The Dewey Decimal System Is No Longer Relevant to Todays Youth - Thesis Example

To Dewey or Not to Dewey? Introduction The Dewey Decimal System is a system of library ification that has been widely used for a number of years, and is used around the world. However, in today’s world, the younger set is increasingly demanding a simpler and more functional way of classifying books. For instance, there is the process of tagging, which is a more simple categorization process that can translate to different users who need to find information that is categorized by the original tagger. This is a simple and functional process, one that new users have used extensively on the Internet, so it is a categorization process that would come more naturally to new users than the Dewey Decimal System. That said, there are drawbacks to the more intuitive processes – as shown by bookstores who do not use the Dewey Decimal System, and use a system that is more akin to tagging, books may sometimes be difficult to find, and users in a bookstore often need assistance to find where books are grouped. The Dewey Decimal System also has the advantage in that it provides users with an address for the books, and books may be better microcategorized in a Dewey system than in a bookstore system. That said, he Dewey Decimal System is no longer relevant to today’s youth as there are easier and more functional ways to catalog in elementary libraries that would seem to enhance circulation. Discussion The Dewey Decimal System, according to Wiegand (1998), is a system of classification that is used by libraries across the country. It is based upon a system by which knowledge is organized in well-defined categories, with well-defined hierarchies, a rich network of relationships, and meaningful notation (Mitchell, 2001). The DDS is divided into ten main classes, which include computers, philosophy, religion, social science, language, science, technology, arts and recreation, literature, and history and geography. This is the first digit, which is the broad classification scheme. The second digit of the books in the Dewey Decimal scheme is the narrower classification – for instance, while the 500s are reserved for science, the second digit indicates what kind of science – 510 for math, 520 for astronomy, etc. The third digit is narrower still, and indicates the section. While 510 is for mathematics in general, the third digit indicates different disciplines within mathematics – such as 512 is reserved from algebra, and 513 is reserved for arithmetic, etc. (Bean, 2001). While this is a classification scheme that has been used for at least the last 150 years (Wiegand, 1998), it is a classification scheme that is quickly becoming obsolete, or, at the very least, replaced by classification systems that Internet users have formed. Kaplan (2012) states that one such scheme was one that was arranged by elementary school students, who were asked to group books together according to how they, the students, would arrange them. The students arranged books differently than Dewey would arrange them. For instance, the students stated that books about flying animals should be grouped together, which would mean that bats and birds would be grouped in a section. Other classifications in the library were “scary,” “adventure,” “mystery,” “sports.” The idea behind the classification is that the books are arranged so that kids can go from one idea to a related idea. So, a child might find a book on origami next to a book about sewing, because these books would be under the craft system. Under the Dewey system, these two topics would be far apart, so that the student would not be able to seamlessly segue from one topic to the other in such a fashion. As another example, the kids may find under the heading of “machines” such diverse topics as transportation to military. Again, under the Dewey system, these two topics would be far apart. The librarians decided to dispense with the Dewey system out of frustration about how Dewey was arranged – trains would be in the 380s, while general transportation was in the 620s, for example. A Chicago library that has used a similar format has found that the rate of fiction books being checked out is double other libraries in the area, as are non-fiction books, and the librarians at this library state that people find books that they otherwise would not have under the Dewey system (McCoppin, 2011). Another example, as Rainie (2007) notes, is that Internet users are organizing digital material in a way that makes sense to them, as individuals. One way that they do this is through a process known as tagging. Tagging is a way for labeling online content. For instance, a person may upload a picture of a sunset and call it sunset, then other users who are looking for a picture of a sunset may find that same picture that the particular user had uploaded (Rainie, 2007). The taggers are, by and large, part of a younger generation, according to Rainie (2007) – they are more likely to be under age 40 than the non-taggers, and have a higher level of education and income than non-taggers. Golder & Huberman (2006) describe a kind of tagging called the “collaborative tagging systems.” This means that the users are adding metadata in keyword form to shared content. This allows users to tag bookmarks, photographs and other content. This is the way to organize the content so that future navigation can be made simpler, such as filtering and searching. Golder & Huberman (2006) state that the system differs from the Dewey system, in that the system of tagging is not hierarchical nor exclusive, and, because of this, it has the advantage over the Dewey system. How this applies in an elementary school library is that the e-books which are available in the library might use these categorization methods to help the students find what they are looking for. While tagging is what is being used on the Internet, and might make sense in a more intuitive way, it also has the distinct drawback in that it does not work for books in a library. Books may be labeled according to their topic, but that does not make the book easy to find. As Field (2010) notes, the Dewey Decimal System is still in use today because, without it, books would be difficult to find. She states that in bookstores there is not a Dewey Decimal System to categorize the books, and it is, therefore, very difficult to find the book that a person wants. The public might decide that it doesn’t want the Dewey system, which occurred in Maricopa County in Arizona, who opened a branch library that did not rely on the Dewey system. In that library, the books are arranged by the broad subject matter, then alphabetized by the author’s name, which is similar to how bookstores classify their books. The issue with this type of system, according to Field (2010), is that finding a book often requires assistance. With the Dewey system, this is not the case – the user has the “exact address” of the book (Field, 2010). Moreover, since the Dewey system is a uniform one, it makes it easy to find a book in any library that one might visit. Other critics note that books that do not fit into an obvious category would be very difficult to find, and categorization might become subjective and also might be too broad – for instance, books about Clifford the Dog would be in the same section as books about seeing-eye dogs (Perham, 2012). Conclusion The younger generation has their own system for classification for items that they categorize on the Internet. Tagging is the way that they group items in a way that is meaningful for them, and it also might be intuitive. Since classifying things in an intuitive way has its advantages, there are many reasons why this type of classifications has advantages over the Dewey system. People who grew up in the digital age are increasingly finding that the Dewey classification system is not relevant to their lives. However, the problem with the intuitive classification of the younger generation is when there is a library full of books. There is some demand among the younger set to set up libraries more like bookstores – where books are classified according to its subject matter, then alphabetized by the author’s last name. The demand for younger people for this type of classification of books in a library is shown by the Mariposa County in Arizona doing a pilot library branch in this manner, indicating that it was trying the new classification system, which is comparable to tagging on the Internet, because of the demand from people under the age of 40. Field (2010) found that this scheme didn’t work, because the students were needing assistance in finding books, much like they would if they were in a bookstore looking for books. However, as the library described by Kaplan (2012) shows, different classifications may be successful, and they may be successful with input from the kids in the school. They discovered that the Dewey system was not intuitively classified, and they found that they were better able to group books according to their subject matter, and the children had a much easier time finding relevant books, as well as were guided to related books on related topics. A child may want information about machines, and might have an interest in this general classification. The new way of grouping books would allow the child to explore many different types of machines, from transportation machines to machines used for the military. This would enhance the child’s curiosity, and give the child a way to find different subjects that he or she would be interested in. This library has shown that, with the right classification, students will check out more books, because they are able to find related books for their subject matter much more easily. References Bean, C. & Green, R. (2001) Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge. Dublin, OH: OCLC Forest Press. Field, S. (2010) The value of using Dewey in libraries. Available at: http://fieldportfoliounk.net/PDFs/Deweypaper.pdf Golder, S. & Huberman, B. (2006) The structure of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32.2, 198-208. Kaplan, T., Dolloff, A., Giffard, S., Still-Sciff, J. (2012) Are Dewey’s days numbered? Libraries nationwide are ditching the old classification system. School Library Journal, 20 March. Available at: http://www.slj.com/2012/09/librarians/are-deweys-days-numbered-libraries-across-the-country-are-giving-the-old-classification-system-the-heave-ho-heres-one-schools-story/ McCoppin, R. (2011) Whos killing the Dewey Decimal System? Chicago Tribune, 18 Feb. Available at: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-18/news/ct-met-drop-dewey-20110218_1_dewey-decimal-system-main-library-newer-books Mitchell, J. (2001) Relationships in the Dewey Decimal Classification System. In Bean, C. & Green, R. (2001) Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge. Dublin, OH: OCLC Forest Press. Perham, A. (2012) Do we ditch Dewey? Massachusetts School Library Association. Available at: http://maschoolibraries.org/content/view/1050/659/ Rainie, L. (2007) Forget Dewey and decimals, Internet users are revolutionizing the way we classify information and make sense of it. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 31 Jan., 1-20. Wiegand, W. (1998) The ‘Amherst Method’: The origins of the Dewey Decimal Classification scheme. Libraries and Culture, 33.2, 1-20. Read More