “authentic” or not) and continuesthrough the visitor’s understanding and experience of theinterpretation. It is suggested that interpretation is not aone-sided effort but an outcome of an interactive process.In line with Reisinger and Steiner (2006), who adoptedHeidegger’s philosophy, the working definition recognizesthat visitors play both active and passive roles during theinterpretation experience.The above definition of interpretation includes elementsoften overlooked in the tourism literature, such as thenature of heritage, the nature of the visitor, and the poten-tial relationship between them. The fact that these elementsare ignored is revealed through a review of the literature(see Timothy and Boyd 2003) dealing with the objectivesof interpretation and ways of evaluating its quality. Bothresearchers and practitioners often perceive the objective of interpretation as educating the visitors, aiming at facilitat-ing an understanding of the importance of protection andconservation (Timothy and Boyd 2003). This line of thought is reflected in Tilden’s (1977, p. 38) statement:“Through interpretation, understanding; through under-standing, appreciation; through appreciation protection”Another example is Herbert’s (1989, p. 191) statement thatinterpretation should “make people more aware of theplaces they visit, to provide knowledge.” Infrequently,entertainment is mentioned as a means for endorsing learn-ing (Light 1995; Timothy and Boyd 2003). Moreover, theliterature that elaborates on the links between power and
Poria et al. / Visitors’Preferences for Interpretation93
at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on November 21, 2012 jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from