ERIC EJ1074297: Diversity in Literary Response: Revisiting Gender Expectations

2014·0.4 MB·English

by  ERIC

Diversity in Literary Response:
Revisiting Gender Expectations
Beth M. Brendler
The iSchool, University of Missouri, Email [email protected]
Drawing on and reexamining theories on gender and literacy, derived from research
performed between 1974 and 2002, this qualitative study explored the gender assump-
tions and expectations of Language Arts teachers in a graduate level adolescent litera-
ture course at a university in the Midwestern United States. The theoretical framework
was structured around a social constructionist lens, including reader response and gen-
der theories. The methodology employed ethnographic methods, as well as critical
discourse analysis.
This study explored the ways participants identified with or resisted gender expec-
tations in their book discussion groups. It looked at the kind of discourses that were
maintained and disrupted in the groups and within their personal blogs and written re-
sponses. The participants showed diversity within gender, which calls into question the
use of gender as a major consideration for making reader’s advisory, collection devel-
opment, programming, or pedagogical decisions. It indicates that preservice librarians
should be offered a variety of opportunities to examine and redefine our current strate-
gies for motivating readers and recommending library materials. As library educators it
is essential that we offer librarians lenses beyond gender in which to view their clients.
Introduction shared assumptions about language, the
nature of knowledge, cultural models, and
For years literature has been seen as a social expectations (Gee, 2008). These
gendered medium and reading has been invisible, common sense assumptions are
viewed as a gendered practice (Bleich, the basis for ideology and ideologies are
1986; Cherland, 1994; Flynn, 1983; Hol- often local constructions built on the val-
land, 1977; Linkin, 1993; Millard, 1997). ues of the communities in which we claim
Much of the research on gender and lit- membership (Fairclough, 2001).
erature preference is more than ten years Experiences with literacy help shape
old, yet book and media marketing relies our ideologies. The texts that are read or
heavily on gender stereotypes based on the written and the social and cultural contexts
findings of those studies. Teachers and li- in which they are read or written position
brarians still say, “I don’t know if I would readers within discourses of gender and
use that book because it would only appeal sexuality (Davies, 1990). Societal dis-
to girls” or “boys won’t read a book with courses define certain texts and activities
a female protagonist.” This demonstrates as feminine or masculine. The social dis-
the continuing pertinence of the question courses on gender that normalize certain
of whether literacy practices are gendered, characteristics and practices as masculine
and what that might look like today. or feminine have a great influence on how
When responding to literature, the read- we see ourselves in relation to many ac-
er approaches the text through the lens of tivities, including literacy practices. This
their sociocultural identity constructions. is one reason it is often assumed that those
These constructions are reflective of our literacy practices are gendered.
interpretive communities and are based on The problem with the notion of gen-
J. of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 55, No. 3—(Summer) July 2014
ISSN: 0748-5786 © 2014 Association for Library and Information Science Education 223
224 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
dered reading is that it assumes that all by social constructionism, which looks at
readers take up social constructs the same cognition as an external process, occurring
way. It also avoids looking at the ways we during the negotiation of understanding in
resist social and cultural constructs. Gen- a discursive interaction (Hruby, 2001).
der practices are neither innate nor om- We learn through talk and interaction with
nipresent. Gender essentialism creates a others. Within that framework, theories on
norm, based on our sex characteristics, for reader response and gender help explain
how we are expected to engage in literacy how our literacy practices intersect with
practices. This does not consider the eco- our identity. Reader response theory pro-
nomic, social, and cultural factors that also vides a lens to look at the ways we respond
influence identity and literacy. Although to the texts we read. Gender theory helps
the professionals in libraries and schools evaluate ideas about gender differences
are attempting to motivate struggling and and commonalities, adds language as a site
alliterate readers, the result of such essen- of struggle to reader response theory, and
tialism is text selection, book discussions, it demonstrates how language can confer
marketing of materials, and reader’s ad- or restrict power in society.
visory that reifies gender differences and
promotes gender opposition. Reader Response Theory
Revisiting Prior Research Reader response theory aids us in con-
sidering the multiplicity of factors in-
This study examined participants’ re- volved in response to texts. There are
sponses to literature in order to revisit many social, economic, and cultural as-
research that postulated the concept of pects involved in identity construction,
gendered literacy. It questioned whether which play an important role in the way
assumptions, based on research more than we take up literature (Gee, 2005). Reader
ten years old, should be used to guide response helps explain how readers con-
reader’s advisory, collection development, nect and engage with texts and emphasizes
and pedagogical decision-making today. the role the reader has in the creation of the
Because it is likely that gender expecta- literary experience.
tions have changed over the last twenty- Reader response theorists focus on the
five years, this research looked at the as- reader’s experience of the text rather than
sumptions about gender and literacy from only the text itself. The text reflects the
early research done ten to thirty years ago author’s values, experiences, and their ex-
and the current assumptions that the par- pectations of the reader, but meaning does
ticipants in this study brought to the litera- not just reside in the text. The reader con-
ture they read and to which they respond- structs meaning during the act of reading.
ed. The study also sought to understand Each reader creates their own version of
how those assumptions and expectations the work through the interplay of his or her
may have changed, how they shaped par- social values, personal experiences, and
ticipant responses to the texts, and how the cultural expectations with the text (Rosen-
texts and the socially situated classroom blatt, 1995).
discourse reproduced or resisted the gen- Language is nothing but marks on the
der norms described in earlier research. page until the reader creates meaning from
the symbols. The marks must be linked to
Gender and Literacy Practices meaning by the reader’s set of assump-
tions, cultural influences, and predispo-
Because we understand how to perform sitions. The words are fixed but they are
gender through our experiences with our symbols that evoke a response from the
communities, this research was guided reader. Meaning is created during the
Diversity in Literary Response: Revisiting Gender Expectations 225
act of reading, when the reader and his acquired assumptions they themselves
or her experience and influences transact brought to the transaction” (1993, p. 385).
with the set of symbols that make up the She also stated that while she recognized
text and a personal response “evokes the the power of social and cultural factors in
poem” (Rosenblatt, 1995). During read- shaping beliefs, she believed that human
ing, we take in the language and allow agency provides many possibilities for re-
it to connect with our senses to trigger a sistance (Rosenblatt, 1993). It is possible
response based on our experiences. The for a reader to resist the dominant ideol-
meaning that is evoked from a text incor- ogy in a text if they are aware of alterna-
porates the identity and worldview of both tive discourses. If readers are able to make
author and reader. It is a social transaction. the normative messages visible, they can
Therefore, there is no one true reading of then determine if they want to accept that
any text. In addition, as Louise Rosenblatt discourse.
proposed, “there is no generic reader, that
each reader is unique” because we all have Gender Theory
different social and cultural experiences
(Rosenblatt, 1995, p. xix). Our conception of gender guides us in
One criticism of reader response theo- our beliefs about who we are and how we
ry is that it does not examine how social should perform our identity. An essential-
and cultural discourses work to position ist construction of gender views masculin-
us in ways that we may not even recog- ity or femininity as characterized by spe-
nize (Cherland, 1994; Lewis, 2001). We cific features or traits. These traits are seen
respond through beliefs that are so deeply as evident in all males or all females. A
enculturated that they have become invis- normative construction defines a normal
ible to us. Therefore, readers view texts and an abnormal, a standard of what mas-
through lenses that often reflect the domi- culinity or femininity should be. A better
nant discourse instead of through their conception of gender is that it is a set of
own unique and individual interpretations. practices that males and females engage in
This makes it difficult for us to really un- on a daily basis (Connell, 2005).
derstand and empathize with narratives Gendered actions are not innate; they
of those outside our own cultural experi- are learned and performative (Butler,
ence. 2006). Standard notions of how males
In addition, we are socialized to repro- and females should act are often invis-
duce conventional discourses, so we often ible to us. The performance of masculin-
resist texts that reject those traditional cul- ity is often viewed as natural, ‘boys will
tural conventions. In some cases, readers be boys’ behaviors. These invisible male
even rewrite the text so it conforms to their characteristics are seen as universal. This
expectations (Gabriel & Smithson, 1990). is particularly true of white, heterosexual,
Discourses can conflict with one another, middle class men. They are not viewed as
even within a single group or community. white, heterosexual, or middle class. They
Due to this conflict, we may or may not ac- are just men. Masculinity is not gendered,
cept the discourses in which we are posi- heterosexuality is not an orientation, and
tioned by society (Lewis, Enciso, & Moje, whiteness is not raced. This means that
2007). males who are not white, heterosexual, or
Louise Rosenblatt countered these middle class are seen as “other”, defined
charges by saying that she maintained her by their opposition to the dominant norm,
“linking of reader-response theory with and they are marginalized. Men must
the need for readers to be critical of the prove their masculinity and heterosexu-
assumptions embodied in the literary work ality repeatedly in order to maintain this
as experienced and also of the culturally normalcy. “If masculinity were natural,
226 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
boys would not have to police gendered search shows that men and women display
behaviors of themselves and their peers on increasingly less differentiation in their
the playground, and boys and men would sex role attitudes (Loo & Thorpe, 1998),
not need to continuously prove that they however some men still feel more com-
are not feminine” (Wannamaker, 2008, p. pelled than women to maintain stereotypi-
128). cal gender characteristics (Smiler & Gel-
Sex, sexuality, and gender are different man, 2008; Vogel, Wester, Heesacker, &
constructs. Sex is biological. Gender and Madon, 2003). There is a need for new re-
sexuality are social and cultural construc- search that looks at gender and literacy to
tions (West & Zimmerman, 1987). They investigate if and how social changes have
are fluid, rather than fixed. These different altered the way males and females respond
ways of performing gender can be domi- to the texts they read. The research dis-
nant, in alliance, or subordinate to one cussed in this article explored the gender
another (Connell, 2005). Different mascu- beliefs held by a group of educators, and
linities and femininities can be produced how they took up texts in today’s world,
in the same setting. We can cross gender in the light of earlier research on gender
boundaries depending on the context of a and reading.
given situation. We may fit feminine gen-
der expectations when we tuck our child A Look at Gender and Literature
into bed and we may fit masculine gender Response Today
expectations when we mow the lawn or
watch a football game. This study helped provide an under-
Both gender and literacy position us standing of the ways the dynamics in
within specific social structures that are small and whole book group discussions
mediated by language, which helps us acted upon the participants’ responses to
make sense of the beliefs and expectations the texts. It explored the assumptions the
that we encounter in daily life (Gee, 2008). participants held about gender and exam-
However, our literacy and gender practic- ined the ways the subjects identified with
es are continuously challenged as we seek the gender expectations in their discussion
membership in various communities, groups, as well as how that influenced their
so even within cultural norms there are responses to literature. It investigated the
many who do not fit into the normative kind of discourses that were maintained
standard (Connell, 2005). This supports and disrupted in the discussion groups. In
the idea that there are many differences addition, it looked for patterns of response
across gender, as well as between gen- that either reified or resisted dominant
ders. gender assumptions in our culture, and for
The intersection of gender and literacy any differences in response within gender.
has been of interest to researchers for the The participants were pre-service and
last forty years, and there have been many practicing secondary English education
investigations of males and/or females teachers who were working toward a Mas-
reading. However, much of that research ters in Education degree at a midwestern
is at least fifteen years old (Bleich, 1986; urban university. There were 8 males and
Cherland, 1994; Christian-Smith, 1990; 11 females enrolled in a Literature for
Evans, 1997; Flynn, 1983; Holland, 1977; Adolescents course. All but one of the par-
Millard, 1997; Moore, 1997; Radway, ticipants were white. Nearly all of the par-
1984; Smith, 1997). While those studies ticipants grew up in middle class homes.
were enlightening and contributed much The students were required to read 25
to the field of literacy, there have been so- adolescent level books over the course of
cietal changes over the last few decades the semester. This included twelve books,
that have affected gender beliefs. Re- from various genres, that were read by the
Diversity in Literary Response: Revisiting Gender Expectations 227
whole class. Data was collected on all of (Rosoff, 2004), A Northern Light (Don-
the texts and discussions, however this pa- nelly, 2003), and Luna (Peters, 2004).
per focuses primarily on the participants’ As part of their assigned work, students
responses to four realistic fiction novels, wrote personal and critical responses to
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time the texts. The personal responses were de-
Indian (Alexie, 2007), How I live Now signed to allow the students to share any
Table 1. Measures of Gendered Reading.
Gender Mode of Reading Source
Female Connections to community, emphasizes community relations Linkin 1993
Female Tries to understand characters Linkin 1993
Female Ethic of care Gilligan 1993
Female Requires personal context for moral decision making Linkin 1993
Female Invokes the personal to understand the public Linkin 1993
Female Cooperative Linkin 1993
Female Forms an emotional connection with the text Bleich 1986
Female Introduces their own experiences to the reading (interactive) Linkin 1993
Female Attempts to accommodate the text Flynn 1983
Female Focus on relationships Cherland 1992
Female More likely to break free of the submissive entanglements in a text and Flynn 1983
evaluate the characters and event with critical detachment
Female Attempts to understand a text before making a judgment about it Flynn 1983
Female Enters into the fictive world without focusing on the voice that narrated the Bleich 1986
world into being
Female Interested in feelings, associations, persons Holland 1977
Male Focus on hierarchical relations Linkin 1993
Male More apt to accept or reject a text outright Linkin 1993
Male Engages in confrontational reading strategies that entail resisting or submitting Linkin 1993
to the text
Male Ethic of justice—based on conflicting rights Gilligan 1993
Male Works well with hypothetical or public situations Linkin 1993
Male Needs to feel powerfully in control of events Linkin 1993
Male Empowered through competition Linkin 1993
Male Engages in power relations—situates reading in a power struggle Linkin 1993
Male Comments on whether the text is difficult to understand or accessible Linkin 1993
Male Less need to accommodate the text Linkin 1993
Male Maintains distance between themselves and the literary world Flynn 1983
Male Reacts to disturbing stories by rejecting them or dominating them Flynn 1983
Male Focus on a strong narrative voice Bleich 1986
Male Intellectual, analytical response Holland 1977
Male Experiences text worlds in a more objective manner Bleich 1986
Male Interested in plot and character’s actions Cherland 1992
228 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
connections they made with their own rate or contradict the responses that were
experiences and to let them express their presented in the group discussions. During
feelings about the reading experience and/ initial analysis of the whole class and dis-
or the text. The critical responses were in- cussion group interactions, all identifiers
tended to encourage the students to think and indicators of gender were removed
about the literary aspects of the text and to from the transcriptions. This allowed data
provide a forum for the reader to evaluate analysis without preconceptions based on
the work as a piece of literature. In addi- gender or any prior knowledge that the re-
tion, the students regularly responded to searcher had about the individual partici-
each other on a blog that all class members pants. After the initial stage of analysis,
had access to through the course Moodle the correct pseudonym for each partici-
page. The students then discussed the texts pant was reinserted and the data was re-
in whole class or small group settings. The analyzed. At that point in the analysis, pat-
small group composition varied due to in- terns in the actions and responses of males
structor placement or student preferences. and females in the groups were noted.
The primary method of data collection Since the study was attentive to gen-
for this investigation was through direct dered responses in the data, research about
observation of whole class and small group socially constructed gender traits was
literature discussions. The students’ writ- gathered, the most commonly mentioned
ten and blog assignments were collected traits were culled from those readings, and
and analyzed. This data helped to corrobo- a list of gender characteristics from the
Table 2. Bem Sex Role Inventory Traits (Bem, 1974).
Masculine Traits Feminine Traits Neutral Traits
Acts as a leader Affectionate Adaptable
Aggressive Cheerful Conceited
Ambitious Childlike Conscientious
Analytical Compassionate Conventional
Assertive Does not use harsh language Friendly
Athletic Eager to soothe hurt feelings Happy
Competitive Feminine Helpful
Defends own beliefs Flatterable Inefficient
Dominant Gentle Jealous
Forceful Gullible Likable
Independent Loves children Moody
Individualistic Loyal Reliable
Leadership ability Sensitive to other’s needs Secretive
Makes decisions easily Shy Sincere
Masculine Soft spoken Solemn
Self-reliant Sympathetic Tactful
Self-sufficient Tender Theatrical
Strong personality Understanding Truthful
Willing to take a stand Warm Unpredictable
Willing to take risks Yielding Unsystematic
Diversity in Literary Response: Revisiting Gender Expectations 229
work of several scholars in the fields of search continues to reference work from
gender theory and literacy was created. the 1970’s through the 1990’s (Cherland,
The Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 2008; Hartman, 2006; McCabe, Fairchild,
1974) was used to provide a list of words Grauerholz, Pescosolido, & Tope, 2011).
and phrases that have been traditionally Because the written responses were
used to describe males or females. This of- created before the classroom discussions,
fered a method of noting ways that the par- they were used as a baseline for the stu-
ticipants were gendered or gendered oth- dent’s views on the text. Then any changes
ers without relying on the investigator’s in the participant’s position during discus-
view of the construct of gender. These sion were noted. Those differences in may
words and phrases were used as a frame have been due to factors such as mutual
of reference, rather than a determination interpretation, affiliation with other group
of what were true masculine or feminine members, or social policing.
traits. The Bem Sex Role Inventory is one While inductive analysis (Johnson &
of the most commonly utilized measures Christensen, 2004) helped identify the
of masculine, feminine, and androgynous patterns of gendered traits and ways of re-
traits and has been used, and validated, as sponding to literature that were in the data,
recently as 2014 (Lin & Billingham, 2014; discourse analysis provided a method to
Sarrasin, Mayor, & Faniko, 2014). Bem examine ways the written and verbal inter-
(1974) did not intend these traits to be con- actions maintained or resisted sociocultural
sidered biological determinants; they are beliefs and expectations. Critical discourse
used to indicate societal behavior expec- analysis (CDA) is used to explore the con-
tations. The Measures of Gendered Read- stantly shifting power relations that exist
ing (see Table 1) and the Bem Sex Role in interactions with language and ideology
Inventory (see Table 2) were employed to (Fairclough, 2001). CDA techniques were
determine what types of responses could employed because this study examined be-
be characterized as traditionally feminine, liefs about gender and the preconceptions
masculine, or neutral in the data. the participants brought to what they read. It
The conversational traits used in the was important to look at the common-sense
evaluation were determined by looking at assumptions that people are often unaware
research on gender and classroom interac- of because “they are a means of legitimiz-
tions (Alvermann, Commeyras, et al., 1997; ing existing social relations and differences
Moore, 1997; O’Donnell-Allen & Smago- of power, simply through the recurrence of
rinsky, 1999) and gendered talk (Fishman, ordinary, familiar ways of behaving which
1983; Haas, 1979; Tannen, 1990). From take these relations and power differences
that research, a list of characteristics that for granted” (Fairclough, 2001, p. 2). Add-
are related to male and female conversa- ing discourse analysis also provided a way
tional interactions was created (see Table to triangulate methodologically (Cohen,
3). These analytic factors were system- Manion, & Morrison, 2000).
atically used to analyze the transcripts and
written responses. Limitations
It is important to note that the studies
used to determine gender traits, gendered Some factors could not be controlled in
modes of reading, and gendered ways of the context of a single classroom setting.
talking are all more than ten years old. This was a study of one group at one point
These studies were selected because they in time. The participants were preservice or
have often been used, and still are, to practicing Language Arts teachers, so they
make decisions about literacy and gen- were predisposed to value reading. With
der. In addition, there have not been many one exception, the participants were all
recent studies on those topics. Newer re- white, but they were diverse in sexual ori-
230 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
Table 3. Measures of Gendered Talk
(In classroom discussions in comparison to the other gender).
Gender Trait Source
Female Rarely nominated to talk LaFrance, 1991
Female Talks less when they have the floor LaFrance, 1991
Female Are more likely to be interrupted LaFrance, 1991
Female Less likely to call out answers Jones, 1989
Female Less likely to initiate questions Jones, 1989
Female Less direct and aggressive, require more inference Noddings, 1992
from listeners
Female Doubts the ideas they share Lakoff, 1975
Female Affiliates with others in the group O’Donnell-Allen & Smagorinsky 1999
Female Attempts to cooperate and mutually interpret text Linkin 1993
Female Uses “sorry talk” Alvermann, Commeyras, Young,
Randall, & Hinson, 1997
Female More tentative, hesitant, more false starts O’Donnell-Allen & Smagorinsky 1999
Female Uses more qualifiers, repetition, and intensifiers O’Donnell-Allen & Smagorinsky 1999
Female Makes more deferential remarks O’Donnell-Allen & Smagorinsky 1999
Female Has a slower rate of speech O’Donnell-Allen & Smagorinsky 1999
Female Encourages contributions from others in the group O’Donnell-Allen & Smagorinsky 1999
Female Less likely to engage in conflict O’Donnell-Allen & Smagorinsky 1999
Female More comfortable speaking in private O’Donnell-Allen & Smagorinsky 1999
Female Uses other people as the characters in stories they tell Tannen, 1990
Female When telling stories about themselves, tend to be self- Tannen, 1990
depreciating (seek acceptance from the listener)
Female Active listeners, nod and talk back while others are Tannen, 1990
speaking
Female Asks questions to show interest and agreement Tannen, 1990
Male More likely to take the floor LaFrance, 1991
Male Holds the floor for longer periods of time LaFrance, 1991
Male More likely to debate about the text Moore, 1997
Male Directs the conversation Fishman, 1978
Male More confidence in their ideas Lakoff, 1975
Male Initiates more questions Jones, 1989
Male Calls out answers Jones, 1989
Male More direct in their speech Noddings, 1992
Male Uses a reporting style Tannen, 1990
Male More comfortable speaking in public Tannen, 1990
Male Tells stories about themselves Tannen, 1990
Male Tends to tell humorous stories Tannen, 1990
Male Asks questions to determine if the other person knows Tannen, 1990
what they are talking about
Diversity in Literary Response: Revisiting Gender Expectations 231
entation, religion, marital status, and world- Of those, two males and one female pre-
view. The participant group appeared to be ferred science fiction, three males and
somewhat homogeneous in socioeconomic two females preferred fantasy, one male
status. Like culture, socioeconomic status and two females preferred contemporary
plays a role in the practices, including gen- realistic fiction, one male and one female
der and literacy practices, of any group. preferred historical fiction. However, their
Because the small groups were most of- preferences were not entirely borne out
ten determined by the instructor, student by their actions in this course. Nine of the
choice, or proximity, it was not possible participants (4 male and 5 female) select-
to guarantee group composition. In terms ed a contemporary realistic fiction text as
of power relations, the discussion of Luna their course favorite. Emily said she did
provided the most variation in groups of not care for science fiction, but she liked
any of the class texts because it included both Feed (Anderson, 2002) and House of
a single gender group. Unfortunately, the the Scorpion (Farmer, 2002). Ellen said
opportunities to observe single gender she did not enjoy nonfiction, however she
groups were limited by the ways that the chose a nonfiction book, Shipwreck at the
small groups were organized. Bottom of the World (Armstrong, 2000),
It was difficult to get a clear picture of as one of her favorites.
each individual’s gender beliefs because Literacy researchers often discuss the
the participants had been socialized to belief that readers prefer protagonists that
understand that certain kinds of discourse are of the same gender as the reader (Be-
were expected in the classroom. However, yard-Tyler & Sullivan, 1980; Prosenjak,
gender is performative (Butler, 1990/2006) 1997; Smith & Wilhelm, 2002). Of the
and this research was intended to observe eighteen participants in this study, twelve
the performance of gender in that class- identified a favorite book in the course.
room, by those participants, at that time. Of the twelve, ten of the participants (five
male and five female) selected books with
Text Preferences male protagonists as their preferred read of
the semester. Eight of the twelve selected
In many ways, this group of participants The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time
showed a diversity within gender that rais- Indian (Alexie, 2007) as their favorite.
es questions about the current applicability Despite the fact that several participants
of the results of earlier studies on gender identified it as a “boy book”, four of those
and reading preference (Love & Hamston, who selected it were females.
2003; Millard, 1997), which posited that All of the participants believed that
males prefer nonfiction to fiction, science certain texts were gendered. Four of the
fiction, and fantasy over contemporary re- males and two of the females felt that they
alistic fiction or historical fiction, and male would be more likely to give A Northern
protagonists over female protagonists. Light (Donnelly, 2003) to a female than a
In terms of genre, the participants of- male. Two males felt that How I Live Now
ten did not fall into gendered categories. (Rosoff, 2004) was gendered, but one felt
Studies have indicated that males prefer it was more male oriented because of the
science fiction, fantasy, and nonfiction topic of war, while the other thought it
while females have been shown to prefer was more female oriented because of the
contemporary realistic fiction and histori- female narrator.
cal fiction (Love & Hamston, 2003; Mer-
isuo-Storm, 2006; Millard, 1997; Smith Literacy Behaviors
& Wilhelm, 2002; Twist & Siansbury,
2009). In this group, fourteen partici- In contradiction to earlier research,
pants mentioned their genre preferences. both males and females in this study made
232 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
emotional connections to the text (Bleich, construct meaning in discussions (Moore,
1986), focused on relationships as well as 1997). Paul often collaborated with the
on action (Cherland, 1992), and read in others in his groups to construct mean-
both analytical and interpersonal modes ing from the books they discussed, as did
(Holland, 1977). For example, Paul, who Linda, Ben, Kate, Rose, Emily, and Ellen.
enjoyed the action and adventure in Air-
born (Oppel, 1994), spoke of remember- Role of Identity in Gender Beliefs
ing what it was like to be a 15 year old in
love when he discussed How I Live Now We construct meaning within the com-
(Rosoff, 2004) munities in which we participate and we
learn how to navigate our social worlds
(t)he hopeless romantic 15-year-old boy
through those groups. We use the beliefs
in me jumped at the chance to remember
and expectations we learn in our commu-
similar memories from when I was that
nities when we attempt to make meaning
age, and how finding someone that you
in the world (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet,
connected with mentally as Edmond and
2007; Paechter, 2003). This influence is
Daisy do is breathtaking and frightening at
demonstrated by the split in responses to
the same time. You never want to let that
How I Live Now (Rosoff, 2004). Several
feeling go (Paul, How I Live Now written
of the participants were offended by the
response).
sexual relationship between Daisy and Ed-
He was willing to compare his own mond, who were first cousins. Others ei-
feelings to the feelings of the female pro- ther had no overt issue with the romance,
tagonist. or they found redeeming value in the way
Linda, whose written responses were the author handled it. Judy talked about
often very analytical and focused outside her family beliefs and her opinion that
of the story world, spoke with a strong relationships between cousins were aber-
discourse of feelings in her small group rant. Judy wrote,
discussion of Luna (Peters, 2004) saying,
Another area I had issues with was the
“(i)t was heartbreaking to read that Liam
relationship between Daisy and Edmund.
idolized his father” (Linda, Luna written
Perhaps it is that our time period and
response). Ben, who often talked about
culture (in most areas in the US) are not in
authorial intent, plot, and characterization,
favor of cousins becoming romantic. More
wrote with great emotion about Junior in
than likely it is because I have grown up
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time
with over 30 cousins and have NEVER
Indian (Alexie, 2007).
thought of any of them in a way other
I had goose bumps when I read the pas- than family. I realize she had not grown
sage about his triumph on the basketball up with them and they were all strangers
court, and was almost as heartbroken as until they met— b ut still—they are cousins
he was when he realized that his team was and I struggle with that . . . but when you
not David, and was instead Goliath. (Ben, combine their age with the fact they are
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-time cousins...couldn’t get past it (Judy, How I
Indian written response). Live Now written response).
Both males and females concentrated She was relating back to her extended
on the narrative voice, feelings and asso- family and talking about a practice that
ciations, characterization (Holland, 1977), was unacceptable in that community, ro-
and on authorial intent (Bleich, 1986). mantic relationships between first cous-
Both genders also told personal stories ins. It is legal in twenty-two states in the
in order to show a connection to the text U.S., including California, New York, and
(Tannen, 1990) and attempted to jointly Florida. First cousin relationships are legal