Annotated Bibliography

Adapt from your White Paper

The Annotated Bibliography is an assignment you are already prepared to post if you’ve been adding bibliographic information to your White Paper since the day you first posted it. Most likely you have consulted 15 or more sources in the course of your semester of research, but restrict your Annotated Bibliography to the 15 most useful sources.


A Model Annotated Bibliography
—the first 5 sources—

1. Huff, Ronald C. “Wrongful Convictions: The American Experience.Questia Trusted Online Research. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 15 Jan. 2004. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

Background: This article discusses the depth of wrongful convictions in the United States as well as other nations such as Canada. It focuses on how wrongful convictions occur and on organizations that are working to try and prevent them.

How I Used It: This article helped me discover the most common reasons why innocent people end up in prison. I used it demonstrate that a mixture of intentional and unintentional actions on the part of witnesses and prosecutors most often landed innocent people in jail. The defendants were often badly represented, and the prosecutors exhibited an appalling willingness to cajole, coerce, or bargain with witnesses to get the testimony they needed to convict innocent people.

2. Liptak, Adam. “Study Suspects Thousands of False Convictions.The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 Apr. 2004. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.

Background: This article from The New York Times focuses on a study conducted by The University of Michigan about 328 criminal cases in which the convicted person was released from prison. Upon finding this evidence, the University believed that thousands of innocent people are in prison for crimes they did not commit. While the article does not fixate on DNA exonerations, there is a large portion of it that suggests new DNA evidence can easily overturn wrongful convictions.

How I Used It: The most common way to overturn wrongful convictions proves to be the finding and presenting of DNA evidence that was ignored at trial. The study highlights exactly how large of a problem false convictions are in the United States by using a small group of convicted inmates and discovering exactly how many of them are actually innocent, something I proved in my essay on a larger scale.

3.  “250 Exonerated, and the Need for Reform.– The Innocence Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.

Background: This extraordinary document from “The Innocence Project”details the cases of 250 convicts falsely imprisoned, many for 20 years or more, on the basis of misidentification, false testimony, questionable evidence, or flawed test results. The Innocence Project is dedicated to helping free innocent victims that were falsely convicted. It uses DNA evidence to exclude convicts who have consistently and loudly protested their innocence of the crimes they’ve been convicted of.

How I Used It: I used concrete examples of people that were helped by the discovery or reopening of cases based on DNA or other evidence. The evidence is clear that poor defendants with or without prior convictions who feel powerless to fight a system that appears stacked against them can be coerced into taking plea deals even when they know they haven’t committed a crime.

4.  Dewan, Shaila. “Prosecutors Block Access to DNA Testing for Inmates.The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 May 2009. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.

Background: This article focuses on two men, one of which is in prison for a rape he insists he did not commit, and the other who says DNA evidence would prove he was falsely convicted of a double murder. The article states that prosecutors often resist reopening cases despite the fact that the re-institution of a closed case could potentially free an innocent person from prison.

How I Used It: I used the evidence of this source to demonstrate the unconscionable efforts of prosecutors to avoid reopening a case to do further DNA testing. Quite often, law enforcers are content with placing a person in prison and to them, a person in jail is a win whether they are innocent or not. This obviously is a major flaw in the justice system, which I exposed with the help of this article as it offers a backstage pass into the world of criminology.

5. “Criminology” Beirne, Piers, and Messerschmidt, James. Criminology. Fort Worth, Texas. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1991.

Background: This book provides background on all things related to Criminology. The chapter dedicated to false convictions helped guide my research into prosecutorial misconduct, false eyewitness testimony, and the difficulty of getting new trials even when new evidence is discovered.

How I Used It: This book did not provide me specific details of case histories, but it was invaluable as a resource for terminology and explanations of laws, court proceedings, and criminal investigations.

—continue to 15 sources—


ASSIGNMENT SPECIFICS

  • Adapt your White Paper into an Annotated Bibliography.
  • 10-15 Sources. Most likely after a semester of research, you will have a dozen strong sources or so to include. The upper limit is 15. Under no circumstances cite fewer than 10.
  • Broad Range of Credible Source Types. As we have mentioned many times, your sources are to be a blend of popular and peer-reviewed academic sources. They may also include first person reports, interviews, surveys. The model above uses an academic journal, two New York Times articles, an advocacy website, and a nonfiction textbook.
  • “How I Used It.” The “How I Intend to Use it” section no longer applies in the finished Bibliography. Alter those sections to produce the “How I Used It” sections.
  • Call your post Bibliography—Username.
  • Publish your bibliography in the Bibliography category and of course, your Username category.

BEFORE YOU POST.

Please consult this analysis of a first draft that makes common errors.


An Uncorrected Source Entry

  1. Copley, Margaret Freeman, and John B. Bodensteiner. “Chronic Sorrow in Families of Disabled Children.” Journal of Child Neurology, vol. 2, no. 1, 1987, pp. 67–70., doi:10.1177/088307388700200113.

Background:  This article is about two common words chronic and sorrow. Chronic sorrow describe the process of parent bereavement in response to life with a disabled child. It also discusses how parents and siblings have to put many hours into caring for the disabled child.


Instructor Notes:

I read the article. It is indeed about Chronic Sorrow, which, as you suggest is the condition parents suffer not at the loss of a child, but at their ongoing grief that their child was born with and will likely always live with a disability. They grieve “the loss of an idealized normal child.” You promised that the article would inform me “how parents and siblings have to put many hours into caring for the disabled child,” but that didn’t seem particularly valuable (or worthy of an academic journal article), so I went to see what you weren’t telling me. 

It describes the inescapability of the pain and sadness that must be endured indefinitely. One parent reports that he and others suffer “months and years of anguish, roller coaster cycles of elation and depression as the parents try to deny the evidence before their eyes that their child is less than ordinary or normal.” Which is poignant, and interesting, but doesn’t get to the heart of the parent-child dynamic I believe your paper wants to describe, the one between the parents and the disabled child’s siblings. I read on.

Those long hours of extra care have relevance I didn’t expect: “Solnit and Stark report that parents cannot effectively mourn the loss of the idealized child because of the unrelenting daily demands of the living disabled child.” If that’s the case, those parents, suffering their unresolved grief, will not have the psychic strength to properly nurture their “normal” children as they deserve. And that will likely cause resentment in the siblings. 

Parents who feel “helpless, hopeless, and anxious” all the time, and who react with “anger, resentment, and aggression” to the frustration of their predicament will not parent as well as they should. Nothing in the article speaks directly to the impact of the disabled child on siblings. That connection will be yours to make. My suggestion from here would be to seek articles that address how the DEATH of a sibling affects the parent-child relationship with the survivors. There will be plenty of evidence there that you can use by analogy to make a case that the siblings suffer disaffection from the parent along with the burden of being the surviving child, of whom much more will be expected and demanded.

Some indication of that family dynamic should have been in your Background section, to give a reader of your Bibliography a sense of the value of your source.


How I used it: This article proves that taking care of a child with disabilities is a hard job and takes toll on the family.


Instructor Notes:

Indeed it does, but saying so does not inform the reader. Details, please.


The Same Source after Revisions

  1. Copley, Margaret Freeman, and John B. Bodensteiner. “Chronic Sorrow in Families of Disabled Children.” Journal of Child Neurology, vol. 2, no. 1, 1987, pp. 67–70., doi:10.1177/088307388700200113.

Background: The author has collected and analyzed the psychological literature examining the Chronic Sorrow of parents who give birth to children with disabilities. She describes the ongoing grief—similar to the grief of parents whose child dies—caused by “the loss of an idealized normal child.” One parent reports that he and others suffer “months and years of anguish, roller coaster cycles of elation and depression as the parents try to deny the evidence before their eyes that their child is less than ordinary or normal.” 

The effect on normal siblings is not described in this source, but is easy to imagine from what is described. “Parents cannot effectively mourn the loss of the idealized child because of the unrelenting daily demands of the living disabled child,” which will reasonably deprive them of the psychic strength to properly nurture their “normal” children as they deserve. And that will likely cause resentment in the siblings. Parents who feel “helpless, hopeless, and anxious” all the time, and who react with “anger, resentment, and aggression” to the frustration of their predicament will not parent as well as they should.

How I Used It: I used this article to establish that parents of a handicapped child are stunted in their ability to properly nurture their other children. Then, since the parents are grieving, I sought and found articles that address how the DEATH of a sibling affects the parent-child relationship with the survivors. Those healthy siblings suffer a loss of affection from their parents along with the burden of being the surviving child, of whom much more is expected and demanded.


GRADE DETAILS

  • DUE TUE NOV 17 before class (11:59PM MON NOV 16)
  • Customary late penalties. (0-24 hours 10%) (24-48 hours 20%) (48+ hours, 0 grade)
  • Portfolio grade category (75%)

Today’s In-Class Exercise

TUE NOV 10. During class today, I’ll give you time to describe the improvements made to the “Uncorrected Source Entry” above. Use the Reply field below THIS PAGE.

20 Responses to Annotated Bibliography

  1. oaktree1234 says:

    The improved version explains how the writer used the source not just gave a lengthy summary. It identified the main features that are valuable. Most importantly, the aspects that are going to be essential to the argument are highlighted.

  2. clementine102 says:

    Username added a “How I Used Section” and added details in the Background. Their original background was too vague. In the improved Annotated Bibliography, they added value to the source instead of plainly just stating what it is about. They created purpose to their source for their paper in the improved annotated bibliography.

  3. runnerd4 says:

    This section was definitely helpful. Now I understand what you are looking for from my own annotated bibliography. I need to make sure that I am getting the background of each source correctly. The uncorrected source was improved by giving the proper background information. Providing the reader with proper background information is crucial. You also do not want to skew the words of the author of the work you are citing.

  4. shadowswife says:

    The improved version of the “Uncorrected Source Entry” gives a lot more information on the article that this person used and how it was useful to them. The information given shows how valuable that article was to that person’s paper and that despite it not directly talking about this person’s topic, it still had some useful contribution.

  5. Nimadhury says:

    The improvements made between the two source entries are significant. The corrected entry encourages using a purposeful summary while researching to ultimately create a dynamic source entry that serves well to the arguments one’s writing about.
    I’ve also seen the difference between “saying so” and “informing”. When you’re saying so, it seems that you’re parroting off of a general summary of your source, without tailoring it to a way that is most relevant to your argument. Informing is looking at a source through the lens of your argument and filling in the gaps between the words in a way that serves your paper best. In addition, it’s important to utilize charged, descriptive words/phrases to better illustrate your point.

  6. SmilingDogTheProfWants says:

    The original background was nothing more than a summary of the article whereas the improved background not only recaps the main/important points in the article but manages to display the imagery of what the writer plans to show in their own writing. The “how I used it section” provides a more detailed and specific objective in the revised version and accurately describes how it is going to be used to convey their point in a specific manner rather than the vague description it was to begin.

  7. cardinal7218 says:

    The background included more details about the evidence and conclusions offered in the article. It better conveyed the value of the article by including quotes and a less general description of the author’s main points. The “how I used it” section was also more detailed in describing what the writer gleaned from the article and the writer also described how the article helped her to do further research.

    This was definitely useful in showing me how specific my language should be when writing the annotated bibliography. I should really think about the specific ways a source informed my argument. It also helped me to see how one source can help you to ask questions and use those questions to find new sources.

  8. rowanstudent24 says:

    The second one contains a lot more detail. In the background they not only include how caring for a child with disabilities is hard on the parents but it also include how it affects the other children as well. This can really give the reader a clear understanding of how big of an effect this can have on a family. It also goes a lot more into detail on how the author used the article. This helps the reader understand how the author was able to apply it to their paper and gives them a clearer picture of how it applies to the paper.

    • davidbdale says:

      RowanStudent, yours is the first response that actually responds. I gave you time to “describe the improvements made to the ‘Uncorrected Source Entry’ above.” All the entries before yours TALK ABOUT vagueness vs specificity and other important matters, but they DON’T DESCRIBE THE IMPROVEMENTS. Yours doesn’t do a lot of it, but you’re a pioneer nonetheless.

  9. profs22 says:

    The improved version gave a lot more information and also explained how the information is valuable to the reader. It made the source clear so that the reader does not have to interpret the message on their own. In the original version the source had no connection to the excerpt which can be confusing.

  10. dayzur says:

    The improved version gave a much greater in-depth look into the info that really helped the reader understand and connect with the reading. The writer stepped back and looked at the article below the surface level and gained so much more from it. The first version wasn’t very clear and just a vague description of what went on in the article and quite bland I would say.

  11. l8tersk8ter says:

    The background section was improved with more detail. In the revised version there are quotes included that can be referenced when seeing where the information in the paper came directly from. It also is a summary that goes more in depth and will allow for easier points to be drawn in the paper based on what the source is saying. The How I Used It section doesn’t just say how the information was brought in the paper. It states how the material was utilized, but also how this initial researched will be used to further the research and seek more sources that help further prove the points brought up by this source. Overall the original is lacking detail and gives very broad insight into what the source brings to the table. The revised version includes that missing detail and leaves no one wondering what was missed and what more could have been said.

  12. gooferious says:

    The improved version gives us readers a insight on the darker side of what occurs when parents give birth to disabled children and also how this burden can effect the “normal” siblings in such a way that stunts their emotional development. New-to-be parents are hopeful that their children will be born healthy and be able to function well as they grow older. Time, effort and patience is needed to care for these kids who didn’t ask to be born in such a way. Parents focus so much on their disabled child that sometimes they neglect or push away their other kids. Parents who use their aggression and resentment towards their children are causing more harm than good to their emotional development.

    This in-depth way of explaining proves to be essential as it can only inform your reader more and more about how your source is relevant to your topic. We as writers have to learn to use our words in a manner that’s easy to follow and includes the key points that must be discussed.

    • davidbdale says:

      This is beautiful, gooferious. As I told RowanStudent24 above, your response is among the very few that actually respond. I gave you time to “describe the improvements made to the ‘Uncorrected Source Entry’ above.” Most of the entries before yours TALK ABOUT vagueness vs specificity and other important matters, but they DON’T DESCRIBE THE IMPROVEMENTS. Reading them, I learn nothing about the actual changes made to the first version. Your Reply actually describes the improvements.

  13. gabythefujoshi18 says:

    The “Uncorrected Source Entry”, while trying to make the argument that raising a child with disabilities has negative emotional and mental effects on the parents, ended up being vague and general. There is no indication of why the information they provide from this source is important or how it will be used in the their overall argument.
    The improved version provides more information about the article and with a clear depiction of why the article was used. The connection between the two is more apparent and the reader now grasps why the article was used and how it will be applied to prove their overall argument.

    • davidbdale says:

      GabyTheFujoshi, yours is among the few responses that actually respond. I gave you time to “describe the improvements made to the ‘Uncorrected Source Entry’ above.” Most of the entries before yours TALK ABOUT vagueness vs specificity and other important matters, but they DON’T DESCRIBE THE IMPROVEMENTS. Reading them, I would have no idea the entries described the dynamics of families with disabled children. Yours doesn’t do a lot of it, but you’re a pioneer nonetheless.

  14. pardonmyfrench13 says:

    There is a significant difference between the original version and the improved version. The original background was just a summary of the article. When presented in the improved background it not only included a summary but also what the author intended to show in their own writing. The original just spit back the author of the source’s words and not why the author had used the sources for the paper itself. The word “informing” was also used more often which helps to give clarity to the actual argument that was trying to be made. After reading this I now have a much better understanding of what you are looking for in the annotated bibliography. Helped me to understand how I exactly need to pick apart my sources and say how it helped me directly while also providing background.

  15. comicdub says:

    The second version goes into a lot more detail describing how the parents of a child with disabilities respond to it in the similar manner of a parent losing their child. The second version also does not make the the false claim that the source describes the effect on normal siblings. Rather the revised version explains that from what is described in the source, it is easy to imagine how normal siblings react to having a disabled sibling. The “How I used it” section is also a lot more descriptive on how the source actually helped the writer rather than the first version that pretty much just describes the content of the source in one sentence. The second version also explains how this source helped the writer find other articles to use to help clarify things from this original source. Another thing worth noting is that for the revised version, the student clearly payed attention to the professors feedback and used it to help them with their revision.

    • davidbdale says:

      This is brilliant, ComicDub. As I told RowanStudent24 above, your response is among the very few that actually respond. I gave you time to “describe the improvements made to the ‘Uncorrected Source Entry’ above.” Most of the entries before yours TALK ABOUT vagueness vs specificity and other important matters, but they DON’T DESCRIBE THE IMPROVEMENTS. Reading them, I would have no idea the source describes the dynamics of a family with a disabled child. From your description, I learn all I need to know about the specific changes made, the reasons they are improvements, and the strategies that help the revised version stand out from the others.

  16. sonnypetro29 says:

    There is a big difference between the uncorrected source and the corrected one, in the first one we see a small summary with not a lot of information that we has the reader can understand. The second goes into great detail and really explains the main points of the work. The writing was very clear to understand and for the reader that helps out a lot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s