Enright’s Eight Principles

Nov 18, 2024

—

First: A definition of interpretive planning

Interpretive planning is the process of crafting exhibits, programs, and events that connect visitors to heritage sites, landscapes, stories, and collections. It is a creative process grounded in clearly defined goals, audience insights, and logistical realities. It’s a disciplined and intentional approach to designing memorable, meaningful visitor experiences.

Enright’s Eight Principles of Interpretive Planning

Interpretive planning is equal parts art and science.

Interpretive planning is a dynamic balance of creativity and analysis. It combines the artistry of storytelling with the scientific rigour needed to support long-term viability. This balance lets planners craft experiences that are compelling and effective.

Interpretive planning is scalable.

Interpretive planning techniques are versatile. Whether developing a small touch table for a local museum, a single amphitheatre program for a park, or a five-year master plan for a national park or zoo, the same interpretive planning processes can be applied and adapted to any project size.

Interpretive planning is evidence-based.

Decisions are guided by data, research, and visitor insights, ensuring experiences are grounded in reality and resonate with audiences. Evidence-based decision making avoids assumptions and focuses resources on what truly works.

Interpretive planning works within larger planning contexts.

Interpretive planning aligns with broader organizational and strategic goals. Interpretive plans are informed by and, in turn, support management plans, organizational strategies, destination marketing strategies, and other master planning processes, ensuring that interpretation enhances the overall mission and vision of the organization and community.

Interpretive planning is iterative and discovery-driven.

Interpretive planning is an evolving process that encourages discovery and refinement. New insights often lead back to earlier stages for adjustments, allowing for continuous improvement. This iterative approach helps create well-rounded, thoughtfully crafted, and responsive experiences.

Interpretive planning is sustainable and inclusive.

Interpretive planning should meet the needs of local communities and the environment, supporting economic, social, and environmental sustainability. It actively engages communities through consultation at key phases, giving voice to under-represented people and stories. By fostering sustainability, we build a richer and more equitable connection between the audience and the heritage resource.

Interpretive planning is market-responsive.

Interpretation thrives when responsive to audience needs and interests. It acknowledges that what resonates with one audience may fall flat with another; that what was relevant ten years ago may no longer be viable. Instead of clinging to ideology or tradition, it focuses on what resonates with and transforms visitors.

Interpretive planning is actionable and practical.

Effective interpretive planning is grounded in what’s plausible, feasible, and testable. The interpretive planning process designs experiences that are affordable, technically appropriate, and well-suited to real-world conditions, such as climate, wear and tear, and staffing. It takes into account the availability of expertise, funding, and time, ensuring that each element of the plan is achievable within the given resources.

Hey does this kind of writing tickle your brain? Sign up for monthly goodness from donenright.com.

Wanna see what past newsletters look like? Clickity click.

Comments

One response to “Enright’s Eight Principles”

Bill Reynolds
December 19, 2024
Not going to argue with any of the eight -my comments are of the embellishing genre and I realize these are summaries and not meant to be exhaustive. I hope these thoughts aid in your eventual fleshing out of the principles.
Starting with the definition I believe there needs to be more emphasis on the designing of visitor experiences mentioned in your last sentence. I would add upfront that the planner must consider ( and be involved in) the complete visitor journey including the previsit and the post visit – not just exhibits, programs, and events but infrastructure elements, retail and food service. If the visitor is not welcomed and invited in then the stage is not set for interpretive engagement – this is a role for the planner – maybe call it visitor service integration. Happens not only in the parking lot, and along pathways but also should include the arrival stage while driving to the site and during the visitor’s anticipatory stage at home ie integrated with marketing messages.
Art and science YES:Science should relate both to visitor behavioural science and ecological/ archeological etc. science that describe the universal processes of life. Art should relate to appropriate design that connects to visitor creative right brain involvement as well as logical left brain needs.
Scalable yes.
Evidence- based yes and the key here is access to evaluation studies especially done in the formal education field, in museum visitor studies, in the service design field and in user experience design computer interface field.
IP informed by and supporting other plans- yes BUT this implies it comes later as an after thought. IP needs to be more on a give and take equal playing field allowing it to direct and influence other plans. I prefer the word co- align with other plans. Definitely re: management plans we should not say works within as it establishes subsidiary role. IP is the Rodney Dangerfield of planning- “I get no respect.”
Sustainable – loaded and diluted word. This point I find confusing. If the main point is about engaging communities then yes. The Explanation does not really address inclusivity as this involves many more levels and actually could connect better to first “principle “ about behaviourally setting the stage for all visitors.
Market responsive- yes but caution here that mission focus , outcome driven site messages still need to lead the charge. Heritage messages are universal stories and should stand the test of time. Yes the media approaches and communication delivery style need to be market responsive. Problem more inherent with a show and tell delivery.
Actionable goes without saying otherwise the plan is useless – maybe that is why so many sit on shelf?? What sort of guiding statements will make the plan actionable- ones that deal with cognitive, affective, physical and spiritual visitor outcomes as well as setting the design framework for their achievement, the visitor motivation, their effective organization, their reinforcement on site and their evaluation.
Reply