“It seems to be a truth universally acknowledged by public libraries that if a book has a number on it, and the catalogue record for that book has the same number on it, then library users will be able to join the dots and locate the book that they want.” (Hopkins, 2007)
While many Teacher Librarians can see and prove the benefits of this format for primary students, whether it is useful for secondary students remains under scrutiny. Statistics have shown significant benefits in terms of improved circulation numbers and anecdotal evidence of empowered borrowers. However, it can also be argued that adopting this form of organisation is not as radical as already established classification systems and that genrefying the collection is not adequately preparing students for navigating academic libraries.
According to Sannwald (2015), an argument for genrefication in the secondary setting is the increase in circulation. This circulation indicates, by inference, an increase in the amount of reading which is one of vital functions of the school library (NSW Department of Education, 2015). A contributing factor, in reference to the research of Saltanik (2020), is the reduction of patrons searching for a book from 9 ½ to 5 ½ minutes on average, a 30% gain in patrons’ self-efficacy in finding what they need from a collection and twice the amount of participants claiming that they feel less time pressure to find reading material which is critical for secondary patrons who may have less time to engage in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) user tasks required of them. Another case study has shown that in the first year of genrefication, circulation rose from 2,599 to 4,996 books per year. By the fourth year the circulation data showed a 366% increase (Hembree, 2013). By using a genrefied model, in a secondary setting, Teacher Librarians are more empowered to organise their collection to promote and encourage increased circulation (Sannwald, 2015).
Both Wall (2019) and Sannwald (2015) state that a benefit for genrefying a secondary library is the empowerment it provides patrons. Many students struggle to find books they are interested in – particularly in the fiction collection – genrefied subsections have helped alleviate this anxiety. An increase in “book talk” between patrons, particularly, in terms of recommending similar material, indicated improved collection familiarisation and reader advisory among patrons (Sweeney, 2013). In contrast, collections that are categorised by author name fail to expose patrons to other similar reading material, reducing the effectiveness in the Librarians role in promoting a culture of reading. (Sannwald, 2015).
Alternately, the literature also articulates an argument against genrefication in the secondary library because of the complexities it poses for cataloguing the collection. When analysing examples of genrefied collections in secondary settings, the classification system becomes word rather than number based and is centred on subject or topic classifications not genres (Simon, 2019). This according to Gray (2017) makes genrefication very subjective which results in increased difficulty for patrons trying to find specific non-fiction texts (Gray, 2017). This is of particular importance when you consider the size, scope and multi disciplinary complexities of a secondary library collection (Bateman, 2013) and the rigour required of the patrons to use the five user tasks in the FRBR model. Universal systems like Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), however, have similar features to genrefication which include: convenience for the user, encompassing complete discipline areas, moves hierarchically from general to specific, accommodates new notation as knowledge expands and uses form classes, geographical divisions and an alphabetical index (Farkas, 2015).
Another argument against genrefication in the secondary library identified by Sannwald (2015), is the value of preparing students to learn essential information searching skills for tertiary or vocational education. Unlike the primary setting, where research has indicated positive outcomes for genrefication in terms of increased “book talks,” ease of browsing, increased circulation etc… Secondary schools have the additional duty to prepare students to navigate the information landscape in readiness for higher education in addition to promoting a love for reading (Sannwald, 2015). Snipes (2015, p.26) states that as a student transitions from elementary to secondary education, their ability to navigate libraries to find and evaluate information becomes more complex. Unlike primary schools, where a significant proportion of the patrons are unable to understand three digit numbers let alone the decimals of the DDC, secondary students have the capacity to understand how collections are categorised and classified Sannwald (2015). Removing the use of such classification systems, would in turn, impact the development of vital, transferable skills needed for success in further education.
So should the secondary library be classified by genre? Although evidence suggests numerous benefits, we cannot ignore the value of utilising established classification models. The notion of a hybrid “Dewey-lite” system which classifies the fiction collection by genre whilst maintaining the DDC for non-fiction has gained momentum and is this author’s preferred choice when classifying a secondary school library.
Reference List
Bateman, S. (2013) Dewey or don’t we? Incite. 34(8) 16-17. Retrieved from https://search-informit-com-au.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/search;res=IELHSS;search=FTI=yes%20AND%20IS=0158-0876%20AND%20VRF=34%20AND%20IRF=8%20AND%20PY=2013%20AND%20PG=16
Gray, M. (2017). Genre wars. Connections. Issue 104, 11 [Retrieved from] https://www.scisdata.com/media/1688/connections104.pdf
Farkas, L. (2015). Learn Dewey Decimal Classification (Edition 23). Friendswood, Texas : Total Recall Publications
Hembree, J. (2013) “Ready Set Soar! Rearranging Your Fiction Collection by Genre.” Knowledge Quest 42 (2): 62–65.
Hopkins, S. (2007). Decimating Dewey: Introducing a Bookshop Arrangement for Shelving the Nonfiction Collection. APLIS. Mar2007, Vol. 20 Issue 1, p8-13. 6p. 2 Charts
NSW Department of Education, (2015). School Libraries Handbook [Retrieved 11th August, 2021] https://education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/curriculum/media/documents/schoollibrarieshandbook2015.pdf
Sannwald, S. (2015). Sample Library Classification Alternatives. In Defence Of Library Gentrification. http://genrefication.weebly.com/sample-models.html
Simon, M (2019, June 24). Thoughts On Genrefying The School Library. Mrs Simon Says. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/mrssimonsays/2019/06/24/thoughts-on-genrefying-a-high-school-library/
Snipes, P. R. (2015). Concrete to abstract: growing past genre into Dewey. Library Media Connection. Summer 41-45 Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=8d20f7c6-1635-467b-b7a8-e3dda7d8f6af%40sessionmgr4010
Sweeney, S. (2013). Genrefy your library: improve readers’ advisory and data-driven decision making. Young Adult Library Services, 11(4), 41-45.
Wall, J. (2019). Genrefication in NSW public school libraries: A discussion paper. Scan, 38(10).