In this presentation we examine the social acceptance of digital technologies in the cemetery
which we refer to as "cemtech". To map this area of design and its pitfalls, we first developed
a typology of cemetery technologies through a review of examples from around the world.
We then evaluated the social acceptance of various types of cemtech through a survey of
the Australian population. Overall, our research sheds light on the contentious
nature of memorialisation technology in the cemetery and highlights challenges
for designing what are sometimes referred to as "thanatosensitive" cemetery technologies.
The DeathTech Research Team that undertook this work, shown here,
is a multi-disciplinary group of scholars who research questions
at the intersection of death, technology and social change.
Cemeteries are widely thought of as places dedicated to remembering the past, and therefore
backward-looking rather than forward-looking and therefore not open to innovation and change.
Nevertheless, cemeteries are themselves a type of technology that has changed and evolved over time.
Today, cemeteries are under pressure to make their spaces available for a
wider range of publics and purposes than the past. This includes forms of recreation or
cultural heritage. These are due to a range of factors, as we can see on the screen, including
shortage of land as well as the maintenance costs associated with ageing cemeteries.
Digital technologies, too, play an increasingly prominent role in memorialisation, but their use
at cemeteries has been criticised for a perceived lack of sensitivity. We define the term "cemtech"
to refer to digital technologies that are designed to augment the user experience of interacting
with a cemetery, whether on-site as a visitor or remotely through the internet. To date there has
been little direct academic study of technology in the cemetery, with some few exceptions
such as Nordh et al. (2017) and Al-Akl et al. (2018), which involved studies with visitors to
cemeteries, interviewing participants in Oslo and Beirut respectively, finding that mostly people
valued the orderly, quiet, historical and natural qualities of cemetery environments. This suggests
a pitfall that needs to be managed in design, the contours of which are mapped in our study.
We conducted a comprehensive review of digital technologies focused on cemeteries,
out of which we constructed an Encyclopedia of Cemtech.
And we undertook a mixed-methods survey to assess the public acceptability of these technologies.
Our investigation began with a review of cemtech designs that have been documented in research
literature and deathcare industry publications from a range of sources around the world.
This culminated in an Encyclopedia of Cemtech that includes 72 examples, that we made available as
a public data set resource. It is searchable as a directory that includes an entry for each of these
particular cemetery technologies, and then their
classification according to a range of dimensions analysed within our typology.
Using an iterative coding process, the typology was developed through a classification of cemtechs
according to four key descriptive dimensions. This included the technical components, target users
and development status, though the core dimension of the typology was the application type, as shown
here on the screen. That is, the main functions that these technologies were designed to fulfil.
We identified, through this coding process, 13 primary application types. The types
themselves are non-exclusive, as specific examples may include multiple applications.
As you can see, these types include various forms of wayfinding and mapping applications,
gravesite audio-visual types of media, forms of remote access technology,
and a range of cemetery augmentation technologies, as classified in the typology.
Following this, a survey of 1053 respondents from the
Australian population. It included a mix of open-ended and multi-choice questions.
The survey presented descriptions of 13 hypothetical cemtech concepts that were
drawn from this typology, and asked respondents to rate their feelings on a seven-point scale
ranging from "very negative" to "very positive". And following this quantitative survey, there was
a qualitative question for respondents to explain their ratings in their own words
following the question prompt: "Why did you give the answer above?" To understand the explanatory
survey comments, we conducted a Reflexive Thematic Analysis, again using an inductive approach.
The results of our research show that the social acceptance of cemtech varies
quite widely depending on a range of factors and particularly the types of technologies that are
proposed for these spaces of memorialisation. The survey revealed sharp differences in the
level of support for various cemtech, with mostly positive ratings given to examples
including audio guides, funeral webcasting, online memorials and grave-tending services.
More mixed results were given for cemtech examples of gravesite webcams,
gravesite videos, virtual graves and narrative audio speakers and beacons.
Finally, mostly negative responses were given for examples including autobiographical audio,
augmented reality avatars, or various location-based games such as historical or
ghost games that were proposed. Thus respondents were less favourable towards technologies that
were thought to intervene in or upset or create new interaction opportunities for people,
outside of the expectations of a cemetery space. Negative sentiments also increased with age.
The thematic analysis of comments resulted in the development of further insights of public
disagreement about cemtech, that were organised through coding around four dichotomies. That is:
whether it facilitates or impedes memorialisation; whether it should activate the cemetery space for
increased visitation; whether it should animate the deceased; and whether it should be judged
on primarily functional or emotional terms. So the study identified four opposing themes that
categorise the responses to cemtech concepts. Each one reflects an idea about death and technology on
which respondents expressed divergent views. The first dichotomy, "Expanding/Impeding",
showed that some respondents agreed that cemtech offered opportunities for further memorialisation,
while others saw them as impeding what was seen as proper or traditional forms of memorialisation.
The second dichotomy, "Public/Private", saw some respondents express the view that the
cemetery should be enjoyable to wider public participation, while others asserted that the
cemetery should be a protected space for private grief. The third dichotomy, "Lively/Restful",
saw some respondents favour technologies that were able to present a deceased person in some
more interactive or higher-fidelity audiovisual interactive form, while others felt that the
dead should be left in peace and at rest. The fourth dichotomy was one around Pragmatic versus
Affective (emotional) responses to cemtech, with those favouring a pragmatic approach understanding
or accepting the practical possibilities of these technologies, where others felt – responding in
a more affective register – that some of these technologies made them feel uneasy.
Based on this analysis, we identified three qualities that characterise the
most socially accepted forms of cemtech that can inform our understanding of
design implications for the cemetery. These were around familiarity, intimacy and peacefulness.
One: cemtech that extend familiar memorialisation practices, rather than creating new forms or
unfamiliar forms of interaction for these spaces. Two: cemtech that serve relatives and friends of
the deceased in these spaces, rather than unknown or wider groups of public audience. Three: cemtech
that preserve a more quiet and restful cemetery atmosphere and experience, rather than ones that
tend to create a more noisy or conspicuous mode of engagement interaction and activity.
In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights for cemetery
managers and and cemtech designers to navigate and address potential
controversies as well as possibilities in the development of new cemetery technologies.