Selecting the Common Book: Anarchy and Ambiguity in Action

Abstract

Using a framework derived from institutional theory, this study investigated the purposes and motivations behind selections of common books during the last three years. Thirty-one face-to-face and phone interviews were conducted with selection committee members at three public, flagship institutions. The overarching takeaway from this study was that common book selection procedures exhibited characteristics of organized anarchies. That is, interviewed selection committees felt that common books were supposed to achieve multiple, ambiguous goals; selection committees had difficulty describing how selected common books achieved those goals; and participation in the common reading experiences (e.g., by selection committee members, organizations who sponsored book-related events, and readers) fluctuated each year. I also found that interviewed faculty, staff, and students described similar yet idiosyncratic procedures for selecting common books. Interviewed selection committee members felt that the common books they selected reflected unique characteristics of their institutions and included symbolic messages about institutions’ aspirations. The findings add to what is known about how and why institutions choose common books.