Library Revolution

I 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 great posts that I wanted to respond to them in a whole new post so that the conversation is highlighted a bit.

To run down some of the comments:

Dominique commented about how tuning some books cover out and making the shelves shorter might help create a more comfortable atmosphere for customers, although there is a space issue associated with this. It sounds like she and I agree that making people feel at home and comfortable with the library environment can only be a good thing. (She also brings up the information that can be found in the catalog… but I’ll get to that later.) Kay had a great comment mentioning “the utter look of frustration and incomprehension on their faces when we try to explain how we shelve our books….” This really made me smile! Jeff piqued my interest with the idea of “neighborhoods” for the physical arrangement of the library… I’ll be interested to see how the particulars play out. I’m sure Jeff will keep everyone informed!

Karen made an interesting comment about the depth of the new categorizations and how they will be represented on the books. And she is absolutely correct when she says “the DDC does not need to be memorized to be utilized.”

She also made the really interesting comment:

“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.”

The point I would raise in response to this is that librarians don’t necessarily need to abandon the depth of their cataloging just because they are not going to represent the category in a detailed way on the physical item itself. Why do we have catalogs with detailed records if not to organize materials in an in-depth way and make it accessible?

I know I’m making a lot of assumptions on this issue, but I’ll venture to make one more: Patrons and staff are most likely to access materials by either a. searching the catalog or b. browsing the shelves. To me, this means that the arrangement of materials in a “browser friendly” arrangement (bookstore-like, sans Dewey) couples nicely with detailed catalog records that serve to achieve the librarian’s aim of organizing the materials.

If you are searching for a specific item or type of material or a topic, my guess is that you are using the catalog, which many wonderful information rich records. These records contain more detailed information about the item than Dewey can’t even come close to – including multiple levels of categorization. Plus, it tells you where to find the item. Maybe spine labels are practical for this use, but I don’t know why the label itself has to have the extreme level of detail given by Dewey numbers, especially if it takes some level of expertise to decipher that detail. Keep the detail in the catalog where people might actually be looking for it, and lay off the stickers a little.

If someone is browsing, they should be able to find what they need via a well thought out and user-friendly arrangement. With some good (I SAID GOOD) signage and an intuitive arrangement by topic, I think browsers will find what they’re looking for, if with a little help from the librarian (That’s what they are there for!!). No extensive spine label information needed. Find the right section, browse, and for more detail, just look at the item itself.

The other comment that really caught my attention was from Nathan, who comments that

“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.”

And goes on to ask an extremely interesting question:

“Do you think that public libraries are giving up some of their educational role in doing this, and if not, why not?”

Nathan, I’m so glad you asked this. I think that every librarian should put a lot of thought into their roles as educators. So here’s my take.

I absolutely, 100% think that one of the primary responsibilities of a professional librarian is and should be to serve as an educator for their users throughout the process of locating, accessing, consuming, using, and in this day of user-created content, even disseminating information. I am inclined to think that education is the single most important part of our professional mission, and it may well be the one that will keep the profession relevant and an important part of the information landscape n years to come. That is, if we give it the right energy and emphasis, education could be the thing that keeps us in business.

But, in my opinion, it’s important to focus our educational energies towards educating our patrons in things that are… well, important. You know, stuff that is actually important to real people and relevant to their lives and needs.

What if we forgot about trying to teach our patrons how to use the Dewey Decimal System to locate books in the stacks, make that part of the information search more intuitive, and spent that time working with them to build an understanding of how to find other resources, how to use the information they find, how to understand and interpret the information… lofty goals, but these are the kinds of information needs that I see as more important to address in this age of being bombarded by too much information.

I guess it’s really all about determining educational priorities and objectives. For me, I really don’t see letting go of old Dewey as letting go of organization of materials or providing access, and I see it as an opportunity to redirect some of the instructional efforts we aim at our patrons towards some information literacy outcomes that could really benefit our patrons and that need real information professionals to achieve.

Now if we could just do something about LC Subject headings…

 Share

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.

 Share