Due to her success at Rochester, Pettee was then invited to reorganize the library at Union Theological Seminary
in New York City as it moved into its new location. When she arrived, she found a library organized completely
by shelf location and by the wandering fancy of the librarian, Dr. Rockwell. The location-based system in place
would not work as effectively in the new space, so it was clear a new classification scheme would be necessary.
Pettee rejected Dewey for this project, but she “was not alone in identifying the weaknesses of the Dewey Decimal
Classifications system for a complex collection.”7 It had been rejected by other major libraries. Pettee believed
deeply that classification schedules had to fit the library, not the other way around. To her, a classification system
was “simply a device for securing the order on the shelves that your scheme calls for. Like a shoe it should be made
to fit the foot, not the foot crammed into a pretty but too tight shoe. The Dewey scheme wears a lovely shoe, but
it pinches so much the scheme itself fairly hobbles.”8 Further, she stated, “Unless whole classes are reworked, it is
inadequate for a general collection of scholarly nature. For a theological collection it has nothing to commend to
it.”9 Pettee also rejected Cutter, stating, “Adaptable, however, as the Cutter is, it is intended for a general collection;
for a special collection of any kind a classification worked out with particular reference to the special field would
have the obvious advantage of being able to coordinate and relate other subjects to it.”10 Pettee’s rejection of these
methods and her refusal to divide the collection led her to a pivotal moment.
Due to her success at Rochester, Pettee was then invited to reorganize the library at Union Theological Seminaryin New York City as it moved into its new location. When she arrived, she found a library organized completelyby shelf location and by the wandering fancy of the librarian, Dr. Rockwell. The location-based system in placewould not work as effectively in the new space, so it was clear a new classification scheme would be necessary.Pettee rejected Dewey for this project, but she “was not alone in identifying the weaknesses of the Dewey DecimalClassifications system for a complex collection.”7 It had been rejected by other major libraries. Pettee believeddeeply that classification schedules had to fit the library, not the other way around. To her, a classification systemwas “simply a device for securing the order on the shelves that your scheme calls for. Like a shoe it should be madeto fit the foot, not the foot crammed into a pretty but too tight shoe. The Dewey scheme wears a lovely shoe, butit pinches so much the scheme itself fairly hobbles.”8 Further, she stated, “Unless whole classes are reworked, it isinadequate for a general collection of scholarly nature. For a theological collection it has nothing to commend toit.”9 Pettee also rejected Cutter, stating, “Adaptable, however, as the Cutter is, it is intended for a general collection;for a special collection of any kind a classification worked out with particular reference to the special field wouldhave the obvious advantage of being able to coordinate and relate other subjects to it.”10 Pettee’s rejection of thesemethods and her refusal to divide the collection led her to a pivotal moment.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
