Dougherty, Richard M.

College and Research Libraries

Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository

RICHARD M. DOUGHERTY The Realities of Reclassification Interest in reclassification and recataloging has revived with the de-velopment of a national acquisitions and cataloging program. The paper reviews the pros and cons of reclassification and examines three common assumptions concerning reclassification. The primary factors governing the desirability of reclassification are discussed, such as size, age, organization of the collection, etc. Finally, the merits of partial reclassification are presented as an alternative to total reclassi-fication. A NUMBER OF ACADEMIC libraries have initiated reclassification projects in re-cent years. These same institutions, though, have not always faced up to the harsh realities of reclassification-its costs, advantages, and disadvantages. Too often a decision to reclassify has been based solely on unsubstantiated as-sumptions and emotional reactions. Re-classification is a lively issue, primarily because many libraries are considering switching from Dewey to LC classifi-cation. In part it is the imminence of a national shared-cataloging program that has stimulated new interest in LC classi-fication. Libraries principally are interested in taking advantage of work produced by the Library of Congress, but the ques-tion of reclassification is inextricably re-lated to the decision to adopt LC classi-fication. The purpose of this paper is to re-examine the advantages of reclassi-fication, both real and imagined; to enumerate the factors on which a deci-sion must be based; and to discuss the alternative of partial reclassification in order to bring into sharper focus the real cost of reclassification. Before proceeding further, however, we must establish a clear distinction be-Mr. Dougherty is Associate Director of Libraries at the University of Colorado. 258/ tween the benefits realized by adopting LC classification from those of reclassifi-cation. If the literature is any indication, confusion abounds. Writers often cite cost economies of utilizing LC copy as an advantage of reclassification, and while it is true that reclassification with LC copy will be cheaper than reclassifi-cation without LC copy, these economies are achieved through the processing of new titles, not by reprocessing of retro-spective collections. The decision to re-classify may be justified on several grounds, but not under the banner of "cost economy." The advantages of adopting the LC classification have been thoroughly doc-umented in the literature. Economy and speed are the principal reasons-econo-mies in book processing and speedier Bows of material through the technical services departments. Another benefit of adopting LC is that the change increases the usefulness of bibliographic tools pub-lished by the Library of Congress. Also, the LC scheme is purported to be a more suitable system for organizing re-search collections. Although not often cited as a benefit, at least initially, avail-ability of LC copy reduces the ever present temptation to alter, locally, cata-loging copy. Moreover, the use of LC copy has prompted libraries to organize special processing units so that titles for ~ which cataloging copy is available can be processed entirely by nonprofessional staff. Switching to the LC classification is not without its disadvantages, however. The changeover produces two collec-tions, consequently readers and staff members must be trained to work with two systems. Work procedures become ~ more complicated and expensive since parallel operations must be maintained, i.e., circulation, cataloging, marking, etc. In the long run, however, the greatest disadvantage may be a library's inability t- to resolve economically the problems of .).._ reclassifying retrospective collections, once the LC classification is adopted. ADVANTAGES OF RECLASSIFICATION The literature attributes a number of benefits to reclassification. The advan-tages usually cited are: ( 1) reclassifica-~t- tion and recataloging will correct past errors; ( 2) LC is a more suitable scheme for scholarly collections; ( 3) reclassifica-tion avoids the confusion brought about by two collections; and ( 4) reclassifica-tion will increase the effectiveness of browsing. A fundamental difficulty here · is that with the possible exception of the first, correction of errors, the gains cred-ited to reclassification are founded on tra-ditionally accepted assumptions, and the tools used to measure their impact are, by and large, subjective. It is not a fore-gone conclusion that reclassification will produce improvements dramatic enough to convince cost -conscious nonlibrary ad-ministrators. For this reason, any library contemplating reclassification should weigh realistically the probable impact of each factor on library services. 1. Library of Congress classification is a more suitable scheme for research col-lections. There is probably a great deal of truth to this statement although like other schemes LC has its innate weak-nesses. It is becoming fashionable to inculpate Dewey for our classificatory ills-Dewey also serves as a convenient Realities of Reclassification I 259 scapegoat. But in truth the root of the trouble may lie elsewhere. Since a corps of disgruntled users can be found on most campuses, regardless of the classi-fication system in use, the real problem may be that no universal classification system is capable of satisfying complete-ly a heterogeneous user group. Rest as-sured, readers will quickly dispel any notion that switching to LC eliminates complaints. 2. Reclassification will increase brows-ability. At least two assumptions are im-plied by this statement. First, that brows-ing is a legitimate expectation of a re-search collection and, second, that LC provides a more browsable collection than other classification systems. We know, empirically at least, that browsing is affected by a variety of factors; the type of library, the level of user, accessi-bility of the collections (open vs. closed stacks), the subject area, etc. Our under-standing of browsing is not complete; there are still fundamental questions to be answered. How many readers actually browse; under what conditions do they browse; how many titles are required to satisfy a browser's need; what correla-tion exists between the books finally bor-rowed and the original need as the read-er conceived it? An open stack research collection or-ganized according to a universal classifi-cation scheme itself militates against browsing. Most librarians agree that a universal scheme will result in the scat-tering of related materials. The degree of dispersal varies from subject to sub-ject. The purpose of an open-stacked li-brary is to make materials more accessi-ble to users; in other words, we are ex-tending a special invitation to borrow more books. The latest books (and often the most attractive) on a subject should be in circulation most of the time, with the result that the browser will frequent-ly have to select from the remains. 3. Reclassification will avoid the diffi-culties and inconvenience of working 260 I College & Research Libraries· July, 1967 with two collections. Two collections will erect new barriers between readers and materials. Two collections will also dis-perse related materials and consequently reduce the effectiveness of browsing. There is no evidence, however, to sup-port the contention that two collections will seriously impede library service. Most libraries already are composites of collections organized according to differ-ent schemes. It is not unusual for .a li-brary to organize its phono-records, ar-chives, manuscripts, government docu-ments, curriculum collections, pamphlets, and undergraduate collections all accord-ing to different classification schemes. Parenthetically we must add that from the user's point of view, a collection will be split for the duration of the reclassifi-cation project; and based on recent ex-perience, this situation might well per-sist for a number of years. The principal arguments against re-classification center on economic issues. While .a library must wage an uphill battle to produce a tangible "reclassifica-tion profit sheet," a "reclassification price tag" is easily calculated, particularly a summary of direct labor costs. In this paper we have defined "direct" costs .as those expenses incurred actually in re-classification, and "indirect" costs as the funds that would have been spent on other services if reclassification had not been undertaken. CRITERIA FOR RECLASSIFICATION The dilemma becomes one of weigh-ing the potential advantages of reclassi-fication against its costs. No one can categorically state that reclassification is desirable or undesirable. Published cost figures are not too useful because they reflect conditions unique to one environment. There are, however, sev-eral useful guides available to librari-ans contemplating reclassification. 1. Size of the collection. (.a) There is a high correlation between a collection size and the cost of reclassification. There is, however, probably no point at which we can state that size, and size alone, precludes reclassification. (b) The importance of classification will dimin-ish .as the collection grows. The call number will serve more as a locator de-vice than as a means for arranging books by subject content. (c) The larger the collection, the greater the number of titles for which there will be no LC cata-loging copy available. This will propor-tionately increase processing costs. 2. Age of the collection. The older the collection, the more rec.ataloging is likely to occur. Obsolete subject headings, poor entries, and time-honored local practices all will be contributing factors. That re-cataloging can be divorced from reclassi-fication is a tale from our professional folklore. Reclassification cost predictions that do not .allow for some recataloging should be viewed with skepticism. Those who reassure that -no recataloging will occur are likely deluding only them-selves. I have discussed this problem with a number of catalogers. Almost without exception they expressed the view that many more titles were recata-loged than administrators were aware of. A cataloger is likely to believe that up-per level administrators are not suffi-ciently in tune with the realities of re-classification. To instruct a cataloger to ignore mistakes of the past .and to change only classification numbers is likely to lead to worker frustration. What satisfac-tion is there in releasing work that (from the cataloger's point of view) is blatantly sloppy or incorrect? The importance of allowing for re-cataloging cannot be stressed too strong-ly. Such considerations as the proportion of titles in a collection for which LC cataloging copy is available and the age of the collection, to some degree, will determine the number of books that will require original reprocessing. 3. Organization of the collection. De-centralized collections will increase proc-essing costs. The costs of pulling, chang-ing, and refiling records, as well as book transportation costs, are all dependent on the extent of decentralization. There are additional factors not direct-ly related to costs that also warrant con-sideration. These include: 4. Type of library. Libraries serving readers who are more likely to browse, e.g., college libraries rather than univer-sity libraries, may have a greater need for reclassification. One can also antici-pate locating LC copy for a large pro-portion of the titles that would normally be acquired for a college library or un-dergraduate library collection. 5. Nature of the building. Reclassifica-tion may be more desirable for collec-tions housed in a fixed-function build-ing. Collections in modular buildings can physically be relocated in order to minimize the inconveniences of two col-lections. (Of course th~ architecture of a building could also have a direct bear-ing on costs.) 6. Political environment. The campus political climate cannot be ignored. The top library administrators are in a posi-tion to mold campus sentiment one way or the other. Reclassification undertaken with the support of the institution's ad-ministration and faculty will proceed much more smoothly than when the aca-demic community is apathetic or op-posed to the project. 7. Financial support. Adequate and stable financing is imperative if the proj-ect is to be completed within a reason-able period of time. Under-financed proj-ects will drain funds from other pro-grams or, worse, will bog down com-pletely for a lack of support. Even after a library has assiduously weighed the criteria, all that may be possible is the development of a general profile. For ex-ample, decentrally organized research collections numbering from five hundred thousand to one million volumes or more will be most expensive to reclassify; by contrast, a recently established college library collection (the smaller, the bet-Realities of Reclassification I 261 ter) serving undergraduates exclusively will be the least expensive to process. Unfortunately, most real life situations will fall between these two extremes. In such cases, the final decision will depend on the best judgment of administrators and staff. There is, however, an alterna-tive to an either I or decision. PARTIAL REcLASSIFICA noN There will be situations in which par-tial reclassification is preferable to total reclassification. This will be true for a variety of reasons, e.g., a lack of funds, the tenor of campus politics, architecture of the building, or rapid growth of the collection. The effect of sudden collec-tion growth is sometimes overlooked. Collections can be expected to grow rapidly in institutions that undergo edu-cational metamorphoses-junior to four-year colleges; teacher to liberal arts col-leges, and colleges to multipurpose uni-versities. Because of rapid growth, the bulk of the working collection will be classed in LC within a relatively short period of time; consequently, the need for reclassification may become less pressing. If a library decides to undertake par-tial reclassification, at least in the short run, categories to be reclassified will have to be selected. Added copies and added editions are usually reclassified, although some libraries have chosen not to reprocess either earlier editions or first copies. Separately housed or special-ly organized collections are often viewed as desirable starting points. An under-graduate collection is a case in point. It is a discreet body of materials housed in a separate area, intended for a user group that can be partially segregated from other user groups. Reference col-lections or specially shelved materials such as oversized books are also possi-bilities. Subject obsolescence of materials also deserves attention. Why reclass materials in science and technology when a short 262 I College & Research Libraries • July, 1967 use-span can be anticipated for most of these books. In fact, these same materials might someday form the core of an on-campus storage unit. On the other hand, the humanistic disciplines, for the most part, are not as affected by age; so that a stronger case is plausible for reclassi-fying the humanities rather than the sci-ences, if one is concerned primarily with the convenience of users. The humani-ties and related areas, however, com-prise a sizeable proportion of collections so that costs must be weighed against convenience. Periodicals and serials, at first glance, will appear to be prime candidates. But reconsider the question, because on clos-er examination the subtle complexities will begin to materialize. The futility of trying to distinguish between periodicals and serials illustrates well the difficul-ties. Remember, too, that no great ad-vantage can be achieved in arranging periodicals by any one classification sys-tem. Classification numbers, either via LC or Dewey, are usually general in scope and often too broad to be of much use to browsers. Furthermore, when peri-odicals are shelved separately from mon-ographic materials, subject arrangement becomes even less meaningful. Reclassi-fication of monographic serials is even more complex. A library would be well advised to think the problem through carefully before undertaking serials re-classification. SuMMARY Too often libraries have undertaken reclassification projects without adequate supporting data. Anticipated cost sav-ings are exaggerated because the data are based on fallacious assumptions. Es-timates are unrealistic either because they do not reflect actual systems costs or because the savings realized by adopt-ing LC cataloging copy are also errone-ously claimed for reclassification of retro-spective collections. To praise or denounce libraries that have undertaken reclassification is not the purpose of this paper; the point to emphasize is that a library contemplat-ing reclassification should examine realis-tically the pros and cons and the alterna-tives before reaching a final decision. Too often a library that has embarked enthusiastically on the course of reclassi-fication soon finds itself mired in confu-sion with funds exhausted. In order to continue work, monies are diverted from other worthwhile projects. Because funds are a scarce commodity and projects so plentiful, each library must establish a priority list for potential projects such as reclassification. Librarians do not agree on the importance of reclassillca-tion, but one important point is that no matter how we frame it, by definition reclassification boils down to redoing work. Is it worth the price? •• >-

The Realities of Reclassification

IDEALS @ Illinois

https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/38031/crl_28_04_258_opt.pdf?sequence=2

The Realities of Reclassification

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository

IDEALS @ Illinois