=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1352/paper8
|storemode=property
|title=Strategies for Coping with Multiple Narratives
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1352/paper8.pdf
|volume=Vol-1352
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/iui/WeckerK15
}}
==Strategies for Coping with Multiple Narratives==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1352/paper8.pdf
Strategies for Coping with Multiple Narratives
Alan J. Wecker Tsvi Kuflik
U. of Haifa, U of Trento University of Haifa
Haifa, Israel - Trento, Italy Haifa, Israel
ajwecker@gmail.com tsvikak@is.haifa.ac.il
ABSTRACT alternative viewpoints, not just what cultural heritage
The challenge of multiple narratives at cultural heritage theorists call the authorized heritage discourse (AHD) [2]?
sites is explained. Background and references are given to Do different cultures have different ways of looking at
Cultural Heritage Tourism Theory. A solution is proposed, things? Tim Winter argues resoundingly yes.[12]. Even
involving different strategies for different people at items that are seemingly neutral, such as choice of language
different sites and time. Open questions from both the non- can have tremendous effect[9].
technical and technical angles are proposed.
NARRATIVES AND STORYTELLING
Narratives and storytelling are a useful way of presenting
information [4, 6, 8]. Many times these narratives contain a
Author Keywords
Narratives, Information Technology for Cultural Heritage, hidden viewpoint usually the AHD [2]. Even items that
Semiotics, Points of View. seem innocuous such as a photograph may have semiotic
meaning and a viewpoint [10]. A useful example is given
in [2] of a Palestinian Dress "thob abu qutbeh" in an
ACM Classification Keywords Australian Museum. To the Palestinians the dress is a
H.5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): national symbol, a marker of identity, a symbol of
Miscellaneous. resistance. To Israelis the dress is deemed to be of Judaic-
Christian origin and challenge the use of material culture as
INTRODUCTION a form of resistance.
In this position paper we address the challenge presented by
what cultural heritage theorists call "representation" [7]. MATCHING CONTENT TO USER'S PREFERENCE
When visiting a cultural heritage site enhanced by a mobile Given that media can contain different points of view, the
guide or information technology (i.e. tangible interfaces), challenge is what to present to the user. We argue first of all
we are presented with hidden messages and narratives. As for transparency, making the user aware of the bias.
Steve Watson has stated: "display not only shows and speak Secondly we argue for the best experience you need to give
it also does, in doing so it orders and organizes its material the user what he wants. For example a group of religious
references in a way that not only sells attractions, but also students coming on a school trip, may wish to present to
reflects and affects the underlying meanings, identities, their students content that is in line with their beliefs.
social structures, and affinities that determine the society However this matching is not so simple, the user may not
concerned"[11]. This is very much in line with current necessarily want to hear only items that match their point of
cultural heritage tourism theory [7]. In essence what is view. Viewpoints can also be based on cultural identities,
being theorized here is that almost every cultural site is such as nationality. We identify the following strategies that
open to multiple interpretations, representations connected a user may want to follow:
to the choice of materials, how they are explained, and how
they are viewed. The question arises, how do we, as x Orthodox – They only wish to hear narratives that
information technology researchers and developers of are in line with their point of view. Here too there
avant-garde system, react? What sort of systems do we can be nuances in the points of view, thus we may
want to develop? Can we build systems that allow have "strict" orthodoxy (that is very close to their
point of view) or "loose" (which would allow for
Copyright held by the authors some variations). Another form of this strategy is
the "home" viewpoint, where the home
institution's curator presents the institution's point
of view or that of the curator.
x Contrarian – Here the user is familiar with their
own point of view and is interested in hearing
different points of view from that of their own.
Again this can be targeted to a "specific" point of
view or it can contain a "range" of differing views
x Mixed – We were tempted to call this strategy Thus the question arises are such strict strategies necessary
"balanced", but in light of the previous section we because of the specific requirements (e.g. content validation
know how hard if not impossible to accomplish by authorities) or can more complex personalized strategies
that. This strategy attempts to give a variety of be adopted? In addition more evidence is required to
viewpoints, though not necessarily without bias. substantiate the requirements for such a system. This paper
Another variation of this strategy might be where presents the challenge and an initial way to deal with it.
the user "doesn't care". This strategy may be
different that the standard "mixed" strategy.
Anecdotal evidence for the existence of such strategies Challenges
come from the Director of Development and New Here we present a list of questions, starting with non-
Initiatives at the Tower of David Museum of the History of technical challenges and moving on to the technical ones.
Jerusalem, who spoke about such "orthodox" tours being Do we really need this? What is the responsibility of the
available to Christian and Jewish Religious schools, while host institution? Do they need to provide opposing views,
the normal content of the museum tries to be "mixed" [Rose acknowledge that they exist? What standards of honesty are
Ginosar, private conversation]. Similar anecdotal evidence, required? Do they need to be unbiased? We would argue
comes from people (n=5) who when told about such not necessarily, see Isaiah Berlin's article on the difference
"orthodox" tours, reacted with saying they would be between tolerance and pluralism [1]. One is allowed to have
interested in the opposing opinion, as they are familiar with his own point of view and not necessarily be neutral on all
their own views on the subject. topics. Some institutions have addressed this issue through
the use of social media to provide user generated content,
An open technical challenge is determining a personalized despite the tradition of museums providing only curated and
strategy for the user without explicitly asking him. "validated" content[5] What is unique to the area of cultural
heritage on these issues?
DISCUSSION
There are also many technical challenges. How do we
Preliminary Supporting Evidence
determine the user's viewpoint and what strategy they wish
The following table shows the results from a questionnaire
to follow? How do we categorize presentations to
on the web directed towards educators in the field of Bible
automatically label their point of view? How do we inter-
studies when asked if the source and point of view of
mix the different viewpoints? What sort of tools do we
materials presented is important. From here and in-person
provide curators and content providers? What sort of
follow-up questions with the participants, we have
interfaces do we build to make this useful and usable to the
preliminary evidence of interest in the subject of viewpoints
user? How does social media, and participatory
and technology that can support viewpoint differentiation
technologies, effect this issue[5]? Can we provide
and control.
technology that can categorize user generated responses to
The source and point of view of the allow the users to follow a strategy of his choice? What
information is important to me. (n=31) role do languages and language technology play in allowing
different narratives to be expressed properly[9]?
Strongly agree 22
Moderately agree 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to the anonymous reviewers who helped improve
Slightly agree 2 this paper.
Neutral 1
REFERENCES
Slightly disagree 0 References
Moderately disagree 1 [1] Berlin, I. and Williams, B. Pluralism and liberalism: A
reply. Political studies, 42, 2 ( 1994), 306-309.
Strongly disagree 0
[2] Cameron, F. and Mengler, S. Authorising the
Table 1. Questionnaire Result unauthorised. Heritage: Place, Encounter, Engagement, (
2013), 45.
Limitations
[3] Kaufmann, W. Buber's Religious Significance.
As Walter Kaufmann [3] pointed out in his introduction to
Existentialism, Religion and Death: Thirteen Essays, (
the translation of Martin Buber's I-Thou, it is very easy to
1967).
divide the world into two camps, however the world is a
diverse place with many different types of relationships. [4] Lu, F., Tian, F., Jiang, Y., Cao, X., Luo, W., Li, G.,
Zhang, X., Dai, G. and Wang, H. ShadowStory: creative
and collaborative digital storytelling inspired by cultural
heritage. In Anonymous Proceedings of the 2011 annual [8] Stock, O. and Callaway, C. Multiple Coordinated
conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI). Mobile Narratives as a Catalyst for Face-to-Face Group
(Vancouver, Canada, ). ACM, , 2011, 1919-1928. Conversation. Interactive Storytelling, ( 2009), 209-220.
[5] Oomen, J. and Aroyo, L. Crowdsourcing in the cultural [9] Stock, O. Language-based interfaces and their
heritage domain: opportunities and challenges. In application for cultural tourism. AI Magazine, 22, 1 (
Anonymous Proceedings of the 5th International 2001), 85.
Conference on Communities and Technologies. (). ACM, ,
[10] Waterton, E. and Watson, S. The Semiotics of Heritage
2011, 138-149.
Tourism. Channel View Publications, , 2014.
[6] Sparacino, F. Sto (ry) chastics: a bayesian network
[11] Watson, S. Constructing Rhodes: Heritage tourism and
architecture for user modeling and computational
visuality. Culture, heritage and representation: Perspectives
storytelling for interactive spaces. In Anonymous UbiComp
on visuality and the past, ( 2010), 249-270.
2003: Ubiquitous Computing. (Seattle, Washington, USA,
). Springer, , 2003, 54-72. [12] Winter, T. Post-Conflict Heritage, Postcolonial
Tourism: Tourism, Politics and Development at Angkor.
[7] Staiff, R., Bushell, R. and Watson, S. Heritage: Place,
Routledge, , 2007.
Encounter, Engagement. Routledge, , 2013.
.