Shawne Miksa said:
"61 respondents (59%) responded with Not Applicable. I feel this gives a good idea of how DDC is or isn't understood, at least in this neck of the woods, but I would venture to say that a national survey would produce similiar findings."
Interesting. So a LOT of catalogers in the study NEVER use the DDC (20th, 21st, 22nd eds or WebDewey)? I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept that a majority of catalogers never use a tool that is designed specfically for their use.
Bernie Sloan
--- On Thu, 11/12/09, Miksa, Shawne <SMiksa_at_UNT.EDU> wrote:
> From: Miksa, Shawne <SMiksa_at_UNT.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] The Dewey Dilemma
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 10:22 AM
> It is interesting--spent some time
> last night re-reading the Introductions to the 1st edition
> and the current 22nd edition of DDC.
>
> In the Preface of the 1st edition Dewey wrote "The system
> was devised for cataloguing and indexing purposes, but it
> was found on trial to be equally valuable for numbering and
> arranging books and pamphlets on the shelves." (Dewey, 1876,
> p3) He also says "The impossibility of making a
> satisfactory classification of all knowledge as preserved in
> books, has been appreciated from the first, and nothing of
> the kind attempted" and that "Theoretically, the division of
> every subject into just nine heads is absurd." (p.4)
>
> In the 22nd edition published in 2003 the DDC editors
> define classification and its purpose:
> "2.1 Classification provides a system
> for organizing knowledge. Classification may be used to
> organize knowledge represented in any form, e.g., books,
> documents, electronic resources.
> 2.2 Notation is the system of symbols
> used to represent the classes in a classification system. In
> the Dewey Decimal Classification, the notation is expressed
> in Arabic numerals. The notation gives both the unique
> meaning of the class and its relation to other classes.The
> notation provides a universal language to identify the class
> and related classes, regardless of the fact that different
> words or languages may be used to describe the classes."
> (DDC22, vol.1, p
>
> In reading through the entire Introduction there is not one
> mention of using the numbers for physical arrangement of the
> resources. The definition of Call number (Book number) is "a
> set of letters, numerals, or other symbols (in combination
> or alone) used by a library to identify a specific copy of a
> work. A call number may consist of the class number, book
> number, and other data such as date, volume number, copy
> number, and location symbol." (DDC22, vol. 1, p lxvi)
>
> Logically and realistically, we know that the built numbers
> assigned to resources are used for physical arrangement
> library. But, it is important to note the absence of any
> requirement to do so. This is what some libraries have done
> when moving to other ways of arranging, but I would contend
> their reasons for doing so are largely based on this
> misperception of how DDC works as a classification system as
> well as the following of the "tradition" of using the
> numbers for arrangement (i.e., this is how its always been
> done, no questions asked). This would be a very interesting
> study --a small one for an article, perhaps, or more
> detailed study for a dissertation.
>
> The book "Moving Beyond the Presentation Layer: content and
> context in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) System"
> published in 2006 by Haworth Press (also as Cataloging and
> Classification Quarterly, volume 42, numbers 3/4), and
> edited by Joan S. Mitchell and Diane Vizine-Goetz, seeks to
> look beyond the "familiar linear notation sequence" and
> explore how it can be used in web environment. It's a great
> read--I highly recommend it, especially Karen Markey's
> article on use of classification in the online environment.
>
>
> In looking through several textbooks on classifying with
> DDC, the distinction between the classification number and
> the addition of a book number (sometimes called the cutter
> number or a "unique identifier") is the only real mention of
> any use for physical arrangement on the shelf. Without that
> addition then arrangement is quite difficult. I would be
> curious to know if libraries that no longer use DDC for
> shelving had been using the whole "book number" or just the
> classification number. I've often observed class numbers
> being randomly "lopped off" to make a shorter notation to
> fit on the spine. On one cringe-worthy occasion I found a
> number that didn't even exist in the schedules--someone had
> taken the original number and rounded it up.
>
> In the survey of catalogers in North Texas public libraries
> that I conducted in 2005-2006, I found that out of 104
> respondents (representing a 60% response rate) only 33 (32%)
> used DDC, 22nd edition, either daily, weekly, or
> occasionally; an average of 17 (16.5%) used the older 21st
> or 20th editions daily, weekly, or occasionally. At the same
> time, 18 (17%) accessed DDC online through WebDewey.
> 61 respondents (59%) responded with Not Applicable. I
> feel this gives a good idea of how DDC is or isn't
> understood, at least in this neck of the woods, but I would
> venture to say that a national survey would produce similiar
> findings. (Miksa, S. “A Survey of Local Library Cataloging
> Tool and Resource Utilization.” Journal of Education for
> Library and Information Science, vol. 49, no. 2, Spring
> 2008. )
>
>
> **************************************************************
> Shawne D. Miksa, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Department of Library and Information Sciences
> College of Information
> University of North Texas
> email: Shawne.Miksa_at_unt.edu
> http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/index.htm
> office 940-565-3560 fax 940-565-3101
> **************************************************************
>
Received on Thu Nov 12 2009 - 14:15:04 EST