Came across this article today via Library Stuff. The basic gist is that this library in AZ or someplace is not going to use the Dewey Decimal system for shelving, going instead for a more “bookstore like” approach of shelving things “by topic.”
Hold on just a sec… isn’t that exactly what Dewey does?
Yet librarians are in an uproar.
Let’s make a couple of assumptions here, just for argument’s sake:
- Let’s assume that the Gilbert Library has some kind of online catalog that will help folks track down the section where the desired materials are shelved…. even if the materials cover multiple topics.
- Let’s assume that the Gilbert Library will continue to empoly a knowledgeable and well trained staff who will be available during business hours to help user locate the materials they are looking for.
- Let’s assume that the Gilbert Library will continue to employ dedicated staff members who will maintain the chosen shelving arrangement to the best of their ability.
- Let’s assume that many public library patrons do not know the Dewey Decimal system by heart… and are not about to learn it just so they can find a couple of measly books.
- Let’s assume that many public library patrons, while they may not know what “915.204″ means, they may have a pretty good idea of what “Travel” means.
- Let’s assume that “topics” the materials are going to be shelved by in this new system may possibly closely resemble the topic categories they would have been arranged by under Dewey… since that’s what Dewey is supposed to do anyway.
Given all of these assumptions, I just don’t see what the big deal is. Really. The patrons will still be able to find the materials, I’m sure of it. And maybe they won’t feel alienated by some archaic, alien numerical classification system that involves a million ugly, peeling stickers all over the books. Maybe some of the staff will feel more comfortable with it too, when they find that they don’t have to wrack their brains all the time to track stuff down based on a number that’s about 10,000 digits long.
One comment I saw out there in blogland (I forgot where or I’d link!) mentioned that this “dumbs down” out patrons. I heartily disagree. I can’t see how giving people easier, more comfortable access to information resources has anything to do with “dumbing down.” Sure, we have to give up on our dream of making our patrons “mini librarians,” but I’m all for that. Instead of trying to make our patrons fit the services we provide, this is an example of trying to make the services we provide fit the patrons we serve.
Bookstores are far from perfect, but we have to remember that we are dealing with a public that has a certain level of expectations when it comes to dealing with a retail outlet (which is exactly what a public library is, like it or not!). We don’t have to fit each one of those expectations, but if it brings what we have to offer into the user’s comfort zone a little more, then why not? All I see that doing is increasing access and use in the long run.
If, for some places like the Gilbert Library, that means letting go of old Dewey, then so be it.
Tags: deweyView blog reactions
Entries (RSS)
May 30th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
[…] Clasper shares some of her thoughts on the topic of the day. Posted in Uncategorized | Trackback | del.icio.us | Top Of […]
May 31st, 2007 at 8:31 am
Emily, I totally agree with what you have said, and in particular
“trying to make the services we provide fit the patrons we serve”
Isn’t that what we are here for? The patrons?
And how often do we see the utter look of frustration and incomprehension on their faces when we try to explain how we shelve our books….
Well done, a excellent post!
May 31st, 2007 at 8:42 am
Updated (sorry!):
It seems to me that the purpose of all libraries, in one sense or another, is to comprehensively take account of, organize, and make accessible knowledge of the world for the world, thereby educating the user (through all these steps) – and doing so in a timely manner.
As cataloger David Bade has said, “teaching and learning, especially in the liberal arts, are ‘liberal’ in the extreme. Teaching and learning are about taking time, giving time, spending money, sharing freely, giving, exploration and the valuation and celebration of differences and the unique.”
I think the Dewey system, though imperfect, exemplifies this.
Do you think that public libraries are giving up some of their educational role in doing this, and if not, why not?
May 31st, 2007 at 9:04 am
I think that more than reorganising without using Dewey, libraries would gain more from just rethinking shelves. Of course, there’s the space issue. But what i like about book stores is that you can actually see books, instead of just the spine. Keep Dewey, but get a different type of shelves, that allow at least some of the books to show their cover. Of course, getting rid of the tall shelves would take away the feeling of ‘ivory tower of knowledge’ libraries have.
“I can’t see how giving people easier, more comfortable access to information resources has anything to do with “dumbing down.””
I totally agree with you on this. I suggested that we add a small sign on a ghost at the end of journals that changed name (therefore are shelved elsewhere with their knew cutter) saying “This journal is now known as ‘Journal of X’, you’ll find it at 999.99 X45. But the answer i got was : “this information is in the catalog, if they want to know the call number they can just look it up”. Of course. But how would they know if our subscription didn’t end at that time?
May 31st, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Yes it will be a joint-use facility too. I have seen the layout of the library and they have set-up the library in what they call “neighborhoods”. So it may not just be no dewey, but no format differences either. Think of getting all of your subject area in one section, or all of your fiction/entertainment in one section. I know once Arizona School Furnishings showed me the layout, I immediately received questions from the high school about our new joint-use facility. Are we going to do that? Why aren’t we going to do that? Maricopa County has always been the leader in this area, so I am sure they have a very good plan for this. Maybe I will make a call to the TS super over there
Lot’s of buzz on this one.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I have tagged you for the 8 Things Meme!
See here:
http://pimp-my-library.blogspot.com/2007/05/8-things-meme.html
Amy
May 31st, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Well, first off, that’s a lot of assumptions. But really, the DDC does not need to be memorized to be utilized. And truly, using numbers to represent words is, shall we say, cryptic. However, if the last assumption holds true, how deep will they go in the categorization? Then, how will that be indicated on the book itself? Even going only down to the hundred’s level (712, 713, etc.) can result in some long topics: Landscape architecture of trafficways. Even shortening to “Landscape Architecture” is too long to fit on a spine label.
But overall, I believe that such librarians are abandoning their mission of organizing information to make it more accessible. However, I could be suaded by research that demonstrates improvements in findability.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:17 pm
[…] got a lot of really great, thoughtful comments on yesterday’s post about Gilbert Library’s decision not to use Dewey classification in their new building. Such […]
May 31st, 2007 at 9:23 pm
I love the idea of categorizing using the words that the Dewey numbers represent. I also like the idea of categorizing fiction by genre instead of by author which is pretty useless if you don’t have a particular author in mind, but would like something similar to another author you enjoyed. I love this capability in the nonfic section and would like to use it for the fiction as well.
Just to play devil’s advocate though, here’s a couple of wrenches:
- If we group fiction by genre, where do we put fiction that crosses genre-lines? Like Romance Sci-Fi novels?
- How far can we trust the categories provided by the publisher? Should we trust them at all? Do we continue to classify things based on Dewey and then just use the words instead of the numbers?
- Will we have to continue using spine labels just to have the location easily accessible (in other words, there won’t be a time/money saving attribute since we’ll still use labels)
- If we cease with the spine labels, will this slow shelvers down because there’s no standardized spine layout/font?
- How deep do we go into the classification? Main Subject - Sub-subject - Author? Sub-sub-subject (now I sound like an EAD markup)
Of course, the answer to all of these may be “Do it the way the bookstore does” … plus we have the added benefit of having a readily accessible OPAC for searching if a title doesn’t show up in the category a patron expects. I never had any luck with that in bookstores, but it works well in libraries.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:44 am
[…] No, ei nyt ilmeisesti ihan kokonaan, vaan ainoastaan hyllyjärjestyksen yhteydessä. Minusta ajatus on todella hykerryttävä ja kuvaa aitoa asiakaslähtöisyyttä. Kirjastolaiset ovat reagoineet ajatukseen voimakkaasti - kannattaa vilkaista uutisen alaosassa olevaa keskusteluosuutta. Vilkaise myös Emily Clasperin kommentti asiaan. […]
June 1st, 2007 at 9:13 am
When in a public library in MI it was easy to direct patrons “go to the statue of ??? etc turn right etc and the books are in that section they have the numbers 123 etc on the spine”
Now I’m a school librarian and teaching Dewey. Though as most college libraries use LC why do I use Dewey? I do give the senior classes lessons in LC.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:41 am
[…] to be first to drop Dewey Decimal et les commentaires de biblioblogueurs américains sur le sujet (library revolution, librarian in […]
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
This story is just another example of librarians eating their young, so to speak. By moving to the bookstore model, libraries just feed the belief that they serve no other purpose than to become a publicly-funded Barnes & Noble.
This comes from geniuses who see the poor signage at their libraries as an indication that they need to reinvent classification. Would it be so hard to put subject headings next to every numeric Dewey reference to help the poor patron?
This is similar to the Maricopa County library reference conundrum. The district uses ‘customer service’ desks, staffed by a mixture of librarians (with their master’s degrees), para-professionals and library assistants. They handle everything from circulation transactions to collecting fines to explaining how the library computers work to fixing the copy machine to answering reference questions.
From the public side of the ‘customer service’ desk, these folks are all the same. The person who took your 10 cent fine is now telling the another patron how to find an atlas containing a map of Iraq. Is it any surprise that the next person in line cannot tell the difference between a circulation clerk and a skilled reference professional?
Kind of makes you queasy, right in the MLS.
No surprise, then, that people figure that everyone who works at the desk is a librarian. All of which serves to reduce appreciation for what good librarians can bring to their patrons.
Gilbert’s decision sounds a lot like the teaching profession’s decision to use the so-called New Math in the 1960s. That didn’t turn out too well for anyone. I’m concerned that this story will end up the same way, with patrons more confused about their library, its staff and its purpose.
What a shame to upend the whole library because you’re not willing to purchase appropriate signs without blaming it on the Dewey Decimal System.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Okay, some good points here. But, I hear a great deal about what the library ISN’T. If we can sidestep the LIS via negativa, what IS a library? Isn’t it somewhat amorphous, conforming to the shapes of its user needs? If users need a bookstore, is that what a library should become? Can we define, in concrete terms, what a library *is* — how does it differ from Barnes & Noble? I’m not intending to be sarcastic here, nor ignorant, but this issue seems somewhat perspectival.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:56 am
[…] Dewey Decimal System - obsolete? http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0529nodewey0530.html# http://libraryrevolution.com/2007/05/30/dewey-or-dont-we/ A couple of new search engines mentioned by Steven Cohen http://www.zuula.com/ […]
December 12th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
[…] Dewey… or Don’t We? & Dewey Redux (Library Revolution) […]