eSource for College Transitions, Vol. 18 No. 2 April 2021
How and Why Institutions Choose Common Books Adam Brazil, Grant Program Director, Center for Educational Opportunity Programs, University of Kansas While an emerging research base suggests that participation in common reading experiences (CREs) predicts student success outcomes (Daugherty & Hayes, 2012; Soria, 2015, Young & Stolzenberg, 2017), the current research literature focuses almost exclusively on which common books are chosen. Notably, researchers in the field (see Keup & Young, 2015 and the annual Beach Books report from the National Association of Scholars) appear to draw diametrically opposed conclusions from near-identical data sets about why common books are chosen. Common book selection processes are informed by and embedded in the local campus context. Laufgraben (2006) described the characteristics of a typical selection process, yet left open to interpretation the question of why institutions choose the common books they do. Thus, an exploration of common book decision-making procedures is needed in order to test assumptions about why common books are chosen in context.
institutions accepted book nominations from campus and community stakeholders, culled the pool down to a finalist list, and from that list chose a common book that satisfied pre-determined selection criteria. Each institution outlined selection criteria that mirrored those mentioned by Laugfraben (2006; i.e., readability, interdisciplinarity, richness of content, length). Two programs (i.e., KU, UM) convened a selection committee of volunteer students, staff, and faculty to make the final selection while UI, a communitybased CRE, had recently streamlined a committee approach to allow CRE administrators to decide. One implication is that the selection processes outlined by Laufgraben (2006) are still widely used today. Institutions who are determining or refining selection procedures for their own CREs may find recommendations for best practices in the literature or from other CREs.
To explore this further, a purposeful sample was taken from a pool of flagship institutions that (a) enroll a large number of firstyear students (> 3,000), (b) have institutional missions that address state-level goals; (c) have a CRE; and (d) compete (e.g., for students, for state appropriations) with a same-state, land-grant institution that also has a CRE and shares similar characteristics (e.g., size, admissions). Three institutions—University of Iowa (UI), University of Kansas (KU), and University of Mississippi (UM)—that fit the selection criteria accepted the invitation to participate, and 31 faceto-face and phone interviews were conducted with a variety of CRE stakeholders (see Table 1). The following research questions were explored:
interpreted similar selection criteria in distinct ways reflective of the campus context. In other words, the three institutions often chose
Though similarities were noted in selection criteria, processes, and in how CREs were implemented, selection committees in this study
books during and before the study period that were meaningful at the local level (e.g., books written by alumni, books set in the institution’s geographic region). Two specific examples from this study underscore how institutions’ selection procedures evolved to reflect their independence and self-direction. First, KU’s committee included selection criteria that facilitated their choosing common books not widely used in other CREs (see Table 2). Second, even when institutions chose the same common book, they intended to achieve different ends. For instance, UI and UM chose Just Mercy during the study period, yet each institution outlined distinct objectives for the book and its CRE (i.e., start a community dialogue around human rights in criminal justice at UI; introduce first-year UM students to critical discourse using a compelling, complex topic like criminal justice in the South). An implication of this finding is that CRE practitioners may want to elaborate formal or informal selection criteria that directly underscore their institutions’ unique missions, student bodies, and priorities (Grenier, 2007).
1. How do institutions go about choosing common books? 2. What, if anything, are institutions trying to accomplish by selecting the common book? In other words, why do they choose the books they do?
Results and Implications
Selection committees in this study occasionally used alternative selection procedures to choose common books that highlighted institutional or community characteristics. In other words, sample
Four findings from the study and related practical implications may serve practitioners in the field. Institutions in the sample chose common books in similar ways. Each year, the three sample
Table 1 Title and Number of Interviewees at Each Sample Site (N = 26) Title
University of Iowa
University of Kansas
University of Mississippi
CRE Administrator
3
2
2
Faculty Member
2
4
5
Student
0
4
2
Community Organization
2
0
0
7
10
9
Representativea Total
Note. a Interviewees represented the public library and a performing arts center..
page 12
