Special Topic Paper: Genrefication of the Library Collection

         While the vast majority of public libraries utilize the Dewey Decimal System, there has been a movement, especially by school library media specialists, to get rid of Dewey and use an alternative classification system. Reader-interest classifications, including genrefication and BISAC (Book Industry Standards and Communications), are one way libraries are switching up library classification. “Both with reader-interest classifications and BISAC, a common reason given for their adoption was the rejection of the established classification scheme, Dewey, as an obsolete and inadequate system to organize the collections that does not meet the users’ needs—it is not user-centric,” (Martínez-Ávila).

            What are genrefication and BISAC? Genrefication involves separating fiction and/or nonfiction by genre. “Another alternative is the ‘mash-up’ solution of Dewey and browsable zones – often referred to as ‘genrefication’ – combining the browsable book shop-style zones and the precise find-ability of the Dewey System,” (Bateman). Genrefying the library collection allows a librarian to place books together that share the same common theme, regardless of where they would normally be located based on Dewey. “The entire sequence of Dewey numbers has been mapped to each zone, bringing related, but normally physically separate, topics together, such as gardening (635) and landscaping (712) coming together in the home and lifestyle zone,” (Bateman).

While some librarians create their own genre categories, others use BISAC to mold the collection. BISAC are the categories book publishers and book stores use to sort and market books. “BISAC comes from the Book Industry Study Group’s Subject Codes Committee. The Committee updates BISAC every year, and you can view the current edition online at the BISG website. American and Canadian publishers assign the subject headings as part of a complete metadata record that is used to market the book,” (Tarsala). These categories were not created with library patrons in mind, but some libraries use these categories as the basis for their genrefication project.

Browsing the shelves for books can be stressful for patrons. As a librarian, I am familiar with Dewey and can easily use the OPAC to help a patron find a book. Patrons are not as knowledgeable about Dewey and some are not technologically literate, so they can be intimidated and downright confused when walking through the stacks. I have taken a cataloging class and even I do not know all of the intricacies of Dewey or understand them; at times, the numbers seem arbitrarily assigned. Computer books are near the UFO and numerology books. That makes sense, right?

Why are two categories that are very similar not in the same area, and why are categories that are seemingly unrelated next to each other? School libraries often see this problem, and genrefying the collection has helped organize the chaos. “Our discontent with Dewey arose after years of confronting train books in the 380s and transportation items in the 620s; crafts scattered throughout the 600s and 700s; pets stuck next to cooking; and double-digit Dewey numbers for our extensive folktale collection. More important, we had the sense that for all the energy that we and our students were spending on teaching and learning Dewey (all those scavenger hunts and online library games), even our most advanced students still struggled to navigate smoothly from their initial request through the catalog to the item’s correct place on the shelves,” (Kaplan).

Genrefying a library collection could help with readers’ advisory, especially for those patrons who visit the library looking for specific genres or author read-a-likes. “Another reason I began considering the change was admittedly personal. I hated being unable to make recommendations when student inquired about books in areas about which I had limited knowledge. I knew the popular and d award-winning titles of most genres, but I was afraid some great ones were getting lost in the shelves. If the majority of the library was divide by subject using Dewey, why not the fiction section? Why can't all the romance, mystery, sports, and "books like The Hunger Games" be shelved in their own categories?” (Sweeney).

            Many of the studies indicate that circulation increases when a collection is genrefied. “Our circulation has increased sixty-nine percent over the same period since last year. The increase in student population would only account for a small portion of the increase in circulation. I attribute the increase to the switch to genre shelving. I think the students who select books simply by browsing the shelves will be disappointed when they get to high school and return to traditional shelving, but they won't be disadvantaged,” (Jackman). Multiple articles mentioned very similar statistics.

Genrefication has some great benefits, but there are some negative aspects. There are a number of patrons who read by author rather than by genre. Some authors write books that fall into more than one genre. “One situation I had not anticipated was the number of authors who write in multiple genre. For example, the John Green books are scattered in several sections—Romance, Realistic, Mystery, etc.—and this can be a bit confusing for students,” (Sweeney). If an author is spread across genres, patrons and librarians will have to wander around the library trying to find books by one author.

While some libraries use BISAC to sort their collection, others have created their own categories; this has led to some confusion because there is a lack of uniformity between libraries. “As more collections are being transformed into access by genre for non-fiction, who determines the topics and subtopics used for the collection? Upon examining the literature, there are a myriad of ways that library media specialists have developed tags for their materials. Some have used BISAC industry standards, some have developed their own system based on their curriculum, still others have “borrowed” topic headings from neighboring school districts. Authority control is lost among various types of libraries,” (Snipes).

Using BISAC standards might add some uniformity, but the problem with the standards is the fact that they were not created by librarians for patrons.  “BISAC's design and the development of its headings is based on market needs. Reader-interest classifications, when not directly borrowed from bookstore classifications, were based, in theory, on readers’ interests. The arrangement of categories within each are not systematic, as in Dewey, but basically alphabetical in BISAC (after the first version, BISAC's alphanumerical code had no hierarchical or systematical meaning), and usually alphabetical or random in reader-interest classifications,” (Martínez-Ávila).

Another potential issue is the books that fit into multiple categories. “Some titles were hard to place since they could fit in many genres. If I had multiple copies of a book that fit in more than one genre, then I put one copy in each. For example, I put a copy of Water for Elephants in the Romance and Historical Fiction sections,” (Sweeney). If more than one copy is already available, Sweeney’s solution is great. But libraries do not own multiple copies of every book, so a decision has to be made one way or another.

            An interesting solution to this genre conundrum is to let the patrons help in the decision making. Because the purpose of genrefication is to ultimately help patrons more easily find books, it makes sense to see what the patrons think. One school library let students vote. “We turned this into a lesson for all our students by putting a sticky-note on those books, listing 2-3 genres we thought would fit best. We kept these books on a table with some pencils, and students in the library could read the book blurb and vote (on the sticky note) on which genre they thought it should be. Since the whole point of this project was to help students find books where they were looking for them, the genre receiving the most votes for that book was the one that stuck,” (The Library Genre-fication Project).

My library separates science fiction and westerns. We used to separate mysteries, but added them to the general fiction collection a few years ago. I think sometimes readers get too locked into genres. There is probably no way to change this fact, but exposing them to other genres might help. If all genres are separated, readers are going to go straight to the genre they read and never look at the others. Mixing genres into one collection allows patrons to see books they might not have considered if they were separated into Science Fiction or Romance. Even if some patrons never pick up a mystery, they have at least seen that the library offers the category.

Some people read books they might not want their neighbor to know about. If the collection is all together, a patron can look at romance novels without anyone knowing exactly what she is browsing. This patron might feel uncomfortable going over to the romance section.

            I do think genrefying the library would help when patrons are looking for a book about a certain topic. If a patron was looking for dystopian novels, it would be nice to walk him over to the dystopian section. It would make things easier and would demonstrate great customer service. It would also be useful if a patron was looking for read-a-likes. Tools like Novelist help accomplish this feat without moving and shifting the entire library.

Because many people have grown up with the Dewey system (even if they do not understand it), I think abandoning Dewey completely is not the answer. While I see the pros and cons of Dewey, I think a hybrid of Dewey and genrefication might be useful for nonfiction. By using the Dewey categories, books covering related topics could be placed together despite the Dewey number. “Librarians are early adopters. We readily embrace innovations in technology and social media. It’s time we started to look at the way our collections are organised and applied the same level of ingenuity to our library layouts. It’s time we organised our collections to enable our users to easily discover more great books to read. It’s time we made Dewey work for us,” (Bateman).

Even though the majority of the research and anecdotal evidence I found shows that most patrons and students were happy with the transition to genrefication and circulations increased, I am still not completely sold on the concept. I think it really depends on the patron-base. If patrons generally look for books by genre, than it could work very well. If most patrons search by author, genrefication might be problematic. Because the transition is meant to help patrons, involving them in the decision is key. Surveying patrons would be a good idea before making the dramatic switch.

Works Cited

Bateman, Shirley1, shirley.bateman@melbourne.vic.gov.au. "Dewey Or Don't We?." Incite 34.8 (2013): 16-17. Library & Information Science Source. Web. 8 Mar. 2015.

Jackman, Becky. "Genre Shelving: Why And How I Made The Leap." Library Media Connection 32.5 (2014): 22-24. Library & Information Science Source. Web. 8 Mar. 2015.

Kaplan, Tali Balas, Andrea K. Dolloff, Sue Giffard, and Jennifer Still-Schiff. "Are Dewey's Days Numbered?: Libraries Nationwide Are Ditching the Old Classification System." School Library Journal. 28 Sept. 2012. Web. 8 Mar. 2015. <http://www.slj.com/2012/09/librarians/are-deweys-days-numbered-libraries-across-the-country-are-giving-the-old-classification-system-the-heave-ho-heres-one-schools-story/>.

"The Library Genre-fication Project." Mrs. ReaderPants. 10 Sept. 2011. Web. 8 Mar. 2015. <http://www.readerpants.net/search/label/Library Genrefication Project>.

Martínez-Ávila, Daniel, Rosa San Segundo, and Hope Olson. "The Use Of BISAC In Libraries As New Cases Of Reader-Interest Classifications." Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 52.2 (2014): 137-155. Library & Information Science Source. Web. 8 Mar. 2015.

Snipes, Phyllis. "Perspectives on Organization: Dropping Dewey for a Few Words." GLEAN. Georgia Public Library Service, 19 Nov. 2014. Web. 8 Mar. 2015. <http://glean.georgialibraries.org/perspectives-on-organization-dropping-dewey-for-a-few-words/>.

Sweeney, Stephanie. "Genrefy Your Library: Improve Readers' Advisory And Data-Driven Decision Making." Young Adult Library Services 11.4 (2013): 41-45. Library & Information Science Source. Web. 8 Mar. 2015.

Tarsala, Cheryl. "BISAC Basics." The Feral Cataloger. 16 Nov. 2014. Web. 8 Mar. 2015. <https://cbtarsala.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/bisac-basics/>.