Category: Annotated Bibliography

Overview: Writers and writing teachers alike may find it easy to want to look past annotated bibliography, as so often these can feel dry, formal, a box to check, and not at all as lively as the more personal writing generally assigned in EN 101. But look at little closer at the work of Creel Richardson, Molly Schulz, Bobby Wells, Savannah Grasmick, and Tiaya Hubbard. In it you’ll see authors beginning to grapple with their sources even as they are beginning to articulate their own ideas about their sources. You’ll see studies and statistics, yes, but you’ll also see writers working through how they might reconfigure their initial assumptions or hypotheses in light of that research. You’ll see writers bring their own backgrounds and interests to the table and reflect on how their research mirrors and extends those. You’ll even see writers work to place separate pieces of research in conversation with one another—and by so doing come to understand that the process of composing research is deeply akin to the process of entering a conversation. You do it slowly at first, and then your confidence grows. Finally, you’ll see writers openly acknowledge the role peer and instructor review plays in their drafting process.

Questions: You should be able to find research papers from most of the authors listed in this section. Comment on the relationship between each writer’s annotated bibliography and their finished research paper. What features do they share? How do they differ? How might you begin to account for these differences? Based on your reading of both annotated bibliographies and research papers, what is the role of the annotated bibliography in the research process? In their annotated bibliographies, what strategies do these writers use to work with their research?