College and Research Libraries


B y H A R R I E T D . M A C P H E R S O N 

Reclassification of College and 
University Libraries1 

Miss MacPherson, assistant professor, 

School of Library Service, Columbia Uni-

versity, investigated five different sources 

of information in order to throw new light 

on the problem of reclassification. The 

most authoritative and up-to-date facts 

were obtained from questions sent to 

twenty libraries that have experienced 

either whole or partial reclassification of 

their collections. 

THE TERM " r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , " as applied to l i b r a r y collections, is sometimes em-
ployed to describe the process of revising, 

and perhaps expanding, an existing system 

of classification, and of fitting the book 

collection into the renovated system. " R e -

classification" is used here in its more 

exact s e n s e — t o describe the process of 

c h a n g i n g a collection f r o m one classifica-

tion system to an entirely different scheme. 

Sources of Information 

T h e present discussion of the subject 

is based on information gleaned f r o m the 

f o l l o w i n g sources: ( I ) m y past experience 

as a practical classifier; ( 2 ) talks w i t h ad-

ministrators and classifiers in various types 

of libraries; ( 3 ) personal observation of 

classification conditions in libraries in dif-

ferent parts of the U n i t e d States and 

E u r o p e ; ( 4 ) printed material relating to 

reclassification; ( 5 ) returns f r o m a 
1 Summary of a paper presented at the Eastern 

College Librarians' Conference, held at Columbia 
University Library, Nov. 25, 1939. 

set of questions sent out on O c t o b e r 
2 5 > J 939, to the administrators of 
t w e n t y A m e r i c a n college and university 

libraries. 

Example Drawn from Experience 

I n order to have some specific problem 

to illustrate the practical classification end, 

I have decided to recount the trials of 

reclassifying a small group of books in the 

field of business. T h e setting w a s in C o -

lumbia U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y about the y e a r 

1 9 2 1 , the number of books involved w a s 

4 0 0 0 , and the f a c t s have been verified re-

cently by reference to rough notes that 

w e r e taken at that period. T h e r e is some 

justification f o r criticizing an attempt to 

d r a w f a c t s f r o m a case that happened so 

long ago, and w h e r e the circumstances 

w e r e undoubtedly peculiar to the indi-

vidual l i b r a r y involved. I m i g h t say, 

h o w e v e r , that in the light of m y later con-

tacts w i t h reclassification, history has 

seemed to repeat itself and local c i r c u m -

stances in libraries have never failed to 

present unusual angles. 

T h e task w a s to transfer about 4 0 0 0 

volumes f r o m the 6 5 0 class of the D e c i m a l 

Classification to the places provided f o r 

this subject in a n e w , special scheme of 

classification w h i c h had just been w o r k e d 

out f o r the School of Business L i b r a r y . 

N e w accessions w e r e classified at once ac-

cording to the special system, but the older 

volumes had to be attended to in the spare 

MARCH, 1940 187 
12 7 



time of the cataloger and her one pro-

fessional assistant. 

T h e handling of 4 0 0 0 volumes w o u l d , 

on the surface, seem a small task, espe-

cially since there were many duplicate 

copies of certain titles. Y e t the reclassi-

fication involved the removal, frequent 

remaking, and the refiling of 8 0 0 0 to 

1 0 , 0 0 0 catalog cards, the changing and 

refiling of nearly 4 0 0 0 shelf-list cards, and 

the actual handling of the volumes. T h i s 

last step covered verification of the books 

w i t h the cards, frequent recataloging of 

the books, fitting the books into the new 

classification scheme, and penciled mark-

ing of the books w i t h the new numbers 

which the bindery department w o u l d 

eventually place on the spines. 

Chief Problems 

A l l of these processes constituted mere 
routine practice and there w a s adequate 
typing help. Nevertheless, the chief rea-
son w h y it took t w o people more than t w o 
years to complete this job lies in the fact 
that there w a s so much trouble in locating 
the books, large numbers of which were 
not in their proper places on the shelves. 
T h e f o l l o w i n g constitute some explana-
tions for their absence; explana-
tions which are likely to account for 
the absence f r o m the shelves of books 
t o d a y : 

1. M a n y volumes were charged out to 
readers when first sought. 

2. M a n y volumes were on reserve and 
in use in some departmental library. 

3. Professors on sabbatical leave had 
carried off a f e w volumes. 

4. A number of volumes were at an out-
side bindery. 

5. Volumes that were reported missing 
on first search kept turning up in other sec-
tions of the stacks where inventory w a s 
going on. 

6. Some books that were at first reported 

missing would later appear mysteriously in 
their right places. 

7. Since Columbia is in a metropolitan 
district, with borrowers carrying books 
daily on subways, trolleys, etc., a few vol-
umes that were reported lost and paid for, 
were discovered later in another library or 
in some bookshop. 

Gained from Interviews and Visits 

T h e second and third sources of in-
formation for this study may be handled 
together. T h r o u g h these visits and inter-
views, which have been frequent and have 
extended over a period of a good many 
years, it has been possible to gain familiar-
ity w i t h reclassification methods in many 
different types and sizes of library. N e a r -
ly a l w a y s I have jotted down the findings 
on the spot or have written up the results 
at the end of the day. T h e f o l l o w i n g are 
some conclusions that have been d r a w n 
from these notes: 

1. Reclassification is a slow process, even 
in a relatively small library, because recata-
loging is usually required for a good per-
centage of the books involved. 

2. Reclassification for a closed shelf li-
brary seldom seems worth while; for an 
open shelf library it is frequently helpful 
for both readers and staff. 

3. T h e hiring of extra help for a re-
classification project should be carefully 
considered from every angle. Even an ex-
perienced classifier who comes from the 
outside will need considerable time to orien-
tate himself in regard to the particular 
needs of an individual library. T h e larger 
the library, the longer will be the time of 
adjustment. 

4. Because of the cost, time, and frequent 
interference with readers and staff, reclassi-
fication should never be embarked upon un-
less the library is quite sure that the existing 
system of classification seems to be imped-
ing the progress of the library's service. 

5. A system of classification that seems 
ideal for one library will not necessarily 
meet the needs of another institution. C a r e -

1 6 0 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



f u l investigation of v a r i o u s systems and 
their applications in s e v e r a l libraries is 
necessary. T h e best possible system must 
be adopted now, or all the difficulties of 
another reclassification may have to be ex-
perienced again in a f e w y e a r s . 

6. I n college and university libraries 
there seems to be no reason w h y special and 
departmental collections, if housed in sep-
a r a t e rooms or buildings, cannot be classified 
according to systems which are different 
f r o m the scheme adopted f o r the bulk of the 
general collection. 

Gained from Existing Literature 

So f a r as can be ascertained, no entire 
book has as yet been devoted to the sub-
ject. I t happens that I have been in 
touch for several months w i t h someone 
w h o is preparing an exhaustive study of 
the problem, the results of which, if pub-
lished, may constitute a fair-sized book. 
T h e librarian undertaking this investiga-
tion is M r . M a u r i c e T a u b e r , an experi-
enced classifier, w h o is at present a student 
at the G r a d u a t e L i b r a r y School, Chicago 
University. M r . T a u b e r ' s title is to be: 
"Reclassification and Recataloging of M a -
terials in College and University L i b r a r -
ies." H e has secured data from sixty-six 
libraries that have answered his question-
naire, so that his final presentation of 
facts should prove an authoritative guide 
to anyone interested in reclassification. 

M a t e r i a l in print that is now available 
exists almost entirely in periodicals, since 
only scattered references can be discovered 
in general textbooks on cataloging and 
classification. A number of the best and 
most recent articles consist of addresses 
made at both the L a r g e and Small L i -
braries R o u n d T a b l e meetings of the 
A . L . A . C a t a l o g Section at the 1 9 3 3 
Chicago conference.2 O f these papers, 

2 In the A . L . A . Proceedings of this conference 
may be found not only abridgements or digests of 

MARCH, 1940 

that of D r . Bishop might receive special 
mention because his remarks were mainly 
from the administrative angle. Slightly 
antedating these conference addresses is 
an article entitled: " W h a t Price Reclassi-
f i c a t i o n ? " by Elizabeth P . J a c o b s and 
Robinson Spencer. T h i s appeared in the 
Catalogers' and Classifiers' Yearbook, No. 
3, in 1 9 3 2 . It details the actual experi-
ences of the reclassification project at the 
University of Rochester L i b r a r y and in-
cludes statistics of cost, time, and person-
nel. A f t e r reading this account librarians 
contemplating reclassification should be 
able to figure more or less accurately the 
expenditure required. 

Questions Sent Twenty Selected Libraries 

Both because of lack of time and the 

fear of duplicating M r . T a u b e r ' s w o r k , I 

avoided the questionnaire method in ac-

quiring facts from this source. Since my 

previous contacts with the subject had 

been mostly from the classifier's point of 

view, I decided to send out a f e w general, 

rather than technical, questions to the ad-

ministrators of twenty college and univer-

sity libraries.3 In order to make fairly 

certain that the institutions selected w o u l d 

have had a reclassification problem, recent 

numbers of the annual report of the li-

brarian of Congress were consulted for 

libraries that were reported to be using 

the L . C . system of classification either for 

all or part of their collections. T h e s e 

lists were consulted merely for the purpose 

already stated, and not at all for the rea-

son of finding out how w e l l suited the 

L . C . classification w a s for the collection 

of any library. T h e twenty libraries 

selected were chosen purposely from dif-

all these addresses, but also an indication of the 
name and number of the periodical in which the 
majority of these papers were later printed in full. 

3 A complete alphabetical list of the libraries cir-
cularized will be found at the end of this paper. 

161 



ferent parts of the country. In order to 
include institutions of various sizes the 
latest number of the American Library 
Directory w a s consulted. Incidentally, 
since f e w small libraries have ever adopted 
the L . C . classification system, the majority 
of the institutions w r i t t e n to w e r e those 
which w o u l d be said to have large collec-
tions. W h i l e the size range w a s from 
about 5 0 , 0 0 0 to 4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 volumes, only 
six of the twenty collections w e r e under 
2 0 0 , 0 0 0 volumes. A letter containing the 
four f o l l o w i n g questions w a s sent: 

1. H a s your adoption of the L . C . classi-
fication been for the whole library or only 
for one or more of your special collections 
or departments? 

2. If your adoption of this system has 
been only for one or more special collections 
or departments, do you find it a detriment 
to have the main body of your books classi-
fied according to another system? 

3. D o you believe that the service to 
readers has been so improved by the change 
that the time, money, and general upheaval 
involved in reclassifying have been worth 
while ? 

4. D o you think that as satisfactory serv-
ice could have been provided for readers if 
you had not reclassified according to an-
other system but had merely expanded and 
modernized your original system? 

O f the libraries circularized, nineteen, 

or 9 5 per cent, sent in replies. O n l y 

seventeen answers, however, w e r e usable, 

since one arrived after the statistics for 

this paper had been completed, and an-

other showed a misunderstanding on the 

part of the librarian in regard to the rea-

son for circularizing his institution. O f 

the seventeen valid replies, thirteen w e r e 

sent in by administrators, three by cata-

logers, and one by an assistant librarian. 

Replies Hard to Tabulate 

T h e returns f r o m the first t w o questions 

162 C O L L 

will be handled together, in so f a r as the 
information relates to whether the libraries 
adopted the L . C . classification f o r the 
bulk of the collection or only for one or 
more special departments or collections. 
T h e s e replies were f a i r l y difficult to tabu-
late because in many cases libraries re-
ported that they had adopted the L . C . 
classification for the whole collection and 
then, either in the direct answer to the 
first question or elsewhere in the return, 
mentioned a f e w exceptions. In one case 
the exceptions were so numerous that it 
w a s suspected that they involved a larger 
number of volumes than w a s covered by 
the rule. A n o t h e r complication resulted 
from the fact that whenever the subject of 
l a w w a s mentioned among exceptions, it 
had to be discounted because the L i b r a r y 
of Congress has not as yet published its 
l a w schedule. In the final analysis, thir-
teen of the seventeen libraries reported 
that the L . C . classification had been 
adopted for most of the collection; while 
four of the institutions are using it only 
for one or more special collections. I t 
must be added, however, that among the 
thirteen libraries reporting L . C . in use for 
the bulk of the collection, eight, or slightly 
more than 6 1 . 5 per cent, acknowledged 
using one or more other schemes for spe-
cial departments or collections. A n ex-
tract from the reply of one of these eight 
librarians may help to illustrate the point: 

W e have adopted the Library of Con-
gress classification as basic for the entire 
library, but it is quite possible that we may 
not use it for medicine and for forestry. 
In fact, in forestry we have combined one 
or two independent classifications with the 
L . C . scheme. . . . A s for medicine, we are 
not yet decided. A s a matter of fact, at 
least three-quarters of our medical library, 
which is quite extensive, is composed of 
bound files of journals and transactions of 

EGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



societies which are arranged in a single 
alphabet. The classification problem, there-
fore, concerns only a fraction of our hold-
ings in the field of medicine. 

T h e second half of the second question 
was apparently inaccurately worded. T h e 
information desired was whether or not 
it had proved a detriment when depart-
mental or special collections were classified 
according to another system than that 
used for the main body of the collection. 
Seven of the seventeen libraries interpreted 
this question as referring to the as yet 
unclassified portion of their main book 
collections by the L . C . classification. Six 
of the seven confessed to some trouble in 
shelving, filing, the maintenance of both 
an old and a new catalog, etc. In most 
instances, however, the reply stated that 
readers and staff had already benefited so 
much from the change that they were wil-
ling to have suffered some inconvenience. 
T h e seventh library reported that a slight 
amount of trouble had arisen because of 
the fact that in reclassifying, the catalog 
had been changed from a classified to a 
dictionary arrangement. 

T h r e e libraries suggested that the prob-
lem did not apply to them, as their 
collections had been entirely reclassified 
according to the L . C . system. 

One Library Uses Nearly 80 Different 
Systems 

T h e remaining seven libraries were all 
institutions that had acknowledged the 
use of some other system of classification 
for departmental or special collections 
than that employed for the main body of 
the books. A l l of the seven reported that 
no inconvenience had resulted from the 
use of more than one scheme of classifi-
cation. M a n y different reasons were 
given for the statement. One answer that 

MARCH, 1940 

was emphatic about this point reported 
the use of nearly eighty different classifi-
cation systems, with apparently no ill re-
sults. T h e librarian of an institution 
where only three special or departmental 
collections have been handled according to 
another system of classification, but where 
the main collection has not yet been en-
tirely reclassified, made the following 
statement: 

In our library at the present time I feel 
that people are greatly relieved when the 
classification of the books with which they 
have mostly to deal has been finished. But 
here again the difficulties are chiefly in the 
process of reclassification and not in the 
practical handling of books in two or more 
systems. 

T h e third question, which concerned it-
self with whether reclassification had been 
worth while, called forth the longest 
answers. In the final analysis, thirteen 
of the seventeen libraries considered that 
reclassifying had been worth while, two 
replied in the negative, and two were in 
doubt. M a n y of the thirteen institutions 
that rendered a favorable reply stressed 
the recataloging that had gone on along 
with the reclassification. A s one librarian 
put it: "Since recataloging was called for 
in any case, reclassification did not in-
volve much extra confusion. Service to 
readers undoubtedly has been improved by 
recataloging and reclassification; how 
much of the improvement is due to reclassi-
fication alone, it would be difficult to say." 
Another library remarked: " U p to the 
present time the expense of reclassification 
may not seem to be justified by the re-
sults, but in the long run we expect to 
gain by the change." A rather unusual 
reaction was received from one institution 
where reclassification has been going on 
for over twenty years: " W e believe that 

18 7 



reclassification can be so organized that a 
so-called 'general upheaval' is not neces-
sary." It seems certain that many admin-
istrators would like to find out the secret 
of how this institution has handled its 
various problems. 

Do Not Recommend Expansion of Old 
System 

Of the seventeen valid returns from the 
fourth question, eleven indicated that as 
satisfactory service could not have been 
provided for readers if the old system of 
classification had been expanded and mod-
ernized. T h r e e librarians thought that 
just as satisfactory service would have re-
sulted if changes had been made in the old 
system, and two were in doubt about the 
matter. One reply could not be tabulated 
under any of these headings, since this 
library is using L . C . only in one depart-
mental collection. While the change to 
the L . C . system has been beneficial in the 
case of this isolated department, the li-
brarian reports that, on the whole, the 
library administration is opposed to re-
classification except under unusual cir-
cumstances. H e added: " W e feel that 
the time and money spent in reclassifying 
is rarely worth while. T h e new classifi-
cation usually proves within the course of 
years to be f a r from perfect and w e think 
that the money could be spent in better 
w a y s . " 

Besides sending answers to the four 
questions, many libraries tucked in other 
information in the returns; others accom-
panied the formal reply with a letter that 
discussed further points. T w o of these 
points, since they were emphasized again 
and again, deserve special consideration. 
T e n replies included reasons why the li-
braries were glad that they had adopted 
the L . C . system in reclassifying. T h e 

reasons were various, but perhaps the re-
mark most worthy of quotation w a s : 
" . . . the L . C . classification is f a r better 
than anything we could have made out of 
our original system, and is probably better 
than any one person or small group of per-
sons could make, for the L . C . must have 
had experts in each field." T h e other 
point relates to reclassification in open and 
closed shelf libraries. Most of the letters 
that included reference to the matter 
stressed the fact that the stacks were open 
only to graduate students and the faculty. 
M o r e than one library of this type men-
tioned that reclassification was es-
pecially hard on the pages who are sent 
to look for books. Possibly M r . Tauber's 
study may reveal some interesting facts 
about open shelf libraries and reclas-
sification. 

Conclusion 

A final summing up of the findings from 
the answers received and of the informa-
tion gained from other sources might be 
reduced to the following statements. T h e 
reclassification of college and university 
libraries is a major undertaking. It is 
much easier, and often it proves quite as 
profitable, to make changes only for spe-
cial collections or departments. When, 
however, the bulk of a collection has been 
reclassified because of the general inade-
quacy of an old classification system, the 
results have usually justified the means. 
Because libraries differ so widely in many 
respects, each institution must make a 
thorough study of its own situation, in 
addition to a study of how the problem 
has been handled in other places. In no 
case does it seem wise to adopt the slogan: 
" I t is the fashion to reclassify, and w e 
wish to be in the mode." 

(Continued on page 175) 

164 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



judgment but if he is competent to select 
he should also be granted competence to 
reject material. A l t h o u g h this solution 
provides no specific formula whereby 
propaganda can be automatically tested, 
admitted or rejected, it w o u l d seem that 
fundamentally usefulness could be ac-
cepted as the first principle for admission. 
W i t h this as a guide all three types of 
propaganda; namely, " g o o d , " "innocu-
ous," and " h a r m f u l " would be admitted 
in proportion to their usefulness in any 
given type of library. Regardless of policy 
the first t w o types need cause little con-
cern. A s f a r as the third, or " h a r m f u l , " 
type is concerned it w o u l d seem our f u n c -
tion might go beyond education or censor-
ship, even beyond any treatment which 
may be devised for the actual handling 
of this material. 

No Immediate Cause for Alarm 

I t is still generally agreed that " i t can't 
happen here." A s long as this condition 
exists there is no particular cause for 
alarm over the subversive effect of propa-
ganda in our college, university, and ref-
erence libraries for t w o reasons. F i r s t , 
w e are dealing to a certain extent w i t h an 

enlightened clientele and one which has 
been more or less exposed to some "educa-
t i o n " w i t h regard to propaganda. Sec-
ond, propaganda to succeed must have a 
fertile ground. A s long as w e are a 
moderately prosperous, confident, and rea-
sonably w e l l satisfied people w e are not 
apt to fall prey to political or economic 
" i s m s . " So, it w o u l d seem that in trou-
blous times like these it behooves us to 
look beyond the actual treatment accorded 
propaganda; to look, rather, t o w a r d the 
possibility of aiding in the solution of the 
problems which n o w give rise to propa-
ganda, to be keenly aware of the changes 
taking place in our political, economic, 
and social life and, at the first sign of 
danger to the system which has given rise 
to libraries and freedom of thought and 
expression on an unprecedented scale w e 
should be ready to adopt vigorous counter 
measures. A m i d s t all this w e must re-
member that values change and w e cannot 
put ourselves in the position of being 
unalterably opposed to change. A l l 
this w i l l require a keen mind and a 
deep understanding of humanity, but 
the challenge and the prize are 
w o r t h y . 

Reclassification of College and University Libraries 
(Continued from page 164) 

Libraries That Cooperated in the Study 

B r o w n U n i v e r s i t y , Providence 
C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y of A m e r i c a , W a s h i n g -

ton 
C o l b y C o l l e g e , W a t e r v i l l e , M e . 
C o l l e g e of Saint C a t h e r i n e , Saint P a u l 
C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y , Ithaca, N . Y . 
H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y , C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . 
H a v e r f o r d C o l l e g e , H a v e r f o r d , P a . 

I o w a State C o l l e g e , A m e s 
J o h n s Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y , B a l t i m o r e 
N e w Y o r k U n i v e r s i t y , N e w Y o r k 
O h i o State U n i v e r s i t y , C o l u m b u s 
S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , C a l i f . 
S w a r t h m o r e C o l l e g e , P a . 
T e m p l e U n i v e r s i t y , Philadelphia 
U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y 
U n i v e r s i t y of Cincinnati, Cincinnati 
U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n , A n n A r b o r 

MARCH, 1940 175