Literature review identifies 17 transactional metaphors in children's and YA literature, suggesting critical implications for educators and librarians.
Purpose The purpose of this study is to provide description and synthesis of 17 transactional metaphors of inclusive representation for children’s and young adult (YA) literature. These literary transactional metaphors evolved from Sims Bishop’s (1990) foundational metaphor of literature as windows, mirrors and sliding glass doors. The subsequent metaphors were created in the past 11 years, indicating a recent momentum and interest in the usefulness of metaphors to describe inclusive representations in literature. Design/methodology/approach This scholarly literature review examined existing publications on transactional metaphors for children’s and YA literature that evolved from Sims Bishop’s (1990) work. The authors created a synthesis that considers how the metaphors can be used by educators and librarians for guiding critical dialogues with literature. Findings To describe the kinds of transactions that readers might experience, the authors identified three metaphor categories: critical metaphors that explore power dynamics, decolonial metaphors that challenge colonial narratives and work toward sovereignty, and speculative metaphors that imagine possible, liberatory futures. Practical implications For each metaphor category, the authors provide discussion questions to guide readers in critically analyzing inclusive representations in texts. These questions support educators and librarians in enacting critical, decolonial, and speculative readings of children’s and YA literature with youth. Originality/value The authors, like many children’s and YA literature scholars and teacher educators, have used Sims Bishop’s (1990) windows, mirrors and doors metaphors for years, but the authors have not found a compilation of subsequent metaphors in one article. This synthesis collects the existing metaphors and presents original conclusions and applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Murillo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: