By: Ace Morgan

Ace Morgan — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 19:32:59 +0000

A NOTE FOR THE DISCARD DEWEY CAMP
Amidst all the hoopla surrounding the current move away from the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system it is perhaps incumbent upon us to review the history of the system.
“The DDC attempts to organize all knowledge into ten main classes. The ten main classes are then further subdivided. Each main class has ten divisions and each division has ten sections. Hence the system can be summarized in 10 main classes, 100 divisions and 1000 sections. DDC’s advantage in choosing decimals for its categories allows it to be both purely numerical and infinitely hierarchical.
It also uses some aspects of a faceted classification scheme, combining elements from different parts of the structure to construct a number representing the subject content (often combining two subject elements with linking numbers and geographical and temporal elements) and form of an item rather than drawing upon a list containing each class and its meaning.
Besides its frequent revision, DDC’s main advantage over its chief rival—the Library of Congress Classification system developed shortly afterward—is its simplicity. Thanks to the use of pure notation, a mnemonics system and a hierarchical decimal place system, it is generally easier to use for most users.
DDC and UDC are also more flexible than Library of Congress Classification because of greater use of facets (via auxiliary tables) while Library of Congress Classification is almost totally enumerative.
On the flip side, DDC’s decimal system means that it is less hospitable to the addition of new subjects, as opposed to Library of Congress Classification which has 21 classes at the top level. Another side effect of this is that DDC notations can be very much longer compared to the equivalent class in other classification systems.
Another disadvantage of DDC is that it was developed in the 19th century, by essentially one man, and was built on a top down approach to classify all human knowledge which made it difficult to adapt to changing fields of knowledge. In contrast, the Library of Congress Classification system was developed based mainly on the idea of literary warrant; classes were added (by individual experts in each area) only when needed for works owned by the Library of Congress. As a result, while the Library of Congress Classification system was able to incorporate changes and additions of new branches of knowledge, particularly in the fields of engineering and computer science (the greater hospitability of the Library of Congress Classification was also a factor), DDC has been criticized for being inadequate for covering those areas. As a result, most major academic libraries in the US do not use the DDC because the classification of works in those areas is not specific enough.
The Library of Congress Classification system is not without problems; because each area is developed by an expert according to demands of cataloging, there is little consistency. It is also highly US-centric (more so than DDC) because of the nature of the system, and compared to DDC it has been translated into far fewer languages.
The Library of Congress Classification system is also more complicated to use, and unlike DDC cannot be customized for the needs of a smaller library collection.” Wikipedia.
Now some caveats are in order. In the context of our present society and the increasing reduction of intellectual pursuits (dumming down) it is evident that little or no effort is being made to instruct our students and patrons in the use of this logical system which has been with us successfully for over a century. That is not to say that there is no need for improvement. A useful combination of the best of DDC and LC would seem to fit the bill. A library is meant to be a logical and efficient storage of information. Browsing through a shelf that has been marked “Animals or Mammals” will take infinitely longer than having a specific number to look for. Most patrons do NOT know titles or authors and our job is to reduce the frustration in finding suitable information. Most of us have experienced the frustration of browsing in a book store for a specific title especially when the bookstore constantly shifts its collection based on which publishers pays more for upfront space.
The assumption is that we as a society are so intellectually immature that we cannot understand the simplicity of a decimal system. Probably the same assumption which prevents us from adopting the much more efficient metric system. By exposing children to the DDC in Kindergarten and continuing the education through the grades there is not doubt that these students will be knowledgeable and comfortable when using the library. By substituting only subject categories for shelving you are doing a disservice to these students who will be unable to navigate their way in college libraries. The average student today expects to find all their answers to an assignment in one book or floating around somewhere on the internet. With the exception of vetted databases there is no guarantee that the information they find is accurate. Books still remain the most accurate approach to primary source material and without a specific number it will be much more difficult to locate. The case is being made that libraries are more for pleasure reading and not research. Someone forget to inform the schools (especially those with inadequate libraries) that they need not send students with assignments for reference work.
There are also serious logistical problems that have not been addressed by the proponents of Discard Dewey Camp. One wonders how the books will be returned to the same place on the shelf or how books will be found when they are requested for a reserve! Are we also going to color code the bindings?

Comments on: Gilbert library to be first to drop Dewey Decimal

By: Ace Morgan