The world of historic house museums has been grappling with fundamental questions about purpose and sustainability for many years. Two significant gatherings, the Kykuit II Summit in 2007 and the recent 2025 Historic House Summit, highlight key moments in this ongoing discussion. Bridging these two events is the American Association for State and Local History’s (AASLH) STEPS program, particularly its standards for interpretation, which emerged directly from the needs identified in that earlier period. Looking at these three points in time reveals not only evolving ideas but also the increasing urgency and specific challenges facing interpretation today. 

The Kykuit II Summit: The Call for Sustainability and Standards

The Kykuit II Summit, held in April 2007 at the John D. Rockefeller estate, brought together leaders to discuss “the sustainability of historic sites.” This was a follow-up to a similar meeting five years prior. The discussions focused on finding ways for historic sites, the largest segment of the museum community, to thrive. Key questions included the challenging, “unmentionable” ones: “Does America need another house museum?” or “Can America support the existing historic sites it now has?”

Participants acknowledged that traditional models, like the “velvet rope tour” and relying solely on tourism, were not sustainable for most sites. There was a call to redefine missions and find “more varied ways to utilize their remarkable resources to enrich people’s lives.” Discussions highlighted that serving the needs of the local community, rather than focusing primarily on tourist audiences, was considered the most valuable and sustainable goal for most historic sites. More importantly, participants noted that many professional standards and practices, often borrowed from broader museum practice (like AAM accreditation), in practice often deterred creativity and sustainability at historic sites, suggesting a need for new standards or guidelines modeled to reflect the distinct nature of these places.

Amidst this context, the American Association for State and Local History (AASLH) introduced an initiative noted as fitting the findings and recommendations of the Kykuit meeting. This initiative, now known as the AASLH Standards and Excellence Program for History Organizations (STEPS), was supported by a three-year grant from the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS). Its purpose was to develop and pilot a standards program for small- and mid-sized history institutions, providing assessment materials, best practices, and other resources in six areas: mission, vision, and governance; audience; collections; historic structures and landscapes; management; and interpretation. STEPS is listed as an outcome of the Kykuit summits.

STEPS Interpretation: Building a Framework for Good Practice

First introduced to the field in 2009 and comprehensively revised in 2021, the AASLH STEPS workbook provides a structured approach to evaluation and improvement for interpretation. It outlines standards and performance indicators, including accuracy, public accountability, inclusivity, community engagement, staff well-being, research methods, and the use of techniques and technology. These standards formalized many best practices and aspirations for interpretation that were gaining traction around the time of the 2007 Summit and anticipated themes that would become central to later discussions.

The STEPS standards emphasize that historic institutions are stewards of resources held in the public trust, with a responsibility for accurate interpretation. They connect interpretation to current events and stress the need to acknowledge the negative impact of marginalization, omission, and misrepresentation. A major focus is placed on creating an inclusive and equitable culture by sharing a broad range of stories and perspectives, engaging diverse stakeholders and communities in interpretation development (“Nothing about us without us”), and ensuring physical and programmatic accessibility. The standards also address the importance of diversity in staff and volunteers.

Significantly, STEPS touches upon the well-being of staff who interact with visitors, particularly regarding public relations incidents related to interpretation and when content includes historical trauma. It advocates for interpretation content to be based on appropriate research, consulting local communities and cultural groups, and using solid research for difficult topics like violence, oppression, and other traumas. The use of varied techniques, including costumed interpretation, is covered, specifically addressing the need for accurate reflection of racial identities. Training for staff in content, techniques, visitor interaction, and cultural competency is included. The standards also note the relevance of environmental sustainability and technology.

In essence, STEPS formalized many best practices and aspirations for inclusive, relevant, and responsible interpretation, however, are these still the standards and best practices for the field?

2025 Historic House Summit: Interpreting Historic House Museums Today

The 2025 Summit held at the Edsel and Eleanor Ford House aimed to assess the current state of interpretation, identify future trends, and define major issues shaping the field for the next 10-15 years. While the overarching goal of sustainability was still present, the context and tone reflected the intensified pressures of the current social and political environment.

The 2025 discussions deeply engaged with themes formalized in STEPS but with a new urgency. The call for “whole history” was a central theme, emphasizing the need to move beyond furniture and technology to tell full, human-centered stories, including those of women, people of color, laborers, and marginalized groups. This involves interpreting the “complexity and moral ambiguity” of historical figures. Specific sessions focused on interpreting challenging topics like climate change, the difficult realities of labor history (moving beyond “syrupy stories” to address disparity, wages, and emotional costs), and interpreting sexuality.

The Summit highlighted the increasing challenges of connecting with audiences in a polarized environment with “less consensus about history than ever before”. This led to a strong emphasis on dialogic engagement. Training in listening, questioning, civil discourse, and conflict navigation was identified as essential for future staff. 

A particularly urgent theme in 2025 was the mental health and safety of front-line staff and costumed interpreters, noting an increase in harassment and disparaging remarks, particularly targeting women, LGBTQ+ people, and African American interpreters. This points to a heightened level of direct negative engagement from the public compared to what might have been anticipated when STEPS standards mentioning staff well-being were written.

The Summit acknowledged AI and began to raise the question of how it will affect museums. While deeply not explored, this points to new technological considerations touched upon in STEPS.

Comparing these summits and STEPS reveals a clear evolution. The 2002 and 2007 summits identified the fundamental problem of sustainability and the need for new approaches to interpretation and standards. The STEPS interpretation standards represent a formalized framework developed to address those needs, providing guidance on inclusivity, research, community engagement, and staff awareness. The 2025 Summit demonstrates the field grappling with the intensified reality of these issues in a volatile contemporary context.

Citations: 

Vogt, Jay D. “The Kykuit II Summit: The Sustainability of Historic Sites.” History News Summer 2007.

American Association for State and Local History. “Interpretation.” In STEPS: Standards and Excellence Program for History Organizations. N.p.: American Association for State and Local History, 2021.