Have you heard about the Culture Compass report? 

It was published in November by the European Commission, presented by Glenn Micallef, European Commissioner for Intergenerational Fairness, Culture, Youth and Sport. It is available here:

https://culture.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-11/Communication%20-%20Culture%20Compass%20with%20cover_0.pdf 

This strategic document recognises culture and cultural heritage as a cornerstone of Europe’s security, resilience, democracy, competitiveness, social cohesion and sustainable development. This forward-looking framework is designed to shape the EU’s cultural policy by ensuring that culture plays a central role in fostering European identity, celebrating diversity and promoting excellence. 

It will guide EU policies in four key directions, for an EU that: 1. upholds and strengthens European values and cultural rights; 2. empowers artists and cultural professionals, and supports people; 3. draws on culture and cultural heritage to become more competitive, resilient and cohesive; and 4. champions international cultural relations and partnerships.

Members of the European Heritage Alliance, the European Heritage Hub Consortium, and other organisations have already publicly supported the document and agree with the call for the strategy set out to be adequately funded, including allocating at least 2% of the next EU budget to culture.

Manos Vougioukas, Secretary-General of the European Cultural Tourism Network (ECTN) stated: “As the only pan-European network for cultural tourism with over 40 members in 21 countries, we very much welcome and endorse this awaited Culture Compass, given that it recognises and highlights the synergies of culture, heritage and sustainable tourism.”

City leaders in the Eurocities network “strongly support the EU’s new Culture Compass and are ready to help translate its ambitions into action at the local level. They urge the EU to match this vision with robust funding—especially through the Agora EU programme, Creative Europe, and cultural priorities embedded in broader EU budgets. The Compass addresses key challenges facing Europe’s cultural and creative sectors, promotes democracy and artistic freedom.” (Taken from the Culture Compass Reaction Statements shared by the European Heritage Alliance)

NEMO, the Network of European Museum Organisations, actively contributed to the Culture Compass for Europe by emphasising the independence of cultural organisations and the indispensable role of museums. Through its advocacy, Europe’s 30,000 museums are recognised as democratic spaces that foster learning, social cohesion, and well-being. NEMO’s positioning highlights museums as central actors in addressing cultural challenges such as participation, resilience, and rights within the EU’s strategic framework.

This new Culture Compass strategy obviously has positive implications for heritage interpretation, and IE’s values-based approach could be key in helping communities reach their potential through the people-centred co-creative interpretive processes for which we advocate. Keep an eye on the potential funding streams that may come out of this Culture Compass – it might be fruitful to help us steer the right course for heritage interpretation under this framework.

To cite this article: Interpret Europe News Team  “Culture Compass for Europe”, Interpret Europe Newsletter 4-2025 (Winter 2025), p. 27–28.
Available online: Newsletter winter 2025

Landscape interpretation is an integral part of how tourism research approaches a landscape and thus increases the quality of tourism.

Medieval castle blacksmith interpretation (Image: Kreisel)

A stylish lounge in the clouds for IE’s architecture network…

Do you have a question related to heritage interpretation that has long bothered you, or you just recently bumped into? From small gaps to big issues, we would love to hear your opinion on which research questions and topics should be investigated!

Please participate in our short survey available here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ie_research. It will only take about five minutes to complete.

You might also want to check out some ideas previously channelled to the research team, available to view on the IE website: http://www.interpret-europe.net/top/market/universities/research/

The survey results will help IE connect practitioners and academics, facilitate research and encourage interested parties to work on questions that will benefit all. The survey will be open until 30 September 2019.

We are also collecting information on heritage interpretation courses at European universities to publish a comprehensive list on the IE website. Why not take a look http://www.interpret-europe.net/top/market/universities/university-courses/
and if you know of any others let us know using this form so that they can be added: https://forms.gle/hziYCrABDuYEPXuC8

For further queries, contact Carmen Granito (IE Research Coordinator) at: carmen.granito@interpret-europe.net.

Multivocality is increasingly becoming accepted practice in heritage interpretation. However, some believe that such multivocality means being as nearly neutral as is possible. The idea behind this view is still that neutrality is the goal we are trying to achieve in interpretation in the first place.

It is not. It cannot be our goal, for two reasons. For one, neutrality in any guise is an illusion. We as individuals, and the historically evolved institutions we work at, always have a bias. Our bias may not be intentional. It may be tied to an inescapable fact about ourselves, like class or race, which we have not chosen. And still, at least for the time being, this fact puts us in a different and likely privileged position in relation to other people. Pretending that we can achieve neutrality through including other voices is therefore to mask the reality of inequality in our society, and the power relations that underpin it. 

The second reason why neutrality, if it did exist, could not – and should not – be our goal is because the cultural institutions that use interpretation have a duty to be agents in our societies. That museums, for example, should make an impact has been part of the idea of museums since they first opened their doors to ‘educate’ the public. Now we’ve taken this further, to aim for and claim impacts, such as social inclusion and justice, delivered not in the least through interpretation. These impacts, however, cannot be achieved through a supposed neutrality. As Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel said in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, ‘Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim’ (Wiesel 1986). 

However, if we take a stance, does that not pass judgment on all other views we present in multivocal interpretation? For all I have laid out above, my answer is, No. On the contrary: by positioning ourselves we achieve much-needed transparency. Transparency is about being honest and taking the democratic exchange of views seriously. We no longer pretend that our own bias does not exist and did not influence our selection and presentation. Rather, by positioning ourselves we go some way to acknowledging our bias and making it possible for others to challenge us on it. 

In doing so, we also give more credit to all other perspectives that are being presented. This creates an environment that is better suited to real debate, for positioning ourselves within the interpretation provided signals that much of what people see, read and hear are expressions of different perspectives on reality. Our perspective is but one of those.

And so we come full circle. In clearly giving our perspective, we are also taking that first necessary step toward action within society and toward having an impact. We are clear about what we stand for and what changes we would like to affect. This may initiate a healthy debate or it may give guidance to others. Either way, it is the logical consequence to the realisation that neutrality does not exist. 

Reference:
Wiesel, E. 1986. ‘Acceptance Speech, Nobel Peace Prize’. https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1986/wiesel-acceptance_en.html. 

 
Nicole Deufel is a founding member of Interpret Europe and Vice President for Strategy for ICOMOS ICIP (The International Committee on Interpretation and Presentation of the International Council on Monuments and Sites). She holds a PhD in Heritage Studies and works as Head of Museums at the City of Oldenburg in Germany. 

To cite this article: 
Deufel, Nicole (2018) ‘Why we need a clear stance in interpretation ‘. In Interpret Europe Newsletter 2-2018, 4-5. 

Available online:
www.interpret-europe.net/fileadmin/Documents/publications/Newsletters/ie-newsletter_2018-2_summer.pdf

The book contains many interesting case studies and ideas and also a few theories in relation to participation in heritage interpretation. Our aim is not to provide an overview, but instead to focus on one challenge: how to encourage visitors to socially engage with each other around any content.

Simon distinguishes between five stages of interface between institution and visitors. From the point when an individual uses the content alone to the point where he/she steps into the exchange with others on different levels. In stage one (1) an individual consumes the content and an institution provides access to this content, like in static exhibitions. In stage two (2) the opportunity to try or touch things and ask questions is provided, for example mechanical interactions. In stage three (3) the visitor has a chance to also see other visitors’ actions and interests, for example the chance to select between options and see what others have selected. Stage four (4) helps visitors to connect with other visitors or staff to share the content or interests, for example if a visitor writes a letter and other visitors can read it. Stage five (5) being the most engaging level, offers numerous possibilities for exchange, collaboration and sharing in all directions: between institution and visitors, between visitors themselves, among residents living around heritage sites or stakeholders in heritage communities. The stages follow each other progressively, which means that stage five must contain all the previous stages. The best social experiences happen when an interaction continues after the facilitating activity has finished.

However, no matter how good stage five sounds, it is not realistic to assume it suits everyone. Some will just not feel comfortable to cross the second stage. The practice reveals that it is more difficult to provide social exchange with non-personal means when an individual is not willing or able to initiate the interaction themselves. Institutions could help by, for example, introducing ‘wearable identities’ that help to make the first contact between like-minded people around common interests. With experienced guides and other staff, however, we can more easily initiate communication in all directions, which can last after the facilitation stops.  

Stepping out of the comfort zone and speaking up is not an easy task for the majority of people. Now the question is, how to make people comfortable enough to overcome the social barriers to participation? How to create a safe and appealing atmosphere, where people who dare to share opinions – even about sensitive subjects – will feel safe and respected?

The participatory approach contains elements of provocation and increases the intensity of first-hand experiences, which enable stronger cognition and long-term memory traces. Social exchange enables people to compare themselves to others, or to see clearer their role in society. The opportunity to share opinion could also grant a confirmation of their uniqueness or give a sense of belonging to a larger like-minded community. According to Interpret Europe’s recent study, Engaging citizens with Europe’s cultural heritage, interpretation has an opportunity to contribute to the social change for the better and social exchange in heritage settings seems like a convenient tool. In light of the issues in today’s European society, Simon’s book becomes very valuable reading.  

Book Review: Simon, N., 2010. The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz, California, Museum 2.0.

Helena Vičič from Slovenia is an IE Certified Interpretive Trainer (CIT) and heritage interpretation consultant. She studies interpretation at the University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI) in Scotland. She can be contacted at: helena.vicic@gmail.com

It is widely accepted that heritage interpretation could serve society and contribute to the positive change in the behaviour of individuals. Advocates of the so-called ‘action heritage’ and the authors of the reviewed article do not strive so much towards the protection of the resource, as they are about to empower individuals, preferably from the socially underrepresented groups. Their aim was to use heritage research as a tool to engage communities and offer guidance towards social justice.

Academic researchers from a wide range of disciplines from the University of Sheffield (UK)invited different community organisations to conduct research on different heritage phenomena. Participants got access to the resources and tools and knowledge and were equally regarded as community-based researchers.

The organisers assured that everyone’s ‘voice was heard and respected’ and that barriers between experts and community-based researchers were blurred. The main aim of the activity was to involve participants in the ‘process of discovering, learning and producing new understanding about their past’. Open-endedness of the outcomes enabled them to contribute according to their own interest and to produce meaning most relevant to each individual.

After the research, interviews with participants were conducted in order to collect qualitative data.

Three organisations are presented as case studies. The residents of a homeless youth hostel were asked to find out about the past times of the hostel’s building and make a scrapbook as a result. The second focus group were school children, who investigated local history through the literature and archaeological excavations, and all that was recorded and edited in a short film. In the third group of participants, an association of local history enthusiasts conducted research on the past social life and civil associations in the town. Although the research activities produced relatively little new knowledge about heritage sites, the final evaluation emphasised the importance of participants’ personal engagement with heritage and self-acknowledgement as researchers. They found the activity relevant to them personally as it helped them to question their own histories. Due to the inclusiveness of the activity, they felt a sense of belonging not only to the team but, most importantly, to society in general.

The research itself was acknowledged as undisciplinary, since the science itself had a minor role in the process and the participants were encouraged to take a lead. However, a voice of reason might argue that any participatory and democratic process could cause the feeling of belonging, and that ownership over the outcomes bring a higher self-esteem and motivation for further engagement. Is heritage as a means any different? Could it provide a link between individuals and society in general? These questions were only partially answered by the authors. They emphasised that the shift from the heritage which was always considered as a ‘stable and uniformed’ concept, towards the heritage which allows for different interpretations and personal meaning making, tackles identity-related issues. Unfortunately, the evaluation of the durability of this change and continuity of the personal development or the influence of this personal change on the wider society after the project finished, was not possible due to the time and financial constraints.

The article that was reviewed is:

Johnston, R., & Marwood, K. (2017). Action heritage: research, communities, social justice. International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 23, 1-16.

Helena Vičič from Slovenia is an IE Certified Interpretive Guide Trainer and heritage interpretation consultant. She studies interpretation at the University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI) in Scotland, UK. Helena volunteers as part of the IE Research Team, under which this review has been written. She can be contacted at: helena.vicic@gmail.com. 

To cite this article:
Vičič, Helena (2017) ‘Could heritage research contribute to the social justice?’. In Interpret Europe Newsletter 1-2017, 14-15. 

Location-specific communication in museums

The practice of phenomenon-based communication in museums often focusses on the display and interpretation of exhibits (cf. Veverka 2015). However, the increasing use of scenographic arrangements in exhibitions calls for an exhibition design that is based on the location, i.e. the building. While this is commonly used, taking this approach one step further is not: By identifying the phenomenon using the communication rectangle and developing a theme-centred interaction, the unique potential of the location can not only be translated into an interior design but into a scenography, which is an interactive visitor experience.

From heritage to a sustainable future

While heritage interpretation has the chance to set benchmarks for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), ESD is at the same time an opportunity to improve the practice of interpretation (Ludwig 2009). It has been argued that ESD is the pedagogic approach for exhibitions and museums in the 21st century (Peter and Garthe 2014). But the intersections between heritage interpretation and museum pedagogics still need to be further excavated. While there are a multitude of great exhibitions on issues about sustainability, sustainability is largely a blind spot within the realm of exhibition development, because concepts and curation are not focused on the key competencies of ESD (cf. Haan 2006). Although not all competencies are equally suitable to be acquired within museums, the future is to develop exhibits that foster competence-based learning. Furthermore, the sustainable production and operation of exhibitions and museums on heritage topics offer opportunities to contribute to a sustainable future (cf. www.ausstellung-museum-nachhaltigkeit.blogspot.de).

Why interpretive centres of protected areas need to be thought from a visitor perspective

An attractive visitor centre is nowadays a must-have for every large protected area. But many of the visitor centres in Germany have a serious problem: They are stuck in environmental education and neglect the anthropocene: With a dramaturgy following habitat types, nature is ‘rebuilt’ within these exhibitions – with often- extensive effort. Thus, too often a visit to the visitor centre effectively replaces a real experience of nature. Developing visitor centres that truly support the mission of Protected Areas would require a radically new approach which puts the human being and its stories in the centre of the concept (Garthe 2017).

The Natural Futures Museum

Heritage interpretation in natural history museums is struggling to find its relevance in the 21st century (cf. Janes 2009). This is why a reconceptualisation of the natural history museum towards a future-oriented institution seems to be necessary. Interaction, participation and object-related interactions that foster a public understanding of collections will be the main instruments to implement this change. In doing so, natural history museums can evolve into the place to address global challenges, discuss the future of the planet and thus increase the relevance for visitors (Garthe 2018).

Exhibitions as an instrument of a Participatory Scientific Society

The potential role of interpretation in a post-fact society has been discussed by Patrick Lehnes, including an article in a previous edition of the IE newsletter(Lehnes 2017). As science and the interpretation of its results are becoming increasingly central to our society, it can be argued that a public understanding of research is becoming essential for democratic cultures. To tackle these challenges, we need to move from a knowledge society to a Participatory Scientific Society, in which interpretation, exhibitions and museums empower citizens to take active ownership in crucial debates. Interpretative activities can support this by not communicating (scientific) themes, but by communicating the research process itself. Successful examples are Open Research Labs, Sciencetainment events, like Worm charming, incorporating transdisciplinary research or Citizen Science programmes, like BioBlitz, or embracing the approaches of the Maker community (cf. Garthe 2015).

Dr. Christopher Garthe develops concepts for exhibitions and visitor experiences. He is Director for Concept Development at studio klv, Fellow of the Working group ‘Heritage Interpretation’ at the Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg and consultant for sustainability management in museums and visitor centres. His research is focused on recreation and education in protected areas. He can be contacted at: christopher.garthe@gmx.de

To cite this article:
Garthe, Christopher (2017) ‘Future challenges for interpretation in exhibitions’. In Interpret Europe Newsletter 4-2017, 4-5. 

References

Garthe, C., 2015. Using interactive experiences to communicate nature. Gothenburg.

Garthe, C., 2017. Weshalb Naturzentren verhindern, dass Besucher die Natur entdecken [online]. Available from: http://ausstellung-museum-nachhaltigkeit.blogspot.de/2017/05/weshalb-nationalparkzentren-verhindern.html.

Garthe, C., 2018. The Natural Futures Museum: Interactivity and Participation as Key Instruments for Engaging Audiences. In: E. Dorfman, ed. The future of natural history museums. Milton Park Abingdon Oxon, New York NY: Routledge, 140-154.

Haan, G. de, 2006. The BLK ’21’ programme in Germany: a ‘Gestaltungskompetenz’‐based model for Education for Sustainable Development. Environmental Education Research, 12 (1), 19-32.

Janes, R.R., 2009. Museums in a troubled world. Renewal, irrelevance or collapse? London, New York: Routledge.

Lehnes, P., 2017. Interpretation in Darkening Times. Interpret Europe Newsletter (1), 3-4. Available from: http://www.interpret-europe.net/top/news/singlepage-news/news/interpretation-in-darkening-times.html?tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&cHash=676a8bbafb974f12220e77dd3671d463.

Ludwig, T., 2009. ESD as a Chance for the Worldwide Improvement of Interpretation. Athens.

Peter, M., and Garthe, C.J., 2014. Education for sustainable development as a concept for science centres and museums. Engagement for a sustainable future. Spokes (4), 12-17. Available from: http://www.ecsite.eu/sites/default/files/spokes6_0.pdf.

Veverka, J.A., 2015. Interpretive master planning. Strategies for the new millennium, philosophy, theory and practice. Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc Ltd.