Libraries are designed to create order. Knowledge, however, is not. Misclassification does not always mean someone made a mistake. Often, it reveals deeper structural tensions in how information is organized. Below are four core reasons it happens.
1. Interdisciplinary Content
The book genuinely belongs in more than one class. Modern scholarship does not respect neat boundaries.
A single book might combine:
- Psychology and economics
- Technology and ethics
- History and sociology
- Health and philosophy
Library classification systems, including LCC, require one primary location. A physical book cannot sit in three places at once. So the cataloger must decide which subject dominates. That choice reduces complexity.
Interdisciplinary books are not rare exceptions anymore. They are increasingly the norm. Classification systems, however, were built in a time when disciplines were more clearly separated.
The system expects tidy categories. Authors often deliver intellectual hybrids.
2. Selector Bias
The librarian determines what feels most important. Classification rules exist. Interpretation still plays a role.
Two professionals can read the same book and identify different “main” themes. For example:
- One librarian may see a political argument.
- Another may see a sociological study.
- A third may view it as cultural commentary.
The decision is not random. It is influenced by:
- Academic background
- Institutional priorities
- Community needs
- Personal familiarity with the subject
Bias does not necessarily mean prejudice. It means perspective. And perspective shapes emphasis. Even subtle wording in a title can shift how the book is mentally framed.
3. Cataloging Shortcuts
Time and workflow pressures shape decisions. In practice, libraries often rely on:
- Copy cataloging (using existing records)
- Vendor-supplied metadata
- Shared bibliographic databases
If a record already exists, it is usually adopted. There may not be time to re-evaluate every classification decision from scratch.
Other realities include:
- Limited staffing
- High acquisition volume
- Institutional deadlines
When classification must be efficient, nuance sometimes loses. It is not neglect. It is operational constraint.
4. Marketing Influence
Publishers frame the book before libraries do. Before a cataloger reads the book, the publisher has already labeled it.
Consider the power of:
- Subtitle wording
- Cover imagery
- Back-cover description
- BISAC categories (gendre codes)
If a book is marketed as:
- “A leadership guide,” it may lean toward management.
- “A cultural critique,” it may lean toward sociology.
- “A personal transformation handbook,” it may lean toward self-help.
The framing influences initial cataloging decisions. Marketing is not neutral. It guides perception.
A Structural Reality
Classification systems aim for clarity. But clarity requires simplification. Every time a complex work is assigned a single call number, something is compressed. The book becomes “mainly about” one thing. But many works are not mainly about anything. They are about intersections.
Misclassification, then, is often less about error and more about limitation.
The system demands singular identity. Knowledge frequently refuses. That tension will not disappear. If anything, it will intensify as scholarship becomes more interdisciplinary.
And perhaps that is the quiet irony: the more knowledge expands, the harder it becomes to shelve it neatly.