Jay Miller is President of the National Association for Interpretation (NAI). He worked 37 years with Arkansas State Parks, and was Chief of the Interpretation Division for 28 years. He has been involved with the NAI for over four decades. Jay is one of America’s leading experts on interpretation, and he advises and offers consulting for sites around the world. He is a frequent speaker at national workshops. Having been a leader in the field for nearly half a century, Jay has a unique pulse on the issues facing museums, nature centers, and interpretive sites today. Jay is a good friend to Taylor Studios, and he was generous enough to answer questions for this exclusive interview in The Field Journal.

Taylor Studios (TSI): Hello, President Miller – thank you so much for sharing your expertise and knowledge with our audience! Before we dig into questions about how small interpretive sites can survive in the 21st century, can you perhaps tell us a little about your background? Where did you study, what sparked your love of interpretation, and what are you working on currently?

Jay Miller (JM):  I did my graduate work at Utah State University and was lucky to have excellent, forward-thinking professors to guide me through a program focusing on interpretation and management of wildlands. That experience certainly shaped my life.

I think three earlier experiences also had an effect on me. As a kid my parents took me to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago where I stepped into a recreated 1890s city scene so large I could look into store windows, walk on brick streets, see gaslights, and be immersed in that innovative time period. I was fascinated, and that experience stuck with me. Later, I attended Saturday morning Jr. Ranger programs at Hot Springs National Park. In addition to the fun, I learned that this unique type of work was a possibility, though I had no idea what the job was or that there was a word for it: interpretation. Third, my father was an outdoors person. He introduced me to hunting, fishing, horses, boats, water, and travel, all laced with a simple skill: paying attention. As observers, we watched eagles, looked for pileated woodpeckers, he told me unusual common names and folklore, we talked about the beauty of parks, and just paid attention with awe and wonder to the world around us. That’s a skill we should cultivate in our visitors.

TSI: Do you have a favorite exhibit or interpretive program that you’ve either seen or worked on? What exhibit or program (anywhere, anytime) has made the greatest impression on you?

JM: I guess I’m still that child I mentioned above. I like immersive exhibits where I am in and surrounded by an experience and within that, ‘discover’ things along the way. “Stand and read” exhibits don’t work for me, but exhibits that ask me to take action can hold my attention. That can be simple action like sliders and lift panels and exhibits that ask a question and give me a way to discover the answer for myself. One of the best, but so simple was at Seneca State Park (NY?) where questions and multiple choice lift panels had everyone guessing and talking to find the answers. So simple, yet so effective that I’ve remembered it for 20+ years!

TSI: It is 2017. What are some of the biggest “pain points” facing America’s small nature centers and interpretive sites? What obstacles do they face?

JM: I think there are several challenges, and I don’t think they are unique to 2017; they have been with us always.

Defining the site’s ”human community” and finding new ways to reach out to all people in that community by removing physical and psychological barriers. We often have good numbers, visitation is fine and programs full, but we are preaching to the choir. There are people we are not reaching, people who are not visiting our site. Who are they and how do we help them feel welcome and comfortable at our table? How much time does your staff spend as an action group to discuss and address this?

Being relevant. I think our lack of relevance shows itself in the current assault on public lands, the lack of ‘belief’ or trust in good science, the unbridled desire to frack or drill every piece of open space, and the “monoculture’ of our audience. I think that we don’t ask the right questions about why we exist and what our most important messages are. Instead we keep ‘patting the bunny’ year after year and we have become a nice diversion rather than a life-changing experience. Funding, friends, members, etc., will follow when relevance increases. A few years ago we tried to address this issue during interpretive planning for the Little Rock Zoo. The themes developed connected the array of non-native animals and the often-unseen work of the zoo to the value of people visiting the zoo, then to how visitors to the zoo helped sustain wildlife populations worldwide. Can a simple afternoon at the zoo change the world? Our theme statements say yes.

Connecting to the giants of the past. It’s important to honor, and praise, great conservationists who have changed our lives and our landscapes. As interpreters and educators we do that on a personal and training level, but that important message rarely gets to the public. Therefore, there is little understanding or respect for our great environmental and historic preservation leaders and legislation. How can we craft messages and experiences that recognize the work, long and continuing battles, and successes that created the EPA, the clean air act, the clean water act, the Antiquities Act, the national parks, USFS, USFWS, Wilderness, and the very place where our visitors stand – our own site. Those stories are examples for action today and tomorrow, and those leaders are role models. Their stories need to be told; yet we continue to ‘pat the bunny’.

TSI: It seems that every day we read about a new museum pioneering virtual reality into their exhibits, or creating some new Disney-like high-tech exhibit, or spending millions of dollars on the latest and greatest screen-based multi-sensory experience. With big city museums using such state-of-the-art technology, is it necessary for small nature centers and interpretive sites to follow suit? Even if they struggle to afford it, should small sites try to go as “high-tech” as possible?

JM: My answer is no. It’s easy to become infatuated with technology, and we hear that Millennials relate through technology, so we have this technology culture coming at us and feel that we must react to it. But we also hear that what people, even Millennials, want is real reality. They want authentic places and authentic experiences. That authenticity can change people. It confirms that the world out there is real. Authenticity means exhibits that connect to outside experiences, real people who lead outside experiences, the opportunity to discover and improve your own abilities through camping, hiking, backpacking, canoeing, fishing, doing science, and standing where history happened; being able to engage with the world with confidence. Not only is this better than repeating existing technology, it make your place relevant, not redundant.

Where do exhibits fit within this philosophy of authentic experiences? They are the gateway, the threshold to the experience. Exhibits are the beginning point where salient storylines are introduced, where connections are made and concepts initiated. Exhibits do not stand alone (considering differences in sites), but should be designed as an important connection point that prepares the visitor for the true experience with the land or historic site. Reference the exhibits at Old Sturbridge Village, or my story about Parkin Archeological State Park, or the recently completed exhibits at Logoly State Park.

TSI: One “pain point” that small nature centers and interpretive sites will probably always face is funding. They simply do not have the number of funders that big city museums have, nor (typically) as wealthy of funders. How do small sites, often with these limited budgets, truly create engaging interpretive experiences? Is it possible? What are some strategies?

JM: We will always be in need of funds. Some is never enough. However, this is an issue of relevance, not fundraising. And it’s a process of building relevance, community awareness, appreciation, pride, and accomplishment. (Accomplishment – how do we measure!! Another time.) To paraphrase Frank Lloyd Wright: Funding follows relevance and accomplishment.

TSI: Another “pain point” is visitor growth. Many small interpretive sites throughout the country are finding their visitors aging and their visitorship is in decline. One way to grow visitorship is through offering engaging exhibits and/or programming. At the many nature centers and interpretive sites that you’ve worked with, what types of programs and exhibits have you found to be the most popular among visitors? Why?

JM: This is a product of community and relevance, noted above. Of course a great new exhibit, something with a huge “grabber” followed by a strong “teaser” will attract a crowd. That’s good. But the newness fades with time and we must ask the deeper question: Who is our audience and what are we doing for them today? I’m old and I’m easy – 8am coffee and a few donuts at the bird window and you’ve got me. I’m not everybody. Have you defined segments of your audience? What are you doing for them today? I’m a fan of regular staff meetings, led by the site manager. Part of a continuing discussion should be about who you are not reaching and how to identify them and their preferences and overcoming barriers to their participation. I remember one interpreter and her park manager who met at the end of each week over a cup of coffee and asked: “What if …”. What if we did this? What if we changed that? What if we added this? They quickly became one of the most innovative parks with fascinating programming. They asked, thought, tried, failed, succeeded, and asked again: “What if.”

TSI: Finally, you are perhaps the leading expert in the field of interpretation. What is your best advice for someone starting their very first interpretive project, be it a program or an exhibit?

JM: Well, I’m not a leading expert, not even an expert; I just know what I think know, and hope I get it right sometimes. But my recommendation is to know your site. I do mean know what’s out there, but more specifically I mean know WHY your site exists, what was its original purpose and primary resources, who fought the fight to create your site and why was it so important to them? Often you will find your deepest, most meaningful stories there, in your own history. There is a process to this that can briefly be stated as: History àSignificance à Essential Experience à Essential message à Compelling Story. I work on this in my theme planning workshops. Dig deep to go beyond ‘patting the bunny,” to find, and interpret, your real truth, your most important stories.

TSI: Before we let you go, do you have a book, blog, project website, or anything else which you’d like us to tell our readers about? We’d love to help promote all that you do!

JM: No books, no records or recordings, no You-tube videos. Nothing that fancy. I lead CIG workshops and thematic interpretation planning workshops, and enjoy speaking at state and national conferences. I do have a website and blog that can be found at www.InterpComm.com.

TSI: Thank you so much, President Miller! And thank you for all that you do to help interpretive sites across your state and across the country. Your expertise serves as such an inspiration!

Inspired? Want more? Visit Jay Miller’s websitefor more information and additional resources!