College and Research Libraries D E S M O N D TAYLOR Classification Trends in Junior College Libraries A survey was made of the classification schemes employed in America junior college libraries. Of 690 institutions reporting, just over three- fourths use the Dewey scheme, considerably fewer than the 96.5 per cent that reported using the DC in a similar study in 1961. Of the 159 new junior colleges established since 1961, 38.2 per cent are now using LC, manifesting a trend toward use of the latter scheme. The author proposes that professional organizations actively encourage adoption of the LC Classification scheme. 1 3 URING t h e last f e w years many li- brarians h a v e discussed the merits of the D e w e y D e c i m a l versus the L i b r a r y of Congress Classification systems. T h e concept of centralized cataloging, al- though generally on t h e fringes of li- b r a r y practice for m a n y years, is inti- mately connected w i t h the present dia- logue ( o r dispute, depending on one's perspectives or p r e j u d i c e s ) over D C versus L C . T h a t t h e r e is a need to re- think the entire classification picture is obvious from the glut of published ma- terial available and t h e increasing costs of technical processing in libraries. An increase in interest in t h e L C Classification system has b e c o m e appar- e n t since 1960. Numerous articles and studies h a v e appeared which m a k e it reasonably clear t h a t t h e application of t h e L C system is less costly if a c c e p t e d with the spirit of centralized cataloging firmly in mind. O b j e c t i v e analyses of the classification problem b e a r out this state- ment. 1 1 It is recognized that cost studies at one insti- tution will not necessarily b e transferable to another since wages very often fluctuate by region and area. In terms of comparative costs between the D C and Mr. Taylor is Library Director in the University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. During the last seven years junior col- leges have increased throughout m u c h of the country. A survey of classification use and trends in this developing move- ment in higher education seemed ap- propriate in order to determine t h e awareness and knowledgeability of jun- ior college librarians concerning t h e problems of library classification. T h e survey was conducted b y means of a postal card form with a covering let- ter explaining the project. T h e informa- tion requested was limited to seven questions. Aside from the institutional identifications, the most important ques- tions dealt with t h e classification sys- tems used and the period the present system had b e e n in use. Only one previous survey2 in r e c e n t years attempted to obtain data on the classification systems used by junior col- lege libraries. T h e Rowland survey cov- ered all junior colleges listed in t h e "Junior College Directory, 1961" 3 and the LC systems, however, the proportional economies and advantages ( i n speed, uniformity, for instance) of the LC system, remain most obvious if the system is applied with the principle of standardized and centralized cataloging firmly in mind. 2 Arthur Ray Rowland, "Cataloging and Classification in Junior College Libraries," Library Resources <Lr Technical Services, VII (Summer 1 9 6 3 ) , 2 5 4 - 5 8 . 3 "Junior College Directory, 1 9 6 1 , " Junior College Journal, XXXI (January 1 9 6 1 ) , 2 6 7 - 3 0 2 . / 351 352 / College b- Research Libraries • September 1968 obtained slightly over a 5 0 per cent re- turn. T h e present survey covered all junior colleges listed in the 1967 Junior College Directory,4 which represented all of the fifty states, District of Colum- bia, Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands. Replies were received from 6 9 0 of t h e 837 two-year institutions listed in the directory, or slightly better than 82 per cent. C L A S S I F I C A T I O N T h e present survey identifies by name only the D e w e y and the L C Classifica- tion systems. F o u r junior college li- braries used other classification systems. No attempt was made to identify these four systems since for all practical pur- poses only the D e w e y and the Library of Congress systems are in widespread use in this country. Other classifications m a y b e used b y some general academic libraries and even public libraries which appear less concerned with the implica- tions of their individualism. I t is appro- priate in the confines of the library school classroom to discuss theoretical aspects of various classification systems, b u t as a matter of pragmatic recourse, these systems are used only by those li- braries who have been caught in the ex- pensive theoretical w e b of their own sol- ipsism. Rowland's survey obtained useful in- formation from 3 1 5 libraries and indi- cated that as of 1961, 96.5 per cent of junior college libraries were using Dew- ey with only 3.5 per cent using the Li- brary of Congress system. T h e present survey indicates that there is a tendency now to prefer the Library of Congress system. T a b l e 1 summarizes the data collected from the 690 cooperating li- braries. I t is unfortunate that not all of the junior colleges listed in the 1967 direc- * 1967 Junior College Directory (Washington: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1 9 6 7 ) . The directory covers the period from September 1 9 6 5 to August 1 9 6 6 and the fall enrollments for 1966. TABLE 1 Number Percentage Dewey Classification . 532 77.1 Library of Congress Classification 92 13.3 Changing f r o m DC to LC . . 58 8.4 Planning on changing from DC to LC 4 .6 Other classifications . 4 .6 Total . 690 100.0 tory were willing to reply to the ques- tionnaire. A comprehensive report list- ing the classification systems used by all junior college libraries would better serve the interests of classification anal- ysis and uniformity and would encour- age the recently established national c o m m i t t e e on junior college libraries5 to deal in t h e most effective manner with t h e hitherto ignored issue of classifica- tion systems. Obviously the same infor- mation would better serve t h e present and future development of nearly all ac- ademic libraries.6 T a b l e 2 is a complete listing b y state of the results of this classification survey. Some states—especially California, N e w York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin —show t h e most reclassification activity to the L C scheme. T h e states with the highest n u m b e r of junior colleges using the L C Classification are California ( 1 2 ) , F l o r i d a ( 1 2 ) , New York ( 1 6 ) , Pennsylvania ( 1 4 ) , and Wisconsin ( 1 2 ) . O f those libraries presently reclassifying, nearly all h a v e initiated their change to 5 "Ten-Point Program Outlined for Junior College Libraries," Library Journal, XCI (March 15, 1 9 6 6 ) , 1 3 7 7 - 8 0 . 6 It appears curious that ACRL, or the Resources and Technical Services Division of ALA have not had the interest to keep an up-to-date record of classification use in the libraries of this country. It is unfortunate that the national professional library organizations that create the standards for library development d o not deal with the very important area of library classification. Not until ALA, ACRL, and AAJC decide to put teeth into their published stand- ards (such as the American Chemical Society has d o n e ) through strict accreditation requirements that deal not only w i t h minimum standards but also with such matters as classification systems and centralized cataloging will these organizations be really effective. Classification Trends in Junior College Libraries / 353 TABLE 2 State Number D C LC Changing to LC P l a n n i n g / Considering Change to LC Other Alabama 19 11 2 Alaska 7 4 2 Arizona 6 4 2 Arkansas 7 5 California 82 58 5 7 2 Canal Zone . . . . 1 1 Colorado 7 6 1 Connecticut . . . . 16 13 1 Delaware 1 1 District of Columbia . 3 3 Florida 29 15 8 4 Georgia 21 12 5 1 Hawaii 5 1 3 Idaho 5 4 Illinois 42 32 3 1 Indiana 2 2 Iowa 22 15 1 Kansas 21 14 Kentucky 18 9 1 2 Louisiana 2 1 Maine 2 1 Maryland 18 14 2 1 Massachusetts 29 18 3 3 Michigan 27 17 7 Minnesota 20 17 2 Mississippi 27 15 Missouri 19 16 1 Montana 2 Nebraska 7 3 1 1 Nevada New Hampshire . 3 2 1 New Jersey 17 14 2 New Mexico . . . . 6 5 1 New York 66 38 7 9 1 North Carolina 37 26 2 1 North Dakota 6 4 1 Ohio 10 7 1 1 Oklahoma 16 13 1 Oregon 14 9 1 2 1 Pennsylvania 45 16 6 8 Puerto Rico . . . . 2 2 Rhode Island . 3 2 South Carolina 13 6 4 South Dakota . . . . 2 2 Tennessee 9 6 1 Texas 48 34 3 1 Utah 3 2 Vermont 5 5 Virginia 22 9 6 2 Virgin Islands 1 1 Washington 20 18 2 West Virginia . . . . 5 3 Wisconsin 14 1 4 8 1 Wyoming 5 2 1 Total 837 532 92 58 4 4 354 / College b- Research Libraries • September 1968 t h e L i b r a r y of Congress Classification since 1962. S i n c e 1960, 2 2 5 n e w junior colleges h a v e b e e n established. O f this number, t w e n t y - o n e h a v e d e c i d e d to reclassify their libraries to t h e L C system. Only fifty-eight of t h e 6 9 0 libraries cooperat- ing r e p o r t e d reclassification projects. T h i s indicates t h a t 3 6 . 2 per c e n t of those libraries involved in reclassification have b e e n f o u n d e d since 1960. T a b l e 3 represents a summary listing of junior c o l l e g e libraries established since 1 9 6 0 indicating their original li- b r a r y classification s c h e m e . O f t h e 1 5 9 libraries which started using the D e w e y D e c i m a l system, t w e n t y - o n e later b e g a n reclassification to t h e L C system. Considering this de- velopment, t h e totals of T a b l e 3 are re- vised in T a b l e 4 to reflect the present classification situation. T a b l e 5 is a listing of the twenty-one two-year institutions that h a v e c h a n g e d from D e w e y to L C since their founding ( 1 9 6 0 or l a t e r ) . CONCLUSION AND I M P L I C A T I O N S Although t h e m a j o r i t y of junior col- l e g e libraries presently established ( a n d b e i n g e s t a b l i s h e d ) use the D e w e y D e c i - m a l Classification, t h e ratio is substan- tially less n o w than in 1961. M o r e than thirty-eight per c e n t of the libraries es- tablished since 1 9 6 0 are using or are re- classifying to t h e L i b r a r y of Congress system. This, of course, is an encourag- TABLE 3 Year Established D C LC Other 1960 . . 23 2 1961 23 4 1962 . 23 2 1963 . 24 6 1964 . 18 11 1965 . . 30 15 1966 . 18 25 1 1967 . . Total (225 = 100%) 159 (71.7%) 65 (29%) 1 (.44%) TABLE 4 D C LC Other Total (225 = 100%) 138 (61.3%) 86 (38.2%) 1 (.44%) ing d e v e l o p m e n t if a national system of library classification and c e n t r a l i z e d cat- aloging is desirable. Since libraries have a g r e e d on main entry forms, catalog c a r d format, and information, it seems a natural step to a c c e p t a standardized classification system. I t is a b i t distressing to c o n t e m p l a t e t h e reclassification projects o f the twenty-one two-year institutions, with their extra expense, time, and energy r e q u i r e d b e c a u s e of the i n a d e q u a t e orig- inal planning, lack of k n o w l e d g e , and unfamiliarity with the actual n a t u r e of available library classification systems. T h i s m a y b e attributed in part t o the general i n a d e q u a c y , by and large, of li- brary school instruction, or p e r h a p s also to c o m p l a c e n c y and disinterest o f the national professional association. One wonders w h a t institutional administra- tions think of their librarians w h o rec- o m m e n d reclassification p r o j e c t s only one to four years after the establishment of the library. Certainly, as D o u g h e r t y 7 points out, reclassification costs are high. Obviously such switching of classification systems in a short period indicates poor library planning t h a t can only d e n i g r a t e the capabilities of librarians. 8 Pirie refers to his survey of processing activities in junior college libraries as reminiscent of the labors of Sisyphus. No matter where or however intensively one's efforts have been directed at record- ing the myriad practices and procedures of scores of libraries . . . [one] sees questions 7 Richard M. Dougherty, "The Realities of Reclassi- fication," CRL, XXVIII (July 1 9 6 7 ) , 2 5 8 - 6 2 . 8 It is acknowledged that in some instances the school administration may be public-school oriented and unresponsive to the recommenations of librar- ians. In this case, a strong statement, or better still, library accreditation standards established by a na- tional association, would force a more responsive rela- tionship. Classification Trends in Junior College Libraries / 355 TABLE 5 State D a t e Reclassification Institution Started Started California West Valley College 1964 June 1967 Florida June 1967 Edison Junior College 1962 1966 Florida Keys Junior College 1965 Sept 1966 Kentucky Henderson Community College 1960 1966 Massachusetts Quinsigamond Community College 1963 July 1967 Cape Cod Community College 1961 1967 New York Suffolk Community College 1960 1965 Mater Dei College 1960 1966 Onondaga Community College 1962 1966 Jefferson Community College 1963 1965 Fulton-Montgomery Community College 1964 1966 Oregon Lane Community College 1965 1966 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State University (2-year) campuses Beaver Campus 1965 1966 Fayette Campus 1965 1966 New Kensington Campus 1964 1966 Rhode Island Johnson & Wales Junior College 1963 1966 Rhode Island Junior College 1964 1967 Virginia 1965? Patrick Henry College 1962 1965? Wytheville Community College 1963 Jan 1967 Wisconsin University of Wisconsin (2-year campuses) Fox Valley Campus 1960 1966 Marinette County Center Campus 1965 1965* * This library reported that it started using both the D C and the LC Classifications! N o w , however, it is using the L C system exclusively. imperfectly phrased, understood, and an- swered. The simple truth is that methods of processing in a more or less homogeneous group of libraries are . . . bewildering in their variety and ingenious in their meet- ing of problems in different ways.9 Harvey scarcely reassures concerning the quality of librarianship practiced in junior college libraries when he makes such a statement as . . . there is almost no other aspect of li- brarianship where the gap is so great be- tween theory and practice. Junior college libraries are among the poorest kinds of li- braries.10 9 James W . Pirie, "Junior C o l l e g e Library Process- ing," Library Trends, XIV ( O c t o b e r 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 6 6 - 7 3 . 1 0 John F. Harvey, "The R o l e of the Junior College Library," CRL, XXVII ( M a y 1 9 6 6 ) , 2 2 7 - 3 2 . In view of such reports as these it is doubtless unlikely that institutional ad- ministrations are always basically to blame for the unwise policy decisions in junior college library operations. The re- sponsibility is primarily that of the li- brarians in charge. Shores11 indicates that there is a grow- ing trend to independent study and heavier use of library resources in junior college libraries. He emphasizes the cen- tral processing trend which will free the librarian from technical routines that can be accomplished more economically. But Shores did not address himself to the classification aspect of centralized proc- 1 1 Louis Shores, "Library Junior C o l l e g e , " Junior College Journal, X X X V I (March 1 9 6 6 ) , 6 - 9 . 356 / College b- Research Libraries • September 1968 essing. W h e t h e r a library uses the serv- ices of a c o m m e r c i a l processing firm or cooperates in centralized processing is, a m o n g a n u m b e r of factors, a m a t t e r of available staff and cooperative willing- ness. W h e t h e r it is significantly less cost- ly, however, depends basically on the classification system used. T h e classifica- tion determines t h e c h a r a c t e r of the to- tal operation and w h e t h e r all aspects of a centralized processing operation can b e fully exploited for the lowest unit cost p e r title and volume. 1 2 T h e "Guidelines for E s t a b l i s h i n g Jun- ior C o l l e g e L i b r a r i e s " 1 3 do not refer to any p r e f e r r e d classification system or, for t h a t matter, to library classification a t all. T h e only r e f e r e n c e is to t h e op- erations d e p e n d e n t on such a system. F o r e x a m p l e : Unless there is a large staff available to order and process the new books, or unless commercial processing services are used, a neighboring university or public library may be contracted to catalog and process the basic collection.14 T h i s statement is good as far as it goes, b u t some would f e e l that it leaves unanswered the entire question of clas- sification and its cost of application. T h e p r o p e r application of t h e L i b r a r y of Congress Classification can in some cases cut cost nearly in h a l f if stand- ardized procedures and routines are carefully designed and p r a c t i c e d . T h e librarian should approach L C without t h e involved trappings associated with t h e D e w e y D e c i m a l Classification in its application. 1 5 1 2 According to Theodore Samore in Library Sta- tistics of Colleges and Universities, 1 9 6 1 - 6 2 , Part 11, Analytical Report (Washington: USOE, 1 9 6 4 ) , the percentage of junior college libraries falling below standards increased between 1 9 6 0 and 1962. 1 3 "Guidelines for Establishing Junior College Li- braries," CRL, XXIV (November 1 9 6 3 ) , 5 0 1 - 5 0 5 . 14 Ibid., p. 5 0 3 . A recommendation to accept with caution in lieu of the technical service operations in some university and public libraries. 1 5 This is dependent on labor costs, of course, which vary across the country. Large university libraries are sometimes hardly models of careful cost economy and reasonable efficiency in their classification applications, modifications, and technical processing; e.g., Stanford T h e S e a t t l e area of W a s h i n g t o n State, for e x a m p l e , has several two-year com- munity c o l l e g e s which h a v e b e e n estab- lished s i n c e 1961. W h e n q u e r i e d w h y they h a d n o t used the L i b r a r y of Con- gress Classification, it was i n d i c a t e d that t h e D e w e y D e c i m a l system was pre- f e r r e d b e c a u s e : ( 1 ) it was familiar to the students, and ( 2 ) the University of W a s h i n g t o n , to which they were f e e d e r schools, u s e d D e w e y . Classification costs or e c o n o m i e s w e r e scarcely m e n t i o n e d . U n f o r t u n a t e l y for them, t h e University of W a s h i n g t o n library c h a n g e d to the L i b r a r y o f Congress Classification in J a n u a r y 1 9 6 7 . Now, although at least one of t h e c o m m u n i t y college libraries would like to c h a n g e to L C , t h e embarrass- m e n t of r e c o m m e n d i n g such a p r o j e c t so soon a f t e r being established ( 1 9 6 4 ) presents a costly dilemma. W h a t this could b e i n t e r p r e t e d b y s o m e to m e a n is that if t h e s e libraries h a d b e e n m o r e familiar with the litera- ture, h a d analyzed their operations in greater d e p t h , h a d investigated m o r e fully the a v a i l a b l e classification alterna- tives, a n d h a d considered m o r e ade- q u a t e l y t h e i r operational expenses, they would h a v e found it m o r e difficult to use t h e rationalization of student famili- arity as a primary reason in a classifica- tion decision. L i b r a r y literature and li- b r a r y e x p e r i e n c e seem to i n d i c a t e that t h e m a j o r i t y of library users d o not c a r e w h a t classification system is used. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , librarians are seldom m o r e t h a n products of their professional training a n d associations. Although the i m m e d i a t e responsibility is that of t h e individual librarian, the far-ranging ef- fects are an indictment of the profes- sion. • • University and the University of California at Berkeley libraries. Only one example from Stanford, for in- stance, is their classification of educational materials in a specially devised scheme created a number of years ago. At present there is only one librarian who knows the s c h e m e well enough to apply it to library materials. T h e University of California at Berkeley has performed some interesting modifications in the LC Classification. Centralized cataloging, apparently, is all things to all libraries.