Classification Review

When the librarians began to organize the monks' collections, we created catalog records employing what's called "copy cataloging". This is basically a process of taking machine readable code from trusted sources, and importing it into catalog software. We hummed along for several years using this standard practice, but paid only occasional attention to which edition of Dewey Decimal Classification was associated with the call numbers imported with each record. The net result of this is that now there are some disruptions within the logical hierarchy of subjects, which are most obvious to community members who browse the shelves for a good book to read. Of course, the catalog will direct monks to the specific location of books, but many find it more enjoyable to go directly to the shelves.

Realization of the classification problem was slow in coming. We librarians should have known this was an issue for the community when they first brought it to our attention in 2003. Our response was simply that the community needed to be educated on the conceptual subdivisions of the Dewey 200 religion class. But very little would get in the way of our rapid-fire copy cataloging machine. When the cataloging process was slowed to a halt last Spring due to space constraints, it turned into an opportunity to review what had been accomplished since the beginnings in 2001. Taking time to examine some rather glaring examples of mis-classification led to a reconsideration of both the classification system in use and our standard for accepting imported bibliographic records.

With time to think things over, some research, and discussion with more experienced librarians, we began to look at alternate classification systems. Would a change to the Library of Congress Classification System give us a more satisfying taxonomy? Greater accommodation for very specific subjects? More stability with respect to classification authority? Could a retrospective conversion of nearly six thousand records be completed by one person in a short period of time?

Turning to the literature on the philosophical underpinnings on the major classification systems, we were encouraged by what we found in John L. Gresham Jr.'s article, "The Place of Religion in the Universe of Knowledge according to Various Systems of Bibliographic Classification." (See Journal of Religious & Theological Information Vol.2 (1) 1994). Dewey looked at the body of religious knowledge through a decidedly Christian lens. In fact, he left only a few call numbers at the end of the 200 class (the 290s) for non-Christian religions. While about half the collection at Norcia are theological monographs, the remainder are non-religious. For serious reading, the community members draw primarily on the books located within the 200 class. Conceptually it makes sense to employ the religious sensibility of a class which originated from a Christian worldview. However, Roman Catholic subjects do not necessarily fit well within this class, yet the system is pliable enough to allow for modification.

For our purposes, we will likely continue with Dewey classification, but review all records to ensure that a single edition (20th), will be used to ensure consistency. In December, this librarian will seek to correct some of the more glaring deficiencies, and add some discrete signs to delineate the major divisions within the 200 scheme.