CCBC-Net Archives
An additional insight on book award selection
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Eliza T. Dresang <edresang>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:14:56 -0500
I have now served on four ALA/ALSC book award committees over a period of two decades (my first award committee was the 1982 Newbery). I chaired the 2002 Pura Belpr? Committee (and a former Batchelder Committee).
In the interim (over these two decades) I've participated in numerous book discussions, most notably the stellar ones at the CCBC before I moved to Florida, and I regularly teach classes in YA, children's and multicultural literature in which many discussions take place. So I can respond from experience to a few of the comments about "how choices are made" in award committees compared to other discussions.
Yes, it is true as Marge said, that the members are dedicated, etc., but it is also true, as someone else said, that those of us not on award committees share some of these same qualities in relation to books for youth.
However, no discussion of two or so hours or even individual reflection over a number of hours can produce the cumulative insights into a book that occur on these award committees. The responsibility that committee members feel of choosing "the best" and the knowledge that the choice will affect sales and the lives of youth for many years to come produce a depth of examination of each "finalist" book that is unparalleled in any experience I have had.
Therefore, I would offer up the thought that when a book does not appear on a list, it may be because the incredibly close examination of the books against evaluation criteria and other books of the award period has turned up something that "tips the balance" among the books that have risen to the top. There are many, many things I've learned about the books under examination in each of my four award committees that I know are not apparent to those who have not had the opportunity (or the obligation) for scrutinizing the books so carefully and for finding ways to distinguish among them.
I have tried over the years to simulate this marvelous award-committee experience of getting to know books in the most intimate manner, but I have failed at achieving an exact duplicative practice. While all discussions of books are valuable, the collective wisdom of a year's study just cannot appear in a one-time discussion group or perhaps not even in a one-person review, however thoughtful.
So --- all I can say is that it is good and justified to express agreement or disappointment from one's own informed perspective -- but to guess the why of a committee's decision is next to impossible. Some reasons are obvious, but basically there are reasons you will never know and could not begin to guess.
Would other committees choose other lists? yes, possibly, because no matter how carefully one discusses and what one turns up, the criteria must be weighed by each person and there is no guide on "weighting" if criteria conflict. From my experiences, I can say that the books chosen are always
"among the very best" and that only time will tell whether the world (and young readers) at large will agree on "the best."
As for revision of the process, chairs and committees think of this all the time. The process, from my perspective, the overall process works very well as it brings to light virtually 100 percent of eligible books and gives them careful consideration. The voting works well and fairly, too; it is done by a mathematical weighting method (everyone votes for 3 books with the first having more points than the second and third). A book must have a certain # of top place votes to win and a certain spread from the next place. The math makes everyone's vote count.
This explains the differing number of honor books -- sometimes only one book "rises to the top" along with the winner and sometimes there is a clear break after two or three or four or even five. (The committee has the discretion to determine how to choose the honor books, whether to reballot of not, etc., but the focus is always on those that the committee as a whole find uniquely distinctive).
And, rest assured that committees listen carefully to ALSC or REFORMA or YALSA members and non-members --anyone who has an opinion to offer. Often children have the deepest insights! So the decisions are most certainly not made in isolation. (Be sure to communicate your nominations because committees do take them seriously).
Hope this helps a little in focusing the emphasis of our CCBC_net discussion not on scrutinizing the inscrutable (how the committees might have overlooked something) but rather (as most comments have been) on celebrating what we especially appreciate among what they did choose and on highlighting for the appreciation of others what they did not.
Eliza
_________________________________________________________ Eliza T. Dresang, Associate Professor School of Information Studies/ Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306!00 e-mail: edresang at mailer.fsu.edu Phone: 850 644 5877 (w) FAX: 850 644 9763 (w)
Received on Thu 24 Jan 2002 12:14:56 PM CST
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:14:56 -0500
I have now served on four ALA/ALSC book award committees over a period of two decades (my first award committee was the 1982 Newbery). I chaired the 2002 Pura Belpr? Committee (and a former Batchelder Committee).
In the interim (over these two decades) I've participated in numerous book discussions, most notably the stellar ones at the CCBC before I moved to Florida, and I regularly teach classes in YA, children's and multicultural literature in which many discussions take place. So I can respond from experience to a few of the comments about "how choices are made" in award committees compared to other discussions.
Yes, it is true as Marge said, that the members are dedicated, etc., but it is also true, as someone else said, that those of us not on award committees share some of these same qualities in relation to books for youth.
However, no discussion of two or so hours or even individual reflection over a number of hours can produce the cumulative insights into a book that occur on these award committees. The responsibility that committee members feel of choosing "the best" and the knowledge that the choice will affect sales and the lives of youth for many years to come produce a depth of examination of each "finalist" book that is unparalleled in any experience I have had.
Therefore, I would offer up the thought that when a book does not appear on a list, it may be because the incredibly close examination of the books against evaluation criteria and other books of the award period has turned up something that "tips the balance" among the books that have risen to the top. There are many, many things I've learned about the books under examination in each of my four award committees that I know are not apparent to those who have not had the opportunity (or the obligation) for scrutinizing the books so carefully and for finding ways to distinguish among them.
I have tried over the years to simulate this marvelous award-committee experience of getting to know books in the most intimate manner, but I have failed at achieving an exact duplicative practice. While all discussions of books are valuable, the collective wisdom of a year's study just cannot appear in a one-time discussion group or perhaps not even in a one-person review, however thoughtful.
So --- all I can say is that it is good and justified to express agreement or disappointment from one's own informed perspective -- but to guess the why of a committee's decision is next to impossible. Some reasons are obvious, but basically there are reasons you will never know and could not begin to guess.
Would other committees choose other lists? yes, possibly, because no matter how carefully one discusses and what one turns up, the criteria must be weighed by each person and there is no guide on "weighting" if criteria conflict. From my experiences, I can say that the books chosen are always
"among the very best" and that only time will tell whether the world (and young readers) at large will agree on "the best."
As for revision of the process, chairs and committees think of this all the time. The process, from my perspective, the overall process works very well as it brings to light virtually 100 percent of eligible books and gives them careful consideration. The voting works well and fairly, too; it is done by a mathematical weighting method (everyone votes for 3 books with the first having more points than the second and third). A book must have a certain # of top place votes to win and a certain spread from the next place. The math makes everyone's vote count.
This explains the differing number of honor books -- sometimes only one book "rises to the top" along with the winner and sometimes there is a clear break after two or three or four or even five. (The committee has the discretion to determine how to choose the honor books, whether to reballot of not, etc., but the focus is always on those that the committee as a whole find uniquely distinctive).
And, rest assured that committees listen carefully to ALSC or REFORMA or YALSA members and non-members --anyone who has an opinion to offer. Often children have the deepest insights! So the decisions are most certainly not made in isolation. (Be sure to communicate your nominations because committees do take them seriously).
Hope this helps a little in focusing the emphasis of our CCBC_net discussion not on scrutinizing the inscrutable (how the committees might have overlooked something) but rather (as most comments have been) on celebrating what we especially appreciate among what they did choose and on highlighting for the appreciation of others what they did not.
Eliza
_________________________________________________________ Eliza T. Dresang, Associate Professor School of Information Studies/ Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306!00 e-mail: edresang at mailer.fsu.edu Phone: 850 644 5877 (w) FAX: 850 644 9763 (w)
Received on Thu 24 Jan 2002 12:14:56 PM CST
