Applications closed

2022 Controls That Matter and Considering Everyone: High-Realism VR Avatars in Virtual Work Settings request for proposals


The exploration of realistic avatars is growing both in academia and industry. With these technical developments come ethical questions about data management and privacy, diversity and inclusion, agency and identity, societal impact, among other topics. These questions require careful consideration both early and often in the process of research and development.

As part of its work to build the future of connection in augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), Reality Labs Research is developing Codec Avatars — highly realistic virtual representations of real people that could one day enable people to interact in VR as naturally as they do in the real world. Existing social VR and digital ethics research provides numerous thoughtful frameworks and guidelines for thinking through potential implications of such a space. However, there are very few concrete, published examples or case studies of teams applying social VR, values-based design, or digital ethics frameworks to emergent avatar technologies (in this case, highly realistic VR avatars) — that is, a shared body of knowledge of how teams have taken guidelines and translated them into their day-to-day work and decision-making.

In keeping with Meta’s Responsible Innovation principles“Never Surprise People,” “Provide Controls That Matter,” “Put People First,” and “Consider Everyone,” the Reality Labs research team in Pittsburgh is seeking case studies and examples related to the following topics: (1) how teams build controls that preserve future user agency over their data, such as the realistic avatar itself and information from headset cameras and other input used to pilot the avatar; (2) how teams explain to future users when the social signal (e.g., gestures, facial expressions, etc.) the VR system is conveying might not be accurate; and (3) how to improve the VR community’s access to tactical guidance about how to responsibly build in these spaces using existing frameworks and theoretical research.


  1. For this first stage, we would like to focus on realistic avatars in a virtual work setting.This could be one-on-one meetings, small group discussions, or brainstorming sessions.
  2. Realistic avatars: For this RFP, it can be assumed that the avatars are highly realistic but customizable if the future user prefers not to show their real-life appearance, but not in such a way that would allow their avatar to impersonate other real people. The question of how much a highly realistic avatar should be customizable and under what circumstances is deserving of its own line of exploration.
  3. No virtual agents: In this scenario, all avatars would be driven by real people.
  4. Small groups: We would like to focus on small groups of two to eight people that may contain theoretical work colleagues and acquaintances, rather than a scenario that might contain large groups of strangers, which will have different requirements and is also deserving of its own line of exploration.
  5. Concrete, actionable artifacts: Scenarios are good. Storyboards are better. Case studies or tested prototypes are best. If the submission is focused on Topic 3, “improving access to tactical guidance,” these prototypes and case studies do not need to focus on realistic VR avatars. Any examples of teams using existing social VR or digital ethics guidelines to influence their work in emerging technology are welcome.

To foster further innovation in this area, and to deepen our collaboration with academia, Reality Labs Research is pleased to invite faculty to respond to this call for research proposals pertaining to the aforementioned topics. We anticipate issuing up to a total of eight awards, with a maximum value of $75,000 each. Payment will be made to the proposer's host university as an unrestricted gift.

Award Recipients

Macquarie University

Sarah Bankins

University of Auckland

Fernando Beltran

University of Newcastle

Karen Blackmore

University of Messina

Salvatore DiStefano

Carnegie Mellon University

Geoff Kaufman

University of Liverpool

Georg Meyer

University of Waterloo

Lennart Nacke

University of Maryland

Yaxing Yao

Applications Are Currently CLosed

Application Timeline

Launch Date

February 22, 2022


March 31, 2022, at 5:00pm AOE (Anywhere on Earth)

Winners Announced

December 2022

Areas of Interest

Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Providing controls that matter for highly realistic VR avatars

How to explain what avatar data is being collected and why: Our principle“Provide Controls That Matter” states, “People should always have enough information to make informed choices about whether and how to use our products.”We are interested in case studies that show clear and precise ways to explain what avatar data collection is happening inside a VR app, as well as other potentially relevant information — where it will be shared and for what purpose, for example, or how long it will be stored.

How to explain what other information could be inferred from this avatar data: Meta’s “Never Surprise People” responsible innovation principle states, “We are transparent about how our products work and the data they collect. We communicate clearly and candidly so people can understand the tradeoffs we considered, and make informed decisions about whether and how to use our products.” O’Brolcháin et al in 2016 called this data a “digital footprint” and asserts that it will be important to alert people to “what sort of footprint they are leaving, and who will be able to see it.”

As several authors have suggested, how the data itself is used after collection is just as important as what is being collected in the first place. It is more possible than ever to make inferences by combining data with other data sources, even seemingly unrelated sources, and data ethicists have pointed out that it can be exceedingly hard to explain this comprehensively to end users. For example, head and body pose information are likely required to “pilot” a realistic avatar. A user may make a different decision about whether to opt in to using this type of data to pilot an avatar if it is linked with other information, such as an audio recording, employee ID number, or time of call. But that level of explanation, particularly in VR, is extremely dense. What is the optimal way to signal to future users what information could be inferred from avatar data? A helpful analogy is the Creative Commons license agreements. What is the VR data collection equivalent?

How to explain how long the avatar data will be stored: The third component is conveying where data will be stored, and for how long. For example, if a person makes multiple avatars with different representations of their appearance (e.g., hair styled differently for work versus friends), what are clear ways to show where those multiple appearances are being stored, for how long they’ll be stored, and how to delete them?

How might we provide a rubric such that future VR users can evaluate this and other experiences for data usage and their personal comfort level?

How to explain this succinctly in VR: As mentioned above, explaining this in VR is uniquely challenging because VR induces a higher cognitive load than reading on a flat 2D screen. For example, game designers have commented that, generally speaking, interactions in VR must be simpler than what would be asked of an adult on a PC, and often what is intuitive in VR has very little to do with 2D screen-based interactions and more in common with real-life object affordances and immersive theater. For example, the successful VR game “I Expect You To Die” has interactions and hints based on what playtesters chose to do with objects in a full-scale cardboard-and-tin-foil replica of the levels. With this in mind, what are effective ways to convey information in a high-realism virtual environment in a “just in time,” digestible way?

2. Considering everyone: Future user-to-user information flow, missed signals, and marginalized groups at work

How do we explain to future users when the social signal the VR system is conveying from an interaction between realistic avatars is not completely accurate? This is especially important in situations where the VR system may be incorrect about what facial expression or body language it is conveying, or must simulate some of this information (because, for example, an arm is behind someone’s back).

This is even more important when considering groups of people who have been historically marginalized and/or subject to bias at work, such as women, minorities, and people with disabilities, because the consequences for a mistaken social signal may impact these groups more. How might we communicate potential errors or missing signals to both parties in a work conversation inside of VR?

3. Tactical guidance to enact existing research

Meta’s Responsible Innovation Principles work to translate the theoretical into the actionable. We believe that all teams in the social VR space would benefit from as many examples as possible of different digital ethics or values-based design frameworks being put into practice, but existing research in this space is limited.

We are seeking case studies of concrete, flexible methods that can help teams ground theoretical approaches to practical action, especially in emerging technology where part or all of an experience may not exist yet.

Value Sensitive Design (VSD) is an excellent related framework but suffers from what Winkler and Spiekermann recently called “a lack of methodological guidance" (Winkler and Spiekermann 2021) and note that over VSD’s 20-year lifespan, only four case studies have reported iterations that “promise[d] enhanced design.” Any tactical guidance or examples of VSD being put into practice is especially welcome.

Morley et al (2021) point out the need for further research on “how to evaluate translational tools” — that is, if a team finds methods for applying such guidelines in their work, how can they decide whether the method is an effective one?

If you have additional questions about this RFP, please contact Eric Baldwin at


Proposals should include

  • A summary of the project (1-2 pages) explaining the area of focus, a description of techniques, any relevant prior work, and a timeline with milestones and expected outcomes.
  • A draft budget description (1 page) including an approximate cost of the award and explanation of how funds would be spent
  • Curriculum Vitae for all project participants.
  • Organization details; this will include tax information and administrative contact details


  • Awards must comply with applicable US and international laws, regulations and policies.*
  • Applicants must be currently employed at an accredited academic institution that awards research degrees to PhD students.
  • Applicants must be the Principal Investigator on any resulting award.
  • Applicants may submit one proposal per solicitation.
  • Organizations must be a nonprofit or non-governmental organization with recognized legal status in their respective country (equal to 501(c)(3) status under the United States Internal Revenue Code).

Frequently Asked Questions

Terms & Conditions | Donor-Advised Fund

Please read these terms carefully before proceeding.

Meta’s decisions will be final in all matters relating to Meta RFP solicitations, including whether or not to grant an award and the interpretation of Meta RFP Terms and Conditions. By submitting a proposal, applicants affirm that they have read and agree to these terms and conditions.

  • Meta has partnered with Charities Aid Foundation America (“CAF America”) to administer awards under this RFP through a Donor Advised Fund. Under this arrangement, awards recommended by Meta will be subject to review and approval by CAF America’s Board of Directors. Meta’s recommendations are based on criteria determined by Meta. Awards approved by CAF America will be subject to the terms and conditions contained in CAF America’s grant agreement. Applicants understand and acknowledge that they will need to agree to such additional terms and conditions to receive an award.
  • Meta’s decisions will be final in all matters relating to Meta RFP solicitations, including whether or not to recommend an award, and the interpretation of Meta RFP Terms and Conditions. By submitting a proposal, applicants affirm that they have read and agree to these Terms and Conditions.
  • Meta is authorized to evaluate proposals submitted under this RFP, to consult with outside experts, as needed, in evaluating proposals, and to recommend awards be made by CAF America using criteria determined by Meta to be appropriate and at Meta’s sole discretion. Meta’s recommendations will be final in all matters relating to its RFPs, and applicants agree not to challenge any such decisions. All grants awarded by CAF America are made in CAF America’s sole and independent discretion and governed by CAF America’s grant agreement.
  • Meta will not be required to treat any part of a proposal as confidential or protected by copyright, and may use, edit, modify, copy, reproduce and distribute all or a portion of the proposal in any manner for the sole purposes of administering the Meta RFP website and evaluating the contents of the proposal. Meta may also provide proposals submitted under this RFP to CAF America for review and evaluation.
  • Personal data submitted with a proposal, including name, mailing address, phone number, and email address of the applicant and other named researchers in the proposal may be collected, processed, stored and otherwise used by Meta for the purposes of administering Meta’s RFP website, evaluating the contents of the proposal, and as otherwise provided under Meta’s Privacy Policy. Such personal data may also be collected, processed, stored and otherwise used by CAF America for the purposes of evaluating the contents of the proposal and determining whether or not to approve an award recommended by Meta.
  • Neither Meta nor the applicant is obligated to enter into a business transaction as a result of the proposal submission. Meta is under no obligation to review or consider the proposal.
  • Feedback provided in a proposal regarding Meta products or services will not be treated as confidential or protected by copyright, and Meta is free to use such feedback on an unrestricted basis with no compensation to the applicant. The submission of a proposal will not result in the transfer of ownership of any IP rights.
  • Applicants represent and warrant that they have authority to submit a proposal in connection with a Meta RFP and to grant the rights set forth herein on behalf of their organization. All awards provided by CAF America in connection with this RFP shall be used only in accordance with applicable laws and shall not be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to facilitate any act that would constitute bribery or an illegal kickback, an illegal campaign contribution, or would otherwise violate any applicable anti-corruption or political activities law.
  • Any disputes arising from CAF America’s grant of an award are also subject to the grant agreement signed by the applicant with CAF America. In the event that any condition of the grant agreement conflicts with these terms and conditions, the conditions of the grant agreement will supersede these terms and conditions.