Smith 1

Braeden Smith

Professor Lyle Deiter

Professional and Technical Writing

3 April 2022

A Comparison of the Library of Congress Classification and Dewey Decimal Classification

Systems in the United States

Despite the introduction of the Internet, libraries remain a common institution in

communities across the globe. Public and school libraries are a normal part of everyday life as a

communal education or entertainment resource and maintain their position as a key informational

source for researchers in universities. However, the most basic part of any library is the

collection of books and other media stored within them. Ranging in size from a few hundred to

several million items, a library’s vast collection of material is the foundation upon which all the

other services it provides are built upon. Considering the foundational nature of these collections,

it then becomes essential to understand how they are organized. It matters little what material is

available if patrons are unable to locate it. Therefore, a library must have a standard organized

system that allows its item to be easily located. The two most common of these library

classification systems in the United States are the Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of

Congress Classification systems. Each system has its own advantages and drawbacks, and each

sees widespread use in modern libraries.

The Dewey Decimal Classification system, or DDC, is the older and more widespread of

the two systems, used in over 138 countries and translated into more than thirty languages

(Introduction 1-2). Originally created for the Amherst College Library in 1873 by Melvil Dewey

and published in 1876, the DDC was based off the system used in the St. Louis Public Schools,
 Smith 2

which in turn was based off Bacon’s Chart of Learning. The DDC improved upon this

classification scheme by creating a simple and flexible numeric notation for shelf arrangement

and by devising the Relative Index. Furthermore, the DDC introduced the concept of relative

location, where books are shelved according to the classification system, replacing organization

by size or other imprecise methods. Relative location allows for books to be continually adjusted

on the shelves as items are added or taken away without interrupting their location on the index

or relative to each other (Tauber and Feinberg 57). The introduction of a standard system of

knowledge organization and the arrangement of books according to that system made

maintaining, organizing and expanding book collections in libraries significantly easier, which

led to the widespread use of the system. In 1960, an estimated 95 percent of public libraries and

90 percent of college and university libraries in the United States used the system Dewey

Decimal Classification system (Tauber and Feinberg 61).

The Dewey Decimal Classification system organizes its knowledge by discipline, not

subject, with each specific discipline correlating with a standard set of at least three Arabic

numerals, e.g. 123, called a class number. Those three numerals may be followed by a decimal

and more numbers for greater specification. The class numbers, and thus the disciplines, are

structured into a three-tiered hierarchy with ten divisions in each tier. Each of the three tiers

corresponds to one of the three Arabic numerals, going from most general in the first numeral to

most specific in the last. The ten divisions in each tier are associated with a specific discipline,

and that number is then put into the class number (Introduction 2-5). For an example, the class

number 123. The 1 is first in the class number, so it correlates to the first and most general tier,

and the Philosophy and Psychology division within that tier. The 2 is second so it belongs to the

second tier, specifically under the 1 branch of the first, thus making it 12 which corresponds to
 Smith 3

the Epistemology section. Finally, the 3 belongs to the third tier, under both the previous 1 and 2

divisions, which corresponds to the Cosmology section. Thus, the class number 123 correlates to

the discipline of cosmology, which falls under the division of epistemology, which is a part of

the philosophy branch.

First Tier (Hundreds Place)

000 Computer science, information & general works
100 Philosophy & psychology
200 Religion
300 Social sciences
400 Language
500 Science
600 Technology
700 Arts & recreation
800 Literature
900 History & geography
Source: DDC 23 Summaries 7
Second Tier, Division 1, Philosophy (Tens Place)
100 Philosophy
110 Metaphysics
120 Epistemology
130 Parapsychology & occultism
140 Philosophical schools of thought
150 Psychology
160 Philosophical logic
170 Ethics
180 Ancient, medieval & eastern philosophy
190 Modern western philosophy
Source: DDC 23 Summaries 8
Third Tier, Section 12, Epistemology (Ones Place)
120 Epistemology, causation, humankind
121 Epistemology (Theory of knowledge)
122 Causation
123 Determinism and indeterminism
124 Teleology
125 [Unassigned]
126 The self
127 The unconscious and the subconscious
128 Humankind
129 Origin and destiny of individual souls
Source: DDC 23 Summaries 10
 Smith 4

Not every possible class number has a discipline assigned to it (Introduction 12). Remember that

though they are not listed here, each class number can be further refined in specificity using a

decimal point and additional numerals in divisions of ten for each further section. The final

subject of note regarding the DDC system is the Relative Index. The Relative Index is simply an

index where subjects are arranged alphabetically then followed by the disciplines in which they

are involved and the corresponding class number. Thus, instead of having a number and

discipline to refine a subject, the index first lists specific subjects and the various disciplines they

are involved in before giving the call number for each instance. The Index is not exhaustive and

when a term is missing it is best to look for a broader term or directly consult the schedules and

tables of the Dewey Decimal Classification system (Introduction 32-33).

Like any other system of organization, the Dewey Decimal Classification system has

both advantages and disadvantages. Among its advantages are frequent updates and revisions to

its schedules and entries, easy mnemonics, simple notation, and flexibility (Tauber and Feinberg

61). However, while the DDC’s arbitrary method of arranging knowledge allows for a flexible

shelf organization and clear methods of dividing knowledge, the arbitrary division itself has the

problem of not always following the most logical order. Many of the social sciences are separate

from each other and there are instances where an alphabetical arrangement for a subject would

make greater logical sense. Furthermore, the DDC struggles with multidisciplinary subjects, a

glaring issue in a world where technology becomes increasingly entwined across all other

disciplines (Tauber and Feinberg 59-60). A good example of these issues is in chemistry. As

stated by Tauber and Feinberg “…for example, in class 546, an alphabetical arrangement for

chemical elements would be preferred by the chemist…” (59) and “Another example of

inconvenient arbitrary arrangement is … the separation of a particular science from its

 Smith 5

technology. For example, the separation of chemistry from chemical technology invites criticism

from some chemists using the classification” (60). Other criticisms of the DDC include its

structural rigidity from its divisions by ten, which limits the system’s ability to change and leads

to cluttered subdivisions. Creating a specific class number to shelf a book in a specific library is

time consuming and leads to variation across libraries, reducing the effectiveness of a centralized

system (Tauber and Feinberg 60-61). To summarize, the Dewey Decimal Classification System

has the advantages of being up to date, simple, and providing flexible shelving for individual

libraries but suffers from being rigid in its organization and unfriendly toward new or developing

knowledge (Tauber and Feinberg 59-61).

The Library of Congress Classification, or LCC, system was developed in the late

nineteenth and early twentieth century specifically for organizing the book collections in the

Library of Congress. It had since been widely adopted by other libraries, particularly large ones.

(Library of Congress Classification Library of Congress). Though they are part of an overarching

whole, each subject scheme of the LCC was independently created and developed by a team of

specialists for each discipline and have been published separately by the U.S. Government

Printing Office since 1901. Due to the sheer size of the Library of Congress, its expansive

collection, and its status as a copyright repository, the scheme is generally comprehensive for the

needs of most libraries since they will rarely encounter an item not yet cataloged by the Library

or surpass the Library’s shelving needs. Essentially, most libraries can arrange their collections

with the LCC because they will never exceed the organizational requirements of the Library

(Tauber and Feinberg 62-63).

The Library of Congress Classification system is alphanumeric in nature and begins its

division of knowledge with twenty-one basic classes each identified by a single letter. Each class
 Smith 6

is further divided into more specific groups identified by a two or three letter notation. These

groups are vaguely hierarchical and arrange topics from general to specific, and the topics broke

down into a specific place, time, or bibliographical format. Each topic is then assigned a one-to-

four-digit number which may be further extended with decimal numbers. They may also appear

in alphabetical lists instead of hierarchical ones and be represented by a letter combined with

decimal numbers. Unlike the DDC, relationships in the Library of Congress Classification

system are shown by the arrangement of subtopics under larger topics rather than by their

numbers (Library of Congress Classification Library of Congress). After these numbers and

letters indicating the subject there is the Cutter number, which is named after the librarian

Charles Amni Cutter who created the original system the LCC is based upon (Tauber and

Fienberg 62). The Cutter number is a set of alphanumeric symbols which indicates the author to

further distinguish the specific book. Then the date of publication is listed and finally there is a

number indicating which copy of the book it is if there are multiple in the library’s collection

(Library of Congress Classification University of Illinois Library). The University of Illinois

Library’s website gives the example of “KF801 C65 1952 c.2” with “KF801” being the LCC

subject number, “C65” the Cutter number indicating the author, “1952” being the year of

publication, and “c.2” showing it is the second copy of the work in stock. Expansions of the

system depend upon literary warrant and the acquisitions of new materials by the Library of

Congress. In anticipation of these future expansions, the original designers left gaps where they

approximated future needs. Five individual letters and several combinations remain unused

(Tauber and Feinberg 63).

Like the DDC, the Library of Congress Classification system has advantages and

drawbacks. Since each of the twenty-one branches are treated as an individual, there is little
 Smith 7

uniformity in how they are subdivided, and any methods or tables developed for one branch

rarely transfer onto another. The variation subtracts from the standardization of the system.

Additionally, since the Library of Congress is a congressional library of a political capital, the

scheme favors disciplines such as history, literature, language, and political and social science.

Libraries specializing in subjects like law, medicine, and technology often have their own

classification systems that the Library of Congress does not assume responsibility for. Other

issues include the lack of a general index, lack of detail in the discipline schedules, difficulty in

remaining up to date, lack of instructions for applying the scheme, and the fact that all fiction is

placed into the sections PZ 3 and PZ4. However, efforts to address some of these issues have

been made, and most librarians report satisfaction with the Library of Congress system.

Both the Library of Congress Classification and Dewey Decimal Classification see wide

use by libraries across the United State and the world. What, then, are the differences between

libraries that use the LCC and the DDC? Or what are the reasons that libraries choose one or the

other? The first substantial difference is in their notation systems. The LCC uses alphanumeric

notion which offers a broader offering of classes and flexibility while the DDC solely uses a

numeric scheme, limiting it in those respects. Thus, many professionals argue that the LCC is

best for larger collections and that the DDC is better for or, considering it was created when most

libraries had less than 500,00 items, designed for smaller collection sizes (Lund 381). With both

systems each having specific advantages and disadvantages, often associated with their methods

of organization or administration, most other considerations concern factors not directly related

to the systems themselves. For instance, the study by Lund and Daniel found that experience

with a certain system is a strong indicator of preference for that system. People will support and

use what they already know and are comfortable with (384-385, 388). Another discovery from
 Smith 8

Lund and Daniel was that cost was the top reason both for switching systems and remaining with

one (384). It would cost a significant amount of money to switch to the LCC, but at the same

time many materials are made with LCC numbers already assigned so it is more expensive in the

long term to remain with Dewey. Another important finding, one that correlated with previous

data, was that the respondents of the study favored the LCC with a ratio of 13:1 (Lund and

Daniel 383). Previous data revealed that only 13.5% of academic libraries in the United States

use the DDC and a that there is a 1.5% decline in the use of the DDC per year (Lund and Daniel

380). All this data indicates a continual decline in the popularity and use of the Dewey Decimal

Classification System and a trend for reclassifying into the Library of Congress system.

The two major library classification systems in the United States have both enjoyed wide

use and acclaim for their organizational methods. The Dewey Decimal Classification System

revolutionized library organization with its emphasis on flexibility, defined structure, and the

introduction of relative location. The Library of Congress Classification further built on these

advances and added onto them to create a system capable of serving a library of millions.

However, as time passes and we add evermore to our reservoirs of knowledge, the LCC is

increasingly becoming the system of choice. Though the DDC was significant, it is perhaps a

relic of a time at the beginning of the modern era, where it provided a groundwork for the vast

advancements of the twentieth century. The LCC, with its broader capabilities, rose to the

challenge of providing a method of organizing the breakneck pace of modern development. In

the future, who knows? People will always need knowledge, and thus in need of libraries, and

perhaps another system of organization will arise to answer the needs of that future.
 Smith 9

Works Cited

“DDC 23 Summaries.” OCLC, Inc., https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/dewey/ddc23-

summaries.pdf

“Introduction to the Dewey Decimal Classification.” OCLC Inc., 17 May 2019,

https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/dewey/versions/print/intro.pdf

“Library of Congress Classification.” Library of Congress, 1 Oct. 2014,

https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcc.html

“Library of Congress Classification.” University of Illinois Library, 11 March 2021,

https://guides.library.illinois.edu/c.php?g=439687&p=2996334

Lund, Brady D., and Agbaji, Daniel, A. “What Scheme Do We Prefer? an Examination of

Preference between Library of Congress and Dewey Decimal Classification among U.S.-

Based Academic Library Employees.” KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION, vol. 45, no. 5,

2018, pp. 380–392., https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2018-5-380.

Tauber, Maurice F, and Hilda Feinberg. “The Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress

Classifications; An Overview.” Drexel Library Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 4, Oct. 1974, pp. 56–

74.