Organizing Resources for 21st Century Learning: Genrefication or Dewey Decimal Classification?

Genrefication is a recent term but not a new concept (Outhouse, 2018, p. 43). The arguments for Dewey Decimal Classification [DDC] versus genrefication can be summarized as to whether a library should prioritize the need for standardization or for personalization (Dickinson, 2013, p. 5; Outhouse, 2018, p.33). This paper will address the debate of how best to organize library collections in a secondary school library. When referring to users or library patrons it can be assumed these are secondary students and other members of a secondary school community.

 

An important lense through which to view the genrefication versus DDC debate is through the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records [FRBR] user tasks. Dewey designed the DDC to optimize the user task of obtaining the required resource (Dewey, 1876, as cited in Outhouse, 2018, p. 36). The specific shelving arrangement based on numeric notation for nonfiction and alphabetic notation for fiction allows users familiar with the system to obtain a resource efficiently if they have already completed the tasks of find, identify, and select through the library catalog. However, many claim that this model of information seeking is not the norm. Students and other members of the school community (including teachers) are at different levels of information literacy; one would be hard pressed to find any member of the community outside of library staff who has a full grasp of Dewey decimal notation (Outhouse, 2018, p. 37). 

 

Proponents of genrefication emphasize the importance of the “browsability” of the collection and how it supports self-sufficiency (Buchter, 2013, pp. 49-50, Outhouse, 2017, p.36). The browsing that genrefication optimizes suits the initial stages of the FRBR user tasks finding and identifying through clear signage, coded labels, and organization of material that reflects the personalized needs of the school community (Buchter, 2013, p. 49). Another argument for genrefication is recognizing the online search habits of library users. Clearly naming topics or subjects of interest with the natural language of library users better parallels the quick and easy online keyword search preferred by information seekers (Buchter, 2013, p. 49). Those who support DDC for organizing library collections might counter this argument by saying it is important to teach library users better search habits instead of giving in to bad habits.

 

Fiction classification is the area in which genrefication originated (Outhouse, 2018, p.16). When Melvil Dewey developed DDC in 1876, nonfiction works vastly exceeded fiction works in both quality and quantity (Outhouse, 2018, p. 17). As a result, DDC has only one main class specifically related to fiction works (800) with the other nine classes for nonfiction works (folklore is an exception, placed in the 390s). The argument for classifying fiction collections by genre instead of alphabetically by author’s last name or by language is strong. Due to the lack of specificity in DDC for fiction and the self-reported increase in circulation statistics, library attendance and positive patron feedback of libraries that have genrefied their fiction collections, it is not hard to make a case for genrefication in this area (Outhouse, 2018, p.51).

 

A fierce debate surrounds classifying nonfiction by genre (or subject) versus DDC, however. Because they were created over 140 years ago, the main classes in DDC separate some resources that should be together (For example: Computer science in 000 is distant from Technology in 600). Those who support genrefication point out the need for logical ordering of nonfiction resources by subject. Because the Dewey main classes are based on disciplines they tend to scatter resources on the same subject. Genrefication proponents claim that learning in a 21st century school requires resources to be co-located in ways that support the interdisciplinary curriculum (Aubuchon, 2013, p.45). Mixing related fiction and nonfiction resources for an interdisciplinary unit gives students a more holistic understanding of a topic than the fragmented subject placement resulting from the Dewey main classes. 

 

Those who support DDC for nonfiction collections suggest ways of working around the lack of logical co-location by using clear signage and moving popular or curriculum-related resources into temporary displays to facilitate finding, identifying and selecting resources (Gray, 2018, para. 10). Additionally, features like descriptive captions and relative index terms can provide the same support within the DDC system that individual libraries would have to create on their own in nonfiction genrefication (Panzer, 2013, p. 24). However these terms tend to reflect the vocabulary of the classifier, not the user, so would likely need to be translated into natural language for students. 

 

Empowering users is a rallying cry for both genrefication and DDC. Supporters of genrefication claim that not understanding how the library is organized can lead users to feel frustration in their information seeking efforts (Gray, 2018, para. 6). The result could be a lack of confidence in the library and a return to the quick and easy Google search, which always turns up countless resources. Supporters of DDC insist that users will feel most comfortable in a library when they understand its organization and point to the importance of standardization across libraries. They support early and consistent efforts to educate students on DDC (Jameson, 2013, p. 11; Pendergrass, 2013, p. 57). Once students have internalized DDC, they will be familiar with the organization of any library. While both sides recognize the need for library users to feel comfortable and thus empowered, the means of getting there is quite different. 

 

Although the organization of resources in DDC may not reflect the needs of 21st century library users, it has other advantages. The interconnectedness and comprehensiveness of the resources maintained by the Online Computer Library Center [OCLC] to support DDC is an important and often overlooked benefit. DDC has multiple online support options, is constantly reviewed and updated, and encourages user feedback to facilitate its use (Fox, 2019). Genrefication requires time and effort to implement and would not have the support of an outside organization for updating and maintenance. DDC has readily available documented connections between other international systems of classification (Panzer, 2013, p. 26). It is also indexed to search engines to accommodate the search habits of today’s information seekers (Panzer, 2013, p. 24). Looking to the future, OCLC has aligned their metadata to standards for the Semantic Web and provided vocabularies and schemas as linked data available freely on the web (Hider, 2018, p. 230). The ways that DDC facilitates connections among libraries and within the online information world should be carefully considered by those interested in this debate. 

 

Perhaps the choice between genrefication and DDC should be seen not just as a choice between personalization and standardization, but also between localization versus globalization. Those in favor of genrefication should do so with a clear understanding of not just the 19th century features of DDC, but also of the 21st century features that they forgo by “ditching Dewey.” 

References

Aubuchon, J. W. (2013). 21st century thinking at the local level. Knowledge Quest, 42(2), 44-45. https://knowledgequest.aasl.org/

 

Buchter, H. (2013). Dewey vs genre throwdown. Knowledge Quest, 42(2), 48-55. https://knowledgequest.aasl.org/

 

Dickinson, G. K. (2013). The way we do the things we do. Knowledge Quest, 42(2), 4-6. https://knowledgequest.aasl.org/

 

Fox, V. (2019, May 19). The Dewey Decimal Classification needs you! OCLC Next. http://www.oclc.org/blog/main/the-dewey-decimal-classification-needs-you/

 

Gray, Martin. (2018). Genre wars. Connections. Term 1 2018(104). https://www.scisdata.com/connections/issue-104/genre-wars

 

Hider, P. (2018). Information resource description: Creating and managing metadata (2nd ed.). London: Facet Publishing.

 

Jameson, J. (2013). A genre conversation begins. Knowledge Quest, 42(2), 10-13. https://knowledgequest.aasl.org/

 

Outhouse, R. K. (2018, February 28). Genrefication: Introducing and explaining the exponential trend [Master’s Degree paper]. https://doi.org/10.17615/j1hv-kq77

 

Panzer, M. (2013). Dewey: How to make it work for you. Knowledge Quest, 42(2), 22-29. https://knowledgequest.aasl.org/

Pendergrass, D. J. (2013). Dewey or don’t we? Knowledge Quest, 42(2), 56-59. https://knowledgequest.aasl.org/

One Response

  1. Lindsay says:

    We struggle with this in our tiny library- it is used by teachers only (to supply our class libraries) and is frustratingly genrefied and as far as I know always has been. We have discussed making changes but different users want it organised differently. Thanks for this interesting summary-perhaps it will lead to further conversations within our team.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *