3 pages

In general, you should not use wikis, blogs, personal websites, opinion websites, or websites written by anonymous authors to support your claims. These websites are not required to go through the process of peer review or fact checking, so the information contained in them may not be true or may be only partially true.

If you do find information in a source that is not peer reviewed, you should find another, peer-reviewed source to corroborate this information.

The elements of an annotated bibliography entry

As previously mentioned, an annotation entry is a combination of a short summary, an evaluation of credibility, and a critique of the value of a particular source to your research question. Your entries should be about 150 words each. Creating an annotation will help you think critically about your sources by considering the author's credibility and how the source will help you answer your research question.

To create each annotation entry, you'll need to do four things:

Summary

When creating an annotated bibliography entry, you should first write a brief summary of the source.

The summary section should explain just the most important parts of the source. Essentially, you'll summarize the main claims and any important details.

Summaries can vary in length, and the length of the summary will determine the level of detail that your summary should provide. Longer summaries might include quotations and paraphrases, but the 150 words allotted for your annotated bibliography entries will preclude incorporating direct quotations into your summary—focus on the broad ideas instead.

Your summary of the source for the annotated bibliography should not include your opinions or biases about the topic. Your job is to summarize briefly what the author is saying about your research question and then move on to an analysis of the relevance, quality, and credibility of the author and the information contained in the source.

Steps for writing a summary

1. Read the title and subtitle if the source has one. What do these tell you about the main claim or thesis of the source?

2. Identify the main claim of the source and then identify the major points. 3. State the main claim of the source in one to two sentences. 4. Identify evidence or examples (including charts, tables, or other visual aids) and counterexamples.

Make sure you don't get confused between examples and counterexamples. (It's considered a best practice of research writers to address in the research paper not only evidence that supports the writer's own main claim but also to briefly address evidence or arguments that oppose the claim. This practice ensures that writers have not ignored significant arguments against their arguments. In your brief summary for your annotated bibliography, you don't need to go into the specifics of how writers deal with counterexamples unless it's relevant to your argument, but don't be confused

about the writer's main claim when you come across a counterexample in your reading.) 5. Is there any data that will be essential in helping you prove your point? Summarize this information

in the appropriate level of detail for your purpose. For your annotated bibliography, you won't be able to include much detail, but be sure to take notes for later inclusion into your writing. Don't forget to cite: if you lose a page number, you may never find it again, and you can't use the source in your paper without a page number.

6. Your summary must be written in the third-person voice (no "I," "me," "my," or "you"). Be sure to revise these personal pronouns out of your writing whenever you see them.

Evaluating for credibility of the author

Your annotated bibliography entry should evaluate the credibility of the author. People say things that are unfounded, untrue, and downright nonsensical. Your job as a writer is to find credible evidence to support your claim and major points, and understanding who the author is is part of that process.

Private authors

When a private individual is the author or there are several individuals who wrote the resource together, consider the following factors:

Academic degree(s): does the author have a degree in the field that he or she is writing about. The type of degree will vary depending on the field? Look for Ph.D., M.D., Ed.S., D.V.M., or J.D. after the name of the author. These are degrees that usually mean that the author has done extensive research in his or her field. There are many other degrees that can be conferred to indicate expertise, and some fields don't require its professionals to have degrees at all. Professional affiliation(s): if an individual author is teaching or researching at a college or university, you can be assured that some other professionals ascribe validity to his or her work. Other affiliations to look for are positions held in professional associations such as the American Psychological Association or the National Education Association. Years of experience in the field: with time spent in a field comes expertise. If an individual writer shows a strong history of publication within a field or activity in a profession, you can regard him or her as an expert in the topic. Others citing the author as an expert: you can also tell whether an author is credible by considering whether the author you are examining is discussed in other writer's works and how the author's work has been received. If many other authors cite the source you are examining, it is most likely a foundational source that has credibility in the field.

Organizational author

Foundation websites or websites run by organizations can be helpful, as long as those websites present factual information written by an expert. Beware, though, foundations and organizations often have a biased agenda. Questioning the authority of each source and using a variety of sources will ensure that your research writing is strong and credible.

When an organization is the author, consider the following factors:

Longevity: how long has the organization been doing what it's doing? The longer it has been in existence, the more credibility it likely has. Reputation: is the organization generally recognized and respected by other communities and the public? Worldview/bias: does the organization only present a certain side of an issue or does it incorporate multiple perspectives?

Affiliations: is the organization associated with other worthwhile organizations or causes? Members: who are the organization's members? What is the reputation of those members? Whether the work is cited by others: do you see this organization's name in other research?

Remember that if you are considering using a source, but you can't find any information about the author, the absence of author information should be a red flag. If an author doesn't want his or her name associated with a piece of writing, he or she may not be willing to publicly vouch for its credibility. Avoid using sources without named authors or organizations in your research.

You should not use wikis, blogs, personal websites, opinion websites, or websites written by anonymous authors to support your claims. These websites are not required to go through the process of peer review or fact checking, so the information contained in them may not be true or may be only partially true.

Evaluating for credibility of the source.

When you evaluate your source, there are other factors to consider. Of course, each factor won't be notable for each source-you're only writing 150 words, after all! The previous section discussed the credibility of the author, but you should also ask yourself the following types of questions:

Content: Is the book a primary, secondary, or tertiary source for your topic? Remember that primary and secondary sources will be more credible than tertiary sources.

Purpose: Why do you think the author or organization wrote the source? Is it designed to educate or entertain? Or is it designed to promote a product or idea?

Method: How does the author or organization present ideas? Do generalizations oversimplify or overstate an idea's importance? Is the language objective rather than emotional? Does the author draw upon both primary and secondary sources and document those ideas in a bibliography or a works cited page? Remember that sources that promote an idea or opinion without providing evidence or facts to support them are as good as propaganda.

Currency: How current is the information in your source and in the sources your source cites? In high technology fields, you should look for the most recent information. In other fields, older information can still be valuable, but you should be sure to draw upon newer sources as well. To consider the importance of currency in your field, refer to "Currency of sources."

Peer review: Has the source gone through peer review? In academia, whether a source is scholarly and whether it is peer reviewed can be a strong indicator of credibility. Most of your sources should be peer reviewed sources. Some of the sources that you access through the library, library databases, and Google Scholar, rather than from a general Internet search, will have been peer reviewed, so they tend to be more valuable for use in your research. Most databases allow you to specify that you want only peer-reviewed sources returned. Be sure to find that option and make sure it's checked!

Types of sources: Identifying scholarly sources

Sc ho l a r l y so ur c e s ( a c a de mi c )

No n- sc ho l a r l y so ur c e s ( t r a de )

Are non-fiction (they contain facts and research on a topic).

Can be fiction (not based on fact, such as novels, poetry, plays) or non-fiction.

Usually list author credentials (Ph.D., M.D., Ed.S., J.D.).

Usually do not list author credentials. Author experience is usually emphasized.

Usually have footnotes or use citations to indicate what ideas should be attributed to other authors and where the reader can find more information about the topic being written about.

Usually have few footnotes or citations. Non-scholarly sources are designed to appeal to general audiences who just want to know about the topic without being bogged down in research previously conducted.

Usually presents new research or new ideas about older research.

Usually summarizes research on a topic but doesn't present new ideas.

Usually printed by university presses or in scholarly journals.

May or may not be printed by university presses or in scholarly journals. There are many trade publishers.

Evaluating the quality of information and reasoning of the source:

Read the preface, abstract, introduction, or the first few paragraphs (depending on the source)— what does the author want to accomplish? Browse through the table of contents and the index. This will give you an overview of the source. Is your topic covered in enough depth to be helpful? If you don't find your topic discussed, try searching for some synonyms in the index. Check for a list of references or other citations that look as if they will lead you to related material that would be good sources. Determine the intended audience. Are you the intended audience? Consider the tone, style, level of information, and assumptions the author makes about the reader. Are they appropriate for your needs? Try to determine if the content of the source is fact, opinion, or propaganda. If you think the source is offering facts, are the sources for those facts clearly indicated? Do you think there's enough evidence offered? Is the coverage comprehensive? (As you learn more and more about your topic, you will notice that this gets easier as you become more of an expert.) Does the source make broad, sweeping generalities, or is the source precise? Does the claim go beyond the evidence presented? Has the source oversimplified the issue? Does the source present solid reasoning that clearly interprets the evidence and demonstrates its relevance to the claim? Is the source's assertion supported by evidence? Is the evidence current? Clear? Interpreted properly? Or has information been distorted to support the claim? Has information been ignored/suppressed to support the claim?

Remaining objective

Remember as you are writing your annotated bibliography to use a formal, objective, third- person point of view. Rather than saying, "This source is relevant to my argument because...," you might write, "This source is relevant to the topic of __________ because...," or "This source is relevant to this argument because...."

Is the language objective or emotional? Does the author use a good mix of primary and secondary sources for information? If the source is opinion, does the author offer sound reasons for adopting that stance? (Consider again those questions about the author. Is this person reputable?) Check for accuracy. How timely is the source? Is the source 20 years out of date? Some information becomes dated when new research is available, but other older sources of information can be quite sound 50 or 100 years later. Do some cross-checking. Can you find some of the same information given elsewhere? How credible is the author? If the document is anonymous, what do you know about the organization? Are there vague or sweeping generalizations that aren't backed up with evidence? Are arguments very one-sided with no acknowledgement of other viewpoints?

Determining the relevance

There's a lot of information that you could put into your paper, but if information isn't relevant to your research question, it's wasted space—not evidence. Information from a source only counts as evidence if it supports your thesis statement or a major point. Remember that if your major points are not properly supported by evidence, your main claim will not hold together, so it's important that you choose the right sources for your argument.

Remember that sources should be relevant to your thesis statement, not just your topic. It's a common mistake for writers to find a source that addresses their topic without also considering how relevant the source is to their specific thesis statement.

Your sources should also support at least one of your main points. Each main point should have at least two-to-four sources to support it.

All of the sources in your annotated bibliography should help you forge your argument. In your entries, you should explain how you will use the source in your argument:

Will information in your source serve as evidence for a specific point you are making? Will it lend more credibility to another author's point? Will you use it to show that experts disagree on the topic you are addressing? Will you take its information at face value, or will you take it with a grain of salt? Did the source make you think about the topic differently? Or does it offer a viewpoint that is already over-represented in your collection of evidence?

Note that even though the relevance question is usually addressed last in an entry, you should, of course, consider the source's relevance before you begin writing your annotated bibliography entry.

In-text citation

In addition to the references list citation, your annotated bibliography should include an in-text citation for the source you are evaluating. If you refer to ideas on specific pages in a source in your annotation, the in-text citation should include the page number. If you refer to broad ideas found over many pages in the source, you don't need to include a page number. Regardless, each annotated bibliography entry will have an in-text citation.

Remember that you should cite information that you found in other sources, but your evaluation of a source cannot honestly be attributed to another author. As a result, you should pay careful attention to where your in-text citation falls in your annotated bibliography. You should place an in-text citation after the parts of the annotation that summarize, rather than the parts that evaluate.

You can find more information about in-text citations in the MLA formatting section 2.11 of this course.

Determining the relevance

Evaluating for credibility of the source.

Evaluating for credibility of the author

Evaluating for credibility of the author

Summary

Sample annotated bibliography entries

Gust, Deborah A., Allison Kennedy, Deanne Weber, Geoff Evans, YuanKong, and Daniel Salmon."Parents

Questioning Immunization: Evaluation of an Intervention." Journal of Health Behavior 33.5 (2009):

287-298. EBSCO. Web. 5 June 2011.

This study, conducted over two years, compared an otherwise diverse group of parents who were

against or unsure about childhood vaccination with a controlled group. The findings suggest that the

majority of parents who are against or neutral towards vaccinating children were hesitant due to a

lack of trust in information provided by government agencies their healthcare providers. The purpose

of this study was to develop an intervention brochure to help educate parents about immunizations

and convince them of the benefits. The research demonstrates a more positive response toward the

brochure when risks and concerns were also given. The researchers had a variety of backgrounds and

affiliations and the article was published in a peer-reviewed journal. This information is essential to

the argument that parents are still skeptical about vaccinations and the risks involved and a more

transparent (provision) of findings should be made available to parents making choices about

vaccinating their children.

Kirby, David. "The Autism-Vaccine Debate: Why It Won't Go Away." TheHuffington Post..

TheHuffingtonPost.com Inc, 11 October 2011. Web. 3 March 2012.

This article voices the concern about childhood vaccinations that parents continue to have despite

reassurance from government agencies like the CDC and other health care professionals. Author and

parent, David Kirby examines that the debate about the correlation between vaccinations and autism to

demonstrate why parents like himself aren't anti-vaccine, but remain skeptical about the safety of

childhood vaccination. Although new evidence suggesting a connection between autism and childhood

vaccination is theoretical, Kirby argues that it still merits review and additional research. Kirby makes

the point that parents, informed by experiences of friends and families, as well as scientific sources such

as the Journal of Immunotoxicology, are not to be dismissed in their concerns about childhood

vaccinations. He also uses data from the CDC, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of

Education and other reputable sources to make his point that although a correlation between health

concerns such as autism and vaccinations is still theoretical, it is not, as some have claimed, been

disproved either. Although not an expert in the field, Kirby can speak from the perspective of a parent in

a way that is useful in understanding the issue from that perspective.

United States. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Basics and

Common Questions: Some Common Misconceptions about Vaccination and How to

Respond to Them." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, 18 February 2011. Web. 6 March 2012.

<http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm>.

This article addresses six common misconceptions about vaccinations and gives

compelling evidence to dispel them. The main focus of the article is to convince

parents and others who have read what they call "anti-vaccination" literature that

the benefits of vaccination far outweigh any "presumed" risks. The article provides

information from a variety of scholarly sources and addresses each misconception

with current, qualitative, and scholarly evidence. The Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention (CDC) is a U.S. Federal agency that provides information regarding

public health issues in order to promote disease prevention and control. The CDC is

considered authoritative and current in its information. The drawback of using this

article is that many parents who are against vaccination mistrust information

provided by government agencies like the CDC. Despite the mistrust of some

parents, this paper provides strong support for vaccination in order to prevent

personal and public health problems.

Finding and using sources: Module checklist

Source types: Your research paper will only be as convincing and credible as the sources you rely on to support your claim. As you are conducting research, consider these questions:

Are you using mostly secondary sources? (Remember that primary sources may be too detailed, while tertiary sources may not contain enough specific information.) Have you considered how books, periodicals, reference sources, news sources, and audiovisual sources might be more or less suitable for your topic? Are you relying on scholarly sources and using your critical reading skills to evaluate their credibility? Are you looking specifically for peer-reviewed sources? Are you comfortable looking for articles in the library, or might you consider making an appointment with a librarian? Can you understand and explain the difference between Google Scholar and general Internet searches?

Using sources effectively Do you understand how to meet the expectations for academic authenticity and prevent allegations that you have plagiarized your writing? Can you incorporate quotations, paraphrases, and summaries into your writing in a manner that is smooth rather than choppy? Do you know how to create both in-text and reference citations for all the source types you are likely to use? Do you know how to decide whether a quotation, a paraphrase, or a summary will suit your purposes in each circumstance? Can you identify what information is common knowledge and, therefore, does not have to be cited? Do you know where to find a list of introductory words that you can use to introduce paraphrased and quoted material into your writing smoothly?

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY GRADESHEET

Sample MLA Annotation-WORKS CITED PAGE Lamott, Anne. Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life. New York: Anchor Books, 1995. Print.

Exemplary 3

Proficient 2

Needs Improvement

1

Not Evident 0

Summary A:

 Identify and describe article’s main thesis statement

Summary B:

 Identify and describe the main supporting topics Purpose

 Comment on goal or purpose of the research

Origin

 Comment on process of developing the source (research process)

Credibility

 Comment on the author’s credibility/background

Value

 Comment on value and credibility of the information.

Correct Format

 MLA Grammar