IMMERSIVE HERITAGE: RESEARCH ISSUES

IMMERSIVE EXPERIENCES IN MUSEUMS, GALLERIES AND HERITAGE SITES: A REVIEW OF RESEARCH FINDINGS AND ISSUES: DISCUSSION PAPER 2019/2020, BY DR. JENNY KID AND DR. EVA NIETO MCEVOY DR JENNY KIDD AND DR EVA NIETO MCAVOY 

Whilst many heritage institutions hope that immersive technologies can be used to (a) increase visibility and contribute to a culture of innovation, (b) appeal to new audiences, (c) allow for more meaningful participation, (d) facilitate better engagement, and (e) provide additional revenue.

➢ This discussion paper proposes that the role of immersive experiences in fulfilling these objectives needs to be better evidenced as these ambitions are still being tested.

➢ In summarising and reflecting on current academic research interests we make the case for increased efforts to test a value proposition that more adequately captures the nuances of immersion in museum, gallery and heritage contexts.

Summary of themes emerging in the research (from the discussion paper)

Storytelling. Immersive approaches broaden the possibilities of digital storytelling – whether enhancing experiences, challenging conventions or giving users a more active role to play. New audience propositions are emerging. Narrative techniques can be used to step or pace an experience so that users do not become overwhelmed or bored. Discussion Paper 2: Immersive Experiences in Museums, Galleries and Heritage Sites

➢ Avoid technology-centric approaches. Careful consideration should be given to audience, intended impacts and narrative, before opting for any particular technological solution.

Social experiences. Social exchanges are important aspects of usability and accessibility and can be powerfully enhanced during an immersive encounter – whether it is being experienced by several people or only one person at a time.
➢ Consider the kind of social interactions an experience will facilitate – directly or indirectly – as sociability is very often crucial to meaning making and enjoyment.

Emotional engagement. Institutions increasingly want to understand the affective responses of users to their programming. One of the most pervasive assumptions is that immersive experiences increase empathy, but this proposition needs further exploration in these contexts.
➢ Iterative rounds of user testing – including qualitative investigation – can offer insight into possible impacts on users, but note that such impacts will be unlikely to be universal ones.


Embodied and spatial interaction. Immersive approaches – even those seemingly experienced ‘wholly’ digitally – are grounded in a physical and sensorial reality and have the potential to become full body experiences. There is strong evidence that an immersive experience can change the relationship between participants and the physical spaces they occupy.
➢ Consider how the physical and bodily dimensions of an immersive experience can be made into an asset.
➢ The interactions between story, people, place and technology can powerfully enhance an immersive experience, and careful consideration should be given to these flows.

Authenticity. Debates about authenticity, re-creation and fakery are amplified by digital technologies, and are particularly knotty in heritage contexts. A sense of authenticity is important to those encountering immersive heritage experiences, even where those interventions are playful and performative.
➢ The possibilities of re-creation come with increased responsibilities that designers and institutions need to take seriously, both for quality and ethical reasons.

Learning. Many cultural institutions seek to offer users a learning experience through immersive encounters. While some research suggests that this can be the case, the full possibilities of immersive education still need to be explored.

Challenges

Usability, uptake and onboarding. Technologies often pique the interest of users encouraging engagement, but there are challenges that can undermine an immersive encounter.
➢ Framing an immersive experience to manage expectations is key so that users have some sense of what is expected of them (time commitment, movement in physical space, etc).
➢ Using technology is itself an object interaction within a heritage context. Consider how best to make it frictionless, or even invisible.
➢ Consider sustainability issues: What will be necessary to keep an experience ‘live’? (staff training, further funding, technical support, etc).

Evaluation. There is a consensus that mixed methodologies are desirable where possible to adequately account for the nature and quality of experience.
➢ Institutions should be live to the challenges of evaluating ‘in the wild’ and plan for repeat user testing and iteration where practicable.

Opportunities going forward
​
➢ Further efforts to consolidate and articulate a more holistic ‘value proposition’.
➢ Consideration of the ethical implications of immersive practices, particularly in relation to the roles and responsibilities of cultural institutions into the future, and in connection with other current priorities and debates in the sector.
➢ More research into the impacts of immersive technology. Heritage contexts provide a rich testbed for further investigation.
➢ In summarising and reflecting on current academic research interests we make the case for increased efforts to test a value proposition that more adequately captures the nuances of immersion in museum, gallery and heritage contexts.

Kidd, J. and McAvoy, E.N., 2019. Immersive experiences in museums, galleries and heritage sites: a review of research findings and issues. Cardiff: School of Journalism, Media and Culture.