Advertisement

A Methodological Reflection: Deconstructing Cultural Elements for Enhancing Cross-Cultural Appreciation of Chinese Intangible Cultural Heritage

Conference paper
  • 772 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12215)

Abstract

This paper presents a practical method of deconstructing cultural elements based on the Human Computer Interaction (HCI) perspective to enhance cross-cultural appreciation of Chinese Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH). The author pioneered this approach during conducting two case studies as a means to enhance appreciation and engagement with Chinese ICH, such as the extraction of elements from traditional Chinese painting and puppetry with potential to support cross-cultural appreciation, as well as the establishment of an elements archive. Through integrating a series of HCI research methods, this approach provides a specific foundational framework that assists non-Chinese people to better understand the cultural significance of Chinese ICH.

Keywords

Digital cultural heritage Research through design (RtD) Design ethnography Experience-centred design (ECD) Co-design 

References

  1. 1.
    William, S.L.: Closing pandora’s box: human rights conundrums in cultural heritage protection. In: Silverman, H., Ruggles, F. (eds.) Cultural Heritage and Human Rights, pp. 33–52. Springer, New York (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71313-7_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhicong, L., Michelle, A., Mingming, F., Daniel, W.: “I feel it is my responsibility to stream”: streaming and engaging with intangible cultural heritage through livestreaming. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–14. ACM: Association for Computing Machinery, Glasgow Scotland (2019)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhao, S.C., Kirk, D., Bowen, S., Wright, P.: Enhancing the appreciation of traditional chinese painting using interactive technology. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2(2), 1–16 (2018)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhao, S.C., Kirk, D., Bowen, S., Chatting, D., Wright, P.: Supporting the cross-cultural appreciation traditional chinese puppetry through a digital gesture library. Comput. Cult. Herit. (JOCCH) 12(4), 1–28 (2019)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCarthy, J., Wright, P.: Experience-Centred Design: Designers, Users, and Communities in Dialogue, 1st edn. Morgan & Claypool Press, Williston (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raijmakers, B., Gaver, W.W., Bishay, J.: Design documentaries: inspiring design research through documentary film. In: Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 229–238. ACM: Association for Computing Machinery, University Park (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dijk, G.V.: Design Ethnography: Taking Inspiration from Everyday Life, 1st edn. BIS Publishers, Amsterdam (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ciolfi, L., et al.: Articulating co-design in museums: reflections on two participatory processes. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pp. 13–25. ACM: Association for Computing Machinery, San Francisco (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Popple, S., Mutibwa, D.H.: Tools you can trust? Co-design in community heritage work. In: Borowiecki, K.J., Forbes, N., Fresa, A. (eds.) Cultural Heritage in a Changing World, pp. 197–214. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29544-2_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xu, Z.M., Xin, X.F.: The Phylogeny of Chinese Puppet Show, 1st edn. Literature of Shandong Press, Shandong (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhao, S.C., Kirk, D.: Using interactive digital media to support transcultural understanding of intangible Chinese cultural heritage. In: Proceedings of CHI 2016 Conference Workshop—Involving the CROWD in Future MUSEUM Experience Design, pp. 1–3. ACM: Association for Computing Machinery, San Jose (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhao, S.C., Kirk, D., Bowen, S., Wright, P.: Cross-cultural understanding of Chinese traditional puppetry: integrating digital technology to enhance audience engagement. Int. J. Intang. Herit. 14(1), 140–156 (2019)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhao, S.C.: Exploring how interactive technology enhances gesture-based expression and engagement: a design study. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 3(1), 1–13 (2019b)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhao, S.C.: An analysis of interactive technology’s effect on the appreciation of traditional Chinese painting: a review of case studies. Int. J. New Media, Technol. Arts 14(3), 1–12 (2019a)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sørensen, M.L.S., Carman, J.: Heritage Studies: Methods and Approaches, 1st edn. Routledge, Abingdon (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Soderland, H.A.: The history of heritage: a method in analysing legislative historiography. In: Sørensen, M.L.S., Carman, J. (eds.) Heritage Studies: Methods and Approaches, pp. 55–84. Routledge, Abingdon (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Giglitto, D.: Using wikis for intangible cultural heritage in Scotland: suitability and empowerment. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Aberdeen, UK (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Palmer, C.: Reflections on the practice of ethnography within heritage tourism. In: Sørensen, M.L.S., Carman, J. (eds.) Heritage Studies: Methods and Approaches, pp. 123–139. Routledge, Abingdon (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Travis, D., Hodgson, P.: Think Like a UX Researcher, 1st edn. Routledge, Abingdon (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Malinowski, B.: Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagos of Melanesian New Guinea. Taylor & Francis e-Library, London (2005). [1922]Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frayling, C.: Research in Art and Design-Royal College of Art Research Papers 1, 1st edn. Christopher Frayling and Royal College of Art, London (1993)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., Evenson, S.: Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 493–502. ACM: Association for Computing Machinery, San Jose (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gaver, W.: 2012. What should we expect from research through design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 937–946. ACM: Association for Computing Machinery, Austin (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., Jodi, F.: An analysis and critique of research through design: towards a formalization of a research approach. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 310–319. ACM: Association for Computing Machinery, Aarhus (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, 1st edn. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lankford, E.L.: Experience in constructivist museums. J. Aesthet. Educ. 36(2), 140–153 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Beardsley, M.C.: The aesthetic point of view. In: Beardsley, M.C., Wreen, M.J. (eds.) The Aesthetic Point of View: Selected Essays, pp. 15–34. Cornell University Press, New York (1982)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M., Robinson, R.E.: The Art of Seeing: An Interpretation of the Aesthetic Encounter, 1st edn. Getty Publications, Los Angeles (1990)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Genzuk, M.: A Synthesis of Ethnographic Research, 1st edn. University of Southern California, Los Angeles (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Blomberg, J., Giacomi, J., Mosher, A., Pat, S.W.: Ethnographic field methods and their relation to design. In: Schuler, D., Namioka, A. (eds.) Participatory Design: Principles and Practices, pp. 123–155. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1993)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kearney, R.: On Stories (Thinking in Action), 1st edn. Routledge, London (2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gaver, W., Dunne, A., Pacenti, E.: Cultural probes. Interactions 6(1), 21–29 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Buchenau, M., Suri, JF.: Experience prototyping. In: Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, pp. 424–433. ACM: Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dindler, C., Iversen, O.S.: Fictional inquiry: design collaboration in a shared narrative space. J. Co-Des. 3(4), 213–234 (2007)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Newell, A., Carmichael, A., Morgan, M., Dickinson, A.: The use of theatre in requirements gathering and usability studies. Interact. Comput. 18(5), 996–1011 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Blythe, M., Monk, A., Park, J.: Technology biographies: field study techniques for home use product development. In: Proceedings of Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Minneapolis, pp. 658–659. ACM: Association for Computing Machinery, Minnesota (2002)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ferretti, V., Gandino, E.: Co-designing the solution space for rural regeneration in a new world heritage site: a choice experiments approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 268(3), 1077–1091 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bournemouth UniversityBournemouthUK

Personalised recommendations