In article <[log in to unmask]>, Kerridwen Harvey
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Is anyone out there using the Social History and Industrial
>Classification (SHIC) in their museums to do subject classification of
>objects?
>
Yes, I use it (at Buckinghamshire County Museum)

>Please let me know if you are using it and, if possible, tell me a bit
>about your experiences using it.

Bad points:
* I can't remember numbers (compare 4.323 to history USE personal
smoking - the old Buckinghamshire Classification system)  And I know a
box of matches isn't 4.323 - I can't remember what 4.323 is - something
to do with the chemical industry???.
* It's not just me. We use ModesPlus, and Intouch, which allows the
public to select by classification - history AGRICULTURE harvesting
wheat means something, 1.354.45 doesn't, to your average museum visitor.
* ModesPlus files history AGRICULTIRE harvesting wheat right after
history AGRICULTURE harvesting barley, whereas it files 1.354.45 right
after 1.232, and files 1.34 before that.  So it's a bit difficult to
'grab' a 'logical' part of the database (ModesPlus problem, not a SHIC
problem).
* A mis-type of history AGROCULTIRE harvesting is a hell of a lot easier
to spot than a mis-type of 3.444 (should have been 4.333!)
* it's process-driven.  Take that box of matches - it would have a
different number (or more than one number) depending on whether it was
used in a display stand by a shop, or in a trade exhibition, by Mr Jones
to light his pipe, or by Mrs Jones to light the aga.
* the subjects covered reflect the interests of the museums involved
(all subjects are covered, but whereas, for example, there is detailed
sub-numbering for Railways, there isn't for the Lock manufacturing or
Lace industry, and while the campaigns of British Army is well covered,
there's no specific numbering for campaigns in which they weren't
involved)
* a personal niggle - the costume sub-divisions go:
costume : sex of wearer : broad > narrow
As I tend to do textile exhibitions which focus on the broad or narrow,
rather than the sex, I find this inconvenient!

Good points
* it's process-driven.  Spot the gaps in your SHIC numbers, and you see
where your museum has failed to acquire material evidence.
* it's process-driven.  So classifying an industry peculiar to your
area, (or a sexual practice, or a seasonal custom), which hasn't been
specifically mentioned, is very easy.
* the manual is excellent.
* it's easy to work to the level for which you have time and energy.
* SHIC is quite independent of name.  This is very useful if you have an
industry which uses a word like 'knife' to mean something very specific
in that industry, but which also has a very general meaning.

At Buckinghamshire County Museum, we have decided to run both SHIC, and
the old Buckinghamshire system.  This is for various reasons, including:
* the first word of the old Bucks system suggests which keeper is
responsible: costume, history, ethnography, are mine, archaology,
geology, biology, art ... they're someone elses' problem/opportunity.
* the old Bucks system provides a useful check on SHIC (and vice versa):
so, for example, I can call up everything proporting to be history
PERSONAL use smoking, and check that the SHIC numbers are apropriate.
* the old Bucks system provides a public access interface.  With some
jiggling, SHIC could, too.

So: why not stay with the old system.  Well, it wasn't my decision to
move to a dual system (or rather to move to SHIC alone, for a number of
years), but among the problems with it, I can identify:
* lack of flexibility
* ambiguity of the 'history MARKETING ...' subdivision
* relatively few subdivisions, outside the world of 19th century Bucks.

Best wishes,
--
Pat Reynolds
[log in to unmask]
at home
[log in to unmask]
at work
Keeper of Social History, Buckinghamshire County Museum
   "It might look a bit messy now, but just you come back in 500 years time"
   (T. Prattchet)