Doing Away with Dewy Decimal

The Dewey Decimal System has been a staple, if not a tradition, in the operation of most libraries for decades. Now, as the definition of what a library represents are changing, so are the ways in which librarians are choosing to structure the organization of materials. The Rangeview Library District, in Adams County, Colorado, is an example of this change, as shown in the Library Journal's article, Rangeview Library System, CO, First System to Fully Drop Dewey. As the title suggests, this will be the first library system in the country to eliminate use of the Dewey Decimal System in favor of its own orginizational system called WordThink, which uses Book Industry Services and Communications, or BISAC, subject headings to categorize materials based on general topics, such as history, computers, or fiction, then sorts materials alphabetically by title.

Though the standards of WordThink appear to boast greater convenience by making browsing by subject and title easier for patrons, the Dewey Decimal system employs a universal standard for organization that is not necessarily offered in WordThink. This BISAC-based classification system gives more room for individual interpretation, which may not always be a good thing. Take, for example, the Rangeview Library District versus another Colorado library system, mentioned in the article. Each system adheres to BISAC's categories, but Maricopa does so more strictly, while Rangeview combines certain, similar categories, such as parenting and child rearing, into a single category. Slight changes such as these suggest that there are no general restrictions on classifications, leading to possible inconsistencies in material placement from library to library. This could be potentially confusing to library patrons who go in search of a specific title that their local library does not house, but are unable to find it at another library because it implements an entirely different system to organize its materials.

Another point to consider is the economic implications of the process of changing books from one system to another. The article states that the Rangeview District collection development team "has been working for months to change the records." For libraries with limited financial means, hiring extra staff for several months to make such huge changes may not be within the realm of financial possibility.

While Pam Sandlian Smith, the Rangeview District director, states, "WordThink is just one more example of how Rangeview puts its customers first," the question of whether or not a complete overhaul of an existing classification system is completely necessary to facilitate the needs of library patrons. The Dewey Decimal system has been successfully employed for many years, so why change it now when there is not much call to do so? Outside of convenience, what are the other benefits? With the suggestions that other libraries nationwide are considering the use of BISAC-based organization systems, these are questions that librarians will need to ask themselves.

Core Competencies for ALA-Accredited LIS Programs

As MLIS students we have either asked ourselves or been asked by others why do you need a Masters degree to become a librarian? At first we may not have known the answer to this question but as we continue with our courses the need for an additional degree becomes blatantly clear. Although not everyone in the field of library and information science can agree upon what competencies graduates of LIS programs should have as evident in the Library Journal’s article Task Force’s Recommendations for LIS Accreditation Criticized written by Norman Oder.

The ALA put together a task force for library education to guarantee that LIS programs produced competent and capable graduates who understand the core values of the profession. The task force was asked to produce a report of their final recommendations to ensure that all ALA-accredited LIS programs had the same standards for a ‘core curriculum.’ Once the final report was released the critics of the recommendations emerged.

This article ties into our upcoming readings and discussions on professionalism. I do believe there is a need for some form of standardization for LIS programs but also agree with some of the task force’s critics from the article. I am not sure that a ‘core curriculum’ across the board will work. The deans of iSchools made some good points as to why a ‘core curriculum’ would not work. They stated that we are currently experiencing rapid changes and that LIS students are too diverse to be bound to stagnate standards. Therefore the curriculum must remain flexible to remain updated. It is feared that a set ‘core curriculum’ will not remain relevant over the years and become outdated.

Conversely, it would be nice to graduate knowing that my fellow colleagues with MLIS degrees have the same base knowledge as myself when entering the field. I think either adding to or revising the current ALA Standards for Accreditation of Master's Programs in Library & Information Studies would aide in the professionalism of the field from the beginning of a librarian’s career.

Where's the Love?

Where’s the Love?

http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6657608.html

President Obama Freezes School Library Funding in 2010

By Debra Lau Whelan -- School Library Journal, 5/12/2009

Should we fight for more money for the public libraries of this nation? According to this article, the “Improving Literacy Through School Libraries” program funding levels have remained unchanged since 2008. President elect Obama had promised to reward federal programs that succeed. Is keeping funding at the same level a reward? As a current employee of a public school, I daily see time and resources used ineffectively and wastefully as teachers struggle to balance the actual educational needs of their students with the seemingly arbitrary and sometimes conflicting federal standards of the “No Child Left Behind” act. Certainly a well-intentioned act, but as the saying goes the road to not such a pleasant place is paved with them.

What should we do to attain the promised levels of $250 million in 2001 that have never been reached? The 2008 level was $19.1 million.

Should we march on Washington and demand our fair share? In this current economy many would argue that is a futile idea. But is it? Libraries are already inundated with requests from the unemployed for help in their job searches. Youth are hanging out on our porches more frequently with the cancellations of summer schools and programs they used to rely on for downtime education, entertainment, and enlightenment. The under-employed have more time on their hands to take courses. Surely we can use more resources to find resources for them, teach classes on how to find financial aid, how to research colleges and training programs. People need answers, and our public libraries are the places that the populace already knows to go to for answers. Our librarians are trained and ready to assist, sadly they are hampered by shorter hours, budget freezes, and hiring freezes. If we are to get this economy moving again, we need jobs. What better place to throw stimulus funds into than the public library which uses resources far more effectively and to a wider audience at a lower cost than any historical institution.

We have until the end of July, when Congress supposedly will finish up the budget and take their August recess.

Korean National Digital Library

There are exciting things happening in Korean libraries. In The Korea Times article, “Library Going Digital,” B. Ji-sook reports on the opening, the first of its kind in terms of physical space and scope, of the National Digital Library in southern Seoul. Ji-sook writes that this library, with its 380,000 digital books, 116 million pieces of digital content, 626 computers, and 8-story building, “complements” the National Library. I might argue that this is an understatement. In any case, this digital library offers the opportunity for people to come in and access the digital materials, either on one of the library computers, or by accessing the library website on personal or rental computers. The National Digital Library is able to cater to both national and international visitors, and also provides accommodation for disabled people. I think one of the more impressive features of the NDL is found in its collaboration with national, public and academic libraries in Korea and abroad in creating “a huge database.”

In theory I cannot find fault in with the NDL; in reality there are a few concerns that were not addressed in the article, which I think are important, including the general purpose of the NDL (beyond opening "[...]eyes to the world of books" (Mo Chul-min, NDL director)). Granted, this article is for a more general audience and promoting the library to a foreign audience, but I am still full of questions! Chul-min readily admits to a couple of the challenges he feels face the library: copyright issues and e-book competition. I am interested in the library’s philosophy. Obviously, in many cases, it sounds like the NDL offers alot of information and fabulous access. This library will benefit countless people; I can think of a 10 reasons why I would love to use the NDL purely for academic research. Also, the fact that they store important “historical” websites, for example, will make the NDL a valuable library in the future. The questions I have revolve around what is being collected, and more importantly, to what purpose. According the Chul-min, the NDL ‘dibrary’ collects information online that “… will be assessed according to several standards: whether the information can benefit many people; whether it is necessary; and whether it (is)worth saving for a long time.” Again, in theory, this sounds like a reassuring answer.

I am concerned that a digital library of this magnitude, at the national level, is setting an example for other digital collections regarding what information/knowledge is worthwhile. If knowledge equals power, who decides what is beneficial from online sources? Who has the power to choose what is necessary and valuable? I realize that limits must be drawn somewhere, and perhaps the answer is simpler than I expect and can be found in the general collection policies governing a library. I fear, however, that these policies may not have been created with the digital information explosion in mind and may not properly accommodate the massive amounts of information available online. I accept that a national digital library will represent a “national” bias if it has the resources to collect a large amount of information for storage and people are able to access it, but it is disquieting to imagine what is being left out of this collection.