In the article, Learning in Hierarchies: An Empirical Test
Using Library Catalogues, the author Thomas Hammond (2007) speaks to those
uninitiated in Library Information Sciences about the very real differences in shelf
listings that will be found when comparing a library organized under Library of
Congress Classification System and the Dewey Decimal System. These two largely used classification systems
are governed by different rules in terms of grouping different subjects
together, as well as what topics fall under what subjects, and as a result, a
particular book will be grouped differently in each system. This means that a
patron browsing the collection and starting at a particular book will be left
with different options on either side of the target book under the two
organizational systems (pp. 429).
Recently, I began an internship as a cataloger at the Kent
State University Main Library. One of my responsibilities in this internship
includes subject analysis. In subject analysis, the cataloger attempts to
determine the “aboutness” of the article and then to translate that into
different subject headings using the Library of Congress Subject Headings, as
well as determining the classification number for the resource. This classification number should be such
that the item is located in a place on the shelf where it is beneficial to the
user looking for that resource, who might be interested in discovering that
resource. As such, it is a general
guideline that the classification number should correlate to the first subject
heading assigned to the resource in order to better ensure that it is located
alongside of other pertinent resources.
Ultimately, the spot on the shelf that the item ends up is at best an
approximation that is attempted by the diligent cataloger.
Reducing complex texts into a single spot on a shelf can be
a very mentally demanding task and there is no exact science that goes along
with it. This process relies heavily upon institutional practices, decisions
made to the item (or like items) in the past, decisions made by catalogers in
other institutions, and on subjective judgments made by the cataloger. Subject expertise may be a factor in ensuring
that the item actually gets cataloged properly, as well as familiarity with the
resource. However, it is obviously not possible for one cataloger to be an
expert in all areas, or for them to have the time to read and digest every
resource that needs cataloged. As a
result to these limitations, catalogers rely on incomplete information, such as
abstracts, introductions, table of contents, bibliographies, and possibly
second hand sources such as reviews or blurbs.
When the task is complete, then the item will be housed in
one specific spot in the library. Sometimes that spot is not perfect. Sometimes
the cataloger was not particularly happy with the spot, but perhaps it was the
best that could be done. Most of the
time, however, the item’s location fits in with the general scheme of the
library and should be located in a place that makes it visible for the
potential reader to stumble upon, or to find other related resources housed
next door.
In the end, this is why consistency with past practices is
so important, as well as stressing the need for organizations to share their
bibliographic records through networks like OCLC. This consistency helps to
ensure that books are placed where they should be in order for them to be
placed with books that are similar, especially in that particular collection.
To try to ensure that this consistency occurs, classification numbers should be
checked in the catalog to see that the resource fits in the given range.
As an illustration of this point, my most recent checkout
from the Kent State University Library was a book called For the Love of the
Father: A Psychoanalytic Study of Religious Terrorism by Ruth Stein. This item came to my attention while looking
at the subject heading for books on the subject of psychoanalysis, a topic that
is typically housed around BF173, however, this particular book was classified
in HV6431, which is where works on terrorism are located. In other words, if I had merely gone to the
shelf in order to browse books on psychoanalysis and had gone to BF173, then I
would not have found this book. This is
not to say that there was any error made in cataloging this resource, I believe
that this resource was cataloged right where it should have been; this example
is merely to point out that a physical book can only occupy one shelf spot and
because of this, and both cataloger and reference librarians need to be aware
of this.
This point is further illustrated by taking a look at book
lists on different libguides at libguides.com.
By browsing the libguides on the subject of Political Science, it is clear
that books can be classified in a large number of different classification
numbers and yet still be listed as resources relevant to a Political Science
major.
Work cited
HAMMOND, Thomas H (10/01/2007). "Learning in hierarchies: an empirical
test using library catalogues.". Journal of theoretical politics (0951-6298), 19 (4), p. 425.
DOI:
10.1177/0951629807080776. ISSN: 0951-6298.
No comments:
Post a Comment