ANNOTATED

BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Worth 20 points. Due by Monday, 4/3, 11:55 p.m., via Sakai)

OVERVIEW
A crucial part of writing effective research papers is the ability to stay organized. An
annotated bibliography is one tool researchers use to keep their bibliographic
information, quotes, paraphrases, summaries, and analyses in one place for later
reference. While a works cited page documents all of the sources actually cited in
your final paper, an annotated bibliography organizes source material you are
considering as you move through your research process. Then, when you are ready to
begin using and citing source material in your paper, much of the work has already
been done!

DIRECTIONS
To support your research, you will craft an annotated bibliography for at least six
sources you are considering using for your paper. Your annotated bibliography
should include:

1) An overview paragraph (roughly 100-- 150 words) at the top of the document
that explains your interest in the topic, your intended audience, your major research questions,
and the scope of your investigation.
2) A complete, MLA--style entry for each source you are considering. You will be
able to transfer these entries directly to your Works Cited page if you end up
using the sources for your paper.
3) An annotation of about 150-200 words for each source. Some things to include:
a. Information about the author, intended audience, and context of the
work (who is writing? To whom are they writing? To what situation does
the work seem to be responding? What attitude does the author seem to
have about the topic?)
b. Information about the overall purpose and nature of the work (what information is
covered by the source? What argument is being made? How is that
argument supported?)
c. Points of connection and departure between the source and other
sources youve located. (Does the source echo the claims made by
others? Does it add another dimension to the conversation? How is the
source similar to or different from the other sources youve located?)
d. Comments on the overall quality or usefulness of the source in relation
to your own argument Which part of the research puzzle does this source address?
Think here in terms of the questions and subquestions that make up your topic and
which one(s) are potentially addressed by this source. You might also consider some
of the limitations of the source (are parts of the discussion outdated? Will some
readers be skeptical of the source's credibility? Bias? Other limitations?)

**Note: The annotation should be primarily in your own words. You should include
relevant quotes that seem particularly memorable or useful, but be sure to frame those
quotes with your own words and analysis as if you were actually writing your paper.
Be sure to include parenthetical citations with page numbers for any quotes or
paraphrases you include.
 Sample Annotation
(note: you may also wish to look at the sample annotated bib located in the
"Resources" folder in Sakai. Additional samples available at: http://
libguides.library.nd.edu/annotated_bibliography)

Albrecht, Steffen. Whose Voice is Heard in Online Deliberation? A Study of

Participation and Representation in Political Debates on the Internet. Information,
Communication & Society 9.1 (2006): 62-82. Print.

In this article, Albrecht (a Ph.D. candidate at Hamburg University of Technology in

Hamburg, Germany) reassesses the extent to which the Internet encourages participation
from groups often underrepresented in offline political discourse. Albrecht illustrates
obstacles to online deliberative participation by offering a case study of an online debate
between 538 registered users in the city of Hamburg. Results suggested that the Internet
might encourage deliberative participation among young people, while having the opposite
effect for persons over the age of 55 (72). Results also showed a much smaller number of
female participants than anticipated (74). While Albrechts review of previous research
paints a gloomy portrait of the Internet being able to function as a deliberative space any
more than offline political arenas, his actual case study suggests that the Internet may offer
some hope for online deliberationwith, perhaps, some improvements on design. This
article should be useful for providing an example of how I might approach my own study of
political engagement in social networking spaces, as Albrechts case study provides valuable
insight into the advantages and limitations of online political deliberation. I would imagine,
however, that the study might yield different results if conducted within other populations.