1
Speaking Back to Text from Behind the Fence: Problematizing Book Clubs with
Incarcerated Youth
From “I Dunno” to “I Would Say”
Angela Byrd
University of South Carolina
Introduction
In addition to what we know from the literature, in general, about critical literacy,
social justice, and third space theories, the literature also reveals that reluctant and
struggling readers often project certain identities in certain literacy contexts. Among
these identities are defense mechanisms in response to formalized literacy practice, such
as book clubs. The participants of this book club often expressed their reluctance by
asserting power through resistance and non-compliance and at other times used
compliance and subordination as ways to broker power through meeting researchers’
perceived expectations, while also managing peer behavior. Their initial resistance to
sharing funds of knowledge (Moll, 1992) mirrors their view of themselves as readers and
learners, and the researchers sought ways to move students beyond these defense
mechanisms.
Research Questions
In light of the above and within the context of the overarching research questions
for all three cases, this study addressed the following specific research questions: (1)
How do book club participants avoid and/or reject formalized literacy practices?,
(2) In what ways do book club participants exert power?, (3) What are the defense
1
2
mechanisms of incarcerated youth involved in literacy engagements/book clubs?,
and (4) How do these defense mechanisms affect group dynamics?
Context of Study
Construction and Participants
The specific context for this book club was unique in that its formation resulted
from merging two book clubs that shrank considerably in size between the first book club
meeting and subsequent ones. Since the book clubs were voluntary, some students chose
not to return the second week, while others made choices that led to their temporary
removal from the book club as punishment for instigating fights between book club
meetings. The resulting merged book club consisted of three African-American males,
ranging in ages from 15-17 years and enrolled in seventh, eighth, and tenth grades.
Attendance varied among book club members. One participant, Larry, attended
every meeting, while two other participants, Andrew and Clark, attended all but one of
the meetings. As a reward for attending the meetings, students were allowed to vote on
their choice of book club book, as well as provided a free copy of another book of choice
at the end of our book club meetings.
Researchers
Three researchers from the University of South Carolina facilitated two-hour book
club sessions with incarcerated youth. All three are part-time (Nicole and Diane) or fulltime (Angela) Ph.D. students in the Language & Literacy Program and are veteran
teachers of middle school (Angela) and high-school teachers (Angela, Nicole, and
Diane).
2
3
All researchers shared a rotating set of responsibilities, which included: lanning and
facilitating weekly book club meetings, engaging with students in book club activities,
documenting field notes during book club meetings, transcribing transcripts and coding
data, member checking transcripts and codes among each other and also enlisting
participants as member checks, and conducting portions of entrance/exit interviews and
one survey.
Methods
As defined by Glesne (2011, 22) and Schram (2006, 107), the book club was
treated as a single case that allowed researchers to explore their research questions within
the confines of “analyzing human social behavior” (Schram, 2006, 107) in an “integrated
system…and often longitudinal examination of data” (Glesne, 2011, 22) that involves
various methods of data collection, such as those alluded to in the preceding section on
researchers’ roles and detailed below in data collection and analysis.
Data Collection and Analysis
Within the confines of the general data collection methods for this study - formal
structured open-ended interviews (2) , field notes, memos/analytic notes, transcriptions of
book club conversations, open and/or closed Surveys, and artifact collection – specific
artifacts were collected and specific types of field notes were recorded. Concerning
artifacts, researchers collected written conversations, a voice survey, graffiti response,
voting ballots for book choices, and audio recordings of book club discussions. Written
conversations were connected to writing prompts about power and weakness, both in an
abstract sense and concrete, book context-specific character analysis that engaged
participants in conversations with one another and with researchers. A closed and open-
3
4
structured survey on students’ perceptions of their voice’s value, as well as how guarded
they were about using their voice around adults and peers, helped researchers complicate
the use of defense mechanisms by participants. All participants and researchers engaged
in a written graffiti activity the last night of our book club meetings to explore reactions
to key plot events in the story, which allowed for dialogue in written or visual form and
also peer and researcher responses to the graffiti. Students indicated their preference for
their book club book of choice by secret ballot, after listening to several book talks, and
recordings of each book club session facilitated subsequent analysis of data, in addition to
field notes that included diagrams of flexible seating charts each session, notes about
student facial and non-verbal expressions, and analytic memos written in process.
Data was analyzed for defense mechanisms related to positioning, issues of
power, social justice, and third spaces, since defense mechanisms were pervasive
expressions throughout book club meetings until the last part of the final week, unless
Larry was the only member in attendance. Transcripts and field notes were coded, and
transcripts were member checked by researchers and participants as a measure of
validity. Data was also discussed through lenses of grounded theory, specifically, social
justice, critical theory, and third spaces.
Book Selection
Shattering Glass by Gail Giles, was the chosen text by most members, because
the storyline seemed most appealing after book talks and students perusing the texts.
Though other choices than what follows were provided, it is notable that this text was
selected over several others that the researchers considered to be the ultimate contenders.
It was chosen over Monster by Walter Dean Myers, because they had read it already.
4
5
Shattering Glass was chosen over Divergent, even though the factions were of interest to
them, particularly Dauntless and the idea that the main character must keep certain parts
of her identity secret to survive. Finally, it was also chosen over Tears of Tiger, because
participants thought the book would be too sad after hearing opening chapter read aloud.
Findings
Positions
Participants negotiated multiple types of positioning during the course of the book
club and vacillated between various roles. These roles often involved juxtaposed binaries,
though they were inherent with complexity as well. Among these positions are the
following stances: (1) agressive vs. compliant stance. (2) reluctant/picky reader vs. avid
readers, (3) dominator vs. subordinate vs. enforcer, (4) lecturer vs. silent observer, and
(5) open relator vs. guarded relator.
Aggressive vs. Compliant Stance
Concerning aggressive stances, Larry often used non-verbals (ex. tapping desk)
and muttered threats to peers: “I’m going to cut you” to express his aggressions and
distract from his disengagement in group book club discussions. Andrew was rarely
aggressive, yet he expressed it in quiet but forceful ways at the conclusion of our last
meeting by backing Larry into a wall and squeezing Larry’s hand painfully tight. Clark’s
most aggressive stance was his initial response to one of his regular teachers in the room,
who advised him to focus on the task at hand, while Clark wished to assert his authority
among his peers. ”Don’t come over here, man,” Clark said in a warning tone, but after
receiving another firm but level-voiced response from his teacher, he became compliant
again.
5
6
Concerning compliant stances, participants continued to express this type of
positioning in varied ways as well. Larry was most compliant during the one meeting
when he was the only participant in attendance. Though he initially resorted to his usual
silence and defense mechanisms, he slowly became more candid and forthcoming in his
responses. Andrew expressed compliance most often by aligning himself with those he
felt had the most power in the room: the researchers. Knowing we were hoping for
compliance with the completion of activities we had prepared, he was usually the first to
start them and worked thoughtfully and methodically to complete them. Clark preferred
to show his compliance by aligning himself with the researchers in a similar fashion by
volunteering answers during discussions and deferring to the advice of peers to whom he
showed loyalty, such as Andrew.
Reluctant/Picky Reader vs. Avid Readers
Larry was our most reluctant reader. When asked how he made book selections,
he replied, ”I read the back cover and the last pages…skip around the rest.” He had the
most trouble recalling books he had read in total and did not complete even half of the
book club that was chosen. Andrew aligned himself with reluctant/picky readers by
explaining that his reading selections were limited, since he had to be interested in the
book to keep reading it, even if there was information he wanted to know or story worlds
he wanted to discover. Clark was least reluctant and picky, but he did express favoritism
and loyalty for certain series of books, such as the Bluford series.
Larry is technically not an avid reader, with two notable exceptions: the Bluford
series and mythology. Andrew echoed avid interest in the Bluford series but also
expanded his choices to realistic fiction that connected readily to his life experiences.
6
7
Finally, Clark was more similar to Andrew but also unique in the wide range of reading
to which he was open, especially when he wanted to explore other worlds or learn new
things. They all said they had become more frequent readers, since being incarcerated.
Dominator vs. Enforcer
All three participants continued to negotiate various types of positioning by using
non-verbal and verbal aggression towards peers to garner attention (Larry), calls for
politeness from peers or physical aggression towards Larry (Andrew), or dominating
discussions by the amount of on-topic input in each meeting (Clark). These expressions
are defined more clearly in the Findings on Issues of Power that further break down these
positions, as with the enforcer positions detailed next.
Often as a complement to positions of dominance, the three participants also
aligned themselves as diverse types of enforcers. This was seen in Larry’s enforced
expectations by calls for silence when his verbal and non-verbals aggressions were
ignored, in particular. However, Andrew and Clark also both positioned themselves as
enforcers as Andrew used the group norms as a vehicle to enforce behavior he wanted
displayed by group members and Clark addressed Larry’s disrespect of him by stating,
“You’re immature, man,” while referencing the superior maturity of his younger brother
compared to Larry, who is considerably older.
Lecturer vs. Silent Observer
Larry, towards peers, achieved through verbal and non-verbal threats; towards
facilitators, moving beyond “I don’t know.” Andrew—discussions of book interests,
written conversations, & enforcing norms—found his voice in these areas. Clark did so
7
8
by sharing large amounts of information and calling out Larry, as previously mentioned,
so there were definite overlaps in some of these positionings.
All participants engaged in an oft-repeated statement or preface of “I dunno/ I don’t
know,” which was usually followed by silence. Larry used silence when asked his
purpose for using the statement. Andrew designated his purpose as ignorance. Clark
designated his purpose as not wanting to have the wrong answer or not comprehending
the question.
Open Relator Vs. Guarded Relator
The voice surveys proved quite telling about how open or guarded each
participant was in valuing their own voice and sharing that voice with peers and adults. It
was also telling in who chose to answer the final question (Andrew and Clark) about why
they might say “I dunno/I don’t know”, as well as who chose to remain silent on that
issue (Larry). In some cases, their responses did not always align with the amount or type
of speaking in which they engaged during book club discussions, which is likely due to
the fact that they did not consider the context of book club when answering the survey
questions initially and possibly based their impressions largely extraneous to book club
settings.
Issues of Power
Issues of power were expressed in multiple ways: non-verbal gesture, silence,
“sidewalk conversations,” polite enforcement/compliance, physical posturing, defense
mechanisms, verbal challenges, and muttered insults or threats were all demonstrations of
power by our participants.
8
9
Larry often engaged in several nonverbal gestures as power plays by tapping on
his desk with his pencil at key points in time when he wished to direct the conversation or
draw attention to himself, as well as using that pencil to point at certain participants with
an “I’ve got my eye on you” message being implied. Additionally, he used calculating
smiles when his instructions to peers were not followed, as well as leaning back in his
teacher to completely disengage from group conversations that he did not want himself or
others to contribute to.
Silence was another form of power demonstrated. Within our transcripts and
observation notes, there were key places where students did not volunteer answers, not
from lack of knowledge but from lack of willingness to share that knowledge. This was
most evident when participants would begin discussing a private matter during a group
activity and realized facilitators were listening closely. Immediate silence would ensue,
though there were also instances where silence was used to cover a lack of knowledge
about the book or about a wider application as well.
“Sidewalk conversations” was a term coined by participants to describe the
private conversations that began in the early phases of our book club meetings. Altering
the seating arrangement to a circle and one in which facilitators sat on either side of each
participant helped decrease the occurrence of these private conversations that students
would begin in front of us and then silence once they knew they had an audience.
Transcripts revealed low-volume conversations that ran parallel to broader discussions.
Andrew most often used polite enforcement/compliance as one of his
empowerments. By reminding participants to comply with group norms and use their
manners, he was able to align himself with the facilitators’ expectations and exhibit some
9
10
authority over his peers. He was also the most avid creator of norms for the group,
making sure kindness was one of the requirements, and the other participants did their
best to copy his notes versus writing original norms.
Physical posturing was exhibited the least, since students spent all but a few
moments before and after book clubs seated in desks. However, the last week opened up
a graffiti activity where students were allowed to move around the circle of desks to write
their thoughts on a large piece of paper. Sidewalk conversations became an issue again
partway through this activity, and they quickly turned into heated debates to assert each
one’s authority over the others. Participants backed down when regular teacher warned
them of the consequences, but they were careful how and when they sat down in response
to the teacher’s command. A final instance of physical posturing occurred when the
meeting concluded, and Andrew quietly and slowly backed Larry against a wall, while
squeezing Larry’s hand painfully tight. Interventions from facilitators and staff occurred
before they had to be removed from the classroom.
Defense mechanisms could be ascribed to several of the above empowerments,
but one of the most pervasive was the repeated phrase of “I dunno/I don’t know” to avoid
volunteering unwanted information or to avoid having the wrong answer. This phrase
was repeated sometimes as an immediate reflex, and sometimes follow-up questions
would illicit a more detailed response. The best example was Larry’s night alone in the
book club. He volunteered a great deal of information through follow-up questioning
without his peers present. Other defense mechanisms included hiding faces with hands or
hiding heads in jackets, the silence already mentioned, as well as mumbled responses to
aggressive threats.
10
11
There were very few overt verbal challenges, but one included a rare verbal
confrontation from Clark towards his teacher. When his teacher asked him to stay on
target, he aggressively responded, “Don’t come over here, man.” The teacher calmly
replied with the same instruction, and Clark maintained power in the situation by backing
down verbally but telling his peers they would talk about it later in a confidential tone.
The final positioning of power involved muttered insults or threats among
participants. During one of the sidewalk conversations that turned less friendly, Larry is
heard saying in very low volume on the audio recording: “I’m coming in. I don’t
understand. I’ll cut you. I’m coming in . I’m gonna beat you up.” The broader
conversation continues at normal volume, since most of this was missed in the moment,
and after multiple replays, another muttered snippet from Larry: “Well, listen, when I
said I been with both your mommas, you think I lied [inaudible],” which is followed by
threats to be with his peers’ future daughters, too.
Social Justice
Conversations around social injustices were rich soil for conversations about
power, character outcomes, and racism experienced by participants. During a written
conversation about power, weakness, the most powerful character, and the weakest
character, participants revealed their definitions of power and ways they saw it portrayed
in the text. Definitions of power included: “when you have enough rank to teel or make
someone do something,” while definitions of weakness spoke to “giving up or quitting.”
The most powerful character, according to one participant was “Rob, because he makes
people do what he wants,” while the weakest character, according to another participant
was “Lance, because he got some challenge and didn’t try anymore.”
11
12
These initial conversations led to discussions of character outcomes later in the
book. Because of issues of power previously cited, we wondered how this conversation
had gone if Larry had not been alone this night, since he began by answering questions
with “I dunno,” but volunteered more answers when prompted and given extensive wait
time to answer. When asked, “Why do you think people hurt people? Why would, if it’s
true, that Rob want to manipulate Simon, why would that pay off?” – Larry answered,
“Some people hurt people cause they was hurt when they was young. Like, they want to
do it to somebody else. To not feel guilty about what’s going on in their life.”
Finally, during the final night of book clubs, students began a conversation that
did not deal directly with the book. They were honest that they had not finished the book
in time for the end of our book clubs for various reasons. We used the time instead to talk
about other matters. Following a conversation about whether the race of a character in a
book mattered, this led Clark to open up about his own encounters with racism and how
he had not allowed that to impact him negatively and make him a racist. Clark described
an incident in elementary school with a teacher that used racial slurs and threw a
Promethean board marker hard enough to damage his nose when he spoke against those
slurs being used. Clark explained how he took back some of the power by refusing to be
racist in the moment by adding slurs about white people or being racist in general
towards people now, even though he was suspended for the incident and the teacher was
still allowed to teach.
Third Spaces
Through their interactions with us as facilitators, participants entered into several
third spaces: defense mechanism, overcoming defense mechanisms, and visualizing
12
13
text/connecting it to their lives. When asked why they continued to come to book club
and interact with us, Andrew offered a simple, barely audible answer: “It feels like
freedom.” Later in the meeting, he volunteered at the same volume, “We miss y’all,
though.”
Their first third space was to craft defense mechanisms. The most common was
the one previously discussed: “I dunno/I don’t know.” Various reasons were provided for
using it, ranging from wanting to keep information private, to wanting to hide ignorance,
to a blank response to that question. Those it was the most common, the previous
mechanisms of hiding one’s face, remaining silent, and talking low were also employed
by all three participants.
What became heartening was seeing them overcome their defense mechanisms, at
least in part, by the end of our book clubs. Larry was able to find his voice when others
were not present. During one part of that Larry-only book club, he was able to follow his
initial “Yeah..No..I dunno..” with “What was the question again?” and “He know that,
knows that Rob is trying to make him popular, and he see that Rob knows how to
manipulate people. So he might try to get at him,” in response to our question of whether
Simon knows who he’s dealing with in Rob. Larry talked more in this space alone than
he had otherwise.
Clark was able to overcome his defense mechanisms as he found a visible place in
sharing his knowledge of our book club book and making connections between it and
other books or to his life. He was able to find a space where talking about books was
valued, visible, and safe within the space of book club, and even found ways of standing
13
14
up for himself when challenged by Larry’s verbal and non-verbal aggression, despite
being the youngest member.
Andrew found his voice and overcame his defense mechanisms more quietly than
the rest. Equating our book club with freedom and sharing that in an audible, though
barely audible tone, was a major step for Andrew, despite his positioning as compliant
and enforcer of norms. Being able to communicate that he would miss us in a similar tone
of voice was also a major step, even though he reverted to some old defense mechanisms
at the close of the meeting in response to Larry’s muttered threats earlier in the meeting.
Finally, they were able to create third spaces through visualizing and connecting
to text as previously mentioned, which was another way of overcoming defense
mechanisms as they interacted with us as facilitators. Participants shared that books were
escapes for them from their usual routines and everyday worlds. They also engaged in
discussions with us about what they would do in a character’s place. One such night
included a connection to Coop’s action of stepping in and taking the fall for the rest when
telling the full story could have delivered him from a jail sentence. Participants at first
agreed with Coop’s actions of taking the fall and keeping silent, but then when the full
consequences were revealed and the one truly responsible was never punished in the
slightest, it brought memories from their own lives to light and the situation they
currently faced. Clark commented, “You should have snitched,” to Andrew. To which
Andrew replied in agreement, “I should have snitched.”
Discussion and Implications
Negotiations of Power Can Be Pervasive
14
15
Book clubs in incarcerated spaces are multi-layered spaces of power. In a setting
where participants are denied many displays of power, book clubs can open up space for
power to be asserted and positioning to fluctuate and establish certain hierarchy as an
attempt to control the situation in a setting where most forms of power are covert outside
of the administration’s management of participants. While participants are invited as
fellow book discussants, there are still visible systems of power in the presence of regular
teachers, security guards in halls, and facilitators that are not part of participants’ peer
group. This leads to multiple negotiations of power throughout the book club cycle.
Limited Access to Choice Reading
Those participants are allowed to choose their choice books within a select range
of materials, they do not have the same freedom of choice as participants in book clubs
outside an incarcerated setting. Some choice are restricted by administration, due to
unique issues to incarcerated settings, but the choice is most limited by what is brought to
the students by facilitators outside of their daily educational experience. While care was
taken to insure that participants’ interests were honored in the books provided for their
selection, the limited range also contributed to negotiations of power and book club
discussions, since students are less likely to engage with a book that is not their number
one choice.
Literacy Instruction Needs Expanding
Particularly in Larry’s and partially in Andrew’s case, literacy instruction was
needed in larger doses than it was received with an hour-long group meeting that met
outside the constructs of the regular school day for participants and was conducted by
facilitators with limited knowledge of participants’ literacy skills and limited access to
15
16
working with students on a weekly basis. Due to the pervasive literacy needs of
incarcerated youth, book clubs present unique challenges to the incarcerated setting,
particularly when facilitated by outsiders, even when they are veteran teachers.
Verbal and Non-verbal Representations
All of the above contribute to verbal and non-verbal performance and
representations of the self by each participant that must be understand as types of
positioning and expressions of power that must be negotiated to carry them from spaces
of “I dunno” to “I would say…” Students are, at first, reacting to an uncomfortable space
for them within literacy first and experiencing such interactions in a group setting,
second. How facilitators move them into third spaces is key to moving them beyond
representation and into authentic sharing, which will always be somewhat limited, due to
multiple layers of power present in that space.
Recommendations
Literacy Educators in Incarcerated Settings
It is important to build on the textual lineages of incarcerated youth by meeting
them where they are with book choices that relate readily to their life, though they may
offer new points of view on outcomes. It is also important to create spaces for them to
reflect on the new possibilities that these differing outcomes propose that could also
influence their future lives. By building connections between personal identities and
academic identities, individual voices are honored and deeper transaction takes place
within the text. Literacy skills need to be taught either within the context of the book club
or within individual settings in preparation for book club meetings.
Literacy Researchers
16
17
Rich research should be conducted on the unique expression and impact in
incarcerated settings of both non-committal and non-verbal cues, the assertion of power
hidden behind non-committal phrases such as “I don’t know,” the use of verbal noncommittals and body language as a third space, and the continuance of conversations in
the dorm area. Though each of these can be treated separately, the nature of group
conversations that follow students into the remainder of their evening and week spent in
close proximity with fellow participants is of note, since it suggests at least a partial
symbiotic relationship between the suggested topics to be studied.
17