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.

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:

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

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 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 community-based 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.

Though similarities were noted in selection criteria, processes, and in how CREs were implemented, selection committees in this study interpreted similar selection criteria in distinct ways reflective of the campus context. In other words, the three institutions often chose 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).

Selection committees in this study occasionally used alternative selection procedures to choose common books that highlighted institutional or community characteristics. In other words, sample institutions occasionally treated formal selection criteria as optional or flexible in order to highlight local, cultural objectives. For instance, UM’s committee forewent its formal criteria in 2018 to select a compendium of short stories by William Faulkner because they wished to underscore his importance as a famous local writer who reflects UM’s history and culture. In another example, UI’s selection committee worked backward in 2017 to identify a book by an author who was already scheduled to visit Iowa City to speak (i.e., G. Willow Wilson) in order to develop an interdisciplinary, collaborative partnership with the hosting organization. The implication of this finding is that selection committees should consider how books can mirror what is important to their institutions and communities. This requires that selection committee members are plugged into current events on their campuses and consider how common book choices might advance or complement those programs. At times, balancing potentially competing objectives may invite practitioners to think creatively and to occasionally embrace alternative selection approaches.

Finally, some committee members felt common books could send symbolic messages that touched on aspirational goals (e.g., improve racial climate, altruism). In this study, those messages were directed to institutional and community leaders but not students. As one illustration, some committee members at KU recalled that they chose Between the World and Me and Citizen in response to a period of racial tension on campus. Still, none of my interviewees expressed the belief that chosen common books (or the themes within) fully represented who their institutions think they are. In fact, most of the interviewed committee members understood that each common book contained a wide variety of perspectives and potential interpretations. As one CRE administrator said, “… it’s not the function of any given book to be the single way that we talk about any [topic].” Though data collection did not allow for extensive follow-up on this emergent finding, it suggests that selection criteria may be evolving to exert a two-way influence on the institution. That is, institutions’ educational goals guided common book selection processes and those processes evolved to identify books that might in turn influence the institution’s character to some extent. In lieu of more research on this conclusion, an implication of this finding is that selection committees should be deliberate and even cautious about how books’ symbolic messages enter into selection procedures. Grounding selections in the goals of the program will help avoid scenarios where common books are seen as one-sided, political statements rather than educational tools.

Conclusions and Future Research

This study suggests that how and why common books are chosen says a lot about an institution: selection processes and outcomes identified in this study’s sample were expressions of those institutions’ goals and character. While informative for current practitioners, this study leaves unanswered many questions. For instance, selection committees and procedures in this study exhibited some level of change year after year. Researchers and practitioners alike should ask themselves how institutional memory affects CREs, selection processes, and their readers. Further, researchers should continue to investigate the role that common book selection processes can play at the institutional level (e.g., in branding exercises). Finally, though the research base linking CREs and student outcomes helped frame this study, no data was collected to explore that association. There is still much to be explored in the relationship between common books (and related programming) and reader outcomes. Practitioners should seek out opportunities to collaborate with researchers to rigorously assess the many facets of their CREs, from implementation, exposure, and academic outcomes.

References

Daugherty, T. K., & Hayes, M. W. (2012). Social and academic correlates of reading a common book. Learning Assistance Review, 17(2), 33-41.

Grenier, C. (2007). A survey of college freshmen summer reading programs in the Unites States. International Journal of the Book, 4(2), 77-84.

Keup, J. R., & Young, D. G. (2015, March 7). Telling the “story” of common reading programs: Using national data. The American College Personnel Association. Tampa, FL.

Laufgraben, J. L. (2006). Common reading programs: Going beyond the book (Monograph No. 44). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition

Soria, K. M. (2015). Reading, learning, and growing: An examination of the benefits of common book programs for first-year students’ development. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 27(1), 29-47.

Young, D. G., & Stolzenberg, E. B. (2017, February 12). (Common) reading is fundamental? Exploring outcomes of common reading programs. The Annual First-Year Experience Conference. Atlanta, GA.

CONTACT

Adam Brazil

brazila@ku.edu