Virtual Reality as a Tool for Promoting Diversity, Equity, and

Inclusion Within the Higher Education Landscape

Jennifer Richter

, Liesel Sharabi

, Rachel Luchmun

, Tray Geiger

, Annie Hale

and Alysha Ramirez Hall

School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, U.S.A.

Hugh Downs School of Communication, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, U.S.A.

Action Lab at EdPlus, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, U.S.A.

Keywords: Virtual Reality, DEI, Higher Education.

Abstract: While Virtual Reality (VR) Has the Potential To Be a Powerful Tool for Promoting Diversity, Equity, and

Inclusion (DEI), It Is Crucial To Be Aware of the Biases that May Be Present and Work To Address Them

Throughout the Design and Development Process. Inclusive VR Will Accommodate the Differing

Requirements and Identities of Individual Students, Together With a Commitment To Remove the Barriers

that Impede that Possibility. in Doing so, This Will also Introduce New Possibilities for Expanding DEI

Initiatives Through Embodied and Immersive Experiences that Will Allow Students To See the World from

Someone Else’s Perspective. However, While the Promises of VR Are Plentiful, There Are also Emerging

Issues that Will Hamper Access Unless They Are Proactively Addressed by both VR Designers and the

Institutions Implementing VR Technologies into Curricula.

1 INTRODUCTION

Intentional efforts to increase the diversity, equity,

and inclusion (DEI) of both participants and

infrastructures in virtual reality (VR) settings for

higher education are still in their infancy.

Consequently, literature around this concept needs to

expand from the speculative to the material, as more

universities and colleges explore the use of VR in

higher education settings. VR has incredible potential

as a pedagogical tool to increase DEI in terms of

access and use for new technological innovations, as

well as being a site for promoting awareness and

empathy for different social identities and

positionalities. However, existing and emerging

systemic and structural issues relating to bias may

limit the potential for promoting DEI values,

especially as this technology becomes more

widespread in education settings. In order to promote

DEI values in VR settings, it is critical to address

DEI-related issues early, not only in the design of VR

experiences, but also during its implementation and

use (Blackwell et al., 2019).

The available literature surrounding the topic of

DEI in VR makes a clear statement that “when

existing inequalities are unacknowledged and

unaddressed in the ‘real’ world, they tend to be

replicated and augmented in virtual realities” (Franks,

2017, p. 503). In the following sections, we provide

several areas where VR in educational settings can be

better utilized to promote DEI values and principles,

as well as issues that will need to be addressed to

ensure students have equal access to these

experiences. Specifically, we focus on how to design

more inclusive experiences and how to encourage

more equitable participation in VR settings, as well as

how VR can be used as an effective pedagogical tool

for all students.

2 POSSIBILITIES FOR DEI IN A

VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT

A VR environment, or what a user can see and/or

interact with, is rife with possibility for increasing

positive representation and visibility of people who

have historically been rendered invisible or who are

only made visible in highly stereotypical ways (see,

for example, Dirks & Mueller, 2007). Current

literature around VR points to several systemic and

structural issues with VR, while also pointing to the

advantages of engaging with VR technologies in

574

Richter, J., Sharabi, L., Luchmun, R., Geiger, T., Hale, A. and Hall, A.

Virtual Reality as a Tool for Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Within the Higher Education Landscape.

DOI: 10.5220/0011995900003470

In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2023) - Volume 2, pages 574-580

ISBN: 978-989-758-641-5; ISSN: 2184-5026

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

educational settings in relation to improved and

measurable learning outcomes through a controlled

and well-designed virtual setting that provides an

experiential learning environment (Merchant et al,

2014; Di Natale et al, 2020; Marks & Thomas, 2022).

For example, a virtual environment can depict and

allow a user to experience various interactions with a

character who does not conform to the ways that they

are often portrayed in the media (Ramirez, 2020).

Interacting with someone on an interpersonal level

rather than having to rely on popular media portrayals

can help increase awareness of harmful stereotypes

and promote increased acceptance and understanding

(Dirks & Mueller, 2007). A virtual environment can

also allow for people to participate in experiences that

might otherwise be inaccessible to them in-person,

such as those with disabilities that affect physical

travel to remote locations, or people visiting a virtual

location that might otherwise be inaccessible to them

because of cost or safety concerns, such expensive or

physically dangerous sites. VR is particularly well

suited for these experiences because well-designed

VR settings create a sense of “presence,” or the

feeling that the VR world is real and that the user has

been transported to another place (see, for example,

Dede et al., 2017).

3 AVATARS AND EMBODIMENT

Embodiment refers to the sense of self-location,

agency, and body ownership experienced in VR

environments (Kilteni et al., 2012). Customizing the

virtual body (i.e., an avatar) induces a meaningful

relationship between a user and avatar from the start

(McArthur & Jenson, 2014), bolstered by the fact that

avatar creation interfaces are often capable of

producing millions of unique permutations. Avatar

diversity, including diversity of clothing and

appearance (e.g., age, body size/shape, facial

features), provides inclusive choice for embodiment

within a VR environment, and can reflect the wide

diversity of the human appearance (as well as non-

human). This is especially important as it can allow

users of historically underrepresented demographics

(e.g., women, ethnoracial minorities, people of

differing abilities) to see themselves and others in

situations that are often rendered invisible to them, or

where they are often rendered invisible.

Avatars can also increase a user’s empathy for

historically marginalized groups, as users can

experience different treatment from their own

positionality. For instance, a VR experience

simulating racism experienced by a Black person in

the United States (U.S.) could lead to better

understanding of prejudice and discrimination for a

non-Black user. Conversely, those from historically

under-represented and marginalized groups can get a

better sense of how they might be treated differently

if they come from a more entitled group (e.g., a

cisgender woman can have a male-presenting avatar

and can compare her treatment to that in the virtual

world, creating a sense of what it may be like to

embody another gender identity). Experiencing

different reactions to different positionalities is one

way that avatars can create a space for different

human experiences and promote recognition and

awareness of structural racism, sexism, and ableism,

to name just a few DEI issues, that would be near

impossible to experience in a non-VR setting

(Roswell et al., 2020; Stanney et al., 2020). However,

it is worth noting that a false sense of empathy can

also be created, especially if the focus is on feeling

the pain of marginalized groups rather than on

structural inequalities (Nakamura, 2020).

4 PROMOTING DEI THROUGH

VR-SITUATED SCENARIOS

To encourage empathy for understanding and

addressing structural inequalities, VR can be used to

simulate situations that people from marginalized

groups face in the real world, such as discrimination

or bias. Creating and cultivating empathy and shared

experiences is one way to promote an inclusive

mindset (Winters, 2020). VR can be used for

exploration or training for individuals to recognize

such problematic situations (Juvonen, 2019; see also

Bailenson, 2018; Roswell et al., 2020). VR is often

touted as the future of skills training given its

advantage over face-to-face role playing, making it

the ideal environment for simulating life-like

scenarios (Mast et al., 2018).

Likewise, VR settings can provide a safe and

controlled space for people to experience and

understand the perspectives of others. These types of

moments of empathy can be intense and temporarily

transcend social norms that typically characterize

relationships within structured institutionalized

contexts. These obvious opportunities for intentional

DEI efforts can result in profound impacts for VR

users on future interactions with others both within

and outside of VR. For example, a VR setting can

include a plurality of gender identities, which

provides a space for the intentional inclusion of a

wide range of gender identification that might not be

Virtual Reality as a Tool for Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Within the Higher Education Landscape

575

often visible in everyday scenarios. The Proteus

effect posits that the physical appearance of an

individual’s VR avatar may lead them to “conform to

the behavior that they believe others would expect

them to have” (Yee & Bailenson, 2007, p. 274),

which suggests that the experience of embodying an

avatar different from oneself in VR could affect not

only a user’s attitudes but also their behaviors

towards historically underrepresented groups, both

within and beyond VR.

5 ETHICAL AND PRACTICAL

IMPLICATIONS OF VR AND

DEI

There are a number of ethical and practical

implications to consider with the use of VR

technology. In this section, we discuss some of the

more prevalent issues of VR relative to the

affordances (e.g., anonymity, presence, accessibility)

(Fox & McEwan, 2017) and infrastructure of

traditional learning modalities. Some of these issues

require further consideration and discussion, as well

as, perhaps, coordination and sharing of best practices

between and among higher education practitioners

and those involved with designing and creating VR

settings. Lastly, while the issues below are

concerning, potential harm can be greatly reduced or

eliminated with intentional design focused on

addressing DEI concerns.

5.1 Safety and Privacy

VR technology often involves the collection and

storage of personal data, which raises concerns about

how this information is used and protected. The

anonymity afforded by the virtual world may also

lower people’s inhibitions (Suler, 2004), leading

them to behave in ways that could jeopardize the

psychological well-being of themselves and others.

While the anonymity of VR may offer a more open

space for personal expression, it may also offer the

illusion that people’s actions are without

consequences. For instance, sexual harassment has

been reported on popular VR platforms like Meta’s

Horizon Worlds, making it important that people

have access to safety features that give them control

over their own personal space and allow them to set

physical boundaries within the virtual world (Basu,

2021).

VR can be used to create highly realistic

simulations, which raises concerns about the potential

for deception and manipulation. In educational

settings, it is critical that users understand who they

are engaging with in any virtual setting (as opposed

to choosing to engage with anonymous agents, or to

remain anonymous in social spaces). For instance,

users should be aware that avatars, by definition, are

human-controlled, but there are also opportunities to

engage with virtual agents that are controlled by

artificial intelligence (Fox et al., 2009). To the user,

avatars and virtual agents may seem indistinguishable

from one another, which could allow personal data to

be collected for purposes unknown or unsanctioned

by the user. In educational settings, it is incumbent on

the institution to protect students and not the

responsibility of students to be concerned about the

protection of their identity in educational VR settings.

Currently in educational VR settings, students are

in spaces that are designed for limited peer

interaction; often, students routinely interact with

virtual agents. This is a major difference between

social settings (e.g., gaming or VR worlds like Meta)

and educational settings. Because students are

generally interacting with the VR environment and

not interacting with other students, the potential

problems presented by anonymity are not necessarily

a large issue at the present. But as the use of VR

grows, and more social spaces are introduced for

students to work in, anonymity may need to be

limited under certain contexts. However, it is also

important to recognize that anonymity can be

beneficial for students who are less inclined to

participate in classroom settings. The issue of

anonymity needs special long-term attention and

monitoring by designers as higher education VR

spaces grow to create a space for free and open

expression while also contributing to a safe and

supportive learning environment.

5.2 Physical Ability and Health:

Inclusion and Accessibility

User experience is a major concern that will shape the

utility and accessibility of VR in educational settings.

VR technology may not be accessible or inclusive to

certain groups of people, such as those with

disabilities (physical and cognitive). Use of VR

headsets can lead to physical symptoms of illness.

Physical issues, such as supporting a heavy headset

for a set period of time (such as a class period), is one

such issue. Headsets are often tested on adult male

subjects, creating a physical norm against which other

physicality may be limited. Women and smaller users

(such as adolescents) have a different experience with

headsets, especially over time (Munafo et al., 2017).

CSEDU 2023 - 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

576

Those with physical disabilities, such as spinal

injuries and paralysis, may also find the use of

headsets unwieldy and uncomfortable, making it

difficult to focus on and enjoy the VR experience.

Users with existing medical conditions, such as

epilepsy, may find it impossible to engage in VR

settings, and those with mild physical issues, such as

those who wear eyeglasses, sometimes find the VR

experience difficult to engage in. How VR headsets

can be redesigned to encompass the needs of all users

is a pressing issue for educational settings.

Another pressing issue emerging with the

increased use of VR is cybersickness, which involves

symptoms such as eye strain, headaches, and nausea

(Slater & Sanchez-Vives, 2016). There is evidence

that women experience cybersickness at greater rates

than men, thus making VR experiences potentially

less inclusive for women (Munafo et al., 2017;

Stanney et al., 2020). Female users are particularly at

risk from cybersickness, as well as vertigo. As the use

of VR technologies becomes more widespread, the

diversity of the physical accommodations for users

needs to grow. Finding new designs today will help

make VR technologies more accessible, and more

inclusive for users in the future.

5.3 Embedded Threats

Beyond physical limitations, there are also a host of

ways that VR settings can create spaces that may

reinforce negative stereotypes and abusive behavior,

negating the aspects of VR that would promote DEI

values. Historically, human biases are shaped by

pervasive and often deeply embedded prejudices

against certain groups, which can be reproduced and

amplified in VR spaces and backend code (Lee et al.,

2019). Bullying, harassment, and, specifically, sexual

harassment in VR environments has been reported

(Chang et al., 2019; Parshall, 2022). As VR

technology can be used to simulate experiences and

perspectives in realistic ways, it is critical to ensure

that it is not used to perpetuate harmful stereotypes,

discrimination, or patterns of abuse (Bale et al., 2022;

Wu et al., 2021). When these issues happen in the

material world, they are often traumatizing. In a VR

setting, these negative interactions may be amplified

relative to other distance learning modalities due to

the embodied and immersive nature of a VR

experience (Bailenson, 2018; Biocca et al., 1995).

Purposeful control and regulation of VR spaces is

critical, at both the design stage and the

implementation stage. As educational VR settings

grow, understanding how users may encounter and

experience negative interactions must inform the

ways that these environments are regulated by

institutions.

5.4 Infrastructural Limitations: Cost

and Access

While educational institutions’ use of VR was once

limited by cost, the advances made in computing and

data management has allowed for growing adoption

of VR in educational spaces. However, while

institutions are investing in VR technologies for

educational purposes in institutional settings, VR

technology is still considered cost-prohibitive for

many individuals at higher education institutions,

particularly those from lower socio-economic (SES)

backgrounds. As VR becomes more pervasive, the

cost will ultimately be reduced (XRGuru, 2022), but

in educational settings, the associated cost and any

course fees need to be considered alongside other

learning costs, such as tuition and existing fees. A

U.S. Department of Education (2016) report noted

that two-thirds of Hispanic, Black, and Asian

undergraduates had a gap between total financial

resources (e.g., federal student loans) and the total

cost of attendance. More than 80 percent of Hispanic,

Black, and Asian undergraduate students had a gap

between their financial need (cost minus expected

family contribution [EFC]) and grants and

scholarships, compared with 71 percent of white

undergraduate students. Many of these students need

to take out additional loans or work to finance their

education, while some students may choose to not

enroll at all if there is too large a gap between

available money and the cost of attendance. Such

financial concerns may be amplified if the costs of

VR technologies are passed down to students. Clarity

is needed on how and by whom costs for VR

technologies will be paid, and how that may influence

students’ abilities or desires to enter higher education

degree programs. If lower SES students are forgoing

higher education opportunities because of growing

costs, this creates a systemic inequity that privileges

wealthier students while simultaneously discouraging

those who need degrees for better employment

opportunities.

Keeping the above-mentioned challenges in mind,

VR can level the playing field for lower SES students

by providing similar opportunities to learn and

succeed as their more affluent peers. This can

especially be the case with accessing remote and/or

exotic locations and experiences through VR, such as

famous museums or historical landmarks. Providing

VR experiences to all students, and certainly those

from marginalized backgrounds, will ideally enhance

Virtual Reality as a Tool for Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Within the Higher Education Landscape

577

future employment opportunities as VR-related jobs

are created, as well as other opportunities for

experiential learning that can contribute to personal

and economic growth.

5.5 Access to Cutting Edge Technology

The local (i.e., non-remote) university setting is one

place to address DEI concerns, and it is presently the

most likely place for students to encounter VR use for

educational purposes. VR is currently often used in a

“lab” setting (Pan & Hamilton, 2018), which in the

context of higher education involves students

gathering in a university-created space on campus to

utilize VR for learning content. This setting often

includes VR operators (i.e., the people who provide

VR-related set up and support), who can bolster an

inclusive environment that can lead to an improved

user experience. If non-campus students will use VR

for remote learning, more attention to infrastructural

limitations and technology support needs to be

considered. Practical infrastructural barriers such as

adequate bandwidth, internet speed, technology

assistance, and accessible locations for VR need to be

created or alleviated (Dick, 2021).

Both currently and in the future, remote VR

access from disparate locations will require better

access to a strong telecommunications infrastructure.

This access will be costly and will create a

disproportionate burden on students from lower SES

backgrounds if this is not proactively accounted for.

It is critical that VR not exacerbate the “digital

divide” regarding access to internet and broadband

technologies. For example, this is especially true for

rural tribal nations in the U.S. (Bauer et al., 2022;

Duarte, 2017). One such nation, the Navajo Nation,

which is the largest and most populous tribal nation

in the U.S., has experienced a systemic lack of

investment and sovereignty over the development of

information and information communication

technologies (ICTs) on their reservation. Access to

broadband ICTS, such as fiber optic cables or satellite

links, have not reached much of the Navajo Nation,

and what limited access exists is insufficient for VR

(Park, 2020). Tribal lands reserved for Indigenous

communities are a site where DEI is already a

structural and systemic concern, reflecting societal

values that historically have excluded these

populations from technologies, or denied them

control over those technologies.

The need to access VR remotely will exacerbate

the issues, even as universities continue to pursue and

create more accessible remote and online educational

opportunities. If students in remote or rural areas

cannot access a robust internet connection (due to

cost or limited availability), the benefits of VR

instruction will be of limited value and the students

who could potentially benefit the most could

ultimately be the ones who are further excluded.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Ultimately, VR spaces need to be carefully

considered for their adherence to DEI principles. In

designing these spaces, educators need to attend to the

risks and benefits for students using these spaces for

educational purposes. The responsibility for creating

safe and supportive learning spaces lies with the

institutions that choose to use VR technology, as well

as all involved parties (e.g., developers, designers,

administrators, faculty); this responsibility should not

be left to fall on students. This paper contributes a

summary of information that systems implementing

VR strategies can look to in order to evaluate their

work in the VR space with regards to DEI issues.

The promise of VR remains very hopeful, and it

has a bright future for pedagogical applications. VR

has great potential for creating more awareness of

DEI issues and can even provide a platform for

addressing those issues, but only if care and attention

are paid to the issues raised by those using VR

technologies. DEI concerns should be at the center of

VR design, development, and implementation to

ensure that VR becomes a useful pedagogical tool for

all.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank EdPlus at Arizona

State University (ASU) for a supportive environment

to engage with these ideas. The effort is executed by

ASU EdPlus Action Lab researchers. The authors

declare no conflict of interest. The impetus for this

line of inquiry is associated with Dreamscape Learn

(ASU IRB STUDY00013163, STUDY00015266,

STUDY00015062).

REFERENCES

Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in

education: Lessons from international experiences.

Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1),

7-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/200201317.2020.1729587

CSEDU 2023 - 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

578

Bailenson, J. (2018). Experience on demand: What virtual

reality is, how it works, and what it can do. WW Norton

& Company.

Bale, A. S., Ghorpade, N., Hashim, M. F., Vaishnav, J., &

Almaspoor, Z. (2022). A comprehensive study on

Metaverse and its impacts on humans. Advances in

Human-Computer Interaction, 2022, 1-11. https://doi.

org/10.1155/2022/3247060

Basu, T. (2021, December 16). The metaverse has a groping

problem already. MIT Technology Review. https://

www.technologyreview.com/2021/12/16/1042516/the-

metaverse-has-a-groping-problem/

Bauer, A., Feir, D. L., & Gregg, M. T. (2022). The tribal

digital divide: Extent and explanations.

Telecommunications Policy, 46(9), 102401. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102401

Biocca, F., Kim, T., & Levy, M. R. (1995). The vision of

virtual reality. In F. Biocca & M. R. Levy (Eds.),

Communication in the age of virtual reality (pp. 3-14).

Routledge.

Blackwell, L., Ellison, N., Elliott-Deflo, N., & Schwartz, R.

(2019). Harassment in social virtual reality: Challenges

for platform governance. Proceedings of the ACM on

Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1-25.

https://doi.org/10.1145/3359202

Chang, F., Luo, M., Walton, G., Aguilar, L., & Bailenson,

J. (2019). Stereotype threat in virtual learning

environments: Effects of avatar gender and sexist

behavior on women's math learning outcomes.

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,

22(10), 634-640. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.

2019.0106

Dede, C. J., Jacobson, J., & Richards, J. (2017).

Introduction: Virtual, augmented, and mixed realities in

education. Smart Computing and Intelligence, 1–16.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5490-7_1

Di Natale, A. F., Repetto, C., Riva, G., & Villani, D. (2020).

Immersive virtual reality in K-12 and higher education:

A 10-year systematic review of empirical research.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6),

2006-2033. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13030

Dick, E. (2021). Risks and challenges for inclusive and

equitable immersive experiences. Information

Technology & Innovation Foundation. https://www2.

itif.org/2021-challenges-immersive.pdf

Dirks, D., & Mueller, J. (2007). Racism and popular

culture. In H. Vera & J. F. Feagin (Eds.), Handbook of

the sociology of racial and ethnic relations (pp. 115-

129). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-70845-4-8

Duarte, M. E. (2017). Network sovereignty: Building the

internet across Indian country. University of

Washington Press.

Fox, J., Arena, D., & Bailenson, J. N. (2009). Virtual

reality: A survival guide for the social scientist. Journal

of Media Psychology, 21(3), 95-113. https://doi.

org/10.1027/1864-1105.21.3.95

Fox, J., & McEwan, B. (2017). Distinguishing technologies

for social interaction: The perceived social affordances

of communication channels scale. Communication

Monographs, 84(3), 298-318. https://doi.org/10.1080/

03637751.2017.1332418

Franks, M. A. (2017). The desert of the unreal: Inequality

in virtual and augmented reality. U.C. Davis Law

Review, 51, 499-538. https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.

edu/issues/51/2/Symposium/51-2_Franks.pdf

Juvonen, J., Lessard, L. M., Rastogi, R., Schacter, H. L., &

Smith, D. S. (2019). Promoting social inclusion in

educational settings: Challenges and opportunities.

Educational Psychologist, 54(4), 250-270.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1655645

Kilteni, K., Groten, R., & Slater, M. (2012). The sense of

embodiment in virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators

and Virtual Environments, 21(4), 373-387.

https://doi.org/10.1162/pres_a_00124

Lee, N. T., Resnick, P., & Barton, G. (2019). Algorithmic

bias detection and mitigation: Best practices and

policies to reduce consumer harms. Brookings

Institution, Center for Technology Innovation.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/algorithmic-bias-

detection-and-mitigation-best-practices-and-policies-

to-reduce-consumer-harms/

Marks, B., & Thomas, J. (2022). Adoption of virtual reality

technology in higher education: An evaluation of five

teaching semesters in a purpose-designed laboratory.

Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 1287-

1305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10653-6

Mast, M. S., Kleinlogel, E. P., Tur, B., & Bachmann, M.

(2018). The future of interpersonal skills development:

Immersive virtual reality training with virtual humans.

Human Resource Development Quarterly, 29(2), 125-

141. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21307

McArthur, V., & Jenson, J. (2014). E is for everyone? Best

practices for the socially inclusive design of avatar

creation interfaces. In K. Blackmore, K. Nesbitt, &

Smith, S. P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 Conference

on Interactive Entertainment (pp. 1-8).

https://doi.org/10.1145/2677758.2677783

Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-

Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of

virtual reality-based instruction on students' learning

outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-

analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29-40.

Munafo, J., Diedrick, M., & Stoffregen, T. A. (2017). The

virtual reality head-mounted display Oculus Rift

induces motion sickness and is sexist in its effects.

Experimental Brain Research, 235(3), 889-901.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4846-7

Nakamura, L. (2020). Feeling good about feeling bad:

Virtuous virtual reality and the automation of racial

empathy. Journal of Visual Culture, 19(1), 47-64.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412920906259

Pan, X., & Hamilton, A. F. C. (2018). Why and how to use

virtual reality to study human social interaction: The

challenges of exploring a new research landscape.

British Journal of Psychology, 109(3), 395-417.

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12290

Park, C. (2020, October 12). The cost of connectivity in the

Navajo Nation. New America’s Open Technology

Virtual Reality as a Tool for Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Within the Higher Education Landscape

579

Institute. https://www. newamerica. org/oti/reports/

cost-connectivity-navajo-nation

Parshall, A. (2022, June 29). Why an assault on your VR

body can feel so real. ScienceLine. https://

scienceline.org/2022/06/virtual-reality-assault-

psychology/

Ramirez, E. J. (2020, July 15). Can technology help us be

more empathetic? Racism, empathy and virtual reality.

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara

University. https://www.scu.edu/ethics-spotlight/eth

ics-and-systemic-racism/can-technology-help-us-be-

more-empathetic-racism-empathy-and-virtual-reality/

Roswell, R. O., Cogburn, C. D., Tocco, J., Martinez, J.,

Bangeranye, C., Bailenson, J. N., Wright, M., Mieres,

J. H., & Smith, L. (2020). Cultivating empathy through

virtual reality: advancing conversations about racism,

inequity, and climate in medicine. Academic Medicine,

95(12), 1882-1886. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.

0000000000003615

Slater, M., & Sanchez-Vives, M.V. (2016). Enhancing our

lives with immersive virtual reality. Frontiers in

Robotics and AI, 3(74), 1-47. https://doi.org/

10.3389/frobt.2016.00074

Stanney, K., Fidopiastis, C., & Foster, L. (2020). Virtual

reality is sexist: But it does not have to be. Frontiers in

Robotics and AI, 7, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/

frobt.2020.00004

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect.

Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321-326.

https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Advancing diversity

and inclusion in higher education. https://

www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/advancing-divers

ity-inclusion.pdf

Winters, M. (2020). Inclusive conversations: Fostering

equity, empathy, and belonging across differences.

Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Wu, L., Chen, K. B., & Fitts, E. P. (2021). Effect of body-

gender transfer in virtual reality on the perception of

sexual harassment. Proceedings of the Human Factors

and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 65(1), 1089-

1093. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181321651094

Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. (2007). The proteus effect: The

effect of transformed self-representation on behavior.

Human Communication Research, 33(3), 271-290.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00299x

XRGuru. (2022, March 6). Budgeting for virtual reality

content: How much does it cost to implement VR in

education? https://www.xrguru.com/blog/2022/03/

budgeting-for-virtual-reality-content-how-much-does-

it-cost-to-implement-vr-in-education.

CSEDU 2023 - 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

580