STAGE 3: Annotated Bibliography Due Nov. 19th via email to david.brenner h!!".edu!

Definition of Terms: A bibliography is a list of sources (books, articles, chapters, etc.) one has used in researching a topic. Bibliographies are sometimes called "References" or "Works ited" lists, depending on the style format you are using (e.g., !"A). A bibliography usually #ust includes the bibliographic information (i.e., the author, title, publisher, etc.) in the correct !"A format. An annotation, ho$e%er, contains an evaluation of the source. &herefore, an annotated bibliography includes an (analytical) e%aluation of each of the sources. Significance of This Exercise: Why should you $rite an annotated bibliography' (t helps you learn about your topic or research )uestion. ompiling an annotated bibliography is e*cellent preparation for a research pro#ect+essay. (t allo$s you to see $hat has been done in the literature and $here your o$n research or scholarship can fit in. While #ust collecting sources for a bibliography is useful, $hen you ha%e to $rite annotations for each source, you,re forced to read each source more carefully. (n short, you read more critically instead of #ust collecting information. (n the process, you can think-and therefore write..more critically/ Your Assignment for Stage 3 Annotated Bibliography: 0or this stage of your research paper, you must create and format a #$$%&ord annotated bibliography that u"e" '(A )ormat *"ee belo& under +Bibliographi!al ,ormat-. and that in!lude" an analyti!al evaluation o) ea!h o) your "our!e". 0or your ob#ecti%e in the the annotated bibliography is to analyze EA/0 o) your "our!e" inten"ively. Again, you should at no point be summari ing the sources1 after all, 2r. Brenner $ill ha%e read them, too/ 1n"tead2 you mu"t at every point be analyzing them2 both !riti!ally and appre!iatively. Bibliographical !ormat: &he format of the bibliographical citations can %ary, so if you,re doing one for a class, it,s important to ask the instructor for specific guidelines. 3enerally, though, the bibliographic information of the source (the title, author, publisher, date, etc.) is organi4ed in either !"A or A5A format. 0or more help $ith formatting, see any reliable guide on !"A style+formatting, e.g., the 5urdue 6W" $ebsite, the "3#" Study $uide% the Bedford &eader% or the 'c$raw()ill )andboo*. Structure of the Annotations+ After the bibliographic citation itself, you describe briefly (in #$ &ord" or le"") the main thesis of the S,-&.E% and then you evaluate /i0e0% analy e1 that source (in appro3imately 4$$ &ord"). 7ou analy4e the source by e*plaining WHY you agree or disagree with that sources evidence, methods, and/or logic. (n discussing+e*plaining your reasons for appro%ing or disappro%ing of those aspects (and not the thesis) of each source, you should address at least T05EE o) the mo"t relevant !riteria that researchers+scholars use in making such an e%aluation of sources. Among those criteria you ha%e to choose from in making your e%aluation are: 8. authority, 9. representati%ity, :. accuracy, ;. ob#ecti%ity, <. logic, =. bias, >. documentation, ?. specificity+detail, @. sufficiency+ade)uacy, and 8A. currency+rele%ance. For a full explanation of those criteria, see elow. (n other $ords, you must first distill out each sources thesis !main point" 6admittedly not a simple task. Becond, you must offer supported+informed !riti!i"m and7or appre!iation o)

the method"2 logi!2 and eviden!e pre"ented in tho"e "our!e", thereby sho$ing that you understand ho$ to $rite (and therefore thin*) like a scientist+scholar+researcher8 Brenner9" Top Ten /51TE51A ,:5 ANA(;<1NG SE/:NDA5; S:=5/ES: 8. Authority C (s the $riter or publisher of the source credible' 9. Representati%ity C an similar information be found in other sources' 6r: is this an isolated study, contradicted by numerous others' :. Accuracy C (s the information correct or based on reliable e%idence' information be %erified else$here (i.e., Dfact.checkedE)' an the

;. 6b#ecti%ityCWas the research conducted according to the Dscientific method,E i.e., using control groups, double.blind procedures, peer re%ie$, large and di%erse samples, longitudinal (i.e., long.term) comparisons, and testable hypotheses' <. "ogic..Are there any logical errors or fallacies, e.g., ma#or contradictions' =. BiasC (s the $riterFs tone Dfair,E Dreasonable,E and+or DmoderateE' 2oes the $riter make concessions to Dthe other sideE' Any chance that the $riter has a Dhidden (political) agendaE that you can document' >. 2ocumentation C 2oes the author pro%ide sufficient detail on the sources used to support his or her claims' (s there any indication that he or she is not Dfighting fairlyE by failing to cite information in a bibliography or footnotes+endnotes' ?. Bpecificity + 2etail C (s the information pro%ided too general or %ague' (s the analysis o%ersimplified or unspecific' @. Bufficiency + Ade)uacy C (s the information based on sufficient data, or does the source seem to omit important information' (s there some e%idence missing that a reasonable person might e*pect to be pro%ided' 8A. urrency + Rele%ance C When $as the authorFs information ac)uired' 2oes the source pro%ide any information that seems (highly) outdated'