Metafocus: Seven Ethical Dilemmas of VR in Education

“It’s not that theycan’t see the solution. They can’t see the problem.”—G.K. Chesterton

We’ve heard it a hundred times: VR is an empathy machine.Well, those of us who attend VR conferences and events have heard it a hundredtimes, anyway. But is it true? What if it is, in fact, dead wrong? Can VRactually decrease empathy in users instead of increasing it? If so, what shouldwe do about that? What can we do?

This is one of many sticky ethical issues facing all of usin the VR industry. Often there are no clear answers, just lots of questionsbegetting still more questions. However, lack of conclusion or consensus doesn’tmean we should ignore the issues; rather, it means we must take an even closerlook to understand what’s really at stake. At best, this conversation will helpus direct the future of educational uses of VR in positive directions. Atminimum, it will help us do what we can to avoid the most egregious mistakes.But enough preamble; let’s explore seven relevant and related ethical issues,one by one.

1. Can VR decrease empathy?

Immersive video games, the type often played in VR, negatively impact emotional and psychological development in children. While thedebate rages on, the evidence supports a causal link between playing violent video games andsubsequent aggressive behaviors. For example, in the game Grand Theft Auto, players drive dangerously, routinely killpedestrians, crash into buildings, go to strip clubs, assault prostitutes, andmore, with little lasting impact on game play. This has the effect ofdesensitizing players to these actions in real life, decreasing their empathyfor other living human beings and increasing the likelihood of aggression andviolence. One study even showed increased tolerance of sexual harassment inboys after having played Grand Theft Auto.One recent study explores the connection between students’ cognitive development and VR.

In another example, game developers are often faced with thefollowing or similar dilemmas. Along with nearly infinite other game-playoptions, developers can allow players to have the ability to kill a friendlyvirtual dog by, say, throwing it off a roof during game play in a given scene.The development team must decide whether or not to have the same dog reappearunharmed in the next scene. Would this desensitize the user to violence towarddogs? Would a young person learn the consequences of killing an animal oncethey leave the virtual world? Who decides the consequences of VR contentdevelopment? What role do developers play in creating ethical worlds? Can allusers easily distinguish between real-world and virtual-world consequences?

At the same time, as some researchers have argued, games also teach good behaviors such as having fun, competing well with friends,socialization, building community, leadership, regulating feelings, challengeand mastery, and learning. Are these positives enough to counteract thenegatives? How impactful and relevant are these benefits as compared to therisks? How can we build and distribute fun games that support these goodbehaviors while eliminating the potential negative impacts?

Admittedly, I’m discussing video games in general here, andnot just VR games. However, games are one of the primary uses for VR, even ineducational settings. Further, the risks could be magnified due to total visualand auditory immersion, temporarily tricking young minds into thinking theyreally are interacting with others in virtual worlds but without consequence.Fair enough, but do educational games pose the same risks as the extreme gameexamples like Grand Theft Auto?Certainly not, at least in scope; but if, in examining the extreme cases, weuncover serious risks, is it not possible—probable even—that those same risksexist, albeit to a lesser extent, in less extreme VR games as well? Plenty of anecdotal evidence supports the idea that aggressive and violentbehavior such as bullying and sexual harassment are frequent occurrences in VR(just ask any female gamer). It’s not a big leap to assume that if it’s commononline and common in the real world, the former may exacerbate frequency ordegree in the latter. Even solely virtual violence toward others is completelyunacceptable.

The truth is that we simply don’t know the full impacts andcausality, and maybe never will. Further, there is scant research supportingeither side of this argument for educational VR games. At minimum, we need toactively and publicly debate these questions instead of simply forging aheadoblivious to the risks involved.

2. Is VR dangerous for children?

In last month’s Metafocus column, I explored the safety risks of VR for children.Even VR headset manufacturers admit their headsets may not be safe for children’sdeveloping eyes, smaller heads, and malleable brains. The long-term effects areas yet unknown. (To save space in this article, I’ll just let you read lastmonth’s column if you’re interested.) Once again, the big question at stake isthis: When there are so many unknowns, is it ethical to just plunge aheadwithout more research and data?

However, the counterargument uses similar logic: When thebenefits are potentially so great and the demand so high, and with theopportunity to gain an educational edge in a hyper-competitive market, is itethical to wait years for more research and data? Further, how could westop or slow progress even if we wanted to?

3. Are there better ways to learn?

While VR is exciting and new and has a definite wow factor,and while there certainly are educational benefits, the technology is still inits nascent stage. Again, I’ve explored this at length in a prior Metafocus article, using parody to show the limitations of VR.

Even if children can learn through VR, are there better,more efficient, and more cost-effective ways to learn? What’s the opportunitycost of using VR in the classroom in 2017? Should we direct funds to otherproven technologies and programs? 

What’s the opportunity cost of not using VR in theclassroom in 2017? If we direct funds to other technologies and programs, willour students fall behind others who already have access to VR? How could westudy the effects of VR in schools to determine its usefulness?

4. If VR is used in schools, is it simply helping rich kids anddeveloped nations to realize an even bigger advantage?

For the foreseeable future, VR will be expensive. This meansrich kids will get to play and poor kids won’t. Similarly, VR has the potentialto level the educational playing field around the world in the long term. Inthe sci-fi novel Ready Player One, kids from all overthe world attend school only in VR, with the same opportunities, give or take.However, that future (or one like it) is still a long way off. In the meantime,poor kids, poor communities, and poor countries will not have access to thesame VR devices as rich ones. If the answer to ethical question number 3 aboveis “No, VR is the best way to learn” (or if that becomes the answer withinthe next decade or two), then realistically, there will be VR haves and VRhave-nots. The VR haves will experience many educational benefits andadvantages, while the VR have-nots will not. Is this fair? Will this helpproduce a just world?

On the other hand, do we need to wait until the entire worldcan afford a technology before at least some of us begin using it? Would it notbe better for some to be able to use it now, a few more next year, still morethe year after that, until the majority of the planet eventually has access tothe technology? This is how we’ve adopted smartphones and the Internet worldwide.Some users are better than none, from this perspective. In fact, is it evenconceivable for a new technology like VR to improve and become affordable andubiquitous any other way?

5. Is VR content Anglo-centric and male-centric?

If so, does this put off, alienate, or give a disadvantageto people who are not white males, both as employees in the VR industry and asconsumers of VR content?

The short answer to both is yes. The same pervasive, white,male, “brogrammer” culture that inhibits workplace diversity (as I discussed ina previous Metafocus article—that’s the last link to my own articles, Ipromise) also limits diversity in the content created. Conversely, diverseteams create more diverse content that attracts a larger, more diverseaudience. For example, 20-something, straight, white, cisgender males almostnever create 50-something, lesbian women of color as video game heroines, or evenas minor characters. For that matter, video games primarily include young,muscular, white male heroes and young, overly sexualized female minorcharacters, such as damsels in distress. As a result, hardly anyone exceptyoung white males has any interest in video games.

The real question here is: What can we do about it? How canwe create a more diverse and welcoming industry, and how can we create morediverse and welcoming content?

6. Who has access to user information, and what is being done withthat data?

Facebook (Oculus) and Google (Daydream) make money using thepersonal information and behavioral data they collect from users. Exactly whatdata is being collected? Do they have the right to do this? What do Facebook andGoogle do with the information? Who truly owns the data? Should we be able toopt out of this data collection? How can we regulate and police this practice?

7. Who makes the rules, and who polices them?

Another ethical concern is creating VR for social spaces(i.e., social VR). When social VR becomes prevalent in society, who makes therules of the social spaces? Are these rules the same as in the real world? Arethe rules the same as in traditional 2-D social spaces, massively multiplayeronline (MMO) games, or social media platforms? Is it incumbent upon the creatorto have a “bouncer” type person to prevent bullies from having their way? Whodecides when someone has violated the social VR rules and is therefore “kickedout” of the space? How will VR natives (i.e., people born recently and in thefuture who will only know life with VR) learn social norms and ethicalconsiderations? Is it acceptable, manageable, and/or simply inevitable forsocial norms and ethical considerations to evolve rapidly and beyond ourcontrol with the spread of VR?

Summary

The above questions have no easy answers. In fact, only ahandful of people have even begun wrestling with them. A good place to start iscreating a task group of industry experts similar to what is being done in artificial intelligence (AI) through the IEEE. We have anopportunity to consciously choose where we want this nascent VR industry to goand how we decide to employ VR in our schools. If we wait another decade or twobefore truly engaging with these questions as educators, developers, designers,and entrepreneurs, our collective path will already be set, and any potentialdamage will already be done.