Search results

This chapter examines two 21st-century Disney fairy tale adaptations, Frozen (2013) and its sequel Frozen II (2019), focussing on the representation of male characters and the discourse on masculinity that can be inferred from both films.

Despite featuring two prominent female protagonists – Queen Elsa and Princess Anna – and dealing with themes such as sisterhood and female bonding, a close reading of the two films reveals that they are as much about masculinity as they are about femininity. For instance, filmmakers introduce heterosexual romance where there was none before, as well as male characters Prince Hans and Kristoff, who are not present in the literary source that they draw from, Hans Christian Andersen's ‘The Snow Queen’ (1844).

Furthermore, these male characters are given names, personalities, and motivations, which cannot be said of previous Disney fairy tale Prince Charming-type figures. Therefore, Hans and Kristoff are proposed to be variations of this archetype and can be read as an attempt on Disney's part to complicate it, undermine the patriarchal masculinity that it stood for in its previous Disney renderings, and propose alternative models for the implied 21st-century audience.

Although Prince Hans is initially presented as a stereotypical Disney fairy tale prince, he is eventually revealed to be a narcissistic lover and a patriarchal villain. Kristoff, by contrast, is the humble, lower-class, sensitive ‘new’ man who is presented as a socially acceptable alternative and finally takes Prince Charming's place by becoming the princess's love interest and partner. Frozen can be read as a cautionary tale that urges young women to choose their romantic (male) partners wisely and warns both male and female audiences against the dangers of fragile patriarchal masculinity.

This analysis of chat reference transcripts assesses differences in how librarians and graduate assistants (GAs) incorporate teaching strategies in responding to chat reference inquiries in social sciences, health sciences, humanities, STEM and business/economics at a large, public R1 university in the United States.

Researchers with disciplinary assignments in five different subject domains conducted qualitative analysis of a purposive sample of 982 transcripts of chat interactions during four semesters in 2021 and 2022.

Some form of information literacy instruction (ILI) occurred in 58% of the transcripts, with slightly less teaching occurring in social sciences inquiries than in other subject areas. Of transcripts that included teaching strategies, search procedures predominated, followed by a mix of concepts and procedures, and the least with concepts only. Chat providers taught concepts specific to social sciences, health sciences and humanities, but not to STEM or business.

The study compares transcripts at one institution; findings may be most applicable to large, research institutions that seek to incorporate ILI in online reference services.

Chat reference training should include best practices for ILI relevant to specific subject domains for providers without background in those disciplines and recommendations for referrals to subject specialists.

Existing ILI literature does not address the question of how chat providers teach concepts rooted in a specific subject domain or offer a comparison of teaching strategies employed in different disciplines, by librarians versus GAs or staff.