Group+One+Feb+27

Article One: (Melissa B. Christine, Amy, Melissa P., Meghan, Clarice, Sarah, Pam, Nicole)

**Marshall (2004) Discussion**
Marshall wrote this article to broaden the theories applied to gender issues, "especially girlhood" (p. 256), in children's literature (2004, p. 256). She added to existing literature " because liberal feminist frameworks for conceptualizing gender have been virtually unchallenged" (p. 256) and used a poststructural feminist approach to her analyses of versions of Little Red Riding Hood positing that this will "allow for an analysis in which gender and texts have no fixed meaning" (p. 256). Marshall argues that by looking at the main character through a poststructural feminist lens readers will see the societal factors that influence the reader's perception LRRH (2004, p. 259) as well as inviting "multiple interpretations of a particular text" (p. 259) - in this case, Little Red Riding Hood. "This article builds upon feminist projects that examine the diverse representations of 'the girl' in literature in the fields of education" (p. 256).
 * I. RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY**

Marshall stated that previous research from the 70s, 80s, and 90s found that female characters were underrepresented in award-winning children's literature, adding that this under-representation reinforced gender-bias. The content-analysis approach to the literature counted the number of characters, then defined images and activities according to sex roles as either stereotypical or atypical. This method in previous research produced predictable results with boys depicted as independent and active while girls remain passive and dependent (p. 259). She stated that even recent research with expanded categories still "builds on the notion that a causal relationship exists between reading and gendered identities" (p. 259). Additionally, Marshall asserts that historically, children's literature persuades young readers to accept "normative heterosexual femininity and masculinity" (p. 261).

Marshall never directly asks a research question, rather, she inferentially posited that children's literature has historically sought to define for children the gender roles of men and women. (So, this left me wondering, if she's offering another lens, what should we actually do with the resulting information?) She seems to set up the frame of causality between text/reading and gender identity (p. 259). She suggests that "the analysis of books in terms of active female characters, who fight dragons or go on atypical adventures, sustains a male/female duality" (p. 260). Her research review and brief history of children's literature does lead to her reason for conducting the study.

Marshall's research methods were unique in that she did not actually use any people in her research. Marshall labels it as a case study of Little Red Riding Hood. Her main method was a content analysis of four different versions of "Little Red Riding Hood." Through her analysis she looked at gender constructs and the portrayal of "Red" from the earliest oral re-tellings of the fairy tale to a 1983 Caldecott Honor picture book version of the tale. In most versions, Marshall found "Red" sexualized -- and all in versions, depicted in a way that reinforced gender stereotypes. This story-through-the-ages method was enlightening in that it showed that "Red's" persona had been altered somewhat (from jumping in bed naked with the wolf to promising to obey her mother), but still remained highly situated in a traditional feminine context. Marshall included illustrations from the 1983 book to support her findings. It appears that Marshall used purposive sampling to determine the articles that she included in her case study of LRRH. More details about this process would have been helpful. Perhaps she was biased and chose variants that only supported her interpretation.Neuendorf (2002) on page 32 of Duke and Mallette indicate that the sampling process should be clearly explained.
 * II. CRITIQUE OF RESEARCH METHODS**

Marshall uses four versions of Little Red Riding Hood and analyzes how the context in which they were written influences the message about sexuality in girls. She states that this case study illustrates how "analysis informed by feminist poststructural literary theory focuses ...on the shifting and often contradictory discourses of feminimity that attempt to school the girl into a (hetero)sexual body" (p. 262). She gives a summary of the texts and gives her interpretation of what the message is regarding girls and sexuality during the time it was written. She uses other sources, such as Rose (1984), Cahill (2000), and Walkerdine (1997) to support her ideas of the discourse of femininity. The article answers the six questions of Krippendorff in the Duke and Malllette text. Besides citing other sources to support her view, I did not notice any technique such as coding that would make the conclusions of the article more reliable. It was an interesting read but I sometimes had a differing interpretation of the text than the author (so did I) and she did not provide any reason for me to change my perceptions. [I found her interpretations somewhat laborious in spite of her warning that her partial reading was not indicative of "all possible interpretations" (p. 262).] Coding would have made her interpretations seem less subjective and make her findings seem more reliable and val id. Also, another coder for inter-rater reliability would have been beneficial.
 * III. CRITIQUE OF DATA ANALYSIS**

Marshall asserted that feminist theory informed by poststructuralism provides an additional lens through which gender roles in children's literature can be studied. She also contended that the postructural lens "allows literacy researchers to theorize gender as a contested and socially produced identity marker" (p. 268). She argued that the postructural approach searches for "gaps and contradictions in discursive representations" (p. 268). She offered that poststructural theory allows literacy researchers to view differences in gendered identities in light of global, local, and historical contexts.
 * IV. CRITIQUE OF DISCUSSION**

Implicit in the poststructural lens is the idea that not only do texts provide representations of gender roles, but they also are powerful tools in the socialization process. Although Marshall does not explicitly state where her research could go after this study, it seems to make sense for researchers to complete similar studies from the vantage points of groups other than 'white, Western, Middle class heterosexual femininities' (p. 268). Perhaps this study invites future researchers to examine literature from multiple viewpoints.

Marshall used multiple sources when she included the pictures from the text. This supported her case. This article was heavy on theory. I would have liked to have seen the effects of these texts on children in classrooms today explored. What is the child's interpretation from the child's perspective? [This would have been an interesting addition.] Perhaps this could have been included in an implications for further research section. The "so what" was interesting, but I the heavy literary theory aspect made for dense text. She states, "This article builds upon feminist projects that examine the diverse representations of 'the girl' in literature in the fields of education" (p. 256). I assume this means her purpose is to add information to the field.
 * V. ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS (QUESTIONS/CONFUSIONS??)**

I felt, perhaps, far too critical of her writing style; for example, she used "rather" as a transition 15 times and "in this way" 8 times. :-/

That the interpretation was apparently 'all over the place' could be an illustration of the 'wide open' nature of the poststructural literary theory approach to textual analysis...?