[Web4lib] Innovation: NYT article on Dewey-less Arizona publiclibrary

Mon Jul 16 11:29:35 EDT 2007

I don't think one has to be a Luddite or a fuddy-duddy to to be a bit 
underwhelmed by the "innovation" described in the article. I suppose if 
your library experience in stuck 10 or 20 years past, you might be 
surprised by what's described in the article but what's really unique 
here? The article starts off with "there is not a hint of a card 
catalog." Wow! It's been 10 years since I worked in a library that had 
one. I assume that their "automated computer system" is their online 
catalog. You would be hard pressed to find many libraries that size that 
don't have some kind of automation system. Self-check? We just installed 
our first one this past year and we sure weren't breaking any ground 
when we did. Reference materials available through databases? That's so 
2000. Most of the other details deal with what I would call atmosphere. 
Some libraries prefer to be classical in their look and feel. Others are 
more modern in design. Again, what's so innovative about this approach?

As for the big to-do about doing away with Dewey, I think Karen's point 
that "the system used must be appropriate for the size and scope of the 
collection" is exactly right. Even in bookstores, their classification 
method often doesn't work as the size of the particular subject grows. 
That's why they slap more specific subject headings on each shelf. Good 
luck finding a title in some of the broader subject categories without 
all of those shelf labels. You're forced to browse through shelf after 
shelf of titles trying to find the one that you want (I would like to 
see the stats on how many people go into bookstores or libraries 
interested only in browsing. Many people do browse but I would question 
whether that's their initial intent when arriving). Dewey may not be 
ideal but it sure helps focus your search a lot more quickly.

Finally, when the argument for doing away with Dewey is summarized with 
“The younger generation today is wired differently than people in my 
generation,” I have to wonder if this is simply a fad or a gimmick? 
First, a significant portion of the library users are of Mr. 
Courtright's generation and my generation. So if you believe that, why 
you would switch to a system that doesn't meet the needs of the majority 
of your users? As for the idea that the brains of the next generation 
are "wired differently", I'm not buying it. It's a handy throw-away 
argument to dismiss legitimate questions, not a serious defense for that 
position. As for how well it works, have we seen anything that shows 
that this system works better for patrons or staff? I didn't see 
anything in the article that indicated that there's been any study of 
what works and what doesn't.

I'm sure there's a lot of knee-jerk reaction to the article by people 
wedded to the idea of "that's the way we've always done it..." I'm not 
one of those people. But if I was going to propose a sea-change in how 
we do things at our library, I better be able to outline why that change 
is necessary and more importantly, why that change is better. So far, I 
haven't read anything that explains why this approach is better or 
necessary.

Andrew Mutch
Library Systems Technician
Waterford Township Public Library
Waterford, MI

Karen Harker wrote:
> I think a distinction is needed between call numbers and classification systems.  The purpose of call numbers is to find a specific book. The purpose of classification is to group books by topic.  The call numbers are based on the classification system, but they should not be used for browsing.  If a user is looking for a particular book, the call number is what should be used.  If the user is looking for a section in which browse, the classification system should be used.
>  
> Any classification system requires some rules - alphabetizing by name (which name? surname? what about non-Western names?), general topic (to what level? what are the topic's called? how to organize the topics - alphabetically? heirarchically?).  In addition, the rules must be applied consistently by both the cataloger and the user.  Given that humans are notoriously inconsistent, every system will have its failures.
>  
> Going back to the user, consider a someone looking for "a book on the civil war."  If there are 100 books generally about the US Civil War, how easy is it scan them to find the best one?  The user is pretty much left to "judging a book by its cover."  In a library with a modestly granular classification, the more general books will be grouped together at the beginning of the section, followed by books on much more specific sub-topics.  If the user is only looking for a general book, I imagine it would be easier to find than if they were scattered within the 100 (or 1000 or more) books.  
>  
> Of course, the system used must be appropriate for the size and scope of the collection.  A small public library that classifies to 6-7 decimal spaces is not applying the DDC appropriately.  To improve browsability of shelves, a library may, instead of abandoning a proven method of organizing their collection, use signs (i.e. "U.S. History" or "U.S. Civil War").  
>  
>  
>  
> Karen R. Harker, MLS, MPH
> UT Southwestern Medical Library
> 5323 Harry Hines Blvd.
> Dallas, TX  75390-9049
> 214-648-8946
> http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/library/ 
>
>   
>>>> On 7/15/07 at 5:07 PM, in message <e6abbff40707151507j48f140cfl16707d329a9dfe32 at mail.gmail.com>, "Brian Gray" <mindspiral at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>         
> I was wondering the same thing. Were they still using a card catalog?
>
> I do not see the problem switching the classification it serves the
> need of their users. Does anyone know how the books are labeled now
> and how you do find a specific book within a subject area? I cannot
> tell from the pictures within the story. The article stated people did
> not know what the numbers meant, but there has to be a new system they
> are going to need to know now.
>
> The people no search by subject on the computer. Where are these being
> derived from? Is the library defining their own or pulling from
> another source? How much extra work have they created for staff?
>
> Brian Gray
> mindspiral at gmail.com 
>
>
> On 7/15/07, B.G. Sloan <bgsloan2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>   
>> Forgot to mention...I found this to be a rather odd statement by the authors of the article:
>>
>> "So at the 24,000-square-foot Perry Branch, there is not a hint of a card catalog. (Mr. Courtright says most people do not know what the numbers mean anyway.) Visitors may instead search for books using an automated computer system..."
>>
>> As if this was the first library to do away with the card catalog and allow users to "search for books using an automated computer system"?? Wonder when was the last time the authors had visited a library?
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org 
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>   