Shaking Up History in the National Park Service

This week’s “book,” Imperiled Promise: The State of History in the National Park Service (actually a report co-authored by Anne Whisnant, Marla Miller, Gary Nash, and David Thelen back in 2011), is a call to action for the National Parks Service, urging them to bring their historical and interpretative programs into alignment with emerging trends and best practices in museums, other cultural institutions, and the historical field as a whole.

Nine years ago, the co-authors found that historical initiatives were lopsided across the National Park Service’s parks and historic sites. Some locations were truly innovative, serving as what the co-authors referred to as “lamps along the path,” inspiring other sites that were lagging behind in terms of successful visitor engagement with history. Across the board, the National Park Service’s historical initiatives were struggling, underfunded and under-prioritized. Imperiled Promise was intended as a wake up call, a shock to the system that would force the NPS to refocus and reconsider what they owed to the public.

To begin, the co-authors highlighted twelve key statements that lie at the heart of all good historical research and interpretation. They included ideas like looking past the physical park boundaries to make connections to larger historical trends and movements, acknowledging that history is a never-ending process that is often contested, and committing to sharing authority with the communities that lay claim to the history that parks and historic sites tell. In most, if not all, of these key points, “park” can easily be swapped out for “museum.” These twelve points are useful for any history practitioner, serving as guideposts that ground us in the fundamentals of what we do and why we do it.

The report concludes with findings and recommendations for the future of the National Park Service’s historical and interpretative arms. They include things like stronger leadership, better communication between practitioners on the ground and parks across the country, partnerships with academia, museums, and other cultural institutions, and stronger investment in community engagement. As museum professionals, the idea of a closer working relationship with local National parks is exciting. After all, we are not competing entities. We both want to bring the public closer to history, highlight diverse perspectives, and engage with our communities. We should be partners! Co-sponsored programming could be a great way to draw in larger crowds and expand both sites’ visitor bases. Collaboration between history museums and NPS sites seem like a ripe ground for history work. I’d be curious to know why this isn’t commonplace.

This report was an interesting peek behind the curtain of the National Park Service, an institution I have no experience working in or with. I’m really interested in learning which, if any, of these recommended changes have taken place in the last nine years.