Running head: THE CONTINUED USE OF DEWEY

The Continued Use of Dewey: Should Libraries Shift Away from Using the DDC?

Sarah Qronfleh

University of South Florida: LIS 6711

The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) is the prevailing cataloging system in public

libraries today. First developed in the late 1800’s, the DDC has grown from a 4 page pamphlet to
THE CONTINUED USE OF DEWEY 2

an international standard with four volumes. The “subject-based decimal notation system -

allowed for an extensible interfiling of library materials previously unknown” (Clarke, 2013, p.

34). Allowing books to be cataloged based on their subject made it easy to expand a collection

and retrieve items. The only competing classification system to Dewey Decimal is the Library of

Congress Classification, although this is used more by research and academic libraries. In recent

years, there have been discussions about the continued use of Dewey in public libraries.

According to Clarke, “some librarians began to voice their concerns about their patron’s abilities

to effectively navigate decimal-based organization systems” (2013, p. 34). Proponents of

switching to something different have cited the archaic subheadings and inaccessibility to

patrons as weaknesses in the Dewey structure. This essay examines the pros and cons of the

Dewey Decimal Classification and explores alternative systems that some libraries have already

begun switching to.

The Dewey Decimal Classification system seems like an ingrained aspect of public

library service today. Students study it in library school and most libraries use it to organize their

sometimes vast collections. Despite its success, there are critics of the system that have begun to

explore alternative methods to classify and organize library materials. One of the driving forces

behind this movement is the recognition that DDC is not the most user friendly classification

system. This attention to patron satisfaction aligns with the current trend of making libraries

more user friendly and placing an emphasis on what patrons want instead of what librarians

might think is best. This trend can be seen more prominently in other aspects of library service

such as the rise in meeting room and collaborative spaces that are available, as well as the types

of programs and new services, such as makerspaces, that are being offered. Public libraries in

particular are beginning to diversify their services and as well as their collections. Circulating
THE CONTINUED USE OF DEWEY 3

items now can include video games, electronics such as tablets or laptops, and other non-

traditional items. Depending on the community around the library, some might offer fishing kits

to be checked out or musical instruments. This expansion of different items needing to be

cataloged and organized is one part of a long list of reasons some in the library world are saying

Dewey needs to be phased out and replaced with something else.

The Dewey Decimal Classification also does not allow for easy browsing by patrons,

which might be one of the main marks against it. Walking down the aisles and having to convert

long numbers into their corresponding subjects might be easy for a librarian who has been doing

it for years, but to someone with little to no knowledge of this system it is a huge hinderance on

their ability to browse freely and find subjects that interest them. This is also the case with the

fiction category, which is often times all lumped together by author’s last name. Someone

looking for mystery books or science fiction books would need to know the author or title to find

it unless they want to browse the entire fiction section. Although some libraries have separated

their fiction section into one more resembling a book store, there is still a long way to go until it

is patron friendly. The “Genre vs. Dewey” argument is has been going on for some time, but it

does not come close to solving most of the problems people are having with DDC (Ray, 2013, p.

60).

There has been debate as to whether or not libraries should adopt a classification system

like the Book Industry Standards and Communications Subject Headings List (BISAC), used by

book stores to organize their items. BISAC is a keyword-based system that does not use decimal

notation (Clarke, 2013, p. 34). Proponents on both sides of the argument make valid points in

regards to why this switch would be a good or bad idea. Those against the shift state that there

might be potential negative implications by using a commercial standard for a public entity
THE CONTINUED USE OF DEWEY 4

(Martínez-Ávila, 2014a, p. 378). Some are wary that adopting something like BISAC would

make libraries more like bookstores. Although bookstores and public libraries can be considered

the same in some respects there are big differences between the mission and goals of a public

library and that of a book store. At the end of the day, the goal of a book store is to make a profit.

In contrast, a public library is there to provide equal access to information and knowledge, as

well as promote lifelong learning (Martínez-Ávila, 2014a, p. 378). Public libraries are also

funded in most part by local, state, or federal taxes or grants. This greatly shapes the core values

and mission of public libraries in a way that commercial enterprises like book stores don’t have

to worry about. Some worry that switching to a system that stems from making a profit will

shape library services in a way that is not good for the communities they serve. It also might

open the gate for public libraries to become more business-like in other practices. People who are

for the switch from Dewey to something different state that DDC is an outdated system that

intimidates users and is causing less people to use the library. By switching to something that is

easier for users to understand, circulation numbers would go up and patrons would be happier.

There are several differences between DDC and BISAC to consider when contemplating

whether switching to this type of system would be beneficial or not to public libraries. BISAC is

structured in a way where there cannot be more than four subject descriptors in the hierarchy,

greatly limiting the specificity that can be achieved. The Dewey Decimal Classification on the

other hand, has a more extensive hierarchy and allows for more specificity in subjects (Martínez-

Ávila, 2014a, p. 379). Libraries that have adopted the BISAC system however, claim that the

specificity that Dewey allows is no longer needed by today’s users. Most users today are more

looking to browse, and looking for popular reading materials, rather than inquiring about specific

subjects or materials. In terms of easy browsability, Dewey falls behind in comparison to

THE CONTINUED USE OF DEWEY 5

BISAC. One example of a library that has made the switch is the Perry Branch Library in

Maricopa County, Arizona (Martínez-Ávila, 2014b, p. 1). This was the first library to make the

switch, back in 2007, and according to people in that system, it has been a successful transition.

On the other hand, the specificity of Dewey means less books go missing or are miscategorized,

something that often happens in a book store. Organization is not a strength of the BISAC

system in comparison to DDC, in part because there is a greater emphasis on profit than there is

on retrieval and access (Martínez-Ávila, 2014a, p. 381). This tension does not exist in a library

and therefore as long as the DDC is understood, it is very easy to find an item and more likely

that the item will be in the proper place. The key part of this however, is the ability to understand

DDC. Studies have shown that often times patrons feel intimidated by the DDC and won’t ask

for help. This usually means they are leaving the library without finding what they were looking

for. One library director noted “no other service-oriented organization requires its users to learn

an arbitrary system in order to access needed materials” (Martínez-Ávila, 2014a, p. 380).

It is also important to study the motivations behind why public libraries would want to

shift away from using Dewey in favor of something else, and vice versa. While it is always

important for libraries to improve services, sometimes third party factors interfere (Martínez-

Ávila, 2014a, p. 379). An example of this would be budget constraints, which might interfere

with maximising improvements that can and should be made. Just because something might be

costly or difficult to do upfront, doesn’t mean that it shouldn't be done because it might be what

is in the best interest of the patron. A case-study example of libraries doing what they feel is in

the best interest for patrons can be seen happening in the Netherlands. Here, Dutch public

libraries invented a new nonfiction classification system molded from several different ideas

(Clarke, 2013, p. 35). The new alphabetically-based system, named PIM, “uses a combination of
THE CONTINUED USE OF DEWEY 6

color-coded pictograms and keywords to organize physical nonfiction library materials” (Clarke,

2013, p. 35). Items are grouped by categories that are represented by a color-coded symbol that

clearly represents a topical area (i.e. red represents the arts). Within the library, items are

grouped first by pictogram and then arranged alphabetically by keyword. It is purposely meant to

be flexible so local libraries can easily change things according to their needs (Clarke, 2013, p.

35). While it has been designed for libraries with nonfiction collections of less than 15,000 items,

PIM is a great example of a flexible cataloging system that has proven to be easy for patrons to

understand and successful in its adaptation. While developing the pictograms, symbols were

shown to test groups of around 1,000 people and finalized many times after feedback (Clarke,

2013, p. 36). PIM proves that organizational possibilities exist outside of the standard systems

that are already in place, and that if libraries have a vested interest in continuing to adapt and

grow their collections to meet the changes of the modern world, different options can be

developed.

Whether it be developing an entirely new system, or adopting one that already exists,

there are many things to consider when contemplating a switch from the Dewey Decimal

Classification to something different. While there might not be overwhelming negatives to using

DDC, there are enough drawbacks that more and more libraries are starting to consider

alternatives or are already making a change. It will probably be a long time before the majority

of public libraries even begin to consider this but the discussion is already taking place and those

in the library world should be aware of its presence. Libraries have proven themselves to be

extremely adaptive and open to making changes, especially with recent rises in technology. The

way in which collections are organized should not be excluded from the possibility of change

simply because it has always been done a certain way.

THE CONTINUED USE OF DEWEY 7

References

Clarke, R. r. (2013). Picturing Classification. Public Libraries, 52(2), 34-37.

Martínez-Ávila, D. d., & Kipp, M. k. (2014a). Implications of the Adoption of BISAC for

Classifying Library Collections. Knowledge Organization, 41(5), 377-392.

THE CONTINUED USE OF DEWEY 8

Martínez-Ávila, D. a., San Segundo, R., & Olson, H. A. (2014b). The Use of BISAC in

Libraries as New Cases of Reader-Interest Classifications. Cataloging & Classification

Quarterly, 52(2), 137-155.

Ray, M. m. (2013). NONE of the ABOVE. Knowledge Quest, 42(2), 60-61.