[Web4lib] RE: [lita-l] Innovation: NYTarticleon Dewey-lessArizona public library

[Larry Campbell]

Jimm wrote: "We librarians have a well-founded suspicion that one will 
not find the best or most appropriate resource simply by browsing."

I'd disagree that the suspicion is well-founded, though I appreciate 
that it's widespread. I think we've tended to underestimate both the 
prevalence and the effectiveness of browsing as an information-seeking 
behavior, whether in libraries, bookstores, museums, or supermarkets. 
The irony is that Dewey and LC are themselves classification systems, as 
opposed to simple inventory control systems, and hence are intended to 
facilitate browsing as well as physically locating items (if all we 
wanted was the latter, then placing all new books at the physical end of 
the collection would suffice, as an earlier commenter indicated). But if 
we're clear about the different functions of browsability and 
findability, as well as about their distinct values, then we might find 
a way to detach one from another, and not feel such worry over a change 
from one classification or grouping system to another as times and 
circumstances change.

By the way, I think that the theme of browsing and its importance 
re-appears in a different form in Karen Schneider's concerns about the 
disappearance of the journal as such in aggregated article databases.

Larry Campbell
Librarian
Information Systems and Technology
UBC Library
larry.campbell at ubc.ca


Jimm Wetherbee wrote:

>Lin,
>
>You wrote:
>  
>
>> For years there has been the debate over "Give them what they want 'vs.'
>>Give what we think they need". . . I think the Deweyless approach is just
>>another spin on that approach. In reality, if we are to stay in business we
>>need to adapt to our clientele wishes and needs (to a point that is
>>practical), and this is just one library's attempt to do so.
>>  
>>    
>>
>While, I would agree that is an instance of attempting meet patrons'
>needs and expectations, the debate is closer to the best being the enemy
>of the good.  We librarians have a well-founded suspicion that one will
>not find the best or most appropriate resource simply by browsing.  On
>the other hand, if one is not going use the systems we have in place to
>find the best, patrons will either not find anything at all because they
>won't bother  (or master the systems we have) or they will browse
>through a collection that is not optimally arranged for that purpose. 
>The alternative is to make the catalog more intuitive so that it "feels"
>more like browsing while being more directed.  There is a lot of work in
>that area (dynamic clustered searching, federated searching, etc.) but
>there are still compromises even at that.  (Sigh) It's amazing that just
>as the ILS seem to start to settle things down 15 or 20 years ago CD-ROM
>and the Internet came along an blew everything back up.
>
>--jimm
>_______________________________________________
>Web4lib mailing list
>Web4lib at webjunction.org
>http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>  
>