Annotated Bibliography

Project 2: Ana­lytic Web­text — Infor­ma­tion & Argu­ment in Discipline
 

Exercise 2

Anno­tated Bibliography

  • 5 points
  • due Sat 03-Oct, in D2L

» From research: 3 schol­arly sources (jour­nal arti­cles or book chapters)
+ 2 online/Internet exam­ples: sources of spe­cial­ized infor­ma­tion and/or for com­mu­ni­ca­tion (“dis­course com­mu­nity”) within field
note: anno­ta­tions for these exam­ples not required

 
Instruc­tions

This activ­ity is a warm-up to the project, seek­ing rep­re­sen­ta­tive exam­ples of the spe­cial­ized dis­course in the dis­ci­pline — to dis­cuss crit­i­cally the form of Infor­ma­tion and Argu­ment respec­tive to your field. (You will work toward this next by exam­in­ing one arti­cle in the Rhetor­i­cal Analy­sis Exer­cise for insights about dis­ci­pli­nary con­ven­tions, to iden­tify and illus­trate with exam­ples in the Web­text Project. This dis­cus­sion is not part of the A-Bib!)
For each schol­arly source, dis­cuss con­cisely and pre­cisely one key question:
→ how this source helps (with) your project,
even if you end up not using later.

» Each anno­ta­tion should be brief, explic­itly, and thoughtful:
1. one sen­tence iden­ti­fy­ing the poten­tial use (ben­e­fit, con­tri­bu­tion) — even if prospective/speculative — for spe­cific objec­tives of this project
2. one sen­tence briefly sum­ma­riz­ing the main point of the source (in your own words; quotes not applic­a­ble here)
option­ally: note any lim­i­ta­tions or con­cerns; if it is suitable/relevant (qual­ify); or/and if any clarification/elaboration is needed to bet­ter use this source

 
 
» reminder: include the full cita­tion for each schol­arly source (MLA or APA, depend­ing on your discipline)
— this is read­ily found using whichever library data­base through which you’ve accessed the article

 
 


 
Research Tips
  • You are seek­ing rep­re­sen­ta­tive exam­ples of spe­cial­ized dis­course in the field, in schol­arly sources
    — set Scholarly/Peer-Reviewed fil­ters in library data­base (see below)
     
  • These sources should be cur­rent, “recent” being rel­a­tive to your dis­ci­pline (2 years? 5 years? explain in anno­ta­tion if necessary)
    — set Date Range fil­ters in library database
     
  • For this “snap­shot” of dis­ci­pline (an “informed glance”), you might want to vary the pub­li­ca­tion sources:
    for instance, 3 dis­tinct jour­nals (vs. 3 arti­cles from same); a dif­fer­ent type of book (rather than the same func­tion, con­sid­er­ing the project); var­ied authorship
     
  • As you nar­row your inves­ti­ga­tion of “the field” by dis­ci­pline and/or “sub-field” — trends, move­ments, “schools of though,” insti­tu­tions, asso­ci­a­tions — you might select sim­i­lar sources that illus­trate an affin­ity or trend.
     
      For exam­ple, I might use these to show a trend in Dig­i­tal Rhetoric (within field of Writ­ing & Rhetoric):
    • Rice, “The Mak­ing of Ka-knowledge: Dig­i­tal Aural­ity” (2006) Com­put­ers and Com­po­si­tion 23
    • Brown, “Com­po­si­tion in the Dro­mos­phere” (2012) Com­put­ers and Com­po­si­tion 29.1
    • Carter & Arroyo, “Tub­ing the Future: Par­tic­i­pa­tory Ped­a­gogy and YouTubeU in 2020” Com­put­ers & Com­po­si­tion Vol­ume 28, Issue 4 (2011)
    •  
      — sim­i­lar schol­ars, top­ics, argu­ments, and even writ­ing style (inventive/experimental);
      all from the same jour­nal: 5 years apart shows trend/“strain” (one option).
      alter­na­tively, I could include 3 sim­i­lar scholars/articles (of last 3–5 years) from var­ied sources to show “breadth”/scope (another option):
      Com­put­ers and Com­po­si­tion, Kairos, Encul­tur­a­tion, Present Tense, Cur­rents in Elec­tronic Lit­er­acy, Reconstruction
      + maybe a book by a scholar of Dig­i­tal Rhetoric