Brian Deer Classification System

Comparison of Brian Deer and Library of Congress Classification

After speaking with both Ann Doyle (Xwi7xwa Library) and Kim Lawson (UBCIC Library and Resource Centre), our group felt that we had a conceptual understanding of the types of things that the Brian Deer classification system does well in its treatment of First Nations topics and subject areas, and the shortcomings of Library of Congress classification. This understanding is based on the opinions expressed by Doyle and Lawson. However, we thought that it would be useful to get a sense of how these features manifest in practice, by comparing how certain topics would be classified in corresponding sections of the respective schedules.

We start with the premise that the Brian Deer system has certain strengths in its treatment of First Nations topics. This analysis of the two systems is intended to test whether or not the Library of Congress system is, by comparison, inadequate in some of the ways it treats those same First Nations topics. The basic question we are asking is, "Is the Library of Congress system really that inadequate?" Drawing upon the Doyle and Lawson interviews, we have identified three areas of analysis to be applied to the Brian Deer and Library of Congress classification systems. These areas are:

• naming and the use of language
• collocation of related topics or subject areas
• level of specificity

The data used for the analysis is comprised of excerpts from the Brian Deer and Library of Congress schedules. Working with specific classes from the Brian Deer schedule, we attempt to identify the corresponding classes in the Library of Congress "E" schedule. We focus on the "E" schedule because Doyle suggests that the E 78, E 79 and E 99 classes are where much of the material in the Xwi7xwa Library collection would be classified if the Library of Congress system were used.

One of Doyle's first observations is that Brian Deer and the Library of Congress each use very different language for the names of First Nations groups. This difference in language is also apparent, though perhaps less marked, in the formation of class headings for First Nations topics. Table 1 lists the classes of First Nations groups as they appear in the Brian Deer schedule. Beside each term is the corresponding class number and heading from the Library of Congress "E" schedule.

The Brian Deer schedule names First Nations groups in terms that seem to be derived from the language of each group, and the word in that language that they use to refer to themselves. The names used in the Library of Congress schedule appear to use older spellings, and some of the terms are completely different from the Brian Deer term - for example, the Brian Deer term "Kwakwaka'wakw," versus the Library of Congress term "Kwakiutl." For certain terms that appear in Brian Deer, we were unable to find corresponding terms in the Library of Congress schedule. This situation, denoted by a "--", indicates that the names of certain First Nations groups, and possibly the groups themselves, are not recognized at all by the Library of Congress.

It can be argued that the inclusion in the Brian Deer schedule of the names that First Nations groups use to refer to themselves enables access to materials. In contrast, the Library of Congress's use of non-current names may function as a barrier to access, as researchers - especially First Nations researchers - may need to learn an outdated, Western-developed vocabulary in order to function within that classification system.

While the specific terms used for each class affect direct access to materials, the ability to collocate related topics within a classification system affects researchers' ability to access materials through browsing. In the Library of Congress schedule, First Nations groups are classed in E 99, "Indians of North America - By state, province or region." Within this class, however, all North American First Nations groups are ordered alphabetically through the use of cutter numbers. This is made apparent in Table 1, though it should be noted that the Library of Congress classes are listed according to the order of the Brian Deer schedule, so the Library of Congress terms do not appear in alphabetical order. Canadian and British Columbia First Nations groups are mixed in with American groups - for example, "Salish" (a British Columbia group) would come before "Siouxan" (an American group) on the shelf.

Most of the groups are represented in the alphabetical list, but the list is of little use to researchers attempting to discover the relationships between different groups, especially groups from a particular region. The Brian Deer schedule, on the other hand, lists British Columbian groups separately from other Canadian or international First Nations. More importantly, culturally similar or related groups are near each other in the schedule - so that researchers can easily access material pertaining to related groups, and may discover this material through shelf browsing. This added opportunity for access may serve users well.

Collocation of related topics is also apparent in other areas of the Brian Deer schedule. In Table 2, Brian Deer classes for a range of topics are listed alongside corresponding Library of Congress classes. Here, as with the listing of First Nations groups, related topics are collocated in the schedule. The criminal justice system, for example, is classed in close proximity to family law. As discussed above, this collocation enables both direct and browsing access on the part of the user. With the range of topics drawn from the Brian Deer schedule, the Library of Congress schedule offers only an alphabetical list of "other topics" ordered, as above, by cutter number. Again, the alphabetical list of topics offers little opportunity for users to discover the links between topics, whereas the Brian Deer schedule supports this function.

A third issue to be addressed in this comparison is the level of specificity of classification offered by each classification system. In this respect, the difference between Brian Deer and Library of Congress is apparent in Table 2. An example of this is the treatment of the concept of self government or tribal government. To begin with, we are not certain that self government (Brian Deer term) and tribal government (Library of Congress term) are equivalent in meaning. After further consideration of the two schedules, it is apparent that the Library of Congress offers less specificity within the concept of tribal government than Brian Deer system does with self government. In the Brian Deer schedule, there are four possible classes relating to self government. However, the Library of Congress schedule offers only one option - "Tribal government. Politics and government". For a researcher, it would be much easier to access different aspects of the topic of self government using the Brian Deer classification system.

After conducting this basic comparison of parts of the Brian Deer and Library of Congress classification schedules, it is apparent that both Doyle and Lawson present an accurate, realistic view of each classification system. Lacking alternatives to Brian Deer, and despite the fact that the system itself is almost thirty years old, Brian Deer still manifests as a viable solution, though one that must be reviewed, revised, and developed - a classification system that represents and acknowledges First Nations perspectives and information needs.

Collocation | Specificity