The art and science of classification: Phyllis Allen Richmond, 1921-1997

Library Trends, Spring, 2004 by Kathryn La Barre

Richmond does not shrink, however, from criticizing the faceting work of Bliss and Ranganathan. She found their cumbersome systems of notation to be the Achilles heel of modern classification. She painstakingly notes and summarizes in many of her writings (for example, Richmond, 1958a, pp. 208-211) the work of Eric Coates, Brian Vickery, Bernard Palmer, and A.J. Wells (all members of the CRG). This continual highlighting of the work of the British CRG members is an often-used strategy throughout her writings. It is likely that Richmond, like so many in North America, found the work of Ranganathan inaccessible, both literally and figuratively, but found firm traction with the practice grounded in theory that exemplified the projects conducted by the members of the CRG. At the time, few library schools were teaching about Ranganathan and Bliss. When I asked Pauline Atherton Cochrane about how pervasive awareness of faceted theory might have been during the 1960s she replied,

   I think it had seeped into the Chicago and Case Western, and to
   a certain extent the Columbia and the Maryland library schools, I
   wouldn't say any of the others because most people teaching
   cataloging and classification said, "everything you need to teach
   is being done by the Library of Congress, why do we need to teach
   anything else?" Phyllis realized that there was a need to teach
   people about classification and about subject analysis. She used
   what she was learning from reading Ranganathan and the Brits.
   (Cochrane, 2001/2002, p. 21)

It is most likely that Richmond first met Ranganathan at WRU in 1959 while both were attending the International Conference for Standards on a Common Language for Machine Searching and Translation, at which Ranganathan presented two papers. (18) In 1961 in an article on classification, when Richmond begins to examine its future, we can see that the work of Bliss and Ranganathan--as reflected in the CRG--has begun to assume an enduringly central position in her thinking about classification. It is the emphasis upon "relationships between concepts instead of strict hierarchical delineation of them" that, in her view, makes the Bliss Bibliographic Classification and Ranganathan's Colon Classification exemplars that pave the way for modern classification theory (Richmond, 1961, p. 35). Richmond directed those readers who sought a firm grasp of facet analysis and faceted classification to the work of the "London Classification Research Group" and the publications of their constituent members. Most often, Richmond referred to Brian Vickery's manual for the construction of faceted schemes (1960). Vickery himself had sent her a prepublication draft for inclusion in the files of the CRSG traveling library (Richmond, 1961, p. 35). Citing the publications of the CRG becomes the pattern of references in many of her other publications on classification (for example, see Richmond, 1961, 1963e, 1970d, 1977, 1981a, 1988).

For those anxious to experiment with facet analysis or to work with faceted schemes, and for those with limited access to the British publications of the CRG; Richmond also sketched out her own attempts to create a faceted scheme for the history of science. In so doing she attempted to provide readers with a roadmap for unfamiliar terrain. She made no attempt to contain her enthusiasm for this modern theory of classification, "Suffice it to say, the field at present is wide-open to those who can throw off the notions which have strait-jacketed classification in traditional lines" (Richmond, 1961, pp. 35, 37).