The Volunteer Who Wants to Add a Ghost Story
You supervise six volunteer interpreters at a restored 19th-century courthouse. One volunteer, who has given tours for four years and is popular with visitors, has begun adding an unverified story that a prisoner died in the holding cell and that his ghost can be heard at night. There is no documentary support; the site's research file shows the cell held short-term detainees and records no death. Visitor feedback cards now mention the ghost story as a highlight, and two visitors have asked staff whether the cell is 'haunted.' The volunteer says the story 'makes history come alive' and that visitors love it. Your site's interpretation policy requires that all factual claims be supported by the research file, and that ambiguity be labelled as such. The volunteer is otherwise reliable and has no prior performance issues.
1. Analyse the conflict and decide what outcome you are seeking before you speak with the volunteer.
Read the worked answer
The conflict is between engagement and integrity, and the policy resolves it: unsupported claims are not permitted, and uncertainty must be labelled. The ghost story is not merely colourful; it asserts a death that the record does not support, which misleads visitors about the site's past and about how historians know what they know. The visitor praise is real evidence of a need, not evidence that the story is acceptable: visitors are responding to narrative and atmosphere, which can be delivered truthfully. The outcome I want is not punishment but a corrected practice: the volunteer stops presenting the death as fact, and we find a legitimate way to meet the appetite for atmosphere. Before the conversation I would check the research file myself to be certain there is no support, and consider whether the site has documented folklore or local legend that could be presented as folklore rather than history.
2. Script the conversation with the volunteer, and explain how you handle the 'visitors love it' argument.
Read the worked answer
Open with respect and specificity: 'Your tours are strong, and visitors tell us so. I need to talk about the holding-cell story.' State the policy and the specific problem: 'The research file does not record a death in that cell, so presenting one as fact breaks our rule that claims are supported. I am not asking you to be less engaging; I am asking you to be accurate.' Handle the 'visitors love it' argument directly: 'They do, and that tells me the atmosphere matters. That is exactly why I want to keep it, but honestly.' Offer a concrete alternative: present the cell's documented use and then say plainly that local legend has attached a ghost story to it, that the records do not confirm a death, and invite visitors to consider why such stories grow around places of confinement. That keeps the hook, teaches how evidence works, and complies with the policy. Agree a review date and offer to help rewrite the segment. Close by affirming the volunteer's value so the correction is about the practice, not the person.
3. What follow-up is needed with the rest of the team and with visitors who were told the story?
Read the worked answer
Brief all six volunteers together so the standard is shared and no one feels singled out: restate the evidence rule, show the corrected holding-cell segment as a model, and invite questions. Ask the team to flag any other unsupported claims they have heard, which turns the correction into a quality review rather than a reprimand. For visitors who already heard the story, do not chase individual guests, but correct the public record where it is visible: ensure any printed or digital tour description does not repeat the claim, and brief front-desk staff on how to answer 'is it haunted?' with an honest line about local legend and the absence of evidence. Set a short review in two to four weeks to confirm the new segment is in use and to check visitor feedback, and document the conversation and the policy reminder in the volunteer's file as a coaching note, not a disciplinary record.