You are on page 1of 13


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      
Charalambos  Charalambous    
University  of  Kent    
School  of  Arts    
Film  Studies    
Produced  for  the  needs  of    
the  Postgraduate  Certificate  in  Higher  Education  
Unit  for  the  Enhancement  of  Learning  and  Teaching  
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  on    
Web  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.    
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  B abel)    
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   in    
primary   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    
 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   among    
others.   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  to    
the  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      
Figure 1: Film Studies for Free Word Cloud
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.      

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   personal    
responsibility,   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

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  
Figure 3: Integration of other Web 2.0
sustainability  of  a  community  of  followers.   technologies and community creation

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’Donnel    
states  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

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,  but    
also   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

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  video    
on  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

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

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).    
Ang,  Ien  &  Pothen,  Nayantara  (2009),  ‘Between  Promise  and  Practice:  Web  2.0,  Intercultural  Dialogue  and    
Digital  Scholarship’,  in  The  Fibreculture  Journal,  Issue  14,  [­‐094-­‐  
between-­‐promise-­‐and-­‐practice-­‐web-­‐2 -­‐0-­‐intercultural-­‐dialogue-­‐and-­‐d igital-­‐scholarship/print/,  accessed:  20  Jul.    
Borges,  Jorge  Luis  (1970),  ‘The  Library  of  Babel’,  in  Labyrinths  (Harmondsworth:  Penguin)  
Evens,  Adens  (2009),  ‘Dreams  o f  a  New  Medium’,  in  The  Fibreculture  Journal,  Issue  14,    
[­‐092-­‐d reams-­‐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,    
[,  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  b logging:  A  strategy  to  promote    
reflective  practice  during  clinical  fieldwork’,  in  Australasian  Journal  of  Educational  Technology,  Issue  24,    
[,  accessed:  07  Apr.  2010]  
Munster,  Anna  &  Murphie,  Andrew  (2009),  ‘Web  2.0  is  a  doing  word’,  in  The  F ibreculture  Journal,  Issue  14,    
[­‐14-­‐editorial/print/,  a ccessed:  07  Apr.  2010]    
O’Donnel,  Marcus  (2006),  ‘Blogging  as  Pedagogic  Practice:  Artefact  and  Ecology’,  in  A sia  Pacific  Media    
Educator,  Issue  17,  [,  accessed:  22  Jan.  2010]    
O’Reilly,  Tim  (2004),  ‘The  A rchitecture  of  Participation’,  
[,  accessed:  0 9  Apr.  
O’Reilly,  Tim  (2005),  ‘What  Is  Web  2 .0:  Design  Patterns  and  Business  Models  for  the  Next  Generation  o f    
Software’,  [­‐is-­‐web-­‐20.html,  accessed:  09  Apr.  2010]    
Williams,  Jeremy  &  Jacobs,  Joanne  (2004),  ‘Exploring  the  u se  o f  b logs  as  learning  spaces  in  the  h igher    
education  sector’,  in  Australasian  Journal  of  Educational  Technology,  Issue  2o,    
[,  accessed:  07  Apr.  2010]