Annotated Bibliography – Instructions


  • Write a 5-article (minimum) Annotated Bibliography. Submit it electronically in the corresponding Canvas assignment item. See “Annotated Bibliography Samples” document for example entries and references for writing annotated bibliographies.
  • Review one randomly assigned classmate’s annotated bibliography. Evaluate its content according the designated components of an entry and its required elements (below). Give suggestions for improving the entry in terms of content (information), conciseness (length), and communication (writing).


NOTE: Google Docs must 1) be downloaded as a separate document file to be submitted to allow access to instructor, and 2) then uploaded; ‘shared’ Google Docs are not accepted.



Source (partially copied below):

Complete annotated bibliography entries have details about the following components:


“A. Citation – [list full bibliography reference in selected and consistent citation style]


[Definition: “A bibliography is a list of sources (books, journals, Web sites, periodicals, etc.) one has used for researching a topic. Bibliographies are sometimes called “References” or “Works Cited” depending on the style format you are using. A bibliography usually just includes the bibliographic information (i.e., the author, title, publisher, etc.). An annotation is a summary and/or evaluation. Therefore, an annotated bibliography includes a summary and/or evaluation of each of the sources.]


  1. Author: name of person writing annotated bibliography – not required, this is assumed as you.

“C. Summarize: What are the author’s main arguments? What is the point of this book or article? What topics are covered? If someone asked what this article/book is about, what would you say? The length of your annotations will determine how detailed your summary is. For more help, see our handout on paraphrasing sources.


“D. Assess: After summarizing a source, evaluate it. Is it a useful source? How does it compare with other sources in your bibliography? Is the information reliable? Is this source biased or objective? What is the goal of authors? For more help, see our handouts on evaluating resources.


“E. Reflect: Once you’ve summarized and assessed a source, ask how it fits into your research (relevance). Was this source helpful to you? How does it help you shape your argument? How can you use this source in your research project? Has it changed how you think about your topic?”


Go here for more information:



Each annotated bibliography entry must be at least 150 words, written in paragraph form, and use the template below to provide at least the following information in [brackets] as relevant to the article:



[last name of annotated bibliography writer]:

  • [general research topic and specific study focus].
  • [purpose of research study].
  • [general description of research approach: quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method and scope of study focus].
  • [theory used and hypotheses explored by researchers].
  • [major key variables examined or measured].
  • [specific methods used to gather data, make observations, and sample/population measured].
  • [description of empirical data used in analysis].
  • [key findings]. [use, value or contribution of reported research to your study].
  • [weakness or research questions not examined].



These illustrative examples are not perfect, nor written specifically to follow the required format above.


Field, Donald, R., A.E. Luloff, Richard S. Krannich.  “Revisiting the Origins of and Distinctions Between Natural Resource Sociology and Environmental Sociology.” Society and Natural Resources 15 (2002): 213-226


Smith:  The Society of Natural Resources Journal wished to create a scholarly forum which focused on similarities and differences in environmental sociology and the sociology of natural resources. Attempts to more adequately understand the relationships between social organization and the natural world need to be informed by reviews and critiques of past and current work by resource/environmental social scientists and the array of theoretical frameworks, research designs and problem solving capabilities represented in the literature. This article provides a perspective on the roads that environmental sociology and natural resource sociology have taken. Distinctions are drawn based on their origins, concepts, theories, and problem solving focuses. Clarifying the differences between natural resource sociology and environmental sociology do not only aid in tracing intellectual foundations for these subfields, but also point to areas where synthesis and convergence are possible. Environmental sociology, which has emerged as a distinct subfield much later that natural resource sociology, has its core connections in general sociology, humanities, and philosophy. All most all commentators link its birth to the late 1960s.


Waite, L. J., Goldschneider, F. K., & Witsberger, C. (1986). Nonfamily living and the erosion of traditional family orientations among young adults. American Sociological Review, 51 (4), 541‐554.


Unknown: The authors, researchers at the Rand Corporation and Brown University, use data from the National Longitudinal Surveys of Young Women and Young Men to test their hypothesis that nonfamily living by young adults alters their attitudes, values, plans, and expectations, moving them away from their belief in traditional sex roles. They find their hypothesis strongly supported in young females, while the effects were fewer in studies of young males.  Increasing the time away from parents before marrying increased individualism, self‐sufficiency, and changes in attitudes about families. In contrast, an earlier study by Williams cited below shows no significant gender differences in sex role attitudes as a result of nonfamily living.


Glassman, J., & Sneddon, C. (2003, November). Chiang Mai and Khon Kaen as Growth Poles: Regional Industrial Development in Thailand and its Implications for Urban Sustainability. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , pp. 93-115.


Hall: Jim Glassman and Chris Sneddon, both assistant professors in the Geography Departments at their respective colleges (Sneddon also teaches in the Environmental Studies Program), explore urban sustainability in Thailand. The Thai government has attempted to promote sustainability by attempting to decentralize and develop urban centers other than Bangkok. They examine Chiang Mai and Khon Kaen, two such growth poles, and find that state “policies have helped induce some growth in the secondary cities in question but in doing so have induced new problems of sustainability in these cities and their surrounding rural areas without alleviating problems of sustainability in Bangkok” (94).

Of particular interest to this presentation was the large section in the article exploring the apparent uneven development in Thailand and the role of the state in that development. The article, however did not appear to use any new research for its conclusions and the majority of cited resources appear to be from the 90s. It also focused heavily on environmental issues pertaining to sustainability which was not necessarily relevant to this presentation.


London, B., & Anderson, K. L. (1985, Summer). Population Density, Elites, and the Distribution of Infrastructural Resources in Thailand. The Sociological Quarterly, pp. 235-249.


Hall: In another study, London and Anderson further explore the influence of the elite in Thailand. This article focuses on the distribution of infrastructural resources in Thailand. London and Anderson believe that demographic factors (per capita income and density) are not the only causes of infrastructural distribution. They use measurements of amount of paved road and percentage of households with piped water and electricity in each province in Thailand from 1970. They include a description of the various indexes and indicators used to measure the various elites both governmental and nongovernmental. In order to compare the elite factors with demographic factors, London and Anderson also include population density, gross provincial product (GPP) per capita and urbanization variables. They found that, like previous research, population density and urbanization can help predict infrastructure distribution, but that combining these factors with elite variables gives a better explanation. They conclude that “the distribution of infrastructural resources is primarily a function of two ecological-economic variables—gross provincial product and density, and the political-economic factors of presence of governmental and non-governmental elites in the province” (235).  While, like their previous research, this article includes dated research, it provided helpful insights into the power and influence of the elites. It also highlighted the utility of using the Political Economy approach in understanding development in Thailand.


Garroutte, E. M. (2001).  The racial formation of American Indians: Negotiating legitimate identities within tribal and federal law.  American Indian Quarterly, 25 (2), 224-239. Retrieves April 9, 2011 from JSTOR database.


Leonard: Garroutte discusses how Native Americans are defined in the modern USA.  Certain benefits are awarded to Native Americans because of their history of exploitation and abuse by the US government; however there are legal and cultural factors that ‘define’ who is included and excluded from the race-category of ‘Native American’.  ‘Blood quantum’ is the most common governmental and tribal condition for labeling an American as ‘Indian’.  This stipulation, introduced by Euro-Americans, means that a Native has to prove through their ancestral lineage that they have a certain percentage of native blood.  The information presented in this article relates to sociological theories especially concerning ‘race’.  It considers how ‘race’ is a socially constructed phenomenon and addresses how the system through which Americans are racially defined is essentially slanted toward favoring and benefitting the government.  For example, the ‘blood quantum’ requirement for African Americans is much lower than that of Natives.  Therefore, it is harder for an African American to be considered ‘white,’ while on the other hand, it is harder for Natives to be legally considered ‘Native.’  If the ‘blood quantum’ requirement were lower for Natives, the government would have to give benefits to a much larger population of people.


Brook, D. (1998). Environmental genocide: Native Americans and toxic waste.  American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 57 (1), 105-112. Retrieved April 8, 2011, from JSTOR database.


Leonard: Dealing with environmental issues is an essential aspect of development.  For the Indigenous peoples of America, who represent a large portion of those living in poverty in America, toxic waste and pollution is hindering their physical and cultural well-being.  Because of the high rates of poverty on reservation land in the US, Native Americans are essentially solicited or coerced into agreeing to host toxic waste dumps and treatment plants on their lands.  Toxic waste however poses a threat to the health of Native peoples if not presently than at least for future generations.  As more and more corporations illegally dump toxic waste on reservation lands, the sovereignty of tribal authorities is jeopardized because the federal government eventually steps in to control the issue and the “Native Americans are viewed as irresponsible” (p. 109).  General pollution is also a problem for Indigenous Americans because there are indirect effects that eventually reach their lands.  Many Native Americans however have been forming groups to address the environmental issues of, not only their own lands, but of the US as a whole.


    Customer Area

    Make your order right away

    Confidentiality and privacy guaranteed

    satisfaction guaranteed