... a time and resource drain |
Even if librarians are potentially interested in genrefication, many cite having a lack of time and resources to invest in taking on such a labor-intensive undertaking. This is of particular concern given reduced staffing levels and budgets at many libraries.
Counterargument: While genrefication requires a considerable investment of time upfront, it may be time well spent on simultaneously becoming intimately familiar with the collection, conducting weeding, and identifying acquisition needs. Sites suggest recruiting volunteers, and at school libraries, including students to help with the process. Also, once completed, there may be time savings from having to focus less on teaching students how to locate materials. Perhaps most importantly, school media specialist Kristie Miller stated it well: "nothing that improves the user experience for the students and teachers in my school is a waste of time" (p. 25). |
... an imperfect alternative |
Some acknowledge that while Dewey may be an imperfect system, there is no such thing as a perfect system. Therefore, rather than spending time reinventing the wheel, librarians should instead invest in instructing users how to navigate the current system and employ other measures such as improving signage and displays.
Counterargument: While it may be true that there is no perfect system, that doesn't mean that libraries should give up on the possibility of making improvements in order to create a more perfect system. Also, without striving for perfection, librarians may aim for what is best for their particular libraries and users. |
... unnecessary |
Genrefication may be considered to be unnecessary since traditional classification schemes function and have done so for years. Furthermore, there are alternative ways to help users discover books such as creating displays, using genre stickers on book spines (without alternative shelving), maintaining book lists, improving signage, and optimizing use of the catalog and MARC subject headings and notes.
Counterargument: Traditional systems have worked for years, but calling upon Ranganathan's fifth law of library science, "the library is a growing organism." This means that libraries must be ready to adapt as needs and conditions change. In terms of displays, they may actually make locating materials more difficult since they are not cataloged with those temporary locations, in contrast to genrefied locations, which may be reflected in the catalog. Genre stickers may work well, but users may still feel overloaded by having to hunt for labels, especially in the case of larger collections. As Miller (2013) stated: "Telling a student to look for the label with the court jester wasn't enough" (p. 24). Book lists require being updated regularly to remain current, and items on lists may not necessarily be available. Signage is critical in any case, but it also does not address situations when similar items are located in disparate locations. And, enhancing MARC records is a great idea, but it is only helpful when users conduct OPAC searches and does not support browsing, which is the primary mode of discovery for users. |
... just another fad |
If genrefication is just another fad that will come and go, then making such a drastic change not only creates a lot of work now, but also more in the future when the latest trends call for change once again. Why abandon traditional classification systems that have worked for over a century just because other people are jumping on the bandwagon?
Counterargument: There is wise advice in this argument that libraries need to be thoughtful before making changes. As outlined in the 3 Basic Assumptions, librarians should "be mindful when making changes" and question changes. To ensure that changes are substantive, expected outcomes should be defined and assessed. |
... a misplaced priority |
When addressing the controversy regarding genrefication, Ray (2013) likened the debate to "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" (p. 60) and suggested how such a focus is akin to getting caught in the weeds. He suggests that librarians should instead place greater priority on more pressing issues such as Common Core and digital learning content. Genrefication is only of interest to librarians, but librarians should be positioning themselves as leaders of the digital shift rather than rearrangement of print collections.
Counterargument: Librarians should indeed be working to lead the digital shift, but there is room to balance priorities with making physical spaces welcoming, and that includes advocating for a more user-friendly print collection configuration. Furthermore, more recent research is revealing that even as ebooks are becoming more widely used, most readers continue to read both print and digital materials (Pew Research Center. 2014). This suggests that there may be continued demand for print collections that are carefully curated to meet emerging preferences. For instance, as users conduct more research using digital resources, popular fiction and nonfiction titles may start to dominate the print collection. And, if fiction becomes an even larger percentage of the overall collection, classifying this dominant section into more manageable sub-sections becomes of even greater importance for reducing user overload. |
... not properly preparing students |
With school libraries in mind, there is concern that if students do not learn the Dewey Decimal System when in school, they will not be prepared to use public and academic libraries. Genrefication is sometimes pejoratively referred to as being "dumbed down," and librarians may be accused of being "lazy" by avoiding having to instruct students on how to navigate more rigorous standards.
Counterargument: Just because a system is different does not mean that it lacks logical organization and that it cannot impart an understanding of classification. What is important is that students are able to gain a foundation in systems-thinking that may conceptually transfer to other schema such as Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress Classification. Genrefication may arguably support development of this type of thinking. Plus, should the goal of a student's library experience be to learn the Dewey system, or is it more important that they are simply able to access resources that facilitate their learning? Also, keep in mind that some librarians choose to only genrefy fiction sections, and thus, Dewey may not necessarily be abandoned. |
... more confusing for some users |
Genrefication has often been connected with the idea of modeling libraries after bookstores, but Raymond (1998) challenged the idea that bookstores have superior organization: "bookstores have daily classification headaches" (p. 42). In more recent times, vocal opponents to Nyack Library's alternative classification system defended Dewey as being more user-friendly than the newer system, and this prompted the library to revert back to using Dewey. This shows how new systems can in fact be more confusing to users.
Counterargument: Articles such as Raymond's seem to suggest that libraries seek to emulate bookstores exactly, but this is typically not the case. While some alternative classification schemes may be based on bookstore BISAC categories, libraries generally develop a classification system that is compatible with their Integrated Library Systems (ILSs) and Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs) so that users may effectively search for and locate items. Also, while Nyack Library may have missed the mark with its introduction of a different classification system, there may be a number of reasons why the endeavor failed. The library may not have accurately assessed the needs of the community, provided enough opportunities to gather input, devised a system that was user-friendly enough, or done an adequate job of communicating the changes. There are, after all, other libraries that have made changes with great positive reception by users. |
... inconsistent |
There are concerns that genrefication and custom classification schemes are arbitrary, subjectively derived, and thus inconsistent since they are not based on a common, widely-accepted standard. Without standardization, one staff member may determine categorization that differs from that assigned by another. This is an even bigger concern when anticipating how to maintain continuity with staffing changes. How will these individualized solutions be sustainable when they are defined on the whim of individuals who may come and go?
Counterargument: First, many Dewey alternative systems are based on BISAC categories and thus are guided by standards, albeit different ones. Even when libraries have developed more customized schemes, they seem to account for concerns regarding consistency by creating detailed documentation that provides standards for categorization. Just take a look at the Sample Models. With the St. Vrain Valley School District, the standards were so well thought out that they copyrighted them as the Buchter Classification System. Second, it is important to recall Ranganathan's law that "the library is a growing organism." Just as a librarian may choose to make changes today, changes may indeed be necessary in the future, with or without staffing changes. Librarians who have genrefied their collections explain that it is definitely a process of experimentation that may require tweaking. But, rather than insisting on upholding consistency at any cost, there is the potential to embrace and find strength in flexibility. |
... pigeonholing |
Genrefication imposes classifications that pigeonhole both users and content. To begin with, users might not discover books in another genre since they will not be exposed to them when browsing a different genre. This is even more troubling for books that do not neatly fit into just one category. Librarians end up having to pigeonhole them into a single genre, and this raises the question of how readers will know where to find them. Also, what about the case of authors who may write books across multiple genres? Their works will be split up and readers may not discover all of their works. Regarding collection development, will genrefication encourage librarians to order materials around genres and overlook materials that do not "fit" the classification scheme well? And, finally, will readers' experiences be shaped by the labels that books are assigned?
Counterargument: Assuming students do limit themselves to one genre of books, Stiles (2004) counters: "To a nonreader, finding a book that's interesting only makes reading more appealing. I say that these reluctant or low-achieving students are gaining the confidence they need to explore other genres" (p. 32). The experiences of genrefied libraries corroborate this theory that students do not in fact get stuck on a single genre. Buchter (2013) shared that genrefication not only helped students discover new authors within genres, but when tracing students into the next school year, "100 percent of the students checked out a book in a category different than they had as fourth-graders" (p. 52). Concerns about books that do not neatly fit into categories and about authors who span genres are valid and worth discussion. Some librarians of genrefied libraries admit this is an ongoing conundrum, but that these items represent a small percentage of their collections, and they may still be found using a catalog search. The comment on collection development being driven by genres is stated in a negative way, but it can be seen in a positive light. With items shelved by genre, librarians may quickly determine areas that lack materials and areas with high circulation (e.g., Bremen Middle's Sports Books). And, to the point that the reading experiences may be colored by the labels that books are assigned, this may be true, but it also means that books are being discovered and there is reading going on! |
... devaluing staff |
By adopting a bookstore-inspired setup for users to locate items without the need for professional reference assistance and reader's advisory, libraries reduce staff members to the status of retail book clerks who are less qualified and paid accordingly.
Counterargument: Smart design that is user-friendly may appear to be pulled off effortlessly, but it may only be achieved through thoughtful planning and work. For libraries, this work is accomplished by professional staff. In addition, since users may require less assistance to locate materials through facilitated browsing, librarians may actually have more time to provide quality reference assistance and reader's advisory. Mirroring the educational concept of the flipped classroom, the library may also be flipped. With librarians being less consumed by providing low level assistance, their roles may in fact be elevated as they are freed up to engage in higher level activities and interactions. |