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.