Brian Deer Classification System

Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) Library and Resource Centre

The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs Library and Resource Center now has only a small portion of their collection catalogued according to the Brian Deer system. In 1992 the Library switched its classification system from Brian Deer (BD) to a modified version of the Library of Congress classification system. Items acquired since then have been classified according to the modified LC schedules, and older items classified under the BD system are undergoing retrospective conversion to the new system on a continual basis.

Our group met with Kim Lawson, the librarian at UBCIC, to discuss a variety of issues, including the switch from Brian Deer to the modified LC system.[27]

Ms. Lawson has been there for one year, so, understandably, she does not claim to understand in depth the previous decision regarding Brian Deer. She did say that the previous librarian came from an academic library background, which likely explains in part why LC was chosen.

Superficially the switch from a native classification back to the Library of Congress, albeit a modified version, may seem like a step in the wrong direction. Such a conclusion however might in the end prove far too simplistic. For there is no perfect classification system, and the UBCIC Library remains an interesting example of how an understaffed and under-funded specialty library copes with the practical problems of how to serve its constituent base. It is important to note that Kim Lawson said she very much regrets the loss of the Brian Deer system. "The energy spent on making the change from Brian Deer to the Library of Congress system would have been better spent in making the Brian Deer system more viable," Lawson told us.

What Kim Lawson appreciates about Brian Deer is the way in which it reflects a First Nations perspective. She cited the example of the broad subject "health." LC breaks down the subject into areas such as medicine, pharmacy, or psychiatry. Ethics and spirituality are not reflected in this scheme. Some aspects might be included in areas such as psychology, but they are certainly not central to an LC view of medicine. Yet First Nations ideas on health include the concept that health involves the body, mind, heart, soul in harmony with each other. The medicine wheel, although not specific to all First Nations contexts, thematically symbolizes this sort of unity. It is difficult to decide how to classify this First Nations perspective on health using LC.

A central problem with any classification scheme is the question of how well it helps a user group to actually find the sort of material that its members are interested in finding. In regard to First Nations material, BD does help to a certain degree, but BD is too "underdeveloped" to enable users to achieve accurate recall without shelf-browsing. An example of this is that after the initial collocation by class number, items are shelved in a sequential order by cutter number (i.e., alphabetical by author), rather than further classification by subject. In this situation, a new edition of a work might be placed some distance from a previous edition. Users might also believe that the most current items would be shelved at the end of a particular subject heading. This might not be the case because acquisition does not always follow such a pattern. There is really no provision in BD for addressing some of these potential problems. Of course, BD does not prevent further collocation either. BD was designed partly to aid inexperienced cataloguers, many of whom might be volunteers. Its very simplicity, however, does have drawbacks.

The UBCIC's modification of the Library of Congress system, although not without its own drawbacks, is nevertheless a clever solution to the problem of how little room exists within LC for First Nations subjects and how inadequate its subject headings are in many respects. In some instances the library has adapted and modified specific LC areas. For example the KE section of LC, which deals with Canadian federal and provincial law has undergone a fairly thorough transformation in terms of aboriginals rights and title, but other areas are not too dissimilar to LC. The library uses E99 for works on histories, culture, and self-identification. It is really a place for "this is who we are" kinds of books, and it would include general works on, for example, the Shuswap or Salish nations. In LC, the E99 section is used as an alphabetical list for the "tribes and cultures" of "Indians of North America." So in many respects the two usages are compatible.

But if the subject of a book was, for example, "First Nations and nutrition," then the UBCIC library would simply use the nutrition schedule in LC. Another example is First Nations ecological knowledge, which would be classified in the ecological knowledge section outlined in LC. With a few exceptions, all the First Nations materials are simply spread throughout the LC classification schedules according to their subject focus. The system developed was really an in-house solution, something that other specialized libraries do all the time, that is, adapt a classification system to meet their specific needs.

Kim Lawson indicated it is not uncommon that her library users will find what they are looking for in 10 minutes, when they have already spent many unsuccessful hours looking in other libraries. Lawson does attribute this in part to her knowledge of her collection and ability to help. But it is also due to that library's cataloguing and classification system and the way in which the staff have tried to anticipate the sorts of questions that could be asked of them.

Still, Kim Lawson readily points out the problems within LC. LC headings in the First Nations areas, influenced as they were by anthropologists, who had been influenced by the work of people such as George Peter Murdock, quite simply misunderstand many of the concepts. For example, the concept of a "nation" in First Nations culture is not based on a European administrative model, but that is how the concept of nation is of course treated in LC. Canadian Subject Headings do a better job in many respects, but they too have flaws.

Our group also had some productive discussion around the concept that has been around for some time of developing some sort of Canadian First Nations cataloguing system. Developing subject headings is in fact where Kim Lawson believes some energy could be productively spent, and that this area would be the best place to produce some immediate results. She took pains however to point out the libraries have little money or time to network or coordinate with other libraries and that there is little or no external money, but she did feel that there were opportunities for using electronic resources to aid in things like copy cataloguing and user key word searches of relevant material. Kim Lawson felt that there were two sides to the issue of "national support:" 1) somehow building an access tool that would help FN communities find information, and 2) using that tool so that communities could organize their own information resources.

There was some discussion as well around Canadian and American issues, and how First Nations and Native Americans could get around some of the problems of differing terminology. It is Kim Lawson's view that there is much commonality in spite of some differences. Within several groups spread throughout North America, a kind of critical mass of scholarship is occurring. There is more dialogue happening; even in asking the question "what is indigenous knowledge?" has generated dialogue. Kim Lawson feels that terminology is becoming more consistent, and that this all bodes well for future activities in this important area.

Top | Previous | Next