I remember the first time I watched an oral testimony translated into an immersive environment. The intimacy of standing beside someone as they recounted a journey across deserts and seas felt powerful, but it also made me acutely aware of responsibility. When you put a human voice, a face, a memory into VR, you’re not just creating an artwork—you’re mediating somebody’s lived experience into a new technological context. That mediation demands safeguards that are ethical, practical and sensitive to power imbalances.

Start with informed, ongoing consent

Consent in VR projects must be more than a signed form. I insist on an iterative, dialogic process: participants must understand not only what they’re telling me now but how those testimonies could be used, modified, archived and experienced in VR. That means explaining, in concrete terms, the final form (full 360 video, animated avatar, spatial audio piece), the distribution plans (festivals, online platforms, museums), and the possible longevity of the project.

Useful practices include:

  • Providing consent forms in the participant’s preferred language and reading them aloud;
  • Using visual examples or prototypes so contributors can experience a mock-up of the immersive piece before agreeing;
  • Making consent revocable where feasible—explaining limits to withdrawal (e.g., if the work has already been widely distributed);
  • Installing check-ins at project milestones so participants can re-confirm or modify their consent.

    • Adopt a trauma-informed approach

    Migrant testimonies often recount traumatic events. VR can intensify emotional impact because of its immersive nature. I therefore treat interviews as clinical spaces: I prepare participants, give them control over pacing, and avoid surprises. I work with trauma-informed interviewers or train teams in techniques that reduce retraumatization.

    Practically, this involves:

  • Creating a safe, private environment for recording;
  • Providing options to pause, stop, or skip questions;
  • Offering follow-up support or referrals to local mental health resources;
  • Including content warnings for immersive installations and offering non-immersive alternatives.

    • Center co-creation and agency

    I’ve learned that projects work best when those whose stories are used are co-authors. Co-creation can range from collaborative scripting and selection of soundscapes to inviting contributors to help shape the aesthetic treatment of their testimony. This moves the dynamic away from extractive documentation and toward shared authorship.

  • Invite contributors to approve edits, avatars, and contextual framing;
  • Offer workshops where participants explore the technology and provide feedback;
  • Contractualise roles and credits so contributors are named or credited according to their wishes, or given anonymity if they prefer.

    • Respect anonymity and privacy

    VR can re-present people in very life-like ways. There are times when verbatim testimony can reveal identity, location or migration routes that put people at risk. I weigh the aesthetic impulse for realism against potential harm. If anonymity is needed, technical and editorial methods can mask identity while preserving affect and narrative.

  • Options for anonymity include voice alteration, composite avatars, shifting geospatial markers, or using abstracted representation rather than lifelike reconstruction;
  • Consider redaction of identifying details in transcripts and metadata;
  • Limit who has access to raw files and recordings during production;
  • Use pseudonyms and avoid publishing exact dates or places where doing so could endanger someone.

    • Secure data and protect digital assets

    Oral testimonies are sensitive data. I treat them with the same security protocols I would with archival records or personal health information. That means encrypted storage, controlled access, and secure transfer methods.

  • Store raw recordings and transcripts behind encrypted cloud services or local secure servers (services like Tresorit or institutional repositories with strong security);
  • Use password-protected project management tools and two-factor authentication for team members;
  • Limit downloads of original audio and video files and log access;
  • Define retention policies: how long will raw files be kept, who will archive them, and under what conditions can they be shared for research?

    • Be transparent about monetisation and compensation

    Often, funders, distributors or festivals will monetise VR projects. I emphasise clarity about whether contributors will be compensated up-front, receive revenue share, or be offered stipends for participation. Payment is not just ethical—it recognises the labour of telling and preserving stories.

  • Offer fair compensation for time spent in interviews and follow-up work;
  • Consider community benefits: workshops, screenings in the contributors’ communities, or contributions to local organisations;
  • Be transparent if a project has commercial partners, sponsors or advertisers and explain how that relationship affects the use of testimonies.

    • Navigating legal frameworks and residency rights

    Legal contexts matter. Contributors might be asylum seekers, undocumented migrants, or people with precarious status. Legal advice should inform decisions about anonymity, storage and distribution. I consult institutional legal counsel or NGOs specialising in migrants’ rights to understand risks and obligations.

  • Be aware of mandatory reporting laws in your jurisdiction and how they might intersect with testimonies;
  • Understand data protection laws like the GDPR when working with European contributors;
  • Draft clear, plain-language release forms that outline rights transferred, if any, and the territory and duration of use.

    • Consider cultural sensitivity and translation ethics

    Translation is an interpretive act. I try to preserve linguistic nuance by working with translators who are not just linguistically capable but culturally attuned. Whenever possible, I include the original language track and offer multiple translation modes—literal, contextual, or adapted—for different audiences.

  • Provide transcripts in the original language and in translation;
  • Explain translation choices in credits or project notes so viewers understand mediation;
  • Use community reviewers to check for mistranslation or cultural misrepresentation.

    • Design for accessibility and multiple modes of engagement

    Immersion should not exclude. VR experiences must be accompanied by accessible alternatives—2D video, audio-only tracks, transcripts, and tactile or text-based presentations. I’m careful to design multi-modal outputs so the stories reach diverse audiences without forcing everyone into the same sensory encounter.

  • Include captions, audio descriptions and transcripts;
  • Provide guided non-immersive versions for public screenings or online viewing;
  • Offer installation signage that contextualises the ethics and explains how the testimonies were collected and consented.

    • Archive responsibly and plan for long-term stewardship

    Once created, these testimonies can outlive both creator and audience. I develop archiving plans with contributors and reputable institutions—community archives, university special collections, or rights-respecting digital repositories. Archival access rules should reflect contributors’ wishes about who may consult raw materials and under what conditions.

  • Agree on archival locations and access levels during the project;
  • Consider embargo periods if contributors need a cooling-off period before public exposure;
  • Share copies with community organisations and ensure they have the option to hold material locally.

    • Test and evaluate audience impact

    Finally, I build evaluation into projects. How do viewers respond? Does the immersive presentation change empathy, policy conversations or community dynamics? I test with small, diverse groups—including contributors where appropriate—and measure both cognitive and emotional impacts. This surveillance helps refine ethical practice for future projects.

    Turning migrants’ oral testimonies into VR is a powerful act. If handled with humility, care and robust safeguards, it can amplify voices and catalyse understanding. Handled carelessly, it risks exploitation, retraumatisation and harm. My guiding principle is simple: centre the dignity, agency and wellbeing of the people whose lives you are interpreting—then let technology serve that ethical core.