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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Why is my gut saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"
Several issues about the switch from Dewey Decimal to a new system do not sit well with me.
First, DDC is a universal system. Your average reader can go into most public libraries and be able to find information in the same place it would be located in any other library utilizing DDC. Granted, not ALL libraries use DDC, but if we're looking at public libraries such as the one in the article, then they're probably using DDC. DDC has in fact been updated and expanded throughout the years. No system is perfect; all any of them can do is adapt to changing needs. If they can adapt, then why spend the money to completely revamp a system? It seems to me that money spent on this venture could be put to better use on other things, such as expanding collections and services.
Second, I keep thinking about regional terms for things. For example, in Michigan, carbonated beverages are called "pop." Many other areas of the country call it other things. How about restrooms and toilets? There are also called different things in different areas of the country. How are libraries going to deal with these issues in the new system? It seems to me that a system such as the one described has the potential to be problematic to users not from the area. I realize that a library should be designed to be most helpful to its own constituents, but what about visitors from out of the area or those who are relocated from one place to the next? Maybe I'm just old-fashioned (I do have a thing for actual card catalogs!), but I find it comforting to know that I can go from place to place knowing that things will be located/classified in the same way in each of those places.
I'm all for progress and think change is good, but I really don't see the value in changing a system that works just as well as any other.
When I first saw what this blog was about I immediately said “Nope. Not a good idea” in my head. But as I read it, I slowly changed my mind. From what I gathered the system would kind of be like the book classification system that is in the nearest Border’s Books or Barnes and Noble. And I really like how they classify their stacks. In the “Study Guide” section every different kind of study guide is available in that concentrated section and there is no need to go searching in other parts of the store. On the other hand, I really like to be able to go find the kind of book I want just by knowing the number. I do not have to waste time searching for the correct section but instead just find the number. The Dewey is a nice universal classification system and really makes the researchers’ world easier. The main problem I see with Rangeview’s transformation is that it is not universal. If every library did this- there would be so many different categories that it would be obscene. No one will be able to just know the number of the book they want and go get it. They will have to look throughout the entire library to find the section and then find the book. I like to think of this in comparison to the firefighters of years ago. Each city had their own threading system for the hoses- so when a fire broke out in another city and the firefighters from the next town over came to help- they couldn’t for the simple fact that their hoses did not fit. The librarian’s knowledge of the library system and classification systems will not be of any help to any other library. I think we need more cooperation and networking between libraries (as well as other things) and are saddened that by being innovative the Rangeview Library is only making itself more isolated than it already is.
I tend to agree with Beth, Monica and Leanna in their questioning of the changeover, both for economic reasons and in being concerned about the real benefits of the changeover. I am familiar with many libraries that do not use LOC or DDC (which system is used in Australia?) Each system, whether the DDC or BISAC or another, has a specific vocabulary associated with it that users need to know. If the Rangeview Library District had presented the switchover as necessary because it is assumed or proven that their library users are more adept in the "industry" search terms or key words, I would be more open to the idea that the district is providing "exemplary service" to its users. This was not mentioned in the article, perhaps it is already an accepted notion that library users would be better versed in industry vocabulary than DDC subject headings. I would completely disagree with an assumption like that. I don't think switching systems is going to pull a community into a library, it may be a start, but it seems like an awful big undertaking for a smaller district to take on almost in isolation, and without providing a context or larger picture for their audience.
My other question is if the RLD is implementing a new system in subject headings, will it also implement some of the other features offered by companies like Amazon, for example book ratings, recommendations, etc.? Or become more like B&N, complete with a café to entice a community to visit? Which, by the way, I think libraries could start doing anyway. I don’t think they need to change the cataloging system, though.
I know the Rangeview library district sees itself as a very progressive one - they call their front desk staff 'Wrangler' and 'Concierge' instead of library clerk, for example. I'm not sure how I feel about that. They also have a tall list of requirements for their staff; they practically demand that you assault each patron with your undivided attention as they come through the door, and if they resist, counsel them out of it. Judging by these customer-focussed trends, I think somebody must have done their market research and then 'sold' the results to libraries. I say this because it seems to be an industry-wide trend for public libraries - last week I heard that even our local public library is going to undergo this change. When it has reached us out here in western Nebraska, it has to be a fairly sweeping change. And some of the RLD libraries are in the middle of nowhere on the high plains, in smaller towns than the one where I live.
I know that some patrons are going to absolutely love this system. People who read Christian fiction, for instance, will be able to find everything they need by subject instead of physically apart, under author. I can see the time-saving, auto-suggestive factor being very appealing, because I do notice that fiction readers tend to group by subjects - some people only read mysteries, some only romances. So the book arrangement in a library will be reflecting the patrons needs.
Foreseeable problems with the practice include the homogenization of subjects people's interests. My understanding of the subjects is based on the bookstore plan - not just Barnes and Noble, but also the small grungy secondhand bookstores, which seem to have a very limited number of subject headings. Consider how diverse fiction is - for example, there are cookbook mysteries, cat mysteries, and renovation mysteries just to name a few. In this part of the world, Westerns take up a great deal of the floor plan - I wonder how useful a 'Western' subject heading would really be?
(....continued. I reached my word limit)
I'm not really worried about the Dewey; academic libraries will probably continue to use it - they clearly need it (306.089915, for example, is a very specific designation), and public library non-fiction collections may not be big enough to warrant using it. The application of the Dewey is certainly not infallible. Some libraries have a cataloging policy or standard, where they will only use Dewey to two decimal points, which, if they have a lot of books on the same subject, is not particularly useful. The small spine labels with tiny print are certainly not very patron friendly and most of the patrons I know have a hard time with the DDS. But the Dewey is not some absolute taxonomic authority - it is a useful arbitrary classifier,and in my view, grouping non-fiction by subject headings will not essentially change the layout of the books, but might make them more approachable for browsing. Most people look up a subject on the system, then head off to find their book. This change might make them actually peruse the already underutilized non-fiction section, if they can clearly see their favorite subjects demarcated.
So I do think it depends on your user needs. For smaller public libraries, it's probably not a bad idea. What irks me is the pandering to some economic model or commercial practices - trying to makeover a library into a bookstore. Good luck trying to get help finding something at Barnes and Noble - these are not the standards we should be aiming for. I will go to a Barnes and Noble for the smell of new books;- I'm human, like everybody else, but the lines (I'm talking about the one near WSU...ugh) and the crowds (feels like you're always in someone's way) really don't speak of a comfortable, book browsing atmosphere. Besides, a library is still one place where you can legitimately feel like you can take up a bit of the librarian's time chatting about your interests. This type of interaction in the modern world (outside of nosy, small town checkout operators) is rare.
The cost of a changeover is a legitimate concern - and is likely to be significant, for a small library, at least from the cataloger's perspective. But arguments can be made that there is not much point buying more books when the current collection is so underutilized, at least for non-fiction. As Jen has pointed out, there must be some established benefit to this change, if it is to be useful. I look forward to reading the follow up analyses of this new practice.
I agree that this seems like a very large undertaking for something that may not be necessary. I'm sure at every library there is a limited amount of funds--is this really the best, most efficient way to spend those funds? What is the ultimate goal and is this tactic going to bring the library closer to that goal?
If the goal is to get people into the library who have not been to the library before, chances are that this reorganization is not going to make a difference to them. I think for someone who is unfamiliar with the library, they wouldn't know the difference between DDC and WorldThink; and furthermore, a non-regular who is coming to the library looking for something specific will still need to look in the card catalog. They will not know the DDC numbers.
In either system it sounds like the patron is taken to a selection of books surrounding a certain topic. For a non-library user, I think there are other reasons that patrons will or will not come back to the library other than how the collection is organized. Don't get me wrong, having a well organized collection is very important, but I think what I'm getting at is that for people outside of the library world, this reorganization probably won't make much difference.
I tend to agree with the folks who are questioning the logic of changing over to a new system when the current one is sufficient. Perhaps the funds utilized to do the switch would be better used to make amendments to the current system AND purchase new materials or hire staff. While larger libraries may not have such strict budgetary constraints as smaller ones, I would think that now is not the time to invest in a wholesale system change. The article didn't convince me that there was any real need to do so.
I also question the system itself. As Monica said, DDC is a universal system. With the new one, what types of checks and balances have been put into place to ensure the cataloging is done properly? With human interaction in any type of records management, the system is only as good as those determining where the records should be filed. From my records management experience, I know that if you handed me a stack of files and someone else the same stack of files, you wouldn't necessarily end of up with the exact same classifications. Just food for thought that perhaps additional intensive training would be necessary for the catalogers.
Another thing I wondered about was, if the system changes aren't being implemented throughout the state, how will ILL be affected? Will it be at all, or will having two systems cause any grief along the line?
For me, it all goes back to the idea that there was nothing really wrong with the original system. From my perspective, there is no need for this system from a financial or logical standpoint.
My first thought was "new math" and the metric system, which is why we have liters of Coke and gallons of milk. These new plans just often don't fly, because it is too hard to change people's ingrained habits.
I agree with Leanna when she says the main problem would be that the new system is not universal. I can currently look at any book on a topic I am interested in and find the section where similar books are located. If they differ, it will make it that much more difficult. One thing I do run into in my library is that teachers want books sorted by reading levels, which Dewey Decimal does not address. We are in the process of solving that by placing colored stickers on the books. Red will be level 1, etc. But this system does not replace the other.
Kazi mentioned Barnes & Noble and I guess I am lucky but the two I visited recently had VERY attentive staff -- they approached me in a very friendly and non-invasive way, I didn't wait in line more than a minute, and it was a very pleasant experience, even if I didn't have time to stop in the cafe. And the reference desk is placed right smack in the middle of the main traffic lane and I have never seen fewer than two employees working it.
But, I digress. Again it comes down to customer service, don't you think? And if this system is working for B&N, why not copy some of its aspects that work?
Back to the article, I also agree with almost everyone that it seems expensive and unnecessary. But, as I've heard someone wise say, if you try something and it doesn't work, then you have successfully eliminated a plan that doesn't work and are now one down in finding the plan that does work!
I agree with most of you in thinking that this new system might not be a fantastic idea. My biggest issue with this change is the cost. I suppose if the library that is changing their system is doing it, they must be able to afford it, but in general, I think it's a huge undertaking and there must be more important things the library could spend its funding on.
While I think that at times, the DDC can be confusing, I think it's a good system. I'm used to it, and it is universal, so all library patrons can find someone in the library who knows how to help them if they are confused. Finding help with the new system would be more difficult. Like Monica said, sometimes people refer to things differently, like 'pop' and 'soda.' Also, what if I wanted to find a mystery that also had a relationship story line. Would it be under mystery or romance? I may not classify a book under the same subject as others might.The DDC is straigt forward, with no room for differences in opinion.
I suppose I'll stick with the theory, that if it isn't broke, don't fix it!
After reading the article and reading everyone’s posts so far, I have to agree that the change to this new system does not seem like the greatest idea. I agree with Betsy that the cost just seems too high especially when our national economy is so poor. This decision to spend so much money on a new classification does not seem like a wise use of tax payer money. I think it is interesting too because we just discussed earlier this month how libraries were providing computer labs and Internet access to so many people and were in need of funds for that. Is a new classification system really going to help our patrons/customers that much?
Although I am not a proponent of eliminating Dewey Decimal can understand wanting to make changes to an old system to better fit the times. However, I don't understand the rationale for taking the BISAC system and modifying it. It seems to me that if a revised cataloging system is going to be implemented that it either needs to be able to work with the DDC so that patrons are not utterly confused or the majority of libraries need to make the same changes.
After reading the article and everyone's comments we all pretty much seem to be on the same page. It doesn't appear that the RDL took any other libraries other than themselves into consideration before switching to the WordThink system. As Lynn mentioned how will ILL loans work? Why should patrons need to know both systems if they want to locate a book at a different library? I'm curious to know how much thought was actually put into this decision before the change was made.
Post a Comment