Recent discussion on a thread about my Alma Mater's campus library, one contributor noting how she spoke to librarians who said "our newest users don't know Dewey or how to use a card catalog, they use iPads and smart phones...."
I replied with a brief caveat: "Academic Libraries use Library of Congress Classification, not Dewey. Dewey is for public libraries."
More to the point, we still have to use Dewey or LC Classification if we want to have a coherent way to organize physical books in our physical library. Each has its shortcomings, sure, but while patrons may proudly profess their ignorance of our classification schema, it's absolutely necessary for library staff to have a working knowledge of it and organize the collection accordingly.
A more experienced patron will at least learn the rudimentary outline of our classification system(s) so they know where to find more books on their specific area of interest. My Russian history professor at Texas A&M told us where to look for Russian History books in Evans Library (6th floor, as I recall). This kind of thing matters, it still matters today. There is no binary "either/or" when it comes to physical books vs. digital media...it's not one or the other, it's how to utilize both to meet patron's information needs and also make the most efficient use of precious library shelving real-estate. Large, unwieldy reference works used mostly for looking up discrete bits of information can definitely go all-digital...are probably improved by doing so, since search-ability can be enhanced that way.
Deep dive monographs on the other hand will be with us as long as we have libraries. Proudly ignorant dismissals of Dewey or LC because of some techno-utopia just around the corner is so late 90s and I wish folks would just STAHP already. It wasn't true then, it's not true now.
It behooves the average Public Library user to at least learn the top level distinctions for DDC...000s, 100s, 200s, etc. The more fine grain distinctions are less important for everyday users and mostly of concern to cataloging staffers. Every library puts their own spin on things, too. There are local cataloging practices in place if DDC allows books to be placed in multiple locations; the head cataloger will make a firm decision and keep all books of this general type within that chosen call number range, even if valid points can be made to shelve the book elsewhere. This tweak is in keeping with one of Ranganathan's Laws of Library Science....save the time of the user! It's not just a fun intellectual exercise for the individual cataloger; it's a matter of institutional policy to facilitate ease of access for the end user.
Another quick & dirty secret of YA & Juvenile cataloging of "controversial" subjects while working in a conservative community is to classify these books as adult materials and shelve them with other adult material, but to let YA & Juvenile users where to find them all the same. It's a low key way to avoid unnecessary confrontations while still providing access to marginalized youth.
Similarly the dumb trend in search interfaces to offer only a single search box. I'm glad some catalog systems allow more experienced users to use more fine grain searching. I can live with the single box as the default setting "because that's what most users want/expect" but I don't see any point in hobbling and making life difficult for smarter users who actually know what they're doing and need more refined searching capability. For the experienced library user, it's often as much about excluding irrelevant info as it is gathering available info. Another example of "both and..." that's a win-win for everyone.
Sure, we need to "meet users where they are", but we also are, as librarians, also teachers and mentors. We need to help our users become more informed and capable, so they can eventually reach a point of self-directed searching that is fruitful for them without intervention from us.
No comments:
Post a Comment