A FRAMEWORK FOR DIGITAL HERITAGE INTERPRETATION

HAFIZUR RAHAMAN
(M.Arch. KU Leuven)

A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE
2012
Acknowledgements

It would be impossible for me to complete this study without the assistance and co-operation
of countless people to whom I owe thanks and express my heartiest gratitude. At the top of
the list are my supervisor, co-supervisor and thesis members who have continuously
supported me in this endeavour. First, I would like to thank Dr. Tan Beng Kiang for her
continuous guidance, remarks and enthusiasm. To my second supervisor, Prof. Heng Chye
Kiang, I would like to express my appreciation for his constructive and meticulous
suggestion. I am thankful to both of them for being accommodative and for acceding to my
requests to the best of their abilities. I would like to specially thank Dr. Johannes Widodo and
Dr. Tim Marsh for their invaluable input and criticisms. I would also like to thank Prof. Dave,
Dr. Erik and Dr. Parvin for their suggestions in shaping of my initial thesis.

I like to thank all the members of bdheritage.info participated the experiment phases, gave
their valuable time, and supported this online platform. Special thanks to Prof. Mozammel
Haque, Dr. Mizanur Rashid, Mr. Masud Reza, Mr. Nurul Karim, Mr. Maruf Hossain and Mr.
Masudur Rahaman for helping me in preparing digital contents for this online platform. I
would like to acknowledge the debt I owe to my students of Khulna University, Bangladesh,
particularly Toy, Dilruba, Kowshik, Audity, Turjo, Taeef, Aumi, Sumon, Ratul and Opu, for
their help in so many ways during the survey. I would like to express my gratitude to Tony vi,
Joya apa, Rana and Upal, for their support and assistance.

I would like to acknowledge the National University of Singapore in providing me with the
Scholarship and the School of Design and Environment for assisting me with a conference
travel grant.

I would also like to express my warm gratitude to four special people: my parents for their
blessings, my younger brother Shamim and his wife Kanak, my beautiful wife Tania and my
son Safeer for their support and sacrifice in their own special ways.

Finally, my gratitude also goes to all my colleagues and fellow researchers of CASA (Centre
for Advanced Studies in Architecture) for their inspiration and suggestions from time-to-time,
on my study. My apologies if I have inadvertently omitted anyone to whom
acknowledgement is due.

Page |I
Table of Contents

ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………………………………….V
LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………………………………...VII
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………………………..IX

CHAPTER 01 INTERPRETING DIGITAL HERITAGE ...................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 INTERPRETING DIGITAL HERITAGE: END-USERS’ PERSPECTIVE .................................. 4
1.3 STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH TOPIC ................................................................................ 7
1.3.1 Research questions.................................................................................................................. 9
1.3.2 Research objectives ............................................................................................................... 11
1.3.3 Research Hypothesis ............................................................................................................. 11
1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................. 12
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 13
1.6 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................... 14
1.7 DISSERTATION STRUCTURE ................................................................................................. 17
1.8 TERMINOLOGY / WORKING DEFINITIONS ......................................................................... 19

CHAPTER 02 REVIEW: LITERATURE AND CASES ....................................... 23

2.1 HERITAGE INTERPRETATION ............................................................................................... 24

2.1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 24
2.1.2 Interpretation methods: A persuasive communication with visitors ..................................... 28
2.1.3 Interpretive principles: A comparison .................................................................................. 35
2.1.4 Heritage interpretation: Charters and guidelines ................................................................ 39
2.2 DIGITAL HERITAGE ................................................................................................................. 41
2.2.1 Digital heritage: Definition and domains ............................................................................. 41
2.2.2 Digital heritage, Interaction and End-users ......................................................................... 49
2.2.3 Discursive re-construction: Collective construction of online history.................................. 52
2.2.4 Digital heritage : Some experiments and researches............................................................ 56
2.3 INTERPRETATION AS CULTURAL SYNTHESIS: EMBODIMENT, LEARNING AND
DIALOGIC INTERACTION ............................................................................................................. 62
2.3.1 Embodied interaction: Towards a meaningful context ......................................................... 62
2.3.2 Place and Sense of Place ...................................................................................................... 65
2.3.3 Cultural heritage and visual literacy .................................................................................... 68
2.3.4 From I to We : Cultural learning and meaning-making ....................................................... 71
2.3.5 Dialogic Interaction : The dialogical basis of understanding ............................................. 74
2.4 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 77

Page | II
CHAPTER 03 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK : SHIFTING THE
INTERPRETATION PARADIGM .......................................................................... 83

3.1 THINKING THROUGH THE GAP: EXIGENCIES AT MEDIA-CROSSROAD ...................... 84

3.1.1 Knowledge gap in practice ................................................................................................... 87
3.1.2 Knowledge gap in literature ................................................................................................. 91
3.2 SETTING THE OBJECTIVES FOR DIGITAL HERITAGE INTERPRETATION .................... 93
3.3 THE PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................... 94
3.4 THE INDICATORS : EVALUATING THE INTERPRETIVE PROCESS ............................... 107
3.5 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 112

CHAPTER 04 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 113

4.1 EXPERIMENT DESIGN ........................................................................................................... 113

4.1.1 Treatment design ................................................................................................................ 114
4.1.2 Population and sampling .................................................................................................... 115
4.1.3 Group design and group task ............................................................................................. 116
4.1.4 Experiment overview .......................................................................................................... 117
4.2 EXPERIMENT VARIABLES AND QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................... 122
4.2.1 Dependent variables ........................................................................................................... 122
4.2.2 Independent variables......................................................................................................... 125
4.3 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHOD ............................................................... 126
4.4 CONSTRAINTS AND SCOPE OF THE METHODOLOGY.................................................... 127

CHAPTER 05 EXPERIMENT PLATFORM CONSTRUCTION ..................... 130

5.1 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................................... 130

5.1.1 Functional requirement ...................................................................................................... 130
5.1.2 Hardware requirements ...................................................................................................... 132
5.1.3 Software requirements ........................................................................................................ 132
5.1.4 Platform selection and benchmarking ................................................................................ 134
5.2 SELECTION OF REAL-WORLD HERITAGE SITE ............................................................... 138
5.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCESS ................................................................................................... 139
5.3.1 Encoding and decoding process ......................................................................................... 139
5.3.2 Content development and validation .................................................................................. 140
5.3.3 Web hosting, Developing and Setting the platform............................................................. 140
5.4 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 150

CHAPTER 06 DATA ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION .................................... 152

6.1 PARTICIPANTS’ BIBLIOGRAPHICAL PROFILE................................................................. 153

6.2 EVALUATING END-USERS’ SATISFACTION ..................................................................... 156
6.2.1 Expectation fulfilled ............................................................................................................ 156
6.2.2 Appreciation of visit............................................................................................................ 158

Page | III
 6.2.3 Pleasure achieved ............................................................................................................... 159
6.3 EVALUATING END-USERS’ PROVOCATION AND EMPATHY ....................................... 160
6.3.1 Self-attitudinal changes ...................................................................................................... 160
6.3.2 Greater interest on topic ..................................................................................................... 161
6.4 EVALUATING LEARNING .................................................................................................... 162
6.4.1 Increase consolidate knowledge ......................................................................................... 163
6.4.2 Link to prior knowledge and experience ............................................................................. 165
6.5 EVALUATING MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES OF THE PAST ................................................ 165
6.5.1 Fill in the blank ................................................................................................................... 166
6.5.2 Descriptive self-report on attaining new perspective.......................................................... 167
6.6 DIALOGIC INTERACTION AND END-USERS ..................................................................... 173
6.7 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 175

CHAPTER 07 DIGITAL HERITAGE INTERPRETATION REVISITED...... 181

7.1 CONTEXT AND RESEARCH POSITION................................................................................ 181

7.1.1 Research approach : Who, What and How ......................................................................... 184
7.1.2 Linking with research questions ......................................................................................... 185
7.2 REFLECTION : CONVERGENCE AND FRAGMENTATION ............................................... 191
7.2.1 End-users: From consumer to content producer ............................................................... 191
7.2.2 Planning of interpretation or salvation of technology ........................................................ 193
7.2.3 Discursive content: Knowledge base or garbage ............................................................... 194
7.2.4 Collective construction: From partial to bigger part of the mosaic ................................... 196
7.2.5 Connected minds and Voices of the oppressed ................................................................... 197
7.2.6 Public participation: Historic events vs. specific heritage site ........................................... 200
7.3 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 202

CHAPTER 08 CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 203

8.1 DIGITAL HERITAGE INTERPRETATION : CONSIDERATIONS........................................ 203

8.2 IMPLICATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 206
8.3 CONTRIBUTION ...................................................................................................................... 208
8.3.1 Contribution to theory......................................................................................................... 208
8.3.2 Contribution to practice ...................................................................................................... 211
8.4 OPPORTUNITIES AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................. 214

REFERENCES....…….…………………………………………………………………..217

APPENDICES………..…………………………………………………………………. 231
Appendix A : List of web based heritage site visited .......................................................................... 231

Appendix B : List of online digital heritage projects surveyed ............................................................ 237

Appendix C : Web 2.0 based digital heritage sites surveyed ................................................................ 242

Page | IV
Appendix D : Questionnaire ................................................................................................................. 244

Appendix E : Introductory seminar for Group-A (16th August 2010) ................................................. 245

Appendix F : Getting response from Group-A (23rd August 2010) ...................................................... 246

Appendix G : Introductory seminar for Group-B (9th December 2010) ............................................... 247

Appendix H : Getting response from Group-B (dated 16th December 2010) ....................................... 248

Appendix I : Written content approved by Group-E (professionals) .................................................... 249

Appendix J : The poster exhibited for the experiment platform ........................................................... 255

Appendix K : Comparison of 3D (or 3D like) model creation platforms ............................................. 256

Appendix L : Location map of Sompur Mahavihara ............................................................................ 257

Appendix M : Glimpse of Sompur Mahavihara ................................................................................... 258

Appendix N : Frequency of visit at Sompur Mahavihara by respondents ............................................ 260

Appendix O : Frequency of browsing of the experiment platform by respondents .............................. 261

Appendix P : ANOVA test result of question 9a, 9b, 9c and 9d .......................................................... 262

Appendix Q : ANOVA test result of question 10a,10b and10c............................................................ 263

Appendix R : ANOVA test result of question 9e and 11 ..................................................................... 264

Appendix S : ANOVA test result of question 14a, 14b, 14c and 14d .................................................. 265

Appendix T : ANOVA test result of question 14e ............................................................................... 266

Appendix U : Chi-Square test result of question 16, 17 and 18 ........................................................... 267

Appendix V : ANOVA test result of question 20 ................................................................................. 268

Appendix W : Survey response on new purposes learnt by respondents ............................................. 269

Appendix X : Descriptive self-response on question 26 by respondents.............................................. 270

Appendix Y : Screenshots of ‘discussion forums’ from bdheritage.info.............................................. 276

Appendix Z : List of publications ......................................................................................................... 283

Page |V
Abstract

UNESCO (2003) refers to ‘digital heritage’ as any ‘born digital’ or ‘digital surrogate’ objects

that contain unique resources of human knowledge and expression. ‘Heritage interpretation’,

on the other hand, is considered as an effective learning, communicating and managing tool

that increases visitors’ awareness of, and empathy to, the heritage site or artefacts. In contrast,

the definition of ‘digital heritage interpretation’ is still broad; so far, neither a method nor

objective is evident within the domain of ‘digital heritage’ theory and discourse.

In most cases, digital heritage projects remain descriptive; their objectives are diverse while

their works, at large, presume that technology delivers greater interpretation. Developed

through a top-down approach with linear narratives, such projects assume end-users as unique

entity and limit heritage to a mere consumable product. Although usage of new technologies

may accentuate experience and visual fidelity, they only provide partial interpretation, as

technology alone cannot offer the past from multiple perspectives.

This research thereby argues that, for better interpretation and experience of digital heritage, a

comprehensive interpretive method is required. Instead of predefined instructional sequences

or descriptive interpretation, it hypothesizes interpretation as an evolving ‘process’ that is

participatory and contributory – an interpretive process that allows public participation as

reflexive dialogic interaction with effective presentation, cultural learning and embodiment

enhances end-users’ interpretation of digital heritage.

A review of theory and methodology from real-world ‘heritage interpretation’ is found

inadequate to be adopted and implemented in the digital heritage realm. As such, this research

presents a theoretical construct ascertained from multiple disciplines (i.e. Heritage

management, HCI and Behavioural science), and explicates four objectives for a

comprehensive interpretive process. A conceptual model is proposed and further developed

into a conceptual framework. This framework is then implemented and tested on an online

Page | VI
platform to measure its impact on end-users’ interpretation level. Praxis of the conceptual

framework is substantiated by converging four aspects and fifteen considerations to achieve a

higher satisfaction, provocation, learning, and understanding of the past from multiple

perspectives by end-users.

A comparative experiment was conducted among controlled groups to compare the

effectiveness of the aforementioned framework with conventional linear interpretation. Using

Sompur Mahavihara in Bangladesh, a world heritage site as a case, different treatment models

(experiment platforms) were developed and offered to two pre-divided groups. Following

each experiment, end-users’ responses were collected through a semi-structured

questionnaire. Collected data were then analysed to evaluate the changes on end-users’

interpretation level, and to justify the relative effectiveness of the interpretive process as well.

Standard procedures from descriptive statistics with simple inferential techniques were used

for quantitative data analysis, while self-reported narratives were examined through thematic

content analysis.

With empirical evidence, this research demonstrates that the presented interpretive framework

results in a higher level of interpretation of digital heritage among end-users as compared to

the conventional linear method. Hence, this research justifies the hypothesis, and reveals

‘digital heritage interpretation’ as a process to communicate with end-users. An interpretive

framework for digital heritage consisting of fifteen considerations under four aspects,

therefore, summarizes the outcome of this research.

Page | VII
List of figures

Figure 1.1 : Relationship between end-users and digital heritage ............................................................ 5

Figure 1.2 : Research focus .................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 1.3 : Research framework............................................................................................................ 16

Figure 1.4 : Outline of the dissertation ................................................................................................... 17

Figure 2.1 : Literature review for digital heritage interpretation ............................................................ 24

Figure 2.2 : Fitch’s model of interpretation ............................................................................................ 30

Figure 2.3 : Uzzell’s model of interpretation .......................................................................................... 31

Figure 2.4 : Mindfulness model of visitor behaviour and cognition at built heritage site ...................... 32

Figure 2.5 : Information flow in positivist and constructivist approach ................................................. 34

Figure 2.6 : Book cover - Digital Heritage: Applying Digital Imaging to Cultural Heritage Preservation

................................................................................................................................................................ 43

Figure 2.7 : IT companies named as digital heritage or heritage digital ................................................. 44

Figure 2.8 : Basic domains of digital/virtual heritage............................................................................. 48

Figure 2.9 : Stages involved in human information processing .............................................................. 71

Figure 2.10 : Literature review process .................................................................................................. 78

Figure 3.1 : Conjectural reconstructions Sompur Mahavihara from various heritage scholars .............. 89

Figure 3.2 : 3D reconstruction of ‘Hagia Sophia’ by Juan J. Gonzalez ................................................. 90

Figure 3.3 : Dialogic interaction as a means to develop a collective knowledge base............................ 95

Figure 3.4 : Proposed conceptual model for interpreting digital heritage ............................................... 96

Figure 3.5 : Conceptual framework (PrEDiC) for interpreting digital heritage .................................... 105

Figure 3.6 : Converting concepts into indicators .................................................................................. 109

Figure 4.1 : Developing the experiment platform ................................................................................. 118

Figure 4.2 : Evaluating group A after one week of experience ............................................................ 119

Figure 4.3 : Collective construction : Online public participation ........................................................ 120

Figure 4.4 : Evaluating group B after one week of experience ............................................................. 121

Figure 5.1 : Present view of the central temple of the Sompur Buddhist monastery ............................ 138

Figure 5.2 : Plan of the Sompur Buddhist monastery ........................................................................... 138

Figure 5.3 : The experiment platform (bdheritage.info) ....................................................................... 142

Page | VIII
Figure 5.4 : Homepage (partial) showing recent videos and links uploaded by end-users ................... 144

Figure 5.5 : Posted files and feedback by end-users ............................................................................. 145

Figure 5.6 : Homepage (partial) showing images uploaded by end-users ............................................ 146

Figure 5.7 : Blog posts by end-users .................................................................................................... 147

Figure 5.8 : Forum Spy showing real-time activities of users .............................................................. 147

Figure 5.9 : Interactive 3D models of Sompur Mahavihara ................................................................. 148

Figure 5.10 : 360-degree panoramic views of Sompur Mahavihara ..................................................... 148

Figure 5.11 : Profile page of a member ................................................................................................ 150

Figure 6.1 : Visit count of the real world heritage site ......................................................................... 154

Figure 6.2 : Membership of social networking site .............................................................................. 155

Figure 6.3 : Frequency of using the experiment platform during experiment week ............................. 155

Figure 6.4 : Identification of features marked on the plan of Sompur Mahavihara .............................. 163

Figure 6.5 : Self-rating from respondents on overall knowledge gain ................................................. 164

Figure 6.6 : Response rate of self-reporting of new understanding gained .......................................... 167

Page | IX
List of tables

Table 2.1 : Heritage interpretation (for real-world) defined by various scholars and institutes.............. 27

Table 2.2 : Comparison of interpretation principles proposed by various heritage scholars .................. 36

Table 2.3 : Survey of online examples ................................................................................................... 50

Table 2.4 : Types of contribution allowed in various online digital heritage projects based on web 2.054

Table 4.1 : Different groups and their task during the experiment ....................................................... 116

Table 4.2 : Selection of questions to measure ‘satisfaction’ ................................................................. 123

Table 4.3 : Selection of questions to measure ‘provocation’ ................................................................ 123

Table 4.4 : Selection of questions to measure ‘learning’ ...................................................................... 124

Table 4.5 : Selection of questions to measure ‘understanding the past from multiple perspectives’ .... 125

Table 4.6 : Measuring the involvement and participation of group B .................................................. 126

Table 5.1 : Operationalizing the considerations ................................................................................... 131

Table 5.2 : Comparison of candidate platforms for multi-user online collaboration ............................ 137

Table 6.1 : Demographic profile of the participants ............................................................................. 153

Table 6.2 : Self-rating of internet-usage expertise by respondents ....................................................... 155

Table 6.3 : Expectation fulfilment ........................................................................................................ 157

Table 6.4 : Appreciation of visit ........................................................................................................... 158

Table 6.5 : Pleasure and overall experience.......................................................................................... 159

Table 6.6 : Self-attitudinal changes ...................................................................................................... 161

Table 6.7 : Greater interest on Sompur Mahavihara ............................................................................. 162

Table 6.8 : Remembering, Recall and Identification of wrong information between groups ............... 164

Table 6.9 : New purposes learned from the web portal ........................................................................ 166

Table 6.10 : Use of forum, chat room and blog .................................................................................... 173

Table 6.11 : Contribution by the respondents ....................................................................................... 174

Table 6.12 : Correspondence and communication by the respondents ................................................. 174

Page |X
 CHAPTER 01
INTERPRETING DIGITAL HERITAGE

1.1 BACKGROUND

‘Heritage’ is a broad term that refers to the study of human activity, not only through the

recovery of remains (as in archaeology), but also through tradition, art and cultural evidences

and narratives. It is a process of engagement (Smith, 2006) rather than a condition; “it is a

medium of communication, a means of transmission of ideas and values and a knowledge that

includes the material, the intangible and the virtual” (Graham, 2002, p1006). On the other

hand, UNESCO (UNESCO, 2003) refers to ‘digital heritage’ as unique resources of human

knowledge and expression “created digitally or converted into digital-form from existing

analogue resources”. According to this definition of UNESCO, any digital content that

possesses cultural values, either in the form of 2D (such as text, image and motion pictures)

or 3D (such as navigational virtual environment, three-dimensional objects), belongs to

‘digital heritage’. In addition, ‘virtual heritage’ (VH) is commonly used to describe works

that deal with virtual-reality (VR) and cultural-heritage (Roussou, 2002), and, by definition,

falls under digital heritage. Depending on the point of creation, digital heritage can be either

‘born digital’ (e.g. electronic journals, worldwide webpage) or ‘digital surrogate’ (made from

analogue resources such as 3D scanned objects or digital video of a ritual). Nevertheless,

driven by widespread popularity and coupled with the vulnerability of losing intricate data,

UNESCO (2003) adopted the Charter on ‘Preservation of the Digital Heritage’. This charter,

however, recognises the significance and value of digital resources while showing its

concerns for protecting these losses.

Page |1
Even though there is a flux of technological development and efficacy in dissemination,

digital heritage projects are mostly designed and developed in non user-centric and

descriptive manner (Thornton, 2007, Affleck and Kvan, 2008). They are exclusively focused

either on ‘process’ (authentication of data, site survey to epigraphy) or on ‘product’

(representing closer to reality and presentation of technical artistry) but rarely consider the

‘end-users’ (end-users’ perception of the content) (Rahaman and Tan, 2010, 2011). This is

why most of the digital heritage contents are developed with an ‘ocular-centric’ tendency, an

approach to visually describe the physical appearance of heritage in its digital form.

Moreover, the field of digital heritage still lacks adequate literature, focusing explicitly on the

theory and methodology of interpretation (Affleck, 2007, Tan and Rahaman, 2009) including

critical discourse (Cameron, 2008). While there are charters for “Interpretation and

presentation of cultural heritage sites”, there are no such charters or guidelines for digital

heritage. These limitations are actually persuading the present trend towards ‘descriptive

interpretation’.

Moreover, interpretation of heritage largely depends on the individual’s spatial literacy,

subjectivity and cultural positioning (McCullough, 2004). Therefore, perceived value of a

curtain content is not same to everyone and often results in heritage dissonance (Tunbridge

and Ashworth, 1996). This is why, with linear narratives, users fail to grasp the inherent

significance of heritage such as place-specific physical artefacts or architectural monuments,

and their relationship with much broader ‘non-visible’ cultural processes of which they are

parts of (more in section 1.1). In this context, this research aims to develop a methodological

framework to enhance interpretation of digital heritage and to enable the end-users to attain

the desired perceptual sense of place and culture from multiple perspectives.

In order to have an in-depth understanding, this research attempts to address the research

issues through the investigation of theory and methodology of heritage interpretation from

real-world context. An extensive review of interpretive principles (developed for real-world

heritage site) by various heritage scholars revealed their inadequacy in direct implementation

Page |2
or adoption to the digital heritage realm, which further leads this research to additional

enquiry on Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and human behavioural issues (figure 2.1). In

this way, a broad study on embodiment, sense of place, co-experience, meaning-making and

dialogical basis of understanding have led this research to consider digital heritage

interpretation as a ‘cultural synthesis’ – a continuous process rather than a product. Instead of

pre-determined instructional sequences or descriptive interpretation, an understanding from

the literature review opens up the possibility of exploring the interaction setting which is

participatory and contributory, where the end-users and the environment can engage in

‘dialogic interaction’. This research investigates some digital heritage projects based on the

level of interaction offered (i.e. exploration, manipulation and contribution, Parés and Parés,

2001) and the technology/media used for interpretation. This reveals a new genre of memory

collection projects developed on a shared annotation basis like wiki (more in section 2.2.2 and

2.2.3). These studies however, demonstrate the possibility of capturing heterogeneous

perspectives of the past through the allowance of active participation from online members.

In this regard, this research proposes a non-linear interpretive framework, which comprises of

four aspects, i.e. presentation, cultural learning, embodiment and dialogic interaction. This

interpretive process attempts to allow active participants in discursive content creation (i.e.

collective knowledge formation) and involves them in dialogic interaction to leverage

multiplicity in viewing the past cultural heritage and to gain enhanced satisfaction,

provocation, and cultural learning. This proposed conceptual framework has been applied to

an online platform to conduct a comparative experiment with an end-users survey. In this

way, the experiment assesses the impact of this conceptual framework on a digital heritage

project by evaluating the end-users’ interpretation. Based on the result of the empirical study,

some interpretive guidelines are proposed at the end of this study. Thus, the research outcome

is expected to contribute to both digital heritage discourse and practice.

This chapter is structured in to three parts, which mainly includes an overview of the research.

The first part presents the background of the research and highlights the ‘end-users’ as a

Page |3
significant issue in the interpretive process of digital heritage. The second part starts with a

brief introduction to the existing theoretical and methodological approaches in interpreting

digital heritage under research statement. Throughout the thesis, this issue will be addressed

in detail through the literature review and in-depth empirical investigations of the end-users’

experience. However, this section continues with stating research questions, research

objectives and research hypotheses. The third part explains the overall research design, the

significance and scope of the study, and finally ends with an outline of the dissertation.

1.2 INTERPRETING DIGITAL HERITAGE: END-USERS’ PERSPECTIVE

‘Interpretation’ is an act or process. Disciplines such as history, archaeology and heritage

management consider interpretation as a learning, communicating and management tool that

increases the visitors’ awareness and empathy to the heritage site or artefacts. Interpretation

has often been considered to indicate storylines, adapted to help the visitors to engage with

and understand the place or objects. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2009, p711)

defines interpretation as “the particular way in which it is understood or explained”. This

definition points to an inherent duality underlying the terms. ‘Explained’ indicates

‘presentation’ to or ‘communication’ with the visitors (Moscardo, 1996, 1999); i.e. more as an

act of the interpreter or interactive interface, while ‘understood’ indicates self-interpretation

or self-understanding, or rather, a reflexive phenomenon. Thereby, the understanding of

interpretation may vary between Cognitive Science and Archaeology. In this research, ‘digital

heritage interpretation’ has been conceived and understood as an act of an interpreter; a

method or tool of presentation or communication with end-users to (a) satisfy the end-users’

expectation and enhance enjoyment of the visit, (b) raise empathy or provocation towards the

heritage site, (c) facilitate learning by introducing the ‘big concept’ and conveying symbolic

meanings, and (d) present the past from multiple perspectives (more in section 3.2).

Page |4
Digital heritage has three major domains: (i) documentation (everything from site survey to

epigraphy), (ii) representation (from historic reconstruction to visualization) and (iii)

dissemination (from immersive networked worlds to ‘in-situ’ augmented reality) (figure 1.1,

2.8) (Addison, 2000). Moreover, one of its major objectives is to disseminate knowledge of

history and culture to general people (Tost and Champion, 2007, Roussou et al., 2008). In any

digital heritage or virtual heritage environment where the end-users interact with the system

or interface, they primarily interact with ‘information’. Information is accessed, manipulated

or created during the interaction to achieve some objectives, and computer or other peripheral

devices work as the means through which the objectives are achieved.

Figure 1.1 : Relationship between end-users and digital heritage

Figure 1.1 shows that experience and learning from existing or offered content depend largely

on both media and end-users’ background (i.e. physical and psychological). A person

certainly inherits a specific cultural, technical and cognitive background that is unique to

others. According to cognitive psychology, meaning-making in our mind is a complex

process and follows a series of steps which predominantly depends on an individual’s

capabilities (visual perception, attention, memory, learning and mental model) of the mental

process (Preece et al., 1993). Hence, it is not only the media but also the end-users’

background, sense of perception, technical knowledge, learning ability, interest and ideology

that largely influence how that person will react and interpret the content. Empirical studies

Page |5
from Marsh and Wright (2001), and Tost and Champion (2007) also recognised that the

impact of engagement and experience is highly dependent on the end-users’ background and

capacity of exploration.

Moreover, built-heritage is not just about ‘tangibility or materiality’; it is also about the

cultural and socio-spatial attributes that are related to built-environment. To understand the

inherent significance of a cultural heritage site, mere watching or navigating through a 3D

virtual model is inadequate. As digital heritage deals with cultural artefacts, demographic

differences always influence users’ value judgment. What we see, our concept-oriented mind

tells us about it, not only through our eyes but also our prior experiences which filter the

perceived meaning (Preece et al., 1993). Therefore, experience and interpretation of

prehistoric artefacts and landscapes largely depend on our own embodiment, subjectivity and

cultural positioning (Thomas, 2004). Hence, content without relating directly to how we

perceive the world, does not impart any meaning; rather it causes ‘heritage dissonance’ or

‘disinheritance’ (Tunbridge and Ashworth, 1996 ,p21).

Yet, in most cases digital heritage projects are developed as an afterthought of some research

work or as demonstration of a new technology (Gillings, 2000) while contents are often

created in a ‘descriptive’ rather than ‘interpretive’ manner (Affleck and Kvan, 2008). These

projects mostly focus either on the process of data collection and authentication or photo-

realistic presentation and application of new technology, but rarely consider the end-users’

perception of the content (Tan and Rahaman, 2009). Consequently, ‘interpretation’ has

always been understood as a linear process, “a single and universal viewpoint about the past”

(Thornton, 2007, p305), assuming that everyone should learn and understand in a similar way.

In reality, however, everyone’s thought and reaction to action and situation is unique and it is

simply not possible to reproduce events exactly as ‘actual’ in any sense (Kaptelinin and

Nardi, 2006). Hence, in most cases, digital heritage projects rarely address the cultural

uniqueness, the variety in perception and the presence of heritage dissonance among the end-

users. Moreover, they are largely motivated by tool or media oriented approach while

Page |6
following a linear narrative of content production explicitly by professionals only,

considering the end-users as petty content-consumers (more in section 2.2.2).

1.3 STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH TOPIC

Recent emerging media and digital tools are offering us to experience virtually reconstructed

historic sites or virtual heritage (VH) sites as visitors, travellers or even as residents and

posing high potentialities to reconstruct our past heritage and memory. However, critics often

blame digital heritage projects for various limitations, such as:

- Lack of meaningful and cultural content (Addison, 2000, Costalli et al., 2001,

Champion, 2002, Dave, 2008, Economou and Tost, 2008, Kalay, 2008),

- Conclusive process: lack of later interpretation (Huizinga, 1968, Lowenthal, 1985,

Dave, 1998), lack of engagement (Dave, 1998, Eiteljorg, 1998, Mosaker, 2001),

- Lack of sense of place, provokes cyberspaces rather place (Mosaker, 2001,

Weckström, 2004, Champion, 2006),

- Mostly demonstrate technical artistry rather historical knowledge (Roussou, 2002,

Champion, 2004, Sparacino, 2004, Valtolina et al., 2005 , Champion and Dave, 2006)

and

- Lack of interest in wide dissemination, distribution and use (Kalay, 2008, Witcomb,

2008) - are most common in digital heritage discourse.

Nevertheless, Rahaman and Tan (2010, 2011) also criticised recent projects for not

considering the end-user’s perception of the content in developing and presenting digital

heritage. In fact, the effect of technology with an accelerated global flux of ‘heritagization’

(Cameron 2008) often leads us towards an amorphous nature of history, to attain some certain

degree of visual fidelity – “the holy grail of greater realism” as mentioned by Flynn (2007).

Page |7
This indeed ignores the fact that the human ‘sense of perception’ is subjective and varies

between individuals. Moreover, it is not only our own embodiment, subjectivity, and cultural

positioning, but also what is interpreted, how it is interpreted and by whom that - create quite

specific messages about the value and meaning of specific places and their past.

In most cases, the contents of digital heritage are often linear and ‘descriptive’ rather than

‘interpretive’ (Gillings, 2000, Affleck and Kvan, 2008). The users have less freedom in

interaction (i.e. can explore and manipulate but seldom contribute) and cannot interpret the

content efficiently. As a result, the intrinsic meanings of architectural heritage remain

unattained. It is evident that recent digital heritage scholars and professionals are trying to

enhance heritage interpretation through various means and approaches, such as:

(i) Hermeneutic environment through game-style interaction (Champion and Dave,

2002, Champion, 2003)

(ii) Embodied interaction through somatic impulse (Flynn, 2008) or haptic devices

(Roussou, 2008)

(iii) Multiple user virtual environments (MUVEs) with dynamic content (e.g. 2nd life,

virtual Forbidden City)

(iv) Greater immersion through augmented stereographic panoramas (Kenderdine et

al., 2008) or introduction of immersive displays (Tan, 2007)

However, these attempts are fragmented, linear and not associated with each other. Therefore,

it is impossible to combine these methodologies together and develop a new theoretical model

for a comprehensive digital heritage interpretation. It is also quite evident that, most of these

efforts are media or tool oriented and motivated towards enhancing the visualization of the

content. The offered interaction level is mostly limited in exploration and manipulation and

rarely allows the end-users’ contribution at narrative level (section 2.1.2). In such a

theoretical context, it can be argued that, within the field of digital heritage, there is a lack of

Page |8
literature focusing on the theory and methodology of interpretation. Hence, the recent trend is

driven towards a descriptive interpretation, an approach to visually describe the physical

appearance of heritage in its digital form.

The knowledge of past is always limited (Lownethal 1985) and virtual reconstructions are

always partial models (Dave 2008). Moreover, cultural heritage is not just about tangibility or

materiality, but comprises cultural and socio-spatial (intangible) attributes related to built

environment. Therefore, it is very important to know how a digital object can express cultural

value and, at the same time, how that value is perceived by the end-users; in other words, how

best can a digital heritage content or artefact be more interpretive and can be perceived from a

heterogeneous point of view. To this end, this research summarizes a few knowledge gaps

within the domain of digital heritage interpretation, i.e.

1. There is a lack of literature focusing on the theory and methodology of

interpretation in the field of ‘digital heritage’

2. UNESCO’s activity is limited and there is no charter or guidelines for

interpreting digital heritage

3. A few examples are found which consider public participation in collecting

digital heritage content however, no such empirical study is evident yet that

verifies its effectiveness on end-users’ interpretation.

1.3.1 Research questions

The field of digital heritage has already been grown up from infancy. Re-assessment is taking

place and new questions are being raised regarding the basic objective of disseminating

cultural heritage through digital media. Major digital heritage research and practices are still

confined within the domain of HCI (Human Computer Interaction) and computer scientists or

engineers. As a result, technology still dominates over the experience (Sparacino, 2004, p9).

Page |9
Will this field continue to demonstrate and evaluate the tools, hardware, software and the

skills of the technologists, or should it consider operating from a more humanitarian ground?

Can we overcome this ‘image of practice’1 (Kalay, 2008) and explore this discipline as a new

paradigm from a socio-cultural perspective where end-users’ value will be given priority over

technology? Learning from other disciplines like archaeology, history, heritage management,

HCI and behavioural science, can we develop a conceptual model for digital heritage

interpretation, to make digital heritage more interpretive, engaging and entertaining? While

considering the above mentioned gaps in literature and practice of digital heritage

interpretation, this research aims to develop a comprehensive interpretation method that will

allow the active participants to interpret the history in a more entertaining and engaging way.

To implement such an approach, and from the theoretical underpinnings, the following

research questions have emerged.

The main research question is:

What is a framework to enhance end-users’ interpretation of digital heritage?

In order to explore this question, the following sub-questions are investigated:

Sub-question 01:What aspects should be considered in construction of digital heritage

projects to offer opportunities for inclusive and comprehensive interpretation? ?

Sub-question 02: What indicators can be used to evaluate the end-users’ interpretation

of digital heritage?

Sub-question 03: Does dialogic interaction from active participants allow multiplicity

in digital heritage content, hence enhance end-users’ interpretation?

1
Media experts (e.g. modellers, animators or programmers) who remain involved in the reconstruction processes may not be
aware of the intrinsic cultural values of particular artefact or environment although having a myriad of technical know-how. In
this way, the ‘apparent’ cultural preservationists and their implemented methods may well reflect their personal ‘inappropriate’
assumptions that Kalay (2008) referred to as ‘image of practice’.

Page | 10
1.3.2 Research objectives

Digital heritage interpretation is considered as an emerging theoretical and research area

within the field of digital heritage (Flynn, 2008). Various virtual heritage projects and

published literature were studied to understand different interpretation methods. However, no

such literature or discussion on interpretation theory or methodology within digital heritage

domain was found that may be deemed significant. Moreover, this research has also pointed

out some other limitations of assuming a straightforward method of interpretation for digital

heritage from the present theory and practice of the real-world heritage domain. Therefore,

this research starts with the following specific objectives:

(i) Develop a methodology to enhance interpretation of digital heritage

(ii) Evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed methodology in the interpretation of

intrinsic meanings of cultural heritage by end-users.

(iii) Develop some guidelines to help the planning and designing process of future

digital heritage projects to ensure better interpretation.

1.3.3 Research Hypothesis

This research hypothesizes that:

Built heritage, as a part of cultural heritage, is dynamic and contains different layers of

meanings. For a comprehensive understanding of digital heritage, ‘interpretation’

should be considered as an open-ended and evolving ‘process’ rather than as a product.

An interpretive process that allows public participation as reflexive dialogic interaction

with effective presentation, cultural learning and embodiment, therefore, enhances

end-users’ interpretation of digital heritage.

Page | 11
1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Heritage management covers a wide range of aspects such as field survey, data authentication,

decision making, interpretation design, presentation, resource management, including

implementation of the interpretive process. This study focuses mainly on developing an

interpretive methodology to enhance end-users’ interpretation of digital heritage thus to help

the designing and planning of interpretation process. As an act of the interpreter, the proposed

method, therefore, focuses on the process of interaction and communication to bridge

between digital tools/media and end-users through effective designing and planning of digital

heritage (figure 1.2). The method developed in this research was tested within a 2D online

platform. Application to a 3D environment is not explored due to technical limitation and

non-availability of suitable commercial package.

Figure 1.2 : Research focus

Page | 12
This research surveyed 160 participants. Interview or observational study of those participants

was beyond the scope of the allowable time limit of this study. Instead, for the survey, the

end-users’ responses were recorded with a semi-structured questionnaire, while assuming that

all participants answered the ‘self-rating’ questions honestly.

This type of study requires a large number of participants that demands mass advertisement

and invitation through various media. Moreover, as a non-organic community, it demands a

prolonged time to be populated, intensive feedback, as well as monetary investment (more in

section 4.4). However, due to time constraint, the interim public participation phase of the

experiment has to be limited to three months. The collectively generated contents during this

time worked as a ‘popular knowledge base’ for a second group of participants. However, an

extended period of this stage would generate more explicit and richer contents.

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH

‘Interpretation’ has always been considered as an effective learning, communication and

management tool that increases visitors’ awareness and empathy to the heritage site or

artefacts. On the contrary, the definition of ‘digital heritage interpretation’ is still wide and

hardly any method and objective is evident within the domain of ‘digital heritage’ theory and

discourse. In most cases, digital heritage projects are descriptive, oriented with diverse

objectives, and obsessed with technology as a deliverer of greater interpretation; for example,

the usage of game engine to achieve hermeneutic environment, somatic impulse to achieve

embodied interaction, application of artificial agent and dynamic contents to get realistic

environment, and usage of augmented stereographic panoramas or immersive displays to get

more immersion (more in section 2.2.2 and 2.2.4). Although these efforts may accentuate

experience and visual fidelity, they only provide a partial interpretation, as they do not offer

the past from multiple perspectives. It is evident that, in most cases, digital heritage projects

Page | 13
are linear in nature, developed through a top-down approach and consider heritage as a

‘product’ to be consumed.

As such, this research presents a critical application of a theoretical construct developed from

multiple disciplines (i.e. heritage management, HCI and behavioural science), and

demonstrates the ability and necessity to seriously assess the theoretical basis or foundation of

the methodology and its application in digital heritage interpretation. In this way, this research

presents a comprehensive framework that can enhance interpretation of digital heritage from a

user-centric perspective.

Nevertheless, this research not only presents a research framework to lead the methodological

rigour, but also provides guidelines (new ways) for further research towards new applications,

challenges and directions to achieve a better interpretation of digital heritage. In doing so, this

study intends to promote the link between research and practice in digital heritage,

particularly with respect to the incorporation of the end-users’ perception or highlighting the

end-users as a multicultural phenomenon in the interpretive process.

1.6 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

According to the research objectives and sub-questions, the study has been done in three

phases, i.e. (i) formulation of problem and theoretical basis, (ii) experiment design and

construction of platform, and (iii) empirical study with analysis and synthesis of data (figure

1.3).

In the first phase, the study formulates the research problem and research hypothesis based on

the review of literature and online examples. In order to meet the first sub-question, this study

investigates the definitions and objectives of digital heritage from the point of view of the

end-users, followed by a survey of online examples including some recent research on digital

heritage interpretation. This helps to provide an in-depth knowledge about the present practice

Page | 14
and limitations of the media/tool oriented approach. In this phase, present study subsequently

examines the different theories and methodologies of real-world heritage interpretation

through an intensive review of the interpretation models, with a comparative study of their

prescribed guidelines. This study reveals the limitations of direct implication of any of these

models to the digital heritage realm. Consequently, this leads to the review of relevant

knowledge from human-computer-interaction (HCI) and behaviour science to understand how

cognition, embodiment, sense of place, dialogue, meaning making and co-experience can help

to enhance digital heritage interpretation. Based on the initial findings from the literature

review, this research develops a conceptual model with four aspects for digital heritage

interpretation. This phase, therefore, addresses the first sub-question.

The second phase of the research examines the various survey and evaluation methods to

design a comparative experiment, including the identification of the indicators and variables

for further development of a semi-structured questionnaire. In this phase, this study also

investigates functional, hardware and software requirements for grounding the conceptual

model in an online platform. Through the selection of an encoding and decoding process, the

initial digital heritage contents are developed and verified by the domain experts. Later, this

study investigates the effectiveness of the experiment platform and the understanding of the

questionnaire through a pilot survey. This phase attempts to address the second sub-question.

In the third phase, this study conducts a comparative experiment, analyses responses and

synthesises those findings. This end-users’ survey verifies the applicability of the conceptual

model and its impact on the digital heritage interpretation. This phase, therefore, attempts to

address the significance of this interpretive framework as well as the third sub-question.

Page | 15
Figure 1.3 : Research framework

Page | 16
1.7 DISSERTATION STRUCTURE

The structure of the dissertation has been arranged in accordance with the research

methodology and organised in eight chapters (figure 1.4). Chapter-01 provides an overall idea

of the research. As this chapter progresses, it discusses the purpose of the study, the status quo

of digital heritage interpretation from the point of the end-users, and the background of the

theories researched and its design. The main research questions and purpose of this study are

explained. Finally, this chapter provides the delineations of the study with an overview of the

subsequent chapters.

Figure 1.4 : Outline of the dissertation

Page | 17
The aim of Chapter-02 is to understand the research setting through investigating the present

theory and practice of heritage interpretation from both the real and virtual worlds. The focus

of this chapter is to review theoretical constructs from multiple disciplines and to develop a

theoretical basis or foundation for proposing a conceptual model for interpreting digital

heritage. Chapter-03 starts with accumulating the present gaps in both the theory and practice

of digital heritage interpretation. While defining the objectives of digital heritage

interpretation, this chapter presents a conceptual model ascertained from the previous

theoretical underpinning. Based on research hypothesis, this chapter presents a

comprehensive framework of interpretation and elaborates its different levels and sequences

for achieving enhanced end-users’ interpretation.

Chapter-04 explains the methods of conducting the empirical study (i.e. comparative

experiment design) to evaluate the perceived interpretation from the end-users. In order to

measure the effectiveness of the conceptual model, it sheds lights on how explicitly or

objectively the variables can be quantified through developing indicators. Chapter-05

describes the design and construction of the experiment platform, which include the selection

of a real-world heritage site, the encoding and decoding process of data, content development

and validation, and hosting and launching of the platform. Detail descriptions of the various

features of the experiment platform are also explained in this section.

Consequently, the experiment analysis and results are shown in Chapter-06. The main theme

of this chapter is to identify and compare the effectiveness of the proposed model from both

the quantitative and qualitative data found from the empirical study. Chapter-07 presents the

reflection of the overall research experience and outcome. It reports on the applicability of the

grounded interpretation model in future digital heritage projects. Finally, the dissertation ends

with Chapter-08. This chapter summarizes the key findings of the study. It draws the major

conclusions of the study and illustrates the methodology and interpretation guidelines for

digital heritage projects based on the research findings. It also includes future research

directions suggested by the study.

Page | 18
1.8 TERMINOLOGY / WORKING DEFINITIONS

Digital heritage: In this research, ‘Digital heritage’ refers to the unique resources of human

knowledge and expression created digitally or converted into a digital form (both 2D and 3D

format) from any existing analogue resources.

Virtual Heritage: ‘Virtual heritage’ (VH) is a term commonly used to describe works that

deals with virtual-reality (VR) and cultural-heritage (Roussou, 2002). ‘Virtual heritage’

refers to the instances of cultural heritage properties and sites within a technological domain,

especially in a 3D environment.

Cultural Heritage Site: It refers to a place, locality, natural landscape, settlement area,

architectural complex, archaeological site, or a standing structure that is recognized and often

legally protected as a place of historical and cultural significance (ICOMOS, 2007).

Cultural Heritage: According to UNESCO, the term “cultural heritage” encompasses both the

tangible and intangible categories of heritage. Tangible cultural heritage refers to:

x Movable cultural heritage (paintings, sculptures, coins, manuscripts, etc.)

x Immovable cultural heritage (buildings, monuments, archaeological sites, and so on)

x Underwater cultural heritage (shipwrecks, underwater ruins and cities and so on)

Intangible cultural heritage, on the other hand, refers to the oral traditions, performing arts,

rituals and so on.

Heritage dissonance: Ashworth and Tunbridge (1996, p21) first coined the term ‘dissonant

heritage’. The root of the dissonant nature of heritage depends on the interpretation level of

the observer. According to these authors, all heritage is someone’s heritage and, therefore,

cannot be someone else’s. Therefore, the meaning of an inheritance is subjective and not

equal.

Page | 19
Dialogic interaction: Dialogue is the opposite of argument, a quintessential hermeneutic

event. It is a process where two people try to understand each other while being immersed in

a discussion. In this research, dialogue refers to taking an active part in online activities that

mimic discussion and communication like that happens in the real world. On the other hand,

‘interaction’ is referred to as the inclusion of any of these three forms of activities, i.e.,

exploration, manipulation and contribution. Therefore, this research refers to the convergence

of dialogue and interaction as by ‘dialogic interaction’.

Built heritage: In this research, built-heritage or architectural heritage is considered as

‘immovable cultural heritage’ such as monuments, archaeological sites and so on, it is

considered as a part of cultural heritage defined by UNESCO.

Embodiment: Embodiment provides a rich understanding of what human ideas are and how

they are organized in vast conceptual systems (mostly in our unconscious mind), grounded in

both the physical and live reality. That is to say, embodiment is the way we think and make

sense of the world – “Embodiment is a participative status, a way of being, rather than a

physical property” Paul Dourish (2001, p125).

Mindfulness: Mindfulness is the mode of functioning through which the individual actively

engages in reconstructing the environment through creating new categories or distinctions,

thus directing attention to new contextual cues that may be consciously controlled (Langer,

1989). Most often, we follow routines or unwittingly carryout senseless orders. We act like

automations, which lower our consciousness and has been referred to as ‘mindlessness’.

Internalization: An operation that initially represents an external activity, which is

reconstructed and begins to occur internally. Thus, internalization is the transformation of

external activities into internal activities. For example, the learners look at the keys while

typing; however, with practice, typing without looking at the keys becomes possible. A

transformation takes place in which the external becomes internal.

Page | 20
Experiment Platform: This is an ‘explorative study’ based on a comparative experiment and

user survey. Two different online web-portals were developed to allow the control-groups to

be involved and separately experience a digital heritage project. These online portals have

been referred to in this research as ‘experimental platform’.

Multiplicity: It is the property of being multiple. This term is used in this research to express

the state of being various or manifold in the meaning of cultural heritage (as well as

architectural heritage) due to the uniqueness of subjective interpretation. For example, the

same monument may show different appeal to different people according to their

demographic or professional background. Even for the same person, the same monument may

have different appeal in morning sun or evening twilight, or in a moonlit night. Furthermore,

it may appear differently at the second visit of the same site years later. Therefore, the

capturing of these various perspectives from the various end-users can create multiplicity in

the narrative or content.

Polysemic view of past: In a literal sense, ‘polysemic’ refers to the phenomenon of having or

being open to several or many meanings. Heritage objects such as monuments or artefacts

can elicit multiple meanings or perspective to us. However, most digital heritage projects

restrict us to see the past from either the researcher’s or content developer’s perspective, thus

limiting our interpretation of the past from a singular perspective. For example, The Taj of

India can be seen either as the ‘Muslim invasion of India’ or as a ‘symbol of love’ or even as

an ‘architectural artistry of Mughals’. This research suggests that digital heritage should

accommodate polysemic/multiple views of the past to achieve multiplicity at the narrative

level, thus enhancing the enhance interpretation.

Heritage interpretation: From the point of view of heritage management, ‘heritage

interpretation’ is often used to indicate ‘the act of an interpreter’. However, in general,

‘interpretation’ refers to the storylines adopted to help the visitors engage in and understand

the place or objects, which they are visiting or watching.

Page | 21
Null hypothesis: The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position

assuming that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or a potential

treatment has no effect. The null hypothesis can never be proven. Data can only reject a null

hypothesis or fail to reject it.

P-value: In statistical hypothesis testing, the p-value is the probability of obtaining a result at

least as extreme as a given data point, under the null hypothesis. Generally, one rejects the

null hypothesis if the p-value is smaller than or equal to the significance level, often

represented by the Greek letter α (alpha). If the level is 0.05, then the results are only 5%

likely to be as extraordinary, given that the null hypothesis is true. If the calculated p-value

exceeds 0.05, the null hypothesis is not rejected and such finding is often stated as "not

statistically significant at the 5% level".

Page | 22
 CHAPTER 02
REVIEW: LITERATURE AND CASES

The main objective of this research is to develop a methodology that enhances interpretation

of digital heritage. This chapter describes the scopes and limitation of digital heritage

interpretation while investigating state of art theories and methodologies of interpretation

practice from real-world context. As such, this chapter investigates related theoretical

constructs from multiple disciplines, such as Heritage management, HCI and Behavioural

science. In this, the concept of embodiment, sense of place, co-experience, collective

memory, meaning-making, phenomenon of dialogue are reviewed with concern to its

application in digital heritage interpretation (figure 2.1).

The first section provides the basic understanding of ‘heritage interpretation’ through

investigating real-world interpretation practice. A comprehensive study of theoretical models

of heritage interpretation followed by an extensive comparison of interpretive principles

justifies this investigation. This section also explains the present role of heritage institutes like

UNESCO and ICOMOS in digital heritage interpretation. The next section defines ‘digital

heritage’ followed by an online survey, investigating the level of interpretation allowed for

end-users in present practice. Later, a discussion on recent trends on discursive or collective

construction of online history is presented. This section further critically explores some

contemporary research related to digital heritage study which is found available in the online

media.

Page | 23
Figure 2.1 : Literature review for digital heritage interpretation

Section 2.3 covers the gap of implementing real-world’s archaeological heritage interpretation

principles to the digital world. It also presents digital heritage interpretation as ‘cultural

synthesis’; as a means of collective co-creation of memory and sharing meaning through

dialogic interaction. Finally, this chapter discusses in brief the overall knowledge gain from

this comprehensive review.

2.1 HERITAGE INTERPRETATION

2.1.1 Introduction

“The chief aim of interpretation is not instruction but provocation” - Freeman Tilden (1977)

As an act or process, interpretation can be explained or conceptualized according to specific

domains such as –

Page | 24
 x Literature (e.g. facilitation of dialogue between parties using different languages)

x Philosophy (e.g. interpreting logic of a function or symbols, a work of a philosopher,

hermeneutics or exegesis – critical explanation of religious texts)

x Math, Science or Computing (e.g. model theory, quantum physics, high level

programming language)

x Law (e.g. judicial interpretation – an interpretation of law by a judiciary) Art and

performance (e.g. an explanation of the meaning of a work of art or dramatic act)

x Music and media (e.g. philosophical inquiry into the presuppositions of musical

interpretation and the interpretation of particular musical works by musicians)

x Allegory (e.g. assuming that the authors of a text e.g., the Bible, intended something

other than what is literally expressed)

x Heritage (i.e. reveal the nature and purpose of past historical, cultural and natural

aspects)

x Psychoanalysis (i.e. interpretation of a patient’s unconscious feelings).

In similar ways, the meaning and nature of interpretation change according to the discipline or

purpose of its use. Due to time constraints and the nature of the study, this research only

investigates ‘interpretation’ as related to the domain of cultural heritage. The term

‘interpretation’ is often used to indicate the storylines adopted to help visitors to engage with

and understand the place or objects in a real-world heritage site or museum. Disciplines such

as Archaeology, History or Heritage Management consider ‘interpretation’ as a learning,

communication and management tool that increases the visitors’ awareness and empathy to

the site and artefacts.

Page | 25
Freeman Tilden (1977) defined interpretation as “an educational activity that aims to reveal

meanings and relationship through the use of original objects by first-hand experience and by

illustrative media rather than simply to communicate factual information”. Therefore, in a

broader sense, interpretation is integration of ‘presentation’, ‘supplementary education’ and

‘visitor satisfaction’ (Goodchild, 2007). Interpretation is not just a thing like a board of

exhibit or a presentation of information through multimedia, but a communication process

(Moscardo, 1999) designed to reveal the meaning and relationship of natural and cultural

heritage to the public. It reveals the past to the visitors in a powerful and memorable way, to

enrich the visitors’ understanding and appreciation of the context and to give them some

curatorial senses.

ICOMOS (2007, p3) defines ‘interpretation’ and ‘presentation’ separately. In its proposed

final draft, ‘presentation’ denotes the carefully planned communication of interpretive content

through the arrangement of interpretive information, physical access, and interpretive

infrastructure at a cultural heritage site. It can be conveyed through a variety of technical

means, including, yet not requiring, such elements as informational panels, museum-type

displays, formalized walking tours, lectures and guided tours, and multimedia applications

and websites. As such, it is largely a one-way of communication. ‘Interpretation’, on the

other hand, referred to the full range of potential activities intended to heighten public

awareness and to enhance an understanding of the cultural heritage site. These interpretive

activities can include print and electronic publications, public lectures, on-site and directly

related off-site installations, educational programs, community activities, research, and

training, including evaluation of the interpretive process itself.

Even by definition, the concept of heritage interpretation seems very simple, but by nature, it

is political, sensitive and emotive (Howard, 2003, p246). A compilation of definitions of

‘heritage interpretation’ from diverse authors and institutes is presented in Table 2.1. Notions

presented in this table elucidate that ‘interpretation’ has always been considered as a method

or tool of presentation for or communication with visitors for (i) Learning (conveying

Page | 26
symbolic meaning) (ii) Provocation (facilitating attitudinal or behavioural change) and (iii)

Satisfaction (enhancing enjoyment of the place and visit). Regarding archaeological

interpretation, these considerations actually refer to a passive mind-set of ‘experts’. Here,

archaeologists or heritage professionals have always been considered as the interpreters of

past and present, whereas visitors are treated as consumers with petty knowledge “to make

sense of the information” (Moscardo, 1999).

Table 2.1 : Heritage interpretation (for real-world) defined by various scholars and institutes

Affiliation Definition of Interpretation

Uzzell (1994) Interpretation is that it opens a window on the past.

Harrison (1994) The art of presenting the story of a site to an identified audience in
a stimulating, informative and entertaining way to highlight the
Heritage Scholars

importance and provoke a sense of place

Beck and Cable (1998) Interpretation is an educational activity that aims to reveal
meanings about our cultural and natural resources.
Moscardo (1999) Interpretation is a special kind of communication
Howard (2003) Interpretation is deciding what to say about heritage and how and
to whom.
Goodchild (2007) Interpretation is, in fact, only one aspect of the broader topics of
‘Presentation’, ‘Supplementary Education’ and ‘Visitor
Satisfaction’.

Interpretation Association, Heritage interpretation is a means of communicating ideas and

Australia (2010) feelings which helps people understand more about themselves
and their environment.
Associations/Authorities

The National Association for Interpretation is a mission-based communication process that

Interpretation, USA (2010) forges emotional and intellectual connections between the interests
Interpretation

of the audience and the meanings inherent in the resource.

The Association for Heritage
Interpretation, UK (2010)
ICOMOS Ename Charter (2007)
ICOMOS Charleston declaration
(2005)
Interpretation is primarily a communication process that helps
people make sense of, and understand more about, your site,
collection or event.
Interpretation refers to the full range of potential activities
intended to heighten public awareness and enhance understanding
of cultural heritage site.
Interpretation denotes the totality of activity, reflection, research
and creativity stimulated by a cultural heritage site.

Heritage is not a concrete object, which means that it evolves and is updated by subsequent

generations, e.g. in relation to the interpretation of ‘scriptures’. Oxford Advanced Learner’s

Dictionary (2009) defines interpretation as “the particular way in which it is understood or

explained”. This definition points to an inherent duality underlying the terms. ‘Explained’

indicates ‘presentation’ or ‘communication’ factor (Moscardo, 1996, 1999); i.e. more as an

Page | 27
act of the interpreter or interactive interface while ‘understood’ indicates self-interpretation or

self-learning, or rather as a reflexive phenomenon. In this, the understanding of interpretation

may differ between archaeology, heritage management, phenomenology and hermeneutics.

Interpretation can also be seen as a reflexive process instead of considering it as a medium of

communication with a passive audience. The process of interpretation could be dialectic and

hermeneutic to empower social groups to tell their own stories (Hodder, 1991). This way

interpretation can allow more flexibility in the process and portrayal of multiple viewpoints of

the past, which is often absent in many digital heritage projects.

2.1.2 Interpretation methods: A persuasive communication with visitors

Nearly fifty-five years ago in 1957, Freeman Tilden (1977) first conceptualized the role and

responsibility of heritage interpretation and developed guidelines to conduct interpretation.

However, this perception has shifted through time; from a mere professional oriented

development, it has diverted more towards appropriateness in message delivery, visitors’

cognition and heightened concern with environmental issues within or beyond the interpretive

context. Through the passage of time, the field of heritage interpretation has gained its own

rights. Techniques and methods of interpretation have also been transformed with the

epistemological shifts of human perception with the advent of new technologies. Towards a

better understanding of these shifts, the following section explores the development of the

theoretical models and principles of heritage interpretation within the realm of real-world

heritage site.

The interpretation of heritage for the public can be first person or guided, using a range of

tools such as printed and oral information, or using a range of media from image to film and

from interactive multi-media to virtual reality. Freeman Tilden (1977), who is considered as

the ‘father of heritage interpretation’, defined interpretation and proposed guidelines to relate

the visitors to the interpretive contexts. Tilden emphasized on first-hand experience and

Page | 28
suggested six basic principles or guidelines for an effective or ‘correctly directed’

interpretation. The essence of these principles consists of:

1. Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being displayed or described

to something within the personality or experience of the visitor will be sterile.

2. Information, as such, is not interpretation. Interpretation is revelation based upon

information. They are entirely different things. However all interpretation includes

information.

3. Interpretation is an art, which combines many arts, whether the materials presented

are scientific, historical or architectural. Any art is on some degree teachable.

4. The chief aim of interpretation is not instruction but provocation

5. Interpretation should aim to present a whole rather than a part, and must address itself

to the whole rather than any phase.

6. Interpretation addressed to children should not be a dilution of the presentation to

adults, but should follow a fundamentally different approach. To be at its best it will

require a separate program.

Following Tilden’s framework for heritage interpretation, two distinct groups of thought are

evolved, explicitly from James Marstorn Fitch (1982) and David Uzzel (1989).

(a) Professional and Popular interpretation

James Marston Fitch (1909–2000), a professor of architectural history in Columbia

University’s School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation, believed that interpretation

has two levels, ‘Professional’ and ‘Popular’ (Fitch, 1982).

Page | 29
Figure 2.2 : Fitch’s model of interpretation

Professionals such as archaeologists, historians and architects carry out the first level of

interpretation. From available evidences (excavations, ruins, artefacts, documents etc.),

professionals examine and verify them for authenticity and document them to feed second

level of interpretation for the public (figure 2.2). Filtered information are imparted to public at

the second level of interpretation, i.e. the ‘popular’ level. Fitch (1982, p339) developed six

guidelines of interpretation and believed that teaching history to the general people requires

interpretation of the actual scenes in which they had occurred.

(b) Re-creation and Re-construction

Presenting archaeology or heritage to the public is not a new idea. However, in early times,

the vision of public involvement was brought up by M.W. Thompson (1981). He explained

‘primary interpretation’ – as a process in which someone has to confront the ruin and give an

intelligible account of it. ‘Secondary interpretation’, on the other hand, is the popular

transmission of this account to other people. Actually, Fitch’s definition of ‘professional’ and

‘popular’ interpretation is similar to Thomson’s definition. Similar definition can also be

found from Tim Copeland’s (2004, p135) work as ‘expert construction’ and ‘public

construction’ which actually contains the same meaning of Thompson’s and Fitch’s idea.

Page | 30
Figure 2.3 : Uzzell’s model of interpretation

From the point of information presentation to the general people, David Uzzel (1994)

(professor of Environmental Psychology from the University of Surrey, UK) mentioned two

types of heritage interpretation, i.e. ‘Re-creation’ and ‘Re-construction’. According to him,

‘re-creation’ is mainly developed for economic consideration for commercially driven leisure

sites such as theme parks where history is presented as a ‘slice of past’. Visitors enjoy events

and site visiting as they are in a leisure mode while being triggered by nostalgia. This

approach is more fundamental and requires a suspension of disbelief from the visitors to feel

the sense of actual interaction with artefacts and people from the past (Uzzell, 1989).

Moreover, the presence and volume of visitors sometimes interfere with the sense of

authenticity.

The ‘Re-construction’ approach on the other hand, is more objective and presents history as a

whole. Instead of presenting the history of a certain period of time, ‘re-construction’ shows

aspects of domestic and working life from different periods, so that the visitors can get a

holistic idea of the past and have empathy for the site. Visitors get emotional attachment and

immersed in time and space through such a visit. This type of interpretation poses an

intellectual focus to engage participants in debate and discussion through presenting doubts

and gaps that may exist in history. Therefore, instead of being a voyager, visitors become part

of a continuing story (Uzzell, 1989). However, Uzzell believes that this re-construction

approach is unpopular as it is always difficult to implement in a real world heritage site.

Page | 31
Moreover, visitors usually visit in a leisure mode and may not always like to engage in any

mentally challenging activities.

(c) Mindful interpretation

Ellen J. Langer, Professor of Psychology, Harvard University, in her book ‘Mindfulness’,

began with the proposition that, in most cases, our social behaviour is conducted mindlessly,

with minimal information processing (Langer, 1989).

(source: Moscardo, 1996)

Figure 2.4 : Mindfulness model of visitor behaviour and cognition at built heritage site

According to Langer, there are two ways of mindlessness. Firstly, mindlessness occurs while

we are in a repetitive or familiar situation. Secondly, it occurs when we find information

irrelevant and unimportant to us. In such a situation, our behaviour starts to act as a cue from

a script to follow. Mindfulness specifies the other side of the dichotomy. Mindfulness takes

place in novel or unfamiliar situations where individuals follow no script or while script

interrupts and requires considerable effort or cost. According to Moscardo (1999), in an

interpreting site, two sets of factors influence visitors: (a) communication factor and (b)

visitor factor. The first factor refers to the features of the interpretive process or method, and

the second one refers to what visitors bring with them to the interpretive site (e.g. the

Page | 32
cognitive schemata, interest and fatigue level). Derived from Langer’s (1989) basic argument

that, in any given situation, people can be either mindful or mindless. Moscardo (1999, p27)

suggested a need to ensure that there are mindful situations to stimulate interest and

connections with visitors. To encourage interpretation, Moscardo (1999, p39) proposed the

“mindfulness model for communicating with visitors” (Figure 2.4). She claimed that

‘mindfulness’ is the key to learning new information and can be adapted to any interpretive

situation and associated aims.

Therefore, visitors in a ‘mindful’ cognitive state are more likely to experience greater

enjoyment, satisfaction, learning and awareness of the consequences of their behaviour and

appreciation of the place. However, Moscardo (1999) warns about these mental states as they

might overlap and not necessarily remain constant throughout the visit.

(d) Constructivist and Positivist approach of interpretation

“Constructivism is not a theory about interpretation; it’s a theory about knowledge and

learning” – Brooks and Brooks (1993).

Our understanding of any event or experience depends on dynamic interaction of our senses,

perceptions, memory of previous experience and cognitive process. If we pose a positive and

adaptive attitude with new information, a new construction is made or the previous

construction of mental model is modified. According to Tim Copeland (1998, 2004), a similar

process occurs when a visitor encounters a historic site. Influenced by Moscardo’s (1996,

p392) concept of mindfulness in heritage interpretation and learning history, Copeland (2004,

p134) suggests ‘cognitive dissonance’ for most effective learning. He describes cognitive

dissonance as a contradiction between what is previously thought and the new information

presented or brought up. This causes the learner to question and explore concepts and derive

their implication in a greater perspective. Ballaytyne (1998) and Copeland (1998) explained

the implication of ‘constructivist approach’ as the way in which individuals are constantly

constructing meaning by their own thought, feeling, actions, negotiation and reaction with the

Page | 33
world. Thus, constructivist interpretation seeks to engage visitors with evidence and help

them to understand through proving problem-solving approaches, that is, to enable them to

construct their own meaning (figure 2.5).

Evidence

Interpretation

Audience

(a) Information flow in a positivistic model (b) Information flow in a constructivist model
(Source: Copeland, 2006)

Figure 2.5 : Information flow in positivist and constructivist approach

Generally, in an interpretation site, information is packaged and marked to evoke the passive

viewers to feel, think and behave in a prescribed manner (Ham and Weiler, 2002) similar to

Uzzell’s (1989) concept of ‘re-creation’. Copeland (2006) explains this approach of

readymade facts and presentation of a heritage site as a ‘Positivist approach’, which requires

the state of the art technology, media and presentation. He explains the positivist model as

one way in which information flows from the interpreter to the visitor, which is similar to

Fitch’s (1982) model. A constructivist approach on the other hand is more challenging and

visitor must to come up with his or her own meaning (Hein, 1998, p155). The process of

constructivist approach requires more engagement and interaction; here, the inherent

‘message’ is more important than the medium. Brooks and Brooks (1993) developed ten

guidelines to implement a constructivist interpretation model in a heritage site. Subsequently,

Tim Copeland (2006) refines these guidelines and proposes a set of seven guidelines or

‘strategy’ based on Moscardo (1996) and Brooks and Brooks (1993).

However, Bonini (2008) criticized the constructivist environment as it emphasizes more on

the ‘process’ rather than the result. Even then, the constructivist approach claims that

cognition is adaptive and allows the participant to organize the experimental world, and not to

Page | 34
discover an objective reality (von Glaserfield,1989 in Bonini, 2008). However, in practice,

this understanding leads to the development of problem-based activities and content

dependent knowledge construction rather than knowledge reproduction. Moreover, heritage

site is not a classroom environment, and visitors come to a site for leisure and may not be

interested in problem solving, answering questions or doing something which is mentally

challenging (Uzzell, 1994).

2.1.3 Interpretive principles: A comparison

Tilden (1977, p9) suggested a set of six principles for an ‘effective or correctly directed’

interpretation practice (for real-world heritage sites). Later, different heritage professionals

and scholars proposed their own principles. Here the question remains as to what extent do

these other researchers agree with or differ from Tilden’s principles to achieve an effective

interpretation. A comparison in Table 2.2 shows that many of these principles are actually an

elaboration and clarification of the principles already addressed by Tilden.

David Uzzell (1994) in his paper “Heritage interpretation in Britain four decades after Tilden”

addressed a new set of fifteen principles for ‘good interpretive practice’; here he argued that

Tilden’s principles are no more effective in present time. However, Uzzell’s principles are at

best a further clarification and elaboration of Tilden’s principles except he encouraged visitor

participation, highlighted to serve their need, and asked to be sympathetic to locals (no 7, 9

and 10). Harrison (1994) on the other hand, believed identification of themes is the most

important in interpretation and agreed with some points raised by Tilden (1977) and Uzzell

(1994). He proposed nine principles and argued to keep a balance between consumer-led and

resource-led approaches (Table 2.2).

Page | 35
Table 2.2 : Comparison of interpretation principles proposed by various heritage scholars

Tilden’s six Uzzell’s Harrison’s Beck and Cable’s Gianna Tim Copeland’s
principles principles principles principles (1998) Moscardo’s principles (2006)
(1977) (1994) (1994) principles (1996)
1. Any 4. Strong human 3. Have strong 1. Visitor should be 3. Visitors are
interpretation that interest (themes). human interest given a variety in viewed as thinkers
does not somehow 5. Interpretation themes: people are their experience. with present
relate what is being should build on pre- interested in people 3. Needs to make conceptions and
displayed or existing knowledge. and interpretation connections to the emerging ideas
described to Should relate should focus on personal about the past.
something within visitors own this. experiences of 7. Assessment and
the personality or experience. Need to 9. Build on pre- visitors evaluation seeks to
experience of the know what visitors existing knowledge, discover visitors’
visitor will be see/understand this will ensure that perspectives and
sterile. from the site. the interpretation is improve
relevant and interpretation
meaningful.

2. Information, as 1. The need for a 1. Explore the ‘how’ Consideration to

such, is not clear concept. and ‘why’ as well as both quantity and
interpretation. Visitor requires a the ‘what’ and quality of
Interpretation is cognitive map, ‘when’ of any information
revelation based which they can particular piece of presented
upon information. follow. information.
They are entirely 8. Recognize how
different things. unobservant people
However all are : visitors need
interpretation guidance as to what
includes to look at, what is
information. significant.
3. Interpretation is 14. Be - Use of new 2. Sites rely heavily
an art, which opportunistic. technology to on the use of
combines many Option should be present and offer evidence
arts, whether the open for more variation.
materials presented learning and - Interpreters must
are scientific, investigation. have a base level of
historical or 15. The right staff. experience in
architectural. Any Customer care is communicating
art is to some important. techniques
degree teachable. - Promote optimal
experiences
through intentional
and thoughtful
program and facility
design.
4. The chief aim of 3. An alternative 2. Explore the Instilling the ability 4. Interpretation
interpretation is not and involving options for an and desire in people mediates the
instruction but experience. interactive and to sense the beauty historic
provocation involving in their environment for
experience: visitors, environment – to visitors
both young and old provide spiritual
should be able to uplift and to
interact and learn encourage resource
from each other. preservation.
6. Ensure that the
visitor gains some
new knowledge and
is stimulated to
know more.
10. Provide an
overall experience
which stimulates all
of the senses.
5. Interpretation 11. Need good Bring the past alive 5. Physical 1. The site should
should aim to orientation of site to make the present orientation system be presented whole
present a whole for making mental more enjoyable and to part with
rather than a part, map. the future more emphasis on ‘big’
and must address 12. A sequence of meaningful concepts of
itself to the whole experiences chronology, change,
person rather than evidence,
any phase. interpretation.
5. Visitor
exploration is highly
valued

Page | 36
 6. Interpretation 2. The need to 6. Be provided at
addressed to know. There is a different levels to
children should not limit on how much a reflect the interest
be a dilution of the visitor can absorb. and comprehension
presentation to 6. Different abilities of different
adults, but should interpretation for visitor groups.
follow a different audiences. 7. Should recognize
fundamentally 8. Hierarchy of that there is a limit
different approach. interpretation to how much a
To be at its best, it according to visitor can absorb.
will require a interest and
separate program. comprehension
ability.
13. A variety of
interpretive
techniques.

Uzzell (1994) Harrison (1994) Beck and Cable Gianna Tim Copeland
(1998) Moscardo (1996) (2006)

7. Interpretation 4. Interpretation
should be a needs to challenge
substitute visitors to question
experience. Visitors what they are
ought to be seeing
encouraged to
discover the
environment that
makes the site a
unique place.
Interpretation
Additional New Principles

should act as a
catalyst.
9. Consumer-led 5. Be consumer-led Be passionate for
interpretation. as well as resource- the resource and
Should support the led; there should be the visitors –
need and interest of a balance between essential for
visitors. interpretation powerful and
which reflects the effective
interests and needs interpretation.
of the visitor and
the range of
messages which the
authority wishes to
communicate
10. Sympathetic to
the local people.
Minimal effect on
daily life of the local
inhabitants.
2. Visitors should be
given freedom to
control over their
experiences
6. Interpretation
strategies are aimed
to encourage
discourse

Ham and Krupe (1996) defined interpretation as ‘an approach to communication’. Their

fundamental approach of interpretation contains four principles. For them, interpretation

should be (i) entertaining, (ii) relevant or meaningful to visitors, (iii) organized and easy to

follow and (iv) thematic i.e. having some message to convey. Ham and Krupe (1996) also

proposed a framework for using site-based thematic interpretation and to evaluate its

effectiveness. However, these authors continued in adopting and elaborating Tilden’s

Page | 37
principles throughout their work. Beck and Cable (1998) also proposed a set of nine

principles. According to them, effective interpretation should promote a “sense of place”

while facilitating and encouraging some feelings of ‘spirituality’ of environmental

conservation. From description, their proposed principles vary a little from Tilden’s and

appear almost similar.

Following the works of Wearing and Neil (1999) who mentioned the implementation of

‘many senses’ for successful ecotourism, Knapp and Benton (2004, p11) coined the term

‘multi-centric approach’. Through a survey of five national parks in USA, these authors

revealed that most interpretation program is ‘one way’ rather than having any dialogue

between visitors and interpreters. According to them, by having active participation in the

interpretation process, the visitors learn through selection and transformation of mental

hypothesis to come up with their own decision. As a result, Knapp and Benton (2004, p21)

highly recommended ‘constructivist learning approach’ to consider under interpretation

application.

Based on this understanding of hands-on experience and the constructivist approach, Brooks

and Brooks (1993) proposed a set of ten principles. Inspired by Brooks and Brooks, Moscardo

(1996) came up with the ‘mindful’ model of interpretation (explained in section 2.1.2). In her

model, she emphasized on allowing the visitor more flexibility and freedom in exploration.

To make visitors mindful, she relied on Langer’s (1989) concept of ‘mindfulness’ and

proposed five principles, three of which appear similar to Tilden’s work. However, she added

the issue of having more interaction with the visitor to satisfy their query and allow them to

take control of their tour experience in the interpretation process. Tim Copeland, on the other

hand, proposed another set of strategies for implementing the constructivist approach for

heritage interpretation (Copeland, 1998, 2004, 2006). He emphasized on ‘discourse’ among

the visitors and usage of metaphor to enhance understanding, although his principles were

almost similar to Tilden.

Page | 38
So far, it is quite evident that most of the principles from various researchers and heritage

scholars still heavily rely on Tilden’s (1977) principles. It is also clear that, these principles

are in a state of constant evolution. However, these principles are developed for real-world

heritage sites and may not be directly applicable to digital heritage projects. For example,

principles related to physical-touch or physical orientation are quite incomprehensible for

adoption in the digital realm. In addition, implementing principles that suggest a variety in

experience or consumer-led approach requires deep understanding of the interaction design

theory and practice. The following section, therefore, presents related concepts and discourses

from the HCI domain and human behaviour study (section 2.3) so that it can help to formulate

the conceptual model proposed by this research (explained in chapter 3).

2.1.4 Heritage interpretation: Charters and guidelines

“Digital heritage is at risk of being lost and that its preservation is for the benefit of present

and future generations”. (UNESCO, 2003)

Architectural heritage is a collective form of values; it inherits both the physical and social

phenomenon. These intangible significance and values depend not only upon historical and

archaeological dimensions but also on aesthetics, spiritual, intellectual, socio-cultural, and

association with nature (Suttipisan, 2007). Since the adaptation of the Venice Charter (1964),

ICOMOS and UNESCO have developed conservation guidelines in the form of charters,

recommendations, conventions and principles to define and protect ‘heritage’. The Nara

document on Authenticity (1994) later conceived the spirit of the Venice Charter and

broadened the approach on cultural heritage practice by proclaiming the diversity of culture

and heritage, as well as values and authenticity.

Interest in heritage is increasing in recent decades as governments are asked to protect the

intangible heritage (UNESCO, 2003). This shifting of perspective on conservation and

interpretation from mere architectural heritage towards people is very important. The

Page | 39
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, 2003),

therefore, signifies this shift of concern on intangible cultural heritage (previously referred to

as Folklore), constitutes the acceptance and equalizes the values of tangible and intangible

heritage (UNESCO, 1989).

The Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter (2000) emphasized on the understanding of the

cultural values of heritage. It stated in article 25 that “the cultural significance of many places

is not readily apparent, and should be explained by interpretation”. Principles for the

Conservation of Heritage Sites in China (ICOMOS, 2000) highlighted ‘interpretation’ as a

principal means of social benefit. The Proposed Final Draft of ICOMOS Charter (2007) for

‘Interpretation and Preservation of Cultural Heritage Sites’ identifies interpretation relating to

authenticity, intellectual integrity and social responsibility, therefore, respecting cultural

significance and context. However, this also emphasizes the appreciation of cultural heritage

as a universal right.

UNESCO adopted the Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage in 2003

(UNESCO, 2003). This charter recognizes the significance and value of ‘born digital’

resources and advises its member states to coordinate their efforts on preservation. However,

it is still unclear what progress is being made to utilize technology for long-term conservation

of digital heritage and how to interpret these varieties of digital-contents. So far, UNESCO’s

activity is limited only to defining the ‘digital heritage’, like the Charter on Interpretation and

Preservation of Cultural Heritage Sites. There is no such charter for the interpretation of

digital heritage. This research, therefore, highlights this shortcoming and raises the urgency of

a specific charter for interpretation of digital heritage.

Page | 40
2.2 DIGITAL HERITAGE

2.2.1 Digital heritage: Definition and domains

“Virtual Heritage is thus a visualization or creation of culture” – Erik Campion (2008)

The broad term ‘heritage’ refers to the study of human activity, not only through the recovery

of the remains, as is the case with archaeology, but also through tradition, art and cultural

evidences, and narratives. Heritage is explained in UNESCO documents as “our legacy from

the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations”2. Heritage is

something that is, or should be, passed from generation to generation because it is valued.

In this digital era, however, more and more of the world's cultural and educational resources

are being produced, distributed and accessed in digital form rather than on paper. New forms

of expression and communication are emerging. The Internet is one vast example of this

phenomenon. Using computers and digital tools, people are creating and sharing digital

resources. Local belief, oral history, practice, myths and traditional customs are being

documented; information, creative expression, ideas, and knowledge are being encoded for

computer processing of which people value and share with others over time as well as across

space. Over time, these digital resources are likely to become more widespread and more

popular. These are the evidences of digital heritage and for the purpose of this research, the

term ‘digital heritage’ must be defined.

Since the 1960s and early 1970s, many historians have begun to use computers. Digital

technology and tools have helped them to powerfully arrange ideas and promote unique

analysis, presentation and access their finding of historical knowledge in the online media.

The term ‘Digital history’ since then was considered as a branch of the ‘Digital Humanities’

(Cohen and Rosenzweig, 2006). It is also sometimes mentioned broadly to the use of digital

media and tools for historical practice, presentation, analysis, and research. Cohen and

2
Source : http://whc.unesco.org/en/about, dated 03.01.2012

Page | 41
Rosenzweig (2006) referred to digital history’ as ‘gathering, preserving and presenting the

past on the web’. According to William G. Thomas (2008), digital history is an approach to

examine and represent the past through working with the new communication technologies of

the computer, the Internet network, and software systems.

‘Digital Storytelling’ refers to the process by which ordinary people use digital tools to tell

their own real-life stories. Usually, in this case, participants can tell their stories by logging in

to web portals and contributing through text, image or even recorded voice (e.g.

911heritagearchive.org). However, ‘Digital story’ is defined by the ‘Centre of Digital

Storytelling’ as ‘first-person video-narrative created by combining recorded voice, still and

moving images, and music or other sounds’3. In addition, the project named ‘digital

storytelling’ launched by BBC (2009) allowed participants to tell their own story or

experience in ‘short movie’ format4.

The word ‘digital heritage’ itself is a popular word in people’s daily language, which seems

like a buzzword. The problem of buzzwords is that they are often ambiguous and elastic, open

to different interpretations. For example, the book entitled as ‘Digital Heritage: Applying

Digital Imaging to Cultural Heritage Preservation’ edited by Lindsay MacDonald (2006)

(figure 2.6) mostly discussed on how to get the most out of the latest digital technology for

extracting information from historical buildings and artefacts. This book loosely referred to

‘digital heritage’ as digitalizing any cultural objects. Articles of this book basically

highlighted digital photography and digital image processing tools and its application on

documentation and conservation of cultural heritage assets, rather than providing any concrete

definition of ‘digital heritage’.

3
Source: http://www.storycenter.org/index1.html, access date 09.03.2010.
4
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/audiovideo/sites/galleries/pages/digitalstorytelling.shtml

Page | 42
Figure 2.6 : Book cover - Digital Heritage: Applying Digital Imaging to Cultural Heritage Preservation

The Centre for Museology, University of Manchester, maintains a blog named ‘Digital

heritage’ which actually referred to an MA course entitled as “Digital Heritage” for the Art

Gallery and Museum Studies at the Centre for Museology5. Here ‘digital heritage’ has been

referred to as an emerging discipline, which includes the theory and practice of digital media

in museums, galleries and other cultural institutions. There are also many websites which

refer to ‘digital heritage’ (Google keyword search on digital heritage found 13,200,000 entries

on the date 02.04.2010); most of them used the term according to their own purpose and

objective. For example, the site called ‘digitalheritage.org’6 refers to digital heritage as the

digitalizing of Appalachian culture and tradition. By digitizing the Appalachian culture, it

refers to a collaborative project between Western Carolina University (WCU) and

communities in the Southern Appalachian Mountain region. Students, staff, faculty and

community members work together to produce high-quality essays, images, and multi-media

presentations about Appalachian traditions, history, and culture. It has also been found that,

some IT companies named as ‘digital heritage’ or ‘heritage digital’, are serving different ICT

solutions and software packages for clients (figure 2.7).

5
Source: http://digitalheritage.wordpress. com/about, dated 02.04.2010.
6
Source: http://www.digitalheritage.org, dated 02.04.2010.

Page | 43
 (Source: http://www.digiheritage.com/home.htm, dated 02.04.2010) (Source: http://www.heritagedigital.com dated
02.04.2010)
Figure 2.7 : IT companies named as digital heritage or heritage digital

However, Digital heritage is sometimes referred to as a professional field that utilizes digital

media in the services of cultural heritage, and may be through some certain simplification.

Sometimes, it is also considered as 3-dimensional virtual environment for navigation and

roaming around. Again, it is also considered as any digital-representation of heritage,

including text-based forums, images and websites. Hence, the domain of digital heritage lies

at the “intersection between cultural heritage and digital media” (Parry, 2007, p xii). From

the point of Museology, Ross Parry (2007) referred to digital heritage as ‘e-tangibles’.

Similarly, UNESCO’s program aiming at preservation and dissemination of valuable archive

holdings and library collections worldwide has been mentioned as ‘E-Heritage’ 7.

According to UNESCO’s Charter for ‘Preservation of Digital Heritage (2003)’8; ‘digital

heritage’ has been defined as “unique resources of human knowledge and expression. It

embraces cultural, educational, scientific and administrative resources as well as technical,

legal, medical and other kinds of information created digitally or converted into digital form

existing analogue resources”. In this way, the field of digital heritage still remains broad and

any form of digital content, either 2D (e.g. text, image, motion pictures) or 3D (e.g. virtual

7
Source: http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=24268&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL _SECTION=201.html, dated
02.04.2010
8 th
UNESCO adopted the Charter on the Preservation on the Digital Heritage in 17 October 2003. The Charter recognises the
significance and value of born digital resources and calls for member states to co-ordinate their efforts in this.

Page | 44
environment, 3D object), are both categorized under the rubric of digital heritage. For

example, a digital sound recording of a local oral history, a high resolution scanned image of

a painting, a digital video recording of a ritual, a piece of multimedia art (DVD), a curator’s

note in HTML about an object, a 360-degree virtual model of a real or imaginary space, a

personal blog explaining the past, a digital photograph submitted by a local visitor to a

museum’s community history project, hence, should be considered as ‘digital heritage’.

Digital heritage objects from the point of creation, therefore, may be of two types: digitally

born and digital surrogate (Parry, 2007, p68). ‘Born digital’ has been identified by UNESCO

as that type of which “there is no other format but the digital object”. Therefore, any digital

heritage contents created through digital media or digital tools without any references of

analogue resources can be defined as ‘born digital’. Examples of, ‘born-digital’ heritage

contents are electronic journals, World Wide Web pages and on-line databases. In this way,

born digital has no parents of which they are a digital manifestation but has now become part

of the world’s cultural heritage. On the other hand, ‘digital surrogate’ is a copy captured from

an original or existing object for preservation, representation or research purposes. Captured

images, 3D scanned objects, digital video of a ritual are a few of such digital surrogate

objects.

Therefore, the content of digital heritage, by the definition from UNESCO (2003) may

include a wide and growing range of formats such as texts, databases, still and moving

images, audio, graphics, web pages and so on9. Digital heritage may exist in any language, in

any part of the world, and in any area of human knowledge or expression. Many of these

digital resources contain intrinsic value and significance, and, therefore, constitute a heritage

that should be protected and preserved for current and future generations. However, due to the

nature of digital-media, digital heritage is frequently ephemeral and requires purposeful

production, maintenance and management in order to be retained. UNESCO, therefore,

9
Source: http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=24268&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, dated
22.02.2009.

Page | 45
through a charter in 2003 highlighted the issue of preservation of digital heritage and made

guidelines for its member states (UNESCO, 2003).

The UNESCO Charter (2003 : 1) states that, “Digital materials include texts, databases, still

and moving images, audio, graphics, software and web pages, among a wide and growing

range of formats ………… Many of these resources have lasting value and significance, and

therefore constitute a heritage that should be protected and preserved for current and future

generations”. The question remains as to which amongst these materials should be kept for

future generations and how can they be selected and preserved. Moreover, interestingly, this

current definition of digital heritage by UNESCO gives equal value to both ‘born digital’ and

‘digital surrogate’ objects. However, the digital surrogate may not contain any explicit

message or value of its own but carries those of the original. Thus, digital surrogate acts as a

tangible link with the past and possesses a different role from the born digital object. In that

sense, Cameron (2008) argued that UNESCO’s idea of a digital heritage is a ‘paradox’ since

“nothing is deemed more valuable than that which is inherited from the past”; at the same

time, these newly created objects or media are in the discourse of loss.

However, the word ‘Virtual Heritage’ (VH), is widely used to describe works that deals with

virtual-reality (VR) and cultural-heritage (Roussou, 2002). In general, virtual heritage and

cultural heritage have independent meanings. Cultural heritage refers to "properties and sites

with archaeological, aesthetic and historical value" and ‘virtual heritage’ refers to instances of

these properties and sites within a technological domain. To virtualize heritage is to actualize

the heritage content digitally and to simulate it by using computer graphics technology.

According to Roussou (2002), the functions of ‘virtual heritage’ are to facilitate conservation,

reproduction, representation, digital reprocessing, synthesis and display of cultural evidence

with the use of advances in VR imaging technology. Some scholars also described ‘virtual

heritage’ as a vehicle for preservation, access and economic development at the service of

archaeological remains valued for their artistic qualities. The representation of landscapes,

objects, or sites of the past and the overall process of visualization of archaeological data with

Page | 46
the use of VR technology form a sub-domain also known as ‘Virtual Archaeology’ (Barceló,

2000). Some extended form of VR technology mixed with the real-world known as ‘Mixed

Reality’ and ‘Augmented Reality’ has also been applied in experiencing archaeology and

heritage. These applications are frequently identified with the reconstruction of ancient sites

in the form of reproducing accurate 3D models (Valtolina et al., 2005 , Yang et al., 2006).

Even the definition of digital heritage seems political (Cameron, 2008) and varies according

to practice. In the light of prior discussion on the many facets of digital heritage, the

following can now be considered as, the broad qualities of digital heritage:

x Any unique resources consisting of the cultural value of human knowledge and

expression created or converted into a digital form.

x Digital heritage can be born digital (created digitally) or digital surrogate (i.e. made

from analogue resources).

x Contents of digital heritage can be in both 2D format (such as, text, image and video)

and 3D format (such as, VRML model, navigational 3D environment etc.).

Digital tools and techniques now emerging from the academic, government and industry labs

offer new hope to the often painstakingly complex tasks of archaeological survey, historic

research, conversation and education (Addison, 2000). The increasing development of digital

technologies, interfaces, interaction techniques and devices has greatly improved the efficacy

and usability of digital heritage, providing more natural and obvious modes of interaction and

motivational elements. This has helped institutions of informal education, such as museums,

media research and cultural centres to embrace advanced digital technologies and support

their transaction from the research laboratory to the public realm. According to Addison

(2000), there are three major domains in digital heritage -

x Documentation: everything from site survey to epigraphy

x Representation: from historic reconstruction to visualization

Page | 47
 x Dissemination: from immersive networked worlds to ‘in-situ’ augmented reality.

Figure 2.8 : Basic domains of digital/virtual heritage

Figure 2.8 explains the present method of developing and disseminating digital heritage. The

first stage is about finding information, analysing and documenting the authentic data from

both the cultural and architectural past. Generally heritage professionals like archaeologists,

historians, anthropologists and conservationists are involved in this sector. The next stage is

for representation. Media professionals, computer scientists, 3D modellers and animators are

mostly working in this domain. However, now ‘representation’ is conditioned by the media

and only supports the tangible heritage, which is mostly focused on the ‘accuracy’ in

visualization or ‘faithful’ reconstruction of the past. The final stage is devoted to distributing

these information and knowledge to the public by means of interactive digital media, which

can vary from in-situ, internet or independent installation based distribution. This present

research has a particular interest in this third domain of digital heritage; it focuses on the

presentation and communication method and investigates how the interpretation of digital

heritage by the end-users can be enhanced.

Page | 48
2.2.2 Digital heritage, Interaction and End-users

Erik Champion (2008, p189) expressed the digital heritage as the ‘explorative realms’. For

him, “users navigate through space, but they explore worlds” in a virtual heritage

environment. Nevertheless, we are, in this way, actually limiting the scope of ‘interaction’ by

only allowing ‘exploration’ inside digital heritage environment. In order to explain this issue,

it is better to define ‘interaction’ first.

Interaction relates to the root word ‘interact’. Generally, interaction refers to the process or

situation where two or more entities have contact with each other. The Collins English

Dictionary (Hanks et al., 1986) identifies three categories of interaction : (i) When people

interact with each other, they communicate as they work or spend time together, (ii) when

people interact with other machines, information or instructions are exchanged, (iii) when one

thing interacts with another, the two things affect each other's behaviour or condition.

However, interactivity is a broad term and the idea of interactivity certainly appeals to the

broad public. Therefore, the definition of interaction differs according to the research domain.

Behavioural sciences and educational sciences use the word quite differently from that used in

the areas of engineering and information processing sciences. Manninen’s (2004) works

explicitly shows the variation of the roles and how the definition of interaction has been

changed according to the objective or domain of works. There appears to be no consensus on

what interactivity actually means and no agreed definition is yet found (McMillan, 2005).

However, most of the VR researchers agree on Pares and Pares’s (2001) concept of

interaction, which states that any effective interaction should include one or more of these

three forms: (i) Exploration (to explore the environment by the way of navigation), (ii)

Manipulation (to manipulate virtual objects or elements) and (iii) Contribution (to construct

and modify the environment as a whole). According to this research hypothesis, all of these

three aspects have the potentials to actively involve the participants in the interpretation

Page | 49
process, therefore – the concept of interaction by Pares and Pares (2001) has been adopted as

the operational definition of ‘interaction’ for this research.

Digital heritage (or especially Virtual heritage) has been an active area of research throughout

the last decade. With the advancement of technology, digital heritage projects have enhanced

their capability from linear limited interactivity to non-linear immersive environment. Due to

cheaper computer hardware and the phenomenal growth of World Wide Web, the present

trends in virtual reality applications are motivated towards the use of immersive technology

for real-time interaction with high detail. A survey on a few selected digital heritage projects

based on offered level of interaction (i.e. exploration, manipulation and contribution) and

technology/media used for interpretation is presented in table 2.3.

Table 2.3 : Survey of online examples

Level of
interaction

Platform
Adopted technology Examples Exploration

Manipulation

Contribution
Multimedia based - ArchiWAIS (Choi, 1992) 9 2D
HTML + Apples Hyper Card
- Columbia University History of Architecture
Data Base System or Quick 9 2D
- The Chang'an project (2009)
Time
- The Glasgo Model
VRML 9 3D
(Ennis and Maver, 1999)
- Palenque Project (2003)
Game Engine - Virtual Notre Dame Project (Moltenbrey, 9 9 3D
2001)
Location-based Augmented - Ename974 (2009)
9 3D
Reality System - ACM , Singapore (2011)
Portable augmented Reality - LifePlus (2009)
9 3D
System - Archeoguide (2009)
Immersive virtual reality
- CREATE (2009) 9 9 3D
system
Stereoscopic 3D projection - Place-Hampi (2009) 9 3D
- The Forbidden City: Beyond Space and Time
Multi user virtual
(2009) 9 9 3D
environments (MUVEs)
- Second Louvre Museum (Urban et al., 2007)
- Memory capsules (Affleck and Kvan, 2008)
Web 2.010 9 9 9 2D
- Moving Here (2005)

10
More examples are presented in Table 2.4.

Page | 50
This study reveals that the, early projects are typically focused on ‘faithful’ representation and

visual realism. Thus, most of them are static, descriptive and inflexible for further

interpretation. Even though the problem of large file size and free movement inside the virtual

world has been solved through VRML and gaming software, interaction as the core of

embodiment largely remains limited in terms of exploration and manipulation. The

descriptive nature of interpretation has been found to be dominating in most projects, as they

rarely consider the end-users’ contribution.

As found through this survey, ‘CREATE’, for example, has been developed with an idea to

enhance learning, but still seems experimental and expensive as it is supported by ‘CAVE’

(Cave Automatic Virtual Environment) and user has to wear special glasses and data gloves

to interact. The interaction in this project was also limited and focused only on some re-

construction/re-arrangement works. On the other hand, the project ‘Palenque’ seems most

engaging and cost effective, as it uses the desktop VR system and game engine (Adobe

atmosphere). However, Erick Champion (2006, p49), the creator of ‘Palenque’, later argued

against computer game style interaction being unsuitable for learning the value of history as

the students often confuse the facts with fiction.

Nevertheless, a few recent cases demonstrate the possibilities of heritage-interpretation

through shared annotation-basis like ‘wiki’ (discussed in next section 2.2.3), where the end-

users can access, share, comment and construct independent explanations and understanding

(Affleck and Kvan, 2008). Similar approaches can also be found in ‘Digital Storytelling’

project by the BBC (BBC, 2009), where the collective popular knowledge of Wales has been

documented through ‘short movies’ and ‘notes’ made by the local people. Due to the

development of social software and web 2.0, individual’s attempts, such as ‘Good morning

yesterday’11, in documenting and sharing knowledge are also noticeable. Since 2005, the blog

owner, Mr. Lam Chun See, has been posting his memories of Singapore. These projects

indicate a new frontier in digital heritage by opening up possibilities of creating multi-vocal,

11
Source: http://goodmorningyesterday.blogspot.com, dated 25.06.2011.

Page | 51
shared and heterogeneous perspective of the past through active participation by the end-

users. Meanwhile, these attempts also prove the possibility of digital storytelling on

prioritizing the ‘history’ (which is supposed to be), while leaving the technology as a

supporting tool. While trying to investigate the different modes of popular participation, the

next section explores some similar examples.

2.2.3 Discursive re-construction: Collective construction of online history

“Whether such shifts were consciously intended or not, characterisation of these shifts allows

us to understand a gradual move away from reconstruction to interpretive aims in recent

virtual heritage studies.” - Bharat Dave (2008, p47).

People are consuming more and more smart technologies and online media than ever12.

Various online media (i.e. Twitter, Wikis, Blogs, Chat rooms, Internet forums, Auctions etc.)

are becoming ever-greater knowledge sharing and social networking resources. Excluding the

social site, online games, gambling and pornography, Google search with keywords ‘heritage

online’ shows 62,000,000 entries13. HistoryNet (http://www.historynet.com) sponsored more

than 150 discussion groups of professional historians. Amateurs and Enthusiasts are involved

in dozens of discussion boards and forums by History Channel and Yahoo group (Cohen and

Rosenzweig, 2006). Facebook also contains more than five hundred groups who are

concerned with heritage14.

Pointing to these recent development of technology, Dave (2008) referred to the possibility of

extensible, referential and interpretive digital heritage. He mentioned these recent changes as

“a fundamentally different view of history”. Recent conferences such as Museums and the

Web, Euromed, VSMM (International Society on Virtual Systems and MultiMedia), CIPA

(The International Scientific Committee for Documentation of Cultural Heritage) and VAST

12
Source: http://www.synovate.com/insights/infact/issues/200804/, dated 25.06.2011.
13
Source: google.com, dated 02.01.2010.
14
Source: keyword search as ‘heritage group’ in http://www.facebook.com, dated 02.01.2010.

Page | 52
(International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage) imply that

the memory institutes (museums and heritage sites) are exploring how best to supplement

‘institutional’ knowledge by collaborative information and to become connected with the end-

users. So far, there lies a significant role of the virtual community or shared community to

make this shift happen. The motivation and intention behind collective construction,

therefore, needs to be investigated.

The term ‘virtual community’ was first coined by Harold Rheingold (2000). Virtual

communities are computer-mediated groups who share the common interests and use a social

software to navigate activities that include publishing journals, diary entries, web logs,

discussion, games, collaborative stories, pod cast, trade, or even dating. This rapid increment

of web culture, therefore, plays a key role in widening the possibility of online public

participation around the world while diminishing the physical boundaries. Kollock (1999,

p227) defines three factors which motivate the participants to communicate or belong to

group activities on the internet. These are (i) anticipated reciprocity, (ii) increased reputation

and (iii) sense of efficiency. In a virtual community or group, members try to increase their

reputation through the contribution of knowledge as a commodity for free to others and to

establish some identity and reputation as well as a sense of well-being. By doing so, the

‘community co-creation’ provides digital contents in the form of narratives (Russo and

Watkins, 2008)

However, there are some basic differences between the general virtual communities and the

virtual heritage communities. Normally, individuals with similar interests form virtual

communities organically. The community have to rely on the active participation of its

community members. On the contrary, audiences or end-users of museums and heritage sites

are traditionally passive; they do not behave as collective individuals, such as the contributors

of Wikipedia (Affleck, 2007, p33). To understand the mode and type of contribution on

heritage websites, some examples have been studied (appendix A, C). This study,

nevertheless, reveals that history- or heritage-based websites are mainly of five types. These

Page | 53
are: (i) archival sites; (ii) teaching sites; (iii) museum websites; (iv) organizational hubs; and

(v) online heritage forums or common interest groups. To confirm with the objectives of this

research, this next section only focuses on some websites (table 2.4) where the general people

can participate and share digital heritage contents.

Table 2.4 : Types of contribution allowed in various online digital heritage projects based on web 2.0

Name of the site Received Accepted Site objective/function

contribution format

Moving Here Display museum’s collections and collect

(http://www.movinghere.org.uk)
WW2 People's War
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar)
Memory book
(http://plasma.nationalgeographic.com/pearlhar
bor)
Memory capsules
(Affleck, Janice & Kvan 2008)
September 11 Digital Archive
(http://911digitalarchive.org)
Rowville Lysterfield History Project
(http://www.rlcnews.org.au)
World War II Living Memorial
(http://www.seniornet.org/jsnet/index.php?opti
on=com_content&task=view&id=315&Itemid=37)
MyStory
(http://mystory.sg/)
Architectural Conservation in
Bangladesh - A public movement
(http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=1017
25781229)15
500 ▲■♦ stories from immigrants to UK
Collects stories of Britain’s WWII veterans
47000 ▲■ and survivors of the London Blitz
Archive photos, footages, first-hand
accounts, and narratives of the attack on
1000 ▲■ Pearl Harbour. The participants/visitors can
also submit their own talea of December 7,
1941
Collected contribution from a virtual
63 ▲■ community about their memories of Hong
Kong
Collect experience and digital objects of
150000 ▲■♦ September-11 from the general people
Rowville-Lysterfield Community News
unknown ▲■ archive; general people can also leave
comments, stories and photos.
Capture memories of WWII from a personal
perspective. The participants can share
6000 ▲■ memories, ask questions and read other’s
personal WWII histories.
It is an online platform to learn more about
Singapore. The participants can write their
unknown ▲■●♦ own stories based on a heritage topic or
upload photos and videos to share their
heritage experiences
An online forum in the Facebook
community. Registered users can comment,
265 ▲■●♦ upload photos, videos and links related to
the architectural heritage of Bangladesh.

Legends : ▲= Text, ■= Image, ● = Audio/video, ♦ = Links/files

After September 11, the Library of Congress, the Internet Archive, WebArchivist.org, the

Pew Internet and American Life Project were able to save thousands of online media

portrayals of that event, which have been perceived, understood and uploaded by the general

people (Cohen and Rosenzweig, 2006, p161). ‘Moving Here’

(http://www.movinghere.org.uk), a project launched by several British museums and

15
FaceBook contains more than 500 online heritage groups/forums, only one example has been mentioned here.

Page | 54
archives, have pooled their resources to display and collect stories of the immigrants to UK.

This project gives visitors the opportunity to publish their own experience of migration. Since

its launch, it has received over 500 stories and digitalised artefacts, and stored many new

materials posted by the audience (Cohen and Rosenzweig, 2006). The BBC’s two-year online

project to gather the stories of Britain’s World War II veterans and survivors of the London

Blitz, enlisted as WW2 People’s War, has been even more successful. A total number of

47,000 stories and 14,000 images were gathered and captured as narrative posted by the

participants16. The National Park Foundation, National Park Service and Ford Motor

Company are using the Internet to collect first-hand narratives from the home front workers

during wartime (WWII). So far, more than 6,000 contents have been uploaded. The National

Geographic Society’s site for remembering Pearl Harbour has also received over 1000 entries

in their ‘Memory book’17.

There are also other foundations, groups and individuals who are involved in collecting

memories from the people about the various events. For example, the Alfred P. Sloan

Foundation is supporting more than two-dozen online collection projects. Historical centres

such as Texas Tech University and Columbia University are encouraging others, including

their alumni, to join and write stories online. Individual projects like Memory Capsule on

Hong Kong’s history and culture also have some success on developing discursive heritage

contents (Affleck and Kvan, 2008). Cohen and Rosenzweig (2006, p185), from their

experience of the September 11 Digital Archive, gathered a collection of more than 150,000

digital artefacts, including 35,000 personal materials and 20,000 digital images from the

online participants. The collected artefacts were mostly of the types such as emails, digital

photographs, word processing documents and personal narratives (in a 2D platform, through

web 2.0 technology). Examples from table 2.4 show that general people like to participate and

contribute if the opportunity is offered. Indeed, it is a common nature of the human being to

16
Source : http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/categories, dated 02.01.2009
17
Source: http://plasma.nationalgeographic.com/pearlharbor, dated 02.01.2009

Page | 55
convey their own experience or learning (traditionally as oral history) to their successors, and

that is also how human evolution occurs.

However, memory is not a purely individual faculty, as social interactions may change or

improve our memory-making process (Leone, 2006). A collection of digital stories can

actually provide a compelling snapshot of a community’s cultural identity and its collective

memory. Discursive or collectively co-created contents create multiplicity of possible

associative links with the associated events, thus helping the participants to remember and

recall the information more easily and quickly while offering a variety of possible facts. In

this way, individually impaired memories are also being socially improved and the

participating individual further reveals the intrinsic meanings of the history and culture.

2.2.4 Digital heritage : Some experiments and researches

(a) Constructivism in Practice : The Case for meaning-Making in Virtual World (Osberg,

1997):

Through the development of a virtual environment, this study aimed to compare the

application of constructivist principles with traditional non-constructivist practices in a

middle school biology classroom. The thesis hypothesized that, active learning based on

constructivist practices is more efficacious than passive teacher-led instruction. Therefore,

the purpose of this study was to understand and evaluate the value of constructivist practices

on the students’ interpretation, meaning-making, and knowledge construction process.

A total of 117 middle school students were asked to produce a small virtual environment,

which illustrates a natural cycle (water, carbon, nitrogen or energy). Each student initially

built one educational virtual environment (VE) and later, experienced another VE produced

by another student. All students had to go through a pre-test and post-test evaluation process

to measure content acquisition and meaning-making. Pre-test and post-test learning

differences were compared between (1) material learned by constructing own VE, (2)

Page | 56
materials learned by experiencing others VE, (3) traditional instruction and (4) no instruction.

The result showed that the constructionist learning group learned more than the no-instruction

control group. However, no other significant difference was found between the groups. Even

this study missed to justify the full hypothesis. However, it demonstrated the possibility of the

constructivist teaching approach in a virtual environment for successful learning.

(b) Evaluating cultural learning in virtual environments (Champion, 2006)

The main objective of this study was to clarify and evaluate key factors that can improve the

users’ cultural learning in a virtual travel environment. This study argues that to develop an

engaging and educational experiences in a virtual environment, technology or visual fidelity

is not the main issue, but rather, a contextual and performance based interaction is required.

As a solution, this research suggests a ‘game-style’ interaction to enhance the engagement

and learning culture. A PC based virtual environment (Palenque, Mexico) was built using a

game engine (Adobe Atmosphere) to test whether cultural learning can be linked to the type

of interaction offered. Three groups of audiences: archaeology students (47), historians/3D

modellers (24) and travellers (10) were selected for the experiment. The participants were

asked to complete a certain task within a certain time frame, followed by a multi-choice

questionnaire. At the end, they were also asked to rank the three different virtual

environments from different aspects such as the details and archaeological environment.

However, during the experiment, the study found difficulties in testing cultural learning in

situ. ‘Demography’, which was not considered in the beginning of the study, was found to

have strong impact on interaction, navigation, experience, task performance and

understanding.

This study, however, explores the implication of a game-style interaction in a virtual heritage

environment and its impact on the learning culture. Considering either what people really

want to see in a VE or how to present the archaeological information, this study tried to

explore the implication of a game-style interaction/environment to allow the user to engage in

Page | 57
and interpret. Nevertheless, at the end of the research, the author realized that “cultural

learning is too hybrid in nature, the offered interaction was not enough to learn the history

and cultural significance” (page 219). This study eventually concluded that; “game-style

interaction may be intuitive for navigation, task performance and reduce cognitive leading,

but expense of understanding cultural significance” (p214). However, this study provides

some significant findings, such as: (a) gaming experience relating to task performance and

social agency (via scripted agents) needs to be believable in order to evoke a sense of

presence, (b) the participants need a prior warm up environment/session before experiencing

the project/environment and (c) cultural presence is not synonymous with social presence.

(c) Memory Capsules: Descriptive interpretation of cultural heritage through Digital media

(Affleck, 2007)

This thesis has identified the lacking of literature of interpretation in the field of digital

heritage. In general, the pattern of heritage interpretation is descriptive - visually describe the

physical appearance of heritage. This thesis argues that heritage content is mostly developed

by ‘professionals’ such as archaeologists, historians and architects, then the information or

content goes to the general people for interpretation. This thesis hypothesizes that,

participation in the process as ‘discursive’ interpretation can provide ‘deeper understanding’

of the content of digital heritage. To evaluate the hypothesis, an instrumental case study was

done through a web portal called ‘memory capsule’, dedicated for participatory online

interpretation of heritage content among a ‘virtual community’. The web site existed for six

weeks and was mostly limited in allowing the users to upload 2D contents (e.g. text and

photographs) and write personal comments. During this experiment, out of 3,000 members,

only 40 members had actively participated and total of 118 contributions were received

during the 47 days of experiment.

This experiment somehow proves the urgency of public participation in heritage interpretation

and collaboration can be possible while developing the collective heritage content. However,

Page | 58
this study partially failed to prove the hypothesis as the experiment was only focused on

ensuring the contribution from the participants and did not measure the ‘deep understanding’

of the user’s experience. Moreover, it raises some other major questions:

a) The research tells us about ‘discursive interpretation’ as a blending of ‘re-creation’

and ‘re-construction’ methods, but never explains about the components or criteria to

achieve this method. So, how does one follow this method?

b) The experiment platform or case study lives for only six weeks, which seems too

short a time to form an active virtual community. However, no feedback was given

either regarding an acceptable duration to form such discursive environments.

c) The research methodology tried to combine Uzzell’s and Fitch’s interpretation

models that were made for real-world cases. Yet, this research did not show any

methodological considerations about grounding this concept to a digital platform.

d) The research talks about public participation. However, the participants were

restricted to sending all contents to the moderator first via email, who then initiated to

post those contents online. Here the moderator’s judgement is final for any approval

and the participants had to wait all day long to see their posts online. However, a

separate blog was made to explain the filtering process.

Instead of providing a guideline (one objective of this research was to provide a theoretical or

methodological framework), this study draws the following conclusion:(a) The behavioural

characteristics of the virtual communities are very difficult to anticipate and control, (b) The

users do not like to engage in the participation and need active feedback (50% of users

required encouragement and prompting). Nevertheless, without any end-users’ survey on their

new understanding of heritage, before and after participation, this research failed to indicate

how the proposed method of interpretation (i.e. discursive interpretation) can affect or

Page | 59
improve the ‘deeper understanding’ of cultural heritage. Thus, one key objective of the

research has not been attained.

(d) Ancient Architecture in Virtual Reality : Does Immersion Really Aid Learning (Jacabson,

2008)

The main objective of this study was to explore whether an immersive panoramic display

improves students’ learning of ancient architecture. Middle school students (total 68 in

numbers) were chosen to learn ancient Egyptian art and society, through exploring a game

called ‘Gates of Horus’. This game was based on a simplified three dimensional computer

model of an Egyptian temple. The experiment was done through a pre-test and post-test

evaluation by two groups of students, separately playing the game either in an immersive or

non-immersive environment. Later learning was measured in different phases through ‘verbal

show’, ‘tell presentation’ and response in questionnaires. Finally, the study concluded that,

immersive display supports better learning for the students. However, the whole experiment

was focused on learning or pedagogy among the young students based on the constructivist

approach, and did not indicate any method of interpretation of cultural history or any

communication tool to enrich the end-users’ cognitive state or embodiment.

(e) Building virtual cultural heritage environments: The embodied mind at the core of the

learning process [Elena Bonini, 2008]

The aim of this research was to identify theoretical guidelines for the development of the

virtual cultural heritage environments. According to this research, most virtual environments

are generally reproductions or reconstructions of cultural places in 3D. However, digital

cultural data help in the visualization of the form and space, but does not convey any cultural

meaning. Therefore, this research highlights the challenges underlying the expression of

cultural values and, at the same time, the constraints associated with perceiving those values

from digital artefacts. From an epistemological perspective, this research hypothesises that the

Page | 60
virtual environment for cultural heritage is feasible and sustainable if it respects the

interpretative processes, enhances learning and allows cooperative interpretation.

In terms of methodology, some critical issues and challenges underlying the present virtual

musealization have been identified. A literature survey was conducted on human cognition

and knowledge formation process, including the embodiment, sense of presence, interaction

and coupling in the virtual environments. Finally, a user survey during an international

exhibition (Archeovirtual, 16-19 November 2006) was carried out using a questionnaire,

interviews and observation. The evaluation was intended to measure the levels of user-

friendliness, meaning making, usability, sense of presence/immersion, learning and emotional

involvement.

This research, however, concluded that, the sense of presence in the virtual environment do

not come from the degree of the physical immersion, but from the degree of sensorial and

cognitive interactivity, and from the narrative structure in which the information is presented.

It also claimed that, for the enhancement of cultural heritage, VR application should be

considered as “a relational system of symbolic and communicative contextualization”. Based

on the theoretical review and field survey, this study proposed four principles for the

enhancement of a cultural heritage experience. However, these proposed guidelines are still

broad and lack the necessary details to be implementated. For example, the first principle’s

statement was to “conceive a virtual community as an autopoietic ecosystem”. This, however,

does not explain how such a community for such a particular purpose is to be formed, or what

the factors that might be required to create such communities and keep their activities going,

should be. One does not actually understand what this ‘autopoietic ecosystem’ requires or

what its constituent factors that need to be considered for designing a virtual heritage

environment, should be. Similarly, other principles are also lacking specific guidelines for

implementation.

Page | 61
2.3 INTERPRETATION AS CULTURAL SYNTHESIS: EMBODIMENT,
LEARNING AND DIALOGIC INTERACTION

2.3.1 Embodied interaction: Towards a meaningful context

“Place begins with embodiment. Body is place, and it shapes our perceptions. Embodiment is

not just a state of being but an emergent quality of interactions” – Dourish (2001).

Embodiment is the property of our engagement with the world that allows us to make it

meaningful. Dourish (2001) first coined the term ‘embodied interaction’ which, broadly

speaking, refers to the interaction with the computer systems that inhabits our world, a world

of physical and social reality that exploits this inhabitation in a way that they interact with us.

Based on a platform of phenomenological philosophy, Dourish defines embodied interaction

in relation with artefacts. In terms of the academic fields, Dourish placed embodied

interaction at the intersection of tangible interfaces and social computing. Here, embodiment

plays a key role behind designing interaction; as the users respond to the environment, their

engagement and understanding of the space and enjoyment largely depend on it.

However, the term ‘embodiment’ has been used in many different ways in contemporary HCI

theories. For example, embodiment is referred to as a phenomenological aspect of human

bodily experience (Merleau-Ponty, 1945, DiSessa, 1983). Some authors like Rosch (1994)

referred to embodiment as the resulting psychological manifestation. Some theorists even

agreed to establish embodiment as the unconscious aspects of bodily experience activity with

linguistic expression (Johnson, 1987, Lakoff, 1987, 1990). Thelen and Smith (1994)

mentioned embodiment through the line of the organization of bodily action under principles

of non-linear dynamic. Yet some authors emphasized embodiment as a result of cognition

emerged from enaction (Maturana and Varela, 1992). Authors like Cosordas (1994) and Lock

(1993), however, conceptualized embodiment as a crucial paradigm in anthropology. At the

foundational levels of various academic disciplines, these understandings are built on the

Page | 62
works of many different scholars such as Dourish (Dourish, 2001) and Rosch (1973, 1994) in

cognitive psychology, Muturana and Varela (1992) in theoretical biology, Forte and Bonini

(2008) in the enaction paradigm, Francis Queck (2011) as embodied mind, and more

explicitly on the work by Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999) in cognitive linguistics. All of

these scholars focus on the relation between cognition and the mind with the emergence of a

complex adaptive behaviour from a physical experience in biologically constrained systems.

However, as human being, our mind is designed to function in a spatial world, which is more

than just brain-body differences. Our knowledge further depends on being situated in a

material world inseparable from our bodies, surrounding dynamic context, social history and

language (Bonini, 2008). Because the world is dynamic, so are embodied cognition and

meaning making (Quek, 2011). Nunez and Matos (1999) explained this paradigm as ‘the

knower and the known’. According to them, the observer makes meaning through

engagement. Such engagements could be in terms of either the sensory perception (e.g.

watching movies) or the motor-based bodily interaction (e.g. playing computer game using a

joystick). In both cases, the observer makes meaning through echoing the central embodied

cognition perspective, therefore, meaning making involves both the practical action and the

active perception.

This research likes to clarify and define ‘embodiment’ for a better conceptualization of digital

heritage interpretation. From the perspective of the above discussion, embodiment is not

simply about an individual’s conscious experience of some bodily aspects of being or acting

in the world (e.g. memories of the first time riding a bicycle). Embodiment may not

necessarily need conscious involvement (e.g. using a computer mouse), nor does it refer to the

physical manipulation of tangible objects (e.g. playing with Rubik cube) or virtual

manipulation of images or artefacts through an input device either. Even such experiences

have relation with the technical concept of embodiment. Rather, this study believes that :

Page | 63
 Embodiment provides a rich understanding of what human ideas are and how they are

organized in vast conceptual systems (mostly in our unconscious mind); grounded in

both physical and live reality18. That is to say, embodiment is the way we think and

make sense of the world.

In addition, J.J. Gibson in his theory of affordances, marked a vital link between bodies and

environment (1986, p130). He believes, due to these properties in an environment, one can

directly perceive without requiring much learning. Gibson mentioned the tools as the

extension of our hands (Gibson, 1986), while Dourish (2001) mentioned of a similar concept

as ‘coupling’ with software. The same can be said about the concept of ‘ready-to-hand’ and

‘present-to-hand’ by Heidegger (1977) or the idea of ‘mediation’ presented in the works of

Vygotsky’s (Daniels, 2005). Heidegger’s classical example of the hammer can be mentioned

here to understand how a tool becomes an extension of the body: when the hammer is in

action with ‘ready-to-hand’ (i.e. mindless situation), it becomes an extension of our hand. In

this situation, the hammer and the hand work together and become a single unit for the

required activity, and hence become coupled. The hammer becomes invisible as our focus

turns on the task. However, in the state of ‘present-to-hand’, the hammer becomes separated

from us and reached the attention. This only happens through involvement and embodied

action.

In line with Dourish’s (2001, p125) definition of embodiment, as the property of our

engagement with the world that allows us to make it meaningful, ‘embodied interaction’,

therefore, implies the creation, manipulation and sharing of meaning through an engaged

interaction with the artefacts. Logically, a properly designed ‘interaction’ or embodied

interaction, thus, should help perceive the ‘intentions’ (through action to understand the

context) as well. Dourish suggested three common attributes for successful embodied

interaction:

18
Adapted and modified from the concept by Nunez et.al. 1999.

Page | 64
 x Participative: Embodiment is a participative status, a way of being, rather than a

physical property.

x Task accomplishing: Embodiment directed toward the accomplishment of practical

tasks.

x Practical Action: Embodiment as a source for intentionality, rather than as the object

of it.

In a virtual environment, the interaction possibilities are the basis (or core) of promoting a

sense of place and experience. Interaction, in a virtual environment, builds ‘meaning’ for a

user which is dependent on both embodied interaction (or on situated action) and cultural

background inherited by the individual. The sense of presence therefore can support the

acquisition of knowledge, which is going to be discussed in the following section.

2.3.2 Place and Sense of Place

One of the major objectives of heritage interpretation (in real world) is to attain visitors’

satisfaction (section 2.1.2), therefore, to enhance the enjoyment of travel and place, giving

them a sense of being there. The end-users, thus, need to be contextualized, to have the sense

of being there while travelling to past cultures and places. To investigate the basic theories of

space and place, stepping back to consider the fundamentals underlying the relationship

between human and space is, therefore, required.

McCullough (2004, p176) argues that space is ‘the basic division of our surroundings’ and

evokes ‘the scene of being’. Hall (1969) stated that “virtually, everything that man is and

does, is associated with the experience of space”. According to him, the boundary of oneself

extends beyond the body and the perception of oneself is more than one’s body but includes

the sense of being in a place. This way, the question of what creates a sensation of a place in a

virtual environment (as a cultural heritage site) may be argued and depends on how much

Page | 65
‘presence’ we feel. ‘Presence’ researchers have often cited and used the sense of ‘being in a

place’ as a test of virtual presence. Again, there has been a long-term discussion and

disagreement over the concept of virtual presence; it is also often considered as “a tricky and

elusive subject to define” (Champion, 2006, p37). Presence in virtual environments is thus

often defined as the subjective belief that one is in a place, even though the participant knows

that the experience is mediated by the digital media (Slater, 1999). Presence has many

definitions, yet the word ‘place’ itself has had a long history of changing meaning and usage.

While conceptualizing “what is place?”, literary investigations reveal that the notion of place

as defined in various disciplines are not identical, rather, they are overlapped. Perhaps, the

simplest distinction between space and place was given by Yi Fu Tuan : “Space is movement;

place is rest” (Tuan, 2001). In architecture, space is the fundamental unit of any design. On

the contrary, what is perceived as ‘social space’ in sociology is pretty much synonymous with

‘place’ in architecture and other built environment disciplines. Space, for the latter, is

considered as an essential entity to create a place. According to McCullough (2004, p42),

“Places are a way of taking part in the world, for with a resonance unequalled by many other

aspects of existence, they are both socially constructed and personally perceived”. Kalay

(2004) points out that “Places are created through inhabitation. People imbue space with

social and cultural meaning, transforming a mere space into a place”.

Despite these disparate notions, scholars also attempted to define some common components

of virtual place making. Ralph’s (1976) place making components include physical features

(forms or spaces), functions (activities) and symbolic meanings. Similarly, Kalay and Marx

(2001, 2004), Nitsche, Roudavski et al. (2002) and Champion (2002) tried to list features that

create a sense of place in a virtual environment. However, it is obviously impractical to

attempt to creat a sense of place for a specific audience in a specific condition.

According to Kalay (2004), making ‘places’ in Cyberspace can be borrowed from the

principles developed by architects, landscape architects, and town-planners. Kalay and Marx

Page | 66
(2001) proposed seven criteria for “Cyber-Place making”. Champion and Dave (2002),

however, criticized Kalay and Marx’s criteria as they do not contribute to determine the

essential properties for the different types of virtual environments. Furthermore, they

appended Kalay’s topology of a virtual place by adding another hermeneutic layer, and

proposed a matrix to correlate multiple dimensions of the virtual environments in terms of

purpose, required features and offered experiential potential. According to Champion and

Dave (2002), to have a better sense of place, the users need to have the opportunities to

personalize and communicate through the artefacts, thus enhancing their perception through a

cultural agency. A cultural agency, as in role-playing, acting as a local collaborating with the

avatars (scripted agents or from other participants) and making dialogue - can be effective in

attaining a hermeneutic understanding of the past. Hereby, the deeper this cultural

communication occurs, the more this environment helps in fusing a sense of place and hence,

in contextualizing the participants.

Nevertheless, if we lack a strong sense of presence, then perhaps we do not have a strong

sense of place or a strong sense of social affinity. We may have a sense of social activity in a

virtual environment without a sense of place. However, the events that ‘take place’ will be

hard to recover, retrieve or reform. A sense of place allows us to locate and uniquely define

cultural rituals, social value, as well as the intrinsic meaning (more in section 2.3.2) of the

collective memories. Memory, therefore, acts as a process by which a community

continuously creates its knowledge or, more likely, capitalizes its social values. Consequently,

memory constitutes the cognitive counterpart of the place of a community. Hence, it creates

the identity of that community (Michelis, 2006). In this way, community memory is

intrinsically narrative, and sharing those memories unfolds that particular context and spatial

customs, grounding us to have a spatial experience, as recalling and sharing experience is

itself an experience (Michelis, 2006).

Page | 67
2.3.3 Cultural heritage and visual literacy

According to Susan Kent (2000, p275), “Architecture is culture or it is nothing”. Unlike art,

architecture is durable, static, functional and more public. Architecture can elicit response and

communicate meaning. This helps architecture to be used, for instance, to intensify the ideas

of the neighbourhood, to express ethnic identities, record ethnic histories or to make political

statements. On the other hand, ‘culture’ is a vast domain where ‘built-form’ is a small part of

it, a subset which is embedded in culture. That is why it is difficult to understand how culture

gets transformed into built form (Rapoport, 2000). According to Rapoport, one does not

translate culture into built form, rather culture leads to various social variables, norms and

activities which later translates into physical forms. This translation is not intrinsic rather

some aspects of culture such as life-style, behaviour, social structure, status, power

relationships, and meaning etc. are translated into some aspects of built form (where some

components of culture are also related to the environment). Thus, architecture is also a part of

a cultural history and a product of social manifestation. Therefore, “it is also a part of

sociology” (Ankerl, 1981, p13). Hence, interpretation and meaning of built environment

differ for each individual, society and culture (Moore, 2000, p7). Each culture develops its

own environmental ordering as a foil to the world’s indifference, where settlement patterns

not only reflect but also shape beliefs and the sense of perceptions. As cultures become

identified with their peculiar spatial customs, landscape tends to serve as the best framework

for narrative memory (McCullough, 2004), which somehow grounds us with spatial

experience. Accumulated experience of appropriation enables us to identify places. One

learns to read built-forms, landscapes or even a city without the aid of books and maps, partly

based on cultural similarities i.e. through spatial literacy.

Concerning interpretation, Nelson Goodman (1985 in Suttipisan, 2007) noted that all

architecture always have hidden meanings in their appurtenance and can be interpreted

differently at different time. Considering architecture as ‘visual sign’, it can be perceived as a

Page | 68
unit consisting of a ‘signifier’ and ‘signified’ (Jencks, 1969). In architecture, the form or

physical entities (e.g. material, style, colour) are the signifier and signified is the meaning

associated with or given to the signifier. In other words, ‘signified’ is the mental concept that

is produced while watching architecture (i.e. the signifier). Brawne (2003) argues that,

meanings actually depend upon the expectation of the viewer. According to him, visual

meanings of architecture are selective interpretation, which depend on the relevant memory of

the perceiver and are partially goal oriented. The same people visiting the same place at

different times in his/her lifetime may have different experiences and meanings of that place.

Architecture, through its signs, symbols and associated rituals, can be considered as a

perceptual product of culture – a part of semiotics. Collective cultural ideology, including

cultural identity, is woven into architecture. Considering buildings as a social, as well as

physical phenomenon (Lawson, 2001), any form in the environment is motivated or capable

of being motivated (Jencks, 1969) by individual as well as by society. Like musical

instruments, buildings can also act like formal agents that transmit architectural values.

Architectural heritage, in such a way, can convey visual messages and those messages

(inherent significance that is apparently not visible) can also be interpreted and understood in

the same way it has been sent. The “more ideas, concepts and words we describe about the

space around us, the more richly, therefore, we begin to perceive it” (Lawson, 2001).

Moreover, built contexts are collective memory devices and manifestations of collective

cognitive background. According to Kent (2000, p274) culture is what humans use to modify

the physical environment through their architecture. Hence, the built environment is merely a

concrete manifestation of culture. Thus, architecture itself contains the visual information as

well as intrinsic collective cultural values – which can be perceived, interpreted and

understood in many ways. However, Goodman’s (1985) taxonomy19 overlooks some other

19
According to Goodman (1985) architecture can express meanings through: (i) Denote – as iconic reference (e.g. Sydney
opera house as a sailing boat), (ii) Exemplify – certain architectural ideas (e.g. green architecture. Or may have set of ideas from
structural, constructional or aesthetic), (iii) Express - ideas or feelings through properties that it possesses either literally or
more often metaphorically (e.g. the massiveness of a gothic cathedral) and (iv) Mediated reference – buildings refer through a

Page | 69
ways of meaning that can be expressed also by organizations, people, events, values or shared

values developed by association or community. Considering architecture as a social product,

meanings can also come from circumstances (or context) rather than only from ‘form’ or

‘characteristics’ itself (Lawson, 2001). Therefore, architecture can convey meaning both from

proposition and association, and, from a sociological point of view, through ‘context’ and

‘metaphor’.

In order to understand architectural heritage (or built heritage), this research emphasizes the

need to relate built-forms and spaces, synchronically and diachronically, with intangible

cultural aspects. This research considers user-perception of architectural heritage in both

‘extrinsic’ and ‘intrinsic’ ways (Jencks, 1969, p17). Extrinsic meaning can be considered as

the understanding of form (i.e. shape, size, including colour, texture and space), function (i.e.

purpose, use, past connotations and style) and technique (i.e. structure, material and

mechanical aid). Intrinsic meaning, on the other hand, can be found in the intangible and

apparently ‘invisible’ values, namely, social spatiality (i.e. cultural area, region, settlement

pattern, territory), metaphorical meaning (i.e. structure of society, upper or lower class, open

or closed society, social distance, social construction), sign/symbolic meaning (i.e.

knowledge, beliefs, double entity, icon, index and symbol), ecological adaptation from

physical surroundings (i.e. weather protection, sustainability), connotation (i.e. myth, oral

history, local beliefs, folk tales, knowledge and practice concerning nature) and cultural

ideology (i.e. practices through architecture, social believe, built-form associated behaviours,

attitudes, cultural practices). This research, hence, aims to investigate the intrinsic and

extrinsic meanings of architecture as perceived by the end-users through the proposed

interpretive method applied in interpreting digital heritage.

chain of connections to something beyond their actual existence (e.g. Sydney opera house refers a sailing boat; symbolizes
Sydney and also at the same time Australia).

Page | 70
2.3.4 From I to We : Cultural learning and meaning-making

In a Digital heritage site or environment, while people are interacting with the system or

interface, they are primarily interacting with ‘information’. According to Precce (1993),

“People’s objective in using the machine is to carry out a task in which information is

accessed, manipulated or created. The computer and peripheral devices are the means

through which this objective is achieved”. In cognitive psychology, the way we come with

some selection is regarded as a series of information processing steps (figure 2.9) which

depends on the capabilities (visual perception, attention, memory, learning and mental model)

of the user’s mental process (Preece et al., 1993).

(Adapted from Jenny Preece, 1993)

Figure 2.9 : Stages involved in human information processing

Although Kaptelinin (1996) believes the human mind to be a specific type of information

processing unit, our learning in fact occurs through a reticular way (Bateson, 2000) rather

than a linear pattern. Information is recognised by an individual through an unpredictable

pattern, which is dynamic, ever changing and, at the same time, unique to that specific person.

The feedback process between the individual and context simulates the various levels of

perceptive and cognitive interactions. As a result, this is how information is internalized and

transformed into knowledge for us.

Consequently, meaning is a dynamic process. What we see does not create any meaning to us,

unless our object-oriented brain considers it as important. Our experience is filtered through

the semiotic system of our background and culture. There is no fixed relationship between a

perceived object and meaning making. The inner stimulus and internal encoding and decoding

Page | 71
of information transform the perceived object into a reaction or a feedback. Meaning emerges

as something that is contextualized, from some sort of reflection emerging from being

involved and in action (Forte and Bonini, 2008).

Our perception implies action, or better inter-action, between the subject and the environment,

or among subjects (Maturana and Varela, 1980). It is also a complex process. The meaning

that we give to a sign or object does not come before semiosis, but emerges within semoisis

(Lotman, 1976). This above argument implies that the values and meanings of cultural

heritage are not confined within it, but commence with the relationship from the observer.

Such philosophical framework actually refers to how we create meaning of the world. As for

example, a new-born may not know that he or she has a body but only needs, and, therefore,

may not be able to distinguish between self and environment. The infant therefore, starts

meaning making of objects or events only gradually as it starts interacting with its

surrounding world.

Hence, human reasoning and meaning-making processes are inherently dependent on

embodiment. McCullough (2004, p36) explained that embodied learning occurs at several

levels. The range starts from “preconscious engagement of affordances, to personal

construction of mental models, to cultural mediation of spatial literacy”. According to him,

for learning to take place, both detached perception and engaged interaction are important.

At this point, by adopting an embodied perspective of cognition, we can highlight both the

‘collaborative’ and ‘participatory’ mode of learning as it promotes contextualization and

social knowledge sharing. The mode of participation also indicates co-presence and shared-

experience in an inter-depended world that accentuates the social dimension. For example, in

a traditional society, where the entire culture dwells, they build stories and provide literacy

around facts or myths, whereas in most narratives, the imagery and allegory are somehow

linked with common spatial experience, such as, if the first story described the best routes for

hunting grounds, then comes the metaphors – to grow up, to form an outlook or a mental

Page | 72
image of using the node, path or landmarks to remember the space. This reflects that meaning

also has narratives and social aspects, and evolves in a process of co-creation with meaning of

other individuals. In such, meaning-making also constitutes culture (Bruner, 1990).

Moreover, self-engaging in a relationship with an object in a situation can also be perceived

as ‘experience’. According to Forlizzi and Battarbee (2004), among the three dimensions of

experience (i.e. experience, an experience and co-experience) ‘co-experience’ is all about

user-experience in social contexts. Co-experience occurs as experiences are created together

or shared with others. Co-experience is in fact a ‘better experience’ as individuals’ rejected,

overlooked or reciprocated meanings which can be elaborated or re-invented through social-

interaction. Thus co-experience lifts up experiences to shared attention, where they become

part of a social meaning-making process and influence the experience (Forlizzi and Battarbee,

2004). Ingold (1996 in Forte and Bonini, 2008) also claimed that the multi-user environment

allows a deeper emotional and perceptive environment, by triggering a non-linear meaning-

making process. In this way, interactive technology (such as, social software20 and web 2.021)

can play a larger role in supporting co-experience, by providing mediated communication

channels while opening the possibility to create, edit, share and view the contents with others.

Therefore, meaning-making is largely dependent on the complex nature of interaction and

relation between the end-users and the situated or embedded context. Furthermore, without

context, there would be no communication or interaction, that is, no cognition process, which

means no information exchange. This would however result in no learning as well (Bateson,

2000). This implies that, the interpretive process for digital heritage must allow the end-users

to establish some relationship, both individually and collectively, with the context. Moreover,

20
Social software encompasses a range of software systems that allow users to interact and share data. Social sites like
MySpace and Facebook, media sites like Flickr and YouTube as well as commercial sites like Amazon.com and eBay are these
types. The terms Web 2.0 and (for large-business applications) Enterprise 2.0 are also used to describe this style of software.
21
The term "Web 2.0" is commonly associated with web applications which facilitate interactive information sharing,
interoperability, user-cantered design and collaboration on the World Wide Web. A Web 2.0 site allows its users to interact
with other users or to change website content, in contrast to non-interactive websites where users are limited to the passive
viewing of information that is provided to them.

Page | 73
it should support some feedback ability from the environment (including the system or other

users) to satisfy an individual’s query.

2.3.5 Dialogic Interaction : The dialogical basis of understanding

“Tell me …… and I will forget. Show me…… and I will remember. Involve me…… and I will

understand” – Confucius.

According to Parry (2007, p10), meaning making is culturally and historically contingent. He

explained meaning as a changing phenomenon which depends upon the “experiences and

knowledge of an individual, and the shifting values and discourses of any given community

and society”. However, Snodgrass and Coyne (2006) argued on serious conversation as a

process of understanding. With reference to Gadamer, these authors tried to define ‘authentic

conversation or dialogue as the quintessential hermeneutic event’. Dialogue is a process,

where two people try to understand each other; thus it becomes a true conversation and

different from an idle chat. However, we do not want to conduct a fundamental conversation,

but rather, we fall in it and become involved. In a true dialogue session, words follow one

after another. Thus, the conversation takes on its own turnings and reaches its own

conclusion. A true dialogue influences us to immerse in the discussion. Both parties become

concerned, get involved in recognition and assimilation of the unfamiliar. Thus both of them

are transformed and get new understanding.

The same thing happens when a reader starts reading a text. In this way, the reader actually

gets into a dialogue with the text, moves to-and-fro and proceeds until an understanding is

reached. This dialogue with the text enables the text to reveal itself and offer new

understanding to the reader (Snodgrass and Coyne, 2006). Similar thing also happens when

we try to understand painting, art-work or even architecture. We move from the detail to the

whole work and try to relate that part to the whole, thus continuing to get an overall

understanding. Similarly, intersection between the intellect (product or service) and its user

Page | 74
can also be seen as a kind of dialogue. A successful dialogue, therefore, depends on its

participant, mode of sharing and mutual understanding in a unique context that constantly

shapes, and is in return being shaped, by the user and the interaction (Mattioda and

Vercellone, 2006, p182).

In this perspective, interpretation is a dialogic process, where the inquirer involves in a

reciprocity process of asking questions and revealing answers from the object at the same

time. Dialogic interaction also occurs in a live conversation (in a creative discourse) within an

online community where common interests exist. However, for museum settings, Witcomb

(2003, p130) refers to ‘dialogic interactivity’ as a shared dialogue between the museum

authority and the visitors to discuss the meanings of any presentation item. This allows the

visitors in a museum to pose questions and suggestions to contribute to an on-going dialogue

where both groups can achieve a new understanding and meaning of the subject matter.

Likewise, this research hypothesizes that a reflexive dialogic interaction in a digital heritage

environment can promote a socio-cultural interaction, allowing the accumulation of a

multicultural perspective of the past, and promoting the collective construction or co-creation

of memory. In this, it elicits internalization (explained later in this section), and enhances

meaning-making with other participants. However, a dialogue begins in the realm of

perception (Roberts, 2010) because as humans, we are connected with the world through our

sensory experiences. We are sensitive to our context and our mind is intrinsically connected

to culture and society through the process and phenomena that go beyond the borders between

internal and external, individual and collective (Kaptelinin and Nardi, 2006, p41).

Russian psychologist Lev Semenuvich Vygotsky argued against the artificial separations

between the mind and behaviour, and between the mind and society (Nardi, 1996, Daniels,

2005). He emphasized the centrality of mediating devices such as language and other tools in

the development of the mind and thought. According to Vygotsky, “humans develop and

learn, in collaboration with others, people act on their immediate surroundings” (Gay and

Hembrooke, 2004). An individual’s relationship with and orientation towards an objective is,

Page | 75
thus, not only mediated by the tools (to attain the objective) but also by the community that

participates in the activity and the division of labour that exists in the community (Engeström,

1999).

Vygotsky’s theoretical explanation argued that ‘internalization’ is a social practice, first

made available by the social environment, and, only at a later stage, is gradually internalized

by the participant at an individual level (Nardi, 1996). Here, Vygotsky referred to

internalization as a mode of the cultural determination of the mind, the transition of an

external operation into an internal one. This philosophical understanding underpins that

individually impaired memory and knowledge of culture or context may be socially improved

through participation in a dialogue. A dialogue can be multilevel, multidimensional, dynamic,

collective, context-sensitive and mediated by memory sharing. In an interactive dialogic

interaction, the participants are involved in a social process. They attempt to accomplish some

certain goal or objective, and share diverse combinations of linguistic sign and tools to create

or share meanings. Therefore, the activity here unfolds in a social context and transforms both

the subject and object to achieve the outcome.

Human mind is not separated from culture and society. Internalization and externalization are

processes that relate the human mind to its social and cultural environment. In a dialogic

interaction (as a social context), the experience of other people who tried to solve similar

problems earlier and invented or modified the solution (or tool to make it efficient) helps

others to internalize – which Vygotsky referred to as “problem solving under adult guideline

or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978). Through going beyond

individual’s understanding by activating the proximal development, Vygotsky actually

indicated the development of ‘inter-subjectivity’22. By collective practices and collaborative

activities, we can make sense of experiences and share meaning with others who belongs to

the community. Through the process of constant negotiation and dialogue we understand

22
‘Inter-subjectivity’ is a similar concept emerged from the west mostly rooted from Husserl and later from
Merleau-Ponty and others (Ligorio et al. 2005, Rothfuss E. 2009, Hillsdale, N.J. 2005).

Page | 76
other’s emotion and cognition. Being able to reach beyond own perception and accept

another’s way of thinking thus paves the construction of ‘inter-subjectivity’ (Ligorio et al.,

2005) and enhance inter-subjective understanding. In such discursive space, meanings are

shared and no longer belong to individuals. Thus, individual’s understanding evolves through

a reciprocal relationship where dialogic interaction plays a key role.

Postulating that cultural heritage is dynamic and knowledge is multi-vocal, fragmented

(Thornton, 2006) and can evolve through participation with the environment (Bonini, 2008),

cultural learning through dialogic interaction can, therefore, accentuate transmission and

accumulation of social knowledge and can enhance heritage interpretation.

2.4 DISCUSSION

The primary aim of this review was to retrieve and explore the relevant published scientific

literature and experiment (or cases) to attain both the theoretical and practical foundations to

develop a new knowledge for a digital heritage discourse. Based on the theory and practice of

heritage interpretation (real world) from disciplines such as Archaeology, History and

Heritage management, the study continued in finding the potentials and scopes from other

cross-related disciplines like HCI, Architecture, Information technology and Behavioural

science. The overall process is explained in figure 2.10.

Page | 77
Figure 2.10 : Literature review process

Digital heritage is a broad term. UNESCO (2003) defines digital heritage as unique resources

of human knowledge and expression “created digitally or converted into digital-form from

existing analogue resources”. In this way, any form of digital content regardless the format

(i.e. 2D and 3D) or origin (i.e. ‘born-digital’ or ‘digital surrogate’) remains under digital

heritage, and one of its main objectives is to disseminate the knowledge of heritage to the

general people.

In terms of methodology, ‘heritage interpretation’ (in real world) is first conceptualized by

assimilating definitions from various heritage scholars and interpretation authorities. A

Page | 78
number of established theoretical interpretation models and guidelines were also discussed

and compared for later implication to the digital heritage domain (section 2.1.2 and 2.1.3). It

however becomes evident that archaeological ‘interpretation’ has always been considered as a

method or tool for presentation or communication with the visitors for the purposes of: (i)

conveying symbolic meanings i.e. learning, (ii) facilitating attitudinal or behavioural change,

i.e. provocation of empathy and (iii) enhancing the enjoyment of the place, i.e. satisfaction.

Several modes of interpretation from various heritage scholars such as Tilden, Fitch, Uzzell,

Moscardo and Copeland have been reviewed. Subsequently, a comprehensive comparison of

interpretive principles is examined and presented in table 2.2. This study, however, reveals

that the principles from the various scholars are basically an elaboration of Tilden’s principles

with a few additions. As such, these models or principles have been developed for the

physical realm. Nevertheless, none of these models or set of principles are found immediately

applicable to the digital heritage realm.

On the other hand, it has become evident from this literature review that the present digital

heritage projects are mostly focused on content creation and faithful representation without

having any significant method or principle for interpreting and presenting digital heritage.

The study on present practice of digital heritage immediately exposes that ‘interaction’ has

always been treated as a linear phenomenon, while the users are rarely considered as a

potential contributors at the narrative level (section 2.2.2). It is also evident that the role of

UNESCO has been confined to defining the domain and pushing its member states to

preserve their digital heritage through a charter (section 2.1.4). A notion of ‘heritagization’

(Cameron, 2008) seems more prominent in UNESCO’s activities rather than any step for

advancing the policy of interpretive planning and design for digital heritage.

A lack of adequate discourse within the domain of digital heritage, the intention to develop a

comprehensive interpretation guideline, and the desire to learn from allied disciplines (that

deal with interpretation of heritage in real world), are the forces that inspired this research.

Page | 79
Additional support or theoretical backup from HCI as well as behavioural science acted here

as a catalyst to bridge the interpretive knowledge from the physical realm to the digital realm.

Learning from online case studies helped to reinvent the intricate nature of collective

construction and, therefore, filled the missing link on developing an effective interpretive

method for digital heritage from a user-centric perspective.

Considering embodiment as the property of our engagement that makes our world

meaningful, a study shows that the definition of embodiment has been used differently by the

scholars in contemporary HCI studies (section 2.3.1). From the theoretical reflections

presented in this chapter, this research therefore defines embodiment not simply as an

individual’s consciousness of experience of bodily aspects of being or acting, but rather, as a

phenomenon that provides a rich understanding of what human ideas are and how they are

organized in vast conceptualized systems – grounded in both physical and lived reality. In this

perspective, the system that demands successful embodied interaction should allow active

participation, task accomplishment, and practical action/feedback from the end-users.

In a virtual environment, the visitor needs to become part of the context to enjoy travel and

place, and hence, to have a sense of the place. Study (from section 2.3.2) shows that sense of

place or a sense of being there is related to sense of presence, which not only comes from

‘self’ but from co-presence and from ‘social-affinity’. On the other hand, memory is an

important element that helps to create the identity of a community in return; a community

constantly creates its knowledge through capitalizing on the social values in term of memory.

Community memory is thus intrinsically narrative, and sharing those memories is, in itself, an

experience that unfolds particular context and spatial experience. However, culture is a vast

domain, while built-form is a small part of it, a subject that is embedded in culture. This is

why; it is difficult to understand the way in which culture might transform into built-form.

Considering architecture as a social product, a collective memory device, and manifestations

of collective cognitive background, this study highlights the perceivable meaning through

association and social sharing.

Page | 80
Digital heritage are mostly either 3D or 2D representations or re-production of cultural places.

On the contrary, meaning making from any digitalized artefact is subjective, relying on an

individual’s cognitive process and cultural background. Therefore, devising any effective

process for presenting cultural heritage that accentuates the end-users’ perception of the

intricate cultural values is often a big challenge.

However, study shows (section 2.3.4) that, meaning is a dynamic process that emerges as

something that is contextualized, from some kind of reflection emerging from being involved

in action. Therefore, for learning and meaning-making, engaged interaction works as a core

element. The meaning of cultural heritage is not confined within itself, but begins with the

relationship from the observed. Adapting from embodied perspective of cognition, this

research highlights both the collaborative and participatory mode of interaction to enhance

contextualization and social knowledge sharing. Here the mode of participation should signify

co-presence and shared-experience in an inter-dependent world, so that it can accentuate the

social dimensions. Moreover, co-presence lifts up our experience to the level of shared

attention and we become part of a social meaning-making process. As a result, this aids our

experience of producing ‘meaning’ (section 2.3.4).

In addition, a dialogue is a process that influences us to immerse in a discussion and to have a

new understanding. Individual’s memory and understanding of culture or artefacts may also

socially improve through engaging in dialogic interaction. In this perspective, the interpretive

process can also accentuate dialogue so that the inquirer can get involved in a reciprocity

through asking and receiving feedback, or sharing knowledge of any artefacts, cultural events

or historic monuments with others, as an act of a social process (section 2.3.5). In this way,

dialogic interaction can accentuate transmission and accumulation of social knowledge as

well as internalization.

Nevertheless, heritage is dynamic and knowledge is multi-vocal, fragmented, and may evolve

through participation with the environment. This chapter, therefore, concludes that proper

Page | 81
communication with the end-users by effective presentation, activities to promote cultural

learning and embodiment, and ensuring an environment to support dialogic interaction can

promote the transmission and accumulation of cultural knowledge; hence will enhance

interpretation of digital heritage.

In addition, learning from this chapter has also helped to define the present knowledge gaps in

digital heritage theories and practice, which will be explained in the next chapter. While

defining the objectives of a comprehensive interpretive method, the next chapter also presents

a detail conceptual framework.

Page | 82
 CHAPTER 03
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK : SHIFTING THE
INTERPRETATION PARADIGM

The previous chapter revealed, firstly, that digital heritage is still loosely defined and there

exists no significant method or principles for digital heritage interpretation. Although, a few

research studies were found with similar interest (section 2.2.4). However, they failed to

deliberate any consistent and acceptable methodology for interpreting digital heritage.

Secondly, it was obvious that digital heritage projects are mostly focused on the process or

end-product (section 2.2.2), i.e. how artefacts and sites are best recorded or viewed rather than

focusing on the end-users’ interest and perception capability. Finally, and most importantly,

based on available discourse the possible objectives of an interpretive process for digital

heritage remains unclear.

This chapter attempts to bring all these issues into a single methodological framework to

address the main research question. Referring to the previous literature review and case

studies, this chapter begins with defining some specific gaps in both literature and practice in

digital heritage interpretation. Considering these present limitations, the possible objectives

for an effective interpretation are investigated. While proposing ‘dialogic interaction’ as an

inevitable part of an interpretation process, this chapter presents a conceptual model to

enhance end-users’ interpretation. Subsequently, this model is elaborated in detail as a

‘conceptual framework’ by explaining its different aspects, levels and considerations. The

selection process of indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of the conceptual framework is

explained at the end of this chapter.

Page | 83
3.1 THINKING THROUGH THE GAP: EXIGENCIES AT MEDIA-CROSSROAD

Presently the emerging media and digital tools offer us a way to experience virtually re-

constructed historic sites (or artefacts) or virtual heritage sites as visitors, travellers, or even

as residents. However, virtual reconstructions are mostly developed by researchers and

academicians (excluding movie industries for entertainment), requiring extensive labour and

high-level expertise. Nevertheless, the end-product (3D models/environment) still remains

within the domain of scholarly activities and academia. Only a few of them actually get

published on websites or are open to public deliberations as in the spaces like museums.

Although digital heritage poses high potential to reconstruct our past heritage and memory,

Tan and Rahaman (2009) found a number of limitations in present practice that constrain such

potential. These limitations are -

(a) Lack of meaningful and cultural content (Addison, 2000, Costalli et al., 2001,

Champion, 2002, Dave, 2008, Economou and Tost, 2008, Kalay, 2008)

(b) Conclusive process: Lack of later interpretation (Huizinga, 1968, Lowenthal,

1985, Dave, 1998)

(c) Lack of engagement (Dave, 1998, Eiteljorg, 1998, Mosaker, 2001)

(d) Lack of sense of place, provokes cyberspaces rather than place (Mosaker, 2001,

Weckström, 2004, Champion, 2006)

(e) Mostly demonstrate technical artistry rather than historical knowledge

(Roussou, 2002, Champion, 2004, Sparacino, 2004, Valtolina et al., 2005 , Champion

and Dave, 2006)

(f) Lack of interest in wide dissemination, distribution and use (Kalay, 2008,

Witcomb, 2008).

Page | 84
The domain of digital heritage is still lacking adequate critical discourses (Cameron, 2008). It

is widely accepted that digital heritage has significantly leapt forward, beginning from its

infancy, yet major research and practices remain within the domain of HCI and computer

scientists. As a result, technology still dominates over the experience (Sparacino, 2004, p9).

Even though limitations exist, digital heritage scholars, researchers and professionals are

working to enhance the interpretive process (evidence from section 2.2.2) through different

approaches such as:

(i) Hermeneutic environment through game-style interaction (Champion and Dave,

2002, Champion, 2003)

(ii) Embodied interaction through somatic impulse (Flynn, 2008) or haptic devices

(Roussou, 2008)

(iii) Multiple user virtual environments (MUVEs) with artificial agent and dynamic

content (e.g. 2nd life, virtual Forbidden City)

(iv) Greater immersion through augmented stereographic panoramas (Kenderdine et

al., 2008) or immersive displays (Tan, 2007).

Maria Rousso, founder of Hellenic World, is working since 1998 with virtual heritage.

Having a background of Electrical Engineering and HCI, she focused mostly on immersive

visualization (CAVE) application (e.g. CREATE, The Virtual Playground, Hellenic World) in

cultural heritage. She tried to implement the constructivist approach to NIECE project for

designing and evaluating a virtual reality learning environment for kids. These projects

mainly focused on developing a mixed reality framework for learning, rather than developing

an overall heritage interpretive method.

While being involved in iCenema research centre, Berrnadette Flynn (2005, 2008) spent

several years working with digital cultural heritage. However, her focus was mostly on

exploring somatic impulse and embodied communication with digital objects while keeping

Page | 85
aside the issue of individual preference or interest of performing (some alien) cultural

activities or gesture to interact with the virtual environment. This might be a novel way of

interacting with digital object (similar to Microsoft’s Kinect), but her research does not

indicate an overall interpretation method and user-study.

Sarah Kinderdine, research director of Alive Lab, had worked for several years with

immersive and interactive experience design for museums. Even several heritage scholars and

researchers like Darley (2000), Mosaker (2001), Rossoue (2003, 2008), Tost and Champion

(2007), Naimark (1990) and Tost (2004) argued that ‘believable’ environments do not

necessarily require photorealistic accuracy. However, Sarah’s research focuses on the media

or tool oriented approach, dealing with large scale stereoscopic and panoramic immersive

architecture. Being a Maritime archaeologist and museum curator, she did not provide any

theoretical or methodological guidelines of digital heritage interpretation, but was highly

fascinated with realistic visualization.

Erick champion (2006) raised the issue of contextuality and performance based interaction

and argued on the missing issue of hermeneutics in virtual place making. He suggested that

‘game-style interaction’ enhances interaction and cultural learning. However, this interaction

method was not found to be worthy for understanding cultural significance (section 2.2.4, b).

Interestingly, it revealed that ‘demography’ of the participants have strong influence on the

overall experience and understanding.

The above discussion makes it evident that present practice and research in digital heritage

are mostly focused on diversified objectives and have ignored the ‘end-users’ as varied

individuals with unique sense of perception. It also implies that these research approaches

never converged on attaining a comprehensive interpretive method for digital heritage from a

user centric perspective. Even though, these research efforts were motivated towards

enhancing the visualization and interaction with the content, ‘interaction’ was mostly limited

to exploration and manipulation (explained in section 2.2.2), and rarely allowed any

Page | 86
contribution by end-user at the narrative level. However, cultural heritage is not just about

‘tangibility or materiality’ and visualization, but also cultural and socio-spatial (intangible)

attributes related to the built-environment. In this way, the knowledge gap in both practice

and literature is quite evident and predominantly hindering the process of achieving a

comprehensive interpretive method for digital heritage. The following section sheds further

light to this argument.

3.1.1 Knowledge gap in practice

(i) Overlooking end-user’s perception

A person actually interacts with information while interacting with an interface or system. An

individual’s understanding and perception depend on that person’s cultural and cognitive

background. Moreover, meaning making is a dynamic process that largely depends on

affordances, cultural mediation and social embedment (i.e. co-experience and collaboration)

(explained in section 2.3.4). Therefore, experience and interpretation of prehistoric artefacts

and landscapes largely depends on our own embodiment, own subjectivity and cultural

positioning (Thomas, 2004). Hence, content without relating directly to the viewers’

perception of the virtual world does not impart any meaning rather it easily lead to ‘heritage

dissonance’ or ‘disinheritance’ (Tunbridge and Ashworth, 1996, p21). What we see, our

content-oriented brain tells us about it, not only through our eyes but also through our

previous experiences and cultural positioning that reality is filtered as soon as it is received by

our brain. Therefore, contents directly related to our perception of the world only create

meaning to us (section 2.3.4), otherwise it becomes a mere storehouse of visually presented

objects (Preece et al., 1993).

It is quite evident that, the present virtual heritage projects are mostly focused either on the

‘process’ (from authentication of data, site survey to epigraphy) or the ‘product’ (closer to

reality and technical artistry) but do not necessarily consider the ‘users’ (end-users’

Page | 87
perception of the content) (Tan and Rahaman, 2009, Rahaman and Tan, 2010, 2011). Even

with new technologies, in most cases, digital heritage is created in a ‘descriptive’ rather than

‘interpretive’ manner (Gillings, 2000, Affleck and Kvan, 2008). The perpetual affinity with

technology often leads us towards an amorphous nature of history, an ocular-centric tendency

to achieve some certain degree of visual fidelity while ignoring (and often compromising) the

fact that, not everyone sees the same thing in the same way. As digital heritage deals with

cultural artefacts, demographic differences should always influence the users’ value

judgement as well as the interpretation of the past.

(ii) Linear process of content development:

According to Fitch (1982), interpretation comprises of two levels: ‘Professional’ and

‘Popular’. The first one is carried out from available evidences (e.g. excavations, ruins,

artefacts, documents etc.) as professionals (such as archaeologists, historians and architects)

examine and verify them for authenticity and, subsequently, document them to feed the

interpretation for the public. The public is only imparted information at the second level,

which is described as ‘popular interpretation’ level (figure 2.2) where very limited or no

scope remains for ‘first-hand experience’. From case studies (table 2.3, appendix B), it is

evident that most digital heritage projects follow the notion of archaeological interpretation

(i.e. professionals interpret and visitors consume) even though the digital media possesses the

capability for developing dynamic polysemic content by allowing active participation in

content creation, development and dissemination (section 2.2.3). Therefore, the present

practice is mostly a one-way broadcast rather than an exchange.

(iii) Partial historic knowledge and subjectivity:

The knowledge of the ‘past’ is limited because it is always a selection of events and not

‘complete’. Through time, most of the physical evidences may disintegrate, i.e. the

description of past events may not necessarily give a complete picture, and often are found

prone to exaggeration and modification. Furthermore, due to an individual’s way of

Page | 88
presenting the story, it may add subjectivity to the content. To paraphrase Lowenthal (1985),

every time we make a new statement about an artefact or an event, we make a new

interpretation and something new is born, in many ways different from the original.

According to Dave (2008, p49), “virtual reconstructions are partial models” as it is often built

as “part of the mosaic of understanding about heritage issues”. This is quite evident in figure

3.1 that shows the differences in understanding of virtual reconstruction of a Buddhist

monastery from the same ruins by various heritage scholars. In this sense, ‘past’ is a cultural

construction (Mosaker, 2001) as it is more aesthetic, intuitive and subjective (Huizinga,

1968)23.

(a) Present situation of Sompuer Mahavihara central temple (b) Myer’s perception (Artibus Asiae, 1969)

Figure 3.1 : Conjectural reconstructions Sompur Mahavihara from various heritage scholars

Similarly, digital heritage also cannot avoid the charges of subjectivity as heritage objects are

mostly reconstructed out of long-lost ruins. In addition, media experts (e.g. modellers,

animators, programmers) who remain involved in reconstruction processes may not be aware

of the intrinsic cultural values of particular artefacts or environments although having a

23
Dutch historian, Johan Huizinga had supported the view, that historical knowledge is essentially aesthetic, intuitive, and
subjective. In his book, Homo Ludens Huizinga saw the instinct for play as the central element in human culture. He emphasized
intuitive understanding, regarding history essentially as a form of mental activity in which a culture views its past.

Page | 89
myriad of technical know-how. In this, the ‘apparent’ cultural preservationists and their

implemented methods may well reflect their personal ‘inappropriate’ assumptions that Kalay

(2008, p9) has referred to as the ‘image of practice’. Moreover, these representations may not

always be based on authentic data or historic information and may give an amorphous

historical representation. There are also examples of reconstruction/representation of heritage

buildings by heritage professionals, making believable 3D models based on assumptions

(figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2 : 3D reconstruction of ‘Hagia Sophia’ by Juan J. Gonzalez 24

Although these photorealistic 3D representations which have been “speculated from

fragments of evidence” (Parry, 2007, p66) impress us and demonstrate the imaginative

capabilities of the creator, a comprehensive understanding and reconstruction of history is

only possible when the interpretive framework allows multiplicity. Perhaps a collective

interpretation of the past would minimize the subjective interpretation, professionally biased

‘image of practice’ and linear viewpoints of digital heritage reconstruction.

24
Source: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=98700, Access date: 15.11.2008. In ‘CgSociety’ a CG artist
(author of the model) explained his experience to re-construct a photo-realistic representation of ‘Hagia Sophia’ (figure 3.2) as
“It is inspired only in one old hand-made drawing of building ... no other significant reference sources used ... so many details
are fictitious. No technical data used to model ....”

Page | 90
(iv) Missing the potentials of collective cultural memory:

The main objective of UNESCO’s (2003) convention in Paris 2003 was to safeguard the

intangible cultural heritage. Intangible cultural heritage such as oral traditions, knowledge and

practice concerning nature and beliefs, actually transmits between generations, and hence

provides a sense of belonging, identity and community. Present digital heritage projects

however, miss the potentials of cultural transference and value placed on collective cultural

memory, which could easily be supported by allowing a platform for dialogic interaction and

further capturing those to a knowledge base. Undoubtedly, the locals or the natives value their

heritage (tangible or intangible) differently and tend to show more concern when compared

with the reflections made by the outside expert. A knowledge base constructed by capturing

community’s interpretation can provide varying insights of the insiders’ perception of

significance, and may uncover potential intangible values of heritage.

3.1.2 Knowledge gap in literature

(i) Lack of theory/literature in digital heritage interpretation

“Surprisingly, digital heritage – like heritage until recently has been largely untouched by

critical discourses” – Fiona Cameron (2008).

The field of digital heritage has already been advanced from infancy, whereby re-assessments

are taking place and new questions are being raised regarding the basic objectives of

dissemination and interpretation of cultural heritage knowledge. Though a shift of attitude

from ‘reconstruction’ towards ‘interpretation’ has been noticed in recent studies (Dave, 2008)

yet the field of digital heritage still lacks adequate literature focusing explicitly on the theory

and methodology of heritage interpretation (Affleck and Kvan, 2008, Tan and Rahaman,

2009, Rahaman and Tan, 2010) and critical discourse (Cameron, 2008). Due to this

inadequacy, the present trend of digital heritage is predominantly descriptive, technology

driven and imposing; rather than user-centric.

Page | 91
(ii) No Charters or guidelines for interpreting digital heritage

There is no doubt that ‘virtual heritage’ or ‘digital heritage’ is an emerging domain, from the

points of both research and practice. Driven by widespread popularity and coupled with the

vulnerability of losing intricate data, UNESCO (2003) adopted the Charter on ‘Preservation

of the Digital Heritage’. This charter recognizes the significance and value of digital

resources and expresses its deep concerns for safeguarding any potential loss of valuable

digital resources. However, it is still unclear what progress has been made to utilize

technology for presenting and interpreting digital heritage. Like the Charter for

“Interpretation and Preservation of Cultural Heritage Sites”, there is no such charter or

guidelines for digital or virtual heritage sites.

(iii) Lack of end-user study

Recent developments of social software and web 2.0 demonstrate the possibility of an

extensible, referential and interpretive digital heritage environment. These changes represent

a fundamental shift in attitude, from being passive spectators or receptors of information to

active contributors, through social engagement. This shifting perspective (Dave, 2008),

changes in the power of agency and consequent responsibility (Cameron, 2008) and an

acceptance of interaction as a social activity (Pietroni, 2010) are leveraging the domain of

digital heritage towards a more discursive and collaborative environment. Table 2.4 has

presented some examples of online digital heritage projects, which accept public participation

at the narrative level including contribution of digital content. However, at present, it is

unlikely to get any empirical study of any kind that focuses on the effectiveness of these

discursive digital heritage on end-users’ interpretation level.

Page | 92
3.2 SETTING THE OBJECTIVES FOR DIGITAL HERITAGE INTERPRETATION

Disciplines such as archaeology, history and heritage management have set the role and

objectives of interpretation with long practice and research (section 2.1). ‘Interpretation’ has

always been considered in these disciplines as an effective learning, communicating and

management tool that increases visitors’ awareness and empathy to the heritage site and

artefacts. On the contrary, the definition of ‘interpretation’ in digital heritage theory and

discourse is still wide, and so far no method and objective are evident (section 2.2). That is

why, in most cases, digital heritage projects are descriptive and oriented with diverse

objectives, while being obsessed with technology as a deliverer for greater interpretation. To

name a few examples: the usage of a game engine to achieve the hermeneutic environment,

the usage of somatic impulse to achieve an embodied interaction, the application of an

artificial agent and dynamic contents to get a realistic environment, and the usage of

augmented stereographic panoramas or immersive displays to get more immersion (section

2.2.2, 2.2.4). Although these efforts may accentuate experience and visual fidelity, they only

provide a partial interpretation.

Moreover, the present trends of interpreting digital heritage are mostly linear and authoritative

and rarely offer any possibility for the emergence of multiple meanings at the narrative level.

As such, it is limiting the possibility of interpreting the inherent significance/intrinsic values

of cultural heritage from multiple perspectives. Bearing in mind that the past is a cultural

construction, this research, therefore, suggests reconstructing the past in a pluralistic manner.

As virtual reconstructions are always partial models (Dave, 2008, p49); allowing multiple

users with diversified backgrounds (of social and ethnic identity) to contribute to the narrative

level, pluralistic and multiple perspectives of historical views can be accommodated side by

side. Thus, it is possible to generate a more complete picture. Moreover, accepting these

multiple voices and juxtaposing them at the narrative level, it is possible to overcome the

present shortcomings of a ‘linear interpretation’ and ‘image of practice’ (problems explained

Page | 93
in section 3.1). With reference to the literature review of section 2.1, along with the potentials

of ‘dialogic interaction’ in delivering multiplicity in content creation, this research suggests

four objectives to consider for achieving an effective and engaging ‘digital heritage

interpretation’ :

1. Satisfaction: enhancing enjoyment of the place and visit.

2. Provocation/Empathy: increasing awareness of heritage protection, preservation

or conservation. Facilitating attitudinal and behavioural change about the heritage

site, people and culture.

3. Learning: conveying symbolic and cultural meaning to the end-users.

4. Multiple perspectives of the past: presenting the past from possible multiple

perspectives, thus providing the opportunities to have a broader understanding of

the past

By defining these four objectives, this research, therefore, primarily sets the aims/goals for

designing and planning of a digital heritage project. Secondarily, it opens the possibility for

using these objectives as indicators for assessing the effectiveness of the interpretive process

too.

3.3 THE PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

This research has set out to investigate the importance of an interpretation method that

enhances end-users’ interpretation of digital heritage. It has argued that in order to minimize

heritage dissonance and to enhance the understanding of inherent significance of cultural

heritage, we need to consider ‘end-users’ as varied individuals with diversified cultural

backgrounds, i.e., not everyone perceive the same thing in the same way. That is to identify

how heritage interpretation can be considered as a continuous process and, at the same time,

Page | 94
how it can ensure multiplicity in understanding the past. This research believes that ‘popular

participation’ in the interpretive process as reflexive dialogue and interaction (i.e. dialogic

interaction) may overcome the linearity and subjectiveness in past reconstruction25, and

hence, will enhance the interpretation. Furthermore, dialogic interaction as a key aspect in the

interpretation process can also promote social activities to evoke an awareness of heritage

conservation. At this point, this research suggests a non-linear interpretation, where the

process allows active participants in discursive content creation (i.e. collective knowledge

formation) and dialogic interaction (i.e. communication and dialogue among participants and

experts) to leverage multiplicity and inter-subjective understanding of the past cultural

heritage (figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3 : Dialogic interaction as a means to develop a collective knowledge base

In the light of the above understanding, in order to achieve a comprehensive interpretation of

digital heritage, the process must consider four aspects : (a) effective presentation (or

communication), (b) cultural learning, and (c) embodied interaction – within an environment

that supports (d) dialogic interaction among the participants and experts to generate a

25
Here, ‘subjectiveness in past reconstruction’ – refers to how ‘image of practice’ from professionals (such as
being modellers, animators and programmers) limits their assumptions/perception of the past by their own
domain of knowledge and results in partial reconstruction. This issue has been explained as a ‘limitation’ under
section 3.1.1(iii), page 88-90.

Page | 95
collective knowledge base through cultural disposition of a common spatial experience

(Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4 : Proposed conceptual model for interpreting digital heritage

(i) Effective presentation: Tilden (1977) suggested a set of six principles for ‘effective or

correctly directed’ interpretation practice. Later different heritage professionals and scholars,

including Richard Harrison (1994), Beck and Cable (1998), Gianna Moscardo (1999) and

Tim Copeland (2006), proposed their own principles which were actually an elaboration and

clarification of Tilden’s principles (section 2.1.3). Although these interpretation principles

were developed initially for presenting history and archaeological remains, some of them are

found applicable as a source for developing possible guidelines of presenting and

communicating with the end-users in the digital heritage domain. This research, therefore,

suggests six considerations for effective presentation:

x Variety in content with consumer-led approach: The end-users are varied people with

varied interest, mode and expectation. Therefore, the content delivery and design

must appreciate end-users’ needs and interest, i.e., it requires to follow a consumer-

led approach with varieties in content and presentation. Information can be sorted and

Page | 96
 delivered at different levels such as beginner, intermediate and expert levels. 3600

panorama, interactive maps, VRML models, images, videos, animations etc. can

support a 2D platform to achieve variety in content. For 3D environments, the variety

may differ according to the means offered by the media/tool to present information.

Moreover, the exploration route/challenges with having different complexities or

options to select will satisfy end-users preference and supports a consumer-led

approach. Manipulative and interactive contents therefore may act as a catalyst in this

process. In this way, the end-users will be allowed to explore the varieties, in terms of

levels or contents and according to their time and need. However, the heritage site or

artefacts should be presented as a whole, with emphasis on ‘big concepts’ of

chronology, change, evidence and interpretation. Many end-users may like to be

engaged when problems and ideas are presented holistically rather than separate

isolated parts.

x Novelty, conflict and surprise in content presentation : It has been found that exhibit

that differs from the traditional museum exhibit such as static objects with labels,

increases the visitors’ ‘attracting power’ and ‘holding time’ (Moscardo, 1996, 1999).

Considering this fact, presentation that is novel and has the potential to surprise the

end-users will induce mindfulness and enhance interpretation. The introduction of

new digital media/tool such as haptic devices for simulating the sense of touch (such

as CREATE project) or the re-use of the old media for creating a new experience

(such as ‘Hole in the Earth’ in Bullivant, 2007) can serve this purpose.

x Setting cognitive dissonance by challenges to explore: Repetitive or conventional

presentation or environment leads the end-users to a situation of mindlessness. On the

other hand, mindfulness occurs in a novel and unfamiliar situation where individuals

require considerable effort or cost to take control of the activity (Langer, 1989). In a

situation where a breakdown occurs, the users has to consciously shift their attention

to handle the situation, thus correcting or improving the involvement (Riva, 2004).

Page | 97
 An effective interpretation process can help to mediate the present experience of the

end-users with a new complex historic environment by involving them in the

engendering of cognitive conflicts and challenging them to explore this environment -

while allowing them to be in a collaborative discourse and knowledge sharing. Online

competition, challenge, points and awards for successful task completion can help to

enhance exploration and participation. Featured members can be highlighted to

stimulate others to engage more.

x Easy orientation and navigation system: The visitors’ own choice of exploration is

highly recommended for physical heritage interpretation practice. Therefore, the

usage of 3D maps, guide map and, signs for directions are often used to support the

visitors’ own choice of exploration. Studies from Orion and Hofstein (1994) and Falk

(1991) showed that people in a new and unfamiliar setting spend a lot of energy on

getting oriented and as a result, learn less from that site. In the same way, for digital

heritage, the end-users need to get themselves easily oriented in the new virtual

environment or interface. Long data loading time, complex navigation system and

heavily loaded graphical details may disappoint their expedition. Even some end-

users may not have enough time and interest to visit the whole project. However, it is

necessary to help them to develop a mental model of the whole site so that they can

map their own way to explore. Interactive maps, navigational maps, virtual agents

and visual guides can be used according to the media or platform. Moreover, the end-

users should be allowed to save the experience, quit anytime from the tour or re-start

their journey to ensure full freedom of the visit.

x Openness to new information: Our knowledge of the past is limited and end-users are

varied people with varied expectations. In order to make every visit unique, new and

updated information is required to be added frequently. Instead of considering the

‘interpretation’ as a tool, it needs to be considered as a ‘process’ that allows the

narrative to evolve over time through collective participation. Allowing end-users to

Page | 98
 contribute at the narrative level will, therefore, not only help those individuals to

contextualize and to have a feeling of ownership, but enrich the collective content as

well as inter-subjective understanding.

x Affordances and connection to the visitors’ past experience: Interpretation as a

process must somehow relate the presented information with the personality or

experience of the visitor. Otherwise, it will be sterile (Tilden, 1977). Tilden suggested

a personal connection with the visitors and gave some examples on how to present

such information (p13-14). A simple approach with a conversational style for making

a connection with the visitors is also found to be effective (McManus, 1989, Rand et

al., 1990, Volkert, 1991). Analogies and metaphors that link the interpretive content

to the everyday experience of the end-users can be used. For example, instead of

talking about the size of a place as 42,599 square feet, it is easier to grasp it as the

size of a football field. Some pre-visit information may be asked and the system may

then provide the sorted or filtered information according to the preference or last visit

of the end-users, as the same way as Google presents its information to us.

(ii) Cultural learning: In most cases, 3D environments are typically reproductions or

reconstructions of archaeological sites or monuments. Therefore, it is important to understand

how a digital object can express cultural values and how those values are perceived by the

end-users. From the cognitive science perspective, our learning occurs through a reticular way

rather than in a linear pattern (Bateson, 2000). With reference to the ‘ecological approach’,

Bonini (2008) describes ‘learning’ as a process that starts through perception and

interpretation of the differences between the ecosystem and us. Therefore, getting feedback

from the interface or from other participants simulates the continuous and various levels of

perceptive and cognitive interaction; as such, information transforms into knowledge. Hence,

the interface should allow user to establish ‘some relationship’ with the context and, at the

same time, it should have the ‘feedback’ capability to satisfy the viewers’ query (more in

section 2.3.2, 2.3.4). To ensure a personal relationship with the context and getting feedback

Page | 99
either from the environment or from other participants, Champion and Dave (2002, 2003)

suggested a cultural agency, the personalization of artefacts and role-play as essential

variables. To promote cultural learning from a digital heritage site, it is, hence, necessary to

allow participants to:

x Collect, personalize and communicate through artefacts: To increase the visitors’

attention in a real-world heritage site, it is often recommended to allow them to touch

and handle real artefacts (Brooks and Brooks, 1993, Moscardo, 1999). Moreover,

visitors like to take photographs and souvenirs for their collection to make the event

memorable. Studies from Champion (2003, 2006) showed that the collection and

trading of digital artefacts in a virtual heritage environment helped to improve

participants’ social role and cultural learning. The setting, usage of artefacts and

tasks that motivate their use can help in understanding the original cultural

significance of the object. Therefore, the interpretive process needs to encourage the

end-users to collect and share information, digital artefacts or local knowledge (such

as the Forbidden City and Palenque project).

x Reveal symbolic meanings of artefacts and signs: Tilden (1977) defined heritage

interpretation as provocation, that is, to encourage the visitor to learn and know more

about the site. David Uzzell (1994) suggested the interpretive process to be an

interactive and involving experience. By interactive he meant to encourage the

visitors to interact with interpreter and other visitors; i.e. they can learn from each

other. Digital heritage interpretation, therefore, should provoke the end-users not only

to collect digital artefacts but also to reveal symbolic meanings of those artefacts

through their personal investigation such as that of Palenque project, or asking

questions in the open forum of ICOMOS ICIP (http://icip.lefora.com, visited

07.03.2012).

Page | 100
 x Encourage the discovery of new information: Visitors should be encouraged to

explore more. Strategies should be used in such a way that they could engage the

visitors in experiencing their own hypothesis and encourage more expeditions in

resolving the prevailing contradiction. Understanding occurs when individuals revisit

and reformulate their existing perspective. Comfort is another factor that can help to

extend the visitors’ stay times and encourage them to return to the site for further

exploration. Interaction sequences or challenges need to be designed in such a way

that the end-users can get some rest or pause during the expedition. It will help the

visitors to seek relevance in their query or ambiguity, and to return to solve or carry

out further investigation. Asking questions and providing answers to others on the

online forum and participation in online competition may also engage the end-users

in discovering new information.

(iii) Embodiment and embodied interaction : According to Dourish (2001), embodiment is the

property of our engagement with the world that allows us to make it meaningful while

meaning making involves both the practical action and active perception (explained in section

2.3.1). In this way, embodied interaction is the creation, manipulation and sharing of meaning

through an engaged interaction with the artefacts. Embodiment plays a key role in designing

interaction as the users’ response to the environment, their engagement and understanding of

space, and enjoyment depend on it. Interaction, on the other hand, builds up the meaning to

user in a virtual environment, and is mostly dependent upon the embodied interaction (or

situated action) and the inherited cultural background of the individuals. Therefore, an

effective embodied interaction should:

x Promote active participation (at the narrative level): Embodiment is a participative

status, a way of being rather than a physical property. Heritage scholars like

Ballantyne (1998) and Copeland (2006) suggested the constructivist approach to

enhance the visitor’s participation in a real-world heritage site. Visitors’ participation

can be encouraged by engaging them in problem solving and helping them to

Page | 101
 construct their own-meaning, encouraging and accepting the end-users’ initiatives,

and allowing online competition, highlighting the best contributors or winners, as

well as instant access for uploading digital contents, sharing contents or task,

allowing comments or receive feedback from others, and collaboration in solving

some common tasks. However, the 3D virtual environment can adopt a ‘game style

interaction’ as mentioned by Champion (2006) to enhance participation.

x Encourage task accomplishment: To enhance interaction, digital heritage

environments (either 2D or 3D) should encourage the end-users to complete some

tasks or actions. It may be through level accomplishment or taking part in online

competition. Allowing the end-users to contribute, create and share contents with

others can also enhance the interaction process and promote a sense of ownership as

well (section 2.3.1, 2.3.2).

x Ensure real-time feedback and practical action: Real-time feedback coming from

either the virtual environment (through tactile or haptic devices, e.g. CREATE

project), agents (e.g. in ‘The forbidden city’, virtual agents help the end-users to have

guided tours and receive response of query), or from other participants (e.g. Memory

capsule) may encourage engagement and deeper involvement (section 2.3.1).

(iv) Dialogic interaction: Dialogue is a quintessential hermeneutic event, a process where two

people try to understand each other and both immerse in discussion (Snodgrass and Coyne,

2006). In this perspective, interpretation is a dialogic process. The inquirer is involved in a

reciprocity of asking questions and, at the same time, revealing answers from others (more in

section 2.3.5). Allowing a dialogue through the interpretive framework will influence active

participants to get involved, to explore deeper and to have a better understanding through

shared experience or co-experience (Forlizzi and Battarbee, 2004).

On the other hand, interaction relates to the base word ‘interact’. It refers to the process or

situation where two or more entities have contact with one another. The definition of

Page | 102
interaction differs according to the research domain and there is no agreed definition yet

(McMillan, 2005). However, in order to establish more solid ground with reference to the

nature of this study, the concept of interaction has been adapted from Pares and Pares (2001)

(more in section 2.2.2). According to this concept, an effective interaction should include any

one or more of these: (a) Exploration, i.e. freedom of exploring the digital content, (b)

Manipulation, i.e. allowing the users to manipulate digital objects or elements and (c)

Contribution, i.e. allowing the end-users to construct or contribute digital content. Therefore,

allowing multiple users with various social and cultural backgrounds and their contribution at

the narrative level, heterogeneous perspectives of the past can be accommodated side by side.

With this explicit or generic knowledge base as a supplement to professional interpretation, it

would be possible to overcome the present limitations of ‘linear interpretation’ and

‘professional image’ of digital heritage (mentioned in section 2.4). Therefore, to ensure

effective dialogic interaction, this research suggests:

x Maximize interaction: To enhance the interaction, the interpretation process needs to

allow the end-users not only to explore and manipulate the contents but also to

‘contribute’ at both the content and narrative level. Most of the end-users may not

have expertise in 3D content contribution or knowledge of the distant past but they

may share interesting information regarding local stories, myths, beliefs, oral

traditions, religious values and travellers log about the heritage site. Contributions at

various levels will, therefore enhance their interaction.

x Encourage discourse: The process of knowledge construction does not take place in a

sterile place. Interpretation strategies should aim at encouraging discourse or social

discourse. Therefore, it needs to allow the participants to express their extended

verbal or written reflection about any heritage related practical topic (such as Blog or

long written comments). This will also enable and reinforce self-determination and

ownership.

Page | 103
 x Promote dialogue between the locals, participants and experts: Participant-to-

participant dialogue is the foundation upon which collaborative meaning making is

structured. Therefore, it is necessary to allow all means (chat, forum, comments etc.)

to support a dialogue according to the available support from the media (web, VR,

CAVE etc.).

Therefore, combining these four (04) aspects (i.e. presentation, embodiment, learning and

dialogic interaction) with all the above-mentioned considerations, an extended conceptual

framework for digital heritage interpretation can be proposed as in figure 3.5.

Page | 104
Figure 3.5 : Conceptual framework (PrEDiC) for interpreting digital heritage

Page | 105
According to this conceptual framework, application of these four aspects (i.e. these fifteen

considerations) in the interpretation process will influence participants’ mental level, which

will trigger a positive effect on their cognitive state. As a result, the overall process will work

to enhance the end-users’ interpretation of digital heritage.

The interpretation process that reflects the interests and needs of the end-users’ (i.e. follows a

consumer-led approach) with a variety in contents, frequent presence of new information,

novelty and surprise in content presentation, and offering challenges to explore, will raise the

interest level of the end-users. An easy orientation and navigation system that allows the end-

users to have full control of their visit will, therefore, help them to minimize their fatigue.

Possible connection to the visitors’ background and experiences, while encouraging them to

become active participants with the possibility of receiving awards or feedback, will help end-

users to be embodied with the system. Motivating the end-users to collect or personalize

artefacts (digital), helping them to reveal symbolic meanings of those artefacts, and

encouraging them to discover or share new information, will lead them to be contextualized

and culturally attached with the context. Moreover, when the end-users actively engage in the

interaction process (i.e. start to explore, manipulate and contribute), and start to make

dialogue with other participants, they will inevitably begin to contribute at the narrative level

by sharing the social knowledge and will become part of the community.

This way, the interpretive process therefore will influence the participants to raise their

interest level and minimize fatigue. As a result, mindfulness should be stimulated (more in

section 2.1.2). Considering architecture as a social product, meanings also come from

circumstances or context rather than only from ‘form’. Embodied interaction helps to be

contextualized, thus will enhance meaning making in the cognitive state (explained in section

2.3.1, 2.3.3). Moreover, sharing and contributing through the dialogic interaction will enhance

socio-cultural activities, and lifts up an individual experience to co-experience and inter-

subjective understanding. Thus, internalization and cultural learning will be elicited

(explained in section 2.3.4, 2.3.5).

Page | 106
The convergences of explicated ideas based on theoretical underpinnings, therefore, develop

such a conceptual framework (figure 3.5). According to this conceptual framework, it is

certainly possible to enhance end-users’ interpretation of digital heritage through ensuring

four aspects i.e. Presentation, Embodiment, Dialogic interaction and Cultural learning in the

interpretive process, and will be referred as PrEDiC framework throughout the dissertation.

In order to support this claim, it needs (i) to apply this theoretical construct in a practical field,

i.e. implement it in a digital heritage project and (ii) to conduct a user survey to understand

the effectiveness of the conceptual framework. The next section elaborates on the selection

and development of indicators, which have been used for such evaluation purpose.

3.4 THE INDICATORS : EVALUATING THE INTERPRETIVE PROCESS

The evaluation of ‘interpretive service’ and survey on user satisfaction has long been

practised in disciplines like museum studies, heritage management and archaeology. To make

the service most effective, the evaluation process includes not only includes the interpretive

method, but also the exhibits and visitors. Considering evaluation as a continuous process,

these disciplines have developed various evaluation techniques, methods, and set of indicators

to measure the effectiveness of the interpretive program through long research and practise.

On the other hand, until the time of this research, no evaluation method or set of indicators

were found available to measure either the effectiveness of any interpretive method or its

impact on the end-users’ interpretation in the digital heritage realm. Previous attempts,

including Champion (2004, 2011), Osberg (1997), Jacobson (2000), Rossoue (2008), Affalek

(2007) and Bonini’s (2008) works followed different approaches and methods. Even, their

objectives of evaluation also range from learning (culture, history and biology) to user-

experience, but did not focus on overall interpretation (i.e. satisfaction, provocation, learning

and multiple perspectives of the past). Moreover, in many cases, the technicalities and

questionnaire were not published and, therefore, not available for further development or use.

Page | 107
To support the main objective of this research, a conceptual framework is already proposed in

the previous section, 3.3. However, to validate its effectiveness, it needs to be established and

measured as well. In this context, this research sets out to investigate the effectiveness of the

proposed interpretive method by evaluating end-users’ interpretation level. A higher achieved

interpretation by the end-users, thus, reflects a better interpretive process. Those predefined

objectives of interpretation (as mentioned earlier in section 3.2) are, therefore, going to be

regarded as a reference of measurement. However, these objectives are basically concepts26,

and to measure them requires the operationalization by identifying ‘indicators’27. Indicators

are a set of criteria selected by the researcher to measure the variables according to the logical

link with the objective of the research (Kumar, 2005). The operationalization process of

converting those objectives (i.e. concepts) to indicators and later, the selection of variables,

are explained in the following figure 3.6.

26
Ranjit Kumar (2005) in ‘Research methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners’ referred concepts as mental images or
perceptions and therefore their meaning vary. A concept cannot be measured. Variables on the other hand are measurable, of
course with varying degree and accuracy.
27
The method of converting concepts into variables were adopted from Kumar (2005), in table 5.2, page 58.

Page | 108
Figure 3.6 : Converting concepts into indicators

(i) Satisfaction:

Satisfaction is the sensation or feeling, generated from both cognitive and emotional aspects

of the human mind and is an accumulated evaluation of various components and features.

According to Rojas and Camarero (2008), the nature of satisfaction, especially in a heritage

Page | 109
context, is ambiguous. With regard to theories and explanatory models, there are two

approaches of understanding ‘satisfaction’, i.e. cognitive and emotional. The cognitive

approach explains satisfaction as a function of disconfirmation, where disconfirmation is a

function of the expectation of fulfilment (Oliver, 1997). However, the other thread of defining

satisfaction as an ‘emotional approach’ is still ambiguous and debatable (Bagozzi et al 1999

in Rojas 2008). For the purpose of this research, satisfaction is considered as reached, when

the visitor or participant attained or transcended a relative expectation. The achieved

‘satisfaction’ is grounded through three indicators: (i) expectation fulfilled, (ii) appreciation

of visit, and (iii) pleasure achieved.

The indicators for ‘expectation fulfilled’ were constructed with four variables adapted from

nineteen components28, proposed for the museums and exhibition centres by Higgs’s (2005).

To measure satisfaction attained by the participants, four variables were adapted out of five

suggested by Oliver (1997) as ‘appreciation of visit’. Two variables were selected from out of

six variables, developed by Russell and Pratt’s (1980) to measure the achieved ‘pleasure’ by

the end-users. Only indicators and variables from literature review which are related and

applicable to digital heritage were selected.

(ii) Provocation:

Tilden (1967) defines provocation as the chief aim of interpretation. Uzzell (1994) proposed

‘re-construction’ for presenting the history as a whole and to provoke empathy. Moscardo

(1996) suggested ‘mindfulness’ to make the visitor aware of the environment and nature for

sustainable tourism. However, measuring empathy or behavioural change is particularly

difficult (Walker, 2007). Therefore, this survey considered soliciting both the actual activities,

and the intention to do those activities, with following up of the differences; it tried to

distinguish any over reporting. The demonstration of self-attitudinal change and greater

28
Higgs (2005) explained 19 components such as, employees’ neat appearance, range of food and beverages, minimum
waiting lines, range of appropriate souvenirs, convenience of operating hour etc. that are only applicable to physical realm and
not digital realm, therefore excluded.

Page | 110
interest on the topic are selected as indicators to measure the achieved provocation or

empathy by the participants on the heritage site.

(iii) Learning:

Learning is a process of active engagement with experience. There are different perspectives

on the learning theories and debates on how learning takes place29. However, following the

school of thought on experimental learning30 (Kolb, 1984), this research has accepted the

constructivist or social-constructivist view of learning (as mentioned by Jonassen and Rohrer-

Murphy, 1999). Again, within the three types of learning, i.e. (i) formal (ii) self-directed and

(iii) informal/non-formal type (Gammon, 2003), this research mainly focuses on the last two

categories. Authors like Alt and Show (1984), Borun et.al. (1989) and Graffin (1999) for

examples, attempted to define indicators for measuring visitor’s learning in museum or

exhibit setting. Gammon (2003) described five basic categories in learning i.e. cognitive,

affective, skill based, social and personal learning, and proposed several indicators to measure

the visitor’s learning for a museum settings. Two from these indicators are adopted and

further developed according to the objective and nature of the research (figure 3.6).

(d) Multiple perspective of past:

To subdue the ‘linearity’ at the narrative level (Thornton, 2007), to overcome the biasness of

‘image of practice’ (Kalay, 2008), and to fill the blank of a subjective partial reconstruction

(Dave, 2008) presentation of the past from ‘multiple perspectives’ was suggested in the

interpretation framework. According to this research hypothesis, access to the collective

content (or generic content) along with the given professional content, allows the end-users to

get multiple views of the reconstructed past. To evaluate the achieved polysemic views of the

29
The online database ‘Theory into practice’ presents more than fifty theories on learning. More detail please visit
http://tip.psychology.org/theories.html, dated 16.01.2010
30
American educational theorist David A. Kolb believes “learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the
transformation of experience”. Experiential learning is learning through reflection on doing, it requires no teacher and relates
solely to the meaning making process of the individual's direct experience. For example, experiential learning is going to the
zoo and learning through observation and interaction with the zoo environment, which is opposed of reading about animals
from a book.

Page | 111
past by active participants, (i) fill in the blank and (ii) descriptive self-report on attaining new

perspective are considered as indicators.

3.5 DISCUSSION

Tracking the trail from literature reviews and online case studies, this chapter ascertained

specific gaps from both theory and practice of present digital heritage domain. While

presenting those gaps, the urgency of defining the objectives of a comprehensive

interpretation method is raised. At this point, a set of four objectives are presented with an

explanation of its basis of consideration. Based on the theoretical underpinnings, an

interpretation model is conceptualised and further developed into a conceptual framework to

attain those objectives. Because of the aim of this proposed conceptual framework (PrEDiC)

is to enhance the end-users’ interpretation of digital heritage, it raises two questions. The first

one, queries on its implementation or grounding in a digital heritage project. The second one,

however, calls for its impact on the end-users’ interpretation level, i.e., how the effectiveness

of the process itself will be measured. Through defining the indicators and garnering them

towards selecting variables, the measuring criteria received direction for further development

of questionnaire. However, the implementation of the conceptual framework is explained later

in chapter 05.

Page | 112
 CHAPTER 04
METHODOLOGY

Based on the research objective, a detailed conceptual framework (figure 3.5) has been

proposed in chapter 03 to enhance end-user’ interpretation of digital heritage. This chapter

explains the adopted method to evaluate the effectiveness of the conceptual framework and

briefs a comparative experiment design procedure. It elaborates the details of treatment

design, population and sampling, group design, and short overview of the experiment. In

order to measure the perceived interpretation by end-users, a selection of indicators with the

process of defining variables, questions and measuring scales is also presented. It then

describes the data collection and analysis (statistical) methods. Finally, the overall constraints

and scope of this adopted method are described. However, a detailed description of the

construction of the experiment platform is presented in the following chapter 05.

4.1 EXPERIMENT DESIGN

To enhance the end-users’ interpretation of digital heritage, a conceptual framework was

developed on the basis of the research hypothesis. A comparative experimental design was

chosen, as one of the research objectives was to compare the effectiveness of the

aforementioned framework with the conventional linear interpretation, using controlled

groups. With reference to Kumar (2005) and Jex (2002), the comparative experiment design

fits this study as this method can measure dependent variables (i.e. satisfaction, provocation,

learning and multiple perspectives of the past) through manipulating independent variables

under controlled condition. Therefore, this experiment supports assessing the impact of the

conceptual framework on active participants.

Page | 113
Sompur Mahavihara Bangladesh, a Buddhist monastery built around the 3rd century A.D. (a

world heritage site by UNESCO) was selected as a case for building the experiment platform

(more in section 5.2). The study population was divided into two groups and different

treatment models or experiment platforms were then offered to different groups. Group A was

offered an experiment platform with a linear narrative. On the other side, the treatment, i.e.,

the experiment platform was developed based on the conceptual framework (PrEDiC) and

was offered to group B (more detail in section 4.1.4). After each experiment, responses were

collected from a semi-structured questionnaire (section 4.2, appendix D). The collected data

(both qualitative and quantitative) are then analysed to ascertain any change on the dependent

variables. The degree of the change is then compared between two groups to establish the

relative effectiveness of independent variables (i.e. interpretation process). Details of the

experiment design are elaborated in the following sections.

4.1.1 Treatment design

According to the research hypothesis to enhance interpretation of digital heritage, a

comprehensive interpretation process must comprise four aspects, i.e., presentation, cultural

learning, embodiment and dialogic interaction. Therefore, groups with two dissimilar

experiment platforms (i.e. treatment modalities) with different settings of interactions were

offered. The first group (i.e. group A) was offered an online experiment platform with a linear

interpretation. The participants in this treatment can only explore the professional or given

content (content development explained in section 5.3.2) of a specific heritage site (i.e.

Sompur Mahavihara). Here, the contents included text, images, videos, 3D models and 360-

degree panoramic images with some basic information on history, architecture, excavation,

central temple, and for getting there, with a few external links for more information.

However, group members were allowed to contact the moderators for any query or help.

On the other hand, in the second case, the experiment platform was built on the basis of the

conceptual framework (PrEDiC) and allowed the participants to interact and involve in

Page | 114
dialogue with other participants (professional and non-professional) along with the same

digital contents offered for the previous group. According to the research objective, this

experiment platform, thus, offered a comprehensive interpretation through supporting all the

considerations mentioned earlier in section 3.3. However, to implement these considerations

(which are mostly concepts) was a big challenge, where the researcher’s technical knowledge

and access to support marked the boundary. The conversion of these considerations to

‘operational functions’ are explained in section 5.1.1.

4.1.2 Population and sampling

Recalling from chapter 01, the main objective of this research is to develop a framework that

can help the end-users to enhance their interpretation of digital heritage. Therefore, it is

necessary to understand whether the proposed conceptual framework (PrEDiC) enhances the

end-users’ satisfaction of place and visit, helps learning of the past history and culture,

promotes empathy towards the heritage site for future protection and conservation, and finally

makes the end-users understand the past from multiple perspectives.

Because of familiarity with the local context, Sompur Mahavihara, Paharpur, Bangladesh (a

world heritage site declared by UNESCO) was selected as a case to be used for the

experiment platform. Undergraduate students from Khulna University, Bangladesh, were

chosen as respondents. Based on the purpose and objective of the research purposive or

judgement sampling was used to select the participants(Tan, 2004, p33, Homles et al., 2005,

p38). Therefore, participants were chosen on the basis of having (i) an interest in cultural

heritage (ii) access to the internet and (iii) willingness to participate in the survey on a

voluntary basis. Normally, the sample size depends on the size of the population. “Although

general rules are hard to make without knowledge of the specific population, around 30 cases

seems to be the bare minimum......” (Bailey, 1978, p84). Within the scope of this research to

ensure the minimum limit, a total number of 160 respondents were selected as end-users in

two groups. However, 149 were later found valid (77 in group A and 72 in group B).

Page | 115
4.1.3 Group design and group task

Four groups of participants were selected to participate in this experiment. However, a large

number of online participants (anonymous) took part during the ‘online public participation’

phase of the experiment. Table 4.1 explains the procedure, group formation and tasks of each

group during the experiment.

Table 4.1 : Different groups and their task during the experiment

Experiment Phases Participants Group Task Result / Outcome

x Content development x Basic construction of

x Experiment Platform Experiment Platform
Primary Researcher construction x Preliminary
construction [01 person] x Questionnaire development Questionnaire
x Work as moderator prepared
Construction Phase

x Content proofing and x Professional

Group – E comments construction
Cognitive x Cognitive walkthrough of the
[04
walkthrough Professionals] online platform [Platform updated]
x Work as moderator
x Experience the site for 3 days x Updated experiment
x Response in questionnaire platform
Pilot survey Group – C survey x Updated
[3 days] [10 participants] x Comments in group questionnaire
discussion

Experiment 01 : x Attend the orientation seminar x End-users

Evaluating group A
Group – A x Experience the site for 7 days experience data
[7 days]
[80 respondents] x Response in post-experience
questionnaire survey [filled questionnaire]
+
[linear interpretive [moderators]
method applied]
Evaluation Phase

Experiment 02 : x Take part in dialogic x Explicit online

Anonymous interaction knowledge base
(1) Online public
Participants
participation [approx. 200 [generated by common
[i.e. Contribute (image, text, video, links,
[3 months] disposition of cultural experience
users] news), Discuss, Form groups, Explore,
Debate, Ask question, Comments, Invite and memory by general people]
[proposed interpretive others, Blog and Chat]
[moderators]
method applied]

(2) Evaluating x Attend the orientation seminar x End-users

Group – B x Experience the site for 7 days experience data
group B
[80 respondents]
[7 days] x Response in post-experience
questionnaire survey [filled questionnaire]
+
[proposed interpretive [moderators]
method applied]

Group E: An ‘Expert group’ consisting of four (04) professionals31 from different

backgrounds such as archaeology, history, architecture and computer science was selected.

31
Md. Mozammel Hoque, Professor, Dept. of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University, Mr Masud Reza, Associate professor,
Department of Architecture, Khulna University, Mr Nurul Kabir, Lecturer, Dept. of Archaeology, Jahangirnagar University and
Mr Masudur Rahman, Lecturer, CSE Discipline, Khulna University.

Page | 116
Experts who have some knowledge or previous study on Sompur Mahavihara, Paharpur and

architectural style of Bengal, were given priority. The main task of this group was to vet on

the preliminary written content (appendix I) of the experiment platform prepared by the

researcher. Subsequently, they conducted a cognitive walkthrough and make the necessary

comments on their experience.

Group C: These are participants for the pilot survey. 10 respondents (undergraduate

students) were selected for this purpose. They experienced the preliminary experiment

platform for three (03) days and provided feedback by responding to a questionnaire and took

part in a group discussion with the researcher.

Group A and B: The ‘end-user Participants’ of 160 members (80 on each group) were

selected (selection criteria explained in 4.1.2). Members of each group experienced unique

experiment platforms (different from each other) and participated in a post-experience

questionnaire survey.

4.1.4 Experiment overview

A comparative experimental design was chosen for this research as one of the objectives is to

compare the effectiveness of different treatment modalities upon the controlled groups. The

whole evaluation process was carried out in two major phases: (i) construction phase and (ii)

experiment phase. However, the evaluation phase was conducted separately with two

identical pre-selected groups. The whole experiment process is explained below.

(i) Construction Phase:

The experiment platform construction started with developing the textual contents. A basic

description of Sompur Mahavihara (appendix I), including its historical background,

architecture, central temple, previous studies, and information regarding visiting the site were

prepared under the supervision of group E (i.e. professionals/domain experts, section 4.1.3).

Page | 117
Besides basic information, images, videos, 3D reconstructed models and 360 degree

panoramic views and the online ‘experiment platform’ were developed by the researcher

(construction process explained in chapter 5). It was later tested and experienced as a

‘cognitive walkthrough’ by members of group E, which provided the necessary suggestions

for improving and updating this experiment platform from both the point of usability and

content delivery (figure 4.1). After the necessary update, the basic construction was therefore

transformed into a ‘professional interpretation/construction’ (Fitch, 1982, Copeland, 2006)

(explained in section 2.1.2).

Figure 4.1 : Developing the experiment platform

Later a pilot survey was conducted on 10 respondents (group C). They were asked to

experience the online platform for three (03) days and reported their experience on day four.

Group C provided useful feedback through responding to the questionnaire, followed by an

open discussion with the researcher. Necessary modification was made at this stage, for both

the experiment platform and the questionnaire design. Bengali subtitle was added to the major

questions for the convenience of the respondents.

Page | 118
(ii) Experiment Phase 01:

Eighty (80) respondents as in group A participated in this phase of the experiment. Before the

initiation of each experiment, an orientation was held whereby the significance and rationale

of the study, including the utilization of the experiment platform, were explained and

demonstrated to the participants. The respondents were assured that their responses would be

kept confidential (images of this introductory seminar, are attached in appendix E).

Figure 4.2 : Evaluating group A after one week of experience

A previously updated experiment platform (i.e. professional construction) was then offered to

group A to experience for one week (figure 4.2). ‘One week’ has been preferred as Nielsen

(1998) suggested less than a week (2 to 5 days) for a beginner for best usability and

understanding of a website. The four aspects (along with 15 considerations, figure 3.5) were

disabled and interaction level was limited only to exploration based on a linear narrative.

However, asking help from the moderators was allowed. On day 8, group A was asked to

participate in a post-experience survey (images are in appendix F). Responses from group A

were recorded through a previously developed semi-structured questionnaire (attached in

appendix D).

Page | 119
(ii) Experiment Phase 02:

The second phase of evaluation consisted of two stages:

Part 01: Previously developed ‘expert-content’ (appendix I) with full functionalities was

opened for online public participation (i.e. for anonymous participants). This process

continued for three (03) months to reach wider audiences through a snowballing invitation

process (figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3 : Collective construction : Online public participation

Promotion sessions were conducted in three architectural and archaeological schools (Khulna

University, Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology and Jahangir Nagar University)

in Bangladesh. For greater publicity of the online heritage portal (i.e. the experiment

platform), a poster was designed (appendix J) and exhibited in various cultural institutes,

museums, educational institutes, including the main heritage site of Sompur Mahavihara,

Paharpur. Moreover, an advertisement was also done on a daily national newspaper (Daily

Prothom-Alo, dated 24.07.2010) on the opening day of the portal. During this time, active

anonymous participants were allowed to make comments, carry out discussion, ask questions,

chat, invite others, and contribute digital heritage resources. In this way, the anonymous

Page | 120
participants added adequate number of popular content juxtaposed with professional contents.

As a result, it had become a ‘collective construction’. Here, group E participated as a

moderator.

Part 02: Eighty (80) participants of group B took part in this evaluation phase. Respondents

were pre-selected and invited to experience this collective digital heritage contents for one

week. Similar orientation seminar was offered to this group (appendix G), to make them

familiar with the portal and to orient their task for the following seven days. Unlike group A,

group B had access to full functionalities of the portal and was allowed to actively participate

in dialogic interaction, i.e. they could have dialogue with others and interact with the platform

(i.e. actively explore, manipulate and contribute to the system) (figure 4.4). Later, group B

was asked to participate in a post-experience evaluation (i.e. questionnaire survey) similar to

that of the previous group (images are in appendix H). Here group E continued to work as

moderators.

Figure 4.4 : Evaluating group B after one week of experience

The data collected from both group A and group B were sorted, analysed, compared and

graphically presented in chapter 6, to understand the differences in the perceived

interpretation between these two groups, attained from the same real-world heritage site while

experiencing two different online platforms.

Page | 121
4.2 EXPERIMENT VARIABLES AND QUESTIONNAIRE

4.2.1 Dependent variables

The dependent variables in a research are measured to see whether the treatment or

manipulation of the independent variable (i.e. different interpretive process) had an effect.

According to the research hypothesis, changes in end-users’ interpretation will occur due to

the application of different interpretive methods. To measure and verify the perceived

‘interpretation’ by the end-users, those four objectives of the interpretation process

(satisfaction, provocation, learning and multiple perspectives of the past), therefore, become

the dependent variables of the experiment. Grounding or operationalizing of these dependent

variables (from concepts to indicators) has been explained in section 3.4, details on

developing the questionnaire on the basis of these predefined variables are explained in the

following sections.

(a) Satisfaction:

End-users visit any heritage portal or digital heritage with certain expectation or interest. The

interpretive process, therefore, needs to satisfy those expectations of the end-users. Moreover,

through the interpretive service, it should help the end-users to appreciate the visit and have

pleasure. With reference to section 3.4, the following questions are selected to measure the

achieved satisfaction.

Page | 122
Table 4.2 : Selection of questions to measure ‘satisfaction’

Measuring
Indicators and Variables Questions Scale
Expectation fulfilled Q.9. I am satisfied with this web-portal because : 5 point
i. Uniqueness of content a. Found unique contents Likert scale
ii. New/advanced information b. Got new information
iii. Easy to navigate and use c. Easy to navigate and use for me
iv. Received supports / d. Received responses from members and moderators
feedback
Appreciation of Visit Q.10. I appreciate this experience because : 5 point
i. Self-appreciation of online a. It is worth to visit this web-portal before going to Sompur Likert scale
visit Vihara
ii. Appreciation of involvement b. I am glad to be a member
/ membership c. I like to inform my friends
iii. Willingness to inform others M.C.Q.
Q.12. Is there anything about this ‘portal’ that you think need
iv. Suggest further improvement ?
improvement
Pleasure Q.9. I am satisfied with this web-portal because: 5 point
i. Fun achieved (self-rating) e. I had fun Likert scale
ii. Overall Experience (self-
rating) Q.11. How do you rate your overall experience of visiting this
web-portal?

(b) Provocation:

One of the major objectives of the proposed interpretive method is to evoke awareness among

end-users about the heritage site. Through highlighting the cultural and historical value; the

interpretive process should make the end-users to be empathised and provoke them to involve

in, further protection, conservation and promotion of heritage. With reference to section 3.4,

the following questions are selected to measure provocation.

Table 4.3 : Selection of questions to measure ‘provocation’

Measuring
Indicators and Variables Questions Scale
Demonstrate self-attitudinal change Q.14. Please mark a cross in the box that best describes your 5 point
i. Increase of personal and experience : Likert scale
emotional interest a. I am feeling more emotional and have personal interest in
ii. Willingness to this heritage site.
protect/support b. I intend to protect/support the future conservation of this
iii. Willingness on volunteer site
service c. I like to join a local conservation group
iv. Willingness for financial d. I like to spent money on future conservation-works of this
support heritage site

Greater interest on topic
i. Willingness on further
investigation
ii. Willingness to visit other
similar heritage sites
e. I like to know more about Sompur Mahavihara 5 point
f. We are planning a local trip to visit other similar heritage Likert scale
site in the near future, are you interested to join?

Page | 123
(c) Learning:

Disseminating cultural heritage is one of the major objectives of digital heritage. Therefore,

the effectiveness of the interpretation method largely depends on its ability to convey

symbolic and cultural meanings to end-users. Evaluating end-users’ knowledge gain or

learning from digital heritage, therefore, can help to assess the quality of the interpretive

process. Based on section 3.4, the following questions are selected to measure the end-users’

learning.

Table 4.4 : Selection of questions to measure ‘learning’

Measuring
Indicators and Variables Questions Scale

Increase of consolidate knowledge
i. Remembering and recall
ii. Self-report on knowledge
increase
Link to prior knowledge and
experience
i. Identification and distinguish
from similar objects
Q.15. Can you please indicate any features marked on the Short
plan of Sompur Mahavihara? answer-
Q.16. Do you know how many cells are there? quiz
Q.17. This monastery was built in, during?
Q.19. Did you know the answers of the above questions M.C.Q.
before experiencing this web portal?
Q.20. Do you think this experience has increased your 5 point
knowledge of Sompur Mahavihara? Likert scale
Q.18. Can you identify which picture is not from Sompur Selection
Mahavihara? from image

(d) Multiple perspectives of the past:

A broader understanding of cultural heritage is only possible when the interpretive process

presents the past from multiple perspectives. To evaluate the achieved polysemic views of the

past gained by the end-users, the following questions are selected with reference to section

3.4.

Page | 124
Table 4.5 : Selection of questions to measure ‘understanding the past from multiple perspectives’

Measuring
Indicators and Variables Questions Scale

Fill in the blank Q.23. Before visiting this web portal I used to know ‘Sompur M.C.Q
i. Improve of previous Mahavihara’ as –
conception (confront/correct Q.24. “Sompur Mahavihara was one of the major learning
misconception) centres during the Pala kings” – Do you know any other Open-
purposes? ended
Descriptive self-report Q.26. Please explain if you have any new understanding of Open
i. Self-appreciation of attaining ‘Sompur Mahavihara’ after one week of experience of this ended
new perspective and online heritage portal?
knowledge
ii. Recognition and realization
of personal insight and
empathy
iii. Changes in beliefs, values
and attitudes

4.2.2 Independent variables

Independent variables are those which are manipulated to examine its impact on dependent

variables. Based on the treatments, the main independent variable of this research is the

‘process of interpretation’ itself. Therefore, the experiment platforms on which the dependent

variables, i.e. the end-users’ interpretation, is depended.

For experiment 01, the platform (i.e. the treatment model) was built on conventional linear

interpretation method (as mentioned by Fitch, 1982). Here the narrative was fixed and no

public contribution and dialogic interaction was allowed (figure 4.2). Therefore, participants

in this part of the experiment were only allowed to explore those given information (i.e.

professional interpretation). On the other hand, for the second phase of the experiment, the

treatment model was built according to the conceptual framework for a comprehensive

interpretation, which was developed by this research (figure 3.5). According to the research

hypothesis, the application of this conceptual model in the interpretive process will enhance

end-users’ interpretation of digital heritage. Therefore, evaluating and comparing the end-

users’ interpretation between these groups on the basis of satisfaction, provocation, learning

and multiple perspectives of the past (i.e. the dependent variables); would reveal any impact

caused by these two different interpretive methods (i.e. independent variable).

Page | 125
The conceptual framework (PrEdiC) offered a dialogic interaction, which allowed the 2nd

group of participants (i) to have a dialogue and communication among end-users, (ii) to allow

interaction, i.e. exploration, manipulation and contribution of digital contents, and (iii) to have

access to collective contents. This not only allowed the 2nd group to explore the site but also

to express their common spatial and cultural experience to share with others. In addition, this

research also investigated the involvement of group B by following the variables in table 4.6.

Table 4.6 : Measuring the involvement and participation of group B

Measuring
Concept

Scale
Indicators Variables Questions

Communicating i. Usage of Forum Q.27. During the last 7 days, what is your 5 point
with others ii. Usage of Chatroom frequency of usage of these following web- Likert
iii. Usage of Blog components: scale
iv. Contact / response others a. Forum, b. Chat room, c. Blog
DIALOGUE

Q.29. Did you ask other members or experts any

question through this portal during the last 7 days?
Q.30. Did you receive any question or comment
from others through this portal?
Q.31. Did you ‘rate’ or ‘comment’ on other
member’s post?
Contribution, i. Number of File contribution Q.28. Please tell us about your various 5 point
Manipulation & ii. Number of Image contributions (or submissions) in this web-portal Likert
Exploration contribution during the last 7 days : scale
iii. Number of Video a. Files/Documents, b. Images, c. Videos
INTERACTION

contribution d. Links, e. Blog posts, f. Forum posts

iv. Frequency of Blog posting
v. Posting of News
i. Frequency of visit Q.8. For the last 07 days, how frequently have you
ii. Time spent used this web-portal?
iii. Exploring content Q.13. Open ended response on positive and
preference negative descriptions.
iv. Suggestion (any)

4.3 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHOD

To compare the impact of the treatment modalities end-users’ interpretation level (i.e.

satisfaction, learning, provocation and understanding the past from multiple perspective)

between groups (group A and B) were required to compare. As the indicators were broken

down and the variables were identified, the data collection method in this research was done

though a post-experience questionnaire survey.

Page | 126
A semi-structured questionnaire containing both closed-ended and open-ended questions was

prepared, including an introductory section to identify the demographic information and

background of the respondents (appendix D). Except for questions 13 and 26, the rest of the

questions were closed-ended and required only simple answers by picking from five given

options. The multiple choice and ‘yes-no’ answers were used for questions that were more

factual, while the Likert-scale answers were meant for questions that required personal

judgement and perceptions. On the five point Likert-scale, each point was spelled out as

words, so that the respondents could understand it easily (e.g. +2=strongly agree, +1=agree,

0=neutral, -1=disagree, -2=strongly disagree, or +2=excellent, +1=good, 0=neutral, -1=poor, -

2=very poor). An option of ‘unable to answer’ was also added in each questions, but later

discarded in the evaluation process as few responses were found in this category. The

phrasing of the questions was carefully selected for easy understanding with minimum

biasness. Major questions were also translated in Bengali and added beneath relative

questions. This technique was found to be useful for enhancing the understanding of the

participants from the previous pilot survey. However, an additional set of questionnaire (Q27

to Q33 in appendix D) was only imposed or applied to group B to quantify their frequency of

communication with others (i.e. dialogue) and the frequency of communication, manipulation

and exploration (i.e. interaction) during the experiment week. However, the questionnaire was

preferred for collecting information instead of interviewing the 160 participants because this

method offers an easy management of a large sample size and requires less time.

4.4 CONSTRAINTS AND SCOPE OF THE METHODOLOGY

The main objective of this research is to develop a methodology to enhance interpretation of

digital heritage. The detailed conceptual framework presents fifteen considerations to support

the four aspects (i.e. presentation, cultural learning, embodiment, and dialogic interaction) of

the conceptual framework (figure 3.5). These considerations are mainly ‘concepts’ and can be

implemented or operationalized in many ways according to the use of digital media or tool.

Page | 127
For example, considerations like ‘variety in presentation’ or ‘setting cognitive dissonance’ is

a concept, mental image or perception which can be implemented (or grounded) differently

according to the choice of media (2D or 3D) or tool (CAVE, MUVE or HMD). Another

example is ‘novelty and surprise in content presentation’ or ‘collecting or personalizing

artefacts or resources’; the application of these considerations will differ by changing the

media from a ‘game engine’ to a ‘VRML’ based environment.

Moreover, these methodological considerations (section 3.2, figure 3.4) may not necessarily

fall in a sequential order under the four aspects (i.e. presentation, cultural learning,

embodiment, and dialogic interaction) and may overlap in some way. For example, ‘active

participation’ as a consideration mentioned under embodiment, also has a direct impact on

learning and dialogic interaction. Similarly, consideration like ‘dialogue between experts,

participants and others’ even mentioned under dialogic interaction, may also have an impact

on learning and embodiment, and could be mentioned under those aspects. Even the

conceptual framework (figure 3.5) tried to categorise these considerations in a grouped

fashion with the most appropriate location. They are, however, implicitly interwoven with

each other and possess the possibility of belonging to more than one aspect.

In order to verify the research hypotheses (section 1.3.3), an empirical end-user survey was

conducted. As this research considers interpretation as an open-ended and polysemic process,

it pertained that the participants would be actively involved in content development and

engaged in dialogic interaction. Certainly this type of active participation is obvious in an

organically formed virtual community, where participants are enthusiastic, have some specific

knowledge of some specific matter and their level of engagement is high. In that case, the

group behaviour helps to sustain such a virtual community. However, for a non-organic group

or group with pre-selected participants, the group dynamics may be difficult to predict. A

study by Jenece (2007) showed that, from a 3000 possible participants, only 40 took part in an

online project that required participation. Therefore, to ensure enough or adequate

participation from anonymous individuals, a certain level of encouragement is required.

Page | 128
Moreover, the interpretation of cultural heritage from multiple perspectives demands a high

level of knowledge of the past. The general people as a contributor may have only general

knowledge or information regarding the recent past and not about the distant past. They may

know valuable information, but due to its passage through generations, it may be deformed or

deviated from the original. However, they may have potential knowledge on different cultural

issues with great interest.

Presenting the past from multiple perspectives can also be considered as easing away from

confronting the ‘truth’ or being politically ‘correct’. Moreover, to ascertain dialogic

interaction as an effective and provocative tool, we need to treat all narratives as equally

valuable, denying one as ‘better history’ than another. It is also difficult to determine whose

contents or legacies of the past are wrong. However, this problem is not just confined to the

field of digital heritage, but also within contemporary historical discussions (Thornton, 2006).

Here, “we should forgo the possibility that anyone should take responsibility of the past”

(Morris-Suzuki, 2005, p15). We need to accept that our understanding of the past occurs in

the present context and dialogues can provide an open-ended and evolving relationship with

past events and people. Considering this debate aside, this research, therefore, emphasises

more on the ‘truthfulness’ rather than on finding the ‘truth’; it investigates the process by

which people in the present try to make sense of the past.

The next chapter elaborates on the design and construction process of the experiment

platform.

Page | 129
 CHAPTER 05
EXPERIMENT PLATFORM CONSTRUCTION

This chapter provides a detailed description of the concept, settings, context and construction

process of the experiment platform. The online experiment platform named ‘bdheritage’

(www.bdheritage.info) was launched on the 24th August 2010 (still online). According to the

research methodology, this experiment and user study was required to evaluate the

effectiveness of the proposed interpretive method; hence, the construction of the experiment

platform was very important. This chapter describes the design process of the experiment

platform and the setting of various functional, hardware and software requirements, followed

by the selection and benchmarking process of third party services. The selection of the real-

world heritage site and the process of developing and approving of the content by

professionals are also explained. The encoding/decoding process of data, content

development and validation, hosting and launching of the platform, along with a detail

description of the features are also explained in this chapter.

5.1 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

5.1.1 Functional requirement

The experiment platform were required to contain ‘professional interpretation’ (or given

content prepared and approved by professionals), as well as to support active participants for

dialogic interaction. According to the research objective, it should support all the

considerations mentioned in the conceptual framework (figure 3.5).

Page | 130
Table 5.1 : Operationalizing the considerations

Considerations Operational functions

(2D platform)

[Presentation]

Variety in contents ƒ Introduced various file format - including pictures, text and movies; other
presentation formats like VRML, and QVR.

Challenges to explore/ ƒ Best contributors were to be highlighted on the front page periodically.
setting cognitive ƒ Arranged online competition.
dissonance

Novelty & surprise in ƒ Provided new information on the front page, updated regularly, i.e. each visit
content presentation could be unique.

Easy orientation and ƒ Simplicity in design/visual appearance

navigation ƒ Search function
ƒ Tag words, Page tree and Instant help files

Openness to new ƒ Instant access to upload digital contents (text, image, video, links etc.)
information ƒ Instant access to database, access/introduction to external sites

Connection to ƒ Contents were presented in easy understandable language, rather like

participants’ past technical specifications.
experience ƒ Google translator was added for language translator.
ƒ Some popular or local words were used for describing the artefacts/building.
[Cultural Learning]

Collecting artefacts/ ƒ Users were allowed to create personal profile page.

resources and personalize ƒ They could collect other’s images/info and save/use for display
them ƒ Participants could change the theme of the site

Revealing symbolic ƒ Provided online forum to discuss about heritage issues

meaning ƒ Allowed to ask questions in Q/A section
ƒ Allowed to comment on other posts
ƒ Allowed to arrange online competition and take part in offered competition

Encourage to discover ƒ Best contributor /winners were highlighted on the front page.
new information
[Embodiment]

Allowing active ƒ Allowed instant access to upload digital contents (text, image, video, links
participation etc.).
ƒ Introduced online forum
ƒ Allow participants to ask questions in feedback section
ƒ Introduced real-time chat function

Task accomplishing ƒ Arranged some online competition.

ƒ Best contributor /winners need to be highlighted on the front page.

Real-time feedback/ ƒ Allow comment on any post

practical action ƒ Introduced real-time chat function
ƒ Allow participants to ask questions in feedback section
[Dialogic interaction]

Maximizing interaction ƒ Allowed end-users to explore, manipulate and contribute

Encourage discourse ƒ Allowed comment on any post

ƒ Introduced online forum, blog, chat room, feedback and shout functions.
Dialogue between ƒ Allowed participants to ask questions in Q/A section
participants and experts ƒ Best contributors were highlighted in front page.

Page | 131
However, to ground or operationalize these considerations (or concepts) to reality and hence

applying them to the experiment-platform was a big challenge. With respect to available

technical resources and time, this research developed a test-bed with a 2D online environment

based on a CMS engine (selection of the platform is explained later in 5.1.4). The predefined

15 considerations under 4 aspects are then operationalized, according to the functions

available from the CMS engine (or tool). However, some modifications are made and new

modules were added to the CMS engine to satisfy all considerations. Table 5.1 lists the

‘operational functions’ implemented in the system to achieve the ‘considerations’ mentioned

in the PrEDiC framework.

5.1.2 Hardware requirements

The experiment platform was meant to contain online media with rich audio and video

contents which demanded a server with a high data transfer rate (or bandwidth) to ensure

smooth experience. The interface of the experiment platform, therefore, had to be prevalent

and easy for the anonymous online end-users to utilize. This means that proposed platform

should work on personal computers and be compatible with different operating systems. On

the other hand, the local hardware (used by the end-users) might be equipped with internet

connectivity (preferably broadband) to support contribution, navigation and collaboration.

5.1.3 Software requirements

Unlike hardware requirements, software or application requirements had more implication on

design considerations (table 5.1) and web server. Based on function, affordability, and

convenience; various selection criteria are summarized below:

1. Interactive collaboration tools: It was necessary to support online

communication in real-time. This required the ability to link collaborative

functions with certain interactive message board, forum and chat functions. For

Page | 132
 this, the capability of connections with external resources and online database

was necessary.

2. Multi-user platform: This was one of the most important criteria since active

participants, moderators and visitors had to collaborate in real-time to perform

discussion, contribution, documentation and dialogue activities. Therefore, the

system should allow multi-user access, and required to be light enough to load

quickly and support data synchronization on the network.

3. User tracking method: The recording of users’ activities in the different aspects

was required. Hence, there is a need to record the activities of participants,

visitors and experts based on tracking information. The tracking and blocking of

spammers was also required.

4. Ready-to-use: Being readily usable was one of the major concerns. If the system

required a lot of extra development on modification, this would increase the

demand for resources and impose time constraints. Therefore, readymade

modules/plugins with easy installation and modification were desirable.

5. Platform independent and compatibility: This issue was important as multiple

users would collaborate from different locations, using different types of

hardware and operation systems while using the same interface. Therefore, the

interface was required to be displayed in a similar fashion in the various

operating systems and browsers.

6. Large database/storage support: A large server disk storage was required to store

the various types of digital contents (e.g. text, image and video) uploaded by

active online participants. Moreover, it also expected the search functions to

retrieve the correct information from the pool.

Page | 133
 7. High bandwidth: Participants as well as online visitors would populate this

experiment platform. Therefore, it should support a high bandwidth to allow the

maximum login and the highest data transfer. Moreover, to experience the 360-

degree panorama and interactive 3D models (Flash contents) required a high

bandwidth from both ends.

Even if the platform was designed for general end-users, there might be advanced participants

who would like to add 3D contents. However, due to technical constrains, this platform,

therefore, would not support online 3D model hosting but any external links were allowed to

be added for a similar purpose. In addition, some other general requirements like price,

documentation and user support were taken into account. These above-mentioned

requirements were used for benchmarking and finding the most suitable tool to develop the

experiment platform. The next section explains this process in detail.

5.1.4 Platform selection and benchmarking

In this section, some existing popular online platforms or software for social sharing and

collaboration were investigated and compared. Based on dissimilar strengths, six platforms

were chosen, i.e., FaceBook, Omeka, Ning, TikiWiki, Elgg and Dolphin. Specification and

analysis on each system was compared (table 5.2) and finally, ‘Dolphin’ was selected.

This experiment expected a large number of participants to be involved. They, might have

little or limited knowledge of 3D modelling or reconstruction but would be interested in

history and want to share their information. So far, during the time of the experiment (mid

2010), no such software or application was found for supporting a large number of people in

the making of 3D models, either individually or collaboratively, especially those who have

either little or no knowledge of 3D geometry and coordinate systems. A study was conducted

on some 3D-like collaborative platforms, but was found to be insignificant for the purpose of

this research (attached as appendix K).

Page | 134
Therefore, for selecting and benchmarking platforms (mostly 2D), maximum collaboration

and contribution-supported tools were given the priority. An understanding of table 5.1

indicates that there is no easy shortcut to create an experiment platform according to the

functional requirements explained in section 5.1.1. The Facebook’s group service was found

to have the most ready-to-use functionalities. Facebook is also popular, free and easy to

maintain. However, its interface is built on the mode of social gathering and communication

but not for ‘serious’ activities. Moreover, its service does not allow the users to add/upload

any text file, video files, threaded discussion board and writing blog (until mid 2010). The

users need to upload them to some other places and can only post those links in the forum. It

also does not allow the users/administrators to add new pages and embed external

functionalities such as Google map and Photosynth model. Even though they have a

picture/image gallery, it does not have any archival facility for other file formats (e.g. pdf and

doc), which is one of the major drawback of this platform.

The Omeka project is launched by the Centre for History and New Media, George Mason

University, USA. Omeka provides a free application for digital archiving, requiring the

installation of a Linux based server with MySQL support. This open source software has

been written in PHP language and required the skills to manipulate and organize pages. This

application has been developed for digital archival purpose, with a target consumer of the

museums, for sharing their archive online or to collect public resources. The objective of this

application does not promote social sharing and communication among contributors, so there

is no forum, blog or chat function available. The documentation is also limited and the

developer forum is also not active.

The nearest competitor of similar facility provider is TikiWiki. Similar to ‘Media Wiki’ by

Wikipedia.org, TikiWiki is open source, multilingual and based on content management

system (CMS). It has many applications (commonly known as plugins or mods) built-in and

ready to use. However, a server with MySQL support needs to be installed and good PHP

programming skill is also required for organizing and designing pages. It has the most robust

Page | 135
engine (built-in) found among all the candidate platforms. The most interesting feature of Tiki

is its ‘wiki’ feature, which means that the participants can develop text on a page with

collaboration. As it is not ready-to-use, every function needs to assign/design from scratch,

which is the main drawback of this application from a non-programmer’s point of view.

The service provided by ning is found suitable and ready to use. It is a readymade solution

and for installing application, no previous knowledge of programming is required. Available

themes and built-in features can be added and manipulated anytime. It has functionality of

social bookmarking so any member can link their content to other social networking

platforms. However, ‘ning’ is hosted on its own server and does not allow server access to the

site owner, which means the administrator has no control on the archive. Moreover, the

service provided by ning.com, is highly priced. For example, a moderate package of 10GB

space with 10,000 allowable participants is priced $25 per month, which is beyond the

affordable limit of this research. The social network engine, Elgg, with a variety of plugins

and free GPL license, has been found to be robust and manageable. The whole engine is

based on PHP and supported by MySQL database. However, with this great potential, its poor

documentation becomes the major drawback for selecting Elgg. Moreover, it has been found

to be slow on some servers.

Finally, ‘Dolphin’ has been selected. Dolphin is a free engine (advertising supported), which

is a product of BoonEx community software. Like other CMS platform such as Joomla,

Drupal or Omeka, Dolphin provides an environment to develop a customized website

according to the user’s need. Dolphin is specially built for community service as found on

social networking, matchmaking or dating sites. Nevertheless, the flexibility to use and

manage policy has the potential for further developing and customizing the collaborative

experiment portal. A wide range of independent modules of distinct features has made

Dolphin unique to others. However, this platform also suffers from its limited documentation

and help facilities. Third party supports are available through the Dolphin forum but have a

high service charge.

Page | 136
Table 5.2 : Comparison of candidate platforms for multi-user online collaboration

Platforms

Ning.com TikiWiki.org Omeka.org Facebook Dolphin.com Elgg.org

Requirements
Yes, via
Forum Yes Yes No Yes Yes
plugin
Comments (on
Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
each post)
Yes, via
Upload content Yes Yes Yes Limited Yes
plugin
Customize Themes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Member’s own
Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
page
Announcement Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -
Search Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -
File and Image
Yes Yes Yes Limited Yes -
gallery
Wiki (common
Yes, via
content No Yes No No Yes
plugin
development)
Live chat Yes Yes No Yes No No
Google map
Yes Yes Yes No Yes -
support
No No Yes No No No
(need to do (need to be (built-in (need to be (need to be (need to be
QR tag connection
manually) done support) done done done
manually) manually) manually) manually)
Social bookmarking Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
(connection with (not with (not with (need to do
other external facebook) facebook) manually)
network)
Contact form Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
Hosting support Yes No No Yes Yes No
Server access No Yes. Yes. No Yes Yes

Yes + Yes + Yes + Poor

Documentation Yes Developers Developers Yes Developers
forum forum forum
Yes. Require Require Yes. Require Require
Pre-given installation installation User can installation installation in
template. CSS on own on own form group. on own own server.
knowledge server. server. Easy to use. server. Programming
required for Programming Advance No access to Programming knowledge
Ready to use
customization. knowledge programming database and knowledge required for
No access to required. knowledge no required for PHP and
[for developer]
database. Not Flexible and required. permission PHP and MySQL.
flexible in database Flexible and for addition MySQL.
manipulating access. database of new pages.
pages or access.
linking
external
content
Platform Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes. Yes.
independency
Moderate - Fast - Moderate - Moderate - Slow on some
Speed and Stability Fast - stable
stable unstable stable stable servers
Free (30days). Free. Free. Free Free with Free.
Packages Require own Require own (allocated add. Non-add Require own
varies from $3 domain & domain & space not version costs domain &
Price
to $60/month hosting hosting known) $99. Require hosting
own domain
& hosting

Page | 137
5.2 SELECTION OF REAL-WORLD HERITAGE SITE

Since its discovery in the early twentieth century, the ruins of the Sompur Buddhist monastery

(figure 5.1) have become the focus of the scholars of the architectural history of Bengal. The

‘Sompur Vihara’, known locally as Paharpur Vihara, was built in the 3rd century A.D. when

it was used as the ‘Chaturmukha Jaina temple’ (Dikshit, 1938). Apart from ‘Nalanda’, it is

probably the single largest (85000m2 or 21 acres) vihara in Southern Asia. The quadrangular

structure consists of 177 cells and a traditional Buddhist stupa at the centre (figure 5.2).

Figure 5.1 : Present view of the central temple of the Sompur Buddhist monastery

Figure 5.2 : Plan of the Sompur Buddhist monastery

Page | 138
In addition to the large number of stupas and shrines of various sizes and shapes, terracotta

plaques, stone sculptures, inscriptions, coins, ceramics etc. have been discovered. Considering

its cultural and historical significance, UNESCO has inscribed it as a World’s Cultural

Heritage Site in 1985 (more images are attached in appendix L and M).

Since the discovery of the ruins, many researchers have tried to visualize and reconstruct

(virtually) the central temple. Scholarly debates still prevail about the authenticity and

appropriateness of its past. However, this phenomenon is common in most heritage sites,

especially in those cases where the heritage buildings are presently ruined and limited amount

of archaeological resources are available to fill up the lacuna (Rahaman and Rashid, 2010).

Considering this on-going scholarly debate on identifying the genuine form of the central

temple (figure 3.1), this site inherits the potential to be used as a case study for this research.

Although it is almost impossible to retrieve the lost form as it was, it was more convenient to

collate and examine all the available resources that may have had some impact on the

architectural form of this building. That is to allow the general people to interact with one

other (online), with the scholars and researchers, as well as comment and contribute

experience, memories or oral history. In this way, it is possible to gather polysemic views of

the past through collaboration and collective disposition of common spatial and social

experience, thus developing multiplicity in the digital knowledge base.

5.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

5.3.1 Encoding and decoding process

The encoding process starts with grouping different considerations to get the support

applications, and operationalization of the online platform (more in section 5.1.1). As the

experiment platform selected to be a ‘2D environment’, the settings became limited to textual,

visual and audio based types, without offering any VR functionality. However, the required

Page | 139
considerations and their applications were largely dependent on the tools or media used

(explained in 4.4). Thus, it depends on the designer’s or developer’s preference in selecting

the function/application from the specific media/tool. Therefore, the encoding process varies

according to the media/tool and finishes once the platform (digital heritage environment) is

constructed. The structure of the online platform is illustrated in figure 5.3.

However, the decoding process starts as the platform begins to be populated by the end-users.

According to the research hypothesis, the decoding process depends on the interpretation

offered by the online platform. Based on two distinct interpretive processes and group

distribution, each end-user experienced a specific online platform and interpreted the digital

heritage (i.e. the Buddhist monastery) by utilizing the given settings.

5.3.2 Content development and validation

In order to orientate the end-users, basic descriptive contents on Sompur Mahavihara was

made with the help of Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org) and the PhD dissertation report by Dr.

Mizanur Rashid. The information was categorized under introduction, architecture,

excavation, history, the central temple, virtual tour, more information and getting there

(contents are attached in appendix I). This information was then sent to the expert members of

group E (description of group members are mentioned in section 4.1.3) for vetting. The

necessary modification and update were done according to their comments and were prepared

for the online platform.

5.3.3 Web hosting, Developing and Setting the platform

Domain and Server setting:

A domain name of ‘bdheritage.org’ was reserved (12$/year) from one of the most popular

service providers, godaddy (www.godaddy.com). The host server was rented from a

commercial web-space provider, arvixe (www.arvixe.com) for one year. A ‘personal class’

Page | 140
service (not a dedicated server) was selected because of its unlimited disk space and unlimited

monthly data transfer offered with a minimum charge ($60/year) as compared with the other

service provider. In addition, this server provides other services such as cPanel Control (easy

controlling for admin), FTP account, Corn jobs (necessary to run scheduled tasks/script),

MIME types files support (required for flash and video chat), WebDisk (easy backup of users’

contributions), MySQL5 support (database management) and PHPMyAdmin (control PHP

files). According to arvixe’s domain name server (DNS) setting, the space was later

connected with godaddy’s server with the domain name of http://bdhritage.org. The host

server provides a control panel with ‘Softaculous’ that helps to install the basic dolphin

engine.

Developing the platform:

It is mentioned earlier that the architecture of bdheritage.info is based on a free engine named

‘Dolphin platform’ (section 5.1.4). Like other CMS platform such as Joomla, Drupal or

Omeka, Dolphin provides an environment to develop a customized website according to the

user’s need. Dolphin is specially built for community service as found on matchmaking or

dating sites. Therefore, it required much effort to develop the experiment platform that is

much more serious (education) in nature.

A wide range of independent modules of distinct features like forum, blog, news, chat,

people, photos, videos and construction of pages, required modification according to the

research objectives. Addition and modification of customized server side code was done

through changing the PHP codes, which were connected with the backend MySQL database

server. Some customized new modules were added according to specific functions. Most of

the administrative functions such as the access rights of the users, managing resources,

managing events, module management etc. were controlled through the administrative panel.

Page | 141
Figure 5.3 : The experiment platform (bdheritage.info)

Page | 142
Features and design:

The design of the experiment platform was intended to be kept as simple as possible, bearing

in mind that most participants would be the general people with limited bandwidth or access

to the internet. The visual design, which followed the features from the common and popular

social-networking sites, was created keeping in mind to ensure affordances among most

novice participants. All visual jargons with heavy flash contents were eliminated from the

pre-set installed package. The front page highlighted the basic information of the site and its

objective. The rest was dynamic, connected with the databases, and represented the latest

updates of any new submission and activities from end-users (figure 5.4, 5.5, 5.6). Any

updates of photo, video, blog post or forum posts were dynamically linked on the front page.

Without going to the main forum/blog section, the users could view the latest posts with some

hints (figure 5.7 and 5.8). Therefore, a choice could be made before selecting and opening any

page. Due to this dynamic nature of the home page, every visit ought to be unique to the end-

users due to the presence of new information.

Page | 143
Figure 5.4 : Homepage (partial) showing recent videos and links uploaded by end-users

Page | 144
Figure 5.5 : Posted files and feedback by end-users

Page | 145
 Screenshot on 20th September, 2010

Screenshot on 1st November, 2010

Screenshot on 29th November, 2010

Screenshot on 13th December, 2010

Figure 5.6 : Homepage (partial) showing images uploaded by end-users

Page | 146
[Screenshot on 11th December 2010]

Figure 5.7 : Blog posts by end-users

[Screenshot on 19th December 2010]

Figure 5.8 : Forum Spy showing real-time activities of users

Page | 147
3D reconstructed models from previous researchers were presented (figure 5.9). Clicking on

each model opened another page, whereby the users could rotate and watch those 3D models

from any side. Moreover, 360-degree panoramic views from three locations around the site

added an extra climax to the end-users. The panoramic views were made in flash and allowed

viewing in a full screen mode (figure 5.10).

(a) 3D models grouped on the front page (b) Users can rotate 3D models with enlarge view

Figure 5.9 : Interactive 3D models of Sompur Mahavihara

(a) Plan showing three hot-spots for 360 degree panoramic views (b) 360 degree panoramic views from south-east corner

Figure 5.10 : 360-degree panoramic views of Sompur Mahavihara

The file section allowed uploading and sharing of any document files (pdf, doc or zip) in the

database. This helped other users to see and download those files. However, sharing of any

Page | 148
content raises the question of copyright issue. Therefore, by default, the users had to agree

that he possesses the rights to distribute the content before uploading any content. Moreover,

the online contents, heritage news or website could be posted as a web link to be shared with

others (figure 5.4, 5.5). Moderators informed the users about the latest and upcoming events.

In return, the users could post feedback about their experience or contact directly through the

online form or inbuilt email system (each user received an email ID with 25MB of server

space).

Based on the contribution and activity, some featured members were selected and were

mentioned biweekly on the front page of the platform (figure 5.4). This was done to

encourage and influence other users to become more active. A Facebook page was created

and linked to the front page. If any Facebook user ‘like’ this page, it is reflected on the

platform by showing the last ten activities. Through the ‘spy’ section, the users can also see

the last five activities of the site. Moreover, the users could have an idea through the ‘site

stats’ about the whole site statistics (figure 5.5). Furthermore, each participant had their

profile page with his or her personal information and could manage it or contact with others,

make friends and create groups. With this portal, the users could also have a video chat

(figure 5.11).

Page | 149
Figure 5.11 : Profile page of a member

5.4 DISCUSSION

This chapter has explained the process of design and construction of the experiment platform.

The process whereby the platform was anticipated to be used, the restrictions imposed, the

offered interaction modes and features, as well as the seeding and planting of the site have

been explained.

Grounding or operationalizing the considerations is found to be the most critical and

challenging. As the application solely depends on the tools or media used for hosting digital

heritage, the selection of proper functions (which are offered by the tools/media) is, therefore,

largely dependent on the designer and the objective of the project (explained in section 4.4,

5.3.1). This experiment was limited to the construction based on a 2D online platform and the

selection of operational functions (section 5.1.1) was done according to the option available

Page | 150
and supported by the web-based CMS engine (i.e. dolphin engine, selection process explained

in 5.1.4). The technical expertise of the designer, and the availability of technology and time,

therefore, played a vital role here for the execution. The experiment platform required a high

bandwidth therefore, the hosting server played an important role in supporting the large data

transfer. However, due to limited budget, the experiment platform was hosted on a shared

server under a shared IP. A dedicated server with a high bandwidth could provide a better

performance.

A variety of features (instant messaging, blog, forum, chat, spy, text/image/video up-loader,

comment, news, feedback etc.) was added to allow dialogue and interaction from end-users.

Even a Wiki like feature might be helpful for end-users to allow shared-writing of textual

content. However, this feature was intentionally avoided, keeping in mind any accidental or

‘intentional’ deletion of data. Instead, forum and blog were offered for individuals to freely

post any comment on each other. In this way, any member could suggest any addition or

deletion to the respective owner of that post by the use of a comment. As a result, each

suggestion and comment was also kept as a resource for the research in a more secure way.

The data obtained from the post-experience ‘end-user survey’ has been analysed, compared

and the results are explained in the following chapter.

Page | 151
 CHAPTER 06
DATA ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

This chapter analyses and presents the results of the data obtained from the semi-structured

questionnaire responded by 160 participants from two groups, A and B. Data were collected

and processed in response to the problems introduced in the previous chapter 4.0 of this

report. The fundamental goal here was to compare the attained interpretation between these

two groups. That is to investigate the impact (if any) of the conceptual framework on

enhancing the end-users’ interpretation (i.e. learning, provocation, satisfaction and multiple

perspective of the past) of digital heritage. Before the initiation of the experiment and survey,

the significance, rationale and purpose of the study were explained to the respondents.

Furthermore, the respondents were assured that their responses were kept confidential. As the

questionnaire was based on a ‘self-rating’ response, this study assumed that all the

participants answered the survey questions honestly.

A standard procedure was employed in the quantitative data analysis section. The data was

entered in the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. Descriptive

statistics such as Cross tabulations and Mean values together with simple inferential statistic

techniques such as Chi-square and One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used. On

the other hand, self-reported descriptive written responses (Q26, appendix X) were examined

through thematic ‘content analysis’ (Holsti, 1969, Jenner and Titscher, 2000, Kumar, 2005).

In this way, each response was examined, the common themes identified, named (coded) and

finally, the responses were classified under these themes. Later, the data were analysed to

determine the frequency of the themes to understand the difference between the groups.

Page | 152
For the purpose of evaluation, the null hypothesis (H0) assumes that ‘there is no difference

between the groups’. According to inferential statistics, F-value higher than 0.005, therefore,

‘voids’ the assumption and signifies the group difference. This also implies the acceptance of

the alternative hypothesis, i.e. H1: there is a difference between the groups. The

methodologies, sampling procedures, data collection process and analytical strategies were

explained in previous chapter 04.

6.1 PARTICIPANTS’ BIBLIOGRAPHICAL PROFILE

A total number of 160 respondents were selected and grouped into two different controlled

groups. However, 11 responses were rejected due to incomplete or partial completion of

feedback. Therefore, 149 respondents (group A=77 and group B=72) were considered

legitimate for this research.

Table 6.1 : Demographic profile of the participants

Gender
Category of the respondents
male female Total
Group A Department Architecture 37 18 55
BBA 3 1 4
CSE 5 0 5
ECE 4 0 4
English 1 0 1
FMRT 1 1 2
Math 1 0 1
Mathematics 1 0 1
MBBS 1 0 1
Pharmachy 1 0 1
Soil science 1 0 1
URP 1 0 1
Total 57 20 77
Group B Department Architecture 45 15 60
BGE 2 0 2
ECE 1 0 1
English 1 0 1
FMRT 1 0 1
Social Science 2 4 6
URP 1 0 1
Total 53 19 72

Prior to the application/implementation of the final survey, a pilot survey was conducted on a

small group of 10 participants. Their responses were analysed and some redesign and update

Page | 153
in both the questionnaire and experiment platform were done to minimize ambiguity and

unexpected disparities of answers, as well as to improve user-experience of the online

experiment platform.

From the above table 6.1, it is clear that most of the respondents in both groups were from the

department of Architecture. The common background of these respondents acted as an

indicative factor of having a genuine interest on built-heritage, thus making them suitable as

survey participants. Table 6.1 shows that the number of male participants (74%) dominates

the female participants (26%). The female and male ratio might have some effect on the

overall response pattern but this research did not investigate the differences of individual

patterns between the sexes.

70.1
Group A (%)
52.8 Group B (%)
Response in percentage

42.2

29.9

Visited Not visited

Figure 6.1 : Visit count of the real world heritage site

The responses show that (in figure 6.1) most of the respondents from both groups (group A

70.1%, group B 52.8%) have never visited the physical heritage site (i.e. Sompur

Mahavihara). On the other hand, those who visited the site (group A 65%, group B 37%)

reported their visit within the last 1-year. A chi-square test of independence [F2 (2,

N=59)=4.796, ρ>.091] with ρ value greater than 0.05 indicates that the equality of the groups

in visiting the real-world heritage site and the difference is not significant (appendix N).

Page | 154
Table 6.2 : Self-rating of internet-usage expertise by respondents

Respondent category Expertise of using internet

expert great deal of moderate some novice
experience experience experience
Group A (%) 4.1 10.8 37.8 43.2 4.1
Group B (%) 4.2 13.9 43.1 38.9 0

97.2
Group A (%)
Response in percentage

Group B (%)
59.7

40.3

2.8

Yes No

Figure 6.2 : Membership of social networking site

A large number of respondents from both groups reported as experienced internet users while

only a small number (4.1%) from group A was found to be as novices (Table 6.2). Most of the

participants had the experience of using the Internet. Nevertheless, as compared to group B

(97.2%), group A (59.7%) has a lower membership of any online community (figure 6.2).

57.1

Group A (%)
Respondents in percentage

38.9 Group B (%)

36.4 36.1

12.5 12.5

3.9 2.6

Less than 1hr/day 1 to 2 hr/day 2 to 3 hr/day 3 more hr/day

Frequency of use

Figure 6.3 : Frequency of using the experiment platform during experiment week

Page | 155
It is quite evident that the respondents from group B spent more time with the experiment

platform (figure 6.3). The Chi-square test of independence [F2 (3, N=149)=10.929, ρ<0.012]

with ρ value less than 0.05 indicates that this difference among the groups is significant

(appendix O).

6.2 EVALUATING END-USERS’ SATISFACTION

According to this research, satisfaction is one of the four components or determinants that

affect end-users’ interpretation of heritage. This section summarizes the result of perceived

satisfaction between two groups of respondents. To operationalize, the concept of

‘satisfaction’ was converted into 3 indicators, i.e. (i) expectation fulfilled, (ii) appreciation of

visit and (iii) pleasure achieved, and later, into 10 variables (as explained in table 4.2).

Respondents were asked to reply 5 questions in this section (Q9 to Q12, appendix D).

6.2.1 Expectation fulfilled

The end-users’ fulfilment of expectation was measured using four variables; i.e. (i) found

uniqueness in content, (ii) got new/advanced information, (iii) easy to navigate and use and

(iv) received support/feedback from others. One-way ANOVA tests were conducted to verify

possible significant mean differences between group A and group B regarding their

expectation fulfilment (detail of ANOVA results are attached in appendix P). Apart from the

response on ‘easy to navigate and use’, the results reported in table 6.3 indicate that the level

of expectation fulfil on getting new information, easy to navigate and use, and in receiving

feedback, is significantly higher among the respondents from group B as compared to group

A.

Page | 156
Table 6.3 : Expectation fulfilment

Indicators Variables Response Mean ANOVA H0

53.2
Group A
43.1
36.1 Group B
Found unique 23.4 0.78 (A) F(1,147)=8.245,
20.8 Rejected
contents 15.6 p<0.005
7.8
0 0 0

S.A. A N D S.D. 1.15 (B)

54.2
48

38.9

Got new 23.4

0.82 (A) F(1,147)=15.333,
20.8 Rejected
information p<0.000
5.6 7.8
1.4 0 0
Expectation S.A. A N D S.D. 1.31 (B)
Fulfill 45.8
41.6

30.6
27.3
Easy to navigate 0.49 (A) F(1,147)=0.459,
18.1 Accepted
and use 14.3 13 p>0.499
5.6
3
0

S.A. A N D S.D. 0.39 (B)

62.5

33.8 36.4
0.19 (A) F(1,147)=18.601,
Received feedback 25 Rejected
p<0.000
11.1 14.3
7.8 7.8
0 1.4

S.A. A N D S.D. 0.82 (B)

[Legend: S.A=strongly agree, A=agree, N=neutral, D=disagree, S.D=strongly disagree]

Most of the respondents from both groups (group A 53.2%, group B 43.1%) agreed to have

unique contents, after one-week experience of using the online experiment platform.

However, a higher mean value from group B (µA=0.78, µB=1.15) indicates that more

respondents agreed on this issue as compared to group A. The group difference from one-way

ANOVA is found significant F(1.147)=8.245, ρ<0.005 and the null hypothesis, therefore, is

rejected (detail in appendix P). Responses in table 6.3 also show a strong difference between

both groups on having ‘new information’. The value from one-way ANOVA [F

(1,147)=5.802, p<0.017] indicates that the group difference is significant. However, 54.2%

respondents from group B and 48% from group A agreed to attain new information from this

portal. Interestingly, no one from any group disagreed on this issue.

There was no communication channel (e.g. chat room, forum and blog) opened/allowed for

the experiment platform of group A. However around 40% of the respondents reported that

they have communicated and received feedback. This may be a result of the respondents’

personal connection and prior knowing of each other, which probably have helped them to

Page | 157
receive feedback outside of the platform and is beyond the limit of investigation of this

research. However, as compared to group A (41.6%), group B (72.6%) received more

feedback and response from others. A one-way ANOVA test result of F(1,147)=18.601,

ρ<0.000 also supports that this difference is significant. Nevertheless, for both groups, the

platform was ‘easy to navigate and use’ and the response difference was insignificant

[F(1,147)=0.459, p>0.499] (appendix P).

6.2.2 Appreciation of visit

In this section of the questionnaire, both groups were asked to reply to three issues, i.e. (i)

self-appreciation of online visit, i.e. whether they like to suggest visiting this web portal

before visiting the real-world heritage site, (ii) their self-appreciation of

involvement/membership of this portal and (iii) their willingness to inform others about this

web-portal. Responses on table 6.4 demonstrate that, the respondents from group B are more

affirmative than those from group A on the first two issues. However, no significant

difference is found on the third issue, i.e., willingness to inform others [F(1,147)=0.404,

p>0.526] (appendix Q).

Table 6.4 : Appreciation of visit

Indicators Variables Response Mean ANOVA H0

51.4
44.2 Group A
38.9
35.1 Group B
Self-appreciation of 1.09 (A) F(1,147)=5.802,
16.9
Rejected
online visit p<0.017
8.3
2.6 1.4 1.3 0

S.A. A N D S.D. 1.4 (B)

61.1
51.9

Appriceation of Self appreciation of 0.84 (A) F(1,147)=6.455,

27.8 28.6 Rejected
visit membership p<0.012
11.7 11.1
3.9 3.9
0 0

S.A. A N D S.D. 1.17 (B)

57.1
52.8

36.1
31.2
Willingness to 1.18 (A) F(1,147)=0.404,
Accepted
inform others p>0.526
10.4 11.1
1.3 0 0 0

S.A. A N D S.D. 1.25 (B)

[Legend: S.A=strongly agree, A=agree, N=neutral, D=disagree, S.D=strongly disagree]

Page | 158
It is evident, in table 6.4, that a total number of 88.9% of the respondents from group B

appreciated their membership. As compared to group A (63.6%), this high percentage makes

the difference in means and is reported as statistically significant [F(1,147)=6.455, p<0.012].

There is an even greater percentage from both group A and B (79.3% and 90.3% respectively)

who appreciated the site and recommended others to visit this experiment platform (i.e.

bdheritage.info) before visiting the physical heritage site; one-way ANOVA test shows

[F(1,147)=5.802, p<0.017] that the group difference is significant and the responses from

group B (µ1.40) are higher than those from group A (µ1.09).

6.2.3 Pleasure achieved

Both groups were asked to rate their overall fun and experience of using this online heritage

portal during the week of the experiment. However, the respondents from group B reported

having greater fun and experience as compared to those from group A.

Table 6.5 : Pleasure and overall experience

Indicators Variables Response Mean ANOVA H0

47.2
Group A
33.8 31.9
Group B
27.3
19.5
0.26 (A) F(1,147)=4.510,
Have fun Rejected
14.3
11.1
p<0.035
9.7
5.2
0

Overall S.A. A N D S.D. 0.6 (B)

69.5
satisfaction
50.7

0.67 (A) F(1,143)=17.168,

Overall experience 23.6 26.0 Rejected
p<0.000
13.7
6.9 8.2
0 1.4 0

excellent good neutral poor very poor 1.17 (B)

[Legend: S.A=strongly agree, A=agree, N=neutral, D=disagree, S.D=strongly disagree]

The result reported in table 6.5 indicates that group B (µ0.60) depicts more fun than group A

(µ0.26). A one-way ANOVA [F(1,147)=4.510, ρ<0.035] also signifies this group difference.

Similarly, it is also evident from self-reporting on overall satisfaction. Responses on

experience obtained from group B is significantly higher as compared to group A (µA=0.67,

µB=1.17). Moreover, the results from one-way ANOVA [F(1,143)=17.168, ρ<0.000], a ρ-

Page | 159
value of 0.000, also indicate no similarities among the groups (for more detail see appendix

R). Therefore, the group difference is significant.

Referring to the above analysis and discussion it can be summarized that the participants of

group B had more fun, received more feedback from others, found more unique contents and

new information. Self-appreciation of membership, willingness to recommend this web-portal

before visiting the physical site, and overall experience were found to be significantly

higher/better among the participants of group B as compared to group A. Therefore, it is

certain that the overall ‘satisfaction’ was much higher among group B members.

6.3 EVALUATING END-USERS’ PROVOCATION AND EMPATHY

This research highlights that end-users’ provocation or empathy towards a heritage site

largely affects their overall understanding of the past. Therefore, facilitating end-users’

attitudinal or behavioural change is one of the major objectives of heritage interpretation

(explained in section 3.2). This section summarizes the self-rated responses from both groups

to verify any possible changes in provocation and empathy towards Sompur Mahavihara after

using the experimental platform for one week. The concept of provocation and empathy were

converted into two indicators, i.e. (i) self-attitudinal changes and (ii) greater interest on the

topic, and six variables (explained in 4.2.1, table 4.3), and respondents were requested to

answer a set of six questions in this section (Q14, appendix D).

6.3.1 Self-attitudinal changes

Possible attitudinal changes among the end-users has been measured using four variables, i.e.

(i) increase of personal and emotional interest, (ii) intend to protect the site/support future

conservation work, (iii) willingness to join any volunteer service/conservation group and (iv)

willingness for financial support. One-way ANOVA is used to verify any significance in

differences between the groups’ responses.

Page | 160
Table 6.6 illustrates a comparison between two groups on the basis of their responses on self-

attitudinal changes. It is quite evident that, in terms of increase of personal and emotional

interest (µA=0.86, µB=1.20), intention to protect and support conservation works (µ A=1.01,

µB=1.32), and willingness to join a conservation group (µA=0.58, µB=0.86), group B

demonstrates a higher empathy towards Sompur Mahavihara. One-way ANOVA tests for the

above-mentioned issues also indicate that the differences are significant (more detail in

appendix S). However, it is particularly interesting to note that both groups showed a

common ground [F(1,142)=0.084, p>0.773] by keeping most of their responses as ‘neutral’

(group A=52.8%, group B=45.8%), regarding the issue of financial support.

Table 6.6 : Self-attitudinal changes

Indicators Variables Response Mean ANOVA H0

52.3
Group A
41.7
36.4 Group B
Increase of personal & 25
27.8 0.86 (A) F(1,141)=6.789,
Rejected
emotional interest p<0.010
9.9
5.5
1.4 0 0

S.A. A N D S.D. 1.2 (B)

51.4
43.2
40.3

29.7 1.01 (A)

Willingness to 25.7 F(1,144)=6.771,
Rejected
protect/ support p<0.010
8.3
1.4 0 0 0
Self-attitudinal S.A. A N D S.D. 1.32 (B)
change
48.3

37
32.9
Willingness to join 24.6 25.3 23.6 0.58 (A) F(1,143)=4.132,
Rejected
volunteer service p<0.044
4.1 2.8 1.4 0

S.A. A N D S.D. 0.86 (B)

52.8
45.8

31.9
Willingness for 26.4 0.46 (A) F(1,142)=0.084,
Accepted
financial support 13.9 13.9 p>0.773
5.6 6.9
1.4 1.4

S.A. A N D S.D. 0.5 (B)

[Legend: S.A=strongly agree, A=agree, N=neutral, D=disagree, S.D=strongly disagree]

6.3.2 Greater interest on topic

Table 6.7 presents the end-users’ reflection on having an interest in getting more information

about Sompur Mahavihara and a willingness to visit other similar real-world heritage sites.

The result indicates that group B has become more interested (µA=1.0, µB=1.43) to know

Page | 161
more about Sompur Mahavihara, and the value of this group difference is statistically

significant [F(1,145)=6.810, p<0.001] (more in appendix T).

Table 6.7 : Greater interest on Sompur Mahavihara

Indicators Variables Response Mean ANOVA H0

51.4
42.7 40.3
Group A
32 Group B
Willingness to get 1.0 (A) F(1,145)=6.810,
20 Rejected
more information p<0.001
8.3
4 1.3
0 0
Greater S.A. A N D S.D. 1.43 (B)
interest on
52.8 52.8
topic
37.5
Willingness to visit 30.6
1.35 (A) F(1,142)=0.174,
other real-world Accepted
15.2 p>0.579
heritage sites 8.3
1.4 1.4 0 0

S.A. A N D S.D. 1.42 (B)

[Legend: S.A=strongly agree, A=agree, N=neutral, D=disagree, S.D=strongly disagree]

Surprisingly, almost equal number of members from both groups showed their interest in

visiting similar real-world heritage sites. This was possibly a result of their involvement with

the experimental process regardless of any impact from the platform.

One of the major aims of interpretation is ‘provocation’. It became evident that, almost twice

the number of respondents from group B reported their increase of personal and emotional

interest in Sompur Mahavihara due to, their access to and involvement with, this portal as

compared to group A.

6.4 EVALUATING LEARNING

According to the objective of this research, effective interpretation should promote

knowledge acquisition and learning of the past. Therefore, a successful interpretive process

might enhance the knowledge gain of the end-users. This section summarizes the result of

‘section c’ (learning) of the questionnaire (section C, Appendix D). In order to measure the

concept of learning among the groups, two indicators and three variables are selected.

Responses on these variables, i.e. (i) remembering and recall information, (ii) self-reporting

on knowledge gain and (iii) identification and distinguish from similar objects, were used to

Page | 162
understand the indicators, i.e. (1) increase consolidate knowledge and (2) ability to link prior

knowledge and experience (explained in section 4.2, table 4.3).

6.4.1 Increase consolidate knowledge

‘Remembering and recalling’ was measured on the basis of identification of features and

answering from multiple-choice questions. First, the respondents were asked to identify six

features marked on the plan of Sompur Mahavihara (Q15, appendix D). Figure 6.4 shows that

group B has managed to remember and identify more features from the plan of Sompur

Mahavihara when compared to group A.

Among six features, most of the respondents from both groups (group A=53.3%, group

B=80.3%) identified the ‘entry-gate’. On the other hand, only 11.8% from group A and 25.3%

from group B correctly identified the image-shrine. However, 35.85% of the respondents

from group A correctly answered all the questions, in contrast to 57.7% of the respondents

from group B; hence, there was a remarkable difference. This higher performance on recalling

and identifying ability from group B demonstrated the possibility of a strong impact by the

interpretive process.
Correct answers in percentage

80.3 Group A
72.6 75 Group B

56.9
53.3
44.7 46.1
36.1
31.6
25.3 27.6

11.8

Entry Gate Living cells Central temple Image shrine Courtyard Service
Features in plan of Sompur Mahavihara

Figure 6.4 : Identification of features marked on the plan of Sompur Mahavihara

The respondents were later asked to select the right answers from a multiple-choice options

by remembering or recalling the period of construction and the number of cells of the

Page | 163
monastery (Q16 &17, appendix D). A correlation coefficient measures the strength of the

relationship between the groups on answering these questions (table 6.8). A greater value of

F2 (greater than 0.05) implies no significant difference among groups and lower values

indicate vice versa. For example, F2 (3.881, df=1, p<0.049) in recalling the number of cells

and F2 (3.481, df=1, p<0.027) in recalling the period of construction shows that p values are

smaller than 0.05, thus implying a significant difference in group responses (appendix U).

Table 6.8 : Remembering, Recall and Identification of wrong information between groups

Respondent category
Responses on F2 value
Group A (%) Group B (%)

Recall number of cells 65.6 80.6 p<0.049

Recall period of construction 24.7 41.7 p<0.027

Identified wrong image 66.2 65.3 p>0.911

Finally, the respondents were asked to rate on a five-point Likert-scale [strongly agree (+2),

agree (+1), neutral (0), disagree (-1) and strongly disagree (-2)] to express their personal

judgment on any increase of knowledge about Sompur Mahavihara due to exploring this

platform during the experiment week.

59.7
Group A
52.1
Response in percentage

Group B

30.6
25.4

8.5 6.9 8.5

5.6
2.8
0

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Figure 6.5 : Self-rating from respondents on overall knowledge gain

Page | 164
The results in figure 6.5 show that, a large number of respondents from both groups (group

A=77.5%, group B=90.3%) agreed on the increase of their knowledge of Sompur Mahavihara

due to exploring the experiment portal. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used

to measure the variance within and between the variables. The value F(1,141)=4.166, p<0.043

(as p is lower than 0.05) indicates that the responses from group B is significantly different

from group A. Nevertheless, a higher positive means-value (µA=0.83, µB=1.15) indicates that

more respondents from group B support this argument (analysis in appendix V).

6.4.2 Link to prior knowledge and experience

In this section, the respondents were asked to identify a dissimilar image from a set of images

of Sompur Mahavihara (Q18, appendix D). Among the four images, three were from Sompur

Mahavihara and one was from Basu Vihara. Although it was not so easy to identify the

dissimilar image, the responses plotted in table 6.8 indicate the group difference as

insignificant F2 (0.13, df=1, p>0.911 (appendix U).

Disseminating cultural knowledge or ‘educational motive’ is one of the major objectives of

heritage interpretation (Moscardo 1996). Therefore, the effectiveness of the interpretive

process also relies on how effectively the end-users can acquire the knowledge and become

aware of the past. Findings from this section 6.4, indicate a better performance from group B

on answering all factual questions as compared to group A.

6.5 EVALUATING MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES OF THE PAST

According to this research, the incorporation of ‘dialogue interaction’ in the interpretive

process allows the end-users to produce an explicit knowledge base that possibly contains

heterogeneous perspectives of the past. Moreover, access to this generic information along

with professional content, therefore, allow the end-users to have multiple views of the past.

Hence, it enhances end-users’ interpretation. This section, therefore, analyses both open-

Page | 165
ended (descriptive) and close-ended (structured) responses from the participants, to

investigate the present research argument. The questionnaire was designed with reference to

two indicators, i.e. (i) fill in the blank and (ii) descriptive self-report on the new

understanding, with a set of four variables (more in section 4.2.1, table 4.4).

6.5.1 Fill in the blank

Sompur Mahavihara was one of the major learning centres during the reign of the Pala kings

of the 8th century. However, it served different purposes in the later years. In this section, the

respondents were asked (Q23) to reply to what they knew about the monastery before visiting

this website. This question was followed by another question (Q24), asking them to mention

any new purpose of the Monastery that had been learnt during the exploration period of this

heritage portal. In this way, Q23 helped to verify and measure the response of Q24. Table 6.9

shows the result obtained from question no Q24 after verifying the answers.

Table 6.9 : New purposes learned from the web portal

Respondent New purposes learned

category
None One Two Three Four/more

Group A (%) 44.2 42.9 11.7 1.3 0

Group B (%) 0 36.1 51.4 6.9 5.6

It was interesting to know that every respondent from group B had at least found a new

purpose that was unknown to him/her. On the other hand, a large number of respondents

(44.2%) from group A found nothing new or avoided to answer. A maximum number of four

new purposes had even noted by the respondents from group B but, surprisingly, none from

group A reached that peak. The significant value (sig) from one-way ANOVA was used to

check any significant difference among the groups on findings new purposes. The value of F

(1,147)=80.657, p<0.000 (as p is lower than 0.05) indicates that difference between the

Page | 166
groups is highly significant and the responses from group B (µB = 1.82) is much higher than

group A (µA= 0.7) [analysis in appendix W].

6.5.2 Descriptive self-report on attaining new perspective

It is quite ambitious to identify and verify whether any new perspective of the past of Sompur

Mahavihara had been attained by the respondents except that they were willing to report their

emotional reaction and appreciation. Therefore, the respondents were asked to describe their

new understanding (if any) of this heritage site (i.e. Sompur Mahavihara) gained through the

weeklong exploration of this experimental portal (Q26, appendix D).

85
Group A
Response in percentage

Group B
61

39

15

Replied Not replied / avoided

Figure 6.6 : Response rate of self-reporting of new understanding gained

Among 149 respondents in both groups, only 90 were considered legitimate due to the

elimination of incomplete and fallacious responses. It is also unexpected that a large number

of respondents (61%) from group A either avoided or replied incompletely (figure 6.6). Due

to the descriptive text (written response) a ‘thematic content analysis’ (Holsti, 1969, Jenner

and Titscher, 2000, Kumar, 2005) method was used. All responses were carefully examined

to identify common themes. According to the objective of the research of attaining multiple

perspectives of past (table 4.5), the themes are identified on the basis of:

(i) Self-appreciation of attaining new perspective and knowledge

Page | 167
 (ii) Recognition and realization of personal insight and empathy and

(iii) Changes in beliefs, values and attitudes

While responding to question Q26, the respondents from both groups (group A=28%, group

B=48%) agreed that they had attained new knowledge on different aspects of Sompur

Mahavihara. They also mentioned some changes to their previous understanding about the

heritage site. Below are the major themes derived from these responses:

(i) Self-appreciation of attaining new perspective/knowledge

“Never visited the site before but feeling interested to visit after using this portal. Even I knew

this place as a heritage site, but didn’t know much about it in detail. I come to know from this

website that it was an educational institute for Buddhists” (ID 81).

Self-responses on having new knowledge acquisition or having different views of the past

from both groups of respondents comprised both tangible and intangible aspects of Sompur

Mahavihara. Tangible aspects includes: (i) architectural forms, spaces, functions (ii) changes

in use according to time (iii) excavation timelines (iv) features and details (e.g. terracotta) and

(v) structural systems. For example:

x “I have not seen any full model or image of Sompur Bihar. By this website, I got

an idea about the whole architecture and the structural built form”. (ID 85)

x “Each terracotta tells an epic story and how deliberately those stories expressed

in those burnt-mud plaques is amazing”. (ID 143)

On the other hand, the list of intangible aspects is longer than the previous one. Responses

covered issues like: daily life, culture, practice, educational system, myths, local beliefs, local

Page | 168
terms and meanings, Buddhism, historic details, security issues, tourism, conservation, public

awareness and so on. For example:

x “It is a great experience that has changed my mind. Now I know Sompur

Mahavihara is not just a ruin but it represents a culture”. (ID 96)

x “We know this place as a Buddhist monastery but how they lived here or their

daily routine, life style, education system – all these interesting information I

have known from the web portal”. (ID 80)

(ii) Recognition and realization of personal insight

The respondents from both groups shared their experiences and explained their motivation

and empathy towards this heritage site. Some common themes found on this issue are

described here:

(a) Esteemed heritage/past as ‘rich’: The respondents from both groups (A=3%, B=20%)

expressed their self-realization of the ‘rich’ cultural inheritance. Their comments also

expressed some ‘sense of ownership’ by quoting words such as ‘our heritage’ and ‘our past’.

For example:

x “I realize that we are very rich in our heritage but very poor in preserving them.”

(ID 80)

x “Sompur Mahavihara is a pride of our history. It is rich with great facts and events.

But during course of time we ignored it as ruins.” (ID 110)

(b) Become interested in visiting the real-world heritage site: During the survey, most of the

respondents informed that they had never visited the physical heritage site (figure 6.1).

Page | 169
However, due to the involvement with the online experiment platform, they had become

interested (A=1.4%, B=11.7%) in visiting the real-world heritage site. For example :

x “I have not visited the physical site yet. Now I am interested to visit this site,

hopefully in next summer vacation.” (ID 101)

(c) Self-realization on subject matter and become interested in knowing more: “I have

never visited the Paharpur site. I do not even have any knowledge about Paharpur. Therefore,

I am interested to know about this site” (ID 90). In similar fashion, the respondents from

group A=7% and group B=19.5% expressed their interests in Sompur Mahavihara. It seems

that various modes of interaction and information from the different sources probably

provoked more respondents from group B to get interested in the subject matter. This rise of

interest has been expressed by one respondent from group B as “Nine months ago, I visited

Paharpur. However, after joining this website I understand that I missed some other heritage

sites located nearby. From this website, I have got a lot of new information regarding

Paharpur, now I am thinking of visiting Paharpur again” (ID 99).

(d) Digital media (3D/Panoramic VR) helps better understanding: The respondents from

both groups (A=12.5%, B=17.3%) found the 3D interactive models and 360-degree

panoramic views (QTVR) as interesting, and realized its potential in enhancing an

understanding of the form and space of Sompur Mahavihara. For example:

x “The original form of the monastery was revealed to me though the 3D models” (ID

83).

x “As a novice in using the Internet and having a little journey around Bangladesh, I

know a little about Bangladesh and as, I have never visited ‘Sompur Mahavihara’,

this is totally a new experience to me visiting ‘Sompur Mahavihara’ virtually before

physical visit” (ID 84).

Page | 170
 x “The most interesting is the virtual tour and 3D models, thus how we can get a

complete understanding without visiting the physical site” (ID 93).

Moreover, various 3D reconstructed models had helped the respondents to understand the

significance of the site and the dedication of numerous researchers on studying this site. For

example : “For me it is interesting to know that many researchers are working to find out the

form of central temple. Different version of reconstructed models presented here is new to

me” (ID 62). However, the respondents also commented on the betterment of the 3D models,

e.g. “3D models can be designed more realistically – I think” (ID 40).

(iii) Changes in beliefs, values and attitudes:

Some common themes obtained from the responses indicate some certain possible impact on

the changes in belief, value and, occasionally, attitude among the end-users due to their

involvement and exploration of the experiment platform. For example:

(a) Empathy on heritage conservation: Although, the respondents from both groups have

become fascinated about Sompur Mahavihara and wanted to visit the site, only a few

responses coming from group A (1.5%) as compared to group B (9%), showed their empathy

on site conservation and protection of artefacts. For example, one respondent (ID 80) from

group B expressed his/her reaction as, “We should be strict about our conservation rules and

need more public awareness”.

(b) Advocate the promotion of Tourism and public awareness: As compared to group A,

four times more respondents from group B (A=2.8%, B=13%) have shown self-appreciation

of heritage and culture. They have admired and appreciated the unique cultural values of

Sompur Mahavihara and suggested promotion of tourism there. They became more concerned

about security issues, public awareness and the dissemination of heritage knowledge through

the online media and urged for advertisement to attract more tourists. For example:

Page | 171
 x “Sompur Mahavihara has so rich heritage values. We should work together to

provide more exposure of Sompur Mahavihara to public” (ID 140).

x “Why our heritage sites are so unsecured? Many foreign tourists visit this site, if this

continues we will lose all our reputation to outsiders” (ID 104).

(c) Apprised collective content as knowledge base: Dialogic interaction allows generation of

collective contents and enhances the interaction among the end-users. These potentials of

dialogic interaction has specially helped group B to access various popular contents, such as

myths, local beliefs, stories, tour information etc. and, as a reflection, they have admired this

generic contents as a source of knowledge. For example, a respondent (ID 99) wrote about the

information found regarding other places of interest, “Nine months ago, I visited Paharpur.

However, after joining this website I understand that I missed some other heritage sites

located nearby. Now I am thinking to visit Paharpur again”.

Some respondents liked the debate among the participants as a source of information - “I

think this is more important to share knowledge. Found contradiction and debate in forum

about several issues – which I believe more informative rather I can make any complaint”

(ID 116). Another respondent expressed his/her feelings as “From this website, I got to know

more about the Paharpur in detail. Last 2 years ago, I visited there for academic purpose. I

enjoyed that trip, but do not know much about it. However, from this website by reading

blogs, I have got more information about this heritage site. I wish, if this site existed before

my visit!” (ID 95).

However, there are complaints and expectations too. For example, a respondent (ID 118)

mentioned his/her feelings as - “I found some interesting blog where members provide

information on security issues, myths on Sattya Pir – very hard to believe! Interesting to

understand the site from that perspective. But I expect more experts to come and join to

enrich the site information.”

Page | 172
The above section 6.5 analyses the responses to the questionnaire from the section ‘multiple

perspectives of the past’ (section D, appendix D). A comparison between the purposes known

before and after the experimental phase has identified that group B has at least found or learnt

one new purpose of Sompur Mahavihara which was unknown to them. The result also

indicated from the thematic content analysis that group B signified more themes and gained

higher realization of the heritage site than that from group A.

6.6 DIALOGIC INTERACTION AND END-USERS

This additional section of the questionnaire investigated group B only, about their frequency

of communication with others (i.e. dialogue) and frequency of contribution, manipulation and

exploration (i.e. interaction) during the experiment week. It is evident from table 6.10 that,

except for ‘chat room’, most of the respondents (from group B) have used the forums and

blogs. Interestingly, an identical number of respondents (45.8%) showed their occasional use

of both the forums and blogs (to express their ideas and to communicate with others). On the

other hand, only 27.8% of the respondents occasionally used chat room.

Table 6.10 : Use of forum, chat room and blog

Interaction and Activities

Frequency of use
Forum (%) Chat Room (%) Blog (%)

Almost never 9.7 13.7 6.9

Occasionally 45.8 27.8 45.8
Once/day 15.3 12.6 26.4
More than once/day 19.4 2.8 11.1

Sompur Mahavihara was built in the late 8th century and, due to its long lost past, it was quite

difficult for the participants (and respondents) to share historic information unless they had

any previous study or knowledge of it. However, a large number of respondents (83%, table

Page | 173
6.1) came from the department of Architecture so they could manage to share and contribute

some historic and cultural information.

The experiment platform allowed the participants (or respondents) to contribute information

in the various formats such as text/document file, image, video, web link, writing blogs and

forum post (table 6.11). Out of 72 respondents from group B, 44.4% of them contributed

through the blog post. The second largest contribution (38.9%) came from the image section.

Most of the respondents (52.8%, figure 6.1) had never visited the real-world heritage site, and

might not have any video to share. Moreover, it was quite difficult for them to collect any old

or rare video in this short experimental period. That is why, only 4.2% respondents managed

to contribute to the video section.

Table 6.11 : Contribution by the respondents

Contribution and sharing

Frequency
Blog post Image Links Forum post File Video

1 ~ 5 nos 31.9 19.4 22.2 18.1 11.1 2.8

6 ~ 10 nos 11.1 12.5 11.1 8.3 1.4 1.4
11 ~ 15 nos 1.4 4.2 0 2.8 2.8 0
16 or more 0 2.8 0 0 0 0
Total submission (%) 44.4 38.9 33.3 29.2 15.3 4.2

Table 6.12 : Correspondence and communication by the respondents

Correspondence and communication

Response
Received
Questioned others Commented others
question/comment

Yes (%) 49.3 63.4 62.0

No (%) 50.7 36.6 38.0

It is quite evident that a large number of respondents (62%) have received questions and

comments from others (table 6.12). In addition, a similar number of respondents (63.4%) also

commented on others. Interestingly, almost half of the respondents never posed any question

to any member or moderator.

Page | 174
It is certain that even large contributions were found limited to a few sections, but the

members often contributed in the forums and blogs. By communicating with others through

commenting and asking questions in the various sections of the platform, the end-users

became connected. A written response from a participant, ID-124 (group B) expressed his/her

experience - “As if we are a community and the site is very much alive within us. For the last

7 days, this portal becomes the central point of all our activities.”

6.7 DISCUSSION

This chapter investigates the main research question of this dissertation, i.e. whether the

proposed interpretive framework has any impact on enhancing the end-users’ interpretation of

digital heritage. During the experimental phase (detail in section 4.1.4), group A was offered

an experiment platform with the linear interpretation method, where the participants were

allowed to access ‘professional interpretation’ only. On the other hand, group B was offered

another experiment platform which was built on the basis of the conceptual model proposed

by this research, and had access to both professional and public interpretation.

This chapter therefore identifies and compares the significant difference in the interpretation

of a specific digital heritage project (i.e. Sompur Mahavihara) between group A and group B

and investigates the possible causes behind the difference. This chapter consolidates both the

qualitative and quantitative data from the questionnaire survey. Hence, the achieved

interpretation between the groups was measured on the basis of four aspects, i.e. (i)

satisfaction (ii) provocation (iii) learning and (iv) multiple perspective of the past. The

following section summarizes these results found in the previous sections of this chapter.

(i) Satisfaction: Most of the respondents never visited the site but were quite satisfied about

their virtual visit. However, the result shows that overall satisfaction is much higher in group

B. Compared to group A, group B had more fun, received more feedback from others, found

more unique contents and new information, especially from discursive contents from the

Page | 175
experimental platform. Self-appreciation of membership of this web-portal seems stronger

among the respondents from group B. Moreover, they highly recommended visiting this

online portal before visiting the real-world heritage site. The overall results from table 6.3, 6.4

and 6.5 indicate some certainty in having greater satisfaction due to the application of the

conceptual framework in the interpretive process of this digital heritage.

(ii)Provocation: According to Tilden (1977), the chief aim of interpretation is provocation.

The results from section 6.3 indicate a positive attitudinal changes and empathy towards

Sompur Mahavihara from more than half of the respondents of the experiment. However,

compared to group A, almost double the respondents from group B have reported their

increase of personal and emotional interest in Sompur Mahavihara due to their involvement

with this experiment platform (i.e. bderitage.info).

When it comes to the point of visiting similar real-world heritage sites, some commonality is

found between both groups. Most of them like to know and visit other heritage sites.

Although, a significant dissimilarity exists between the groups in showing their interest to

know more about Sompur Mahavihara and a willingness to participate in conservation

activities, group B showed a higher response. The overall results from this section 6.3 imply

that group B has become more provocative and empathetic towards the heritage site as

compared to group A which was, treated with a linear interpretive process.

(iii) Learning: The overall findings remain consistent in this section as as reported earlier and

certainly indicate a better performance from group B in answering all factual questions

(section 6.4) as compared to group A. No such difference was evident in identifying a

dissimilar image from a set of similar images of the heritage site. There is a certain possibility

that the wrong image was too evident to be identified. However, self-report on knowledge

gain from both groups presents the understandable fact that group B has a significantly higher

appreciation in learning than group A.

Page | 176
Furthermore, the analysis and discussion from section 6.5 also revealed that group B had

access to collective contents, and had also taken part in discursive content creation through

dialogic interaction. It is very probable, that these had helped them to remember and recall

much information during the questionnaire survey. Therefore, the better performance and

higher self-appraisal from group B in ‘learning’ indicates a strong positive relation with the

applied interpretation method.

(iv) Multiple perspectives of the past: Since the 8th century, Sompur Mahavihara served

different purposes along with being a learning centre. A comparison between the purposes

known before and after the experimental phase, therefore, identifies the newly learnt purposes

by the respondents. Surprisingly, each member from group B found or learned at least ‘one

new’ purpose that was unknown to them before experiencing the experiment platform. The

results from table 6.9 also indicated that group B came to know significantly higher number

of purposes than did group A.

Even though both groups experienced the same heritage site, the ‘content analysis’ of

descriptive written responses (on attaining new perspectives) indicated differences in the

realization and perception between the groups. By tapping public contents from comments,

blogs, forums, files, links etc., a vast explicit knowledge base was generated through dialogic

interaction. Given information (or professional interpretation) along with this collective

knowledge base, hence ensure information on both the tangible and intangible aspects of

Sompur Mahavihara (section 6.5.2). During the experiment, group B had access to these

generic or collective contents and took part in discursive content creation and gained inter-

subjective understanding as a part of social construction. In view of this fact, the

interpretation process, therefore, helped the respondents from group B to envision Sompur

Mahavihara from wider perspectives. On the other hand, group A was mainly concerned

about tangible issues.

Page | 177
 x “Having a clear image of the central shrine that does not exist at recent years.”

(group A, ID 01)

x “Hard to believe that, this site was full of jungles during time and was called as

‘Golap Chitar Pahar’.” (group B, ID 114)

As compared to group A, almost six times more respondents from group B attained self-

realization of inheriting a rich heritage and cultural past. With this feeling in mind, they came

up with a willingness to protect the heritage site and to take part in conservation works. By

watching different 3D models (reconstruction) and VR panoramic views, along with the

written posts describing the experiences of a physical visit, influenced end-users as well

asraised their interest in visiting the real-world heritage site. However, this interest level was

ten times higher among the members of group B when compared to group A.

Even group B had more access to information (i.e. both professional and discursive contents),

as compared to group A; three times more respondents from group B reported that they want

‘to know more’ about Sompur Mahavihara. This deeper empathy and eagerness on the subject

matter is probably the outcome of interaction and involvement with the web-portal. This also

helped to change their mind-set on perceiving Sompur Mahavihara as more than a ‘ruin’.

x “Now I know Sompur Mahavihara is not just a ruin but it represents a culture.”

(group B, ID 96)

x “During course of time we ignored it as ruins. This website helped me to believe the

importance of tradition, culture and history.” (group B, ID 110)

It is particularly interesting to note that both groups showed a common ground on perceiving

the actual form of Sompur Mahavihara and appreciated the portal. However, both groups

mentioned that the digital media (interactive 3D models, QTVR panoramic views) had helped

them to have a better understanding of the forms and spaces of Sompur Mahavihara.

Page | 178
Nevertheless, the respondents from group B mentioned that they came to know more about

the loss of artefacts, security issues and vandalism around the heritage site from collective

contents. In this regard, more respondents from group B expressed their willingness to

support heritage conservation (six times more than group A). Intention to campaign for

promotion of tourism and raising public awareness to protect the loss of artefacts has also

been noted to be higher among the members from group B (five times more than group A).

Though a few respondents from group A have expressed their willingness on these above

issues, they mostly complained about the lack of information and asked for more content.

x “We need more new idea and information about this heritage site”. (group A, ID 63)

x “This site contains some basic information, but I think more information can be

added”. (group A, ID 61)

From the above discussion, it is quite evident that both groups enjoyed the experiment.

Notwithstanding this common experience, significant differences in attaining new

perspectives persist between the groups. Group B had found diversified information of the

contributions from others, and had become more attached to the community. They also spent

more time (figure 6.3) in interacting and exploring the experiment platform than group A.

Greater interaction and dialogue with others along with access to an explicit generic

knowledge base had helped them to understand more cultural, spatial, historical and

architectural values of Sompur Mahavihara. Certainly, this outcome answers the main

research question of this study.

According to the research methodology, only group B was allowed to have dialogic

interaction. During the public participation phase (figure 4.3) a large number of anonymous

respondents contributed through posting on the blog and forum, along with other sections of

the portal. Concepts of ‘water vihara’, ‘Sattya pir’, ‘Sondhabotir gaht’, ‘chander pahar’,

Pakistani army camp inside the court, Hindu temple beneath the central shrine, along with

many local stories and myths were presented/posted in these sections as an act of dialogue

Page | 179
and many discursive contents had been generated too. The results show that ‘chat-room’ was

less preferred for communication as compared to various other means offered in the platform

(i.e. open comments, forum posts, blog posts, shout box, and others). The respondents largely

contributed in sections like images, blogs and forums rather than in the video section.

Members also contributed a moderate number of external web-links and files. However, the

respondents seemed to prefer commenting on and answering to others’ inputs while feeling

relatively shy to ask questions.

Judging from the survey responses, a higher ‘interpretation’ of digital heritage (i.e. Sompur

Mahavihara) is evident among group B. The quantitative evidence presented in this chapter

also supports the qualitative written responses by the respondents. It became evident that the

proposed interpretive method as expressed through the conceptual framework (PrEdiC) is

quite effective in enhancing the end-users’ interpretation of digital heritage. This also reminds

us of the internet phenomenon of Wikipedia as a growing open-ended information source that

is dimming the media dominance and empowering the end-users’ role as both contributor and

consumer. The next chapter elaborates and discusses the various issues that have been raised

during this research process, including the experience of ‘bdheritage.info’ as an online

platform for disseminating the cultural heritage and engaging the end-users in discursive

content production.

Page | 180
 CHAPTER 07
DIGITAL HERITAGE INTERPRETATION
REVISITED

This chapter starts with reinventing the research context and its validity to a broader field of

digital heritage discourse. Three major constructs, i.e., who, what and how of this research are

explained. With reference to the previous chapters, the main research question is addressed

and explained with sub-questions. Furthermore, a reflection section sheds light on the various

critical issues, which have been raised during this research and discussed along with the

knowledge gained from this study.

7.1 CONTEXT AND RESEARCH POSITION

Presenting heritage and involving people in the interpretative process is not a new idea.

Thompson (1981) referred to ‘secondary interpretation’ as the popular transmission of

primary interpreted knowledge. Similar concepts were found from Fitch (1982) as ‘popular

interpretation’ and Copeland (2004) as ‘public construction’. However, this school of thought

in archaeological interpretation actually expresses a passive mind-set, as if only the

professionals possess the right to confront the ruins, heritage site and artefacts for to giving an

intelligent account of it, whereas the general people are treated as consumers with limited

knowledge.

However, Uzzell’s (1989) ‘re-construction’ approach encouraged an open-ended and wider

view of history, unlike the linear theme-based interpretation (i.e. re-creation) for passive

viewers. Followed by Brooks and Brooks (1993), an extended engagement of the visitors to

Page | 181
the heritage site was proposed by Ballaytyne (1998) and Copeland (1998, 2004, 2006) as

‘constructivist’ interpretation. Although this process tried to overcome the limitation of a

closed linear interpretation method, it had been criticised due to its given preference on

‘process’ rather than on ‘result’ (Bonini, 2008). Moscardo (1996, 1999), being influenced by

Langer (1989), proposed a mindfulness model of interpretation. This model highlighted the

‘cognitive state’ of the visitors and suggested eight ‘setting factors’ (Moscardo, 1996, p383)

to keep the visitors ‘mindful’. However, the role of the visitors (end-users) remained as

consumers or, more likely, ‘mindful-consumers’.

Until this time of writing the dissertation, hardly any of these above interpretive methods have

been brought into the domain of digital heritage for the interpretation purpose. It is not the

fact that the domain of digital heritage is still limited by its ability to fully accumulate

intangible cultural heritage (Dave, 2008, Kalay, 2008), or fascinated with achieving ‘photo-

realism’ (Roussou et al., 2003, Champion, 2006, Flynn, 2008, Roussou, 2008), or bound to

demonstrate technical artistry or power of new technology (Tost and Champion, 2007) due to

the pressure of ‘heritagization’ (Cameron, 2008, p171). Instead, the recognition of the

necessity of an interpretive method is revealed as the main drawback. More likely, it has been

found common to ignore the ‘end-users’ as multiple and varied people who have varied

backgrounds and cognitive status. This, as well, restricted us in defining any objective of a

successful interpretive method for digital heritage (section 1.1).

Descriptive or linear interpretation can only deliver partial presentation of the past, cause

‘heritage dissonance’ and restrict the end-users to understand the intrinsic values of the

cultural heritage. To avoid pre-determined instructional sequences or descriptive

interpretation, a search for suitable methods and guidelines for presenting digital heritage

leads us to this undesirable truth, i.e. nothing of such kind exists (section 2.1.4). In addition,

this study found the nonexistence of any charters or guidelines similar to the charter

“Interpretation and Presentation for Cultural Heritage Sites” (ICOMOS, 2008).

Page | 182
It has also become evident from the present research and available online case studies that

most digital heritage projects are short lived, biased by the media or tool, and focused on

either the ‘process’ or ‘product’ (section 2.2.2, 2.2.3). Moreover, heritage scholars have less

control on the content development and dissemination, and mostly depend on the technical

personnel. The trends in digital heritage practice were found fascinated with new technology

and its application to cultural heritage, while steering towards attaining visual fidelity. Efforts

done by several researchers on getting better experience with digital heritage seemed

individual and fragmented instead of attempting towards an overall effective interpretive

method of development (section 2.2.4). In this way, significant literature, methods and critical

discourse are absent in the domain of digital heritage, which is also noticed by Affleck (2008)

and Cameron (2008). It has become quite evident that, the present practice is still dominated

by technocrats, engineers, and tool/media designers instead of cultural heritage professionals.

Therefore, the usage of technology always dominates over the end-users’ perception and

interest.

In this context, this research assumes that, there is no such significant method or principles for

digital heritage interpretation as has been achieved in other disciplines such as in

Archaeology. However, an intensive review of heritage interpretation methods (of real-world

heritage) and comparison of their prescribed guidelines were found inadequate to directly

borrow from and to be implemented in digital heritage realm. Learning from other disciplines

such as Archaeology, Heritage management, Human Computer Interaction and Human

behaviour studies, this research developed a conceptual framework for digital heritage

interpretation, tested the impact of this model with a user study and finally prepared some

guidelines for implementation. The following section throws light on the validity and

approach of this research.

Page | 183
7.1.1 Research approach : Who, What and How

Modern tools and technologies are offering new possibilities of presenting and experiencing

heritage in various ways. However, most efforts are still static, descriptive and inflexible for

further modification as due to their linear narrative (section 2.2.2). Although the process of

digital heritization inherits some pedagogical objective meant to disseminate the heritage

knowledge; unique cultural and cognitive background with own positioning, subjectivity and

embodiment largely influence an individual’s perception and interpretation gained/achieved

from the presented digital heritage. It is evident that, the end-users are often considered as

consumers and their perception of content have always been overlooked. Therefore, to

develop a comprehensive interpretive framework for digital heritage, this research argued for

considering ‘end-users’ as individuals with unique subjective perception, reaction and

interpretation. ‘Heritage interpretation’ is often used to indicate the storylines adopted to help

the visitors to engage with and understand the place or objects they are visiting or watching.

Interpretation as an act of the interpreter; this research conceived ‘digital heritage

interpretation’ as a process rather than as a tool to present or communicate with end-users

through digital media. It is, therefore, referred to as an evolving commentary of arguments

rather than a conclusive product.

At this point, this research presented a critical application of a theoretical construct developed

from multiple disciplines and defined four major objectives for any comprehensive

interpretive process of digital heritage, i.e. to (i) satisfy the end-user’s expectations, (ii)

increase provocation or raise empathy towards the heritage site, (iii) enhance the learning of

cultural or historic facts, and (iv) present the past from multiple perspectives (section 3.2).

Moreover, to achieve an interactive and engaging interpretation of digital heritage, this

research signified four aspects to consider in the interpretive process and presented a detailed

conceptual framework for implementation. These aspects include (i) effective presentation,

(ii) cultural learning, (iii) embodiment and (iv) dialogic interaction (figure 3.5, section 3.3).

Page | 184
This is how this study answers who, what and how of this research. The following section

addresses the research questions which were raised at the beginning of this research.

7.1.2 Linking with research questions

This explorative study comprised both the theoretical review and a comparative experiment

with an end-user’s survey. Sub-questions 01 and 02, received insights from literature review

and examination of precedents from other disciplines such as Heritage management,

Archaeology, Museology, Human computer interaction, Behavioural science and Digital

media studies. On the other hand, findings from the comparative experiment that was chosen

to compare the effectiveness of different treatment modalities (i.e. two different online

experiment platforms) upon the controlled groups helped to understand the sub-question 03.

All these sub-questions, therefore, helped to shed lights on the main research question of this

study.

The research question and sub-questions are repeated here as a reminder. However, the sub-

questions are going to be explained first, in order to relate the issues of the main research

question i.e. What is a framework to enhance end-users’ interpretation of digital heritage? In

order to explore the main research question, the following sub-questions were investigated:

Sub-question 01: What aspects should be considered in construction of digital

heritage projects to offer opportunities for inclusive and comprehensive

interpretation?

Sub-question 02: What indicators can be used to evaluate the end-users’ interpretation

of digital heritage?

Sub-question 03: Does dialogic interaction from active participants allow multiplicity

in digital heritage content, hence, enhance end-users’ interpretation?

Page | 185
(i) What aspects should be considered in construction of digital heritage projects to offer

opportunities for inclusive and comprehensive interpretation?

‘Interpretation’ as an act of the interpreter; it helps the visitors to engage with and understand

the place or objects they are visiting or watching. In this perspective, it is a method of

presentation or communication with the end-users. This research considered ‘digital heritage

interpretation’ as a process rather than as a tool to present or communicate with the end-users

through digital media. An intensive review of theory and methodology from real-world

heritage interpretation was found inadequate to directly adopt and implement in digital

heritage realm. As such, this research presented a critical application of a theoretical construct

developed from multiple disciplines (i.e. Heritage management, HCI and Behavioural

studies), and demonstrated the ability and necessity to assess seriously the theoretical basis or

foundation of the methodology and its application in digital heritage interpretation. In this

way, this research presented a conceptual framework for interpretation that comprises (i)

presentation, (ii) embodiment, (iii) cultural learning and (iv) dialogic interaction, as four basic

aspects (or components) to enhance the interpretation of digital heritage from a user-centric

perspective (more in section 3.3). With empirical evidence, this study also demonstrated that,

the conceptual framework with these four aspects resulted in higher levels of interpretation of

digital heritage as compared to conventional linear interpretation.

(ii) What indicators can be used to evaluate end-users’ interpretation of digital heritage?

An evaluation of the interpretation process and survey on users’ satisfaction are common in

various disciplines such as, museum studies, heritage management, learning and consumer

studies. Until this time of writing of the dissertation, this study could not find any unique

evaluation mechanism or set of indicators to measure, either the ‘end-users’ interpretation’ or

the effectiveness of the interpretive method in digital heritage realm. Works from Erick

Champion (2004, 2011), Osberg (1997), Jacobson (2000), and Rossoue (2008) used different

methods and indicators to evaluate learning from the virtual environment. Bonini (2008)

Page | 186
surveyed on users’ interaction with the virtual application but did not mention the process and

technicalities of the questionnaire preparation. Affalek (2007) worked with forty participants,

but failed to evaluate them due to the inadequacy of a quantitative method. It is also evident

that, in most cases, the process of user evaluation is not published and remained with the

researcher.

Based on theoretical underpinning, this research has defined four major ‘objectives’ that

‘digital heritage interpretation’ should consider. In this, the effectiveness of the interpretive

process largely depends on, (i) how much it can satisfy the end-users, (ii) cultural learning;

how effectively it conveys cultural information or symbolic meanings, (iii) enhance empathy

of the end-users and provoke them for the betterment of the heritage site, and (iv) capability

of presenting the past from multiple perspectives. These objectives, therefore provided the

basis of an evaluation to measure the effectiveness of the interpretation method, through

assessing the end-users’ interpretation.

Considering these objectives as ‘concept’ (as described in Kumar, 2005), it was then

functionalized through converting to indicators according to the logical link with the

objectives of the research. For example, expectation fulfilment, appreciation of visit, pleasure

achieved and personal comments were considered as indicators to measure satisfaction. These

indicators, therefore, paved the way to further selection and development of a questionnaire

with a measuring-scale. Detail of the questionnaire development is explained in section 4.2.

The semi-structured questionnaire prepared by following these indicators was, later used in a

post-experience survey and was found to be effective in measuring end-users’ interpretation.

An analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data accumulated from the survey therefore,

made it clear that:

(i) Satisfaction: participants from group B had more fun, received more feedback

from others, found more unique contents and new information, especially from

Page | 187
 collective resources. Self-appreciation of membership was also found to be stronger

among these participants.

(ii) Provocation: almost twice the number of respondents from group B reported an

increase in personal and emotional interest in Sompur Mahavihara due to their

involvement with this portal as compared to group A.

(iii) Learning: findings indicated a better performance from group B on answering all

factual questions as compared to group A. However, no such difference was evident

between groups regarding identifying dissimilar images of the heritage site.

(iv) Multiple perspectives of the past: A comparison between the known purposes of

the monastery before and after the experiment proves that group B found or learned at

least one new purpose, which was previously unknown to them. The result also

indicated from thematic content analysis that, group B signified more themes and

gained higher realization of the heritage site than did group A.

In this way, the indicators helped to measure the end-users’ interpretation. The quantitative

evidence obtained from this survey was also supported by the qualitative written responses

from the participants. The overall evaluation process, therefore, helped to perceive a

comparative view of the two different interpretative methods applied to digital heritage.

(iii) Does dialogic interaction from active participants allow multiplicity in digital heritage

content; hence enhance end-users’ interpretation?

This research considered digital heritage interpretation as a process to present or

communicate with end-users through digital media to enhance their interpretation (i.e.

satisfaction, provocation, learning and multiple perspectives of the past). According to the

research hypothesis, to achieve a comprehensive interpretation of digital heritage, the

interpretive process must consider four aspects, i.e. effective presentation, cultural learning

Page | 188
and embodiment – within an environment that supports dialogic interaction among the

participants.

As defined by this research, dialogic interaction (i) allows dialogue and communication

among the end-users and (ii) enhances interaction (i.e. exploration, manipulation and

contribution). Moreover, due to the process of dialogue and interaction, it (iii) creates or

generates ‘collective contents’ from a cultural disposition of common spatial experiences by

the end-users. In this way, dialogic interaction offers the end-users to explore an explicit

knowledge base that is more generic and, at the same time, that complements the

‘professional’ (or given) content.

During the collective construction or public participation stage (figure 4.3), anonymous

participants commented, criticized and discussed several aspects and issues through dialogic

interaction. These collective contents comprised of both tangible and intangible aspects of

heritage. Tangible aspects include (i) architectural form, space and function (e.g. concept of

water vihara, double storey living cells for monks), (ii) features and detailing (e.g. usage of

terracotta as decoration and exploring the epic stories of that time) and (iii) Structural and

construction system (e.g. possible causes of sinking the superstructure, substructure as Hindu

temple). With the exception of a few issues regarding architectural facts and details, most of

the discussions and contributions comprised of intangible aspects such as myths (e.g. Sattya

Pir, Sondaboti), local stories (e.g. temple of Tara, freedom fight inside the monastery court,

Golap Chitar Pahar, Alexzander Bankinham’s confrontation with local Zamindar),

conservation issues (e.g. violation of heritage conservation act, loss of artefacts, restoration,

crime), beliefs (i.e. life-style of monks, educational system, visit of Atish Dipankar), nearby

tourist spots and heritage site (e.g. Votiv stupa, temple of Gondessori, Goal Vitar Paglar

Dhibi), accommodation, local foods etc.

Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, the experiment in this research was conducted between

two groups of participants, who experienced two online portals where two different

Page | 189
interpretive methods were applied. The first group (group A) experienced a linear interpretive

method, where professional interpretation was presented, whereas the second group (group B)

experienced another platform that was built on the conceptual model developed by this

research. It became evident that the second platform along with access to user-generated

knowledge base which contains a variety of local and cultural information acted as a

supplement to professional information. This allowed the second group (group B) to become

more active, spend more time and have greater interpretation of Sompur Mahavihara (i.e. the

digital heritage). Moreover, identified ‘themes’ from content analysis of written responses

also unveiled that group B, having access to dialogic interaction, gained better understanding

of the past from multiple perspectives (section 6.5).

By observing the experiment platform, this research also revealed that the end-users in an

online heritage site behaved like collective individuals, similar to contributors of Wikipedia.

Individual’s queries were answered by others; wrong or obscured information were re-

conceptualized and discussed among members. In addition, internal or external links were

brought up and shared among members as an extension of the knowledge base. During the

three months of public participation, the online portal (http://bdheritage.info, dated

19.12.2010) received 253 members, 80 forum posts, 524 images, 16 videos, 88 blog posts,

350 comments, 41 external links and 31 documents. Whenever an interesting topic was raised

by any member, prompt responses were received from other members. They acted as if they

were artisans working for a piece of mosaic, where individual’s contribution/comments

worked like pieces of gems to form a more complete picture. As a result, the overall process

helped to enhance the interpretation of the participants.

Understanding form the above discussion it can be summarized that, the first sub-question

explains the background and theoretical constructs of the frameworks, validates its argument

of selecting ‘aspects’ and considerations for designing and planning of the interpretive

process. Sub-question 02 explores and justifies the indicators and variables to measure the

effectiveness of the interpretation framework by evaluating end-users’ responses. Sub-

Page | 190
question 03 actually presents the significance of the ‘interpretive framework’ (i.e. PrEDiC) by

exploring the hidden dynamics of ‘dialogic interaction’ that allows the popular participation

in the interpretive process and helps to overcome the linearity and ‘image of practice’ of the

reconstructed past. These three sub-questions, therefore, intrinsically resolve the main

research question and demonstrate the possibility of a comprehensive method that can

enhance interpretation of digital heritage from a user-centric perspective.

7.2 REFLECTION : CONVERGENCE AND FRAGMENTATION

The challenge of this research was not only to propose an interpretive method for digital

heritage, but also to implement and evaluate such a method. As such, this endeavour had to

face various critical challenges and multifaceted issues to reinvent the research context and to

validate its position within the broader field of digital heritage discourse. This section

discusses some of those issues raised during the research process.

7.2.1 End-users: From consumer to content producer

Notions presented in table 2.1 elucidate that heritage ‘interpretation’ has always been

considered and treated as a tool for presentation or communication with the visitors.

Regarding archaeological interpretation, these considerations actually refer to a passive mind-

set of ‘experts’. Here archaeologists have always been considered as the interpreters of the

past and present, whereas the visitors are treated as consumers with petty knowledge “to

make sense of the information” (Moscardo, 1999, p34). As Borun notes, “…the majority of

our visitors are novices – not experts. They lack specialized knowledge base, language,

concepts and ways of thinking and looking which experts acquire through learning and

practice” (Borun 1991 in Moscardo, 1999). Although, digital heritage possesses the

capability of developing polysemic content by allowing the active participation in content

creation, development and dissemination, according to the case studies (section 2.2.3, 2.2.4;

annex A, B, C), it is evident that most digital heritage projects followed the notion of

Page | 191
archaeological interpretation (i.e. professionals interpret and visitors consume) while

presenting the past from a singular perspective.

This study found that general people like to share memories and participate in collective

construction of history (section 2.2.3). The interpretation of cultural heritage demands a high

level of knowledge of the past, whereas a layperson as a contributor may only have

knowledge and information regarding the near past. Indeed, valuable information due to its

passage through generations may be deformed or deviated from the original. However,

interestingly people may have other knowledge (beliefs, myths, oral traditions, stories), which

can provide different perspectives, and was evident in this research. This research allowed

anonymous end-users to reconstruct the past in a pluralistic manner by accommodating their

common spatial experiences and memories as narratives, juxtaposed with ‘professional

interpretation’. Though most of the end-users did not possess specialized knowledge, still,

through reflexive dialogic interaction, they produced an explicit knowledge base with

varieties of information that include both tangible and intangible cultural heritage.

These active social engagement of the end-users with the shifting role from ‘cultural

consumption to cultural production’ may indicate digital liberation (Russo and Watkins,

2008) or an audience-centred strategy (Deshpande et al., 2006, p261), or narratives of the

community (Guntarik, 2010), or a discursive construction (Affleck and Kvan, 2005).

However, it definitely indicates a shift in the knowledge production paradigm. This research,

therefore, differs from Moscardo (1999, p34) and (Borun, 1989) who believe that the visitors

are “novices – not experts” with petty knowledge to “make sense of the information”.

First of all, this research proves that interpretation can be an open-ended process and there are

more than one-way of interpreting the past. Secondly, by incorporating multiple voices side

by side and dialogue among the end-users, it opens up the possibility of enhanced

interpretation and legitimacy in understanding the past.

Page | 192
7.2.2 Planning of interpretation or salvation of technology

Involving people in the interpretation process in a real world heritage site is not a new idea.

Several interpretive methods were discussed in section 2.1. Based on the literature review, at

the time of the writing of this dissertation, hardly any of those interpretation methods is

successfully applied in the domain of digital heritage. On the other hand, the domain of digital

heritage still has its limitation in accumulating intangible cultural heritage fully (Dave, 2008,

Kalay, 2008). To some extent, the general practice is still the fascination with ‘photo-realism’

(Roussou et al., 2003, Champion, 2006, Flynn, 2008, Roussou, 2008), and the lure of the

technical artistry or power of new technology (Tost and Champion, 2007, p254).

Furthermore, it is evident that, in many cases, technologies dominate over the end-users’

experiences (Sparacino, 2004, p9).

In fact, we have always overlooked the ‘end-users’ as multiple and varied people with unique

cultural backgrounds and cognitive status. That is the major pitfall prohibiting us to recognise

the need and to define the objectives of any comprehensive interpretive method as well. The

notion of descriptive or linear interpretation, therefore, leads us towards a partial presentation

of the past, causing ‘heritage dissonance’ while restricting us to understand the intrinsic

values of cultural heritage.

Various new technologies are opening up new possibilities for designing, experiencing and

managing, a digital heritage site or project. Discussion from section 2.2.4 implies that

researchers made significant efforts with various tools and technologies to enhance

experience and learning from digital heritage. However, each research had its unique

objective and agenda; rather they hardly advocated an approach towards the development of a

comprehensive interpretation method for digital heritage.

This study, therefore, presented a critical application of a theoretical construct, i.e. the

conceptual framework, and demonstrated its application in digital heritage interpretation. The

empirical study conducted for this research showed the possibilities of enhancing the

Page | 193
interpretation of digital heritage from a user-centric perspective. A positive reflection from

the end-users on this interpretation method highlighted that planning of interpretation need to

be prioritized and designed first, before media or tool selection is made. To make the end-

users satisfied, 3D/interactive media may not be the only choice; the end-users can gain fun

and enjoyment even from a 2D environment if they are allowed to have ‘dialogic interaction’.

7.2.3 Discursive content: Knowledge base or garbage

Development of the new media allows us to become more user-centric, personalized, location

aware and to have synchronous data sharing without being restricted to a specific hardware

device. Flicker, blogs, game modding, podcasting and other forms of RSS syndication are

allowing the users to tailor information and multimedia objects in various ways that were not

possible in the past. This advancement of technology, therefore, makes it possible for

extensive, referential and interpretive virtual heritage environments (Dave, 2005). This shift

also indicates a gradual move towards making virtual heritage projects more interpretive

rather than mere reconstruction (Dave, 2008). However, this flux of social networking and

rapid growth of online information often raises questions of authenticity, relevance and

screening of relevant data from a massive pool. Critics like Keen (2008) argued against this

collective construction. From his point of view, this encourages the undermining of

professional expertise. He criticized this collective co-creation phenomenon for its tendency

of having error, immaturity, plethora of vague and meaningless content, as well as being

prone to self-propagation and duplication.

In this research, the experiment platform initially contained only ‘professional interpretation’

(following the concept of Fitch 1982) of Sompur Mahavihara. Therefore, information

presented in this platform was prepared and approved by professionals (process explained in

5.3.2). This includes information of the monastery’s history, architecture, central temple,

synopsis of previous research, excavation timelines, information regarding visiting the site

Page | 194
including images, videos, 3D reconstructed models from various researchers and 360-degree

panoramic views from three specific locations around the site.

In a later state (figure 4.3), the general participants contributed and discussed various issues

ranging from myths, local stories, conservation issues, beliefs, education, history, culture,

nearby tourist place and heritage site, information regarding accommodation, local foods etc.

It was also observed that communication occurred between the end-users through responding

to questions and commenting on each other’s post, while reclaiming wrong information,

validating cross posting and suggesting external links for extended information. Themes or

topics were brought up and followed up by other interested end-users. Participants also asked

information from the moderators and requested an extension of the portal to support other

similar heritage sites (section 6.5.2). In this way, this platform actually worked as a means for

collaboration among various participants such as students, businesspersons, researchers,

travellers and historians, as well as moderators. Therefore, the interpretation process worked

here as facilitator of network with reliability, while validating and screening of information

was done through a participatory basis.

Contents were always open for moderation, including immediate action against unwanted

posting, cleaning up and recovering of the site being taken care of by interested end-users,

similar to Wheeler’s (2009, p6) observation. Moreover, RSS (really simple syndication) feeds

alerted community members to any recent changes, while validating the entries to be

undertaken immediately and effectively. Although this study was conducted for a limited

time, the findings show that end-users can handle much information through building

relationships and acting as filters for each other. This research, therefore, denies Keen’s

(2008) argument and endorses the popular knowledge base as not only a supplement for

professional interpretation but also of its role for accentuating the presence of experts.

Page | 195
7.2.4 Collective construction: From partial to bigger part of the mosaic

“It also needs to be recognised that virtual reconstructions are partial models and form part

of the mosaic of understanding about heritage issues” –Dave Bharat (2008, p49)

Every historic representation requires thorough investigation to acquire valid information.

However, how to be sure about what had happened in the past? Accordingly to David

Lowenthal (1985, p187), historical knowledge can be derived from three sources – memory,

history and relics. Memory comes from our own experiences or from shared experiences of

others; ‘history’ derives from written history or collective written history, and ‘relics’ comes

from old artefacts and buildings, which act as a witness of the past. The combination of these

three components provides us with a possible knowledge or understanding of the past.

However, in the case of tangible heritage, where the building is ruined, limited stock of

available archaeological resources always hinders the architectural historians from bringing

back the real form of architecture based on such fragmented resources. Hence, results vary in

‘professional interpretation’ of formal reconstruction of such cases, like the central temple of

Sompur Mahavihara (figure 3.1). On the other hand, intangible cultural heritage, which

includes oral traditions, knowledge and practice concerning nature and beliefs, and oral

history transmitted through the generations, provides people with a sense of identity and

belongingness towards a community. Even the main objective of UNESCO’s (2003)

convention in October 2003 in Paris focuses on safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage,

present digital heritage projects, however, miss the potential of cultural transference and value

placed on collective cultural memory, which could easily be supported by allowing a platform

for dialogic interaction and further capturing those to a knowledge base.

The proposed conceptual framework (figure 3.5) challenges the present linear concept of

heritage interpretation (figure 2.2) and highlights the post-modern and post-colonial attitude

where the authority holds less position and encourages popular participation and shared

meaning-making. The intention was not only to present the lost architecture of this monument

Page | 196
but also to encourage dialogue and interaction between the general people and the

professionals so that they could discuss heritage issues and collectively create a knowledge

base. Section 6.5.2 showed that the various tangible and intangible topics were brought up

and discussed during the experimental phase. Several questions were raised and resolved by

the participants (screenshots are in appendix Y). The end-users shared images, told stories and

myths, where to stay, other sites to visit, security concerns and so on – which may seem

irrelevant and unnecessary from certain point of view. However, it provided the various

details and insights on what people think of the heritage site and what they were looking for.

Each piece of information contributed here worked as gems that helped to build a bigger

scenario, a bigger piece of mosaic.

In this way, it also opens up the possibility of future social research of any kind related to

what people think of digital heritage as well as their expectations. It also reveals that the

knowledge base obtained by capturing the community’s interpretation can provide different

insights from various perspectives. Furthermore, the insiders’ (or emic) and their perception

of significance may lead to the uncovering of potential intangible values of heritage which is

difficult to receive from an ‘etic’ or outsiders’ perspective.

7.2.5 Connected minds and Voices of the oppressed

In this digital era, computers have become pervasive and ubiquitous, while identification

through digital mediation has become a new ‘cultural capital’, which sets ‘invisible bonds that

tie a community together’ (Curtis, 2004, in Wheeler, 2009). Open source projects or platforms

have opened the possibilities of freely available information for copying, distribution and

modification, including sharing of source code. Moreover, Web 2.0 has broadened the way of

contribution and shifted the total ‘continuum of interactivity’ towards one that is more on

‘cultural production’ (Russo and Watkins, 2008,p152). The usage of these digital

technologies in heritage institutes like museums have enhanced the involvement of visitors

and communities (Witcomb, 2003, Cameron and Kenderdine, 2006, Parry, 2007, Black,

Page | 197
2010) which also opens up the possibilities of dialogue and sharing (Rahaman and Tan,

2011). The social media, on the other hand, has opened the possibilities of liberating the

voices of the oppressed. For example, recent speculations on the Internet and its uprisings,

were first noticed in Tunisia, then in Egypt and later in Libya. Rebellions in the first two

countries heavily relied on social networking for gathering support from communities, the

Libyan rebels later followed suit. Social networks, in this way, not only encourage raising of

people’s voice and opinions, but also connect geographically distributed individuals of similar

mind-set.

As the online platform was opened for the end-users to raise and discuss issues regardless of

curatorial filtering or prior approval by moderators (unlike ‘memory capsule', Affleck and

Kvan, 2008), similar attitudes among the end-users were also evident during this study. Mr

Dilip Kumar Pandit (ID 71), a retired custodian, wrote32 –

“The Paharpur Archaeological Site Museum was the first of its kind in the then East

Pakistan. I myself as its first assistant custodian and arranged the museum single-

handed. I expected a promotion, but I was transferred to the epigraphic section. As a

Baptist Christian I was taught to be dutiful right from my childhood and at Paharpur

I guarded the ruins as a faithful watchdog.

All artefacts described in K N Dikhshit's book were there in 1962 when I resigned as

I found section of excavation and exploration was very lucrative to my bosses. I don't

know how many artefacts are still there either in the museum or in the store - and

how many of them are 'real'.”

It seemed that Mr. Pandit was worried about the losses of valuable artefacts and never trusted

his superior officers. As such, discussion continued, and others became aware of the present

situation and raised several relevant issues regarding the protection of the site. For example,

32
Source : http://bdheritage.info/forum/#topic/Site-Environment.htm, dated : 11.10.2011

Page | 198
one participant raised the issue of receiving money through the selling of tickets and its usage

– “I want to rise about the 'ticket money'. Does anyone know how much the authority gain

each year from the visitors and does all of them are properly recorded and paid as revenue to

the government?”.

Similarly, allied issues like negligence of the government, protecting the area, loosing

valuable artefacts, role of UNESCO and its policy to safeguard the site – were brought up.
33
For example, Monwar Hossain (ID 196) wrote – “The prime aspect that I felt is missing

there in Paharpur site is emotional attachment. Everybody seems just doing their jobs and

obeying commands. It is simply spending UNESCO’s money.” Paul34 (ID 86), who claimed

to be a traveller, argued with Maruf9435 (ID 187) on conversation and the role of government.

Paul suggested on adapting of a strategic approach and raising of public awareness; instead of

putting the blame only on the government36. He believed in engaging the locals in a win-win

situation. His argument was later supported by other members like Turjo, Dilip, Suborna,

Monwar and Maruf94.

Suborna (ID 109), in her post, informed others about the risk of visiting this site and warned

the visitors that they should leave the premise before sunset. She wrote33 – “While visiting in

July 2010, we heard that one lady (local tourist) was 'raped' and murdered in site. The victim

was found near the central temple area and the case was taken by police as an accident fallen

from the top of the temple”. Supporting Suborna’s warnings, Turjo (ID 28, a local) replied

that he noticed an increase in the guards from eight to sixteen at that time. Even this issue

remained disputed and it was not possible to be verified by other members. However, this

revealed that members also like to share their worries and become concerned about others,

when similar minds were connected.

33 Source : http://bdheritage.info/forum/#topic/Recent-activites-of-UNESCO.htm, dated : 11.10.2011

34 Source : http://bdheritage.info/Paul, dated : 11.10.2011

35 Source : http://bdheritage.info/profile_info.php?ID=187, dated : 11.10.2011

36 Source: http://bdheritage.info/forum/#topic/Conservation-Issues.htm, dated : 11.10.2011

Page | 199
The experiment was conducted for a limited time and the end-users were allowed to

participate only for three months. Nevertheless, these public reflections provided evidences

which reveal unique perspectives of cultural or related articulated issues. These diverging

forms of knowledge and information, therefore, helped the end-users to re-contextualize and

re-localize that heritage objects and sites. Moreover, the end-users’ consciousness and

freedom of speech was also observed in this study similar to O’Reilly (2007) and

Surowiecki’s (2004).

7.2.6 Public participation: Historic events vs. specific heritage site

We can never re-create the past as it actually was (Silberman, 2008). However, through

dialogic interaction as an evolving collective memory or multi-vocal reflection, it can help to

get a wider subjective reconstruction of the past. Leaving technology behind and bringing

forth history, several examples in section 2.2.3 demonstrate how end-users can access, share,

comment and construct independent explanations and understand big historic events such as

September 11, WW2, and Pearl harbour. These examples prove that the lay people like to

participate and contribute, if opportunity is provided. It is a human nature to convey one’s

own experience or knowledge to one’s successors and that is how human evolution occurs.

However, it is also true that these web portals (table 2.4) are primarily collecting information

on ‘great events’ or ‘national issues’ like 9-11 or WW2. Generally, people are interested in

these big events and want to share their own experiences. On the other hand, it is difficult to

find any portal that collects information on any specific architectural monument. Therefore,

the question is why general people would be interested in any specific digital heritage project.

In addition, how can the interpretive process help to enhance the interaction (i.e. exploration,

manipulation and contribution)? From this perspective, the attempt to collect memories or

Page | 200
experience on a single heritage building like Sompur Mahavihara (i.e. bdheritage.info)37 is

unique.

Organic virtual communities are formed organically by individuals with similar interests, and

its life and contribution rely on the active participation of the members. Interested members

with some particular knowledge and a high level of enthusiasm and engagement make the

group sustainable. However, the formation of such a community requires a long period. On

the other hand, for the case such as in this experiment, where time is limited but demands

large number of active members, high motivation and initial supports from the administrative

side are required to ignite the group dynamics (explained before in section 4.4). The

researcher of this study, therefore, had to organize promotional seminars in three universities,

exhibit posters in various public locations, make newspaper advertisement, publish a

Facebook page and various posts in similar online forums, and circulate the existence of this

portal to a greater audience through personal connections. During these three months of

public participation, the online portal received 80 forum posts, 524 images, 16 videos, 88 blog

posts, 350 comments, 41 external links and 31 documents (http://bdheritage.info, dated

19.12.2010). These contributions came from 253 active members, consisting of researchers,

teachers, students, locals, travellers, businessperson, ex-custodians and lay people.

According to empirical evidence, the conceptual framework has been found to be effective in

persuading the members to be active and be involved in the interpretive process. It has also

revealed that the second group (i.e. group B that experienced this interpretive method) had

greater interpretation. However, the initial ignition of the process is vital and continuous

moderation and observation is required.

37
This site has been nominated for ‘Best of the web 2011 award’ by ‘Archives and Museum Informatics’
(http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/image/nomination_for_best_of_the_web_award), on social media category.

Page | 201
7.3 DISCUSSION

This research is the very first attempt of its kind to develop a comprehensive method about

digital heritage interpretation. It explains not only how to present information, but also how to

enhance the pedagogy of cultural learning, to make the end-users more embodied with the

environment, and ways of involving people with the content production process so that, the

narrative itself can hold multiple perspectives. The theoretical constructs along with empirical

study provides some valid ground of its applicability in further digital heritage project design

and planning.

Although certain components of this framework need further investigation and tuning, the

interpretive framework can still be applied to any digital heritage project that offers the end-

users’ involvement in the narrative level. In this way, the interpretive framework can be used

as a tool to ensure an enhancement of the end-users’ satisfaction, learning, provocation, and

multiple perspectives of the past (i.e. the end-users’ interpretation level).

This study presents interpretive pathways while suggesting fifteen guidelines or

considerations, which could be used as a source for further development of a charter for

interpretation and presentation of digital heritage.

Page | 202
 CHAPTER 08
CONCLUSION

8.1 DIGITAL HERITAGE INTERPRETATION : CONSIDERATIONS

Through intensive reviews of theory and methodology from real world heritage interpretation

and online case studies of digital heritage projects, this research has defined ‘digital heritage

interpretation’ as a process to present or communicate with end-users through digital media. It

recommends four ‘objectives’ for digital heritage interpretation, i.e. (i) to satisfy the end-

users’ enquiry and expectation of the visit, (ii) to provoke the end-users for further

conservation/protection of the heritage site/object, (iii) to disseminate knowledge of the past

history and culture, and (iv) to present the past from multiple perspectives, so that the end-

users may have a wider overview of the past.

In most cases, digital heritage projects are descriptive with specific objectives. Such

objectives include having hermeneutic environment, embodied interaction, realistic

environment, more immersion, enhancement of learning, or of visualization. Although these

attempts have helped us to accentuate experience and visual fidelity, they do not lead us to

achieve a comprehensive interpretive method. Instead, they appeared as if to display the

application of a new hardware or tool to explore digital heritage. Based on literature survey,

this study has revealed that the role and objectives of ‘heritage interpretation’ (for real-world

realm) are well established due to long-range of research and practice. However, hardly any

research has attempted to bridge the gap and linked that knowledge to the digital heritage

realm. In this context and in the light of knowledge gained from the investigation from

Human computer interaction, Archaeology, Human behaviour studies, History and Heritage

Page | 203
management, and later investigation from empirical study, this research suggests four aspects

to achieve a comprehensive interpretation (more details in section 3.3). These are :

(a) Effective presentation: Interpretation is all about presenting and communicating with the

end-users to help them in engaging with and understanding the place and objects. The

objective here is not only to present the ‘big concepts’ of chronology, change, evidence and

facts of the past, but also to create an empathy towards cultural and natural surroundings, and

to promote an appreciation of heritage. The research proposed these following considerations

to ensure an effective presentation and communication with end-users:

x Variety in presentation and content

x Setting cognitive dissonance through challenges to explore

x Novelty, conflict and surprise in content presentation

x Easy orientation and navigation system

x Openness in adding or adopting new information

x Connection to the visitors’ past experience (affordances)

(b) Cultural learning: One of the major objectives of digital heritage is to disseminate the

knowledge of history and culture to general people. Therefore, the process of interpretation

inherits a pedagogical and edification role to convey meanings and values of heritage to

enrich the senses of place and culture. To promote cultural learning from a digital heritage

project, it is, therefore, necessary to:

x Encourage end-users to collect, personalize and communicate through artefacts

x Provoke end-users to reveal symbolic meanings of artefacts and signs

x Encourage end-users to the discovery of new information

Page | 204
(c) Embodiment: According to this research, embodiment is not as simple as an individual’s

consciousness of experience of bodily aspects of being or acting, rather the phenomenon that

provides a rich understanding of what human ideas are and how they are organized in vast

conceptualized systems – grounded in both physical and live reality. That is to say,

embodiment is the way we think and make sense of the world. Therefore, to ensure an

effective embodied interaction within the interpretive process, this research suggests:

x Promoting active participation

x Encouraging task accomplishment or task performance

x Ensuring real-time feedback and practical action

(d) Dialogic interaction: Empirical study had found that, allowing a dialogue through the

interpretation framework influences active participants to get involved, explore deeper and

have a better understanding through shared experience or co-experience. Moreover, allowing

multiple users with various social and cultural backgrounds and their contribution to the

narrative level heterogeneous perspectives of the past can be accommodated side by side.

This explicit knowledge base works as a supplement for the professional interpretation and

presents multiple perspectives from varied contributors. To achieve an effective dialogic

interaction, this research recommends :

x Maximizing interaction (i.e. allow the end-users to explore, manipulate and

contribute)

x Encouraging discourse

x Promoting dialogue between end-users (i.e. general people, professionals and

experts)

This research started with the objective to develop a methodology to enhance the

interpretation of digital heritage and to suggest some guidelines for future digital heritage

Page | 205
projects. Fifteen considerations are identified to support four major aspects of digital heritage

interpretation (conceptual framework presented in figure 3.5). However, these considerations

are flexible in nature and applicable to varied media and tool in varied way. For example,

‘real-time feedback/practical action’ is a consideration; a 2D web platform can support this

through a pop-up message or with a beep, whereas, for VR with hepatic controller the

response could be different. Therefore, these considerations are device or media independent

and solely dependent upon the media designer (more detail in section 3.4). Although, these

considerations are grouped under specific aspects, they may overlap and merged with various

aspects instead of one. Even though this study presents these considerations in a grouped

fashion, they are, however, implicitly interwoven with each other (explained in section 4.4).

8.2 IMPLICATIONS

The study outcome is twofold: firstly, the development of a methodological framework of

digital heritage interpretation. Through defining ‘digital heritage interpretation’ and its

objectives, this was done by developing a conceptual model, extending the model to a

conceptual framework, implementing the framework in an online platform, and finally testing

its impact on end-users’ interpretation level. In this way, this research, demonstrates the

possibility of having a comprehensive model that can enhance the interpretation of digital

heritage from a user-centric perspective.

To have an enhanced interpretation, the conceptual model applied a comprehensive approach

that converges effective presentation, cultural learning, embodiment and dialogic interaction

to achieve a higher satisfaction, provocation and learning while allowing the past to be

perceived from multiple perspectives. With empirical evidences, this study has demonstrated

that application of the conceptual framework results in a higher level of interpretation of

digital heritage among the end-users as compared to the conventional linear model of

interpretation. This way, this research is no doubt one of the first attempts that developed a

Page | 206
comprehensive interpretation method for digital heritage. The implication of this

interpretation framework as a contribution suggests a new avenue of knowledge in the field of

digital heritage domain and opens up the possibility of application in various digital

environments (both 2D and 3D) to achieve a satisfactory interpretation by the end-users.

Secondly, this study reveals that, to have a greater experience, the planning and design of

‘interpretation’ is more important and needs to be considered before media or tools are

selected. Through a proper interpretive process, even a 2D platform can produce better

experience and interpretation. However, we need to be conscious about the domination of

technology over our experience.

End-users are varied people with unique cultural and cognitive background and, most

importantly, they have varied interest. Findings from this study indicate that dialogic

interaction allows the end-users to access the generic knowledge base and offers varieties in

content, with more freedom in information selection according to their need. Moreover, the

end-users, who had access to the online platform that was built on the PrEDiC framework

spent more time and were more involved in the platform. However, initially, they required a

higher motivation and prompt feedback from administrators/moderators to become active.

As mentioned earlier, the recent trends of digital heritage are motivated towards achieving

visual fidelity with photorealistic representation. However, the evidence of this study shows

that, lay people are more interested to know about the process (e.g. excavation, digitization),

activities (e.g. education, rituals) and how things work (e.g. artefacts, tools), rather what it

was (e.g. detail of history, timeline). This is what we should concern in content creation for

future digital heritage projects. The empirical findings also demonstrate that allowing dialogic

interaction helps to liberate the voices of the oppressed. A dialogue allows the end-users to

raise various issues and topics (such as theft of artefacts by foreign excavation team, looting

of museum resources, murder inside the monastery, and negligence of the government in

protecting the site) which were unpredictable at the beginning of this study. An implication of

Page | 207
this is that it opens up the possibility of using this information as valuable clues or resources

for further archaeological investigation or social research. Even though all members were not

active participants or interested in communicating with others, it seems that digital heritage

platform can also act as a social networking hub for like-minded people with common

interest.

Revelation of these facts by the present study provides us with some answers to the research

questions raised at the beginning of this study and opens up the avenue for future research.

8.3 CONTRIBUTION

8.3.1 Contribution to theory

Allowing end-users as contributors through the application of web 2.0 for collecting public

memory is not new, nor are the analysis techniques (quantitative and qualitative) used for this

research. What is new is the convergence of knowledge from Heritage management, HCI,

Archaeology and Behavioural studies to develop a conceptual model along with the

adaptation and application of this model to the areas of research that are still in their

conceptual developmental phase. The unique contribution of this research, therefore, lies in

the development of a critical theoretical construct evolved from multiple disciplines, which

demonstrates the theoretical basis or foundation of the interpretive methodology applicable to

digital heritage.

Digital heritage as a domain, still lacks adequate literature that focus explicitly on the theory

and methodology of interpretation (Affleck, 2007, Tan and Rahaman, 2009) including critical

discourse (Cameron, 2008). Moreover, there are no charters or guidelines for digital heritage.

Several interpretation models and guidelines based on real-world heritage site, from Tilden

(1977), Fitch (1982), Uzzell (1989), Moscardo (1999), Tim Copeland (1998, 2004),

Thompson (1981), Brooks and Brooks (1993), Harrison (1994), and Beck and Cable (1998) -

Page | 208
are studied38 and found not immediately applicable to the digital realm. However, this study

revealed that based on Fitch’s (1982) and Uzzell’s (1989) framework, there exists two distinct

groups of interpretive approaches, which are based on either (i) information presentation or

(ii) information flow.

Fitch’s (1982) model of interpretation placed public at the second level in the interpretive

process as a consumer of the filtered information produced by the professional. This model

therefore, does not recognize public contribution as a possible source of information that can

complement ‘professional interpretation’. The linear narrative produced by this model by

professionals is therefore prone to ‘subjective representation’ or ‘image of practice’

(explained in section 3.1.1, ii & iii). As a result it often fails to deliver ‘re-construction’ or

present the past as a whole, which is highly suggested by Uzzell (1989) for greater

interpretation. Previous attempt by Affleck (2005, 2007) to combine these two methods (i.e.

popular interpretation and re-construction) was unsuccessful as her research failed to present

any model or framework to support the concept of ‘popular, reconstructive, discursive

approach to heritage interpretation’, neither any guidelines or interpretive considerations

were published. The interpretive method that is supported by a detailed framework (i.e.

PeEDiC) presented in this research, therefore, is unique. The theoretical construct / the

conceptual model presented here shows how it is possible to fuse the concept of ‘re-

construction’ and ‘popular interpretation’ in a digital realm to develop a nonlinear interpretive

process and that is the major contribution of this research.

From both point of theory and practice, it shows the way to juxtapose the professional and

popular content in the narrative level. Findings from the empirical study also implies that this

interpretive method accentuates end-users’ interpretation and shared meanings by leading the

participants to go beyond their own perception through “collaboration with more capable

peers”, and explicates ‘inter-subjective understanding’. The framework presented in this

research is, therefore, a contribution that initiates a new discourse to understand how an

38
Study of these models and comparison of the principles are presented in section 2.1.2 and 2.1.3.

Page | 209
interpretive process can unfold a space for inter-subjectivity and create the environment

where greater satisfaction, provocation, learning and understanding of the past from multiple

perspectives can take place.

This explorative study has purposeful implications. Being at the cutting edge of new media

and technological revolution, this research followed the experimental research approach. As

such, this research not only presents a research framework to guide the methodological rigour,

but also through application and user study it provides guidelines (new ways) to other

researchers looking for new challenges, directions and applications to achieve the most

interactive digital heritage project.

This research, therefore, has presented an integrated approach that demonstrates the critical

and constructive application of the conceptual framework in order to add, not only to those

source disciplines, but also to the development of digital heritage’s own theoretical construct.

In doing so, it promotes the link between research and practice in digital heritage, particularly

with respect to the incorporation of end-users’ perception or highlighting end-users’ varied

needs and interests into the interpretive process.

This way the present research has made some significant contributions to the body of

knowledge, which can be summarized as follows:

1. Defining the knowledge gaps. Identification and validation of end users’ perception

of digital heritage as an inevitable part in the interpretive process.

2. Development of a critical theoretical construct (i.e. the conceptual model) which

demonstrates the theoretical basis or foundation of the interpretive methodology for

digital heritage.

3. The methodological approach for evaluating end-users’ interpretation of digital

heritage (i.e. experiment design, data collection and evaluation process) - is also a

unique contribution.

Page | 210
 4. The dialogic interaction approach, which postulates interpretation as a social

construct and enhances inter-subjective understanding - indicates a new discourse in

the digital heritage domain.

8.3.2 Contribution to practice

During this research, an intensive literature survey and online studies (section 2.3.4, Annex B

& C) of various virtual heritage projects and research within the domain of museum and

research labs helped to identify present limitations in practice39 and presented in section 3.1.

Heritage scholars, researchers and practitioners such as Champion (2006, 2008) and Dave

(2005, 2008), Flynn (2005, 2008), Kenderdine (2008), Tan (2007), Rousso (2003, 2008), Tost

(2004), Mosaker (2001) used various tools and technologies such as game engine, somatic

impulse, MUVEs, 2nd Life, 360-degree stereoscopic visualization, VROOM, immersive

displays etc. for experiencing digital heritage. However, their attempts had other agenda

rather than to achieve a comprehensive interpretive method. Therefore, in most cases the

practice remained descriptive (Gillings 2000, Thorton 2007, Affleck and Kvan 2008) and

over looked end-users (Rahaman and Tan 2010, 2011). Domination of ‘image of practice’

(Kalay 2008) which is based on ‘fragments of evidence’ (Parry 2007) has narrowed the

spectrum of the present practice towards more ocular centric (Rossue 2002, Champion 2004,

2006, Saparacino 2004, Voltolina et al. 2006). On the other hand, studies from section 2.3.3

show that allowing public contribution in the narrative level can generate collective cultural

memory and open the possibility of social construction.

In this context, the conceptual framework (PrEDiC) presented in this research unfolds

‘interpretation’ as an evolving process – a social construct. Through substituting the

conventional top down one-way broadcast, it facilitates satisfaction, provocation, learning and

multiple perspectives of the past through the interpretive process and uplifts inter-subjective

understanding of end-users. By enhancing interpretation through such means of social

39
Knowledge gaps in both theories and present practice are explained in detail at section 3.1.

Page | 211
construction, this research thus supports the discourse in the field of psychology and

sociology from Rommetveit (1979), Wertsch (1985) and Schegloff (1991) that believes inter-

subjectivity involves activity and situation between communicative participants.

Recent studies from the domain of learning and museum studies show that, in a real-world

setting dialogue and interaction (in the form of inter-subjectivity) enhances negotiation among

participants in problem solving and crucial understanding (Hui, 2003, Arnseth et al., 2004,

Jansen, 2008, 2010). The proposed interpretive method in this research offers a means to do

the same in the digital realm. Thus, this research has implications and applications for

museums, heritage institutes, heritage research labs, tourism industry and, particularly, remote

and isolated communities/individuals experiencing digital heritage. Through this method,

end-users are provided the opportunity to have a purposeful and constructive input in the

interpretive process. Therefore, the museum authorities can find the insiders’ (or emic)

perception of significance which may lead to the uncovering of potential intangible values of

heritage which is always difficult to get from an ‘etic’ or outsiders’ perspective. It also

promotes reciprocal relationship to raise voices on various issues regarding cultural heritage.

Learning can be enhanced through sharing local knowledge with capable peers. For example,

Sompur Mahavihara does not have any online official web site. This PrEDiC framework can

be used to develop an interpretive platform for online visitors. This can work as an

information hub for like-minded people, interested groups as well as lay people. Due to its

open-ended narrative, it will be able to collect various information regarding the monastery’s

architecture style, history, archaeological aspects, cultural issues and so on. This information

can be accessed prior to visit, during the visit through mobile devices and through interactive

kiosk located at the site. An application can also be developed for mobile devices as a

gateway to this online platform to easily access and share experience while visiting the

physical heritage site.

Page | 212
The framework (i.e.PrEDiC) has been developed as media independent with an objective to

enhance end-users’ satisfaction, learning, provocation and understanding the past from

multiple perspective. It can be applied to a 3D platform located at any museum of a heritage

site, such as at Sompur Mahavihara. By applying this framework through any digital tool such

as iCenema or 360-degree immersive display, the museum authority can help to enhance

visitors’ interpretation of the site. After visiting the physical heritage site, the visitors can visit

the museum and enjoy the installation as well. Various virtual reconstruction of the heritage

site along with visitors’ comments may help them to get multiple perspectives of the past

through this installation, which would not be possible to achieve just by seeing the existing

ruins. Having access to different timelines and reconstructed virtual models from various

scholars will therefore enhance the visitors’ learning. Through various modes of interaction

and information presented through this installation, might raise empathy for further

conservation and protection of the heritage site. Thus, this interpretive framework will

enhance their overall satisfaction of visit. However, achieving this scenario is only possible if

the installed system/hardware/digital media supports all fifteen considerations to ensure

effective presentation, embodiment, cultural learning and dialogic-interaction. The more

considerations the system can adopt, the better the interpretation it will offer.

As this method allows anonymous contribution, researchers may find interesting and valuable

information regarding the heritage. Similarly, digital heritage specialists and content

developers can get ideas about what end-users want and like most, the communication

channel they used, the most requested enquiry, the nodes of attraction etc. - which can aid

them in future designing, planning and making presentation of information to facilitate better

engagement and experience.

As discussed before, many digital heritage projects are designed based on available

techniques and technology, and applications or functions are decided later, as an afterthought.

But in reality, for different purposes like entertainment industry, education or investigation of

archaeological hypothesis, different types of digital heritage projects may require with

Page | 213
varying level (photorealistic to non-photorealistic) and degree (detailed to abstract) of

representation. From the empirical study, it is evident that even a 2D web platform can be

entertaining and engaging, and can provide enhanced interpretation. Therefore, the objective

of the project could instead take priority rather than the usage of new media or tool, as the

presentation and communication with end-users can always gain insights from the proposed

interpretive method. Moreover, through applying this interpretive framework (PrEDiC) to

digital heritage - projects can be more responsive, democratic and reflective.

The significance of non-linear interpretation with dialogic interaction does not appear to have

been recognised or generally facilitated. Thus, finally, the comprehensive interpretive

approach developed in this research has both academic and interpretive programming

applications. Therefore, the major contributions of this research can be summarized as:

1. Development of the conceptual framework with interpretive guidelines for facilitating

effective interpretative activities for future digital heritage projects.

2. Development of a set of indicators to evaluate the end-users’ interpretation of digital

heritage.

3. Development of an applied linkage between public interpretation and professional

interpretation by introducing ‘dialogic interaction’.

8.4 OPPORTUNITIES AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

Certainly visiting a physical heritage site is preferable than a digital heritage site. Due to

constrain at various levels (figure 1.1, 2.8) there are often chances of an end-product (i.e.

digital heritage) to be inferior and remain incomplete as compared to the original heritage site

or artefact. However, digital heritage that represents ruins, non-accessible or vulnerable can

help visitors to have some idea of the past. Moreover, a digital heritage site that accepts

public participation (i.e. allow dialogic interaction) can help to enhance end-users’ inter-

Page | 214
subjective understanding of the past through collective construction and social sharing, which

is very limited in a physical heritage site.

This research developed a conceptual framework for interpreting Digital Heritage, and tested

its applicability and impact in a 2D online platform. Due to resource and technical limitations

(mentioned in section 1.3, 5.1.1), this research applied the proposed interpretive framework in

a 2D online platform. However, applying this same model in a 3D platform (such as in

CAVE) or on site augmented reality platform might have a different impact on the end-users,

and requires further research. Further application of this framework in various settings such as

in museums, heritage centres and conservation sites requires attention through tailoring of

methods of practice and prototype development.

Certain components of the framework are yet to be fully investigated, particularly grounding

the concept of ‘embodiment’ with new tools and technologies that requires bodily

involvement. It is proposed that future research could aim at investigating the school of

thought that claims embodied interaction as an extension of the body through tools (section

2.3.1) and is not explored in this research.

This study deems the end-users as a multicultural phenomenon and asks for more attention to

be given while designing and planning digital heritage projects. During the research

experiment, participants are chosen from a known context with a similar stratum (i.e. graduate

students). However, participants from a varied context with a varied cultural background may

affect the result and accordingly require further investigation. Moreover, this also indicates

the need for further study in order to understand the types of end-users, their common needs

and choices (i.e. affordances) to enhance the interpretive process.

At the time of writing this research, I could not find any established or standard method for

data collection (such as a set of questionnaire) to evaluate end-users’ interpretation of digital

heritage. Data collection method requires further research and testing to establish a set of

questionnaire that can also evaluate the participants’ cognitive process, internalization and

Page | 215
mindful state, with respect to the interpretive indicators mentioned in this study. Moreover,

there might be a difference in understanding between end-users who have visited the real-

world site and who have not. There is a need to investigate how and in what extent digital

heritage can uplift the value of cultural heritage to these groups though this interpretive

process.

The domain of digital heritage is still in its infancy and this research is just a small step

forward. Although the major strength of this research lies in gaining an in-depth knowledge of

digital heritage interpretation, it requires further research to test the methodology in varied

platforms, in varied contexts, with varied end-users.

Page | 216
REFERENCES

Addison, A. C.:2000, Emerging Trends in Virtual Heritage. IEEE Multimedia, 7, 22-25.

Affleck, J.:2007, Memory Capsules: Descriptive Interpretation of Cultural Heritage through

Digital Media Department of Architecture. Hong Kong, The University of Hong
Kong.

Affleck, J. & Kvan, T.:2005, Reinterpreting Virtual Heritage : Participatory Interpretation of

Cultural Heritage through New Media. in Kvan, T. & Kalay, Y. (eds.) New Heritage
Conference: Beyond verisimilitude of cultural heritage through new media. Faculty
of Architecture, University of Hong Kong.

Affleck, J. & Kvan, T.:2008, Memorey Capsules : Descrusive Interpretation for Cultural
Heritage through New Media in Kalay, Y. E., Kvan, T. & Afflek, J. (eds.) New
Heritage : New Media and Cultural Heritage. New York, Routledge.

Alt, M. & Shaw, K.:1984, Characteristics of Ideal Museum Exhibits. British Journal of
Psychology, 75, 25-36.

Ankerl, G.:1981, Experimental Sociology of Architecture : A Guide to Theory, Research, and

Literature, The Hague ; New York, : Mouton.

Archeoguide:2009, Archeoguide, Available from:Open Source Repository

<http://archeoguide.intranet.gr/project.htm> (accessed 10-04-2009).

Arnseth, H. C., Ludvigsen, S., Mørch, A. & Wasson, B.:2004, Managing Intersubjectivity in
Distributed Collaboration. PsychNology Journal, 2, 189-204.

Australia, I. A.:2010, What Is Interpretation?, Available from:Open Source Repository

<http://www.interpretationaustralia.asn.au/about-ia/what-is-interpretation> (accessed
03-11-2010).

Bailey, K. D.:1978, Methods of Social Research, New York, Free Press.

Ballantyne, R.:1998, Interpreting ‘Visions’: Addressing Environmental Education Goals

through Interpretation. in Uzzell, D. L. & Ballantyne, R. (eds.) Contemporary Issues
in Heritage and Environmental Interpretation. London, Stationery Office.

Barceló, J. A.:2000, Visualizing What Might Be. An Introduction to Virtual Reality in

Archaeology. Virtual Reality in Archaeology, 843, 9-36.

Bateson, G.:2000, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

BBC:2009, Digital Storytelling, Available from:Open Source Repository

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/audiovideo/sites/galleries/pages/digitalstorytelling.shtm
l> (accessed 24.10.2009).

Beck, L. & Cable, T.:1998, Interpretation for the 21st Century, Champaign, Illinois,
Sagamore Publishing.

Black, G.:2010, Embedding Civil Engagement in Museums. Museum Management and

Curatorship, 25, 129-146.

Page | 217
Bonini, E.:2008, Building Virtual Cultural Heritage Environments: The Embodied Mind at
the Core of the Learning Processes. International Journal of Digital Culture and
Electronic Tourism, 1, 113-125.

Borun, M.:1989, Naive Notions and the Design of Science Museum Exhibits. Visitor studies:
Theory, research and practice, 2, 158-162.

Brawne, M.:2003, Architectural Thought : The Design Process and the Expectant Eye,
Amsterdam, Architectural Press.

Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G.:1993, In Search of Understanding : The Case for

Constructivist Classrooms, Alexandria, Va., Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development.

Bruner, J. S.:1990, Acts of Meaning, Cambridge, Mass., : Harvard University Press.

Bullivant, L.:2007, 4dsocial : Interactive Design Environments, London, Wiley.

Cameron, F.:2008, The Politics of Heritage Authorship : The Case of Digital Heritage
Collections in Kalay, Y. E., Kvan, T. & Afflek, J. (eds.) New Heritage : New Media
and Cultural Heritage. New York, Routledge.

Cameron, F. & Kenderdine, S.:2006, Introduction. in Cameron, F. & Kenderdine, S. (eds.)

Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage : A Critical Discourse. Cambridge, Mass., MIT
Press.

Champion, E.:2002, Cultural Engagement in Virtual Heritage Environments with Inbuilt

Interactive Evaluation Mechanisms. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International
Workshop: PRESENCE.

Champion, E.:2003, Applying Game Design Theory to Virtual Heritage Environments.

Annual Conference, Graphite. Melbourne, Australia, ACM New York, USA.

Champion, E.:2004, Heritage Role Playing-History as an Interactive Digital Game. in Pisan,

Y. (Ed.) IE2004 Australian Workshop on Interactive Entertainment. Sydney, ACM
Digital Library.

Champion, E.:2004, The Limits of Realism in Architectural Visualization. XXIst annual

conference of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand
(SAHANZ). Melbourne Australia.

Champion, E.:2006, Evaluating Cultural Learning in Virtual Environments Department of

Geomatics, Faculty of Engineering and the Faculty of Architecture, Building and
Planning. Melbourne, Australia, The University of Melbourne.

Champion, E.:2006, Playing with a Career in Ruins: Game Design and Virtual Heritage. in
Marcén, P. G. & Tost, L. P. (eds.) Learning in Cyberspace: New Media for Heritage
Didactics and Interpretation. Barcelona Spain, Centre d’Estudis del Patrimoni
Arquelògic de la Prehistoria Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

Champion, E.:2008, Explorative Shadow Realms of Uncertain Histories. in Kalay, Y. E.,

Kvan, T. & Afflek, J. (eds.) New Heritage : New Media and Cultural Heritage.
London and New York, Routledge.

Page | 218
Champion, E., Bishop, I. & Dave, B.:2011, The Palenque Project: Evaluating Interaction in an
Online Virtual Archaeology Site. Virtual Reality, 1-19.

Champion, E. & Dave, B.:2002, Where Is This Place? in Proctor, G. (Ed.) 22st Annual
Conference ACADIA 2002: Thresholds Between Physical and Virtual. Cal Poly
Pomona, CA, USA.

Champion, E. & Dave, B.:2006, Dialing up the Past. in Cameron, F. & Kenderdine, S. (eds.)
Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. Cambridge, Mass., MIT
Press.

Champion, E., Dave, B. & Bishop, I.:2003, Interaction, Agency and Artefacts. in Chiu, M.,
Tsou, J., Kvan, T., Morozumi, M. & Jeng, T. (eds.) 10th International Conference on
CAAD Futures'2003 : Digital Design: Research and Practice. Taiwan, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Doordrecht, The Netherlands.

Champion, E. M.:2006, Evaluating Cultural Learning in Virtual Environments Department of

Geomatics, Faculty of Engineering and the Faculty of Architecture, Building and
Planning. Melbourne, Australia, The University of Melbourne.

Charter, V.:1964, International Charters for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments
and Sites. ICOMOS, Paris.

Choi, J.:1992, Archiwais: A Multimedia-Based Architectural Information System for

Teaching and Learn Ing Architectural History and Theory. Reconnecting: ACADIA
94, 161.

Cohen, D. J. & Rosenzweig, R.:2006, Digital History : A Guide to Gathering, Preserving,

and Presenting the Past on the Web, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.

Copeland, T.:1998, Constructing History: All Our Yesterdays. Teaching the Primary
Curriculum for Constructive Learning, 119.

Copeland, T.:2004, Presenting Archaeology to the Public : Constructing Insights on-Site. in

Merriman, N. (Ed.) Public Archaeology. London, New York, Routledge.

Copeland, T.:2006, Constructing Pasts : Interpreting the Historic Environment. in Hems, A. &
Blockley, M. R. (eds.) Heritage Interpretation. London, New York, Routledge.

Costalli, F., Marucci, L., Mori, G. & Paternò, F.:2001, Design Criteria for Usable Web-
Accessible Virtual Environments. in Bearman, D. & Garzotto, F. (eds.) in the
Proceedings of International Cultural HeritageInformatics Meeting : ichom01.
Milan, ichim.

CREATE:2009, Create, Available from:Open Source Repository

<http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/research/vr/Projects/Create/> (accessed 10-04-2009).

Csordas, T. J.:1994, Embodiment and Experience : The Existential Ground of Culture and
Self, Cambridge ; New York, : Cambridge University Press.

Curtis, M.:2004, Distraction : Being Human in a Digital World, London, Futuretext.

Daniels, H.:2005, An Introduction to Vygotsky, New York, Routledge.

Page | 219
Dave, B.:1998, Bits of Heritage. in Thwaites, H. (Ed.) Proceeding of Virtual Systems and
Multimedia : Future Fusion. The Natherlands, IOS Press.

Dave, B.:2005, Labyrinthine Digital Histories : Interpretive, Extensible and Referential. in

martens, B. & Brown, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th International CAAD Futures,
20-22 June 2005. Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria, Springer.

Dave, B.:2008, Virtual Heritage : Mediating Space, Time and Perspectives. in Kalay, Y. E.,
Kvan, T. & Affleck, J. (eds.) New Heritage : New Media and Cultural Heritage. New
York, Routledge.

Deshpande, S., Geber, K. & Timpson, C.:2006, Engaged Dialogism in Virtual Space : An
Exploration of Research Strategies for Virtual Museums. in Cameron, F. &
Kenderdine, S. (eds.) Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage : A Critical Discourse.
Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.

Dikshit, K. N.:1938, Excavations at Paharpur, Bengal New Delhi, Archaeological Survey of

India.

DiSessa, A. A.:1983, Phenomenology and the Evolution of Intuition. Mental models, 15-34.

Dourish, P.:2001, Where the Action Is : The Foundations of Embodied Interaction,

Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.

Economou, M. & Tost, L. P.:2008, Educational Tool or Expensive Toy? Evaluating Vr

Evaluation and Its Relevance for Virtual Heritage. in Kalay, Y. E., Kvan, T. &
Affleck, J. (eds.) New Heritage: New Media and Cultural Heritage. London and New
York, Routledge-Taylor and Francis Group.

Eiteljorg, H.:1998, Photorealistic Visualizations May Be Too Good. CSA Newsletter, 11.

Ename974:2009, Ename974, Available from:Open Source Repository

<http://www.ename974.org/Eng/ pagina/archeo_concept.html> (accessed 10-04-
2009).

Engeström, Y.:1999, Activity Theory and Individual and Social Transformation. Perspectives
on activity theory, 19-38.

Ennis, G. & Maver, T.:1999, Visit Vr Glasgow. Education for Computer Aided
Architectural Design in Europe.

Falk, J. H.:1991, Analysis of the Behavior of Family Visitors in Natural History Museums:
The National Museum of Natural History. Curator: The Museum Journal, 34, 44-50.

Fitch, J. M.:1982, Historic Preservation : Curatorial Management of the Built World, New
York, McGraw-Hill.

Flynn, B.:2007, The Morphology of Space in Virtual Heritage. in Cameron, F. & Kenderdine,
S. (eds.) Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. London,
England, The MIT Press.

Flynn, B.:2008, Augmented Visualisation: Designing Experience for an Interpretative

Cultural Heritage. 12th International Conference on Information Visualisation.

Page | 220
Forlizzi, J. & Battarbee, K.:2004, Understanding Experience in Interactive Systems.
Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes,
practices, methods, and techniques, 261-268.

Forte, M. & Bonini, E.:2008, Embodiment and Enaction: A Theoretical Overview for
Cybercommunities. Heritage 3.0: Virtual Communities and 3D Worlds, VSMM 08.
Cyprus

Gammon, B.:2003, Assessing Learning in Museum Environment. A practical guide for

museum evaluators.

Gay, G. & Hembrooke, H.:2004, Activity-Centered Design : An Ecological Approach to

Designing Smart Tools and Usable Systems, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.

Gibson, J. J.:1986, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Hillsdale, N.J., Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Gillings, M.:2000, Plans, Elevations and Virtual Worlds : The Development of Techniques
for the Routine Construction of Hyperreal Simulation in Barcelo, J. A., Forte, M. &
Sanders, D. H. (eds.) Virtual Reality in Archaeology. Oxford, England, Archaeopress.

Gillings, M.:2000, Plans, Elevations and Virtual Worlds: The Development of Techniques for
the Routine Construction of Hyperreal Simulations. BAR INTERNATIONAL SERIES,
843, 59-70.

Goodchild, P.:2007, Interpreting Landscape Heritage. International Symposium on

"Interpretation : From Monument to Living Heritage" and 2nd ICOMOS Thailand
General Assembly. Bankok, Thailand.

Goodman, N.:1985, How Buildings Mean. Critical Inquiry, 11, 642-653.

Graham, B.:2002, Heritage as Knowledge : Capital or Culture? Urban Studies, 39, 1003-
1017.

Griffin, J. & Symington, D.:1999, Finding Evidence of Learning in Museum Settings.

Communicating science: Contexts and channels, 110-119.

Guntarik, O.:2010, Narratives of Community : Museums and Ethnicity, Edinburgh,

Museumsetc.

Hall, E. T.:1969, The Hidden Dimension, New York, Doubleday and Company.

Ham, S. H. & Krumpe, E. E.:1996, Identifying Audiences and Messages for Nonformal
Environmental Education : A Theoretical Framework for Interpreters. Journal of
Interpretation Research, 1, 11-23.

Ham, S. H. & Weiler, B.:2002, Interpretation as the Centrepiece of Sustainable Wildlife

Tourism. Sustainable tourism: A global perspective, 35–44.

Hanks, P., Mcleod, W. & Urdang, L.:1986, Collins Dictionary of the English Language.
London: Collins,| c1986, 2nd ed., edited by Hanks, Patrick.

Harrison, R.:1994, Manual of Heritage Management, Oxford ; Boston, : Butterworth-

Heinemann.

Page | 221
Heidegger, M.:1977, Being and Time, Trans. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford:
Blackwell.(1976 [1966])'" Only a God can Save Us": the Spiegel interview', trans.
MR Alter and JD Caputo, Philosophy Today, 20, 267-85.

Hein, G.:1998, Learning in the Museum, Routledge.

Hennes, T.:2010, Exhibitions: From a Perspective of Encounter. Curator: The Museum

Journal, 53, 21-33.

Higgs, B., Polonsky, M. & Hollick, M.:2005, Measuring Expectations: Forecast Vs. Ideal
Expectations. Does It Really Matter? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
12, 49-64.

Hodder, I.:1991, Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity, 56, 7-18.

Holsti, O. R.:1969, Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities, Reading,
Mass.,, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Homles, R., Hazadiah Mohammad, D. & Habibah, A.:2005, A Guide to Research in the
Social Sciences, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Pearson Malaysia.

Howard, P.:2003, Heritage : Management, Interpretation, Identity, London, New York,

Continuum.

Hui, D.:2003, Managing Intersubjectivity in the Context of a Museum Learning Environment.

International Journal of Learning, 10.

Huizinga, J.:1968, Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture, Boston, Roy
publishers.

ICOMOS:2005, Charleston Declaration on Heritage Interpretation. 8th International

Symposium of US/ICOMOS. Charleston, South Carolina, USA.

ICOMOS:2007, The Icomos Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Culltural
Heritage Sites.

ICOMOS:2008, The Icomos Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural
Heritage Sites. ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Interpretation and
Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites.

Icomos, A., Monuments, I. C. o. & Sites:2000, The Burra Charter: The Australia Icomos
Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 1999: With Associated Guidelines and
Code on the Ethics of Co-Existence, Australia ICOMOS.

ICOMOS, C.:2000, Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China. English
translation by Neville Agnew and Martha Denis (2002). Los.

Jacabson, J.:2008, Ancient Architecture in Virtual Reality : Does Immersion Really Aid
Learning. Department of Information Sciences Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, University
of Pittsburgh

Jacobson, L.:2000, A Virtual Class Act Technology Aims to Help Hyperactive Students.
Special to the Washington Post. Monday, August, 14, 2000.

Jansen, R. S.:2008, Jurassic Technology? Sustaining Presumptions of Intersubjectivity in a

Disruptive Environment. Theory and Society, 37, 127-159.

Page | 222
Jencks, C.:1969, Semiology and Architeture. in Baird, G. & Jencks, C. (eds.) Meaning in
Architecture. London, : Barrie & Rockliff the Cresset P.

Jenner, B. & Titscher, S.:2000, Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis, London ; Thousand
Oaks Calif., SAGE.

Jex, S. M.:2002, Organizational Psychology : A Scientist-Practitioner Approach, New York,

Wiley.

Johnson, M.:1987, The Body in the Mind : The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and
Reason, Chicago, : University of Chicago Press.

Jonassen, D. & Rohrer-Murphy, L.:1999, Activity Theory as a Framework for Designing

Constructivist Learning Environments. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 47, 61-79.

Kalay, Y. & Marx, J.:2001, Architecture and the Internet: Designing Places in Cyberspace.
Proceedings of ACADIA 2001: Reinventing the Discourse, 230-240.

Kalay, Y. E.:2004, Virtual Learning Environments. Electronic journal of information

technology in construction

Kalay, Y. E.:2008, Preserving Cultural Heritage through Digital Media in Kalay, Y. E., Kvan,
T. & Afflek, J. (eds.) New Heritage : New Media and Cultural Heritage. New York,
Routledge.

Kaptelinin, V.:1996, Activity Theory : Implications for Human Computer Interaction. in

Nardi, B. A. (Ed.) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer
Interaction. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London England, The MIT Press.

Kaptelinin, V. & Nardi, B. A.:2006, Do We Need Theory in Interaction Design? in Nardi, B.,
Kaptelinin, V. & Foot, K. (eds.) Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and
Interaction Design. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England, MIT Press.

Keen, A.:2008, The Cult of the Amateur : How Blogs, Myspace, Youtube and the Rest of
Today's User Generated Media Are Destroying Our Economy, Our Culture, and Our
Values, London Boston, Nicholas Brealey.

Kenderdine, S., Shaw, J., Favero, D. D. & Brown, N.:2008, Place Hampi. in Kalay, Y. E.,
Kvan, T. & Affleck, J. (eds.) New Heritage: New Media and Cultural Heritage
London and New York, Routledge-Taylor and Francis Group.

Kent, S.:2000, The Cultural Revolution in Architeture. in Moore, K. D. (Ed.) Culture-

Meaning-Architecture : Critical Reflections on the Work of Amos Rapoport.
Aldershot, Hants ; Burlington, Vt., Ashgate.

Kent, S.:2000, The Cultural Revolution in Architeture in Moore, K. D. (Ed.) Culture-

Meaning-Architecture : Critical Reflections on the Work of Amos Rapoport.
Aldershot, Hants ; Burlington, Vt., Ashgate.

Knapp, D. & Benton, G.:2004, Elements to Successful Interpretation: A Multiple Case Study
of Five National Parks. Journal of Interpretation Research, 9, 9-26.

Kolb, D.:1984, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and

Development, Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Page | 223
Kollock, P.:1999, The Economies Ol Online Cooperation. Communities in cyberspace, 220.

Kumar, R.:2005, Research Methodology : A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners, London ;

Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage.

Lakoff, G.:1987, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the
Mind, University of Chicago press.

Lakoff, G.:1990, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, Univ. of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.:1980, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, : University of Chicago
Press.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.:1999, Philosophy in the Flesh : The Embodied Mind and Its
Challenge to Western Thought, New York, Basic Books.

Langer, E. J.:1989, Mindfulness, Reading, Mass., Perseus Books.

Lawson, B.:2001, The Language of Space, Oxford ; Boston, Architectural Press.

Leone, G.:2006, Remembering Together : Some Thoughts on How Direct or Virtual Social
Interactions Influence Memory Process. in Bagnara, S. & Smith, G. C. (eds.) Theories
and Practice in Interaction Design. Ivrea, Italy. Mahwah, N.J., Interaction Design
Institute Ivrea ; Lawrence Erlbaum.

LifePlus:2009, Lifeplus, Available from:Open Source Repository

<http://lifeplus.miralab.unige.ch/> (accessed 10-04-2009).

Ligorio, M. B., Talamo, A. & Pontecorvo, C.:2005, Building Intersubjectivity at a Distance

During the Collaborative Writing of Fairytales. Computers & Education, 45, 357-
374.

Lock, M.:1993, Cultivating the Body: Anthropology and Epistemologies of Bodily Practice
and Knowledge. Annual Review of Anthropology, 22, 133-155.

Lotman, I.:1976, Analysis of the Poetic Text, Ardis.

Lowenthal, D.:1985, The Past Is a Foreign Country, Cambridge University Press Cambridge,
Cambridge.

MacDonald, L.:2006, Digital Heritage : Applying Digital Imaging to Cultural Heritage

Preservation, Oxford ; Boston, Mass., Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.

Manninen, T.:2004, Rich Interaction Model for Game and Virtual Environment Design,
Oulun yliopisto.

Marsh, T., Wright, P. & Smith, S.:2001, Evaluation for the Design of Experience in Virtual
Environments: Modeling Breakdown of Interaction and Illusion. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 4, 225-238.

Mattioda, M. & Vercellone, F.:2006, From Function to Dialog. in Bagnara, S. & Smith, G. C.
(eds.) Theories and Practice in Interaction Design. Ivrea, Italy. Mahwah, N.J.,
Interaction Design Institute Ivrea, Lawrence Erlbaum.

Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J.:1980, Autopoiesis and Cognition : The Realization of the
Living, Dordrecht, Netherlands, D. Reidel.

Page | 224
Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J.:1992, The Tree of Knowledge : The Biological Roots of
Human Understanding, Boston, : Shambhala.

McCullough, M.:2004, Digital Ground : Architecture, Pervasive Computing, and

Environmental Knowing, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.

McManus, P. M.:1989, Oh, Yes, They Do: How Museum Visitors Read Labels and Interact
with Exhibit Texts. Curator: The Museum Journal, 32, 174-189.

McMillan, S.:2005, Exploring Models of Interactivity from Multiple Research Traditions:

Users, Documents, and Systems. in Lievrouw, L. & Livingston, S. (eds.) Handbook
of New Media. London, Sage.

Merleau-Ponty, M.:1945, Phenomenologie De La Perception, Paris, : Gallimard.

Michelis, G. D.:2006, Community Memory as a Process : Reflections and Indications for

Design. in Bagnara, S. & Smith, G. C. (eds.) Theories and Practice in Interaction
Design. Ivrea, Italy. Mahwah, N.J., Interaction Design Institute Ivrea ; Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Moltenbrey, K.:2001, Preserving the Past. Computer Graphics World. Penn Well Publishing
Co.

Moore, K. D.:2000, Introduction. in Moore, K. D. (Ed.) Culture-Meaning-Architecture :

Critical Reflections on the Work of Amos Rapoport. Aldershot, Hants ; Burlington,
Vt., Ashgate.

Morris-Suzuki, T.:2005, The Past within Us : Media, Memory, History, London ; New York,
Verso.

Mosaker, L.:2001, Visualising Historical Knowledge Using Virtual Reality Technology.

Digital Creativity, 12, 15-25.

Moscardo, G.:1996, Mindful Visitors:Heritage and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23,
376-397.

Moscardo, G.:1999, Making Visitors Mindful: Principles for Creating Quality Sustainable
Visitor Experiences through Effective Communication, Sagamore Publishing,
Champaign, Illinois.

Moving, H.:2005, Moving Here, Available from:Open Source Repository

<http://www.movinghere.org.uk> (accessed 23-01-2010).

Museum, A. C.:2011, Acm: Terracotta Warriors Iphone App, Available from:Open Source
Repository <http://www.acm.org.sg/press_room/newsdetail.asp?generalNewsID=57>
(accessed 24.01.2012).

Nardi, B. A.:1996, Context and Consciousness : Activity Theory and Human-Computer

Interaction, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.

Nielsen, J.:1998, Cost of User Testing a Website. Alertbox.

Nitsche, M., Roudavski, S., Thomas, M. & Penz, F.:2002, Narrative Expressive Space. ACM
SIGGROUP Bulletin, 23, 10-13.

Page | 225
Núñez, R. E., Edwards, L. D. & Filipe Matos, J.:1999, Embodied Cognition as Grounding for
Situatedness and Context in Mathematics Education. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 39, 45-65.

O reilly, T.:2007, What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation of Software. Communications and Strategies, 65, 17.

Oliver, R.:1997, Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill New

York.

Orion, N. & Hofstein, A.:1994, Factors That Influence Learning During a Scientific Field
Trip in a Natural Environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1097-
1119.

Osberg, K. M.:1997, Constructivism in Practice: The Case for Meaning-Making in the Virtual
World. University of Washington.

Palenque, P.:2003, Palenque Project, Available from:Open Source Repository

<http://nzerik.googlepages.com/palenqueproject> (accessed 10-04-2009).

Parés, N. & Parés, R.:2001, Interaction-Driven Virtual Reality Application Design (a

Particular Case: El Ball Del Fanalet or Lightpools). Presence: Teleoperators &
Virtual Environments, 10, 236-245.

Parry, R.:2007, Recoding the Museum : Digital Heritage and the Technologies of Change,
Abingdon, Oxon ; N.Y., Routledge.

Parry, R.:2007, Recoding the Museum: Digital Heritage and the Technologies of Change,
London and New York, Routledge.

Pietroni, E.:2010, Collaborative Environments in Archaeology. in Ioannides, M. (Ed.)

Heritage in the Digital Era. Brentwood, Essex, Multi-Science Publishing.

Place-Hampi:2009, Place-Hampi, Available from:Open Source Repository <www.place-

hampi.museum> (accessed 10-04-2009).

Preece, J., Benyon, D., Davies, G., Keller, L., Preece, J. & Rogers, Y.:1993, A Guide to
Usability : Human Factors in Computing, Wokingham, England, Addison-Wesley.

Press, O. U.:2009, Advanced learner’s dictionary online. Oxford University Press.

Quek, F.:2011, Embodiment: We're Just Human. CHI 2011. Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Rahaman, H. & Rashid, M. M.:2010, Heritage Interpretation : Collective Reconstruction of

Sompur Mahavihara, Bangladesh. 16th International Conference on Virtual Systems
and Multimedia, VSMM 2010. Seoul Korea, 20-23 October 2010

Rahaman, H. & Tan, B. K.:2010, Interpreting Digital Heritage : Considering End-User's

Perspective. in Dave, B., Li, A. I.-k. & Hyoung, N. G. (eds.) 15th International
Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, CAADRIA.
Hong Kong.

Rahaman, H. & Tan, B. K.:2010, Interpreting Digital Heritage: Interaction, Dialogue and
Multiple Perspectives of the Past. SMARTdoc 2010 : Heritage Recording and
Information Management in the Digital Age. Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.

Page | 226
Rahaman, H. & Tan, B. K.:2011, Interpreting Digital Heritage: A Conceptual Model with
End-Users' Perspective. International Journal of Architectural Computing (IJAC), 09,
99-113.

Rand, J., Design, C. f. S., Parks, A. A. o. Z. & Aquariums:1990, Fish Stories That Hook
Readers: Interpretive Graphics at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Center for Social
Design.

Rapoport, A.:2000, Culture and Built Form - a Reconsideration. in Moore, K. D. (Ed.)

Culture-Meaning-Architecture : Critical Reflections on the Work of Amos Rapoport.
Aldershot, Hants ; Burlington, Vt., Ashgate.

Relph, E. C.:1976, Place and Placelessness, London, United Kingdom, Pion Ltd.

Rheingold, H.:2000, The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, The
MIT Press.

Riva, G.:2004, The Psychology of Ambient Intelligence: Activity, Situation and Presence.
Ambient Intelligence: The evolution of technology, communication and cognition
towards the future of the human-computer interaction, 19-34.

Roberts, W. L.:2010, Dialogic Interaction in Online Distance Education: A Bakhtinian

Perspective. University of Marryland University College

Rojas, C. d. & Camarero, C.:2008, Visitors’ Experience, Mood and Satisfaction in a Heritage
Context: Evidence from an Interpretation Center. Tourism Management, 29, 525-537.

Rommetveit, R.:1979, On the Architecture of Intersubjectivity. in Rommetveit, R. & Baker,

R. M. (eds.) Studies of Language, Thought, and Verbal Communication. London,
U.K., Academic Press.

Rosch, E.:1994, Categorization. Encyclopedia of human behavior, 1, 513-523.

Rosch, E. H.:1973, Natural Categories. Cognitive psychology, 4, 328-350.

Roussou, M.:2002, Virtual Heritage: From the Research Lab to the Broad Public. Virtual
Archaeology, 93-100.

Roussou, M.:2008, The Components of Engagement in Virtual Heritage Environments. in

Kalay, Y. E., Kvan, T. & Affleck, J. (eds.) New Heritage: New Media and Cultural
Heritage London and New York, Routledge-Taylor and Francis Group.

Roussou, M., Drettakis, G., Chalmers, A., Arnold, D. & Niccolucci, F.:2003, Photorealism
and Non-Photorealism in Virtual Heritage Representation. VAST 2003 and First
Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage.

Roussou, M., Oliver, M. & Slater, M.:2008, Exploring Activity Theory as a Tool for
Evaluating Interactivity and Learning in Virtual Environments for Children.
Cognition, Technology & Work, 10, 141-153.

Russell, J. & Pratt, G.:1980, A Description of the Affective Quality Attributed to

Environments. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 38, 311-322.

Page | 227
Russo, A. & Watkins, J.:2008, Digital Cultural Communication : Audience and Remediation
in Kalay, Y. E., Kvan, T. & Afflek, J. (eds.) New Heritage : New Media and Cultural
Heritage. New York, Routledge.

Schegloff, E. A.:1991, Conversation Analysis and Socially Shared Cognition. in Resnick, L.,
Levine, J. M. & Teasley, S. (eds.) Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition.
Washington, American psychological association.

Silberman, N.:2008, Chasing the Unicorn?: The Quest for "Essence" in Digital Heritage. in
Kalay, Y. E., Kvan, T. & Affleck, J. (eds.) New Heritage : New Media and Cultural
Heritage. New York, Routledge.

Slater, M.:1999, Measuring Presence: A Response to the Witmer and Singer Presence
Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8, 560-565.

Smith, L.:2006, Uses of Heritage, London, New York, Routledge.

Snodgrass, A. & Coyne, R.:2006, Interpretation in Architecture: Design as a Way of

Thinking, London and New York, Routledge.

Sparacino, F.:2004, Museum Intelligence : Using Interactive Technologies for Effective

Communication and Storytelling in the "Puccini Set Designer" Exhibit. Proceedings
of ICHIM, Aug 31st - Sept 2nd, 2004. Berlin, Germany.

Surowiecki, J.:2004, The Wisdom of Crowds : Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and
How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations, New
York, Doubleday :.

Suttipisan, S.:2007, Visual Culture : An Architectural Heritage Interpretation. International

Symposium 2007 on "Interpretation : From Monument to Living Heritage" and 2nd
ICOMOS Thailand General Assembly. Bankok, Thailand.

Tan, B. K.:2007, Virtual Bawa: Unbuilt Masterpieces of Geoffrey Bawa, National University
of Singapore.

Tan, B. K. & Rahaman, H.:2009, Virtual Heritage : Reality and Criticism. in Tidafi, T. &
Dorta, T. (eds.) CAADfutures 2009 : Joining languages, cultures and visions.
Montreal, Canada.

Tan, W. C. K.:2004, Practical Research Methods, Singapore, Prentice Hall.

The Chang'an, p.:2009, The Chang'an Project, Available from:Open Source Repository
<http://www.arch.nus.edu.sg/casa/projects/hckchangan/pages/Content.htm>
(accessed 03-11-2009).

The Forbidden, C.:2009, The Forbidden City: Beyond Space and Time, Available from:Open
Source Repository <www.beyondspaceandtime.org> (accessed 01-11-2009).

Thelen, E., Smith, L. B. & NetLibrary, I.:1994, A Dynamic Systems Approach to the
Development of Cognition and Action, MIT Press.

Thomas, J.:2004, The Great Dark Book: Archaeology, Experience, and Interpretation. in
Earle, T. & Peebles, C. S. (eds.) A Companion to Archaeology. Blackwell Publishing.

Page | 228
Thomas, W. G.:2008, Interchange: The Promise of Digital History. Journal of American
History 95.

Thompson, M. W.:1981, Ruins: Their Preservation and Display, London, British Museum
Publications.

Thornton, M.:2006, Virtual Heritage : Open to Interpretation. CHIRON Research. Servizi

didattici e scientifici per l'Università di Firenze (PIN).

Thornton, M.:2007, Think Outside the Square You Live In : Issues of Difference and Nation
in Virtual Heritage. Proceedings of 13th international conference on Virtual System
and Multimedia (VSMM 2007). Brisbane, Australia.

Tilden, F.:1977, Interpreting Our Heritage, University of North Carolina Press.

Tost, L. P. & Champion, E. M.:2007, A Critical Examination of Presence Applied to Cultural

Heritage. The 10th Annual International Workshop on Presence Barcelona, Spain.

Tuan, Y. F.:2001, Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience, University of Minnesota
Press.

Tunbridge, J. E. & Ashworth, G. J.:1996, Dissonant Heritage : The Management of the Past
as a Resource in Conflict, Chichester, New York, J. Wiley.

UK, T. A. f. H. I.:2010, What Is Interpretation?, Available from:Open Source Repository

<http://www.ahi.org.uk/www/about/what_is_interpretation/> (accessed 03-11-2010).

UNESCO:1989, Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore.

25th session : The General Conference on the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization. Paris, UNESCO.

UNESCO:2003, Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage. 32nd Session: The
General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization. Paris, UNESCO.

UNESCO:2003, Convention for the Safegaurding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. 32nd
Session : The General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization. Paris, UNESCO.

Urban, R., Marty, P. & Twdale, M.:2007, A Second Life for Your Museum: 3d Multi-User
Virtual Environments and Museums. in Trant, J. & Bearman, D. (eds.) Museums and
the Web 2007: the international conference for culture and heritage on-line. 11-14
April 2007, San Francisco, USA.

USA, T. N. A. f. I.:2010, What Is Interpretation?, Available from:Open Source Repository

<http://www.interpnet.com/> (accessed 03-11-2010).

Uzzell, D.:1989, Heritage Interpretation, London ; New York, : Belhaven Press.

Uzzell, D.:1994, Heritage Interpretation in Britain Four Decades after Tilden. in Harrison, R.
(Ed.) Manual of Heritage Management. Oxford, London, Boston, Butterworth-
Heinemann Ltd.

Valtolina, S., Franzoni, S., Mazzoleni, P. & Bertino, E.:2005 Dissemination of Cultural
Heritage Content through Virtual Reality and Multimedia Techniques : A Case Study.

Page | 229
 Proceeding of the 11th International Multimedia Modelling Conference (MMM
2005).

Valtolina, S., Franzoni, S., Mazzoleni, P. & Bertino, E.:2005 A Second Life for Your
Museum: 3d Multi-User Virtual Environments and Museums. 11th International
Multimedia Modelling Conference, MMM 2005.

Volkert, J. W.:1991, Monologue to Dialogue. Museum News, 70, 46-48.

Vygotsky, L. S.:1978, Mind in Society : The Development of Higher Psychological Processes,

Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Walker, K. B.:2007, The Role of Interpretation in Sustainable Tourism: A Qualitative

Approach to Understanding Passenger Experiences on Expedition Cruises. James
Cook University.

Wearing, S. & Neil, J.:1999, Ecotourism : Impacts, Potentials, and Possibilities, Oxford ;
Boston, Butterworth-Heinemann.

Weckström, N.:2004, Finding “Reality” in Virtual Environments. Unpublished master's

thesis, Arcada Polytechnic: Helsingfors/Esbo, Finland.

Wertsch, J. V.:1985, Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind, Harvard University Press.

Wheeler, S.:2009, Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures : Cybercultures in Online Learning,

Charlotte, NC, Information Age Pub.

Wheeler, S.:2009, Digital Tribes, Virtual Clans. in Wheeler, S. (Ed.) Connected Minds,
Emerging Cultures : Cybercultures in Online Learning. Charlotte, NC, Information
Age Pub.

Witcomb, A.:2003, Re-Imagining the Museum: Beyond the Mausoleum, London, Routledge.

Witcomb, A.:2008, The Materiality of Virtual Technologies: A New Approach to Thinking

About the Impact of Multimedia in Museums. in Kalay, Y. E., Kvan, T. & Affleck, J.
(eds.) New Heritage: New Media and Cultural Heritage London and New York,
Routledge-Taylor and Francis Group.

Yang, C., Sun, S. & Xu, C.:2006, Recovery of Cultural Activity for Digital Safeguarding of
Intangible Cultural Heritage. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Intelligent
Control and Automation, 21-23 June 2006. Dalian, China.

Page | 230