An Analysis of the Relationship Between Book Reviews and the Inclusion of Potentially Controversial Books in Public Libraries

Abstract

The policies of the American Library Association (ALA) concerning the concept of intellectual freedom are embodied in the Library Bill of Rights, the association's official statement on free access to libraries and library materials. The Library Bill of Rights is a brief, deceptively simple document that has provoked constant debate and reinterpretation since its adoption by ALA almost 40 years ago.

Right to Read: Asking Questions, Seeking Answers, Challenging Assumptions

“…This investigation could be replicated by creating a second title list consisting of works that met all the criteria of this study, except that they would lack controversial content, then testing for significant differences in ownership rates between the two lists. Such an approach would do much to equalize the effects of budget variances (Serebnick 1981).…”

“…While every effort was made to rely on objective criteria for the selection of books, no such set of criteria can be fully objective. However, following the techniques of Serebnick (1981), one might well elevate the level of objectivity in book selection by first creating a list of Library of Congress subject headings describing content that would suggest a work might be challenged, and then searching for titles to include in the study using those headings.…”

“…Examples of this type of content would include profanity, sexuality (heterosexual, homosexual, and descriptions of sexual activity), religion/witchcraft, violence/horror, rebellion, racism/sexism, substance use/abuse, suicide/death, crime, crude behavior, and depressing/negative tone. Consideration of the number of reviews in criterion two was based on research that indicated that books receiving the greatest number of reviews were more likely to be purchased (Harmeyer 1995;Serebnick 1981). Criteria three, four, and five were relied upon because of the degree of visibility and probable quality each suggested for specific books.…”

“…A list of potential books was created based on book awards lists, lists of recommended YA books, reviews, and the reading experiences of the investigator. Based on techniques used by Agler (1964), Rothbauer and McKechnie (2000), and Serebnick (1981), the number of reviews received by each book considered for the study was determined using Book Review Digest. After collating the data for each book under consideration, the twenty titles meeting the most criteria to the greatest extent became part of the study's sample list.…”

Potential Collection Development Bias: Some Evidence on a Controversial Topic in California

“…Judy Serebnick, in her insightful dissertation "Relationship between Book Reviews and Inclusion of Potentially Controversial Books in Public Libraries," found that "books with a greater number of reviews were owned by significantly more libraries than were books with a lower number of reviews." 23 Today, librarians involved in collection development continue to be guided by Asheim's forty-year-old "not censorship, but selection" mandate. His ideas have been augmented by the Library Bill of Rights and amplified in publications issued by ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom.…”