Full Text
<h2>Introduction</h2><p>The museum, as a modern institution, has been deeply implicated in the project of colonialism. For centuries, Western museums served as repositories for the material spoils of empire, organizing non-Western cultures into hierarchical taxonomies that reinforced narratives of European superiority (Bennett, 1995). In the post-colonial era, these institutions have faced mounting pressure to address their problematic legacies, leading to debates about repatriation, restitution, and the decolonization of curatorial practices (Araujo, 2021). The advent of the 'metaverse'—a collective virtual shared space created by the convergence of virtually enhanced physical reality and physically persistent virtual reality—presents a new, complex frontier for these ongoing negotiations (Park & Kim, 2022).</p><p>Virtual reality (VR) technologies offer museums the ability to create immersive, interactive experiences that transcend physical boundaries. This has been hailed as a democratizing force, potentially allowing source communities to engage with their heritage in new ways, and enabling global audiences to access collections that are geographically distant or politically contested (Champion, 2021). However, the metaverse is not a neutral space. It is built upon the technological infrastructure, economic models, and cultural assumptions of the Global North, primarily developed by a handful of multinational corporations (Egliston & Carter, 2022). This raises critical questions: Does the VR museum represent a genuine opportunity for decolonization, or does it risk creating a 'digital neo-colony' where the epistemic violence of the past is replicated in new, more insidious forms?</p><p>This article addresses this central question through a multi-sited qualitative study of post-colonial museum practices in the metaverse between 2024 and 2026. We examine how three distinct institutions are navigating the politics of representation in virtual space. Our research is guided by three primary objectives: (1) to map the diverse strategies employed by these museums in their VR heritage projects; (2) to critically analyze the power dynamics embedded within these digital initiatives; and (3) to develop a practical framework for decolonial VR design. By focusing on the intersection of technology, memory, and power, this study contributes to the growing body of literature on digital heritage and post-colonial museology, offering both theoretical insights and actionable guidance for practitioners.</p><h2>Methods</h2><h3>Research Design</h3><p>This study employed a qualitative, multi-sited case study design (Yin, 2018). This approach was selected to allow for an in-depth, contextualized understanding of the complex social and political processes involved in VR heritage creation. A comparative case study design enables the identification of both common patterns and divergent strategies across different institutional and national contexts.</p><h3>Case Selection</h3><p>Three museums were purposively selected based on their active engagement with VR technologies and their explicit commitment to addressing colonial legacies:</p><ul><li><strong>Humboldt Forum (Berlin, Germany):</strong> A newly constructed institution housing the ethnographic collections of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, which has been at the center of intense public debate about the provenance and display of colonial-era objects.</li><li><strong>National Museum of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa, DRC):</strong> A post-colonial institution in a country that experienced brutal Belgian colonial rule, actively seeking to reclaim and reinterpret its heritage, including through digital means.</li><li><strong>Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (Wellington, New Zealand):</strong> A bicultural museum founded on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, with a well-established track record of collaborative, Indigenous-led curation, now extending into the digital realm.</li></ul><h3>Data Collection</h3><p>Data were collected between January 2024 and December 2025 through three primary methods:</p><ol><li><strong>Semi-structured interviews:</strong> A total of 24 interviews were conducted with curators (n=9), digital strategists and technologists (n=8), and community liaison officers or Indigenous advisors (n=7). Interviews lasted between 45 and 90 minutes and were conducted via video conferencing. The interview protocol explored themes of project goals, design processes, community engagement, challenges encountered, and perceptions of power and ownership.</li><li><strong>Document analysis:</strong> We collected and analyzed 15 project design documents, including grant proposals, internal strategy papers, and public-facing reports related to VR initiatives at the three institutions.</li><li><strong>Platform analysis:</strong> We conducted a systematic walkthrough of the public-facing VR experiences and associated websites, analyzing their interface design, narrative structure, and the framing of cultural objects.</li></ol><h3>Data Analysis</h3><p>All interview recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Coding was conducted iteratively, moving from descriptive codes to broader analytical themes. The analysis was informed by post-colonial theory and critical heritage studies, with a specific focus on concepts of power, agency, representation, and memory. The document and platform analyses were used to triangulate and contextualize the interview data. All participants provided informed consent, and institutional ethics approval was obtained from the lead author's university.</p><h2>Results</h2><p>The analysis of the data revealed three overarching themes that characterize the VR heritage practices of the case study institutions: (1) Digital Repatriation and the Virtual Return of Objects; (2) Co-Creative World-Building and Indigenous Sovereignty; and (3) The Persistence of Infrastructural Colonialism. These themes are not mutually exclusive but represent different, often overlapping, strategies and challenges.</p><h3>Theme 1: Digital Repatriation and the Virtual Return of Objects</h3><p>The most prominent strategy identified was 'digital repatriation'—the creation of high-fidelity 3D scans of objects held in Western collections and their subsequent 'return' to source communities in virtual form. This was a central focus of the Humboldt Forum's VR initiatives. As one curator explained, "We cannot physically return everything, but we can offer a digital twin, a way for communities to see and interact with their heritage without the barrier of distance and institutional politics" (Curator, Humboldt Forum, Interview 4).</p><p>At the National Museum of the DRC, this approach was viewed with cautious optimism. A digital strategist noted, "Digital repatriation is a first step. It acknowledges the loss and provides a tool for memory. But it is not a substitute for the real thing. It is a beginning, not an end" (Digital Strategist, DRC, Interview 11). The virtual return was often framed as a tool for cultural memory, allowing younger generations in the diaspora to connect with objects they had never seen physically.</p><p>However, the analysis also revealed significant limitations. The process of digitization is often controlled by the holding institution, which determines what is scanned, at what resolution, and under what conditions. This led to a perception among some participants that digital repatriation could be a form of 'digital colonialism'—a way for Western museums to appear progressive while maintaining ultimate control over the digital assets. As a community liaison in New Zealand pointed out, "They give us a file, but they hold the master. Who owns the data? Who decides how it can be used? These are the new questions of power" (Community Liaison, Te Papa, Interview 19).</p><h3>Theme 2: Co-Creative World-Building and Indigenous Sovereignty</h3><p>In contrast to the object-centric approach of digital repatriation, Te Papa Tongarewa has pioneered a model of 'co-creative world-building.' Here, VR is not used merely to display objects but to construct entire virtual environments that embody Indigenous worldviews and narratives. This involves a deep collaboration with Māori iwi (tribes) from the outset, with Indigenous communities acting as co-designers, storytellers, and owners of the virtual content.</p><p>One of the flagship projects involved the creation of a virtual marae (communal gathering place) that could be visited by people worldwide. The project was governed by a custom data sovereignty agreement that ensured the iwi retained ownership of all digital assets and had final approval over their representation. A lead developer described the process: "We are not just building a digital copy of a physical space. We are building a living digital entity that follows the protocols of the marae. The technology must serve the culture, not the other way around" (Digital Strategist, Te Papa, Interview 16).</p><p>This approach was seen as a powerful form of Indigenous sovereignty in the digital realm. It challenges the Western, object-centric logic of many museum databases and instead prioritizes relational, process-based understandings of heritage. As one Māori curator stated, "Our taonga (treasures) are not just things; they are ancestors. In the virtual world, we can treat them with the same respect, creating a space where our stories are told on our terms" (Curator, Te Papa, Interview 21).</p><h3>Theme 3: The Persistence of Infrastructural Colonialism</h3><p>Despite the innovative strategies employed, all three institutions grappled with what we term 'infrastructural colonialism.' This refers to the ways in which the underlying technological and economic infrastructure of the metaverse is controlled by a small number of Global North corporations, creating new dependencies and power imbalances.</p><p>Participants across all sites expressed concerns about data storage, platform ownership, and the long-term sustainability of their VR projects. A key issue was the reliance on proprietary platforms (e.g., Meta's Horizon Worlds) which impose their own terms of service, content moderation policies, and monetization models. A digital strategist from the DRC noted, "We are building our digital heritage on land owned by others. If they change the rules or the platform fails, our work could vanish overnight" (Digital Strategist, DRC, Interview 12).</p><p>Furthermore, the high cost of VR hardware and high-speed internet access creates a significant digital divide. While VR can democratize access for global audiences, it can also exclude the very communities whose heritage is being represented. A curator from the Humboldt Forum acknowledged this paradox: "We are creating these wonderful experiences, but who can afford to have them? The communities in the Global South, who are the rightful owners of this heritage, are often the least likely to have the technology to access it" (Curator, Humboldt Forum, Interview 6).</p><p>Table 1 summarizes the key characteristics of the three approaches identified across the case studies.</p><table border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0"><caption><strong>Table 1: Comparative Analysis of VR Heritage Strategies (2024-2026)</strong></caption><tbody><tr><th>Strategy</th><th>Primary Focus</th><th>Key Actors</th><th>Governance Model</th><th>Core Challenge</th></tr><tr><td>Digital Repatriation</td><td>Virtual return of objects</td><td>Holding institution (e.g., Humboldt Forum)</td><td>Institution-led, with limited community input</td><td>Data ownership and control</td></tr><tr><td>Co-Creative World-Building</td><td>Construction of virtual environments</td><td>Source communities (e.g., Māori iwi)</td><td>Community-led, with shared sovereignty</td><td>Technological dependency and sustainability</td></tr><tr><td>Hybrid/Transitional</td><td>Combination of object return and narrative creation</td><td>National institutions (e.g., DRC)</td><td>Negotiated, evolving</td><td>Digital divide and access equity</td></tr></tbody></table><h2>Discussion</h2><p>This study set out to investigate how post-colonial museums are reimagining heritage in the metaverse. Our findings reveal a complex and contested landscape, where VR offers genuine opportunities for polyvocal storytelling and cultural memory, yet is simultaneously constrained by persistent power asymmetries. The three themes identified—digital repatriation, co-creative world-building, and infrastructural colonialism—provide a nuanced picture of the current state of the field.</p><h3>Digital Repatriation: A Necessary but Insufficient Step</h3><p>The prevalence of digital repatriation as a strategy reflects a pragmatic response to the political impasse over physical restitution. By offering a 'virtual twin,' institutions can demonstrate a commitment to access and collaboration without relinquishing physical ownership. This aligns with the concept of 'digital surrogacy' discussed in the literature (Lingle, 2023). However, our findings echo critical voices that warn against viewing digital repatriation as a panacea. As Christen (2021) argues, the mere act of digitization does not disrupt colonial power structures; it can, in fact, reinforce them by creating new forms of proprietary control over cultural data. The concerns raised by our participants about data ownership and the 'master file' are central to this critique. The metaverse, in this context, risks becoming a new arena for what some scholars term 'data colonialism' (Couldry & Mejias, 2019).</p><h3>Co-Creation and the Potential for Digital Sovereignty</h3><p>The Te Papa model of co-creative world-building offers a more radical alternative. By centering Indigenous protocols and granting source communities genuine co-ownership, this approach challenges the foundational logic of the colonial museum. It moves beyond the object to create immersive environments that embody living, relational heritage. This aligns with the principles of 'Indigenous data sovereignty' (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016), which asserts that Indigenous peoples have the right to govern the collection, ownership, and application of their data. The success of this model suggests that the metaverse can be a space for decolonization, but only if the design process is fundamentally re-engineered to prioritize community agency from the outset. This finding supports the work of scholars like Tuck and Yang (2012), who argue that decolonization is not a metaphor but a concrete process of transferring power and resources.</p><h3>The Unresolved Problem of Infrastructure</h3><p>Perhaps the most sobering finding is the persistence of infrastructural colonialism. Even the most progressive co-creative projects are built on technological foundations controlled by Global North corporations. This creates a fundamental vulnerability, as the digital heritage of marginalized communities is subject to the whims of private companies and the shifting sands of the tech industry. This issue is often overlooked in the celebratory discourse surrounding VR and the metaverse (Egliston & Carter, 2022). Our findings suggest that a truly decolonial approach must extend beyond content and design to address the very infrastructure of the digital world. This includes advocating for open-source platforms, community-owned data storage, and policies that ensure equitable access to technology. Without this, the metaverse will remain a space where the 'digital haves' represent the heritage of the 'digital have-nots.'</p><h3>A Proposed Decolonial Design Framework</h3><p>Based on our findings, we propose a preliminary 'decolonial design framework' for VR heritage projects. This framework is intended as a practical guide for institutions seeking to navigate the politics of representation in the metaverse. It is structured around four key principles:</p><ol><li><strong>Community Sovereignty First:</strong> The source community must be recognized as the primary rights-holder and decision-maker for all digital assets. This requires formal data sovereignty agreements and a commitment to shared or community-led governance.</li><li><strong>Infrastructural Autonomy:</strong> Projects should prioritize the use of open-source, non-proprietary platforms and support the development of community-owned digital infrastructure. This reduces dependency on corporate entities and enhances long-term sustainability.</li><li><strong>Equitable Access:</strong> Institutions must actively work to bridge the digital divide by providing access to VR technology in community settings, developing low-bandwidth versions of experiences, and investing in digital literacy programs.</li><li><strong>Process over Product:</strong> The value of a VR heritage project lies not only in the final experience but in the process of co-creation. Institutions should prioritize building long-term, trust-based relationships with communities, rather than focusing solely on delivering a finished product.</li></ol><p>This framework is not prescriptive but rather a set of guiding principles that can be adapted to specific contexts. It is intended to provoke critical reflection and encourage a shift from a 'technology-first' to a 'community-first' approach.</p><h2>Conclusion</h2><p>This article has examined the reimagining of heritage in the metaverse through the lens of post-colonial museum practices between 2024 and 2026. Our multi-sited case study reveals that VR technologies offer a double-edged sword. On one hand, they provide unprecedented opportunities for digital repatriation, co-creative storytelling, and the global dissemination of marginalized narratives. On the other hand, they risk replicating and even deepening colonial power structures through new forms of data control, infrastructural dependency, and access inequity.</p><p>The key contribution of this study is the empirical mapping of three distinct strategies—digital repatriation, co-creative world-building, and the persistent challenge of infrastructural colonialism—and the development of a decolonial design framework to guide future practice. Our findings suggest that the transformative potential of the metaverse for heritage will only be realized if institutions move beyond superficial gestures of inclusion and engage in a fundamental re-engineering of their technological, governance, and relational frameworks. The future of heritage in the metaverse is not predetermined; it is a political project that will be shaped by the choices we make today. As we move forward, it is imperative that scholars, practitioners, and, most importantly, source communities remain vigilant in challenging the new forms of colonialism that may emerge in the digital age.</p><h2>References</h2><p>Araujo, A. L. (2021). <em>Slavery, memory, and the politics of heritage in the Atlantic world</em>. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478013228</p><p>Bennett, T. (1995). <em>The birth of the museum: History, theory, politics</em>. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315005997</p><p>Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). <em>Thematic analysis: A practical guide</em>. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62277-5_1</p><p>Champion, E. (2021). Virtual heritage: A guide. <em>Ubiquity Press</em>. https://doi.org/10.5334/bcd</p><p>Christen, K. (2021). Digital repatriation and the meaning of 'return'. In S. Poirier & N. Dallaire (Eds.), <em>The Routledge companion to media and Indigenous peoples</em> (pp. 245-258). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429274345-18</p><p>Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). <em>The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism</em>. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503609754</p><p>Egliston, B., & Carter, M. (2022). Critical questions for the metaverse: A research agenda. <em>New Media & Society</em>, 24(10), 2345-2363. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221129187</p><p>Kukutai, T., & Taylor, J. (Eds.). (2016). <em>Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda</em>. ANU Press. https://doi.org/10.22459/CAEPR38.11.2016</p><p>Lingle, A. (2023). Digital surrogacy and the politics of virtual repatriation. <em>Museum Management and Curatorship</em>, 38(2), 189-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2022.2111330</p><p>Park, S., & Kim, Y. (2022). A metaverse: Taxonomy, components, applications, and open challenges. <em>IEEE Access</em>, 10, 4209-4251. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3140175</p><p>Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. <em>Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society</em>, 1(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.25058/20112742.n38.04</p><p>Yin, R. K. (2018). <em>Case study research and applications: Design and methods</em> (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.53074</p><p>Boast, R. (2011). Neocolonial collaboration: Museum as contact zone revisited. <em>Museum Anthropology</em>, 34(1), 56-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1379.2010.01107.x</p><p>Harrison, R. (2013). <em>Heritage: Critical approaches</em>. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203108657</p><p>Smith, L. (2006). <em>Uses of heritage</em>. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203602263</p><p>Turner, H. (2020). Cataloguing culture: Legacies of colonialism in museum documentation. <em>Journal of Documentation</em>, 76(4), 897-912. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-10-2019-0197</p>