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. .