Reading work as a diversity practice: A differentiated approach to reading promotion in academic libraries in North America

Introduction

In the context of North American academic libraries, reading practices and diversity practices in libraries are usually seen as two different types of professional engagement. Reading work, better known as readers’ advisory, is related to reading promotion, in all its forms, to the community members of all ages; it includes work with individual readers, collective activities (e.g. book clubs), and the development of collections and resources to support non-academic reading. Conversely, when we talk about diversity work in libraries, we refer to resources, services, and programs to multicultural and marginalized populations, including but not limited to community members from visible minorities, immigrant communities, people with disabilities, LGBTQIA+, the elderly, and so on. Of course, there are some practical intersections of reading work and diversity work, for example book clubs for immigrants and collections of materials in world languages. However, we rarely see the inner diversity of reading practices in libraries beyond demographic characteristics of readers with whom we interact. Although we are well aware of the highly differentiated nature of readership—in any setting—we, somehow, do not see it as an expression of diversity, nor do we frame reading discourse in diversity terms. In this article, we try to marry the two, to advocate the notion of reading work in academic libraries as a diversity practice, and to examine this practice through the lens of the Diversity by Design (DbD) concept (Dali and Caidi, 2017). We use this concept to propose and explicate a differentiated approach to working with readers on campus, drawing attention to the broader and multiple meanings of diversity in the context of reading engagements. We also make specific recommendations on how to give reading practices in academic libraries a boost and a new direction, befitting the diverse and eclectic nature of contemporary North American universities.

The impetus for this article was given by our recent publication (Dali and McNiff, 2019), in which we carried out a detailed bibliographic and citation analysis of 59 publications about reading in academic libraries published between 2000 and 2017, and 1554 corresponding citations. Drawing on empirical findings, we noted a situation whereby the vast “interdisciplinary knowledge about reading practices and behaviors” accumulated by academic librarians does not automatically translate into an active application of acquired interdisciplinary knowledge in everyday practice (Dali and McNiff, 2019: 588). As a result, there has been little change in the type of reading programs on campus in the last 18 years. Making recommendations based on the data analysis, we proposed “a differentiated approach to reading programming”; in this approach, instead of “positioning reading programs as achieving multiple goals at once, [librarians] could distinguish between reading programs for civic engagement and smaller book clubs based on common leisure reading interests or genre reading, as well as hobby-driven book clubs”; similarly, “[i]nstead of positioning all non-academic reading under the collective umbrella of “leisure,” [librarians] could advocate for some reading engagements as a way to augment and enliven academic learning, while presenting other reading initiatives as stress reduction techniques, self-help, and a means of personal growth” (p. 588). Our data analysis also showed “relatively limited borrowing and adoption of knowledge and practices from public libraries,” and we suggested that “learning more extensively from public librarians’ experience in engaging readers could be beneficial” for academic librarians (p. 588). This article, therefore, develops the brief concluding recommendations given in the previous article into practical applications, framing the discussion in terms of diversity.

For the purposes of this article, we define diversity as an inner diversity of readerships on university campuses, which may or may not be related to demographic diversity characteristics (e.g. ethnicity, language, culture, age, etc.). We recognize that the diversity of reading interests and readerships can be determined by these characteristics; however, we also recognize that readerships may vary widely not only among but also within cultural, age-based, linguistic, and other groups of readers. For our purposes, inclusion will refer to the practice of accounting for diverse reading interests in reading programs, collections, and activities on campus.

Various articles and books in the domain of reading work in academic libraries use different terms interchangeably: extracurricular reading, leisure reading, pleasure reading, and recreational reading figure most frequently. We operate with the term non-academic reading to refer to the reading of fiction, narrative non-fiction, graphic novels and comic books, magazines and other popular media in any format, including but not limited to print, electronic, audio, Braille and other accessible formats, and so on. We recognize, however, that not every non-academic reading is leisure or recreation and that some of it is, in fact, integrated into the curriculum, be it library instructions, information literacy sessions, or the actual university courses. In this case, it is definitely “curricular” rather than “extra.” In this article, we use leisure reading, pleasure reading, and recreational reading interchangeably.

We try to avoid the use of “readers’ advisory” while describing reading work in academic libraries, although we retain this phrase when citing previously published work in order to remain true to the original. We realize that readers’ advisory is a “compact” term that “has been around for over a century, and enjoys a shared understanding among LIS professionals across the board”; yet, “it is critical that we approach this term with full awareness that, at this day and age, the word ‘advisory’ is way out of sync with contemporary library reading practices” (Dali and McNiff, 2019: 571). In the past, as McNicol (2016: 9) noted, readers’ advisory practices situated a librarian:

[. . .] as an educator, ‘leading the reader in a particular direction that they felt would be beneficial to them’ (Train, 2003, p. 37), as they offered suggestions based on information provided by the reader about their reading tastes. Such approaches, in essence, can be seen as replicating what Freire (1970) described as the ‘banking model’ of education in which students are viewed as empty containers into which educators must deposit knowledge.

As such, it reflected the power dynamic in libraries—with a librarian as an expert and a reader as a service recipient—that no longer exists. In the age of social media, peer-to-peer reading exchanges, and multitudes of well-informed and savvy readers, the notion of “advisory” is neither useful nor particularly valid. Oxford Dictionary of English (2010) defines advisory as the capacity and power to “offer suggestions about the best course of action to someone” or to “inform (someone) about a fact or situation in a formal or official way” (Stevenson, 2010a). At the same time, other terms can be found, such as “consultation,” which implies having “discussions with (someone), typically before undertaking a course of action,” or, better yet, “discussion,” which implies conversing or talking with someone “about (a topic) in detail, taking into account different issues or ideas” (Stevenson, 2010b, 2010c). We advocate for reading discussions, consultations, and working in partnership with readers, but caution against advisory.

The article is written by the currently practicing academic librarian and the former academic librarian/current LIS faculty member, both long-term reading advocates, actively involved in reading promotion on and off campus. As a result, we choose to write in the first-person plural because we see ourselves as members of the academic library community. We realize that our perspective and insight are limited to the North American milieu, situation, and academic libraries, although we rely on some studies from other countries. However, we hope that our readers around the world will find some of our recommendations and conclusions useful, especially if they also work on campuses that are eclectic and diverse in more ways than one.

Framing the discussion: DbD and reading work in academic libraries

In their publication in The Library Quarterly, Keren Dali and Nadia Caidi (2017) proposed the DbD concept, “bringing to light the multiplicity of contexts that give diversity meaning and life in our complex field”; they argued that “diversity, broadly conceived, is foundational to LIS and that discounting or underappreciating its pivotal function may have a disintegrating effect on our practice, scholarship, and education” (p. 88). They looked at diversity beyond the demographic characteristics of LIS professionals and user communities with whom we interact and beyond the diversity of resources and information which we handle. They criticized the notion of diversity as an “add-on” and an option and the “lingering [. . .] perception of diversity as a bonus and a frill” (p. 89), proposing that diversity should be

integral and structural [. . .] seamlessly built into our curriculum, work environments, decision making, professional choices, and interpersonal relationships in both the workplace and academia. [It] should be there from the start, not thrown in for reasons of trendiness and popularity at a moment of need; [it] should be part of the foundation, part of the core. In other words, [it] should be there by design, not by chance. (p. 89)

Naming multiple contexts whereby diversity manifests itself in our field, the authors pointed to values-based diversity, that is, the diversity of worldviews, lifestyles, tastes, life choices, intellectual orientations, and so on, in short, anything that comes from people’s unique lifeways and experiences (see also, Hudson-Ward, 2014). The diversity of readerships and reading interests would fit squarely with these concepts.

Dali and Caidi (2017) described the so-called diversity mindset that should guide the professional and pedagogical approach of anyone who practices or teaches in our field. Among other things, this mindset includes a “recognition that diversity is a reality of life, not a problem to solve or an issue to address,” that diversity is “integral to social structure, daily interactions, learning environments, professional settings, and human relationships,” and that we have to master the “ability to see the multiple contexts and expressions of diversity in our professional and academic settings” (p. 91).

Not always do libraries associate diversity work with reading work, with the exception of collections in world languages, multicultural collections, or specialized reading programs and book clubs for diverse communities, which are not very frequent or numerous even in public libraries. In this context, we hear about book clubs for immigrants and/or English-language learners. However, this would be an example of diversity as a bonus, not integrated into the fabric of library work. For instance, while most public library reading programs and services are planned for and geared toward readers who read in English, as a bonus, libraries may have a collection or consider a program in another language. While most book clubs in libraries are for English speakers, as a bonus, some libraries offer a separate reading group for non-native speakers. Even administratively, mainstream reading programs and fiction collections often fall under “reading and literacy,” while reading programs and collections in languages other than English are often categorized as “multicultural.” Yet, associations between diversity and reading are undeniable and need to be recognized, if we define diversity the way we suggest in this article—as the inherent inner diversity of reading interests and readerships. The diversity of reading tastes and preferences is one of the most remarkable types of diversity. This diversity determines the highly differentiated nature of readerships in general and on campus in particular. Although reading scholars discuss multiple reasons for reading and point to a wide variety of different motivations and incentives for reading (e.g. Begum, 2011; Berggren, 1998; Burke, 1999; Kinard, 1998; Knulst and Kraaykamp, 1998; Kraaykamp and Dijkstra, 1999; Littau, 2008; Rosenthal, 1995; Ross, 1999, 2000; Ross et al., 2018; Rothbauer, 2004; Sabine and Sabine, 1983; Saricks, 2005; Schutte and Malouff, 2006), they do not frame this discussion in terms of diversity and do not see the differentiation of readership as part of diversity discourse.

Building on the understanding of diversity, broadly conceived, as integral and inherent to the professional practice of working with readers in academic libraries, drawing on historical antecedents, and invoking interdisciplinary reading scholarship that speaks to the differentiated nature of readerships and reading behaviors, we analyze what works and what does not in terms of promoting and integrating non-academic reading on campus. We also offer some suggestions for advancing reading practices in academic libraries and for reframing our thinking about working with readers in academia as a diversity practice.

Relevant historical antecedents

Guided by this thinking, we would like to briefly introduce the relevant historical developments that frame and feed into the below argument. As a practice that in North America originated in public libraries in the last quarter of the 19th century, for almost a century, readers’ advisory had been focused on non-fiction and helping library users to find materials for reading with a purpose (e.g. reading for personal development or studying outside of formal educational settings) (Crowley, 2005). Similarly, for much of its history, librarians had contended with the proverbial “fiction problem” (Orr, 2015); the “fiction problem” refers to the ongoing library dilemma of whether to focus mostly on non-fiction and literary fiction or to provide access to and advice about genre fiction and other entertaining materials. ¹ The situation changed in the early 1980s, when the new philosophy and specialized training were introduced by a group of reading advocates who created the Adult Reading Roundtable; the new approach firmly put the reader in the driver’s seat, so to speak, and promoted the idea that the quality of a book (or another reading material) is determined by readers, not literary critics, and that it is pleasure, enjoyment, and the quality of the reading experience itself that matter to readers and should matter to librarians who help them choose the next good read. Readers’ advisory was on the rise in the two following decades, prompting many researchers and practitioners to hail it as a renaissance (e.g. Crowley, 2005). However, the proliferation of online readers’ advisory tools, social media sites dedicated to reading, online reading communities, plentiful free-of-charge advice from commercial book retailers and publishers, and uninhibited, instantaneous peer recommendations have rendered this library practice less useful and relevant than it used to be in the 20th century. Public libraries have been only partially successful in regaining and maintaining their leadership in leisure reading promotion, and more than one critic noted the stagnation in readers’ advisory services (e.g. Beard and Thi-Beard, 2008; Crowley, 2015; Dali, 2015a; Dilevko and Magowan, 2007).

The practice of readers’ advisory has evolved differently in academic libraries than in public libraries, although the fiction problem was not irrelevant to academic libraries either. This fact notwithstanding, in the early 20th century, many academic libraries offered relaxing recreational reading, hosted browsing rooms (Dewan, 2010; Lacy, 2014; Zauha, 1993), and hired designated readers’ advisory librarians (Lacy, 2014; Smith and Young, 2008). Since their primary audiences of students and scholars were already exposed to serious, scholarly reading, academic librarians felt freer catering to the recreational desires of their community members (Lacy, 2014). That is not to say that academic librarians focused on genre fiction and other entertaining materials; the quality of books as determined by experts and critics was still an important consideration in reading recommendations. However, the small size and relative homogeneity of most student bodies at the time enabled academic libraries to make recommending so called “great books” confidently (Smith and Young, 2008: 521). With the rise of information science, the corporate university, and the metrics-oriented audit culture, academic libraries have refocused their energies elsewhere, losing interest in reader services for most of the remaining 20th century (Dewan, 2010; Gladwin and Goulding, 2012; Lacy, 2014; Rathe and Blankenship, 2006; Smith and Young, 2008). When the interest in working with readers on campus resurfaced in the early 21st century, the academic environment did not make it easy for academic librarians to promote non-academic reading for the sake of pleasure. A much surer and more feasible way to make reading a part of campus life was to tie it into educational and professional goals of higher education in more explicit ways. Multiple studies and reports decried a purported drop in non-academic reading and claimed inseparable connections between reading and higher empathy levels, better social skills, and, most pertinently, academic achievement and excellence. They provided the needed evidence base for the greater inclusion of non-academic reading on campus (Gallik, 1999; Krashen, 2004; National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), 2004, 2007, 2009). However, they have also determined the nature of this inclusion, one whereby non-academic reading was justified insofar as it was at the service of educational and professional goals.

Despite the heartening proliferation of promotional reading and reading programs in academic libraries, many studies reported only limited success and sustainability thereof (e.g. Bosman et al., 2008; Chesnut, 2011; Fajardo, 2010; Gauder et al., 2007; Gilbert and Fister, 2010; Goldberg, 2012; MacKay, 2015; Mahaffy, 2009). We view the lack of a differentiated approach to reading promotion and the conflation of educational and recreational goals in reading work as one of the reasons for the limited success and short lifespan of reading initiatives.

Intellectual and emotional learning and personal growth can happen as a result of recreational pleasure reading but it should not be expected. We need to differentiate between non-academic reading with a purpose and free-choice voluntary reading for leisure, pleasure, or recreation. Most importantly, the goal of learning and the idea of usefulness and utility (“it’s good for you”) should not be used to justify the promotion of leisure reading. Conversely, it is futile and counter-productive to try and promote engagement with serious works of imaginative literature or narrative non-fiction as recreational reading per se. We see the conflation and confusion of goals for reading promotion as one source of concern with current reading practices in academic libraries.

A differentiated approach to reading

The disadvantage of this kind of “mix” for reading promotion has been realized and addressed by public librarians since the early 1980s, as described earlier. Rather than focusing on the intellectual benefits of reading that factor so heavily into the academic library literature, public librarians focus instead on reader enjoyment and on seeing “the reader to be an essential and active partner” (Begum, 2011: 740). Although the history of reading in public libraries is rife with anxiety about stocking and circulating genre fiction, the contemporary scenario is one that acknowledges the diversity of reader tastes and interests, and one that is grounded in reader enjoyment as a matter of course. A commitment to recreational reading on the part of readers cannot be developed without practice, and readers are less motivated to practice if the read is not enjoyable.

Granted, the mandate of and atmosphere in public libraries may make it easier for librarians to do the separation between educational/developmental reading and leisure/pleasure reading. Academic libraries, on the other hand, operate as part of higher education institutions, and academic librarians may feel the expressed, latent, or even self-imposed pressure to primarily support the educational and curricular mission of their respective parent universities and colleges. This could explain the ongoing attempt to tie non-academic reading into tangible educational benefits and goals and to justify the collection of non-academic reading materials through their potential usefulness for student development and education.

However, here is an interesting trend that may play into the hands of librarians trying to promote non-academic reading on campus, which academic librarians could make a cornerstone of their argument in defense of reading on campus. Institutions of higher education have started paying more attention to students’ well-being, not just education and professional development. The idea of educating the “whole person,” which is not unfamiliar to academic libraries either (Hallyburton et al., 2011), is quite tangible in the climate of contemporary academia and, more often than not, reflected in institutional mission statements or other established and written policies. Academic librarians could be greatly helped by the careful reading of these policies in their efforts to advocate for non-academic reading on campus. These policies could be instrumental in librarians’ efforts to position non-academic reading and extracurricular activities as integral support mechanisms for the core institutional mission of nurturing the whole person. The policy statements related to education and professional development are easy to spot; the statements related to the whole person and students’ well-being should be sought more deliberately, perhaps. Yet, we are confident they are available and explicated in most higher education institutions in North America and can be relied on by librarians.

This brings us to the following point: academic librarians may consider a more nuanced approach to reading promotion, differentiating among several types of non-academic reading. We propose to distinguish at least three main types of non-academic reading on campus:

Attention to formats as a condition for inclusion

We have briefly mentioned earlier that the idea of inclusive reading on campus also encompasses a variety of formats (e.g. reading print vs. reading ebooks vs. listening to audiobooks). It also involves the notion of accessibility since specific formats are essential to readers as a condition for participation, education, and enjoyment. For example, a Random House analysist determined that in the US:

Most eBook consumers are women, are younger than forty-five, have college degrees or have had some college education [. . .]. Preferred genres include mystery/suspense/detective fiction, general fiction, and romance. [. . .] EBook consumers are 2.5 times more likely to own a tablet than non- eBook consumers. They also tend to be more accessible than non-eBook consumers across online touch points, and more sensitive to word-of-mouth recommendations. (Park, 2013, para. 2‒3)

The largest group of ebook readers in the population of US adults, according to the Pew Research Group in 2018, are aged 18 to 29 (34%) (Statista, 2019). In 2019, 28% of respondents to another Pew Research Group survey indicated that they read books in both print and electronic formats and 7% indicated that they read books in digital format (Perrin, 2019). The same study concluded that one in five Americans listen to audiobooks and that college students are “especially likely to read books in a variety of formats” (Perrin, 2019: para. 7). Given the correlation between ebook reading on the one hand and college education, the consumption of specific genres, and the younger age on the other hand, and also accounting for the technology-saturated environment of contemporary North American campuses, it is clear that reading promotion and programming in academia should include the consideration of multiple formats. Similarly, given the commitment of academic institutions to accessibility and equity in access and on-campus participation, the multiplicity of formats should be considered not only as a reflection of diverse reading behaviors but also as a practice of including people with diverse body abilities (e.g. National Network for Equitable Library Services (NNELS), 2019; Library of Congress, n.d).

Taking stock: DbD and a differentiated approach as key to the success and sustainability of reading work in academic libraries

Taking a critical look at the current reading practices and reading work in academic libraries, we have argued that at the very heart of rethinking our work with readers on campus is the conception of this work as a diversity practice. We used the principles outlined in the DbD concept and were guided by the diversity mindset in order to show that considerations of diversity should underlie the integration of non-academic reading promotion on campus, be it in the form of reading events, book clubs and reading groups, leisure reading collections, or non-academic reading added as part of university courses and library classes. The DbD lens has ultimately guided us toward a differentiated approach to reading promotion on campus, the reconsideration of terminology used to describe librarians’ work with readers, the need to look more carefully at and learn more in-depth from the practice of readers’ advisory in public libraries, and to rely more substantially on the interdisciplinary reading research.

We could start reconceptualizing our approach to reading by paying more careful attention to and revising our terminology. The changed terminology will help us to frame the discussion of reading practices in libraries as a diversity practice and to see the multiple faces and meanings of diversity at play in reading engagements on campus. This recognition is essential in order to achieve successful reading promotion, the impactful and seamless integration of non-academic reading into the university-wide and library-specific curricula, and the effective use of reading as a community-building instrument.

Aside from relying on the principles of DbD, a differentiated approach to reading should draw on interdisciplinary research on reading as a social phenomenon and an individual practice. Specifically, academic librarians need to take notice of the fact:

The suggested differentiated approach is particularly important with regard to reading programs on campus, and even if they are developed around non-academic reading, not all of them can and should be called book clubs and/or promoted by association with leisure or pleasure reading. At the most basic level, we can identify two different types of reading programs and groups on campus.

First, there could be leisure reading book clubs, akin to book clubs in public libraries, bookstores, and community centers, which bring together students (and possibly faculty and staff) interested in specific genres and types of reading. With academic librarians serving as facilitators or even instigators and active supporters of these initiatives, interest-based informal book clubs could become functional elements of community building campus-wide. Second, there could be thematic book discussion groups developed around political, cultural, social justice, and other issues and bringing together individuals who believe in the power of collective reading and collaborative ideas sharing. These discussion groups can indeed be instruments of interactive learning, political activism, and civic participation on campus, as great works of literature indeed have potential to ignite creative thinking, encourage personal maturation, and support social change on campus, preparing students for socially responsible and community minded practice upon graduation.

Particularly serious consideration should be given to the wide-spread One Book—One Campus programs, or their spin-offs. On diverse university campuses with highly differentiated (and often large) book readerships, One Book programs may appear homogenizing and, ultimately, unsuccessful. The idea of One Campus—Many Books seems much more appealing, and although we are acutely aware of the possible financial, human resources-related, and administrative constraints of having multiple reading programs run by the same library, the ideal and the goal should still be a variety and diversity of programs. Although at the first glance One Book programs may seem more logistically feasible, based on our review of library experiences with these programs, this is not necessarily the case (e.g. Bosman et al., 2008; Chesnut, 2011; Fajardo, 2010; Gauder et al., 2007; Gilbert and Fister, 2010; Goldberg, 2012; MacKay, 2015; Mahaffy, 2009); in addition, they do not sufficiently incorporate the idea of diversified reading interests.

On a more concrete and applied level, an implementation of a differentiated approach means taking note and adhering to several principles.

Conclusion

The capacity of literature to change minds, hearts, and social conditions is a powerful instrument for enriching curriculum and engaging university community members outside of the classroom. However, even when we talk about non-academic reading, we have to admit that this type of reading may not necessarily be pleasure or leisure reading. If we integrate fiction into the university curriculum or library classes, we have to be clear that this will still be assigned and prescribed reading, a pedagogical technique that may work for some students in class but not for others. This type of non-academic reading may not be truly leisurely, free-choice or voluntary. Consequently, promoting this reading as recreational would not ring true, and this message may not assimilate well or be well received by students, other university community members, and stakeholders who have the funding, decision-making, and assessment power. Attempts to validate pleasure through utility may turn futile and may not bring desirable results, and this is part of the reason for the short life of many reading initiatives in academic libraries and for the lack of success and sustainability of reading programs or concomitant collecting efforts.

Working as part of academic institutions, academic librarians may feel obligated to justify every library undertaking by tying it into the educational and curricular goals. However, educating the whole person these days has become a mainstay of many university policies as well, as higher education institutions invest a great deal in students’ mental health, time and stress management, social lives, adaptation and adjustment in academia, and healthy relationship building. Encouraged and emboldened by these policies, librarians could create an entirely new and much more convincing line of argument for validating the space of non-academic reading in academic libraries and a much stronger bid for funding and other institutional support. If making students happy and keeping them healthy is part of an academic institution mission, it should be part of an academic library mission too, and the lifestyle and wellness merits of reading could be explored and used effectively to achieve this mission.

Developing an understanding of differentiated goals of reading with a purpose (educationally motivated reading) and leisure/recreational reading, academic librarians could be helped by the rich literature and vast experience collected by public librarians. Public libraries have legitimized recreational, leisure reading with the sole purpose of relaxation, escape, and entertainment, as a type of reading that promotes general and mental well-being and brings happiness to readers, and academic libraries should follow suit. For decades, pretty much since the early 1980s, public librarians have steered clear of expecting their readers to genuinely enjoy the titles that are “good for them,” irrespective of the literary and analytical quality of these titles, their critical acclaim and socio-cultural or political significance. Fun should not be incentivized or motivated; enjoyment and pleasure cannot be forced.

Only when considerations of diversity are put at the heart of reading work and reading promotion on campus can the conflation of goals be avoided and can the variety of readers’ life experiences and aesthetical tastes be respected and accounted for. That is to say, irrespective of whether we restructure reference services, develop on-campus technologies, tend for inclusive physical spaces, create information literacy curricula, establish advocacy campaigns, or unfold a variety of reading programs, keeping the principles of DbD as a guide and approaching these activities with the diversity mindset would create for a more inclusive and climate on campus, allowing reading to realize its full potential as a community building instrument.