Now that I have a VR headset at home I’m both enjoying VR experiences and I’m exploring social interaction in VR spaces. I’ll write more about the pros and cons of VR meetings vs Zoom later, but right now I want to share this recording of a conference panel we organised in VR about VR narratives, for ELO2020 last week.

ELO2020 (the annual conference of the Electronic Literature Organization, held last week) was the best online conference I’ve seen so far. Mostly the success was due to open access archives of all recorded talks and papers, Zoom keynotes and panels that were only accessible live to the registered participants, but which were recorded and put online rapidly, and an active and well-curated Discord server with social spaces (“the pub”), spaces for newcomers and people looking for mentors or mentees or collaborators, as well as dedicated channels for discussing specific talks and topics.

My colleague Maud Ceuterick and I suggested the VR panel when the conference organisers asked for pitches for creative online activities when the conference moved online. We held the panel in AltspaceVR, a VR-based social space that is best accessible using a VR headset, though you can also visit in 2D from Windows computers. We invited five speakers who all either had experience making narrative art and stories in VR or (and) were doing research on VR narratives. You can read full details and watch the recorded session on the rather excellent archival website that the UCF library provided for ELO2020.

Although we’ve done small meetings with our research group in VR, this was our first experience with a larger meeting. We had about 20 people from the ELO participate, in addition to the speakers, and about 20 people who had just seen the event on AltspaceVR, and so had never heard of the ELO before, but were interested in VR narrative. That’s a really interesting and unusual combination for an academic conference, but it seemed to work really well, with most of the audience sticking around for the full 90 minute session. There were certainly some things I’d like to try doing differently – perhaps we could have chosen a more adventurous space rather than a conference auditorium, for instance. And it would have been interesting to have some kind of activities to engage all the participants more, although the Q&A was great.

The experience did really make me want to try doing more academic meetings in VR. A group that hosts a lot of events is Educators in VR, and I’ll be attending some of their activities. Oh, and I attended a live performance of The Tempest a couple weeks ago in The Under Presents (Samantha Gorman and co’s latest project) which I loved – I want more of that.

Obviously VR has accessibility issues. It doesn’t work for everyone (if you are blind or have light-sensitive epilepsy it’s not exactly ideal) and headsets are still expensive. But the quality is getting better, and the price of headsets is slowly coming down, and there are way more interesting things to do with it now than a few years ago. Like attending a play with live actors, or going to debates and parties.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.