Category Archives: Academic

Spatial Humanities mini-symposium

caption, Dr. Juan Hiriart, PhD game project, Communicating the Past, Cologne, 2018.

Space, Place, People and Culture

This free mini-symposium of talks from leading UK NZ and Australian experts will explore recent developments and intriguing challenges in spatial and platial design involving aspects of both culture and technology.

10:00 Dr Stuart Dunn, Head of The Department of Digital Humanities King’s College London, UK

10:40 Dr. Juan Hiriart, Senior Lecturer in Interactive Media Art and Design, Salford University, Manchester, UK.

11:20 Mr Chris McDowall, Geographer, New Zealand, independent consultant.

12:00 Ms Nat Raisbeck-Brown, Experimental Spatial Scientist, Indigenous Ecological Knowledge Project, Atlas of Living Australia, CSIRO, Perth.

12:20 Dr David McMeekin, Senior Research Fellow, Spatial Sciences, Curtin University and member of the Ancient Itineraries project.

12:40 Professor Erik Champion, UNESCO Chair of Cultural Heritage and Visualisation, Curtin University.

NB Some details may change.

VENUE Chemistry Building 500, “Exhibition Space” Theatre, Room 1102ABex, Manning Road entrance, Curtin University Bentley Campus, Perth, WA, 6102

DATE Friday 10:00-13:00, 21 February 2020

new OA Chapter for Communicating the Past book

Just added an early version of my chapter “Games People Dig: Are They Archaeological Experiences, Systems or Arguments?” in the Communicating the Past Book.

Every chapter is full open access. For book see https://www.ubiquitypress.com/site/books/10.5334/bch/

researchgate.net/publication/33 CC-BY 4.0.

One of the many but important dilemmas we may encounter in designing or critiquing games for archaeology (Champion 2015) is determining the why: why we should develop, buy, play, and teach specific games for the above disciplines. For archaeology, I propose there is a further important trifurcation: games aiming to convey an experience of archaeology (Hiriart 2018); games aiming to show how systems, methods, findings, and unknowns interact either to produce that experience; or games revealing what is unknown or debated (how knowledge is established or how knowledge is contested).

2020: Upcoming presentations and talks

Book

  1. Champion, E. (2021: in press?). Rethinking Virtual Places. Indiana University Press, Spatial Humanities series. Book.

Edited book

  1. Lee, C. & Champion, E. (Ed). (2021:?). Screen Tourism and Affective Landscapes. Edited book. We have the author abstracts but reconsidering publisher.

Book Chapters

  1. Champion, E. (2020: in press). Games People Dig: Are They Archaeological Experiences, Systems, or Arguments? In: Hageneuer, S. (ed.) Communicating the Past in the Digital Age: Proceedings of the International Conference on Digital Methods in Teaching and Learning in Archaeology (12-13 October 2018). London: Ubiquity. URL: https://communicatingthepast.hcommons.org/2018/04/19/release-of-the-call-for-paper/ Chapter from invited keynote.
  2. Champion, E. & Foka, A. (2020: in press). “Chapter 17: Art History, Heritage Games, and Virtual Reality”, in Brown, K. J. (Ed.). The Routledge Companion to Digital Humanities and Art History. Routledge, UK. Approx: May 2020.
  3. Champion, E., Nurmikko-Fuller, T., & Grant, K. (2020: pending). “Blue Sky Skyrim VR: Immersive Techniques to Engage with Medieval History.” In Games for Teaching, Impact, and Research edited by Robert Houghton, Winchester University.
  4. Champion, E., (2020?). Biodiversity and Cultural Diversity: Virtual opportunities” chapter for e-book Biodiversity in connection with Linguistic and Cultural Diversity. . Editors from Austrian Academy of Sciences and Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities; European Citizen Science Association; metaLab (Harvard) etc. Book chapter submitted.
  5. Champion, E. (2020?: under review). “Not Quite Virtual: Techné between Text and World.” In Texts & Technology: Inventing the Future of the Humanities, edited by Anastasia Salter and Barry Mauer, University of Central Florida, Orlando Florida USA. Chapter submitted.
  6. Champion, E. (2020: under review?). “Workshopping Game Prototypes for History and Heritage” for Digital Humanities book, Politecnico di Torino, Italy. Aracne Publishing Company.

Journal Article

  1. Dawson, B., Joseph P., & Champion, E. (2020: in press). Methodology to Evaluate User Experience of a Storyteller Panorama Tour” Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals. Journal article.

Talks

  1. Champion, E. (2020). Invitation to Keynote at VR Conference. Keynote. 17-18 February, UNiSA, Adelaide Australia. Funded, invited.
  2. CAA2020, 15-17 April 2020, Oxford. Panel on infrastructure issues, to be confirmed.
  3. Invited to speak at Uppsala University, Sweden, April 2020? to be confirmed.
  4. Invited to speak at NTNU Trondheim, Norway, October 2020? to be confirmed.

Workshop / paper session

  1. Champion, E, Hiriart, J., & Houghton, R. (2020). Group session proposal accepted, International Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology conference (CAA 2020), Oxford, UK, 14-17 April 202

I promised not to write so many book chapters and I am failing miserably. Time to focus on projects, not words.

Professorial Positions at King’s College London

I don’t normally circulate academic positions but Stuart Dunn asked me and quite frankly these positions sound awesome. I have only visiting Kings College London twice (I think)* and it was before their new offices but I know about their projects and partners and they really are doing interesting things.

Please contact Stuart (details in the URL below) if you want to know more.

Openings for Two New Professorships in “Digital Technology in Culture and Society” and “Critical Digital Practice”

*I used to work up the road on Oxford St. Those were the days.

CAA 2020 workshop submissions

Dear CAA member or ex-member, If you are interested in running a workshop on Tuesday, 14th April before the CAA 2020 conference starts, please email us at caa2020@arch.ox.ac.uk. Please provide us with the title of the workshop, a short (250 words or less) abstract of the workshop and what attendees will learn by attending it. Please also include a list of any equipment you might need (i.e. LCD projector, etc.) to successfully deliver your workshop. As the organisers will not provide computers for the attendees, please do remember to list all the items that will be required for participation (laptop, notepad, software). Please also indicate whether your workshop will be a full day or half day session, and whether you wished to set maximum numbers for attendees. Please submit your abstract by 12th February 2020 (midnight). Please contact the organisers at caa2020@arch.ox.ac.uk for clarification or further inquiries.

“Rethinking Virtual Places: Dwelling, Culture, Care” book to publishers

I have sent this off to Indiana University Press Spatial Humanities Series. There have been 3 reviews, by 2 reviewers, and probably there will be a fourth (internal?) one. And i would love to know how to automatically convert Chicago 17 Author-Date reference style to Chicago 17 Footnotes (but I don’t think it exists). Hopefully it will be published early 2021.

Chapter summaries currently read as:

Chapter One explores the innovation and wilder inventions of early virtual environments and computer games. Have these developments, along with the increasing popularity of science fiction, promulgated fertile concepts of virtual places? I will suggest they have not.

Chapter Two explores the early development of virtual worlds, and game-worlds. Despite the hype of early virtual worlds, they, along with virtual museums (Huhtamo 2010), have seldom managed to capture and retain worthwhile visitor numbers (Styliani et al. 2009). What were the main features and attractions of virtual museums? Why have they gone in and out of fashion and have they actually been of any benefit to real-world museums? I will specifically look at how they use or change the use of space, and which if any place affordances were used in their design. I will then look briefly at the changing commercial and community virtual worlds that were developed, grew and fell during the last two decades.

Chapter Three discusses the representation-orientated and essentialist nature of major architectural theories. The second half of this chapter describes related design tools and asks a question of the training of architects for designing virtual places. If architects are not trained in usability and interaction design principles, how can they design engaging and profound interaction in these virtual worlds? Are traditional devices and technologies for designing, experiencing, and reflecting on place in danger of being lost in this digital era?

Chapter Four summarizes relevant philosophical exploration of real places and extrapolates them to virtual places and to notions of cyberspace. Related concepts discussed include the notion of VR as control, realism, authenticity and presence.

Chapter Five overviews a few key recent developments in neuroscience and how they may help our understanding of how people experience, store and recollect place-related experiences. Can these discoveries help our design of virtual places? Do philosophical explanations of memory and place (Ihde 2002, Tavanti and Lind 2001) reflect recent discoveries in scientific experiments (Farovik et al. 2015)? Can science help us better design virtual places (Johnson 2013, Moore 2005)? Do they explain how people navigate and orient themselves in virtual places (Cockburn 2004, Zimring and Dalton 2003)? The second part of Chapter Five discusses the importance of affordances and the confusion surrounding them.

Understanding game mechanics is of great relevance to virtual place designers, Chapter Six summarizes conflicting definitions of game mechanics and an explanation of different types of game mechanics suited to differing design purposes. This chapter also briefly discusses gamification.

Chapter Seven asks “Do Serious Gamers Learn from Place?” We could summarize this concern in the following three questions: do we know if learning has taken place, if it has taken place effectively, and if the knowledge that resulted from the learning is transferable? In contrast to James Gee (Gee 2003) I do not believe that all games are good games, and that all games are therefore good learning environments but in I will discuss procedural rhetoric and whether serious games help people engage with pedagogical objectives of humanities subjects.

Chapter Eight focuses on the relationship of culture to place. This chapter revisits definitions of culture, explores how culture can be communicated and understood in virtual places (transmissions), and determines whether there are specific requirements with virtual worlds. I also discuss the importance of roles, rituals and agents. In order to measure how closely culture can be observed, appreciated or understood through virtual environments, I have suggested that cultural presence be defined as the feeling of being in the presence of a similar or distinctly different cultural belief system (Champion 2011).

Chapter Nine explores evaluation methods (both traditional and recent), which address the complicated problem of understanding how people evaluate places, and whether this knowledge can be directly applied to the evaluation of virtual places. How do they get around the problem of the newness of virtual reality or the subjectivity/objectivity debates surrounding immersion and presence? Are they inspired by related but highly theoretical fields such as phenomenology, or has philosophy in general been left behind in the practical evaluation of place?

Chapter 10  discusses the emerging platforms and related tools that claim to help distribute, store and preserve virtual places Understanding the significance of the latest research is not enough, we also need to understand the significance and issues of the software, hardware and platforms that can be used for the design and experience of virtual places. There is an increasing trend to the more accessible, portable and component-based, does this mean we are on the brink of Convergent Cultures? In particular, I suggest that virtual heritage has focused more on communication than on preservation. We cannot afford to have our digital heritage disappearing faster than the real heritage or the sites it seeks to ‘preserve’ otherwise all of our technological advances, creative interpretations, visualizations and efforts will have been in vain.

Challenges in funding Humanities Infrastructure

I was involved in two failed Humanities applications to the Australian Research Data Commons Platforms initiative so I am no doubt biased (and currently on holiday). But let me follow up this announcement with a remark to myself:

  • Many, if not all successful grants are clearly deserved, but some read like core government functions (not that the govt is already funding these services but they should be).
  • Labelled as part of HASS, it might seem that humanities is funded, but I don’t see any humanities-specific funding there (unless you count drones for archaeology, but frankly, that is funding for drones).
  • It is very difficult to gain Humanities RI funding in Australia but hopefully reading the successful grants may help us in the future.
  • We have a lot of work to do.

Digital Heritage: Presenting Futures Past

I gave a keynote Monday 9 December at Dhdownunder 2019, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. The title was Digital Heritage: Presenting Futures Past

The slides can be viewed and downloaded in the nzerik directory at slideshare.

MAIN POINTS

  1. Digital heritage, Virtual Heritage, Extended Reality (XR): what are they?
  2. Can gaming, AR or MR provide insight to the past?
  3. OR: Are they a waste of money, expensive new technology?
  4. Could, for example, digital heritage pose a threat to culture?
  5. Ziauddin Sardar 1995: “Cyberspace is a giant step forward towards museumization of the world: where anything remotely different from Western culture will exist only in digital form.”
  6. Digital Heritage highlights and challenges (interactive + immersive examples).

To cut over 80 slides short, my answers to the initial questions are

  1. VR: “reality”: untapped potential, save the IxD!! (We should preserve and disseminate the interaction design and experience, academic papers are not the answer here).
  2. Gaming, AR, MR provides insight to the past-but learning more from designing.
  3. High-technology gets in the way.
  4. Digital Heritage poses a threat to culture, if we don’t clearly consider “culture”.
  5.  Sardar: Cyberspace a symptom not a cause, museumization a partially necessary evil, Western culture is a vague target.
  6. Digital Heritage communicates, seldom preserves, more end-user involvement required.

I suggest future research and potential solutions are

  • Flexible formats, agreed standards, sensory interfaces
  • New mechanics, cultural significance and care
  • Levels of resolution, access layers
  • 3D infrastructure links to data, research, community, XR
  • Encourage creative re-use by end-users

 

game prototyping workshop, Dhdownunder 2019

Today I ran a game prototyping workshop, at Dhdownunder 2019, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.

Prototyping and Pitching Playfully Serious Games

I gave a very quick slide presentation of basic game concepts, slides here: https://www.slideshare.net/nzerik/2019-dhdownunder-game-prototyping-workshop

There were 4 groups, a total of only 9 people, and not a single digital tool or device ussed (I know it was Dhdownunder!) but everyone seemed to enjoy themselves and in less than 4 hours developed the following prototypes:

Wheeling, Dealing & Stealing

David wanted to explore how games can communicate data privacy and ethics issues. His paper prototype was Monopoly-esque but also like a casino dealer’s wheel. Each player’s goal is to gain as much information about each other as they can while keeping their own profile and information unknown to the other players.

Burning Rubber

This group of four developed a collaborative  (Mad Max meets Inferno) drive across Australia board game, fighting and containing fires (and starting fires and fire breaks), depending on your character role. Entertainingly, when you finish fighting fires you take a plane to New Zealand!

I suggested it could also be called MAGA (Make Australia Green Again!) and everytime a fire took hold a tv personality on video would appear, shouting “You’re fired!”..

Heritage Road Tour

Hafiz and Bernadette (an archaeologist at the University of Newcastle) developed a game where your aim is to visit cultural heritage sites in Australia and gather local knowledge to progress further. You can be a hipster, German tourist, child, or grey nomad.

The Seven Seas of SQL (pron. Sequel)

 

Alan wanted to teach Structured Query Language using a game. These two developed a game with a strong pirate element, you have to move your boat across the board and answer questions, only some of which are SQL-related. There were various tactics like walk the plank, and stand on one leg, and I am still not sure how they all relate to SQL (not to mention the Kraken) but the players found it all very entertaining.

I briefly also wondered if it could be renamed Structured Quest Language, and whether the pirate theme would work better with R (Learning AARGH, me hearties!)

 

 

 

 

 

CFP: Playable Theory & Critical History in Archaeological Games (CAA 2020)

Robert Houghton, Juan Hiriart and I are running a session at CAA 2020, 14-17 April, Oxford, on playable theory in archeological games. Come and join us with presentations and demonstrations of your games and game ideas! Extended deadline Thu 14 Nov. Submit proposals here: 2020.caaconference.org/call-for-paper

eTourism, Immersive GLAM and Virtual Heritage

“Local and international speakers talk about their research and synergies between heritage, tourism and GLAM via digital technology”
Free event at Curtin Friday 8 November 12.30-3.30 https://lnkd.in/g4nYst8

Add to Calendar

[Image care of Ian Brodie, HIDDEN and below supplied by Barbara Bollard]

Galleries Libraries Archives and Museums, meet eTourism and Digital Heritage!!

Speakers:

  1. Mr Alec Coles, OBE FRSA, CEO of Western Australian Museum
  2. Associate Professor Barbara Bollard (AUT NZ), will talk about her research on modelling environments such as 3D Antarctica huts via drone-based photogrammetry (see also ideolog article: up, up and away).
  3. Mr Ian Brodie, award winning photographer and film tourism author, will engage us with his AR projects as part of HIDDEN.
  4. Archaeologist and Senior Research Librarian, Alexandra Angeletaki, (NTNU Trondheim Norway), will talk about her use of immersive VR and related technology projects to bring historical texts and artefacts alive in the Gunnerus Library, Trondheim (founded 1768) via projects like MUBIL.
  5. Dr David McMeekin will explain the Getty Foundation funded Ancient Itineraries-Exploring Digital Art History project.
  6. Professor Ear Zow Digital will discuss exciting new futures between games, VR/ XR, and the GLAM sector.

Dr Christina Lee will MC the event.

New OA Book Chapter

Champion, Erik. “From Historical Models to Virtual Heritage Simulations”. Chap. 4 In Der Modelle Tugend 2.0 Digitale 3d-Rekonstruktion Als Virtueller Raum Der Architekturhistorischen Forschung Computing in Art and Architecture, edited by Piotr Kuroczyński, Mieke Pfarr-Harfst and Sander Münster, 337-51. Heidelberg, Germany: arthistoricum.net, 2019. https://books.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/arthistoricum/catalog/book/515

eTourism, Immersive GLAM & Virtual Heritage

Free event at Curtin University Friday 8 November 12.30-3 PM

Register at eventbrite. [Above image care of Alexandra Angeletaki NTNU Trondheim]

Local and international speakers talk about their research and synergies between heritage, tourism and GLAM via digital technology

Speakers:

  1. Mr Alec Coles, OBE FRSA, CEO of Western Australian Museum (tbc)
  2. Associate Professor Barbara Bollard (AUT NZ), will talk about her research on modelling environments such as 3D Antarctica huts via drone-based photogrammetry (see also ideolog article: up, up and away).
  3. Mr Ian Brodie, award winning photographer and film tourism author, will engage us with his AR projects as part of HIDDEN.
  4. Archaeologist and Senior Research Librarian, Alexandra Angeletaki, (NTNU Trondheim Norway), will talk about her use of immersive VR and related technology projects to bring historical texts and artefacts alive in the Gunnerus Library, Trondheim (founded 1768) via projects like MUBIL.
  5. Dr David McMeekin will explain the Getty Foundation funded Ancient Itineraries-Exploring Digital Art History project.
  6. Professor Ear Zow Digital will discuss exciting new futures between games, VR/ XR, and the GLAM sector.

Dr Christina Lee will MC the event.

nb below are photos of the venue (direct drive in from Manning Road, east of Waterford Plaza). Theatre “Exhibition Space” is on the ground floor directly ahead, after entering the door in the photo (to the left of the vertical Visitor Reception sign).

new article: A Comparison of Immersive Realities and Interaction Methods: Cultural Learning in Virtual Heritage

A Comparison of Immersive Realities and Interaction Methods: Cultural Learning in Virtual Heritage

by Mafkereseb Kassahun Bekele and Ear Zow Digital

Open access article in Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 24 September 2019 | https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00091

In recent years, Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Virtuality (AV), and Mixed Reality (MxR) have become popular immersive reality technologies for cultural knowledge dissemination in Virtual Heritage (VH). These technologies have been utilized for enriching museums with a personalized visiting experience and digital content tailored to the historical and cultural context of the museums and heritage sites. Various interaction methods, such as sensor-based, device-based, tangible, collaborative, multimodal, and hybrid interaction methods, have also been employed by these immersive reality technologies to enable interaction with the virtual environments. However, the utilization of these technologies and interaction methods isn’t often supported by a guideline that can assist Cultural Heritage Professionals (CHP) to predetermine their relevance to attain the intended objectives of the VH applications. In this regard, our paper attempts to compare the existing immersive reality technologies and interaction methods against their potential to enhance cultural learning in VH applications. To objectify the comparison, three factors have been borrowed from existing scholarly arguments in the Cultural Heritage (CH) domain. These factors are the technology’s or the interaction method’s potential and/or demonstrated capability to: (1) establish a contextual relationship between users, virtual content, and cultural context, (2) allow collaboration between users, and (3) enable engagement with the cultural context in the virtual environments and the virtual environment itself. Following the comparison, we have also proposed a specific integration of collaborative and multimodal interaction methods into a Mixed Reality (MxR) scenario that can be applied to VH applications that aim at enhancing cultural learning in situ.

New UNESCO chair website

UNESCO Chair of Cultural Heritage and Visualisation news and projects will be listed at https://computation.curtin.edu.au/research/groups/unesco-chair-cultural-heritage-visualisation/ for the immediate future, and we hope to connect our prototype GIS+3D model website to that as well (when they work out access for me, hopefully soon).

Image by Professor Lisa French (RMIT). Dinner at ANU Canberra before meeting of Australian UNESCO Chairs: Erik Champion (Curtin), David Gibson (Curtin), Gary Bouma (Monash), Kerrie Wilson (QUT), Ana Filipa Vrdoljak (UTS), Lisa French, (RMIT), Imogen Bartlett (OPTUS), Gregory Andrews (Assistant Secretary, International Organizations Branch (DFAT)), Quentin Grafton (ANU), Ms. Sue Moore, (Secretary General of the Australian Commission for UNESCO).

To 3D or Not 3D: Choosing a Photogrammetry Workflow for Cultural Heritage Groups

To 3D or Not 3D: Choosing a Photogrammetry Workflow for Cultural Heritage Groups, Heritage journal article by Dr Hafizur Rahaman and myself is out:

Rahaman, H., & Champion, E. (2019). To 3D or Not 3D: Choosing a Photogrammetry Workflow for Cultural Heritage Groups. Heritage, 2(3), 1835-1851. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/3/112

The 3D reconstruction of real-world heritage objects using either a laser scanner or 3D modelling software is typically expensive and requires a high level of expertise. Image-based 3D modelling software, on the other hand, offers a cheaper alternative, which can handle this task with relative ease. There also exists free and open source (FOSS) software, with the potential to deliver quality data for heritage documentation purposes. However, contemporary academic discourse seldom presents survey-based feature lists or a critical inspection of potential production pipelines, nor typically provides direction and guidance for non-experts who are interested in learning, developing and sharing 3D content on a restricted budget. To address the above issues, a set of FOSS were studied based on their offered features, workflow, 3D processing time and accuracy. Two datasets have been used to compare and evaluate the FOSS applications based on the point clouds they produced. The average deviation to ground truth data produced by a commercial software application (Metashape, formerly called PhotoScan) was used and measured with CloudCompare software. 3D reconstructions generated from FOSS produce promising results, with significant accuracy, and are easy to use. We believe this investigation will help non-expert users to understand the photogrammetry and select the most suitable software for producing image-based 3D models at low cost for visualisation and presentation purposes.

UNESCO CHAIR Projects (September 2016-June 2019)

2019 Time-layered cultural map of Australia (Erik Champion and research assistant): 2018 ARC LIEF LE190100019  grant (hosted by Newcastle), $420,000 awarded GIS Programming and VR/MR mapping. URL: https://www.arc.gov.au/news-publications/media/research-highlights/australian-cultural-and-historical-data-be-linked-new-research-infrastructure

2019 GIS AR and mapping (Curtin Institute for Computation grant) (Erik Champion, David McMeekin, Hafizur Rahaman). Linked Open Data for 3D Heritage ARC grants Moviemap Geolocated Datasets and XR-Makerspace, Workflow and Web Portfolio Platform Development), $30,263.88.

2018 PhD project (Ikrom Nishanbaev): 3D/GIS Semantic Web-3D repository and Website-interface for cultural heritage objects and associated paradata.

2019 MCASI grant (Hafizur Rahaman, Michelle Johnston): AR-triggered language guide (mobile device to recognise 3D objects, play associated sounds and display associated text helping a user to understand a language) $2000.

2018 Erik Champion With Research Fellow (Dr Hafizur Rahaman). Open source photogrammetry to 3D digital models to augmented and mixed reality.

Mafkereseb Bekele (centre) winning a Young CAADRIA 2019 award (Hafizur Rahaman L and Marc Schnabel R).

2017 PhD project (Mafkereseb Bekele): Collaborative Learning with Microsoft HoloLens (sites: WA Museum-Xantho steam engine and Duyfken)-, can augment scale and create interactive map-based historical journeys as well. Featured in papers at CAADRIA (best student paper: Mafkereseb Bekele) and Computer Applications in Archaeology (Erik Champion).

2018 Summer intern (Corbin Yap). Latest Unreal game engine ported to 4 stereo and non-stereo displays of Curtin HIVE VR centre.

2017 Software Engineering project (with co-mentor Dr Karen Miller) gesture-based interface to Minecraft and other game engines.

Things I am working on..

I may be traveling to Italy start of September, NZ or Australia mid November, and possibly South America (it is complicated).

Just submitted a tricky paper on a difficult topic to a farway place I have always wanted to go to, but logistically shouldn’t. Cancelled a paper to a conference in a country I used to work and love, trying to cut down travel and grant reviewing for other people (two this week to do, sigh). Also have 3 or 4 draft grant applications to get back to which is a bit insane as I am already waiting on the final verdict of 4 others!

But I may apply for a Future Fellowship this year. Wish me well. Thinking of a theoretical and applied evaluation study of cultural presence in interactive heritage/digital archaeology projects. I have a lot of questions here since I first wrote about it in 2001, and just trying to decide if it can be scoped in such a way that reviewers from other, sometimes-related fields, agree with me. Anyway. The below are being reviewed or in press. And I just realized there are 5 book chapters in the list. I told myself not to write any more book chapters, in fact to slow down on the writing. Well there is also a journal article or two about to be published but those can wait for a later mention. Hmm, it is really time to cut back on the writing. I apologize to anyone who tries to wade through my books and papers trying to find a specific something…

  • BOOK Champion, E. (2020). Rethinking Virtual Places. Indiana University Press, Spatial Humanities series. Final blind peer review, due back July, I hope.
  • BOOK Lee, C. & Champion, E. (Ed). (2020: pending). Screen Tourism and Affective Landscapes. May be changing publishers.
  • CHAPTER Champion, E. (2019: in press). “From Historical Models to Virtual Heritage Simulations”. Open access book chapter for The Virtue of the Model 2.0 → From the Digital 3D Dataset to the Scientific Information Model V.2, Heidelberg University Press, Germany, March 2019. URL: http://books.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/arthistoricum/series/info/caa?lang=en  Should have been printed by now! Open access.
  • CHAPTER Champion, E. & Foka, A. (2020: in press). “Chapter 19 Art History, Heritage Games, and Virtual Reality”, in Brown, K. J. (Ed.). The Routledge Companion to Digital Humanities and Art History. Routledge, UK. With editor. Still to be reviewed I assume.
  • CHAPTER Champion, E. (2020). Games People Dig: Are They Archaeological Experiences, Systems, or Arguments? In S. Hageneuer (Ed.), Communicating the Past in the Digital Age: Proceedings of the International Conference on Digital Methods in Teaching and Learning in Archaeology, (12th-13th October 2018). London, UK: Ubiquity Press. URL: https://communicatingthepast.hcommons.org/2018/04/19/release-of-the-call-for-paper/ Being reviewed.
  • CHAPTER Champion, E. (2020 (pending). Title to be advised (Is 3D a new form of DH Text?). In B. Mauer & A. Salter (Eds.), Texts & Technology: Inventing the Future of the Humanities. TBA. Chapters due 15 July 2019. Oh better finish this.
  • ARTICLE Champion, E. (2020). From Cultural Significance to Cultural Presence: How Computer Games Can Facilitate Cultural Heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies. Extended abstract accepted. Due 31 July 2019. Also finishing this submission. Abstract accepted but full paper needs to be reviewed.
  • TALK/WORKSHOP Champion, E. (2019). Invited Professor to Summer School: Cultural Heritage in Context. Digital Technologies for the Humanities. To be funded, invited. Host: Rosa Tamborrino Politecnico di Torino – Castello del Valentino, Turin Italy, 1-8 September 2019. Cultural Heritage in Context. Digital Technologies for the Humanities. Learning by gaming, partners: POLITO, UCLA, AISU, Museo del Cinema and the Italian Association of Urban History (AISU). Topics: Virtual Heritage (lecture); Gamification and Cultural Heritage (workshop). http://digitalhumanitiesforculturalheritage.polito.it/index.html

Applied Research-Digital Humanities Kryptonite?

Should humanities academics be more open to applied research rather than just pure research?

I was asked by a director of a digital humanities centre overseas my thoughts on pure or applied research for Digital Humanities academics.

The following is an edited and slightly bridged reply.

Quite a few Australian universities seem to be moving to industry-driven research, especially if they are not the Group of 8, or feel geographically disadvantaged. Australian universities may feel this helps guard against reduced federal funding and diversifies income streams, perhaps they think they are more likely to gain large research centres, Centres of Excellence and other funding and prestige if large companies join them.

For humanities, this can be quite dangerous because those few companies with major clout related to humanities interest (especially in social media) can be difficult to deal with in terms of IP or how they treat their market or very conservative because they don’t want to scare off their client base. (Caveat: for Australian GLAM sector-related research that I am connected with, this does not yet appear to be such a problem).

Sadly, the Australian national priorities are not even aimed at pure (scientific) research https://www.arc.gov.au/grants/grant-application/science-and-research-priorities let alone NZ, UK or EU Horizon2020-type engagement and impact (communities etc). Let alone how to teach critical thinking. Shouldn’t educational research be a national priority? Is learning how to live together in an extremely diverse society where nearly one in four is born overseas, worthy of research? I think so!

But I wonder if humanities academics do not like the idea of applied research or industry-driven research to them (I don’t think the terms are completely synonymous). Industry-driven research is very interesting, actually, wasn’t Aristotle an industry-driven researcher, in the sense of being asked to solve things? I suspect Leonardo was, partly, as well. The more DH approaches design questions, the more I suspect it will be industry-partnered if not industry-driven. Because much design research is industry-driven.

This gets back to the paradox that many humanities content creators were design-brief driven, or patron-influenced; more so than the academics who study them in the humanities.

When I worked in a design school in a Creative Arts College (faculty), the brief and the client were seen to separate designers from artists. I do believe DH needs more interaction design and evaluation skills, but I have bias here, I work with design problems and match them or try to with philosophical insights and luckily so far don’t have to worry about appeasing clients. For many designers, applied research is bread and butter. Their typical problem is showing how that is research!

So, in a roundabout way to answer this question, I do question why academics think working with industry is bad, I don’t question that they are wary in terms of being overly influenced, swayed to consider income rather than meaning, or loss of intellectual property. But these challenges are perhaps solvable as separate issues. And industry can provide people, test subjects, prototype development technologies, and metrics to measure against.

Sorry for the long blogpost, I actually have much more to think/write about, this is the starting and abridged version!