4 Classification
Overview
Subject metadata—particularly classification and subject headings, the respective focuses for the next two chapters—allows metadata creators to communicate what library resources are about using predetermined schemes and vocabularies. This chapter will discuss library classification as it relates to DEI. Rather than attempt to cover the topic exhaustively, it provides readers with a brief overview of the issues and why they matter. It will then describe two practices that can improve the inclusivity of library metadata: keeping the library’s classification current while continuing to use mainstream schemes (e.g., DDC and LCC) and embracing alternative classification. Two real-life case studies will be discussed to illustrate these methods. Note that Chapters 5 and 6 are organized similarly and that some instructions are repeated verbatim except when variation is necessary.
Introduction to library classification
Joudrey, Taylor, and Wisser define classification as “[t]he placing of subjects into categories; in organization of information, classification is the process of determining where an information resource fits into a given hierarchy and often then assigning the notation associated with the appropriate level of the hierarchy to the information resource and to its metadata.”[1] While other classification systems are available, this chapter focuses on the two predominant general-purpose classification schemes used in the United States: Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and Library of Congress Classification (LCC).
Introduced by Melvil Dewey in 1876,[2] DDC divides the entirety of knowledge into ten main classes, which are divided into narrower subtopics denoted by three-digit Arabic numerals. Topics are subdivided further with the addition of a decimal point followed by more numbers. LCC, though developed specifically for the Library of Congress’s collection around the turn of the twentieth century,[3] has become widely used by libraries throughout the world. The scheme consists of individual schedules created for various areas of knowledge and uses an alpha-numeric notational system.[4]
DDC and LCC, like all classification schemes, are products of the cultural paradigms of their creators and are subject to explicit and implicit biases. DDC’s Western-centric worldview, for example, is particularly apparent in the 200s—the section dedicated to religion. Christianity is spread throughout 220–289 in the schedule, while all other religions are crowded in the 290s (see Figure 4.1). As information professionals, it is critical that we strive to consider the diversity of our users in library classification. As Sahadath argues, “If we are not proactive in eliminating the inequalities in certain common classification schemes, we could end up alienating diverse and marginalized populations.”[5]
| 200 | Religion |
|---|---|
| 210 | Philosophy & theory of religion |
| 220 | Bible |
| 230 | Christianity & Christian theology |
| 2