With Matthias Harbeck
- What are the key technical and methodological challenges in digitising both tangible and intangible cultural heritage, particularly in ensuring accuracy, context, and long-term preservation?
When it comes to written documents, the greatest challenges in digitising intangible cultural heritage are achieving the most accurate possible optical character recognition (OCR) and producing form- and content-based metadata for optimising retrieval options. This helps to make search queries more efficient. Especially in large-scale digitisation projects, beyond fairly general contextualisations (e.g. via disclaimers), a frame of reference can only be established on the basis of precise entities (geographical locations, ethnonyms, specific persons). - How does the digital representation of cultural heritage reshape collective memory and identity, especially for younger generations who primarily engage with heritage online?
Freely accessible (though not necessarily open-access) online materials are easier to find and access, which may bring events, knowledge, and places into focus that would otherwise be forgotten. They could also help to (re)shape the outputs of chatbots based on large language models and similar AI tools, which are frequently used by younger generations. However, they carry the risk that—especially in the case of older materials—they could negatively influence the bias of such tools. Detached from academic or heritage contexts such as archives, libraries, and museums, they might appear out of context and hard to place correctly. - What are the key legal and structural challenges related to copyright and ownership when cultural heritage—both tangible and intangible—is digitised, particularly in balancing protection, access, and the rights of source communities?
Most national legal systems primarily recognise individual copyrights. Collective, shared rights to local or traditional knowledge are difficult to reconcile with this framework. Furthermore, when attempting to establish long-term arrangements for responsibilities, the question of who is authorised to speak on behalf of or represent a community—a question that is difficult to resolve—arises time and again. Furthermore, it is a very time-consuming and resource-intensive process to establish contact with the relevant communities regarding a specific cultural heritage site and to address the associated contextual, legal, and ethical issues. - What role should governments and cultural institutions play in regulating and supporting digitisation, particularly in ensuring ethical standards, data sovereignty, and equitable access?
Governments and cultural institutions should set aside funds to facilitate meaningful dialogue with communities of origin. Funding should be provided to support research and outreach efforts in this area. Funding recommendations should not be tied to a requirement for open-access publication, but should allow for alternative options to address ethical concerns (e.g. depictions or descriptions of secret/sacred objects, places, and rituals). - How can local communities—especially young people—be meaningfully involved in the digital preservation of their cultural heritage without losing authenticity or agency?
Communities should reach out specifically to institutions they know hold collections relevant to them and press for dialogue (establishing the FAIR principles is a key prerequisite for this). Citizen science projects should be supported and promoted, and solutions for protecting ethically or culturally sensitive data should be sought in collaboration with these institutions; working with organisations such as localcontexts can be helpful in this regard.
