By Katana Liebelt
During the Fall 2020 semester, my Children’s and Adolescent Literature class conducted a cover study using books published by the Christian company Tommy Nelson. We looked at the covers to determine how well these books represent different ethnicities and ages. It was fascinating to study representation in Christian children’s literature, but it was even more interesting to discover that not all the covers represented their main characters. Consequently, determining these books’ quality of representation solely based on their covers was not always accurate. Therefore, I decided to conduct an in-depth cover study using the Caldecott medal winners from 2010 to 2019. I chose to study Caldecott winners for two reasons. First, to discover whether the covers represented the main characters, I needed access to the full texts. Second, Caldecott books are widespread throughout American schools and libraries (Koss et. al 5). This means most children would interact with these books. By choosing accessible books, I ensured that my study was thorough and representative.
Other studies on Caldecotts were challenging to find. Nevertheless, I found two. In 2018, Melanie D. Koss, Nancy J. Johnson, and Miriam Martinez published a study on the Caldecott winners and honors awarded from 1938 to 2017. Koss et al. coded—identifying and recording certain characteristics—for the racial or ethnic diversity of the books’ characters, authors, and illustrators (7). They discovered that most Caldecotts have white main characters, authors, and illustrators (9–11). They also discovered that some books featuring protagonists of color do not have authors or illustrators of that ethnicity (12). For instance, none of the Caldecotts featuring American Indian characters have American Indian authors or illustrators (Koss et. al 12). Koss et. al’s study provided a more thorough study on Caldecotts across time. By including the authors’ characteristics, their study connects author representation with character representation. These authors also published an earlier study in 2016. Headed by Martinez, these authors coded (or designated) the human main characters in the Caldecott winners and honors from 1990 to 2015 (Martinez et. al 19, 21, 24, 25). They code the characters’ culture, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, religion, and socioeconomic status (21–23). They also code the place and time periods the characters live in (22). Based on these categories, Martinez et. al determines how the Caldecott winners and honors function using Rudine Sims Bishop’s categories of mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors (24). Mirrors are books that allow children “to see reflections of themselves and their world” (19). Windows allow children to see into another person’s world (Sims Bishop). And sliding glass doors are books where children step into the different world and are thus affected by it (Martinez et. al 19). Martinez et. al discovered that Caldecotts are usually windows rather than mirrors for most children (24, 25). Both Koss et al.’s and Martinez et al.’s studies code for specific ethnicities or races, such as white, African American, and Asian American. Since Caldecotts are so popular, they should have a variety of ethnicities (Koss et. al 5, 6). Martinez et. al use Sims Bishop’s to explain that children need to see characters like themselves (25). While Martinez et al. make a valid point, children also need windows and sliding glass doors. By reading all three kinds of books, children can experience true diversity, which is variety (“Diversity”). Both studies provide thorough insights on representation, yet they only scratch the surface on this issue.
Therefore, based on these studies, I wanted to analyze the quality of representation in contemporary children’s literature. While Caldecotts do not represent all contemporary children’s literature, they do represent literature that children will most likely encounter. Unlike Martinez et al.’s and Koss et al.’s studies, my study only includes Caldecott winners. Additionally, the term “Caldecott” refers to the Caldecott winners from 2010 to 2019, and it consists of two studies that code the Caldecotts for representation. My first study, “Cover Study,” looks at the characters on the Caldecotts’ covers. I count how many characters appear on the cover based on their species (human, animal, or non-human,/non-animal); age (child or adult); gender (male or female); and ethnicity (white or non-white) if human. After reading the Caldecott winners, I also conducted a second study, called “Main Character Study,” that analyzes the main character or characters’ species, age group (e.g., child, child to adult [young adult], and adult), gender, and ethnicity. Lastly, I determined whether the covers represent the main character. Moreover, my “Main Character Study” accounted for two main characters if necessary, similar to a diversity study conducted by the Cooperative Children’s Book Center (CCBC) (Tyner). I distinguished the main characters by labeling them primary and other. The primary main characters were the ones the Caldecotts focused on. And the other main characters were ones that walked alongside the primary throughout the book.
Methods & Results
Cover Study
My cover study revealed insightful statistics about the characters on the Caldecott covers. Using the “SUM” function in Excel, I added up how many humans, animals, and non-humans, non-animals appeared on the covers and created a chart (Chart One). My first insight is that animals were the most common subjects. Altogether, the covers feature eight humans, nine animals, and three non-humans/non-animals. Using the “COUNTIF” function in Excel, I discovered that 70% (seven) of these Caldecott covers feature animals (Chart Two). Chart Two sometimes counts books more than once since their covers have both humans and animals. Often the animals in these books are illustrated semi-realistically, meaning they have little to no traditional gender markings. Consequently, I used the side flaps or previous knowledge of the books to figure out most characters’ genders. Chart Four showed that most covers had male characters.
Fortunately, coding the characters’ ages was relatively easier. Chart Three shows that most characters were adults. However, I struggled with determining the ages of characters in two books: This is Not My Hat by Jon Klassen and A Ball for Daisy by Chris Raschka. The cover of This is Not My Hat features a small fish swimming (Klassen). Since the fish is alone and the summary does not indicate that it is a child, I coded the fish as an adult. On the cover of A Ball for Daisy, Daisy appears to be a playful, small dog (Raschka). Since this book’s summary calls Daisy a dog instead of a puppy, I coded her as an adult. While coding their covers, I considered that animals’ sizes and personalities did not indicate their age. Overall, coding characters based on the covers is very limiting. Thus, one cannot merely use covers to determine their books’ quality of representation.
Main Character Study
My “Main Character Study” allowed me to study in-depth the characters’ representation since I could read the Caldecotts. For the “Main Character Study,” I created tables, coding the ten primary main characters and the three other main characters. As I stated earlier, some stories have more than one main character which the other main characters account for. Thus, chart 5-8 count both primary and other main characters. Over two-thirds (5) of the main characters are humans; almost half (6) are animals; and over a tenth (2) are non-human, non-animal (Chart Five). Out of all the human characters, 80% (4) appear white and 20% (1) are people of color (Chart Six); the only person of color is Jean-Michel Basquiat from Radiant Child by Javaka Steptoe, who is Haitian and Puerto Rican American.
Out of all the main characters, 25% (3) of them are children; 58% (7) of them are adults; and 17% (2) are child to adult (Chart Seven). In essence, “child to adult” means the main characters age throughout their book. Then, there is gender: of the main characters 54% (7) were male, 31% (4) were female; 7% (1) were not applicable; and 8% (1) were unknown (Chart Eight). I coded the train in Locomotive as not applicable (n/a) since it is an object, and the wolf pup’s gender in Wolf in the Snow as unknown. Wolf in the Snow is wordless and does not indicate the wolf pup’s gender through its illustrations or summary (Cordell). Thus, accessing the whole text allows me to more accurately code characters. Nevertheless, books will always have a few characters that readers cannot readily identify.
Almost all the main characters are represented by their covers, as shown by Chart Nine. Meanwhile, Chart 10 counts both primary and other main characters. Some Caldecott covers represent more than one main character. When I asked the question “does the cover represent the
Main character?”, I coded The Lion and the Mouse by Jerry Pinkney as “yes” and “no.” The lion (the other main character) is featured on the spread, but the mouse is the primary one. I coded the mouse as the primary main character, since the story is primarily told through her perspective. In short, coding for both studies required looking at nuances and guessing.
Discussion
While I conducted this study, some results surprised me. For example, several Caldecotts feature animals on their covers and as main characters. Seven of the covers have animals, and almost half (6) of all the main characters (including the other main characters) are animals (Chart Five). These Caldecotts were published around the time many people were calling out for diverse representation in literature (We Need Diverse Books 2014). Hence, I expected to see more human main characters, especially ones of color. However, I realized that the American Library Association (ALA) selected these books based on their artistic quality, not on how well they represented various races (Martinez et. al 20). After all, children’s books have more aspects than representation—perhaps the ALA chose books with animals because they resonated with the characters. Often, animal characters have human traits, making them relatable to readers regardless of age, race, or gender.
Additionally, I was also surprised about the main characters’ species. There were two non-human, non-animal main characters (Chart Five). I did not expect to see any non-human, non-animal characters because I assumed Caldecotts would choose books with human main characters. Locomotive by Brian Floca is the best example of this—based on the cover—I assumed Locomotive would be purely informational. I discovered that Locomotive is a descriptive narrative. It shows how trains operated and the itinerary of a train ride in the 1800s (Floca). When describing the train ride, Floca immerses the readers into a white family’s experience by narrating in second person. I chose not to consider the family main characters, since Floca focuses more on the train. Locomotive does not have a main character. However, I coded the train as one for statistical purposes. Therefore, the train is the only main character without age or gender. This explains why the totals in Charts Seven and Eight only add up to 12, instead of 13. The Adventures of Beekle: The Unimaginary Friend by Dan Santat also features a non-human/non-animal main character: Beekle. Beekle is an imaginary friend who resembles neither a human nor an animal (Santat). Unlike Locomotive, The Adventures of Beekle is a traditional narrative which made coding more straightforward. By using non-human, non-animal characters, Caldecotts display how picture books can make any character come alive.
Lastly, I was surprised by the illustration statistics. Only illustrations were used in 30% (3) of the Caldecotts. And 80% (8) of the Caldecotts had the same author and illustrator. These statistics surprised me for different reasons. Picture books typically use both words and drawings. And publishing houses typically choose artists to illustrate picture books for an author’s story (Nofziger). Of course, given that Caldecotts are chosen for artistic merit, illustration-only books would naturally be more common among Caldecotts (Koss et. al 5). Nevertheless, these surprises neither hindered my study nor removed my enjoyment of the books. Instead, they confirmed why one should never judge a book by its cover (literally and figuratively): my first impressions about the books and the Caldecott award system were wrong.
Conclusion
Based on my studies, the Caldecotts mostly represent animals on their covers. Humans are the next most common species for main characters. Among the humans, most main characters are white. There is only one character of color: Jean-Michel Basquiat in Radiant Child: The Story of the Young Artist Jean-Michel Basquiat by Javaka Steptoe. From 2010 to 2013, the Caldecott covers featured only adults. From 2015 to 2019, they continued to represent mostly adults. Additionally, 58% of all main characters are adults. Most of the characters on the covers and within the main characters are male. According to Sims Bishop’s categories, the majority of these Caldecotts function as windows for most children. In essence, the Caldecotts from 2010 to 2019 do not represent diverse species, ages, ethnicities, and genders. Nevertheless, all these Caldecotts, except one, represent their primary and other main character.
This study created questions worth exploring in future studies: How well does popular, contemporary children’s literature represent all ethnicities? Do these children’s book covers accurately represent their main characters? Does representation involve external traits, or should it involve characters’ internal traits such as kindness, naivety, curiosity, and obedience? To establish definitions, scholars should ask the same questions I asked during my Main Character Study: What is a main character? What indicates age in children’s books? Can a character’s size or behavior determine this? How do you code books without a main character? While studies offer knowledge, they also encourage people to excavate more knowledge.
Ultimately, diverse representation is important, especially in books that are widespread. Although the Caldecotts from 2010 to 2019 only represent some backgrounds, they are still important for children. Sims Bishop explains that children’s literature needs to represent both the majority and minorities. Children need to see themselves and learn about others in their book collections. As I stated earlier, diversity is variety (Merriam-Webster 2012). So these Caldecott winners do contribute to some diversity—but if children truly want to see themselves represented, they will need to look beyond Caldecotts.
Book covers are also essential to representation in children’s literature. They often entice or discourage children from reading their books. If the book covers represent the main characters, children will more likely form accurate literary expectations. As cliché as this may sound, diverse representation needs to start on the cover. Using the results from this study and concluding questions, researchers can break new ground in children’s literature by studying representation, book covers, and main characters.
Works Cited
Cordell, Matthew. Wolf in the Snow. Feiwel and Friends, 2017.
Floca, Brian. Locomotive. Atheneum Books for Young Readers, 2013.
“Diversity.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/diversity. Accessed 2 Nov. 2022.Klassen, Jon. This is Not My Hat.
Candlewick Press, 2012.
Koss, Melanie D., et al. “Mapping the Diversity in Caldecott Books From 1938 to 2017: The
Changing Topography” Journal of Children’s Literature, vol. 44, no. 1, Children’s Literature
Assembly, 2018, pp. 4-20. EBSCOhost, eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?
vid=1&sid=1c20bf12-0a2a-4b24-9c27-2871b2e52809%40sessionmgr101.
Martinez, Miriam, et al. “Meeting Characters in Caldecotts: What Does This Mean for Today’s
Readers?” The Reading Teacher, vol. 70, no. 1, Wiley-Blackwell, July/August 2016, pp. 19-
28. EBSCOhost, eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=7ddf930b-d4d9-
480f-87c5-db99448ef8d9%40pdc-v-sessmgr01.
Nofziger, Lenae. “Making a Picture Book.” Children’s and Adolescent’s Literature ENGL 3143. 5
Sep. 2020, Northwest University, Kirkland, WA. Class lecture.
Pinkney, Jerry, illustrator. The Lion & the Mouse. By Aesop, Little, Brown and Company, 2009.
Raschka, Chris, illustrator. A Ball for Daisy. Schwartz & Wade Books. 2011.
Santat, Dan. The Adventures of Beekle the Unimaginary Friend. Little, Brown and Company, 2014.
Sims Bishop, Rudine. “Mirrors, Windows, and Sliding Glass Doors.” YouTube, uploaded by Reading
Rockets, 30 Jan. 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AAu58SNSyc.
Steptoe, Javaka. Radiant Child the Story of Young Artist Jean-Michel Basquiat. Little, Brown and
Company, 2016.
Tyner, Madeline. “The Numbers Are In: 2019 CCBC Diversity Statistics.” CCBlogC, 16 June 2020,
ccblogc.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-numbers-are-in-2019-ccbc-
diversity.html#:~:text=Each%20spring%2C%20the%20CCBC%20releases,
of%20the%20COVID%2D19%20pandemic.
“We Need Diverse Books Campaign Video.” YouTube, uploaded by We Need Diverse Books, 27
October 2014, youtube/mrrh0G-OkBw