web 2_charalambous_film studies for free

8/8/2019 WEB 2_Charalambous_Film Studies for Free

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/web-2charalambousfilm-studies-for-free 1/13

1

A study of 2.0 web as an actualization of the concept of the Borgesian Library:

a critical evaluation of WEB 2.0 technology in reference to the academic Blog

Film Studies For Free authored by Dr. Catherine Grant

by,CharalambosCharalambous

UniversityofKent

SchoolofArtsFilmStudies

2010

Producedfortheneedsof

thePostgraduateCertificateinHigherEducation

UnitfortheEnhancementofLearningandTeaching



2

Abstract:

This essay will be considering 2.0 web as an actualization of the conceptual Borgesian

Library, which is described in the fictional literary work of Jorge Luis Borges. This analogy is

used by Dr. Catherine Grant in the brief description of her role as tentative curator of the

academic Blog Film Studies For Free, and provided the start point for a critical comment onWeb 2.0 technology. In the course of this investigation I will consider the evolution from the

concept of 1.0 to 2.0 web, and trace this progression in the move from the personal web log

to Blog, in order to conclude by referring to the full capabilities of utilizing a Blog that fully

integrates Web 2.0 technologies for the purposes of academic learning and teaching.



3

When it was proclaimed that the Library contained all books, the first impression

was one of extravagant happiness. All men felt themselves to be the masters of an

intact and secret treasure. There was no personal or world problem whose

eloquent solution did not exist in some hexagon. The universe was justified, the

universe suddenly usurped the unlimited dimensions of hope…

(Jorge Luis Borges, The Library of Babel)

The evolution from 1.0 to 2.0:

The World Wide Web left childhood to enter adolescence. In the primary stages of its

development it was the privilege of closed communities and it was characterized by the

browsing application centred way of thinking, but currently we witness the evolution that is

turning the web into a chaotically expanded platform which is a-centred but nevertheless

maintains the personal user in its core. This fundamental change in the way we perceive

and use the web was celebrated in the current issue of the online journal Fibre Culture

which was fully devoted to the concept of Web 2.0 in an attempt to elucidate the full

implications and possibilities of this technology. But it may be wrong to think of Web 2.0 as

a technological concept, because as it is proposed in the editorial article of Fibre Culture

‘Web 2.0 is not an “is”, or not only this. Web 2.0 is also a verb or, as they taught us inprimary school, it’s a doing word. Here’s a list of some web 2.0 things to do: apping,

blogging, mapping, mashing, geocaching, tagging, searching, shopping, sharing, socialising

and wikkiing. And the list goes on. Yet as the list goes on it becomes apparent that part of

what web 2.0 does, while doing all the things on this list and more, is colonise everything in

the network. It seems that there is no part of networked thought, activity or life that is not



4

now web 2.0’ (Munster & Murphie 2009). This evolution that marks the progression from

1.0 to 2.0 is a passing from passivity to activity, a shift which transforms users from

recipients to creators of content, and if this resembles a revolution, it is expectedly

appropriate of what we have termed adolescent phase of the web. The shift from 1.0 to 2.0

does not only refer to the web technology itself, but it is indication of a change in the

attitude of personal users, communities and institutions regarding its use, which is affecting

the modes of participation, exchange of information and design of applications amongothers. Since Web 2.0 is so difficult to define because of its elemental agility, it may be

fruitful to consider its characteristics: ‘a list of typical Qualities 2.0 might look something like

this: dynamic, participatory, engaged, interoperable, user-centred, open, collectively

intelligent and so on’ (Munster & Murphie, 2009). These features allow us to think Web 2.0

as an actualization of the concept of Borgesian Library, a chaotic archive with interlinked

material that becomes an organism which is characterized by its capacity for unlimited

information, at the expense of a constantly lurking possibility of cacophony. In an attempt

to eliminate the non-productive effect of a library of Babel and maximize the utilitarian

aspect of Web 2.0, it is worth investigating the possibilities of using it as a meta-learning

tool in Higher Education, because its very nature would not only allow the creation of a

dense network of sources related to a field of study, but it would simultaneously enable the

connection between diverse fields while preserving their methods and paradigms.

Web 2.0 and the Blog:

This call for action heralded by the 2.0 way of thinking led academic Dr. Catherine Grant tothe creation of the Film Studies For Free Blog when she no longer had to work as a tenured

academic. The Blog is described as an attempt to realize a Borgesian Library by making full

use of the dynamic potential of Web 2.0 technologies, in order to provide a curated

databank out of the nebula of electronic material available in the World Wide Web that are



5

closely, or loosely, related to the field of Film Studies. This new role allowed for a new

model of involuntary scholarship; Grant is effectively engaged within a broader mode of

participation by submitting her educational activity to the public sphere through the

utilization of Web 2.0, in a way that would not be possible by conventional modes of

academic scholarship. The interface that was adopted for this endeavour was the Blog,

‘essentially online journals where an author (or authors) publishes a series of chronological,

updateable entries or posts on various topics, typically of personal interest to the author(s)

and often expressed in a strongly subjective voice, on which readers are invited to

comment’ (Farmer et al, 2008). Although these primal characteristics of a Blog, namely the

strongly personal and subjective authorial signature, seemed to be a recipe for success in

the case of the journalistic Blog, it did not suit the academic practice. The concept of what a

Blog is and how it works also needs to evolve into its 2.0 incarnation. Luckily this early

description does not apply to the case of Film Studies For Free, which instead avoids an

obvious authorial choice or architecture of its content, to invite broad cultural participation.

Figure 1: Film Studies for Free Word Cloud



6

As William and Jacobs point out ‘the great beauty of Blogs is their versatility. They cater for

a wide diversity of interests and uses and there is no rule that states a Blog has to be owned

and operated by an individual’ (2004), but what seems to be the extraordinary case here is

the ability of a single author to make available such a diverse range of material, that gives to

the Blog a dynamic that only multi-authored web pages can claim. The editorial background

of Dr. Grant has allowed for a transmutation of the concept of Blog from personal log, to a

learning space where personal expression is voluntarily exchanged for personalresponsibility, and where the editorial role, is not exercised by, but rather becomes the

intellectual exercise of, the tentative curator.

Overcoming the Blog design:

Not every function of Film Studies For Free is ideal, since the Blog’s design as a 2.0

technology that substituted the personal log, is primarily flawed as community hub;

effectively Blogs ‘are a product of convenience rather than design. Based on the reverse

chronological posting of news items, invariably containing hyperlinks to third party sites,

and an opportunity for readers to enter personal responses to articles’ (Williams & Jacobs

2004), they seemingly resist the formation of communities. On the other hand, the concept

of 2.0 web is ideally suited for the creation of communities because of its networking

participatory mode, or to use the terminology used by O’Reilly, the design of Web 2.0

technologies leads to the architecture of spaces between users. Especially in the case of the

Blog the main technology that enables this architecture, is the simplistic but effectively

almighty hyperlink, namely the process of linking content to a variety of multimedia

content: ‘the fundamental architecture of hyperlinking ensures that the value of the web is

created by its users. […] This architectural insight may actually be more central to the

success of open source than the more frequently cited appeal to volunteerism. […] …users

pursuing their own "selfish" interests build collective value as an automatic by-product. In Figure 2: Overcoming authorial design



7

other words, these technologies demonstrate some of the same network effect as eBay and

Napster, simply through the way that they have been designed’ (O’Reilly, 2004). The Film

Studies For Free Blog fully embraces the proposition that the users do not actively pursue

the creation of a community, but it is the very design of 2.0 technologies that leads to an

involuntary architecture of information, spaces and communities. This fact is acknowledged

both by the proactively hyperlinked content and the full integration of numerous Web 2.0

technologies, Social Network Sites (Facebook, mySpace), Podcasting, Twitter, Google Books,iTunes, YouTube, Vimeo, Flickr to name but a few. This gives the impression that users of

the Blog partake in a social experience rather than a learning experience, allowing a

subversive learning process to take place that permanently inscribes knowledge, since ‘in a

linked or networked approach to learning the sense of agency and individuality is powerful

but it is not isolating or egocentric. Each node in a dynamic network has the ability to both

send and receive, therefore this metaphor better accounts for both the given (or

contextual) and the constructed aspects of the learning process’ (O’Donnel, 2006). The

subtle editorial direction and intervention in Film Studies For Free never displaces the user

from the core of the Blog space, so it is the personal user who comments upon, affirms or

rejects and offers critical thoughts in relation to the content, in a process that can be closely

related to modes of teaching and learning. The extent to which this brief commentary can

lead to the formation of a community is unclear due to the restrictions in the design of the

Blog technology, but the social nature of other Web 2.0 integrated technologies can provide

for an alternative. Grant pointedly comments: ‘the blog doesn’t function anywhere near as

well as a “community hub” (…). The Twitter feed has quite a lot of interaction – lots of re-

tweets and replies. But I think the Facebook page I have recently set up for Film Studies For

Free may work best of all in that regard’ (2010). This integration of a full gamut of Web 2.0

technologies offers to Film Studies For Free a clear advantage in the creation and

sustainability of a community of followers.Figure 3: I tegration of other Web 2.0

technologies and community creation



8

Changing institutional knowledge, a reformation that is taking too long:

This new role of Web 2.0 calls for a redesign of the network of associations that will insure a

‘depth’ of knowledge (a term that refers to the value, understanding, evaluation and long-

term inscription of transmittable knowledge in a learning environment) and urges for a

revaluation of the provided material (both written content and in the case of other fields of

scholarship, audio visual or other content). Hence we rethink the way we evaluate learning

and teaching, as well as, spaces in which transmission of knowledge takes place. O’Donnelstates that ‘the media and the academy as institutions are still asking the wrong questions

about this phenomenon. The standard questions are most often posed in terms of

productivity: how can this technology enable us to do what we already do but more

efficiently?’ (2006), what we need to ask instead is: how does Web 2.0 revolutionize the

ways we learn and teach? Film Studies for Free adopts such an innovative approach by

incisively embracing 2.0 mentality; its manifestational declaration to provide exclusively

open source content is a proclamation which exemplifies that the Blog is a genuine

incarnation of 2.0 ideology. Such decision would seem to be the physical consequence of an

overall change in attitude concerning open access material by both institutions and

individuals, since the advantages of such a prospect are numerous and obvious: wider and

more democratic access to knowledge, promotion of immediate and open discourse,

formation of communities, networking of information and construction of learning spaces.

But as Grant admits, ‘I am encouraged to see new Open Access journals being set up, and

non-Open Access journals increasingly opening up some access to their material as samples

to attract new readers. But progress seems to me to be slow when it comes to the idea of

Open Access journals as the first choice for publication of scholars’ work. Tenure and other

employment pressures still seem to mitigate against that’ (2010). The regime of knowledge

proves unexpectedly lethargic and inflexible, and institutional organization is not only

incapable of agile adaptation to acknowledge the new realities related to learning and

teaching in the era of 2.0 web, but alas, one that resists such innovative reformation. Figure 4: Manifesto and Open Source



9

Web as an alternative medium for knowledge:

Although academics, some more actively than others, have embraced the concept of the

Blog, ‘to leverage its full educational potential, blogging must be understood not just as

isolated phenomena, but as part of a broad palette of cybercultural practices which provide

us with new ways of doing and thinking’ (O’Donnel, 2006). It is crucial that Web 2.0

technologies are evaluated in the light of the broader concept of 2.0 web – thinking,

technology, network and applications – taking into account not only their current use, butalso anticipating new developments and creating strategies of future integration, so that

they can truly become an innate part of teaching and learning within institutional practices.

Web 2.0 exceeds the description of a mere tool or a technology that can be utilized to assist

teaching and learning, and as Evens proposes it would be more constructive to think of the

Web 2.0 as a new digital medium (2009), therefore, as with any other medium, we have to

understand it and use it, in a way that is specific to its nature. As long as the Blog remains a

personal log it does not take full advantage of its capacity to promote teaching and learning,

instead it re-affirms the limitations of its initial conception and design. But when a

technology is used in a way that challenges these limitations and anticipates its future

capabilities, not only does it become a more sufficient learning and teaching tool, but it is at

the same re-thought and developed to meet the newly created requirements and needs.

Such changes that innovative use of Blog technology is causing in relation to institutional

knowledge, are suggested by William and Jacobs: ‘as a knowledge management tool, Blogs

provide the potential for relatively undifferentiated articles of information passing through

an organisation to be contextualised in a manner that adds value, thus generating

“knowledge” from mere “information”’ (2004), and Ledyshewsky and Gardner who in

support of the previous thesis draw attention to the way ‘blogging provides a discourse that

reaches beyond the scope of a university subject and reinforces the fact that students can

learn from each other as well as from more formal university resources’ (2008). This

organization of information that generates knowledge in a virtual depository outside the Figure 5: Web 2.0 as a new medium



10

institutional and academic realm, leads to the creation of web-archives and databanks that

provide alternative sources to the traditional archive and library. Furthermore, such digital

archives and databanks have the advantage of vast capacities of hosting multimedia

content, as well as written content, by making use of a network of other virtual spaces,

which allow users to have unmediated and non-restricted access. Easily available audio

visual content is specifically advantageous for fields of study like Film Studies, and with the

integration of technologies like YouTube, Vimeo, Google Videos and numerous other videoon demand sites, it is not hard to understand how digital multimedia archives can efficiently

substitute the extremely costly traditional audio visual archive for most of the requirements

of a Film studies department. As a result ‘Film Studies For Free has many thousands of

readers from all over the world, and many of them access the site from locations where

high quality academic writing on film is too expensive for university libraries or individuals.

So the principle advantage of Film Studies For Free (as an open access campaigning archive)

is the instant and free global access to (curated - organised) knowledge that it provides’

(Grant, 2010). Comprised solely by open access content, the Blog promotes a dual activism

in relation to current 2.0 web, because the serious study of open access articles advocates

for the quality of such material and campaigns for its use in teaching and learning, while

simultaneously this policy stipulates the improvement of newly created open source

material and presses on the opening up of access to pre-existing sources. Grant predicts

that ‘we are going to have a “mixed economy” for the foreseeable future (…). But Open

Access/electronic material will undoubtedly comprise an increasing part of scholarship and

pedagogical support’ (2010).

A twofold conclusion:

Instead of venturing into a hypothesis in the attempt to describe the paradigm of the

academic Blog Film Studies For Free as a successful one, we should simply confirm that it

meets the demanding criteria that O’Donnel puts forward to describe blogging practice that Figure 6: An academic databank



11

he terms serious: ‘If taken seriously blogging practice can help us develop a range of new

ways to address our literacy as learners and educators and it can help initiate students into

an understanding of learning as an ongoing, dynamic conversation with self and others’

(2006). This advantageous mode of learning which is observable as an interactive exchange

that leads to educational benefits for both the user and author is indeed affirmed by Grant:

‘There are advantages in using these new communicative technologies, so if better or more

varied communication can innovate teaching and learning, then the use of them will do this.I receive as much as, if not more than I give on both Twitter and Facebook; they are great as

With her individual

‘seriousness’ (a word that acts as vehicle for the concepts of moral liability, attentiveness,

creativity and scholar care), academic Dr. Catherine Grant managed to create a truly

remarkable open access based web-archive, guised as a lighthearted Blog. The fact that a

creative effort by a single academic, can successfully extent to this scale of utilization as a

teaching and learning tool, is a clear indication that institutions have to consider more

thoughtfully the implications of integrating 2.0 web to their current practices of teaching

and learning, but also in relation to the creation, transmission, evaluation, inscription,

archiving and networking of knowledge. Unfortunately academic institutions are hesitant to

proceed to such fundamental re-thinking of teaching and learning practices, that would

enable integration of numerous existing 2.0 web successful projects to their current

programmes even though examples like the Blog Film Studies For Free act as paradigms for

the ‘the iterative, collaborative and open-ended creation and extension of information and

knowledge as enabled by Web 2.0’ (Ang & Pothen, 2009).

A collective responsibility:

This change of attitude in relation to the integration and use of Web 2.0 in the academic

environment is not the sole responsibility of the institution but academics can lead the way

by re-thinking teaching and learning of the modules they design and convene. Allen has long Figure 7: Integrating Web 2.0 in Academia



12

suggested that, ‘the really important step forward that universities can take is to begin

fostering communities that are less specifically connected to units and are, instead, about

issues, subjects, disciplines or professions and which are distinct from those already forming

in the virtual world of the Internet by being associated with overall courses offered by that

university. Student membership of these communities should become integral to their

course completion; where necessary, whole components of the course should become

(instead of 'study') knowledge-based community participation’ (1999, in: Williams & Jacobs,(2004)). That is the reason why individual academics should design and propose modules

that are based solely on electronic Open Source material, both in terms of written content

and other multimedia sources. Such modules present additional advantages: they can be

designed as interdisciplinary modules and hence be offered to students of Film, Drama,

Architecture, Media and Communication, History of Art and Visual Anthropology. They can

also be extended over the course of two or more academic terms, to allow for a new mode

of teaching and assessment, that is adjusted to become discipline specific by using the

flexibility of Web 2.0 technologies. Most importantly the participation mode, assignments

and evaluation will be community based, in an attempt to challenge the classroom centred

mode that seems to be unsuitable especially for practice based disciplines. Such a module

will be extremely valuable for Higher Education teaching and learning in countries where

newly developed Universities offer such study programmes but provide under-equipped

libraries. Such a proposal will allow for an informed engagement with current academic

discourses, while overcoming the shortcoming of undeveloped resources by the small scale

institutions. For those still in doubt about the existence and usefulness of Borgesian

libraries, let them take Grant’s word that ‘this kind of anthologizing, virtual librarianship or

digital curation is completely made possible by Web 2.0 technology’ (2010).



13

Bibliography:

Ang, Ien & Pothen, Nayantara (2009), ‘Between Promise and Practice: Web 2.0, Intercultural Dialogue and

Digital Scholarship’, in The Fibreculture Journal, Issue 14, [http://fourteen.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-094-

between-promise-and-practice-web-2-0-intercultural-dialogue-and-digital-scholarship/print/, accessed: 20 Jul.

2010]

Borges, Jorge Luis (1970), ‘The Library of Babel’, in Labyrinths (Harmondsworth: Penguin)

Evens, Adens (2009), ‘Dreams of a New Medium’, in The Fibreculture Journal, Issue 14,[http://fourteen.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-092-dreams-of-a-new-medium/print/, accessed: 12 May 2010]

Farmer, Bret & Yue, Audrey & Brooks, Claire (2008), ‘Using blogging for higher order learning in large cohort

university teaching: A case study’, in Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, Issue 24 ,

[http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/farmer.html, accessed: 07 Apr. 2010]

Grant, Catherine (2010) QUESTIONNAIRE for PGCHE Module UN 815: Technology in the Academic

Environment , (ed.) Charalambous Charalambos (unpublished)

Ladyshewsky, Richard & Gardner, Peter (2008), ‘Peer assisted learning and blogging: A strategy to promote

reflective practice during clinical fieldwork’, in Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, Issue 24 ,

[http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/ladyshewsky.html, accessed: 07 Apr. 2010]

Munster, Anna & Murphie, Andrew (2009), ‘Web 2.0 is a doing word’, in The Fibreculture Journal, Issue 14,

[http://fourteen.fibreculturejournal.org/issue-14-editorial/print/, accessed: 07 Apr. 2010]

O’Donnel, Marcus (2006), ‘Blogging as Pedagogic Practice: Artefact and Ecology’, in Asia Pacific Media

Educator, Issue 17 , [http://www.marcusodonnell.com/files/APMEODonnell.pdf, accessed: 22 Jan. 2010]

O’Reilly, Tim (2004), ‘The Architecture of Participation’,

[http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/articles/architecture_of_participation.html, accessed: 09 Apr.

2010]

O’Reilly, Tim (2005), ‘What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of

Software’, [http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html, accessed: 09 Apr. 2010]

Williams, Jeremy & Jacobs, Joanne (2004), ‘Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in the higher

education sector’, in Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, Issue 2o ,

[http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet20/williams.html, accessed: 07 Apr. 2010]

ALL IMAGES ARE SCREEN PRINTS FROM FILM STUDIES

FOR FREE BLOG OR DIRECTLY RELATED TO INTEGRATION

OF WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE NEEDS OF THE BLOG

web 2_charalambous_film studies for free

Documents