What research libraries still use the Cutter Expansive Classification system and why?

Question

When I was at the University of Wisconsin I occasionally found my way up to the library's Cutter Collection. While the Library shifted to using LCC in the 70s they kept a set of books organized by Cutter's system. In practice, I often ran into others from the history and history of science departments browsing through the stacks. You can find guidance docs about the collection from the history department. It was neat to see these older books organized together and set aside to be browsed as a collection.

So, I'm curious to know a bit about the places that are still using Cutter. Are they doing so because of the amount of work that it would take to change? Are they doing so because it is what people know? Or are their other arguments for organizing books this way?

Answer 1

The Forbes Library (a public library with a strong focus in research) in Western Massachusetts still uses the Cutter system. I suspect Cutter's personal employment & history with Forbes is a strong motivation for still using it.

I don't think patron knowledge of the Cutter system is a high concern; Forbes is part of a regional consortium and many patrons use other libraries, of whom the majority of public libraries are using Dewey and the academic libraries are using LC. I have heard impassioned speeches regarding the superiority of Cutter classification, so staff are supportive of keeping it.

Answer 2

I don't know of any research libraries using Cutter as you describe. In addition to Forbes, there are other public libraries in Western Mass that also house Cutter-classified books. All local history books at the Westfield Athenaeum are cataloged that way (even new additions), and there are any number of Cutter books in the lower stacks at the Springfield City Library.

I think the main argument for keeping Cutter books as Cutter books is the amount of work to change the record, relabel the books, etc. There aren't many libraries like Forbes, who have a tangible reason to use Cutter's classification, and I doubt there will ever be any new libraries that adopt it as a classification method. The Library of Congress system is based in part on Cutter's classification. Another argument might be that for certain topics, Cutter allows more flexibility than either Dewey or LC in terms of cataloging.