ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY INSTRUCTIONS

An annotated bibliography is a collection of entries describing sources about a particular topic (see Rampolla, 29-31).  Each entry includes two elements:

a) a complete and correct citation in Chicago style

b) a summary and evaluation of the source

As you summarize and evaluate secondary sources, address the following questions:
what is the book or article about?
what is the author's problematic (central question or issue) and argument?
what are the work's strengths and weaknesses?

Each student is responsible for annotating 6-8 scholarly sources on the topic; these include books, chapters in edited volumes, and articles from journals such as the American Historical Review (to find journal articles, search the JSTOR and GaleGroup databases available on the library catalog). You may annotate no more than 3 articles and chapters (that means you need AT LEAST 3 books.) Each annotation should end with the initials of the annotator.

Please make sure to include sources published within the last 30-40 years. Try to include the most significant and frequently cited works on the topic. You may also include citations for books and articles that are significant but that you decided not to annotate. In other words, use this as an opportunity to think about both the history and the historiography of your topic.

Each bibliography should include a 2-3-page introduction in which you introduce the general topic (e.g. the history of the Spanish Empire from the 1490s) and discuss the themes, issues, sub-topics on which your group decided to focus. What is the chronological scope of your bibliography? What have you left out and why? What are the big debates in the field? What is neglected? You will also need to explain how the bibliography is organized (chronologically? thematically?)

Sample annotation:

Ketcham, Ralph L. “France and American Politics, 1763 – 1793”. Political Science Quarterly 78, no. 2 (1963): 198-223.
 
            This fascinating article offers a very different perspective on the glorified French alliance with America in the American Revolution. Through the lens of early American politics, Ralph Ketcham portrays an alliance that was characterized by mistrust and controversy from both parties. Although most of the article focuses on debate between early American political figures, it gives a detailed account of the actions of French foreign ministers to further French interests in America. The author states that many in the French government were hesitant to ally with America, including the finance minister and the king himself. He also claims that France mainly viewed America as a tool to weaken Britain, and that France wanted America to be free from Britain but not gain international power. This article proposed ideas that I had never heard of before; I had always thought that the French had viewed the American alliance with enthusiasm, not hesitancy. The main weakness in Ketcham’s analysis is that he does not examine French diplomatic thought closely enough. He gives numerous accounts of France manipulating American politics to further its own interests, but he does not spend enough time examining these particular interests in detail. However, other than this small problem the article is very informative, and provides a strong analysis in an oversimplified field.