Evaluation of and Suggestions for Korean Cultural Heritage Interpretation

Now that we have an understanding of the processes by which interpretations, text in particular, are created and translated, we can look into the consequences of such an approach to interpretation on the quality of interpretations. This section will evaluate the quality of current interpretations based on the five interpretive criteria as explained in previous sections: clear/accurate, tailored, holistic, facilitates further engagement, and efficient/sustainable.

This evaluation will utilize prior research, examples of interpretive content, and an understanding of the interpretative content creation and translation process as described in the prior section. In particular, these four questions will be answered for each interpretive ideal:

1. In what ways are current resources and processes successful in meeting this ideal?
2. In what ways are they unsuccessful?
3. How do current mediums and processes limit the realization of the ideal?
4. What needs to be made possible for the ideal to be fully realized?

Clear / Accurate

The ideal of clarity/accuracy deals fundamentally with whether the message being presented represents the truth of a heritage's context and whether it is understood by audiences. On this front, the vast majority of factual information provided in Korean interpretive texts is factually correct. Since English texts are based on Korean texts, this means the facts presented in them are also mostly correct. Furthermore, because of clear guidelines on the design of information panels (Cultural Heritage Administration 2010; hereafter 2010 Guidelines), the formatting (including how to format dates, Chinese characters, etc.) on information panels is consistent, which aids in fluidity of message comprehension. The 2010 Guidelines and 2014 Report (Cultural Heritage Administration 2014a) also include many principles which aim to ensure clarity and accuracy of message.

However, there are many places for improvement. The 2010 Guideline features a survey about information panels. In it, results show that 54 percent of audiences some difficulty in understanding the text (16). In addition, 39 percent of respondents said that the interpretive texts were not helpful to the heritage visit (16). This shows room for improvement in making the content of information panels easier to understand and more helpful to audiences. Furthermore, foreign audiences were not researched, so the understandability and helpfulness of English interpretive texts is entirely unknown.

The 2014 Report (Cultural Heritage Administration 2014a) shows that problems with accuracy and consistency in Korean texts include mismatches between the official heritage name and that on the panel, the wrong designation number, and multiple names for the same common term (47-64). Other examples of inaccuracies which can be found in the Korean texts include differing measurements of heritages, incorrect dates, and incorrect Chinese characters, problems regarding clarity of explanation include the use of academic terminology (see Cultural Heritage Administration 2014a), explanation of layouts of structures, and misleading representations of the quality of preservation of a heritage.

To demonstrate misleading and unintentional differences between interpretive texts, a couple representative examples are provided below. First, sentences from three different interpretive texts on Sinhangseowon Confucian Academy were selected – from Seowon Heritage , the CHA online interpretive text, and the interpretive text from the on-site information panel as composed by the government of Cheongju and provided on the AKS English Interpretive Text Research Team’s website. The texts were translated from Korean into English so as to convey the original mismatch in terminology used, date formatting, and inclusion of information. Differences between and within texts have been bolded.

Table 12 Variation of information included in interpretive texts for Sinhangseowon Confucian Academy, Cheongju

Year	Seowon Heritage	CHA Online Text	On-Site Info Panel	Element
1871	It was abolished	It was shut down	It was closed down	Word Choice
	in 1871 (Gojong 8)	in Gojong 8 (1871)	in 1871 (Gojong8)	Date Format
	due to the Decree to Raze Confucian Academies	due to the Decree to Abolish Confucian Academies	following the Decree to Abolish Confucian Academies	Word Choice
	-	of Regent Heungseondaewongun	-	Misc. Info
1892	received permission to be restored		received permission to be restored	Word Choice
	in Gojong 29 (1892)		in 1892 (Gojong 29)	Date Format
1904	came to look the same as it does now		was reconstructed	Word Choice
	in 1904 (Gwangmu 8)		in 1904 (Gwangmu 8)	Date Format
1957		but was restored	later was restored	Word Choice
		in 1957	in 1957	Date Format
		-	by Confucian scholars of Cheongju	Misc. Info
1987	The current Confucian academy [is comprised of] buildings renovated	was newly renovated		Word Choice
	in 1987	in 1987		Date Format
		and has been that way until today		Misc. Info

It can be seen that not one text mentions all the supposed events in the history of the Confucian academy, and there is no consensus on which events are important enough to include apart from the decree of 1871 – although even in this case, the name used for the decree and the word choice regarding its effect on the academy all differ. This shows that the inclusion and exclusion of historical points was not strategic, but arbitrary. If it was strategic, there would be greater consistency. If a reader goes to some search engine to search for “Decree to Raze of Confucian Academies,” the results may differ for if they search “Decree to Abolish Confucian Academies.” The Seowon Heritage text states that the academy “came to look the same as it does now” in 1904, yet clearly it was “restored” and “renovated” again in 1957 and 1987. This source conflicts even itself later on, saying that “the current Confucian academy [is comprised of] buildings renovated in 1987.” Then what exactly is meant by “came to look the same as it does now?” Is it referring to the layout? How extensive were the “restorations” and “renovations?” Were they rebuilt from the ground up? Were only the frames and foundation of the building reused? If someone reads only the Seowon Heritage summary, they may come to think that the buildings date back to 1904 (implying they are over 100 years old), while the on-site panel implies they date back to 1957 (60 years old), and when in reality they only date back to 1987 (30 years old). Furthermore, regarding date formatting, there are inconsistencies across texts and even within the same text. This shows that such formatting, too, is not intentional. If it was intentional, then that intention is not clear to the audience. The inclusion of local Confucian scholars and Heungseon daewongun also suggest that the authors thought these figures aid understanding or give context, yet these inconsistencies among texts suggests it is based on the interest of the authors, not the audience.

Another example, demonstrating conflicting information, can be seen in the following example regarding the date of the relocation of the tomb of Song Sang-hyeon, taken from the on-site texts and online interpretive texts from related heritages.

Table 13 Conflicting information in interpretive texts relating to the Tomb and Stele of Song Sang-hyeon, Cheongju

	On-site Info Panel	On-site Info Panel 2	CHA Online Text
Heritage Name	Commemorative Pavilions of Yeosan Song Clan, Cheongju	Tomb and Stele of Song Sang-hyeon, Cheongju	Tomb and Stele of Song Sang-hyeon, Cheongju
Source Text	Chungnyeolgak Pavilion appears to have been erected after [Song Sang-hyeon's] tomb site was relocated and [the meritorious subject title, Chungnyeol] first was bestowed in 1594 (Seonjo 27).	The tomb site was originally in Dongnae but was moved to this location in 1610 (Gwanghaegun2).	[They] moved the tomb site from Dongnae to this place in Seonjo 28 (1595).
Date of Tomb Relocation	Use of “and” in the sentence implies the tomb was relocated before 1594.	1610	1595

All texts are from “official” government sources, which have a responsibility to be accurate. Because no source is cited for these dates, even if someone notices the inconsistency between texts, how are they supposed to go about finding the true answer? One can also again notice the inconsistencies in date formatting in this example.

While the first example also included a non-CHA interpretive text (from the Seowon Heritage website), the problems in all the example texts shown above are representative of the unintentional (i.e. not done purposely with the aim to aid in the audience’s understanding) inconsistencies, omission of facts, conflicting information, and vague wording which leads to misunderstanding. While some small differences in date formatting or word choice may seem insignificant, they unnecessarily distract from the message and may create problems if someone wants to learn more by searching online for more information. Furthermore, these kinds of problems are magnified when they are then translated into English. Regarding English interpretive texts, there is extensive prior research on English interpretive texts from heritage sites across Korea which demonstrate the many flaws in current English interpretive texts. The most comprehensive analysis of errors and inconsistencies in English interpretive texts is the CHA Report (Cultural Heritage Administration 2014a), which found the following errors and inconsistencies in English interpretive texts (85-142):

1. Panel name mismatch with official heritage name
2. Incorrect naming convention based on the 2014 CHA Naming Guideline
3. Institution name mismatch with official name
4. Romanization, capitalization, spacing, typos
5. Incorrect Romanization for foreign places or people (ex: Dang Dynasty instead of Tang Dynasty)
6. Mistranslations
7. Direct translation of a term (ex: matbae roof)
8. Incorrect dates
9. Korean measurements without any explanation (ex: 20-pyeong)
10. Examples of differing translations for the same common terms
11. Use of uncommon terminology (70-75% of terms were uncommon)

Research by Park (2011) also demonstrates inconsistencies in the practice of omitting, adding, or altering the information provided in the interpretive texts during the translation process. In addition, it is easy to find examples of awkward phrasing in English texts which make them difficult to understand, suggesting they were not read by a native English speaker.

These various problems appear to stem from the process of interpretive text composition and translation. As mentioned in the section outlining the interpretive text composition and translation process, it is unclear who interpretive text creators and translators are, and, by extension, what their qualifications and expertise are. This results in a wide variety of in the quality of interpretive texts regarding accuracy and clarity. Some texts are factually accurate and very well written and translated, while others have inconsistent dates, are nearly incomprehensible, or so abstruse it is meaningless to an ordinary person. To what extent authors and translators are provided the 2010 CHA guidelines is also unclear, and therefore, although the 2010 guideline says that the facts must come from the Cultural Heritage General Survey and reissued content on CHA homepage, it is not known if this is followed. Since the sources for interpretive texts are not listed, the information cannot be easily double-checked by an editor. Furthermore, because the CHA does not request the completed interpretive texts or oversee them in any way, there is little incentive for local government civil officials to fact-check. Because of the lack of oversight, and also because the civil officials in charge may not have expertise in editing, the Korean and English texts do not seem to be edited to ensure that difficult terminology are removed (or explained) or that the content itself is clearly organized. Because the authors, translators, and sources are not identifiable, because civil officials change positions so often, and because the CHA does not oversee the texts, no one is held accountable for the accuracy and clarity of the interpretive texts. For the same reasons, and also because composition and translation of interpretive texts is not often undertaken, the local governments in charge of the interpretive text composition and translation process have little incentive to innovate new ways of presenting information (i.e. not in text form) or researching the clearest terminology and explanations. Currently, education, digital innovation, information panel management, and interpretive text composition and translation are managed by entirely different departments in the CHA and local government, a structure which also fails to facilitate communication, collaboration, and innovation. The reliance on narrative form interpretive texts and information panels (and by extension audio, video forms) furthermore means that there is a practical limit on the extent to which concepts, events, etc. can be elaborated upon, which can affect the clarity of the information.

Based on this, the following improvements should be made in order to improve the clarity and accuracy of interpretive texts and other interpretive resources. First, systems need to be put in place to ensure accountability for the clarity and accuracy of interpretive texts. This may include publicly identifying authors and translators (and their qualifications), citing sources, and facilitating centralized oversight for fact-checking and clarity of expression. Second, there need to be incentives to for correcting and improving upon the facts, quality of presentation, and translations of interpretive resources, which relates to the sustainable/innovative ideal. Because civil officials change positions so often and local governments are isolated from one another, there is little incentive to fix or improve existing interpretive resources. Therefore, there needs to be some kind of organization with longer-term human resources to investigate ways to innovate new ways of presenting interpretive information and improving its accuracy and clarity. Third, due to the limitations of text and information panels, new mediums for interpretive resources should be investigated. Such resources should include easy ways for audiences to look up difficult terminology or events if they need such things clarified. And fourth, value judgements of heritages (like a heritage being the oldest, well-preserved, refined) and the scope of terminology such as “restoration,” “renovation,” “repair,” as well as “its appearance” need to be explicitly defined as to avoid confusion.

Personal / Tailored

Currently, there are various ways in which interpretive resources are differentiated for various audiences' background, interests, or objectives. For example, interpretive texts are provided in various languages apart from Korean, including English, Chinese and Japanese. Main heritage sites also provide guided tours or digital resources in these four languages. There are also resources online in Korean that are targeted to children, in particular, as well as various educational programs at museums targeted toward different audiences. Some digital resources also present heritages based on various curated themes which audiences may have interest in, such as history, historical figures, religions, heritage types, etc. (National Heritage Online, Smart Guide App, CHA Map). There are also multiple services to facilitate the location of heritages nearby the user via GIS location tracking (various mobile apps). There are also filters on the Heritage Search and Digital Hub for period, region, categorization, designation type, and designation date to allow for more specific searching.

However, the vast majority of interpretive resources are “one-sized-fits-all” interpretive texts meant for a general audience, in particular one visiting a heritage site in person. What does a “general audience” member look like? The only distinctions that the 2010 Guideline or 2014 Report (Cultural Heritage Administration 2010 and 2014a, respectively) make is that the terminology of interpretive texts should not be too expert or abstruse (Guideline, 41), should be suitable for elementary students (Report, 170), and that the English should be easy because not all readers are native English speakers (Report, 176). From this, we can only gather than the CHA assumes that the audiences of interpretive texts are not cultural heritage academics and that they include non-native Korean and English speakers. This attempts to address, very minimally, the audience's educational and national background, but does not at all take into consideration their interest or objectives. Current interpretive resources are designed to be one-time, one-dimensional, one-directional tools of informing visitors to heritages. This emphasis does not meet the needs of audiences seeking any other type of interaction with interpretive information – whether this involves sharing of information, creative uses of the information, or research.

One of the main limitations preventing information from being personalized to the needs of visitors and information seekers is that the vast majority of content is physical and text-based. Infinite information panels which target the interest, objective, background knowledge, and preferred form of information attainment for every kind of visitor just cannot be installed. Furthermore, there is a limit to the length of content even on a single information panel or brochure. Even online, text-based content is pre-determined, and therefore if tailored content is to be made, new texts need to be composed and translated for each potential audience member, which is beyond the scope of the CHA or local governments. Audiences cannot choose to have information displayed in anything but text (or possibly audio), even though forms such as timelines, diagrams, or tables, may better suit their objectives or learning style. Digital non-text-based resources, such as digital maps or digital touch screens may allow for some interaction on the part of the user to tailor the content shown for their needs, but these are only provided online or at museums. Even these resources, though have a limit on their interactivity and cannot be tailored in length or content.

Regarding audiences online searching of interpretive information, though some filters are available to narrow user's search, these have limitations. For example, on the Digital Hub, users can only select one option per metadata type at a time. In addition, some of the options are pre-organized in a way which may not match the needs of the user. In other words, the way the CHA has categorized the heritages is not necessarily the way users may categorize them. It does not allow users to interact with the heritages in a way that is tailored to their needs.

Furthermore, there are various types of data which would be helpful to the user in searching or browsing heritages, which are not currently represented in current metadata fields. These include contextual elements such as people, events, and concepts. Some users may be searching for heritages related to a particular historic event or related to a historic figure in some way. They may also be looking for a particular decorative technique on a piece of art or architecture. Or, they may be interested in searching for heritages via their value, such as finding the oldest heritage in a particular region. Yet with the current metadata, is not possible to find information on heritages this way. Therefore, even one of the few features which may allow for some personalized content in the form of filtered result is extremely limited in its scope.

Thus, the failure of current resources to be tailored to audiences so that audiences can connect personally with cultural heritages is largely due to two reasons. First, there is a lack of understanding about the background, motivations, and interests of those coming into contact with or overtly seeking interpretive information, especially non-in-person heritage site visitors. Second is the focus on physical and text-based content. It is impractical and near impossible to hope that such mediums can meet the needs of all audiences.

Therefore, to make tailored interpretive resources possible, resources other than physical information panels and text-based online resources need to be expanded. To facilitate the development of such resources, ways to organize interpretive information as data must be researched and implemented. As will be discussed in following sections, data-based organization of interpretive information is the only way to facilitate tailored content truly unique to each person. Data-based interpretive content can be displayed not only as text, but as timelines, maps, diagrams, table, and more. In the future, when augmented reality becomes commonplace and most people have augmented reality glasses or contacts, physical information panels may become redundant. Each person could have their own tailored interpretive content via such technology. Therefore, there is a great need look beyond the physical. This is of course in addition to investigating who the people interacting with interpretive resources are, rather than just categorizing them into broad groups based on the language they speak or whether they are a visitor or expert, and testing new forms of interpretive resources (both content and mediums) with such audiences to better understand their interests.

Contextualized / Holistic

There are various features within current interpretive resources that provide users with the meanings and relationships of a heritage's greater context. Interpretive texts themselves include a variety of information about heritages, including their origins, their history, historical events, artistic qualities, related figures, related legends, and their value and significance, although this content varies from text to text. Some resources present multiple heritages within the context of a particular theme (National Heritage Online, Smart Guide). The Digital Hub connects users to heritages which share a similar region, period, designation type, and heritage type. Mobile apps also provide users with related heritages, though these are usually limited to main heritages.

However, there are places in which current interpretive resources do not achieve their full potential in terms of a holistic approach. First, although there is already diverse content on a variety of websites (and by various institutions) which could aid in audience's understanding of a heritage's greater context, there are no hyperlinks which connect the official interpretive resources to such content. For example, there already exist glossaries on cultural heritage terminology, tens of thousands of media elements (photo, audio, video, diagrams, etc.) on heritages and themes relating to heritages, and encyclopedia-style articles on historical figures, places, and events, etc., on various websites managed by different institutions. These are resources which would be useful to link to within the interpretive texts hosted on the CHA websites to give audiences greater context, but they are isolated from the CHA's interpretive texts. The CHA does not even link to their own terminology glossary within the body of their interpretive texts for audiences to quickly access the definition of an unfamiliar term. In addition, there are offline resources which are not available online. For example, foreign language interpretive texts for many province/city-designated heritages are available on on-site information panels, yet these are not included on the CHA homepage (with few exceptions, only state-designated translations are available). Therefore, translated interpretive texts already exist, but to someone accessing the information from online, it is as if there are no translations available. In this way, there is a failure to link among existing interpretive resources. Second, there are limitations on how one can navigate the interpretive context. This includes things such as difficulty in browsing heritages, finding related heritages, or viewing heritages within a context of contextual elements (such as a given historical figure, event, design feature, value, reference source, etc.). Though these features exist in some way, they are either extremely limited in their function or pre-curated by experts. In other words, the audience cannot interact with and explore the context themselves and on their own terms, and the amount of possible contexts presented is limited. For example, the only related heritages on the “My Own Interpreter” mobile app are palaces and their respective buildings – even though each heritage has many other heritages related to it in some way. Currently, the Digital Hub shows heritages that share the same region, period, designation type, and heritage type. These categories are not necessarily as specific as would be useful - for example, each period of the over 500 year Joseon dynasty reflect different trends, but all heritages from that Joseon are grouped together. There are many factors which heritages may share in common that are not reflected - including commonly shared events, people, concepts (like religions, design, material, cultural value), and more. By extension, it is also impossible to begin a search for heritages based on these factors. In other words, in the exploration of interpretive information, the audience has no way to navigate meaningful interpretive relationships from heritage to contextual element, contextual element to heritage, heritage to heritage, or contextual element to contextual element.

There are various reasons for this lack of holistic perspective toward interpretive information. First is the simple failure to utilize hyperlinks within and among existing content, which is not too difficult of a fix. Second, and less easy to address, is the fact that because of bureaucratic divisions, the job of interpretation and development of heritage-related content is divided among various institutions. This does not facilitate an understanding on the part of those in charge of interpretation at each institution to know what content is already available at other institutions and on other websites so that they can be linked together, and furthermore, does not facilitate a systematic and comprehensive approach to the organization of interpretive resources. Third is the heritage-oriented and pre-digital age perspective of interpretation. Before the Internet, the only way audiences had access to interpretive content was in person at heritage sites or museums. Furthermore, the job of institutions like the Cultural Heritage Administration is primarily the management of heritages and heritage sites. Therefore, all interpretive resources were centered around heritage management and on-site interpretation. The idea of including hyperlinks to further information or presenting various heritages from around the country under a particular theme (i.e. a contextual element like a person, event, or concept) was not possible (at least for heritage sites; Museums can hold exhibitions around such themes because their artifacts are transportable). However, with the Internet, even on-site heritages can be presented as a part of an “exhibition,” relating to any possible theme at once. This possibility has not been considered, and therefore, there have not been efforts to consider contextual elements as a key part of interpretation. As a result, there is still little way for audiences to access information about heritages from any path than the heritage itself. This results in heritages being isolated from one another and isolated from their larger contexts.

In order for these issues to be addressed, there needs to be ways to find contextual elements via heritages and vice versa, ways to filter/browse heritages in greater details, and connect interpretive resources to one another (either by making greater use of hyperlinks or consolidating all information onto one website). There also needs to be greater content which is not just heritage-centric. This can be helped by making changes to bureaucratic organization related to heritage interpretation, or at least by improving inter- and intra-organizational communication.

Facilitates Engagement

There are some opportunities for further engagement in “analog” interpretive resources, such as education programs, experiences and performances, volunteering. These are usually affordable. These opportunities are usually available at museums with long-term, academic opportunities in Korean, and short-term experiential opportunities are available in English. Regarding access to further information on cultural heritages, access to slightly more detailed interpretive texts may be available via mobile apps (though this varies widely from heritage to heritage). There are also some “nearby heritage” features on mobile apps which allow users to continue their exploration of heritages in the area.

However, such analog and digital opportunities for engagement are not well advertised. Though they are advertised on some websites, they are very rarely included in on-site brochure material. In other words, audiences are not prompted to be more engaged after their visit; they must seek out opportunities for engagement on their own. Long-term educational programs are usually available only to those fluent in Korean (i.e. mostly native Koreans), therefore there is little way for non-native Korean speakers to gain any depth of knowledge on Korean cultural heritages. There are also almost no engagement opportunities available Koreans and non-Koreans abroad. There are no ways for audiences reutilize the interpretive information for their own purposes, whether this involves storytelling, content creation, self-study or analysis. As expressed in previous sections, it difficult to find further information on the people, events, or ideas referenced in interpretive texts, and there are very few links to further readings or related heritages. This makes it much more difficult for audiences to engage with the material and develop a passion for cultural heritages, limiting their potential to being the mere passive recipients of whatever information is provided to them.

The reason for these missed opportunities stems largely from the idea that interpretation is the end goal, rather than a provocation. It merely provides one-direction, one-time informative content. This mindset assumes that the audience is passive, not creative, and puts the burden on audiences to seek out more opportunities for themselves. It also fails to consider the internet as a tool for learning, focusing instead on offline resources. It further assumes that non-Koreans have no need more long-term education resources or would not want to volunteer.

To facilitate further engagement, there most fundamentally needs to be a change from the current mindset to one which expects interpretation, either via in-person visits to heritage sites or initial seeking out of interpretive information online, to be the beginning of a process, rather than an end goal in and of itself. There needs to be more encouragement of further engagement via advertisement of existing interpretive resources, making the path to engagement as direct and clear as possible, and lowering the barriers for engagement. Furthermore, audiences need to be given agency in their engagement – they should be empowered to seek out further information and create their own stories and content easily. There also needs to be an acknowledgement that non-Korean language speakers need opportunities for long-term or in-depth engagement (including education and volunteer opportunities), if they are ever going to develop any deep (i.e. not surface level, fleeting, consumerist) interest in Korea's history and culture. Along with this is an acknowledgement of the many ethnic Koreans, students, and educators abroad for whom visiting heritages in person may be a challenge and, therefore, could benefit from more online resources. This all needs to be accompanied by further research by testing such engagement opportunities with the public.

Sustainable / Innovative

Current interpretive resources are sustainable in that physical information panels last a long time and do not have to be replaced very often. They also do not require any special technology to be viewed, and are thus accessible to most on-site audiences (apart from those who are visually impaired). Along the same lines, once an interpretive text is written and translated, it can be used for a long time because the details of interpretive information are not subject to frequent change. Regarding innovation, if we look at the development of the Cultural Heritage Digital Hub, various mobile apps, and more visual media content on the K-Heritage channel, we can see that the CHA is making efforts to approach education about cultural heritages from new perspectives.

However, this is where the sustainability and innovation reach their limit. Though physical information panels last a long time, they are extremely expensive and cannot be easily updated should information change. They must either be replaced or have stickers covering mistakes. Furthermore, as mentioned in the section on the clarity and accuracy of current interpretations, according to the 2010 CHA guideline, 39 percent of respondents said that the interpretive texts were not helpful to the heritage visit and roughly half have difficulty understanding the texts (16). If interpretive texts are not helpful to two-fifths of visitors, and half of them have difficulty understanding the texts, it raises the question of whether they are cost effective methods for interpretation. The focus on text-based content means that the material cannot be easily transformed into other forms of resources, because the meanings and relationships are trapped within the grammatical structure of the sentences. This limitation is also seen in the CHA’s efforts for innovation – the content of the Digital Hub, mobile apps, and video media take the form of e-books or narrative-form visual interpretive texts, which have added visual media and maybe GIS location or SNS features, but the form of the interpretation itself is not innovative in anyway. These innovations also do not take into consideration the issues of efficiency and redundancy.

Regarding the organization and translation of interpretive content, interpretive texts about the same heritages are written and translated multiple times by different institutions, and they usually do not contain any significantly different content. Best practices are not shared, and compositions and translations (both the ITs themselves and the various terminology contained there within) that have already been undertaken in the past are not reutilized. For example, while each heritage may have information unique to it which needs to be newly organized and translated, the vast majority of explanations of contextual elements (key historical figures, events, concepts, etc.) and the translation of terminology have already been done. Yet, if these previous resources are not reutilized, the same basic work of explanation and translation is done over and over again. This leads to inconsistency in both content and quality, as not all writers or translators have the same level of expertise. This is, of course, not cost effective.

The following is an example of the redundancy of interpretive text creation and translation. The following table shows the metadata for six different versions (three of which have been translated into English) of an interpretive text about the Iron Flagpole at Yongdusa Temple Site, Cheongju (National Treasure No. 41). They are taken from the on-site information panel (has English version, overseen by the Cheongju Government), the CHA Digital Hub (has English version; CHA), the E-Minwon site (CHA), the Cheongju Tourism Site (has English version; Cheongju Government), the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture (AKS), and the Digital Local Culture Encyclopedia of Korea (AKS). Each of the Korean texts and English translations differ from one another. Three of the interpretive texts do not have any public information about who composed them. Only one, the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture version, cites references. None of them state when the texts were composed. This is just one example, but this is the rule, rather than the exceptions, to interpretive texts (both in Korean and English).

Table 14 Redundancy of interpretive texts for Iron Flagpole at Yongdusa Temple Site, Cheongju

Info Type	Info Type	On-Site Info Panel	CHA Digital Hub	E-Minwon	Cheongju Tourism Site (Eng)	Encyclopedia of Korean Culture	Digital Local Culture Encyclopedia of Korea
Name	Korean	청주 용두사지 철당간	청주 용두사지 철당간	청주 용두사지 철당간	용두사지 철당간	청주 용두사지 철당간
	Chinese	淸州 龍頭寺址 鐵幢竿	淸州 龍頭寺址 鐵幢竿	淸州 龍頭寺址 鐵幢竿	龍頭寺地 鐵幢竿	淸州龍頭寺址鐵幢竿	龍頭寺址鐵幢竿
	English	Iron Flagpole at Yongdusa Temple Site, Cheongju	Iron Flagpole at Yongdusa Temple Site, Cheongju		YongdusajiCheoldanggan (Iron Flagpole at Yongdu Buddhist Temple Site) The Iron Flagpole of Yongdusa Temple		Yongdusaji Cheoldanggan (Iron Flagpole at the Yongdusaji Archeological Site)
Metadata	Designation No.	National Treasure No. 41	National Treasure No. 41	National Treasure No. 41	National Treasure No. 41	National Treasure No. 41
	Designation Date		1962.12.20	1962. 12. 20	1962. 12. 20	December 20, 1962.
	Period		Goryeo period	Goryeo period, Goryeo Gwangjong		Goryeo	Goryeo / Early Goryeo
	Classification		Heritage Site Structure > Religion and Spirituality > Buddhism > Flagpole	Flagpole Base
	Address		48-19 Nammun-no 2-ga, Sangdang-gu, Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do	48-19 Nammun-no 2-ga, Sangdang-gu, Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do (28530)	48-19 Nammun-no 2-ga, Sangdang-gu	48-19 Nammun-no 2-ga, Sangdang-gu, Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do	48-19 Nammun-no 2-ga, Sangdang-gu, Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do
	City		Cheongju	Cheongju-si, Chungbuk
	Owner		State-owned	State-owned
	Manager			Cheongju
	Designated Area			53m2
	Designated Area Designated Area			2.3m2
	Protection Area			13341m2
	Protection Area Designated Area			1611.7m2
	Field					Art and Sport / Architecture	History / Traditional Period, Cultural Heritage / Tangible Heritage
	Form			Flagpole		Heritage Site	Artifact / Artifact (General)
	Character					Flagpole
	Creation Year					962
	Quantity			1
	Material			Base: Granite, Flagpole: Iron
	Size/Dimensions			Base height 4.2m, Iron flagpole height 12.7m
	Flagpole				Height 13.1m, 20 iron cylinders (originally 30)
	Base				Granite, height 4.2m, width 40cm
	Iron Cylinders				Diameter 43cm, height 65.2cm
	Inscription				Regular script (character size 2.8cm)
	Author					Jeong Myeong-ho	Na Gyeong-jun
English Text	Y	Y		Y

If we look at the individual English interpretive texts for these sources, we can see that they differ entirely in regard to content, structure, and tone. Though not listed in the table above (because the metadata is the same), the English CHA website interpretive text and the Cultural Heritage Digital Hub interpretive text differ, despite both being on official CHA websites. This shows that rather than reutilizing and improving upon existing interpretive resources, new interpretive resources are being composed and translated again and again both within the CHA and local governments. It is also worth noting that among these four English interpretive texts, two of them (the Cheongju Tourism Website and Cultural Heritage Hub) have texts which have clearly not been proofread by a native speaker and feature awkward and unclear phrasing.

Figure 11 Screen capture of English interpretive text for Iron Flagpole at Yongdusa Temple Site, Cheongju as found on the on-site information panel

Figure 12 Screen capture of English interpretive text for Iron Flagpole at Yongdusa Temple Site, Cheongju from the English CHA website

Figure 13 Screen capture of English interpretive text for Iron Flagpole at Yongdusa Temple Site, Cheongju from the Cultural Heritage Digital Hub

Figure 14 Screen capture of English interpretive text for Iron Flagpole at Yongdusa Temple Site, Cheongju from the Cheongju Tourism Site

However, more importantly, if basic translations and explanations are being done over and over again, this takes away from focusing on testing and improving existing translations and explanations. For instance, to improve the quality of interpretations, there needs to be testing with audiences as to which explanations and translations are the most effective in conveying interpretive information and stimulating further action. Yet if financial and human resources are being spent on re-explaining and re-translating the same interpretive information over and over, this research cannot take place. If such research does not take place, innovation will not occur.

The main reasons for this lack of efficiency and sustainability are due to the 1) division of labor (i.e. no centralized oversight), 2) frequent rotation of human resources, and 3) reliance on text and analog forms. Division of labor and frequent rotation of human labor lead to those working on interpretation-related tasks (usually at local government) being unaware of existing resources, which leads to redundant work. This also means those responsible for interpretive texts at each institution may have difficulty locating skilled authors and translators. Because of the reliance on and expense of physical information panels, there is little incentive to invest in the research and innovation of best practices of the content of the interpretive texts or other non-text interpretive resources. This is further compounded by the fact that, by leaving interpretation up to small local government who only have a select number of heritage under their charge, there is little incentive to develop and test new forms of interpretive resources. Regarding composition and translation, because the work is outsourced to authors and translators, they have little incentive to research and compile the best translations and explanations for various terms.

In order to solve these systematic problems, there needs to be centralized oversight of interpretative resources. This needs to ensure that the resources that already exist are not recreated, but rather reutilized and improved upon. Otherwise, local governments do not have incentive to innovate. There also needs to be ways to update content more easily, automatically if possible, to encourage innovation. Furthermore, there needs to be ways to reutilize existing definitions, explanations, and translations of terms/contextual elements not just for interpretive texts, but for various objectives and purposes - content creation, education, research, for kids and for foreigners, be shown in various forms on and offline, etc.