| Publications Page | HITL Home |
of the Washington Technology Center
University of Washington, PO 352142
Seattle, WA 98195-2142
(206) 543-5075 (Voice)
(206)543-5380 (Fax)
Email: hitl@hitl.washington.edu
With the advent of virtual reality, we have the opportunity to rethink our notions of perceptual, cognitive and emotional boundaries, both those that are physiological and those that we choose to construct. This creates an opportunity to explore new ways of making meaning in this alternate environment, by using visual, auditory and haptic symbol systems and interactions present in virtual space.
In a perceptual sense, this technology provides an avenue to redefine the boundaries of experience in terms of issues such as scale, concreteness, abstraction, aesthetics and interface. In a social sense, it is a means by which we can reassess notions of consciousness, community and connectedness.
The whole notion of creating (or allowing a computer to create) a virtual space that is perceptibly as "real" as what we experience in the natural world, in which we communicate with others who may or may not be accurate or true representations provides an immediate means of thinking deeply about the constructs which we hold near and dear in terms of making sense of our environment, both individually and within our society. It is from this meaning-making perspective that our discussion of ethics will ensue.
This paper explores what I perceive to be our societal
beliefs that generate this combination of excitement and unease,
describe the relationship of virtual reality to these beliefs,
evaluate the role of ethics with regard to virtual reality, and
suggest one possible set of guidelines for ethical development
regarding this experiential technology.
Technological developments, particularly developments in the area of virtual reality, press on the jugular of our traditional, western societal underpinnings. The concept of 'other realities' beyond our corporeal, tactile world is almost too enticing; through this technology we are promised the option of perceptibly being 'somewhere' and 'someone' else. However, as meaning-makers, we are constantly seeking better ways to absorb and understand information from our environment, regardless of whether that environment is physically tangible or computer-generated. At our most basic level, we are trying to develop meaning; about the world, about patterns and relationships, about ourselves. (Bruner, 1990; Larson & Segal, 1995; Osberg, 1993). Virtual reality provides a means of doing just that, in a visually compelling, viscerally engaging fashion.
At the Human Interface Technology Laboratory, we are engaged in researching ways that individuals' experience is enhanced through multiperceptual interaction within immersive and non-immersive environments. We study the value of the world-building process as a meaning-making tool, and analyze one's sense of 'presence'. Research and development of hardware to support the virtual experience is also conducted, and we have created software systems that allow individuals from opposite sides of the world to perform a collaborative task. This research is paramount to understanding how virtual reality can be used to enhance our personal understanding of concepts and relationships, establish new means of communication, extend our sense of community, and provide the scientific and human-centered basis for future development within the industry.
But what is it about virtual reality that inspires such intrigue, curiosity, and mistrust, all in the same breath? At one level, virtual reality represents a break with a long line of technological "information providers" such as radio, television, video, computers, and multimedia. The break occurs due to the ability of the participant to interact in real time with a multi-perceptual, multi-dimensional, inclusive, potentially multi-participant environment; to change perspective at will, to make and implement decisions, to experience a "paradigm shift" in a wholly created system that exists only in the computer and the minds of the world designer and participants. At another level, the most important potential aspect of VR is the possibility of creating new symbol systems (Solomon, 1988), which can be used to better understand concepts and relationships; the very building blocks of information and knowledge.
This paper explores what I perceive to be our societal beliefs that generate this combination of excitement and unease, describe the relationship of virtual reality to these beliefs, evaluate the role of ethics with regard to virtual reality, and suggest one possible set of guidelines for ethical development regarding this experiential technology.
In the United States, the role of technology has been well-defined and promoted as that of the natural, rational, scientific outgrowth of man's continued, progressive development. From the mid-19th century to the present, technology has been part of both discourse and practice, grounded in logical positivism, social control, and system management (Muffoletto, 1994).
Technological advancement is often seen, erroneously, as the solution to all of societies ills (Postman, 1992; Roszak, 1986; Osberg, 1994). However, in the excitement to develop and adopt new technologies, we too often lose sight of the interest of all components of society; both those that benefit from the advancements, and those who are more negatively affected. Our overabundant zeal for 'better, faster, more', precludes us from analyzing the consequences of our actions, intended or otherwise (Tenner, 1996).
Chet Bowers (1988), noted educational philosopher, condemns our tendency to gloss over the political implications around technological design and implementation, specifically those technologies that serve as an information source, such as a computer-based information system or a virtual environment:
The interactive language of the computer is represented as the conduit through which the objective information (or haphazardly collected data) flows. But this view of objective knowledge and its transmission misrepresents how knowledge is humanly constructed over time in culturally specific ways and continually reconstructed as it is communicated to others (43).
In the next section, I will attempt to define virtual reality, and its relationship to the technological, cultural and social advances that we are currently experiencing.
Virtual reality (VR) is, as Beardon (1992) describes "a simulation in which we are invited, or perhaps persuaded to amend our belief in what is real." It is a means by which to experience alternate views of both physically real and imagined environments. By combining the power of computing technology and advancements in human-computer interface design, virtual reality provides a metaphoric parallel to our real-world analogue, and forces us to ask deep questions about our traditional understanding of metaphysics.
In essence, the technology has turned our traditional view of metaphysics on its ear; what we have come to know as perceptibly real is now completely manipulable; the knowledge and process associated with developing meaning within this new rubric completely rocks our assumptions of real, unreal, false, true, signifier, and signified. Our frame of reference, as Einstein so elegantly stated, is truly arbitrary. And, as Krueger (in Heim, 1993) points out, "these are aesthetic questions with engineering consequences."
As described by Chesher (1995), the issue really boils down to our understanding of signifier and signified; in essence, our concept of metaphor and what it represents (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). This is also discussed by Baudrillard (1983) in analyzing the difference between a representation and a simulation. A representation is a model of that which is signified if I never lose my belief that it is the original object that is the real object, rather than the representation. In a simulation, the signifier may not have a direct referent to the 'real' world, nor is one required. The model, or signifier, takes on a reality of its own. This is further described as the psychoperceptual state of being known as 'presence'. (Hoffman, Prothero & Wells, 1995; Winn, Hoffman & Osberg, 1995).
The history of the development of verbal and visual communication is well known. I will dispense with a long analysis of the value of cave paintings and early language forms as a matter of expedience, not as a value-based statement. Instead, I will start with the Western perspective on the written word.
Before the advent of the printing press, the written word was considered either the language of commerce, or of religion, as the only individuals who could write were either merchants involved with trade, or monks and other religious individuals intent on copying holy texts.
After Guttenberg developed his marvelous invention, the act of reading is what took on societal, political and personal value. With the advent of electronic manipulation of text via word processing, it is the role of author that takes precedence, as we manipulate word, phrase and idea on our computer screens. Hypertext, however, again places the locus of control back with the reader, as he or she controls movement from concept to concept within the linked and indexed environment. The value of the designer and artist are reintegrated into both process and product with the development of multimedia, where the participant now has the potential for accessing information in a variety of formats and modalities. Notice the shift in perception(s) from reader to participant; in one case we are working in a singular modality (text); in the next moment the realm of possibility in a multiperceptual sense has expanded to include text, audio, video, graphics, pictures, and animation.
Virtual reality goes at least one step, if not one level above multimedia in terms of perceptual richness and locus of control. The primary difference is in intent; multimedia is a representation, whereas virtual reality is a simulation, intended to fool the senses into believing that the participant is indeed, somewhere other than in their 'physical' body. And yet, it is the reintegration of the body in the search for knowledge that provides such a compelling tour de force to the technology. It is this last point that I personally find so powerful, especially with regard to education; that by bringing our bodies back into the search for meaning, we can at long last become fully, not just intellectually, integrated.
From what we have discovered in the course of our research, individuals who have experienced virtual reality fall into two broad categories; those that find it difficult to relate the virtual environment to the real world, and those that do not need to relate the virtual space to anything other than itself. For those that find the need to 'ground' their experience outside the environment, it is difficult to 'suspend their disbelief' long enough to generate a sense of presence. For those that seem more comfortable in the virtual environment, it appears that, for them, the metaphorical representations inherent in a virtual world stay ensconced in the environment, and do not require additional referents. It becomes a closed system which limits the amount of control or input others might have on one's experience. And yet within the environment the individual has unlimited potential to access, experience, and interpret the information space at will.
Often with a new technology such as VR, there is a feeling that one is exploring a new frontier, as described in detail by John Perry Barlow (1994) and his Electronic Frontier Foundation. This progressive view is consistent with our societal fascination with technological development, and with expansionism of any kind. The bad news is that the frontier analogy (echoed in the rhetoric surrounding the Information Highway) also carries with it the less-than-savory baggage of elitism, and exclusion of those that are not a part of the culture. However, as is true in any new endeavor, we also have the opportunity to 'turn a new leaf', to choose to behave in a manner somehow 'better' than what has transpired in our past.
What is difficult with respect to VR is that this new frontier of cyberspace is often described as extending in all directions, and in (at least) three dimensions. The sheer spatial magnitude of this endless domain is daunting, to say the least. However, Chesher (1995) indicates that this spatial metaphor, which replicates our physical environment and our value systems about space, property, ownership and privacy is at the core of our difficulty in understanding how to develop rule systems that are truly applicable. This is because the spatial metaphor is incorrect; cyberspace is not a place, it is an experience.
If cyberspace is an experience and not a place, where does this leave us in attempting to develop an ethical paradigm? One must begin to differentiate between experiences and technologies, and between individuals, groups, and indeed whole cultures who mediate those experiences. The effect of our cultural beliefs, values and mores have an overarching effect on our behaviors (Brislin, 1993; Shweder, 1991). But the very nature of virtual reality challenges us to develop alternative cultures; alternative ways of being that mirror our experiences (Rheingold, 1995; Laurel, 1990). One is not beget from the other; they simultaneously and continuously forge each other. We must develop a place to integrate our alternative experiences into our knowledge construction process.
All of what we experience is a construction of sorts (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992); all communication (both internal and external) is mediated to a degree. The onus is always on the experiencer or participant to ask questions about the experience, and on the designer in terms of their intent. But it is the combination of the designer's intent and the participant's interactions that create the sum total of what we call experience.
The designer is responsible for attempting to develop an environment in which a participant can access and utilize information within that environment. He or she must consider the underlying rule system that controls the way that objects behave and events unfold, how the participant is or isn't constrained in terms of navigation, how gateways are invoked, as well as the aesthetics of the environment. However, this is only half the equation in constructing the experience; the other half lies with the participant.
The participant comes to the environment with a set of expectations and a certain understanding about how to proceed. Their existing mental model and set of previous experiences 'grounds' the way that they will approach this particular opportunity. When in contact with the environment as the designer has created it, the participant will develop or construct meaning from the environment in a manner unique unto themselves. This unique construction process cannot be controlled. It can be modified, both in terms of enhancing or detracting from the experience, but it is primarily under participant's loci.
Indeed, one can think of VR as a three-dimensional Rorschach, in which the need for interpretation is implied, if not required. This places the technology more as experiential and interpretive informational art rather than as a direct means of deriving extant, objective meanings and truths. This point is discussed further by Hiedegger (1977), in his postmodern view of communicative technologies in which he states "reality changes, and with it the task of thinking".
This meaning-making process is also supported in a very personal way by the work of Rogers (1984), in the Mythseeker project. This spiritual exploration was designed around virtual reality technology, with the express purpose of self exploration, deepening of spiritual connections and personal meaning making by experiencing the symbology, rituals and relationships within six different cosmologies. The Mythseeker project's sole purpose is to provide a means by which individuals can explore, at their leisure and within the privacy of their own virtual domain their beliefs, fears, and hopes for personal and spiritual growth.
The value of ethical systems is to provide the individual and the group with a set of rules or guidelines by which to determine and to judge appropriate action. This is especially important when considering how to act in a new environment, or under new circumstances, as one may potentially find in a virtual environment. The challenge is measuring the relative success or failure of these guidelines. To do so, one must develop a rubric around the guidelines.
Within the individual, ethics are a psychological phenomenon. Within a larger group or community, ethics are a social and behavioral phenomenon. The purpose of having these rule systems (Beardon, 1992) is to "determine which actions are deemed to be legitimate and which are not, and to eliminate lengthy and inconclusive arguments whenever an action is challenged."
Ethical systems provide us with the following:
Ethics are only relevant when couched within a belief system that indicates what exists and what does not; how one comes to know, and how what one knows is valued as truth or untruth. It is context within context, and irrelevant without this pre-established grounding point. If VR has caused a crisis of consciousness, and I do believe it has, then we need to rethink our understanding of consciousness. Are we who we think we are, who we project to others in our corporeal form, who we project to others in alternative forms (via virtual reality or even the theatrical stage) or all of the above? Heim (1993) says that ethics languish when the corporeal form is minimized or negated. To continue:
The face is the primal interface, more basic than any machine interface. The physical eyes are the windows that establish the neighborhood of trust. Without the direct experience of the human face, ethical awareness shrinks and rudeness enters. (102)
However, this may be a function of size rather than of direct experience. He continues:
The loss of innocence therefore accompanies an expanding network. As the on-line (and virtual) culture grows, the sense of community diminishes. . . When the size of the user base increases, however, the spirit of community diminishes, and the villains begin to appear. . . When we speak of a global village, we should keep in mind that every village makes villains, and when civilization reaches a certain degree of density, the barbarians return, from within. Tribes shun their independent thinkers and punish individuality. A global international village, fed by accelerated competition and driven by information, may be host to unprecedented barbarism. (103).
One might shake in one's boots. Or one might consider the alternatives. Beardon (1992) says that we can develop an ethical paradigm for VR in one of three ways:
The issue at hand is not the technology; it is the behavior of humans using the technology which is of paramount concern (Brislin, 1993). In essence, again, according to Beardon (1992) is that a code of ethics "must be aimed primarily at affecting the actions of people who are pursuing a social goal." The need for regulated action is only inherently necessary when it comes to interpersonal interactions; otherwise the individual should have the freedom of choice to act in any way that he or she wants, as long as others are not (intentionally OR unintentionally) harmed.
If we accept that most individuals are viewing the virtual environment not as a completely extensible mental playground, but as an addressable set of locales, cultural groupings, and gated environments, it becomes both easier and more difficult to establish an ethical code. Even if this spatial metaphor is metaphysically incorrect, it may serve the purpose of 'grounding' the participant in a way in which he or she can make sense of that which is experienced, and be able to consider the value of a rule system associated with that experience. This is especially true with regard to group dynamics within an experiential space.
As I have pointed out, it seems to be difficult to develop an ethical code, especially for networked or multiparticipant VR. Why? Because "ethics must be aimed primarily at affecting the actions of people who are pursuing a social goal." (24). But who is it that is populating these virtual environments? It isn't a full complement of autonomous agents or avatars; it is real individuals, regardless of how they choose to represent themselves at the current moment.
VR, for the most part, has been to date an isolating rather than community-enhancing medium. Most of the virtual worlds that have been developed are essentially one-person-at-a-time kind of environments. However, the push is on towards networked VR, to move it out of the research facility or the occasional industrial setting into a much more accessible form.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, VR puts into question our traditional, western views of cosmology, epistemology and metaphysics by providing a perceptual construct of an alternate reality. This perceptual state is fundamentally different from our known, physical realm and our behaviors therein. Without this physical 'grounding' point from which to speak, it is difficult (or may not even be applicable or possible) to establish a singular, rule-based way of being, or of meaning-making, or of clearly establishing 'right' from 'wrong'. It is difficult to know exactly what is 'taboo', or for how long that particular view may be held (Gower, 1996; Leitch, 1988).
I would submit, however, that it is also an opportunity to explore our understanding, indeed our boundary system as it has been traditionally defined, to find the value in what we have come to know, and to explore the value of what we can now experience. All is not lost, as many would assert. Instead, the door to a new way of choosing and enforcing, or not choosing and not enforcing rule systems has recently been opened.
Instead of perception based on reality, VR is an alternate reality based on perception. Since our virtual experiences are entirely within the realm of perception, instead of grounded in our physical world, we are no longer fettered by physical constraints, or our traditional social constructs of right and wrong. This reversal of what we perceive to be 'the norm' furthers the difficulty of applying an ethical system; in which environment, and under which rule system (and in who's perspective) is the individual to be judged for 'wrong' action? Under what system of laws are we to understand intention and outcome? Where does one draw these new lines? Or do the lines need to be drawn? Perhaps there is no separation between self and representative self, or between designer and participant, or perhaps the line is very thin. Though we may choose to put forth a representation of either self or other, and come to know in our personal, unique way, the participant is still mediating the communication of that representation. The core of the individual; thought perhaps modified, is still present. To insist that they aren't is tantamount to saying that an actor on the stage 'really isn't himself anymore'. Unless the individual is schizophrenic, all aspects of self, physical or virtual, are part and parcel of the same being.
It becomes, as is often the case, a question of balance; balance regarding the right to chose to experience anything one desires, while still maintaining boundaries around our effects on others. We need to develop an understanding about the value of experience both outside and within the virtual space, that will direct our actions in an appropriate fashion.
One of the issues surrounding a fascination with technological development is the potential to lose that component of us which is essentially human; the part that needs to communicate, to be a part of a larger community, that needs to understand right action, cause and effect, and the consequences of our choices. Technology can sometimes mask these human aspects by providing a buffer between individuals and actions, through the loss of our personal, unique 'face'. But it is time to remove the mask. I think it is wise, particularly with regard to virtual reality, to remain keenly aware of the potential for the technology to minimize, and perhaps even negate our capabilities as interpersonal beings.
One of the fears associated with virtual reality (The Lancet, 1991) is that it will deprive us of our social abilities through continued or prolonged exposure to isolating environments. This quote was taken from an editorial written about the potential of using VR as a therapeutic device for physically or mentally impaired individuals:
Yet compare the VR-day with our own, and computer-generated realities are soon to be vastly incomplete. Our experiences are memorable because we want, even strive, to have them. Looking back we feel that each achievement contributes to our individuality and we realize that our experiences are continuously shaped by the views of others. Interpersonal modifications of choice and intention help us to test and adjust our views about the nature of shared realities. Our experience has many levels of purpose; VR provides only part of these. Continuous exposure to VR will impoverish these aspects of life that determine social development, interpersonal insight, and emotional judgment. (283).
This fear has also been mentioned by many of the teachers with whom I have worked. Their perspective is that there are already a number of isolating factors at work; lack of or insufficient parental attention, too much TV or video games, too much violence. Many were initially skeptical that the technology would provide a healthy avenue for learning. My research indicates that instead, the technology provided a creative, intuitive and engaging form in which to create learning environments that can be shared and enjoyed with a larger audience.
My goal has always been to create enriching environments, that enhance the learning experience rather than detract from it. I am not espousing a means of escapism,. rather a means of developing integration and community within the learning system. Though The Lancet article makes a valid point, we do not have to choose to partake in that particular 'brand' of virtual experience. Furthermore, while it is true that we need to maintain a balance in our lives between 'real' and mediated experience, this does not negate the value of being able to, through personal choice, 'play' with our perceptions and experiences. This entire process harkens back, for me, to the need to develop literacy, not only verbal literacy, but visual and virtual literacy as well. Individuals need to take responsibility for their choices, actions, interactions and experiences.
Though I feel comfortable issuing forth a set of guidelines around virtual reality and the ethics of creating or participating in virtual environments, I feel that the real challenge is to develop a set of rubrics or measurement tools around this issue as a community.
Your average six year old knows how to create, and to stick to a rule system. They understand when an action is not fair. They can anticipate and identify when someone is 'cheating'. They may even attempt to cheat themselves! But if a six year old can figure out, on the fly and in a creative fashion, a new rule system to suit a particular game or enactment, we should be able to do the same.
There are large issues to be considered, both inside and outside the virtual domain. It is true that this is not, and may never be a ubiquitous technology. However, it is likely that the price point will eventually reach a level that most consumers can 'jack in' at some level. As described in a recent article in the Seattle Times, with the utilization of such technologies as the Teledisc, access (to the World Wide Web and the Internet) becomes a global opportunity, though not perhaps a global desire (Seattle Times, Sept. 29, 1996, A1).
There is also the question of commercialization of the technology, and who is best served by the design and development of technologies, for example the Virtual i-O i-glasses. Right now, the i-glasses are primarily used to either watch television, or to watch movies. The more expensive versions, however, have 3-D capability, can be connected to a personal computer, and as such provide an alternative means of displaying information in a very personal, intimate manner. As stated by one 'test-driver' who tried the i-glasses for the weekend:
My reaction to the video glasses went through three distinct stages. The first was a kind of awe of the technology, and delight at its conveniences. After first blush however, some of the problems began to surface. The 8 ounces began to seem like 8 pounds.. The apparatus chafed my ears, and I kept having to remove the entire headset to scratch my nose. It even gave me a slight headache. The intensity of the experience -- not being able to look away -- also began to seem, over time, oppressive. I put the system aside, and when I came back to it a day or two later, I found these problems were less annoying. And as my body became accustomed to the system, it dawned on me that this was just an extraordinarily intimate and all involving way to watch a movie -- probably even better than the theatrical experience. By the end of my week-long trial, my video glasses had become a regular part of my life -- and I didn't want to give them back. In the future. our world might be half populated with masked figures in their own virtual video worlds, waiting in airports, cringing in dentist chairs, lounging around Green Lake on a sunny day. Is this a good thing, sociologically speaking? Do people need to be any more cut off from the 'real' world than they already are now? Might this be the last nail in the coffin of literacy? (Seattle Times, Sept. 5, 1996, D1; D3)
These are good questions, and they get at my very first and foremost statement about developing an ethical rule system around this technology, and that is:
1. DEFINE A BALANCE POINT BETWEEN THE VIRTUAL AND CORPOREAL. I.E. THE 'REAL' WORLD HAS NOT LOST ALL OF ITS CHARM YET!
In other words, don't let this stuff go entirely to your head. We haven't reached such a stage of development in VR where our traditional experiences can be completely supplanted through singular, individual interaction in a virtual space. Nor should they be; we are social beings that require a social context for intellectual, spiritual and emotional development. Unless VR improves drastically, you're not going to find that kind of warm, caring, intimate interaction in there; it's still almost entirely out here.
2. MAKE EXPLICIT WHAT THE TECHNOLOGY IS GOOD FOR, AND WHAT IT ISN'T. IN OTHER WORDS, DON'T JUST USE IT BECAUSE IT IS SEXY.
You want to create focus? Great place to do so. Of course, the question "Focus on what?" is also completely relevant. As Chet Bowers (1988) points out, there is no politically neutral technology. Well, there is no politically neutral content, either. Designers all come fully loaded with preconceptions, limited experiences, and so on. If we can accept that the concept of an objective truth is far too limited, then developing one's own truth becomes an exercise in comparative research. One perspective alone is never going to be enough, regardless of whether your information source is the New York Times, or a virtual version of same.
But as a tool to explore our own, and the designers assumptions about the information space, you can't beat it. The dynamic nature of the environment; the ability to 'program in' cause and effect relationships that can be immediately discerned; now that has some value.
3. QUANTIFY THE VALUE OF YOUR EXPERIENCES, AND WHAT YOU ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR THEM, AND WHAT YOU ARE WILLING TO ASK OTHERS TO PAY FOR THEM. CONSIDER THE OPPORTUNITY COSTS!
Any good parent wants to provide the best possible learning environments for their children, but do not always seek the same 'quality' level in their own endeavors. If we can consider ourselves stewards, and work from an ethic of caring for both ourselves and the others around us, some of this kind of cost-benefit analysis comes easily. Sega and Ninetendo both just announced 'new' versions of their gaming environments, which are of better resolution than many of the commercially available (industry) headsets. But what is the content that is streaming through these headsets? Shoot-em up games, or maze-like quick-twitch response environments. What is your child learning in this respect? Great hand-eye coordination within the game paradigm, but these skills fall apart back out here on Planet Earth. Even VR trained fighter pilots are normally grounded after an intensive training session. They have developed such an intensive focus on the tools of the virtual environment that they can no longer function in a real plane. This should give one room to pause. Extensively.
4. DON'T DO ANYTHING TO ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE WILLING TO HAVE DONE TO YOURSELF, OR BE WILLING TO BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES WITHOUT WHINING.
This is, of course, analogous to the Golden Rule. Car Sagan, however, insists that the better rule to employ is the Bronze Rule, which is do unto others as they have done unto you until it just isn't fun anymore. With regard to nuclear proliferation, and games of chicken with intercontinental ballistic missiles, the simulations indicate that this is the better strategy to employ societal behavior modification. Playing nice-nice just doesn't cut it. However, I think that since we have the chance with this new technology to try and better ourselves, that perhaps we can attempt to move beyond the paradigm of mutually assured destruction and instead carry around fistfuls of olive branches.
5. DESIGNERS AND PARTICIPANTS: PUT FORTH CLEARLY YOUR RULE SYSTEMS, EVEN IF THE RULES AREN'T PRETTY.
It is only fair to warn participants in an environment what the expectations are, and what the consequences will be if those behavioral expectations are not met. One example in an experiential exploratory environment might be that if you don't interact with the virtual objects, you won't learn what kind of information they hold. This is hardly a heinous example of harsh punishment, but if the participant isn't clued in to what is required, they will hardly maximize their experience in the environment. The rule systems in place are particularly important with regard to environments that are multi-participant; it is one thing to trip over your own feet, but quite another to trip over someone else without apologizing. Unless of course that is the point of the environment.
6. ACT WITH A MODICUM OF CIVILITY, WITHIN REASON. MIND YOUR MANNERS, CLEAN UP AFTER YOURSELF, AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.
This last point seems to be lost on many individuals in the 'real' world, so I do not know how successful it will be to try and instill it as a basic principle in VR. I feel we provide much to much leeway with regard to cause and effect relationships, and do not allow individuals to take enough personal responsibility for the choices that they make. This perspective is tempered, however, with how I see this rule being played out. Most individuals break rules because they either don't know what they are, or have a driving need to act out that supersedes the rule structure. This indicates that either the individual needs to be educated, or their unmet needs must be addressed in some way. For example, if a participant enters an environment still carrying the weapons that they had while playing DOOM: Version XXV, and their weapons are not considered 'cool' in the new environment, I would suggest a stepped approach to working with the individual: educate first, work with him or her to understand their need for weaponry in the new environment second, and strip them from him or her as a last alternative.
7. BECOME VIRTUALLY LITERATE, POLITICALLY SAVVY, AND WATCH OUT FOR YOUR BACK.
The bottom line is that we as humans have to take responsibility for our own experiences. Perhaps not all experiences are necessarily of our own choosing, but the interpretation and utilization of the information that they provide certainly are. You should always watch out for your back, and your front and your sides and middle, too. There is, and always will be, evil in the world. It's not in the technology, it's in us. There will always be a cross-section of society that feels the need to act in a detrimental manner, but to be forewarned is to be forearmed, so to speak.
8. IF YOU DON'T LIKE ANY OF THESE RULES, CREATE YOUR
OWN ENVIRONMENT!
In the end, we are humans, creating and experiencing culture, constructing knowledge, and hopefully gaining wisdom. Regardless of whether this process is technologically mediated or not, we are still engaged in the act of communicating and making meaning. For this reason, I submit that we can use some of the same rule systems that have worked in the past, but have the opportunity to develop a dynamic sense of application, structure, and enforcement. Perhaps with the shift to the virtual environment, we can begin to envision a more humane approach to some of the issues that we face on an ongoing basis here in the 'real' world. It is, at minimum, a wonderful place to explore. But as my good friend, colleague and partner said when I asked him what the difference between the virtual environment and real world was, he said "You can't beat the real world for resolution. Of any kind!"
Barlow, J.P. (1994). Jack in Young Pioneer!
Keynote essay for the 1994 Computerworld College Edition.
Baudrillard, J. (1983). Simulations. New York:
Semiotext(e).
Beardon, C. (1992). The Ethics of Virtual Reality,
Intelligent Tutoring Media, 3(1), 23-28.
Bowers, C.A. (1988). The Cultural Dimensions of
Educational Computing; Understanding the Non-Neutrality of Technology.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Brislin, J. (1993). Understanding Culture's Influence
on Behavior. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Chesher, C. (1995). An Ontology of Digital Domains.
Paper presented at the International Communication Association
Conference; Philosophy of Communication Division, Albuquerque,
NM: April 1995.
Duffy, T.M., Jonassen, D. (1992). Constructivism
and the Technology of Instruction. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gower, T., (Sept 25, 1996). Examining some of society's
taboos, Eastsideweek, 15-23.
Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning
Technology and Other Essays. New York: Harper & Row.
Heim, M. (1993). The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Hoffman, H., Prothero, J. & Wells, M. (in preparation).
Virtual Chess: The role of meaning in the sensation of presence.
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live
By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lancet (1991). Being and believing: ethics of virtual
reality. The Lancet, 338, 283-284.
Larson, R., Segal, G. (1995). Knowledge of Meaning;
An introduction to semantic theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Laurel, B. (1990). The Art of Human-Computer Interface.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Leitch, V.B. (1988). Taboo and critique: Literary
criticism and ethics. ADE Bulletin, 90, 46-52.
Muffoletto, R. (1994). Technology and restructuring
education: constructing a context. Educational Technology,
34(2), 24-28.
Osberg, K.M. (1993). Virtual Reality and Education:
A Look at Both Sides of the Sword. Human Interface Technology
Lab Technical Report R-93-7.
Osberg, K.M. (1994). Rethinking Educational Technology:
A Postmodern View. Human Interface Technology Lab Technical
Report R-94-4.
Postman, N. (1992). Technolpoly: The surrender
of culture to technology. New York: Alfred K. Knopf.
Rheingold, H. (1995). Virtual Communities.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rogers, M.B. (1994). The Mythseeker project; concepts
and realizations. Journal of Systems Software, (25): 271-298.
Shweder, R.A. (1991). Thinking Through Cultures;
expeditions in cultural psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Solomon, J. (1988). The signs of our times: The
secret meanings of everyday life. New York: Harper and Row.
Tenner, E. (1996). Why Things Bite Back: Technology
and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf.
Winn, W., Hoffman, H., Osberg, K. (1995). Semiotics
and the Design of Objects, Actions, and Interactions in Virtual
Environments. Presented at the Symposium "Semiotics and
cognition: Issues in the symbolic design of learning environments",
AERA, San Francisco, CA, April 1995.