Annotated Bibliographies - Chicago Style

What's an annotated bibliography?
What makes up an annotated bibliography?
Questions to ask yourself when writing your annotation.
What are some examples of annotated bibliographic entries?
How can I write an annotated bibliography without reading the whole book?
Are annotations, abstracts and summaries the same things?
Why write an annotated bibliography?

 

 

What’s an annotated bibliography?

An annotated bibliography is a list of books, articles, or other documents, consisting of a citation followed by a brief evaluation of each work listed. The citation is a description of the essential elements of the work (including author, title, year of publication, and publisher), listed in a certain style with specific capitalization, indentation, and punctuation.

The annotation is a short critical review of the work and its author. The annotation may include: a brief summary of the content and usefulness of the item; a note of any limitations that the item may have, e.g. grade level, timeliness etc.; a description of what audience the item is intended for; an evaluation of the methods of research used; comment on the reliability of the item; a description of the author’s background; a summary of the author’s conclusions; commentary on how the item may be useful for your research.

An annotated bibliography, like any list of works cited, should be presented in alphabetical order by author's last name.

 

 

 

What makes up an annotated bibliography?

An annotated bibliographic citation is made up of two parts.

• The citation describes the essential components of the work. Some examples of commonly used layouts are listed below. For more examples of actual citations and more information about the Chicago style, go to the Citing Sources in Chicago Style page.

(Book)
Author’s Last Name, First Name. Title of the Book. City of Publication: Name of Publisher, Date of      Publication.

(Multiple Authors)
First Author’s Last Name, First Name, and Second Author’s First Name and Last Name. Title of      Book. City of Publication: Name of Publisher, Date of Publication.

(Multivolume Work)
Author’s Last Name, First Name. Title of Work. Edited by Editor’s First Name and Last Name.      Vol. Number. City of Publication: Name of Publisher, Date of Publication.

(Entry in Anthology)
Author’s Last name, First Name. “Title of Entry.” Title of Book. Ed. Name of Editor. City: Name of      Publisher, Date of publication. Start page – End page.

(Article)
Author’s Last Name, First Name. “Title of Article.” Title of Journal Volume Number, Issue Number      (Date): start page – end page.

 

• The annotation is a 2 – 3 sentence critical summary of the work. The annotation should summarize the central theme of the work, describe the author’s authority or background on the subject, describe his or her bias toward the topic and talk about how the work will be useful to your research project.

 

Questions to ask yourself when writing your annotation.
If you think about the following questions as you begin to write your annotation, the process will be much easier. Answer as many of the questions as you can.

• Who is the author and why should I pay attention to what he/she has to say? What are the author's credentials?
  
• For whom is the the book/article intended? College students? Scholars? Popular readers? Children?
  
• What is the focus and scope of the book or article? Is it generalized or does it focus on a specific topic or idea? Are any important ideas missing?
  
• Is the author biased in any way?
  
• What is the author's thesis statement? What are the author's main ideas?
  
• Can you compare or contrast this work to any othes in your bibliography?
  
• How does this work support or influence your topic? Would you use this work to write a final paper?

 

What are some examples of annotated bibliographic entries?

Pritchett, C. Herman. Congress Versus the Supreme Court, 1957 – 1960. Minneapolis: University      of Minnesota Press, 1961.
A study of congressional Court-curbing efforts, in response to Warren Court decisions of the late 1950s. Pritchett suggests that the efforts in response to Supreme Court decisions involving race and loyalty failed, in large measure, because of the respect accorded the Court in the United States.
(from: Janosik, Robnert J. The American Constitution. Englewood Cliffs: Salem Press, 1991.)

Liston, Robert A. Terrorism. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers, 1977.
Terrorism is a diatribe against terrorism by states, terrorism by revolutionaries, and terrorism by criminals. Liston tells us very little about the phenomenon other than the “fact” that it is almost always unnecessary. The attentive newspaper reader will find very little new information in this book, although a chapter – anecdotal in focus – which treats efforts to combat terrorism may be marginally useful.
(from: Norton, Augustus R. and Martin H. Greenburg. International Terrorism: An Annotated                Bibliography and Research Guide. Boulder: Westview Press, 1980.)

Cohen, Bernard L. Interview by Richard Brookheiser. “Q & A: Understanding a Trillion-Dollar      Question.” National Review, 2 February 1979, 143-145.
Cohen believes the nuclear terror possibility has been considerably overdrawn. In fact, there are exerts on terrorism who say it would be a good thing if terrorists became preoccupied with nucear bombs, since it would distract them from more feasible methods of mass murder.
(from: Norton, Augustus R. and Martin H. Greenburg. International Terrorism: An Annotated                Bibliography and Research Guide. Boulder: Westview Press, 1980. This example                includes a journal that does not have a volume number.)

Watson, Bruce W., et al. “Iraqi Diplomacy in the Gulf War.” Military Lessons of the Gulf War.      Edited by Bruce W. Watson, et al. 2nd ed. London: Greenhill, 1993, 31 – 53.
Suggests that Iraqi diplomacy failed in almost every respect, largely owing to the absence of any political credibility behind the justification for its original invasion. It is argued that Saddam on several occasions failed to grasp opportunities when he might have gained significance diplomatic advantages.
(from: Orgill, Andrew. The 1990-91 Gulf War: Crisis, Conflict, Aftermath. London: Villiers                  House, 1995. Includes work with more than two authors, editor information and edition                  information.)

How can I write an annotated bibliography without reading the whole book?

To write an effective annotation, you need not necessarily read the entire work. For a book, you should read the introduction and the conclusion. You should also read any notes provided by the author, and look carefully at the table of contents and index to see what topics the author covers. Read the authors credentials and any notes he or she provides about the work. Look also at the sources the author uses to draw conclusions.

 

 

Are annotations, abstracts and summaries the same things?

No! A summary, often called an abstract, is simply a short retelling of the work. A summary does not include an interpretive statement about the work. An annotation is a critical analysis and interpretation of the work in relation to one's own research.

 

 

Why write an annotated bibliography?
Writing an annotated will help you kick-start research for a final paper by helping you get a handle on what research is available to support your own thesis. It will also illustrate to your professor the scope and quality of your work and will show that you read and understand the research in your area of study.

 

Updated: February 20, 2006