By: Ana-Alicia Feng

XR is an exciting venture for museums for a variety of reasons ranging from stretching the limits of exhibition possibilities to expanding access and elevating the transfer of knowledge to an interactive, long-lasting experience. But how can museums thoughtfully incorporate XR into their programming, aligned with the sector’s increasing awareness and incorporation of equity goals?

What is XR?

XR, short for “extended reality” and sometimes used interchangeably with cross reality, encompasses virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR). It is a “catch-all” term for technologies that digitally enhance and/or replace our understanding of our current reality (Boardman).

The lines between AR, VR, and MR tend to blur as these technologies are applied in real-life settings, which is why their fluid nature is best displayed on a continuum. Their common thread is that they simulate an experience in which the user is affected by the digital landscape, and in turn, can have some sort of effect on the environment based on specific actions taken (Boardman).

Virtual Reality (VR)

VR is the complete immersion of the viewer in a different reality, often relayed through a headset that completely blocks out the users vision, save for the alternate reality. The alternate reality is an artificial environment created digitally where information is conveyed through sight and sound. It can sometimes be paired with more physical components, like this flight simulator from the Houston Museum of Natural Science, but the environment is completely digital (Bekele and Champion 2019). In VR, the viewer can make decisions and take actions that partially determine events in the digital reality (Bekele and Champion 2019). Virtual actions like turning your head and walking are often triggered by the real, physical actions the user is making while wearing the headset.

The video below demonstrates an example of a fully immersive VR experience with a headset. The Tate Modern in the UK used VR for their exhibition, The Ochre Atelier, of painter Amedeo Modigliani, to recreate Modigliani’s studio from 1919 and allow viewers to virtually walk through the recreation.

Augmented Reality (AR)

AR, on the other hand, layers digital components on top of the viewer’s current reality. It adds to and enhances what the viewer can see, usually on a handheld device like a smartphone, but can also be used with an AR headset, which has glasses that allow the user to see their actual physical environment. An example many people may already be familiar with is Amazon’s AR view feature where customers can use their own mobile devices to see how furniture might look in their space, rendered in 3D and to scale.

There are multiple instances of AR in a museum setting. For example, the Pérez Art Museum in Miami collaborated with artist Felice Grodin on the exhibition, Invasive Species, in which the AR component added digital elements to existing works in the museum. A more interactive implementation can be seen at the Cleveland Museum of Art with their ARTLENS station.

Mixed Reality (MR)

Most comparable to AR in terms of the user experience, MR combines AR and VR to blend physical and virtual components to create a realistic environment that the user can then interact with and navigate, often employing holographic and spatially-aware 3D technology. MR remains a more complicated technology to implement compared to AR and VR, and as a result, is not as commonly seen in current museums and cultural heritage institutions (Boardman).

The snippet below of The Folding Screen of Funin and Raijin showcases an MR exhibition by the Kyoto National Museum in which users wear MR glasses (that do not fully obstruct the viewer's vision of reality) to incorporate virtual elements in the physical exhibition space.

Defining DEIA and its Relation to Museums

It is essential to define equity and its larger umbrella term, DEIA. An acronym for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Access, DEIA permeates, or at least should permeate, throughout all aspects of an organization, from its hiring practices to its programs and community outreach. There are many variations of the acronym (DEAI, IDEA, DEIB, JEDI) and several floating definitions of the components of DEIA, however for the most consistency and broad inclusion across industries and purposes, the list below details the definitions by President Biden’s Executive Order 14035, “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce” (The White House 2021).

• Diversity – the practice of including many communities and underserved communities, spanning identities, ethnicities, genders, socioeconomic status, etc.

• Equity – the consistent, systematic, and impartial treatment of all individuals. 

• Inclusion – the recognition, appreciation, and integration of talents and skills of people of all backgrounds.

• Access or Accessibility – the creation, development, and maintenance of facilities, information, technology, and programs such that all individuals, including those with disabilities, can fully use them.

A note about equity: equity is often confused with equality, but these terms refer to different things. While equality refers to giving individuals the same resources and opportunities, equity requires the acknowledgement that each individual has different circumstances that necessitate additional or modified resources and opportunities to reach an equal outcome (Juda 2020).

Much how museums should consider the physical accessibility of a building, considerations towards DEIA should be integrated in regular museum operations, such as in the feasibility analysis of XR adoption. The Board of Directors of the American Alliance of Museums (AAM), the organization that represents the entire museum field in the U.S., approved an official Diversity and Inclusion policy in 2014, and in 2017 AAM convened a DEIA Working Group to examine effective museum practices of inclusion and to discuss steps the field could take to further DEIA (American Alliance of Museums).

Considering the vital importance of museums in their role to maintain cultural heritage, tell stories, and promote the education of similarities and differences among cultures, AAM states that reflecting the diversity of cultural heritage is critical to the work. As such, DEIA is highlighted as a key focus in AAM's current strategic plan and should serve as a reminder for museums that DEIA work is an ongoing process. "We cannot claim to be truly essential to society if we are not accessible to all" (American Alliance of Museums).

Positive Effects and a Hopeful Future for XR

The California Association of Museums held a webinar on August 20, 2020, detailing four focus points for how XR can help advance DEIA (California Association of Museums 2020). The focus points manifest into different strategies and programming variations to ensure that XR is being used to further DEIA goals in alignment with the museum's own objectives and the trajectory of the field at large, under the guidance of AAM. The focus points are composed of:

1. Deeper learning in exhibits for all

   • This includes scaffolding exhibits with multiple entry points and collaborative components.

2. Bringing museum content out to the community

   • The XR technology would be scalable and available to use on personal devices. 

3. Bridging the tech divide

   • By incorporating XR, the museum is providing access to emerging technology.

4. Building STEM pathways for underrepresented youth

   • Hans-on experiences, diverse role models, skill building, and youth programs factor into the outcomes of this goal.

Accessibility

XR has significant potential for an expansion of general access, both for audiences who do and do not identify as having a disability. While interest in and implementation of various XR technologies has come in waves (the rise and fall of immersive Van Gogh experiences), the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the industry's exploration of this technology when it forced museums to shutter their doors and move most, if not all, internal and external operations online. This allowed greater access to the museum’s exhibitions and programming for their regular audience as well as audiences that were previously unable to visit in person due to a disability or otherwise. By embracing digital programming and engagement, museums can build from existing relationships with their community and develop new, global audiences. Digital strategies are now embedded in strategic plans and help center access to future exhibitions, which has resulted in a reexamination of XR in the context of the museum experience.

Intentionality around using XR to increase access to physical exhibitions is already happening at some cultural institutions. The Ingenium team worked with the Canada Agriculture and Food Museum to make the Farming Adventureexhibition more accessible through a digitally immersive experience that was tested with disability communities. The exhibition piece involved a real-life tractor cab that required maintenance in 2019, during which the museum took the opportunity to see if it truly was meeting visitors’ needs (Deakin 2023). In addition to the physical tractor, the museum built a digital screen behind the windshield inside the tractor, which was also replicated at ground level with a few differences, including more space for those with mobility issues. Ryan Dodge, Chief Digital Officer of Ingenium, commented:

Interactive displays and XR applications can also help accommodate neurodiverse audiences, as industry standard text-heavy exhibit information may not be the best format for this audience. The incorporation of audio guides, audio components, and colored lenses, perhaps with an AR headset, are upgrades that can help visitors with sensory processing difficulties (Deakin 2022).

Education

There are also many well researched positives of XR in an educational context. Because XR enables users to experience the information more fully and personally, there is a higher chance that the information is retained with long-lasting impact. Bernard Marr in Forbes states that: “Evidence suggests that learning through experience can increase the quality of learning and promote knowledge retention by as much as 90 percent” (2023). Thoughtful implementation of XR technology can accelerate innovation and the effective educational components of a museum’s programming, as well as widespread adoption of these technologies by the museum’s full userbase. Appropriately applied, XR can also provide a foundation for varied learning environments while bringing users and museum visitors together to create community (Marr 2023).

Consequences of XR

XR and immersive experiences can be quite powerful with the possibility of resulting in immediate and long-lasting psychological and physiological reactions. As with any tool, poor design or mismanagement can cause deep trauma and harm (Dick 2021). Users are physically vulnerable when wearing a VR headset, and events that happen in the digital space can have real effects, especially given that XR is designed to mimic experiences as if they are physically happening to the user. Considering current efforts to expand digital literacy, how do we protect vulnerable groups from undergoing traumatic experiences with these technologies, and how can they safely engage with the technology to further their learning and enhance their experience within cultural institutions?

Physical Safety

Despite the total immersion in a digital environment, VR’s physical nature necessitates a few precautions, including maintaining and cleaning the headsets, managing and avoiding nausea in users, guaranteeing a safe physical environment for VR use, and managing post-VR disorientation (Allen 2023). Users that are sensitive to sensory stimuli may feel uncomfortable and unwelcome in this exhibition space (Dick 2021). What about visitors who are hard of hearing or visually impaired? How might they partake in this experience? It is also important to note that the disconnect of acting in a physical environment while only perceiving a digital environment that depicts a completely different space from reality can lead to injuries (Allen 2023).

Psychological Safety

Another issue is that bias, such as stereotypes of race and gender, may emerge in digital spaces from their VR creators, who ultimately have total control over every aspect of the digital reality. This may lead to creators, only thinking of their own lived experiences, accidentally omitting important design features or enabling actions with unintended consequences as a result of the set conditions. Part of the solution would be to include more voices at the table for creators to hear from a wide variety of perspectives. Institutions interested in implementing the technology must thoroughly research risk assessments and conduct extensive user testing and consultation (Dick 2021).

Access

Integration of XR in an exhibition or museum programming also assumes a certain level of familiarity, comfort, and access to technology. Not every implementation of XR is on museum-provided software and hardware. Some programming, like the Kremer Collection, is only accessible for users who have their own VR headset. While there is a Kremer Collection version available for smartphones, there is still an underlying assumption that users will have access to and can afford a smartphone and enough broadband connectivity.

Considerations for the Future

XR technology based on a certain default user, often an able-bodied white male, may alienate and discourage users from participating who do not identify in the same way or share the same experiences as the default user. It is also important for users to be able to have agency in the virtual space in how they interact and represent themselves (Dick 2021). As a result, user testing and community consultation is imperative in the process of incorporating XR, both for museums and cultural institutions and for XR developers. Many developers are already seeking necessary feedback directly from users who will be impacted, including marginalized and underserved communities (Fox and Thornton 2022). Though they may not have as much control of the developer end, museums and cultural institutions should be in constant communication with their community and their needs. They should seriously evaluate whether allocating resources on this technology is beneficial and relevant to their audiences.

What do you think?

Considering that failure to address and consider equity concerns will hinder XR’s full potential to enhance users’ experience and instead may cause unintentional harm, do you see XR as a positive addition to the museum experience? Do the benefits to DEIA outweigh potential consequences? Are there any examples you know of that standout to you, or do you have personal experience with XR in a museum?