Project 2: An­a­lytic Web­text — In­for­ma­tion & Ar­gu­ment in Dis­ci­pline
 

Exercise 2

An­no­tated Bib­li­og­ra­phy

• 5 points
• due Sun­day 21-Feb, 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 the 2 on­line 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

• see ex­am­ples of ci­ta­tion for­mats @ Pur­due OWL pages

---

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 

---