ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Today's social and political movements against dominant Western narratives call for a re-contextualization of cultural heritage (CH) toward inclusivity, multiperspectivity, and sensemaking. Our work approaches this challenge from a Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) perspective, questioning how HCI approaches, tools and methods can contribute to CH re-contextualization. Through collaborative reflection on our research practice, we identified four diverging case studies highlighting the different roles of HCI and its increasing entanglement with CH. Case studies 1-3 focus on HCI as a medium for CH, case 4 on digital CH, and thereby on the HCI-CH entanglement. Our reflections contribute to CH re-contextualization by highlighting the need for co-design and slow design approaches, the role of HCI technologies in preserving, communicating, and shaping CH, and open questions and challenges related to the increasing HCI-CH convergence.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Hirsch, L.; Paananen, S.;
Lengyel, D.; Häkkilä, J.; Toubekis, G.;
Talhouk, R.; Hespanhol, L.
Human–Computer Interaction (HCI)
Advances to Re-Contextualize
Cultural Heritage toward
Multiperspectivity, Inclusion, and
Sensemaking. Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0.
https://doi.org/
Academic Editor: Firstname
Lastname
Received: 19 June 2024
Revised: 16 August 2024
Accepted: 23 August 2024
Published:
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
applied
sciences
Article
Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) Advances to
Re-Contextualize Cultural Heritage toward Multiperspectivity,
Inclusion, and Sensemaking
Linda Hirsch* 1, Siiri Paananen 3, Denise Lengyel 2, Jonna Häkkilä 3, Georgios Toubekis 1, Reem Talhouk 5
and Luke Hespanhol 4
1Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT, 53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany;
georgios.toubekis@fit.fraunhofer.de
2Open Lab, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK; denise.lengyel@newcastle.ac.uk
3
Faculty of Art and Design, University of Lapland, 96300 Rovaniemi, Finland; siiri.paananen@ulapland.fi (S.P.);
jonna.hakkila@ulapland.fi (J.H.)
4School of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, 2006 Sydney, Australia;
luke.hespanhol@sydney.edu.au
5School of Design, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 1XA, UK;
reem.talhouk@northumbria.ac.uk
*
Correspondence: uxresearch@hirschlinda.com, Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT,
53757 Sankt Augustin, German
Abstract: Today’s social and political movements against dominant Western narratives call for a
re-contextualization of cultural heritage (CH) toward inclusivity, multiperspectivity, and sensemak-
ing. Our work approaches this challenge from a Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) perspective,
questioning how HCI approaches, tools and methods can contribute to CH re-contextualization.
Through collaborative reflection on our research practice, we identified four diverging case studies
highlighting the different roles of HCI and its increasing entanglement with CH. Case studies 1–3
focus on HCI as a medium for CH, case 4 on digital CH, and thereby on the HCI–CH entanglement.
Our reflections contribute to CH re-contextualization by highlighting the need for co-design and slow
design approaches, the role of HCI technologies in preserving, communicating, and shaping CH, and
open questions and challenges related to the increasing HCI–CH convergence.
Keywords: cultural heritage; contextualization; multiperspectivity; entanglements; inclusion;
sensemaking, indigenous peoples; communication.
1. Introduction
Cultural heritage (CH) is a society’s foundation and living memory, shaping how
humans understand historical developments and contemporary social systems as indi-
viduals and a collective [
1
,
2
]. However, current social and political developments offer
a critique of that history, arguing that it is mainly narrated and written from a one-sided
Western and, thus, colonialist perspective, which too often ignores the needs, perspec-
tives, and experiences of underrepresented people (e.g., Indigenous people) [
3
5
]. This
demands a re-contextualization of approaching and communicating CH toward an ago-
nistic and democratized discourse that allows preservation, multiperspectivity, inclusion,
and sensemaking across cultural backgrounds and origins [
1
,
6
]. Only in recent years, the
international heritage community has started to recognize the importance of prioritizing
such people-centered approaches to CH over expert-centered ones (These efforts are ex-
emplified by the various working groups of the International Council on Monuments
and Sites (ICOMOS) under the title Our Common Dignity—A Rights Based Approach to Cul-
tural Heritage (see https://www.icomos.org/en/what-we-do/disseminating-knowledge/
icomos-working-groups?start=1, last accessed 18 June 2024), especially in the context
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0. https://doi.org/10.3390/app1010000 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 2 of 26
of identifying the role of heritage in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs;
https://sdgs.un.org/goals, last accessed 18 June 2024). These initiatives advocate that the
cultural, environmental, and socio-economic concerns of people and communities have to
be taken more prominently into account in the development of local, national, and interna-
tional heritage policies and practices, including through the use of modern communication
technologies [79].
To re-contextualize CH communication from a socio-technical perspective CH re-
contextualization is impacted by other areas of expertise, political policies, appropriate
legislation, etc. However, as those are outside our expertise, we focus only on HCI advances
into a meaningful and inclusive dialogue [
6
], we must reflect on and consider target
groups and available means and tools. Today’s communication happens often online and
via digital and social media platforms [
10
]. Nevertheless, interactions in tangible and
intangible CH still rely heavily on analog communication, such as the display of certain
cultural artifacts that indicate the identity and status of the owner [
11
], or drumming to
express the connection to each other and the surroundings [
12
]. Particularly for Indigenous
and traditional Western communities, analog communication is part of the cultural identity
community members understand and trust [
13
,
14
]. In contrast, there are partial hesitations
against digital technologies, as they introduce Western values and often cannot fully
represent the culture’s meaning and richness [
15
]. This divide underscores the complexity,
sensitivity, and multi-dimensionality of re-contextualizing CH for inclusive and equitable
exchange and understanding across cultural backgrounds. This challenge is exacerbated
by the lack of reflection and re-consideration of tools and methods to approach the re-
contextualization in the first place [16].
We see advantages in Human–Computer Interaction (HCI), an interdisciplinary re-
search field focusing on user-centered design to create interfaces, tools, and platforms
adapted to users’ abilities, skills, socio-cultural backgrounds, and contexts [
17
19
]. The
field enables CH communication through experience. It has developed multiple approaches
and technologies to preserve and re-contextualize CH, including augmented (AR) or virtual
reality (VR) storytelling [
20
22
], tangible interaction [
23
,
24
], and accessible 3D replicas of
CH artifacts and environments [
25
27
]. In the process, HCI research further emphasizes
the need to protect users and build socio-emotional relationships with them, particularly
when dealing with vulnerable users from minoritized groups or users with lower socio-
economical status or lower digital literary skills [
17
]. Additionally, participatory [
28
] and
co-design [
29
] approaches enable engaging users early and throughout development, ensur-
ing their communication needs, habits, and styles are accommodated. Consequently, HCI
provides tools and methods for CH re-contextualization and communication that foster an
agonistic and democratized discourse.
Our work builds on a research workshop about CH re-contextualization held at an
international research conference in which four of the authors participated [
30
]. Based
on these initial discussions, we applied a form of collaborative reflection [
31
,
32
] on our
individual long-term practice experiences in five online sessions, in which all authors
reflected on the role of HCI advances in re-contextualizing CH toward multiperspectivity,
inclusion, and sensemaking, highlighting recent developments and challenges. We focus
on multiperspectivity—defined as a“concept expressing the willingness to take someone else’s
viewpoint [
33
]—and inclusion—here focused on social inclusion in the form of fostering
solid bonds between groups despite their differences [
34
]—toward empowering minoritized
groups to share their perspectives and CH as equals. In addition, we aim for sensemaking,
which is the process of contextualizing an experience that supports empathy, meaning, and
connection-making [
35
,
36
], which are relevant qualities for creating shared understanding.
To this end, we present four case studies (see Table 1) from the authors’ own research areas
that have applied and explored HCI approaches, methods, and technologies in and for
different contexts and purposes. Each case study highlights challenges, opportunities, and
open research questions, following the guiding question:
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 3 of 26
How can HCI research approach CH re-contextualization to enable multiperspectivity,
inclusion, and sensemaking?
Table 1. Overview of the case studies and the HCI–CH relationship presented in each.
Case Context HCI for Location Project Phase
1
Intangible CH
as a Factor in
Design Ideation
Inclusion
Multiperspectivity
England,
Europe Ideation
Contributions: methodological choices and flexibility to foster inclusion and cohesion
Meta-level challenges: communicating individual social and cultural values to others
Approach: co-design, arts-based methods
RQs related: researcher diversity, reflexivity, arts-based methods, slow science
HCI–CH relationship: pre-figuring
2
Interaction Design
for Indigenous
Museum and CH
Multiperspectivity
Sensemaking
Northern Finland,
Europe
Exploration and
Prototyping
Contributions: value of listening and flexibility
Meta-level challenges: exploring sensitive topics, Indigenous-led project
Approach: participatory design, prototyping, iteration
RQs related: empowering locals, involving experts, co-design
HCI–CH relationship: pre-figuring, enabling and facilitating
3
CH management
for Cultural
Landscape
Inclusion
Sensemaking
Afghanistan,
Asia
Analysis to
Documentation
Contributions: visualize the impact of planning decision to local stakeholders
Meta-level challenges: foster feedback and stakeholder participation
Approach: field survey, remote sensing, 3D modeling, community involvement
RQs related: self-determination on heritage values, reconciliation after conflict
HCI–CH relationship: mediating and converging
4
Social Media Data
as Digital CH Sensemaking Germany,
Europe Evaluation
Contributions: facilitating sensemaking of and empowerment over one’s own data
Meta-level challenges: data bequest of one’s digital identity and possessions
Approach: web application testing, lab study
RQs related: AI assistance, data ownership, future digital cultures and CH
HCI–CH relationship: converging
Each case study further informs different project phases (from Ideation to Documentation):
Case 1 presents a methodological approach to enable multiperspectivity already in the
Ideation stage of HCI projects, fostering inclusion early in technological development.
Case 2 reflects on Exploration and Prototyping as a means of communicating with
Indigenous user groups to achieve a shared understanding of different cultural values
more quickly.
Case 3 focuses on 3D scanning and modeling in Cultural Landscape Analysis and
Documentation and preservation to support decision-making in CH management and
discusses digital tools to promote sensemaking through active stakeholder participation.
Case 4 discusses digital data legacies and the development of personal cultural
heritage through social media and online platforms, highlighting the need for further
Evaluation of the increasing HCI components in CH entanglements (Figure 6).
Results from our reflection emphasize the intra-dependencies between both fields,
identifying HCI’s crucial role in CH re-contextualization. HCI serves as a communication
mediator for CH, and CH provides the foundation for prefiguring HCI. At the same time,
HCI and CH increasingly converge in the form of HCI technologies turning into CH
artifacts, enabling the formation of online groups or identities. Both roles require reflecting
on and adapting HCI research and development approaches toward the ever-evolving
CH pace and dynamics to support CH re-contextualization. Our work contributes with
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 4 of 26
four case studies showcasing the diverging and broad possibilities of HCI to support
CH re-contextualization while reflecting on its role in preserving, communicating, and
shaping CH. Furthermore, we contribute with open questions and challenges related to the
increasing HCI–CH convergence.
2. Background
HCI has explored CH preservation and communication to various extents, which we
briefly introduce below, focusing on sensemaking interactions. This section builds the
backbone of all the concepts and terminologies applied in this work, multiperspectivity
and inclusion, which we will relate to decolonialism and pluriversatility.
2.1. Interactive CH for Preservation, Experience, and Sensemaking
HCI research has approached interactive CH intending to preserve [
22
,
37
,
38
] and to
access [
39
,
40
] and create meaningful experiences with it [
41
,
42
]. Work concerning preser-
vation approaches comprises digitizing tangible [
43
,
44
] and intangible [
22
,
45
] CH, such
as scanning physically built environments to create their 3D virtual replicas [
46
] and
recording cultural dances [
47
]. One of the prominent challenges at the HCI–CH inter-
section is the low level of digital maturity and difficulty in accessing digital data across
cultural institutions and stakeholders. Projects, such as the Cultural Data Space (see https:
//en.acatech.de/allgemein/time-to-raise-the-curtain-on-the-culture-data-space/, last ac-
cessed 25 March 2024), address these issues as part of national digitization strategies,
aiming to create a networked infrastructure that allows easy access and sharing of data
across institutions while preserving data ownership [
48
]. Another challenge is the limited
accessibility of objects and locations. For example, Häkkilä et al.
[40]
developed a virtual
replica of an inaccessible historic graveyard on the border between Finland and Russia.
Their work highlights the benefits of enabling remote access and experiences and the ethi-
cal consideration for designers when creating a “true” replica of a sensitive space. These
projects are only exemplary for CH digitization projects globally but emphasize the need
for HCI involvement and advances in this context.
Creating meaningful interactions of and with CH contributes to its preservation
through users’ socio-emotional engagement and understanding of its relevance to users’
lives and beyond [
49
]. In-group and intergroup communication shapes the process of mak-
ing sense of experiences and happens throughout all conversational platforms, including
onsite and online [
50
,
51
]. In Chang et al.
[50]
, the authors explore a social augmented
reality application as a communication medium between museum visitors using voice and
AR touch traces on virtual objects. The findings showed that social interaction contributes
to users’ immersion, engagement, and understanding. AR has been widely explored to
contextualize CH through engaging and vivid storytelling, enabling users to feel, e.g., like
they are becoming part of an event and decision-making processes in former times [
20
]. The
increased personal and emotional involvement triggers empathy [
52
], sensemaking [
20
],
and dialogue [
1
]. In another example, Angeli et al.
[53]
explore the role of context in a
competitive two-player game to support agonistic remembering—the contextualized repre-
sentation of information to take multiple perspectives and avoid the deterministic value
system of good and bad [
54
]. This approach supported taking an agonist perspective but
required additional information in a debriefing, revealing the challenge of balancing con-
textualization and engagement. These examples highlight the effectiveness of interactive
technology in (re-)contextualizing CH for longer-lasting, meaningful user experiences by
(a) setting information into context and (b) providing alternative means for communication.
2.2. Multiperspectivity and Socio-Cultural Inclusion
Multiperspectivity can be seen as the prerequisite for and the result of socio-cultural
inclusion and cohesion, decolonization, and pluriversality. HCI methods and tools that con-
sider multiperspectivity do so in order to foster socio-cultural inclusion and
cohesion [34,55]
,
the decolonization of perspectives and HCI designs [
56
], and pluriversality [
57
]. This in-
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 5 of 26
cludes arts-based methods, such as digital storytelling and drawing, which have been
shown to foster discussions around intangible CH particularly in communities at risk of social
exclusion”, to help identify intangible values and personal memories and to support mutual
understanding and empathy [
45
,
58
], and, with this, multiperspectivity, through the sharing
of individual experiences. Also, a diverse range of interactive technologies, including CH
apps for digital storytelling and engaging with virtual avatars, has been explored to capture
a more diverse range of experiences through cultural engagement and participation, in
turn fostering multiperspectivity, social cohesion, and inclusion [
34
,
59
,
60
]. Social cohesion
thereby refers to removing barriers and promoting equality for participation in culture [
34
].
Another advantage of interactive technology in this context is the possibility of content and
interaction modality adaptation and customization. Giglitto et al. [
61
] emphasized the need
to tailor communication to a community’s needs and avoid “one size fits all” solutions. This
supports multiperspectivity and connects well with research involving (intangible) CH and
HCI since CH research is increasingly based on sharing a variety of subjective experiences
and memories [
45
,
62
]. A re-contextualization of (intangible) CH through HCI should foster
multiperspectivity and enable individuals to share their own individual stories with each
other and researchers. Notably, it has been argued that the reflexivity required for such
inclusive sharing of different experiences and knowledge needs to be dialogic and is thus
reliant on multiperspectivity in the first place [1].
Another example of interactive technology and its contributions to CH is Historical
Geographical Information Systems, which combine data from geosciences and cultural
data to help (re- )contextualize heritage sites, supporting their accessibility as well as a
general shift of CH away from mere preservation towards its role in community formation,
shaping shared identities, and the environment [
63
]—and thus socio-cultural inclusion. On
that note, Meissner
[64]
urges researchers and practitioners to consider not only social
cohesion, the feelings of belonging to a community or place, but also social distinction. The
latter refers to what Meissner
[64]
calls heterogeneous cultural preferences and divergent
expectations of participants regarding a community’s (lived) CH. This is connected to
supporting multiperspectivity, but it goes beyond that: It is also connected to the danger of
reproducing social hierarchies and reinforcing power relations, such as gender inequalities
and power imbalances. Thus, as stated by Meissner
[64]
, it is indispensable for researchers
to reflect on their own socio-cultural background—and on more general issues related to
undemocratic, elitist, and colonial practices in (HCI and) CH [
16
,
65
]. This reflection is
vital to creating the necessary, safe space for multiperspectivity, joint sensemaking, and
socio-cultural inclusion in CH and HCI [66].
2.3. Decolonialism and Pluriversality
In recent years, a discussion of decolonizing practice for design research has been
presented [
67
,
68
], also in regards to technology and CH [
69
], to support multiperspec-
tivity and inclusive sensemaking in HCI. Decolonizing in design can mean dismantling
power relations, resisting biases, and considering the Western influence on current technol-
ogy [
56
]. Its potential has further been described as [...]re-imagining and re-designing futures
together through deep listening and deep criticality [
70
] a potential further highlighted
by
Ansari [67]
concerning the co-existence of different cultures and worlds that designers
can foster and support in their research and practices.
Pluriversality is one approach suggested for decolonizing design [
57
]. In their book
Designing for the Pluriverse, Escobar
[71]
describe the concept as a tool for reimagining and re-
constructing local worlds and include pluriversity to achieve multiperspectivity. A problem
for development can be the lack of adoption of new technologies by the local marginalized
communities. Thus, a focus on localized solutions has been recommended [
72
]. The decolo-
nizing design approach and pluriversal views can be involved when working with, e.g.,
Indigenous and marginalized groups to empower them to tell their own stories [
21
]. Re-
searchers emphasize the need for decolonizing ..in, by and through participatory design [
73
].
Yet, Tlostanova
[68]
emphasize that merely using participatory methods is not enough to
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 6 of 26
decolonize design. Lazem et al.
[56]
have looked at the challenges and paradoxes of decol-
onizing HCI, suggesting that researchers both in the North and in the South collaborate
on the topic of decolonization. Akama and Yee
[74]
discuss the role of plurality in social
innovation and design processes, highlighting the role of relationships and reciprocity.
Indigenous cultural heritage faces various issues when digital tools are considered, such
as commodification [
75
]. Thus, HCI technologies and approaches must be applied with
special care in the design process featuring marginalized cultures.
3. Case Study Selection and Collaborative Reflection
Before presenting the case studies, we want to acknowledge that we are a group of
researchers from Australia, Finland, Germany, and the UK, with one of us being from a
Levant Arab cultural background and the others from a white European and Australian
cultural background. Each author approaches interactive CH from a different perspective
and in collaboration with local communities of Indigenous people or refugees, e.g., in
the UK with young refugees and asylum seekers from Eritrea, El Salvador, Turkey, and
Kurdistan; in Finland with the Sámi; and in Australia with Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples and with Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, and Turkmens in Afghanistan.
The case study selection and meta-level reflection are based on collaborative reflection
in five online meetings. The workshop at the international conference [
30
] provided the ini-
tial setup to trigger collaborative reflections on this paper’s guiding research question. The
workshop showed the broadness and diversity of ongoing HCI research around the world
for and in CH and identified similar challenges, such as building trusting relationships with
minoritized groups, enabling multiperspectivity, or integrating a culture’s true values in
interaction design for outsiders to experience and understand. All workshop proceedings
can be found in [
76
]. These emerging themes build the basis of this paper’s focus on
reflecting on the role of HCI to re-contextualize CH toward inclusion, multiperspectivity,
and sensemaking.
We continued the discussions in smaller online meetings depending on the researchers’
availability, which resulted in this work’s meta-level reflections. Each researcher con-
tributed with rich insights concerning diverse cultural backgrounds and research experi-
ences related to CH re-contextualization. Prilla et al.
[31]
define such meetings as collabo-
rative reflections, or “meetings in which a team reflects on its practice, or discussions in which
workers mutually reflect on stressful situations”, which resulted in new insights, perspectives,
and shared understandings. While we did not follow a structured approach, we discussed
and reflected together on our core questions, taking our different research projects as exam-
ples: (1) What role does HCI take in the preservation, communication, and representation
of cultural heritage? And (2) how can HCI research approach CH re-contextualization to en-
able multiperspectivity, inclusion, and sensemaking? Our reflections led to the selection of
case studies that represent the diversity and complexity of CH re-contextualization and the
different roles HCI incorporates related to CH. Furthermore, we selected these case studies
because, as shown in Table 1, each case study contributes to different HCI tools, approaches,
and project phases, emphasizing the diverse, interlaced, and increasingly co-dependent
HCI–CH relationship. The entangled relationship is reflected throughout an HCI itera-
tive design process from ideation to evaluation, impacting the CH re-contextualization,
highlighted by our case study selection.
4. Case Studies
4.1. Re-Contextualizing Intangible CH as a Factor of Inclusion and Cohesion in Design Ideation
In this case study, we reflect on (unexpected) benefits and barriers we encountered
in a co-design project on mobile-technology- and social-media-supported self-organized
learning environments (SOLEs) [
77
] with young refugees and asylum seekers (YRASs) from
diverse cultural backgrounds. The project aims at exploring the YRASs’ perspectives on
their use and opinions of such SOLEs and of underlying (social media) platforms, giving
them space to also reflect on the role that their socio-cultural environment and community
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 7 of 26
play. The project thus aims to open up the HCI narrative to embrace the YRASs’ CH as an
influencing factor in HCI projects and to re-contextualize CH towards multiperspectivity,
socio-cultural inclusion, and cohesion. The project took place in the North East of England
and was run with the volunteer project North–East Solidarity and Teaching (NEST). We
used a two-phase co-design approach, with this case study focusing on the first phase
that elucidates the YRASs’ digital ecosystem, i.e., with whom, how, where, and when
they learn with digital technologies in both their home country and the UK, (see [
78
]
and https://tincrow.net/soles-for-ras, last accessed 14 May 2024, for more details on this
project). Like the others, our case study presents a re-contextualization of CH in HCI by
asking what types of CH we are dealing with and how they connect. We offer a view
of intangible CH playing out during co-design research, of CH as an influencing factor
rather than an explicit object of study. Thus, we emphasize methodological approaches
towards (social and cultural) inclusion and cohesion in the early phases of HCI projects,
e.g., to bridge communication issues (see Figure 1). Our reflection centers around three key
methodological takeaways for methodological approaches to become more inclusive in
HCI design by considering intangible and inherited CH as an important influence during
(the early stages of) co-design research in HCI, instead relegating it to being an explicit
object of study: (1) the need for researcher reflection in/on action and reflexivity on a micro
and macro level, i.e., from single activities to the overall research approach; (2) arts-based
methods as a way to try and overcome barriers and provide a safe place for expression and
sensemaking; and (3) the importance of “slow science” as opposed to the prevalent “fast
science” in HCI (and beyond) that often runs contrary to achieving multiperspectivity and
building rapport.
Figure 1. Arts-based artifacts from a co-design project with young refugees and asylum seekers (from
left to right: visual storytelling with cue cards, draw–write–tell, pupil view template).
We anticipated navigating language and cultural/social barriers because the YRAS
and the researchers came from different (Non-)European backgrounds and countries,
including Eritrea, El Salvador, Turkey, Kurdistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Germany, and the UK. To
account for this diversity—and to avoid a tokenistic approach towards it [
79
]—we wanted
to ensure that the YRASs as a group felt in control of the narrative and took ownership of
the project. Assuming “traditional” HCI methods, such as interviews and questionnaires,
would not adequately support this, we opted for a co-design approach in combination with
participatory arts-based methods, guided by the rationale that both are said to hand over
(large amounts of) control and power to participants [
80
,
81
]. To elucidate the YRASs’ stories
of their learning experiences and digital ecosystem, we advisedly chose to use draw–write–
tell [
82
], cue-card supported visual storytelling [
83
], and pupil view templates [
84
] due to
their focus on storytelling to share experiential knowledge. In all of this, we considered
ourselves facilitators of negotiations and explorers of opportunities and potentials [
85
], as
guides for the YRASs’ storytelling—which in itself is and carries the YRASs’ intangible
CH [
86
], and has been shown to (i) foster discussions around intangible CH particularly in
communities at risk of social exclusion and to (ii) help identify intangible values and support
mutual understanding and empathy [
45
]. It bears repeating that we aimed to explore the
YRASs’ digital ecosystem for learning. So, while CH was not our main object of study, it did
shine through in our activities as an influencing factor. Our methodology aimed to support
this by fostering an atmosphere of openness of actively sharing and listening to different
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 8 of 26
perspectives, an atmosphere of (socio-cultural) inclusion and cohesion in the group. Also,
our own diverse cultural backgrounds sensitized us to (some of the) YRASs’ experiences,
fostering empathy and rapport with the YRAS living in a foreign country with social and
cultural norms different from their own. This led us beyond reflection on action towards
reflexivity, critically inspecting our own experiences, values, and beliefs [
87
89
]. All of the
above was crucial to the project as it allowed us (i) to bridge communication/understanding
issues we otherwise might not have been able to resolve and (ii) to elucidate aspects of
social/cultural inclusion, cohesion, and thus multiperspectivity related to the YRASs’
digital ecosystems. It also shows that the socio-cultural backgrounds, and thus arguably
the CH of participants and researchers, must be considered in projects that strive for
multiperspectivity, inclusion, and cohesion in HCI research, whether focused on CH or
not. In other words, intangible and inherited CH is a crucial factor when interacting and
working with participants and reflecting on these interactions during data collection and
analysis in HCI projects. So it should not just be considered important when it is the explicit
object of study but needs to be (re-)contextualized as an influencing factor of such projects
and a path towards multiperspectivity and socio-cultural inclusion and cohesion in HCI.
During the workshop activities, we noticed that our approach of using co-design and
arts-based methods (ABMs)—in combination with meeting the YRAS repeatedly, building
rapport and trust—was indeed helpful to create a safe space for the YRAS to open up,
reflect on and share their experiences. They allowed us to gain valuable insights into their
diverse uses of digital technology (in general and for learning), thus identifying gender
and race as barriers to their technology use, e.g., social media [
78
]. However, we also
noticed an increased need for us to be flexible in the way we use ABMs. Not all language
barriers (nor the shyness of some YRAS) could be bridged by our ABMs, and we had to
adapt them, for example, by repeating instructions and changing their wording on the fly,
by improvising sentence completion for the “tell” phase in draw–write–tell and by being
accepting of indirect communication via mediators and translators, i.e., participants helping,
translating and summarizing for each other—even though this can influence the stories
ultimately being told as it mixes joint with individual reflection. Such methodological
flexibility is inherent to ABMs—due to their focus on introspection and
i
nterpretation [
90
]—
so openness to engage with ABMs and to embrace their philosophical worldview is an
important factor here for both participants and researchers [
91
]. An example illustrating
the benefits of such methodological flexibility should not go unmentioned here: We asked
for the visual storytelling scenes—which showed the learning experiences of a fictional
young
YRAS—to
be shared by the YRASs but left the “’how” to them. To our surprise,
they chose to perform/roleplay the scenes, which proved to be a lot of fun for players
and the audience, stimulating bonding and discussions that distilled vital aspects and
values underlying their stories, e.g., (their perceptions of) different social/cultural roles
of girls and boys and how these influence their technology use. So ABMs can be a safe
space to share life experiences [
92
], e.g., using indirect storytelling through the eyes of
a protagonist similar to the YRAS, yet not identical. But ABMs can also bypass healthy
barriers and thus always have to be employed carefully [
93
]. More generally, ABMs are
just one cogwheel in the research machinery; others are context, setting, and additional
methods, which can influence (and interfere with) people’s openness to share or explore
arts, power (im-)balances between participants and/or researchers and thus inclusion,
cohesion, and multiperspectivity.
We also noticed that the pace of our sessions and the project was slower than expected
in the otherwise high-turnover world of HCI and “fast science”. This is related to working
with a student-led volunteer project (NEST), gatekeepers, and people from different cultural
backgrounds and heritages and an increased need to spend more time on building rapport,
trust, and mutual understanding. It was also related to an increased organizational load
due to fitting our research into the YRASs’ everyday lives and NEST’s structured activities
for them. In other words, this was and still is a slow science [
94
] project, and it needs, for
the reasons above but also to give participants (and researchers) enough time to reflect and
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 9 of 26
arrive at a common ground, to create a safe and open space to listen and share actively.
Thus, it builds a stronger basis for empathy, inclusion, cohesion, and multiperspectivity.
Indeed, we want to call for slow science in HCI (and beyond) to embrace longer-term
projects instead of short-term pay-offs [
95
], not only during ideation but also during other
phases of technology (co-)design and development. This will come with its own challenges,
such as an increased practical, technical, and methodological complexity [
96
] and effects on
decision-making, goal prioritization, and power relations [
97
]. However, these challenges
are worth the benefits such an approach can carry, foremost in its contributions to socio-
cultural inclusion and cohesion as a “fertilizer” for multiperspectivity in HCI research
projects.
4.2. Exploring Designs through Prototypes for Indigenous Museums
In this case study, we present an exhibition design for an Indigenous Sámi museum,
conducted collaboratively with the museum personnel and artists. We explore the design
process and the tools that HCI and interaction design can offer to these kinds of collabo-
rations; see Figure 2. The Sámi people, the only Indigenous peoples in Europe, live as a
minoritized group in four countries: Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Russia. There are nine
living Sámi languages, all endangered, and various cultural groups [98].
Figure 2. Testing the designs in a cardboard and digital screen prototype to explore the best layout.
Due to history, which is plagued with assimilation policies and colonialism, Sámi
museums represent important institutions through which the indigenous Sámi community
can foster their identity and CH and have a role in strengthening the community and
revitalizing the culture. As described by Silvén
[99]
, “Sami representations in heritage and
museums have always contributed to defining Sami identity and the societal position of the
Sami.” These museums take a somewhat different role from conventional museums, which
are memory organizations specifically focusing on the past and are typically targeted to
tourists. The Sámi museums have a central role in the decolonizing movement in Northern
Europe and in bringing back the Sámi artifacts bought, collected, or taken from the area
(see Harlin [
100
]). For example, Porsanger [
101
] describes how a Sámi drum was returned
to a Sámi museum in Karasjok, Norway, highlighting its positive impact on the community.
The repatriation process can create interest in the community regarding heritage and
“...stimulate the more active use of museums by both locals and tourists” [101].
The Sámi Museum Siida involved over 300 local Sámi people when building the new
exhibition. The new exhibition’s focus was not solely on the past but on presenting the
continuum of indigenous CH to the present and modern living Sámi culture. Technology
was brought in, e.g., to augment multimodal experiences and digitalize heritage, allowing
interactive experiences to re-contextualize it for sensemaking and multiperspectivity. More-
over, in the exhibition renewal project, the main target group was the Sámi people and
community—with the goal being the creation of an exhibition design for them—and, sec-
ondarily, the other museum visitors. Thus, technology had to support the overall purpose
of the exhibition and community as opposed to just visitors as users.
So, how can the designers scaffold the process for exploring the possibilities of CH
in practice? As digital technologies can enable engaging museum experiences (e.g., Hor-
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 10 of 26
necker [
102
]), their advantage is not limited to the outcome of the design process. Digital
technologies also enable a design process where different concept designs can be proto-
typed, discussed, and evaluated in an agile manner (Figure 2). We explored three ways
for quick prototyping: SINCO (Service Design Laboratory) [
103
], Virtual Reality [
104
], and
rapid physical prototypes [
105
]. In SINCO, it is possible to simulate different physical
environments and multisensory experiences through various movable screens, speakers,
and physical props. The flexible layout and user of digital tools allowed for quick testing
of ideas for the museums (Figure 3), changing the setup during the workshops.
Figure 3. Prototyping a space at the service design lab with PowerPoint and ideating a concept for
gesture interaction for projected 360 images.
During this overall work, we noticed that the pace of the HCI field and cultural institu-
tions might diverge; thus, shared ways of working must be found for fruitful collaboration.
This was discovered during the project through trial and error, as different ways of un-
derstanding the design context and the role of technology were negotiated. In our case,
prototyping methods, both online and offline, were used to enable better communication
and find the proper way to show the cultural content. Working quickly on something
concrete gave the stakeholders a way to discuss the issues in practice, even with existing
cultural or language barriers. A slow process of building trust by learning about each other
can enable a more inclusive space for understanding and sharing different perspectives.
Being able to discuss this in detail can be essential when balancing storytelling and technol-
ogy. We found that rapid prototyping also allows for changing plans and flexibility, as well
as determining the narrative that the stakeholders want to be told in a particular case and
the optimal way of showcasing it. Through HCI prototyping methods, different ideas can
be visualized and tried out physically or digitally, bridging the language or cultural gaps
that may exist. This also allows stakeholders to actively participate, share their thoughts in
a participatory design setup, and have a shared goal to aim towards.
During the process, it became necessary to understand the plurality of values, in-
cluding the local values [
106
]. Certain design choices were made with the culture first,
such as not being able to touch particular objects due to their sacredness. This shows that
instead of focusing only on engagement or immersive properties, cultural values should be
considered first, such as what kind of things can be shared. This can seem counterintuitive
in a design process, where the user is put first, and everything should be accessible and
easy to use. However, in a culturally sensitive design process, the conventions and rules
of the culture, e.g., who can use certain artifacts, have to be respected. Thus, having an
understanding of multiperspectivity and making sense of the contents was necessary.
In future work, we will work on a tangible participatory design tool that can be used
to engage various stakeholders in technology development projects while keeping ethics
in mind. The aim is to enable the stakeholders to discuss the entanglement of the context,
tools, and goals for better re-contextualization. We encourage researchers and developers
in the HCI field to set aside their preconceptions of good user experience that focus only on
the user and, instead, listen to the local cultural experts and participants and their views on
showcasing heritage through technology and its impact on the community. Thus, this case
highlights the role of the design context and participatory methodologies.
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 11 of 26
4.3. Digital Landscape and Community Involvement of the Bamiyan World Heritage (Afghanistan)
The third case study incorporates HCI best practices in heritage documentation into
broader regional development initiatives in Bamiyan, a valley located in central Afghanistan
and known for the once-largest depictions of standing Buddha figures. The project thereby
showcases the difficulties of managing and reconstructing CH at a landscape scale in post-
conflict Afghanistan. Throughout its history, the country has been subject to internal and
international wars and tensions [
107
,
108
]. These historical continuities and discontinuities
have resulted in the coexistence of traditional and modern social realities, with a diverse
society rich in ethnicity, religion, and culture. Therefore, HCI–CH preservation method-
ologies must consider the shared and contested narratives in “post-conflict” situations to
support long-lasting valorization efforts that sustain societal cohesion.
The Taliban’s destruction of the monumental standing Buddha figures of Bamiyan in
2001 [
109
111
] and the fall of the initial regime pushed the need to rebuild the destroyed
infrastructure of the country, causing a multifaceted and global discussion. On the one
hand, reconstructions are often used to restore a monument to its presumed original state
before destruction, which may refer to an “ideal state.” On the other hand, some argue that
monuments should be left as they were destroyed, preserving the traces of the conflict and
all the layers of time to serve as memorials to war. To ensure long-term preservation, it is
also essential to enable local people to benefit from modern development in post-conflict
situations. Therefore, the inclusion of advanced visualization tools in planning technologies
is essential to enable discourse and informed decision-making.
Following the destruction of the Buddha figures, the entire Cultural Landscape and Ar-
chaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley received UNESCO Cultural World Heritage status
in 2003. This led to the implementation of an international safeguarding program (for de-
tails of the long-year safeguarding program, see https://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/2/,
last accessed 18 June 2024) aimed at ensuring the long-term preservation of the site and
its historical value, as stated in the nomination’s Statement of Significance, as the most
“Western” testimony of Buddhism in the Central Asian region and the center of early
cross-cultural exchanges between China and India. However, for generations, local people
have not attributed any religious significance to the figures, as Buddhism has not played a
role in the region since the spread of Islam in the 11th century [
112
]. The figures were no
longer considered depictions of Buddha. Still, they had been reinterpreted and given new
identities, integrated into the mythical story of the Bamiyan Valley’s Islamization [113].
While rebuilding the country with massive international support, the Afghan national
government decided to develop the Bamiyan Valley into a provincial capital and a com-
mercial and residential hub for the entire central region of Afghanistan. One obstacle to
realizing this vision was the lack of accurate data on the built environment due to outdated
maps at an inadequate scale and uncertainty about the exact extent of the Cultural Land-
scape to be protected. To address this, a plan was needed to accurately depict the physical
morphology of the valley’s landscape and a methodology to identify the cultural and
historic elements worthy of protection. These objectives resulted in the Bamiyan Cultural
Master Plan to fulfill the obligations of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, protect
the valley’s natural and cultural aspects, and initiate an urban development process that
integrates the protected CH zones. A mixed methodological approach was used to map
the culture of the Bamiyan Valley area, combining traditional on-site cultural mapping
with advanced documentation techniques such as laser scanning [
114
]. In addition, remote
sensing technologies, land surveys using Differential GPS (DGPS) measurements, and
high-resolution stereo satellite imagery for 3D photogrammetric analysis were used to
generate a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the valley (see Figure 4). By overlaying the
DEM with cultural layers in a geographic information system (GIS), we obtained precise
insights into the topography and extent of archaeological areas beyond the designated
boundaries of the World Heritage property [
115
]. In the university’s VR lab, we used
the derived topographic models to remotely identify the impact of development projects
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 12 of 26
(e.g., road construction) on the World Heritage property well in advance and to explore
alternatives in the early stages of some developments [116].
Figure 4. Experimental XR setting to seamlessly blend different media resources on the heritage
property based on the 3D digital landscape topography as an orientation ground [115].
We presented the study’s results to local stakeholders in public meetings and work-
shops facilitated by UNESCO and in local communities, projecting thematic maps and
the 3D digital relief overlayed with protection zoning schemes. We also illustrated the
results of near-surface archaeological excavations to explain the need for adapted land-use
practices to avoid the damage and degradation of cultural elements. Villagers attending the
meetings could check the experts’ presentation accuracy by blending the presentations with
orthophotography from Google Maps on their mobile devices and immediately verifying
the extent to which their land and houses were affected by the protected zone. Local people
have never experienced such transparency in planning before.
The interaction with the communities revealed that although the government author-
ities had adopted the protective zoning plans, the implementation in daily practice was
a top-down approach, where individual landowners were directly confronted with the
land use restrictions derived from the preservation objectives. The authorities insisted on
implementing these restrictions without answering the resulting questions, such as that
of basic compensation for the perceived “loss of value” due to the prohibition to use the
land in the most desired way (i.e., value creation through urbanization). In addition to the
conflicting interests arising from development needs and cultural protection requirements,
we have found that the acceptance of universal value concepts such as “World Heritage”
is only possible if local values are included. In particular, in addition to the direct link
between land use value and the livelihoods of local people, this includes an appreciation of
local stories and narratives that are part of the place’s oral history and shared by its people.
Otherwise, any proposed land-use restrictions aimed at preserving the Cultural Landscape
in the long term will be opposed and likely rejected by local communities [117].
Cooperation among stakeholders at the international, national, and local levels is
essential for managing World Heritage sites. The case highlights the link between the
preservation of CH and its role in peace and reconciliation efforts, especially in conflict-
affected regions. Based on such experiences in the field, ICOMOS and ICCROM have
elaborated for the international heritage community on this topic and have jointly pre-
pared guidance for heritage professionals since such discussions greatly affect debates on
sensemaking and value attribution and also heavily impact the balancing of local power
structures. These guidelines address issues of reconstruction within the process of post-
trauma recovery and maintaining the value of places exploring the potential for heritage
to be an agent of human-rights-based social and economic recovery [
118
]. Incorporating
HCI design technologies and methodologies into heritage management at an early stage
can provide innovative ways to engage stakeholders and the wider community in the
preservation and interpretation of heritage sites, highlighting and emphasizing individual
people’s views and visions, including their underlying motivations. Yet greater collabora-
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 13 of 26
tion between the classical conservation community and HCI designers is needed, as, by
integrating examples such as those presented below, stakeholders can create more inclusive,
engaging, and sustainable approaches to preserving and interpreting cultural heritage for
future generations.
4.4. Re-Contextualizing Digital CH: The Legacy of Social Media Data
In this case study, we reflect on preliminary work concerning the digital legacy of
social media data. We argue that the meaning of the term digital CH as we know it today
is twofold. One relates to the tools and interfaces applied to preserve and experience
analog CH [
119
,
120
] as presented and discussed in the previous case studies. In contrast,
the second results from the increasing usage of digital services and the creation of online
identities [121,122], which, in our argumentation, create personal digital CH.
Elaborating on our argumentation, users spend an average of 6.4 h per day online
globally [
123
] in different community platforms and other activities. Thus, the digital realm
is becoming an increasing part of our contemporary and future CH, inducing new social
norms, values, behaviors, and CH preservation requirements. Furthermore, technology has
changed how we communicate and experience our world, moving many conversations, rit-
uals, or habits into the digital realm. Social media platforms further enable us to create one
or more digital identities that can survive their creator [
124
] and add value on individual,
social, cultural, and economic levels [
125
]. The breadth of possibilities for curating digital
identities enables users to craft them independently from their analog lives while all along
remaining bound to similar needs for social acceptance and belonging [
126
]. Beyond the
individual, companies, institutions, and governments also maintain online identities to
quickly reach a broad audience via different communication channels and platforms. This
shift also relates to increasing communication and identity representation based on images
and videos [
127
]. With all these new digital data, identities, and communities, we create
digital cultures that shape the basis of dynamic, volatile, and globally connected CH.
Related to this development, new questions arise regarding data ownership and
agency. Those questions relate to the level of individual user inclusion and the understand-
ability of the massive amount of data. The situation aggravates considering end-of-life
scenarios when the data agency has to be handed over to an “heir” [
128
]. While many
regulate their obituary through a testament, our digital data often remains untouched,
lacking clarification on how to proceed. The reasons for treating the digital and the analog
legacies differently are based on multiple reasons, among others, the lack of transparency
of digital data, a data overload [
129
], and users’ neglecting attitude to engage in the topic.
The latter can be partially explained by the post-mortem privacy paradox [
130
] that de-
scribes the discrepancy between users’ attitudes versus their actual behaviors regarding
data preparation before death [
130
,
131
]. The paradox adds to the privacy paradox [
132
,
133
]
and describes how users’ action opposes their attitude by willingly handing over digital
data for further usage, application, or access by third parties but consider data privacy
very relevant. In most cases, data handling by companies and involved third parties
stays non-transparent, leading to companies having knowledge and perspectives of an
individual user other than the users themselves. At the same time, users have the right
to be forgotten [
134
,
135
] and decide how and by whom their data will be used after their
death. However, digital data, such as our social media images, scale very quickly and
immensely compared to the uniqueness and stability of built heritage or physical artifacts.
This makes digital data nontransparent and hard to maintain [
129
]. HCI research addresses
the challenge by exploring different tools and approaches that empower, motivate, and
enable users to handle their data transparently and guard their agency and ownership.
In our case study, we developed and explored a smart web interface (see Figure 5)
that assists individuals in managing their social media image inheritance across platforms
by contextualizing and customizing the data for and with users. We applied two artificial
intelligence (AI) tools, YOLOv8 (https://yolov8.com/, last accessed 4 March 2024) to
enable contextualized image search, and DeepFace (https://pypi.org/project/deepface/
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 14 of 26
0.0.53/, last accessed 4 March 2024), for face, person, and limited emotion recognition.
Additionally, users could create their own filters and image clusters, customizing the
data display according to their needs and understanding in collaboration with the AI.
In this way, they prepared data access for other individuals or larger groups in the case
of their death. The application further aims to support users in managing their data
nowadays across social media platforms. For example, if a picture should be deleted,
users can define which platforms it should be deleted from. However, the possibilities
of contextualizing the images were limited and depended on available and reliable tools
and users’ mental models of meaningful image clusters. This highlights a challenge of
digital data legacy because the created clusters might not correspond to the “heir’s” mental
model and thus cause misunderstanding and non-transparency when handling the data
inheritance. However, our tool focused solely on the data creator’s perspective, excluding
the heir’s user experience.
Figure 5. Creating a digital legacy based on social media images: This image shows the AI–supported
interface with meaningful filters created by the AI and self–created clusters by the user to pass on to
their heirs.
We identified more challenges when testing the interface with users and their personal
social media images. For one, there is also a lack of awareness of the consequences and un-
derstanding why maintaining a digital data legacy is important. Further, data maintenance
and death preparation are also associated with serious, low-fun activities that some users
prefer to avoid. In similar situations, HCI research applies
nudges [136,137]
or gamified
approaches [
138
,
139
] to motivate users implicitly into action-taking and behavior-changing.
In the context of digital data legacy for CH re-contextualization, such approaches can
foster multiperspectivity and sensemaking but are ethically questionable. Additionally,
non-prepared digital data legacy triggers questions about the remembrance of users re-
garding what will be remembered and shared of an individual’s digital identity after their
death or how the data and digital identities will be used continuously by platform owners
and other members of the person’s network. We see further outstanding questions about
how digital data will contribute to shaping CH or how online community cultures, e.g.,
gaming communities, could support the re-contextualization of analog CH. Our example
also emphasized AI’s efficiency in supporting sensemaking and facilitating access to one’s
and other’s data. However, this also questions how much we want independent AI systems
to define our digital CH and legacy and to what extent multiperspectivity, inclusion, and
sensemaking play a part in it. This last case study focused on technologically enabled
digital social and cultural developments that increasingly develop parallel to analog CH
and that must be considered in CH re-contextualization.
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 15 of 26
4.5. Summary of Case Studies
Each case study addressed the role of HCI in re-contextualizing CH differently, as well
as the HCI–CH relationship.
Case study 1 describes a scenario where CH prefigures HCI, in the sense that the
design of the mobile-technology- and social-media-supported self-organized learning
environments (SOLEs) was driven by the dialogue between the cultural lenses of each YRAS
participant—more specifically the “social and contextual factors influencing their engagement in
and experiences with digital tools to learn and develop their learning skills outside of school” [
78
]. In
other words, the HCI system is the outcome of the co-design process, whereas CH provides
crucial considerations for its effective design. As a result, the HCI researchers embark on a
curatorial effort to remove barriers and friction when designing the content of the digital
technology platform, thus ensuring it reflects the cultural perspectives of its eventual users.
While CH is not the subject matter in this context, it plays a significant role in the
background, determining the stances participants may take toward the system and, con-
sequently, its features, design, purpose, and very reason to exist. The success of the HCI
system design, within this context, is on the co-design process, ensuring a sufficient level of
inclusion for the participants, and thus needs to be grounded on relationship-building and
cultural awareness to allow the safe and open sharing of multiple perspectives.
Three of the four case studies applied co-design and participatory approaches. Case
study 2 describes a similar scenario to the one summarized above, however, from an
inverted perspective: here, HCI is brought into the co-design process of a CH exhibition to
create space for discussion around how it will be presented and, consequently, interpreted
and understood. In other words, in this scenario, HCI prefigures CH, facilitating curatorial
decisions. Importantly, technology functions here not only as a mediator of cultural
expressions but also as an enabler and facilitator of conversations about the potential forms
those expressions may take—essentially impacting the communication culture between
and within cultural groups. CH is here the subject matter, and technology is a vehicle for
ontological decisions about its presentations and dissemination. Like in case study 1, the co-
design process relies on relationship building and a shared acceptance of multiperspectivity
among participants as a shared value framing the design process.
Case study 3 takes this entanglement a step further, using a participative approach to
understand and consider local needs and implement the local cultural identity in the XR
prototype. Here, digital technologies were explicitly employed to reveal hidden information
about CH in the Bamiyan Valley area. This led not only to a greater amount of data but also
an objective mapping of what was regarded as CH by some, prompting active checking and
consultation with local communities to debate its value. Through a combination of applied
technology, cultural outreach, and relationship building, it allowed CH to be problematized
and, in the process, have its nature reassessed by those primarily linked to and affected by
it in light of competing priorities such as opportunities for social and economic inclusion.
In turn, this enabled more informed societal decision- and sensemaking and con-
tributed to community self-determination. Importantly, the digital artifacts generated in
the process became themselves CH, not only for documenting sites of heritage significance
but also for playing a key role in civic participation and social cohesion. Neither CH nor
HCI take clear precedents in the process but are rather inherently linked in continuous
co-constitution and mutual influence: one cannot be interpreted without the other. Yet, a les-
son learned from this case study is the need to integrate the motivations and development
aspirations of local people directly by and through communities at the outset of planning
activities, especially in such international cooperation projects.
The co-constitution reaches a state of full identity in case study 4, which discusses the
processes and outcomes of HCI as CH by addressing AI assistance in managing personal
data legacies. While the original study focused on testing the interface, it represents
multiple online communities, social media platforms, and digital identities that are part of
our contemporary CH. Thus, here, HCI pre-configures a novel intangible form of CH.
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 16 of 26
In comparison to the other case studies, case 4 did not include a co-design approach
but involved HCI experts in making design decisions about meaningful data aggregations
and classifications. Also, by enabling data selection and intentional exclusion, there is
the risk of creating a polished, limited heritage that undermines other perspectives and
experiences. It limits the level of multiperspectivity and sensemaking that can be expected
when passing on prepared digital legacies. And yet, the increasing HCI–CH entanglement
requires finding means to understandably aggregate and share digital CH and prepare it
for future developments.
5. Discussion
Our work addresses how HCI can approach re-contextualizing CH toward multiper-
spectivity, inclusion, and sensemaking by considering four diverging case studies. We
discuss our results with a focus on the HCI–CH relationship and entanglements and their
impact on CH re-contextualization. We also raise the consequences for HCI technology and
research, followed by acknowledging the work’s limitations.
5.1. The Role of the HCI–CH Relationship and Entanglements in CH Re-Contextualization
The four case studies show the diverging and complex variety of HCI–CH projects,
including the broad range of contexts, technologies, and people and, thereby, the emerging
roles of technology as a mediator of social interactions and a vehicle for cultural expression.
In comparison, none of the case studies is about HCI per se, but they concern its roles in
re-contextualizing CH and in articulating social relationships and communications around
it. These new roles are significant for revealing the entanglements between technologies
and the various human and non-human world elements increasingly acknowledged as, or
pertaining to, CH.
What emerges out of those case studies is a new reality where HCI and CH are largely
entangled [
140
,
141
]: On the one hand, HCI becomes, and partially is already, instrumental
in mediating the re-contextualization of CH, including its discovery, articulation, and
documentation. On the other hand, HCI pervades culture to such an extent that it becomes
CH itself (see case studies 3–4 and Figure 6). In line with this, we refer to Barad
[142]
’s work,
which pointed out that the mere use of an instrument to observe an event changes the very
nature of the event itself and, consequently, the interpretations we may make of both. The
event, observation device, and observation data are intrinsically related in an existential
way: the very existence of each is only understood in relationship to the another [
142
]. They
do not take part in interaction (which implies their nature as pre-existing, independent
entities) but in intra-action, a term that points to their co-constitution. Likewise, there are a
growing number of voices alluding to a shift currently underway, whereby technologies
can no longer be interpreted in isolation as an interaction between humans and computers
but rather must be understood relative to everything else around them [
141
], in what has
been referred to as the “Fourth Wave of HCI” [140].
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 17 of 26
Figure 6. Model for the entanglement between HCI and Cultural Heritage (CH). The central diagram
illustrates the different relationships between HCI and CH observed in the case studies. Surrounding
the entanglement are the four ethical precepts sustaining an ethical approach to it.
The shift not only challenges CH conventions through the increased potential for
interaction, participation, and analysis offered by HCI tools, but also exposes HCI practice,
purpose, and ethics to the critical lens of heritage, cultural, and decolonial studies [
143
], and
thus subjects them to scrutiny and reevaluation. This includes the reevaluation of artificial
intelligence algorithms to ensure inclusive data sets and processing that represent the target
society as discussed in Cernadas and Calvo-Iglesias
[144]
, enabling access to digital legacies
of our ancestors, as approached by, e.g., Doyle and Brubaker
[128]
, whether a community’s
cultural identity is appropriately represented in an interaction design [
13
,
14
], etc. While
researchers are already working on individual aspects related to these open questions,
the changes are too broad, complex, and nontransparent to provide an exhaustive list.
Furthermore, these different roles and entanglements require a shift in perspective and
preservation of computer-mediated cultures and digital identities. It poses new challenges
to the HCI–CH relationship, such as developing preservation practices for, e.g., digital
or hybrid legacies and artifacts, emphasizing the need for continuous research on this
HCI–CH entanglement.
5.2. Consequences for HCI Technology and Research
As the integration of digitalization and technology, and the consequent interactions
with it, are becoming cross-cutting themes in CH presentation and access, it is essential to
consider how HCI advances can answer that. Realizing that technology is not just instru-
mental in mediating CH but can also influence and manifest the perceptions, attitudes, and
values presented through the experience puts more responsibility on the researchers and
developers. The ethical and participatory design aspects in different development phases
become emphasized, as well as openness to pluriversal narratives and interpretations,
which may become a critical part of the final design. In line with prior work [
145
], our
case studies emphasize the need for HCI research to understand the local context and to be
culturally “calibrated” when developing technological advances.
Enabling CH re-contextualization toward such a connected and inclusive understand-
ing starts at the data level. It requires appropriate and accessible infrastructure and a level
of connectivity with clearly distinctly managed data spaces to ensure that CH ownership
stays with the people [
48
]. Many people are not experts in information technology or secure
data connections but rely on HCI to bridge the gap and provide the technical infrastructure
and interaction concepts to facilitate integration and usability.
One of the first necessary steps is to create awareness about the various forms of
entanglement between HCI and CH, which demands both research and practice to be
repositioned toward longitudinal technological approaches. It is crucial not only to use HCI
tools in the context of CH but also to allow enough time and space for the development,
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 18 of 26
maturation, and manifestation of the impact of technology qua CH in society, as well as
to correct course if needed. Likewise, slowness is necessary to allow the emergence of
different perspectives by the local people to whom the heritage relates, who ought to be
afforded opportunities not only for self-expression but also for self-determination.
“Slow tech”, which encourages people to reflect and think about [technology] in its expres-
sion and context, [
146
], thus becomes a prerequisite to allow for the comfortable sharing
of the digital and personal cultural heritage, mitigating challenges preventing inclusion
and multiperspectivity. These may include not only the algorithm bias [
147
] and other
unintended consequences of transferring HCI methods and technologies across cultural
contexts but also the methodological biases posed by the researchers’ background, which
may affect the progress and objectivity of conversations around CH. In that context, tech-
nology can no longer be understood as a mere tool but as an instrument re-contextualizing
postcolonial ethics [
143
] of how to deal with CH subjects in the moment and over time.
HCI-entangled CH goes on to further design the world and society [
148
] as the embodiment
of that ethical articulation of cultural heritage. As a result, capturing those entanglements
as they interplay is more than an ethical approach: it is also an exercise in futuring [
149
],
responding to systemic forces in society and prefiguring a world where CH is predicated
on multiperspective, collective sensemaking, cultural inclusion, and social cohesion.
Moreover, some methods that play a central role in HCI-oriented projects, such as
rapid prototyping and quick exploration of ideas, may require a more thorough consid-
eration of the technology’s expression and impact, reflecting the “slow tech” approach
in Figure 6. This accounts for the design features, graphics, symbols, templates, or other
design elements used in the rapid prototyping phase as early drafts or placeholders that
may contain elements that are foreign or even insulting in a sensitive design context [
146
].
This also highlights the risk in HCI research that approaches and prototypes may lead to
misconceptions or dismantling of the trust in participatory processes when ignoring the
role of HCI in HCI–CH entanglements. Consequently, HCI advances in CH should be
aware of the entanglement and sensitive and responsible role that HCI takes to drive CH
toward multiperspectivity, inclusion, and social cohesion.
5.3. Limitations and Outlook
Our work refined the HCI–CH relationship through a non-exhaustive and diverse
set of case studies, reflecting the role, tools, and methodologies of HCI in different project
phases to foster CH re-contextualization (see Table 1). However, all case studies focused on
the potential positive impact of HCI technologies and research on re-contextualizing CH,
not addressing the risks of misuse or decontextualization. While this was out of the scope of
this work, these are highly relevant impacts that need to be researched further to preserve
and contextualize CH through HCI. Furthermore, re-contextualizing CH is highly complex
and is approached very differently, aggravating it for HCI researchers to scale or generalize
their findings. Based on our work, we see the potential for developing principles for HCI–
CH designs that could inform and guide HCI researchers in their decision-making and
argumentation. Yet, we also see the need for HCI research to change attitudes to accept slow
pace and low generalizability as valuable research contributions that
(re-)contextualized
HCI–CH projects need to succeed. It will require adaptations of performance measurement
that we task the HCI community with pushing forward to enable a more agonistic and
democratized CH.
6. Conclusions
Exploring the advances in HCI for CH re-contextualization illustrates a profound
entanglement that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries. Our four case studies
highlight that technology acts not merely as a tool but as CH itself, indicating a paradigm
shift in which HCI becomes an integral component of cultural production, dissemina-
tion, and preservation and thus a crucial factor in CH re-contextualization. Thereby,
HCI serves as a mediator and manifestation of CH, impacting how HCI can support CH
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 19 of 26
re-contextualization. Considering HCI as a mediator requires adapting methodological
approaches and interaction design concepts that allow users to change perspectives and
trigger compassion and understanding for their own and other cultures, setting CH in
focus. In comparison, considering HCI as a CH manifestation opened multiple research
questions we must address in future work.
This partially new role introduces challenges and ethical considerations. For one,
CH re-contextualization requires a nuanced understanding of the socio-cultural contexts,
emphasizing the need to adopt slow and reflective HCI approaches to technological inter-
ventions in CH when HCI acts as a mediator. Furthermore, enabling multiperspectivity and
inclusion demands a reevaluation of conventional research and design practices, focusing
on empowering local communities and safeguarding diverse narratives and individual
perspectives (see Sections 4.1–4.3). In comparison, HCI as CH comprises the impact of
technology on behavior changes, social norms, and communication styles, as well as the
increasing digitization of our cultural heritage and (non-) available access to having such
means of digitization and preservation (Sections 4.3 and 4.4).
Ultimately, the complexities of HCI–CH entanglements are an ethical imperative
and an exercise in envisioning a more inclusive and cohesive society. Our work suggests
re-contextualizing CH and its communication by adapting HCI tools, methods, and ap-
proaches and considering the inherited cultural role of HCI that shapes the preservation of
past, current, and future CH.
Author Contributions: L.H. (Linda Hirsch) is the project lead. S.P. and J.H. contributed with a case
study and supported the related work and discussion. D.L. and R.T. also contributed with a case
study and related work. G.T. also contributed one case study, and L.H. (Luke Hespanhol) mainly
provided the discussion and meta-reflection on the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The research has partly been funded by the Interreg Nord project ‘Muittut, muitalusat—
the story of the Sámi by the Sámi’ and ‘Xstory—Lapland narratives with experience technologies”
project, co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The Bamiyan case study
was partially funded within the context of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research
Foundation) Excellence Cluster “Ultra High-Speed Mobile Information and Communication (UMIC)”.
The research in the case study with young refugees and asylum seekers (YRAS) was funded by The
research was funded by Northumbria and Newcastle University and the Center for Digital Citizens
(EP/T022582/1).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable
Data Availability Statement: The study does not contain new data due to the nature of being based
on previously published work.
Acknowledgments: We thank the following parties for collaboration: Sámi Museum Siida, UN-
ESCO office Kabul, Bamiyan University, North East Solidarity and Teaching (N.E.S.T.) and all the
collaborators involved in our work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Bull, A.; Hansen, H. On agonistic memory. Mem. Stud. 2016,9, 390–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698015615935.
2. Kuipers, M.; de Jonge, W. Designing from Heritage: Strategies for Conservation and Conversion; Basic Books New York, NY, USA, 2017.
3.
White, S.; Hespanhol, L. Towards a framework for designing technology with Country: A perspective from Australia. In
Proceedings of the DRS2022, Bilbao, Spain, 25 June–3 July 2022. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.270.
4.
Nordgren, K. Boundaries of historical consciousness: A Western cultural achievement or an anthropological universal? J. Curric.
Stud. 2019,51, 779–797. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1652938.
5.
Adichie, C.N. The Danger of a Single Story. 2009. Available online: https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_
the_danger_of_a_single_story/transcript (accessed on 9 April 2024).
6.
Seixas, P. Historical Consciousness and Historical Thinking. 2017; pp. 59–72. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-13
7-52908-4_3 (accessed on 9 April 2024).
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 20 of 26
7.
Di Stefano, M., Ed. Heritage and Landscape as Human Values: Conference Proceedings. 18th ICOMOS GA and Symposium, Firenze,
Italia, 9–14 Novembre 2014; Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane: Naples, Italy, 2015.
8.
ICOMOS. (Ed.) Resolution 20GA/19—People-Centred Approaches to Cultural Heritage. In Report of the Resolutions Committee to
the 20th ICOMOS General Assembly; ICOMOS: Paris, France, 2020; pp. 18–19.
9.
Silverman, H.; Waterton, E.; Watson, S. (Eds.) Heritage in Action; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42870-3.
10.
Alda, M. Communications. 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/markets/424/topic/2494/communications/
(accessed on 4 February 2024).
11.
Loh Chee Wyai, G.; Zaman, T.; Ab Hamid, K.; Anak Gindau, M. Design inspiration translated from the “Proud to be Iban” probes.
In KUI ’23: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Culture and Computer Science: Code and Materiality; Association for
Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3623462.3623472.
12.
Mushengyezi, A. Rethinking indigenous media: Rituals, ‘talking’ drums and orality as forms of public communication in Uganda.
J. Afr. Cult. Stud. 2003,16, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369681032000169302.
13.
Abdulai, M.; Ibrahim, H.; Latif Anas, A. The Role of Indigenous Communication Systems for Rural Development in the Tolon
District of Ghana. Res. Glob. 2023,6, 100128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2023.100128.
14.
Wefwafwa, J. Indigenous Communication Systems versus Modern Communication Systems: A Case Study of the Bukusu
Subtribe of Western Kenya. Glob. Media J. Afr. Ed. 2015,8. https:// doi.org/10.5789/8-2-173.
15.
Du, J.T. Research on Indigenous People and the Role of Information and Communications Technology in Development: A Review of the
Literature. J. Aust. Libr. Inf. Assoc. 2017,66, 344–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 24750158.2017.1397857.
16.
Alvarado Garcia, A.; Maestre, J.F.; Barcham, M.; Iriarte, M.; Wong-Villacres, M.; Lemus, O.A.; Dudani, P.; Reynolds-Cuéllar, P.; Wang,
R.; Cerratto Pargman, T. Decolonial Pathways: Our Manifesto for a Decolonizing Agenda in HCI Research and Design. In CHI EA ’21:
Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Association for Computing Machinery:
New York, NY, USA, 2021. https:// doi.org/ 10.1145/3411763.3450365.
17.
Anuyah, O.; Badillo-Urquiola, K.; Metoyer, R. Characterizing the Technology Needs of Vulnerable Populations for Participation in Research
and Design by Adopting Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In CHI ’23: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3544548.3581221.
18.
Avouris, N. Teaching Human–Computer Interaction for Social Good. In CHI Greece 2021: CHI Greece 2021: 1st International
Conference of the ACM Greek SIGCHI Chapter; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2021. https://doi.org/ 10.1
145/3489410.3489413.
19.
Butler, K.A.; Jacob, R.J.K. Human–Computer Interaction: Introduction and overview. In CHI EA ’97: CHI ’97 Extended Abstracts
on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 138–139. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/ 1120212.1120311.
20.
Hirsch, L.; Welsch, R.; Rossmy, B.; Butz, A. Embedded AR Storytelling Supports Active Indexing at Historical Places. In TEI ’22:
Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction; Association for
Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3490149.3501328.
21. Paananen, S.; Kim, J.C.; Kirjavainen, E.; Kalving, M.; Mitra, K.; Häkkilä, J. Augmenting Indigenous Sámi Exhibition - Interactive Digital
Heritage in Museum Context. In Human–Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2023, Proceedings of the 19th IFIP TC13 International
Conference, York, UK, 28 August–1 September 2023, Proceedings, Part II; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 597–617.
https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-031-42283-6_32.
22.
Selmanovi´c, E.; Rizvic, S.; Harvey, C.; Boskovic, D.; Hulusic, V.; Chahin, M.; Sljivo, S. Improving Accessibility to Intangible Cultural
Heritage Preservation Using Virtual Reality. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2020,13, 1–19. https:// doi.org/ 10.1145/3377143.
23.
Duranti, D.; Spallazzo, D.; Petrelli, D. Smart Objects and Replicas: A Survey of Tangible and Embodied Interactions in Museums and
Cultural Heritage Sites. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2024,17, 1–32.
24.
Petrelli, D.; Roberts, A.J. Exploring Digital Means to Engage Visitors with Roman Culture: Virtual Reality vs. Tangible Interaction. J.
Comput. Cult. Herit. 2023,16, 1–18.https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3625367.
25.
Jansen, M.; Toubekis, G.; Walther, A.; Döring-Williams, M.; Mayer, I. Laser Scan Measurement of the Niche and Virtual 3D Representation
of the Small Buddha in Bamiyan. In Layers of Perception, Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Computer
Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA) ; Berlin, Germany, 2–6 April 2007; Posluschny, A., Lambers,
K., Herzog, I., Eds.; Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte; Rudolf Habelt Verlag, Bonn, Germany: 2008; Volume 10, pp. 83–90.
https://doi.org/10.11588/propylaeumdok.00000531.
26.
Milosz, M.; Kundefinedsik, J.; Montusiewicz, J. 3D Scanning and Visualization of Large Monuments of Timurid Architecture in Central
Asia—A Methodical Approach. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2021,14, 1–31. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3425796. .
27.
Pribani´c, T.; Bojani´c, D.; Bartol, K.; Petkovi´c, T. Can OpenPose Be Used as a 3D Registration Method for 3D Scans of Cultural Heritage
Artifacts. In Pattern Recognition, Proceedings of the ICPR International Workshops and Challenges, Virtual Event, 10–15 January
2021, Proceedings, Part VII; Springer : Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-68787-8_6.
28.
Bratteteig, T.; Wagner, I. What is a participatory design result? In PDC ’16: Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference:
Full Papers—Volume 1; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 294029
9.2940316.
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 21 of 26
29.
Wang, Z.; Jiang, T.; Huang, J.; Tai, Y.; Trapani, P. How might we evaluate co-design? A literature review on existing practicess. In Proceedings
of the DRS2022, Bilbao, Spain, 25 June–3 July 2022. https://doi.org/ 10.21606/drs.2022.774.
30.
Hirsch, L.; Paananen, S.; Hornecker, E.; Hespanhol, L.; Kuflik, T.; Losev, T.; Häkkilä, J. Re-contextualizing Built Environments: Critical and
Inclusive HCI Approaches for Cultural Heritage. In Human–Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2023, 19th IFIP TC13 International
Conference, York, UK, 28 August–1 September 2023, Proceedings, Part IV; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023, pp. 668–673.
31.
Prilla, M.; Degeling, M.; Herrmann, T. Collaborative reflection at work: Supporting informal learning at a healthcare workplace. In GROUP
’12: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work; Association for Computing Machinery: New
York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2389176.2389185.
32.
Yoo, D.; Kantengwa, O.; Logler, N.; Interayamahanga, R.; Nkurunziza, J.; Friedman, B. Collaborative Reflection: A Practice for Enriching
Research Partnerships Spanning Culture, Discipline, and Time. In CHI ’18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 31
73574.3173853.
33.
Janssenswillen, P.; Meeus, W. Sustainable Heritage Education: Multiperspectivity as a Bridge. In Proceedings of the Conference Proceedings
of the Future of Education, Florence, Italy, 8–9 June 2017; pp. 33–37.
34.
Nisi, V.; Bala, P.; Cesário, V.; James, S.; Del Bue, A.; Nunes, N.J. “Connected to the people”: Social Inclusion & Cohesion in Action through a
Cultural Heritage Digital Tool. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2023,7, 1–37. https:// doi.org/10.1145/3610168.
35.
Hornecker, E. The To-and-Fro of Sense Making: Supporting Users’ Active Indexing in Museums. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.
2016,23, 1–48. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/2882785.
36.
Rantanen, M.J. Indexicality of Language and the Art of Creating Treasures. In CHI ’10: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 301–304.
37.
Laycock, S.D.; Bell, G.D.; Mortimore, D.B.; Greco, M.K.; Corps, N.; Finkle, I. Combining X-Ray Micro-CT Technology and 3D Printing for
the Digital Preservation and Study of a 19th Century Cantonese Chess Piece with Intricate Internal Structure. J. Comput. Cult. Herit.
2013,5, 1–7. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/2399180.2399181.
38.
Nöll, T.; Köhler, J.; Reis, G.; Stricker, D. Fully Automatic, Omnidirectional Acquisition of Geometry and Appearance in the Context of
Cultural Heritage Preservation. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2015,8, 1–28. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/2629693.
39.
Häkkilä, J.; Kalving, M.; Marjomaa, S.; Mäkikalli, M. Connecting the Past: Evaluating an Indigenous Sámi Heritage Search Portal in
Schools. In Relate North: Possible Futures; InSEA Publications, Troy, Greece: 2023; pp. 116–131.
40.
Häkkilä, J.; Hannula, P.; Luiro, E.; Launne, E.; Mustonen, S.; Westerlund, T.; Colley, A. Visiting a virtual graveyard: Designing virtual
reality cultural heritage experiences. In MUM ’19: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous
Multimedia; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3365610.3368425.
41.
Torsi, S.; Ardito, C.; Rebek, C. An Interactive Narrative to Improve Cultural Heritage Experience in Elementary School Children. J. Comput.
Cult. Herit. 2020,13, 1–14. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3382771.
42.
Mah, K.; Loke, L.; Hespanhol, L. Designing With Ritual Interaction: A Novel Approach to Compassion Cultivation Through a Buddhist-
Inspired Interactive Artwork. In TEI ’20: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and
Embodied Interaction; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3374920.
3374947.
43.
Nofal, E.; Panagiotidou, G.; Reffat, R.M.; Hameeuw, H.; Boschloos, V.; Moere, A.V. Situated Tangible Gamification of Heritage for Supporting
Collaborative Learning of Young Museum Visitors. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2020,13, 1–24. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3350427.
44.
Harjuniemi, E. Soft tangible user interfaces: Coupling the digital information to the textile materials. In MUM ’16: Proceedings of the
15th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA,
2016; pp. 381–383. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3012709.3018008.
45.
Nisi, V.; Bostock, H.; Cesário, V.; Acedo, A.; Nunes, N. Impalpable Narratives: How to capture intangible cultural heritage of migrant
communities. In C&T ’21: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Communities & Technologies—Wicked Problems
in the Age of Tech; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 109–120. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/ 3461564.34
61575.
46.
Gomes, L.; Silva, L.; Bellon, O.R.P. Exploring RGB-D Cameras for 3D Reconstruction of Cultural Heritage: A New Approach Applied to
Brazilian Baroque Sculptures. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2018,11, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3230674.
47.
Grammalidis, N.; Dimitropoulos, K.; Tsalakanidou, F.; Kitsikidis, A.; Roussel, P.; Denby, B.; Chawah, P.; Buchman, L.; Dupont, S.; Laraba,
S.; et al. The i-Treasures Intangible Cultural Heritage dataset. In MOCO ’16: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on
Movement and Computing; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2948910.2948944.
48.
Jarke, M. Culture Data Space: A Case Study in Federated Data Ecosystems. In VLDBW 2023: Workshops at VLDB 2023 : Joint
Proceedings of Workshops at the 49th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB 2023), Vancouver, BC, Canada,
28 August–1
September
2023; CEUR Workshop Proceedings; Bordawekar, R., Cappiello, C., Efthymiou, V., Ehrlinger, L., Gadepally,
V., Galhotra, S.; Geisler, S.; Groppe, S., Gruenwald, L.; Halevy, A., et al., Eds.; 2023; Volume 3462, Vancouver, Canada. https:
//doi.org/10.18154/RWTH-2023-11240.
49.
Jones, S. Wrestling with the Social Value of Heritage: Problems, Dilemmas and Opportunities. J. Community Archaeol. Herit. 2016,
4, 1–17. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/20518196.2016.1193996.
50.
Chang, E.; Cai, S.; Feng, P.; Cheng, D. Social Augmented Reality: Communicating via Cultural Heritage. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2023,
16, 1–26. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3582266.
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 22 of 26
51.
Falk, J.H.; Dierking, L.D. (Eds.) Learning From Museums, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, USA, 2nd ed.; American Association for
State and Local History Book Series; 2018.
52.
Hanneke Bartelds, G.M.S.; van Boxtel, C. Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about historical empathy in secondary history education. Theory
Res. Soc. Educ. 2020,48, 529–551. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00933104.2020.1808131.
53.
Angeli, D.D.; Finnegan, D.J.; Scott, L.; O’neill, E. Unsettling Play: Perceptions of Agonistic Games. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2021,14,
1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3431925. .
54.
Berger, S.; Kansteiner, W. Agonistic Perspectives on the Memory of War: An Introduction; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2021; pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-86055-4_1.
55.
Pescarin, S.; Bonanno, V.; Marasco, A. Social Cohesion in Interactive Digital Heritage Experiences. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2023,
7, 61. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/mti7060061.
56.
Lazem, S.; Giglitto, D.; Nkwo, M.S.; Mthoko, H.; Upani, J.; Peters, A. Challenges and paradoxes in decolonising HCI: A critical discussion.
Comput. Support. Coop. Work (CSCW) 2022, 31, 159–196.
57.
Smith, R.C.; Winschiers-Theophilus, H.; Loi, D.; de Paula, R.A.; Kambunga, A.P.; Samuel, M.M.; Zaman, T. Decolonizing
design practices: Towards pluriversality. In CHI EA ’21: Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 1–5.
58.
Da Milano, C.; Falchetti, E.; Migone, P.; Nisi, V. Digital storytelling, cultural heritage, and social inclusion: The MEMEX
project. In Digital Approaches to Inclusion and Participation in Cultural Heritage; Routledge: London, UK, 2023; pp. 8–26.
59.
Petropoulos, E. Social Cohesion through Cultural Heritage. Master’s Thesis, University of the Peloponnese, Kalamata,
Greece, 2021.
60.
Bulla, L.; De Giorgis, S.; Gangemi, A.; Lucifora, C.; Mongiovì, M. Comparing User Perspectives in a Virtual Reality Cultural
Heritage Environment. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Proceedings of the 2023 Conference (CAiSE 2023),
Zaragoza, Spain, 12–16 June 2023; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34
560-9_1.
61.
Giglitto, D.; Ciolfi, L.; Claisse, C.; Lockley, E. Bridging Cultural Heritage and Communities through Digital Technologies:
Understanding Perspectives and Challenges. In C&T ’19: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Communities &
Technologies—Transforming Communities; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328320.3328386.
62.
Chowdhury, N.; Shokri, N.; Valera, C.H.; Sp, A.M.; Marquez, C.R.; Rifat, M.R.; Wong-Villacres, M.; Munteanu, C.; Dahya,
N.; Ahmed, S.I. Politics of the Past: Understanding the Role of Memory, Postmemory, and Remembrance in Navigating
the History of Migrant Families. In CHI ’24: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems;
Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642496.
63.
Van Lanen, R.J.; van Beek, R.; Kosian, M.C. A different view on (world) heritage. The need for multi-perspective data analyses
in historical landscape studies: The example of Schokland (NL). J. Cult. Herit. 2022, 53, 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
culher.2021.11.011.
64.
Meissner, M. Between Social Cohesion and Social Distinction: Intangible Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Social Devel-
opment. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Heritage and Sustainable Development; Amoêda, R., Lira, S.,
Pinheiro, C., Zaragoza, J.M.S., Serrano, J.C., García Carrillo, F., Eds.; 2018.
65.
Leite, C.; Acosta, C.; Militelli, F.; Jajamovich, G.; Wilderom, M.; Bonduki, N.; Somekh, N.; Herling, T. Sao Paulo: Participation
and Social Inclusion on Cultural Heritage. In Social Urbanism in Latin America; Springer International Publishing: Cham,
Switzerland, 2019; pp. 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 030-16012-8_5.
66.
Bustamante Duarte, A.M.; Ataei, M.; Degbelo, A.; Brendel, N.; Kray, C. Safe spaces in participatory design with young forced
migrants. CoDesign 2019, 17, 188–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2019.1654523.
67.
Ansari, A. Decolonizing design through the perspectives of cosmological others: Arguing for an ontological turn in design
research and practice. XRDS Crossroads ACM Mag. Stud. 2019, 26, 16–19.
68. Tlostanova, M. On decolonizing design. Des. Philos. Pap. 2017, 15, 51–61.
69.
Paananen, S.; Suoheimo, M.; Häkkilä, J. Decolonizing design with technology in cultural heritage contexts-systematic
literature review. In [ ] With Design: Reinventing Design Modes: Proceedings of the Congress of the International Association
of Societies of Design Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 1839–1855.
70.
Taboada, M.B.; Rojas-Lizana, S.; Dutra, L.X.; Levu, A.V.M. Decolonial design in practice: Designing meaningful and
transformative science communications for Navakavu, Fiji. Des. Cult. 2020, 12, 141–164.
71. Escobar, A. Sustainability: Design for the pluriverse. Development 2011, 54, 137–140.
72.
Kambunga, A.P.; Winschiers-Theophilus, H.; Goagoses, N. Re-conceptualizing technology adoption in informal settlements
based on a Namibian application. In AfriCHI ’18: Proceedings of the Second African Conference for Human-Computer
Interaction: Thriving Communities; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1–10.
73.
Clarke, R.; Talhouk, R.; Beshtawi, A.; Barham, K.; Boyle, O.; Griffiths, M.; Baillie Smith, M. Decolonising in, by and through
participatory design with political activists in Palestine. In PDC ’22: Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference
2022—Volume 1; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 36–49.
74. Akama, Y.; Yee, J. Embracing plurality in designing social innovation practices. Des. Cult. 2019, 11, 1–11.
75.
Nicholas, G. Protecting Indigenous heritage objects, places, and values: Challenges, responses, and responsibilities. Int. J.
Herit. Stud. 2022, 28, 400–422.
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 23 of 26
76.
Bramwell-Dicks, A.; Evans, A.; Winckler, M.; Petrie, H.; Abdelnour-Nocera, J. Design for Equality and Justice; Chapter Re-
Contextualizing Built Environments: Critical & Inclusive HCI Approaches for Cultural Heritage; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2023.
77.
Kubrická, J. Academic Self-Organised Learning Environment—The lessons to be learned and taught. CASALC Rev. 2020,
10, 83–83.
78.
Lengyel, D.; Kharrufa, A.; Stanfield, J.; Powers, H.; Stratford, B.L.; Talhouk, R. Gender and Racism: Considerations for Digital
Learning Among Young Refugees and Asylum Seekers. In Human–Computer Interaction– INTERACT 2023; Springer Nature
Switzerland: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42286-7_26.
79.
Dankwa, N.K.; Draude, C. Setting Diversity at the Core of HCI. In Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction. Design
Methods and User Experience, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference, UAHCI 2021, Held as Part of the 23rd HCI
International Conference, HCII 2021, Virtual Event, 24–29 July 2021, Proceedings, Part I; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2021; pp. 39–52.
80.
Farr, M. Power dynamics and collaborative mechanisms in co-production and co-design processes. Crit. Soc. Policy 2017,
38, 623–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018317747444.
81.
Mannay, D. ‘Who put that on there ... why why why?’ Power games and participatory techniques of visual data production.
Vis. Stud. 2013, 28, 136–146.
82.
Angell, C.; Alexander, J.; Hunt, J.A. ‘Draw, write and tell’: A literature review and methodological development on the ’draw
and write’ research method. J. Early Child. Res. 2015, 13, 17–28.
83.
Talhouk, R.; Montague, K.; Ghattas, H.; Araujo-Soares, V.; Ahmad, B.; Balaam, M. Refugee Food Insecurity & Technology:
Surfacing Experiences of Adaptation, Navigation, Negotiation and Sharing. Comput. Support. Coop. Work (CSCW) 2022,
31, 341–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-022-09423- w.
84.
Wall, K. Understanding metacognition through the use of pupil views templates: Pupil views of Learning to Learn. Think.
Ski. Creat. 2008, 3, 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2008.03.004.
85.
Spiel, K. Practicing Humility: Design as Response, Not as Solution. Postdigital Sci. Educ. 2023, 6, 25–31. https:
//doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00436-2.
86.
Vecco, M. A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. J. Cult. Herit. 2010, 11, 321–324. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2010.01.006.
87. Schön, D.A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action; Routledge, London, UK: 1984.
88.
de Freitas, E. Interrogating Reflexivity: Art, Research, and the Desire for Presence. In Handbook of the Arts in Qualitative
Research: Perspectives, Methodologies, Examples, and Issues; Knowles, J.G., Cole, A.L., Eds.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA,
2008; pp. 469–476.
89.
Probst, B.; Berenson, L. The double arrow: How qualitative social work researchers use reflexivity. Qual. Soc. Work 2014,
13, 813–827.
90.
Holm, G.; Sahlström, F.; Zilliacus, H. Arts-Based Visual Research. In Handbook of Arts-Based Research; Leavy, P., Ed.; Guilford
Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 311–335.
91.
Lengyel, D. Penta Portas and the Multi-disciplinary Arts-based Method Framework (MAMF): An Empirical and Theoretical
Investigation of Arts-Based Methods. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Bath, Bath, UK, 2024.
92.
Karabanow, J.; Naylor, T. Using Art to Tell Stories and Build Safe Spaces: Transforming Academic Research Into Action. Can.
J. Community Ment. Health 2015, 34, 67–85. https://doi.org/10.7870/cjcmh-2015- 005.
93.
Bergum, V.; Godkin, D. Nursing Research and the Transformative Value of Art. In Handbook of the Arts in Qualitative
Research: Perspectives, Methodologies, Examples, and Issues; Knowles, J.G., Cole, A.L., Eds.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA,
2008; pp. 603–612.
94.
Stengers, I. Another Science Is Possible: A Manifesto for Slow Science; Muecke, S., Translator; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK,
2018.
95. Frith, U. Fast Lane to Slow Science. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2020, 24, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.10.007.
96.
Odom, W.; Selby, M.; Sellen, A.; Kirk, D.; Banks, R.; Regan, T. Photobox: On the design of a slow technology. In DIS ’12:
Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.
2318055.
97.
Falk, J.; Frauenberger, C.; Kannabiran, G. How Shortening or Lengthening Design Processes Configure Decision Making. In
NordiCHI ’22: Nordic Human–Computer Interaction Conference; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1145/3546
155.3547726.
98.
Keskitalo, P.; Virtanen, P.K.; Olsen, T., Introduction. In Indigenous Research Methodologies in Sámi and Global Contexts; Brill:
Leiden, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 1–6.
99.
Silvén, E. Contested Sami heritage: Drums and sieidis on the move. In National Museums and the Negotiation of Difficult
Pasts; EuNaMus Report; 2012, Volume 8, pp. 173–186.
100.
Harlin, E.K. Repatriation as knowledge sharing–returning the Sámi cultural heritage. UTIMUT: Past Heritage-Future
Partnerships: Discussions on Repatriation in the 21st Century; 2008; Mille Gabriel & Jens Dahl; Greenland; pp. 192–200.
101.
Porsanger, J. An Indigenous Sámi museum and repatriation on a Sámi drum from the XVII century. Dutkansearvvi Die ¯
dalaš
Áigeˇcála 2022, 6, 72–90.
Appl. Sci. 2024,1, 0 24 of 26
102.
Hornecker, E. “I don’t understand it either, but it is cool”-visitor interactions with a multi-touch table in a museum. In
Proceedings of the 2008 3rd IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human Computer Systems, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 1–3 October 2008, pp. 113–120.
103.
Miettinen, S.; Rontti, S.; Kuure, E.; Lindström, A. Realizing design thinking through a service design process and an innovative
prototyping laboratory: Introducing Service Innovation Corner (SINCO). In Proceedings of the DRS2012, Bangkok, Thailand,
1–4 July 2012.
104.
Colley, A.; Suoheimo, M.; Häkkilä, J. Exploring VR and AR tools for service design. In MUM ’20: Proceedings of the 19th
International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA,
2020; pp. 309–311.
105.
Colley, A.; Pfleging, B.; Alt, F.; Häkkilä, J. Exploring public wearable display of wellness tracker data. Int. J. Hum.-Comput.
Stud. 2020, 138, 102408.
106.
Häkkilä, J.; Paananen, S.; Suoheimo, M.; Mäkikalli, M. Pluriverse perspectives in designing for a cultural heritage context in
the digital age. In Artistic Cartography and Design Explorations Towards the Pluriverse; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; pp.
134–143.
107. Dupree, L. Inside Afghanistan; Yesterday and Today a Strategic Appraisal. Strateg. Stud. 1979, 2, 64–83.
108. Crews, R.D. Afghan Modern: The History of a Global Nation; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015.
109.
Press Realease March 9: General Assemby ‘Appalled’ by the Edict on Destruction of Afghan Shrines; Strongly Urges Taliban
to Halt Implementation. 2001. Available online: https://press.un.org/en/2001/ga9858.doc.htm (accessed on 2 May 2024).
110.
UN General Assembly. The Destruction of Relics and Monuments in Afghanistan: Resolution Adopted by the General
Assembly. In Proceedings of the 55th Session, New York, NY, USA, 1 May 2001.
111.
Manhart, C. The Afghan Cultural Heritage Crisis: UNESCO’s Response to the Destruction of Statues in Afghanistan. Am. J.
Archaeol. 2001, 105, 387–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/507361.
112.
Chiovenda, M.K. Sacred Blasphemy: Global and Local Views of the Destruction of the Bamyan Buddha Statues in Afghanistan.
J. Muslim Minor. Aff. 2014, 34, 410–424.
113.
Klimburg-Salter, D. Entangled Narrative Biographies of the Colossal Sculptures of B
¯
amiy
¯
an: Heroes of the Mythic History
of the Conversion to Islam. In The Future of the Bamiyan Buddha Statues: Heritage Reconstruction in Theory and Practice;
Nagaoka, M., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 030-51316-0.
114.
Toubekis, G.; Jansen, M.; Jarke, M. Long-Term Preservation of the Physical Remains of the Destroyed Buddha Figures in
Bamiyan (Afghanistan) Using Virtual Reality Technologies for Preparation and Evaluation of Restoration Measures. ISPRS
Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2017, IV-2/W2, 271–278. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs- annals-IV-2-W2-271-2017.
115.
Toubekis, G.; Jansen, M.; Jarke, M. Cultural Master Plan Bamiyan (Afghanistan)—A Process Model for the Management
of Cultural Landscapes Based on Remote-Sensing Data. In Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation,
Preservation, and Protection, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, EuroMed 2020, Virtual Event, 2–5 November
2020; Ioannides, M., Fink, E., Cantoni, L., Champion, E. Eds.; LNCS (12642); Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 115–126.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73043-7_10.
116.
Toubekis, G.; Jansen, M. The Giant Buddha Figures in Afghanistan: Virtual Reality for a Physical Reconstruction? In ’Archae-
ologizing’ Heritage? Transcultural Entanglements between Local Social Practices and Global Virtual Realities; Falser, M., Juneja,
M., Eds.; Transcultural Research–Heidelberg Studies on Asia and Europe in a Global Context; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2013; pp. 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35870-8_8.
117.
Toubekis, G. Requirements for the Protection of the UNESCO World Heritage Cultural Landscape and Archaeological
Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Afghanistan) In Cultural Heritage and Development in Fragile Contexts; Loda, M., Abenante,
P. Eds.; Research for Development; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54816-1_5.
118.
De Marco, Luisa and Hadzimuammedovich, Arma and Kealy, Loughlin. ICOMOS-ICCROM Guidance on Post- Disaster and
Post-Conflict Recovery and Reconstruction for Heritage Places of Cultural Signifcance and World Heritage Cultural Properties;
International Council on Monuments and Sites; Charenton-le-Pont, France; 2023.
119.
Seifert, C.; Bailer, W.; Orgel, T.; Gantner, L.; Kern, R.; Ziak, H.; Petit, A.; Schlötterer, J.; Zwicklbauer, S.; Granitzer, M.
Ubiquitous Access to Digital Cultural Heritage. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2017, 10, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3012284.
120.
Amato, F.; Moscato, V.; Picariello, A.; Colace, F.; Santo, M.D.; Schreiber, F.A.; Tanca, L. Big Data Meets Digital Cultural
Heritage: Design and