Dewey...or Dewey not?

I recently read an article on the School Library Journal website that mentioned the impending Common Core school standards, and whether Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) remains the best fit for school libraries implementing them (for the full article, go to In Light of Common Core, Seeking Ways to Circumvent Dewey). While the debate over using Dewey is nothing new to the library field (it has been controversial almost since its inception), it has nonetheless been a mainstay of many public and school libraries across the country. However, recent trends have seen some libraries begin to move away from the vaunted classification scheme in favor of other schemes, including classifying by genre.

A good breakdown of the arguments pro- and anti-Dewey can be found at the AASL Blog (Dewey vs. Genre Shelving...the Conversation Continues Here). Arguments in favor of DDC point out its logical structure (designed to divide all knowledge down into distinct categories), the openness of the system to alteration and revision, and its familiarity to users across the world. Arguments against DDC tend to not dismiss the classification scheme altogether, but instead advocate a hybrid approach, where libraries tailor the organization of their resources according to the needs of their users. In some cases, this is simply the separation of sections of popular subjects for easier location, while for other libraries, this is the complete reorganization of items into subject categories. It seems pretty clear to most proponents on both sides, that the likelihood of a completely new classification scheme being implemented on a widespread level is fairly unlikely. Most libraries simply lack the resources to undertake such a complete overhaul and re-organization.

As someone who grew up with the Dewey system, and who uses it on a daily basis in his own library, I often see these types of debates as librarians trying to "re-invent the wheel" to an extent. There are no doubts that Dewey has faults: it relies on patrons being able to locate call numbers in order to find the subjects they want,  the placement of specific types of books can often be unclear (do books about artists go into the Art section, or Biography?), and while flexible, that flexibility is often gained through the use of more and more decimal placings, which increases complexity for librarian and patron alike. That said, its advantages in terms of its ubiquitous use (libraries across the world utilize it), consistency, logical organization, and familiarity make its elimination as the classification scheme of choice unlikely.

Frankly, I don't even see the arguments against Dewey to really even favor the scrapping of the system. One of Dewey's great features is that it is a system that can be altered and modified and still work pretty well. The use of Fiction (F or Fic), Juvenile Fiction (J, JF, J Fic, etc..), and Picture Books (PB, or often E, for Easy) designations is not inherent to the Dewey system, but is seen in widespread use across public and school libraries, with little negative affect to the classification of non-fiction titles. There is no real reason that libraries cannot extend this modification scheme further, as some of the "anti-Dewey" proponents seem to be advocating. I think the bigger issue is whether we want most libraries to be utilizing the same exact classification scheme, to ensure consistency for a patron from library to library, or if we are willing to allow individual libraries to tailor organizational schemes to the specific needs of their patrons. And that is an interesting question, does the library owe more to the needs of its local community, or to conformity and consistency with the rest of its field?

Dewey vs. genre shelving…the conversation continues here. 2013. AASL blog (February 15). http://www.aasl.ala.org/aaslblog/?p=3461 (accessed 4/24/13).

Harris, Christopher. 2013. In light of common core, seeking ways to circumvent Dewey. The Digital Shift. School Library Journal website (March 25). http://www.thedigitalshift.com/2013/03/opinion/the-next-big-thing/tipping-a-sacred-cow-the-next-big-thing/ (accessed 4/24/13).