Annotated Bibliography Instructions
For examples of annotated bibliographies, please visit Purdue Owl.
Using APA formatting, create an annotated bibliography. Each source should be followed by a 5 to 8 sentence summary/evaluation of the source (see below for more details). When writing the summary, consider how useful the source is for your topic.
The bullets below are only meant to give you ideas. You do not need to answer all the questions to create your annotation.
The summary typically includes 2 to 4 sentences that summarize the main idea(s) of the source.
· Main arguments
· Main points
· Ideas, concepts, research findings
The annotation also includes 2 or 3 sentences to explain how the source applies to your topic.
· How does it compare to the other sources in this bibliography?
· Is this information current? Reliable?
· Is the author credible?
· Is the source objective or biased?
The reflection typically includes 1 to 2 sentences that show you have reflected on the source and how it applies to your topic.
· Was the information helpful?
· How can you use this information in your case study?
· Has it changed how you think about your topic?
· Is the article missing any information that you still need more information about?
Example of part of an annotated bibliography
Castagno, A.E. & Hausman, C. (2017). The tensions between shared governance and advancing educational equity. Urban Review, 49, 96-111.
Summary: The authors discuss the use of shared governance in one school district. They suggest that shared governance may be less aligned with equity efforts as others may think and that it may contribute to maintaining status quo operations. They distinguish two types of shared governance, shared decision making (SDM) and site-based management (SBM). They analyze data from a yearlong ethnographic study of a school district and use the personal experience of one of the authors who was an administrator in that school district to draw conclusions about how shared governance impacts equity in K12 education. Schools that used SBM appeared to have more variability and inconsistency with implementing programs designed to enhance equity. The central office placed blame on schools, and the school personnel felt unsupported by administrators outside of their individual schools.
Assessment/Evaluation: The paper is focused on K12 school districts and is less directly applicable to higher ed shared governance. Data used for this study were collected in 2005-2006 and are likely somewhat outdated. This is an ethnographic, qualitative study and provides useful information but should also be cross referenced with quantitative data. There is no discussion of the demographic composition or process used for SBM or SDM.
Reflection: This paper provided an interesting perspective that I had not considered. The findings could be applied conceptually to higher ed shared governance. The biggest takeaway for me is that without an administration that prioritizes and provides support for equity initiatives, shared governance may actually hinder these efforts by maintaining the status quo. The authors suggest that a top down approach may be more effective in the short term and that once there is a culture shift throughout the organization, moving back towards a shared governance model is desirable.
McGuire, F. (2019). The past, the present, and the future of shared governance. SCHOLE: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 34(2), 132-137.
Summary: The author discusses the 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities from the American Association of University Professors. This statement established a precedent for the role of faculty in decision making related to curriculum, pedagogy, research, and faculty promotion and tenure. The author points out that the governing board still has authority in decision making even in institutions that practice shared governance. There are also a variety of ways that shared governance is understood and implemented.
Assessment/Evaluation: This review provides review and overview of various aspects of shared governance. There is no mention of staff participation in shared governance, but the author does mention challenges with the inclusion of non-tenure track faculty and contingent faculty at many universities. The author makes three recommendations for faculty who want to promote shared governance: establish a close relationship with board members, get involved in service related to faculty governance, and develop a knowledge base about policies, procedures, and processes.
Reflection: This paper is useful for understanding a historical perspective on shared governance and for reviewing research findings and specific recommendations for the ongoing promotion of shared governance in higher ed.
Warshaw, J.B. & Ciarimboli, E.B. (2020). Structural or cultural pathways to innovative change? Faculty and shared governance in the liberal arts college. Teachers College Record, 122, 1-46.
Summary: This paper is a lengthy report on a qualitative study evaluating faculty engagement with administration and professional staff at three universities and focusing on academic innovation. Professional staff members comprise 23% of the sample. Nevertheless, the findings of the study were primarily focused on faculty opinions.
Assessment/Evaluation: The study didn’t focus on staff inclusion in shared governance, but professional staff were included in the sample, and there was at least a mention of staff roles and responsibilities. The authors state that they specifically did not include non-tenure track faculty in the sample, because they were not identified as being associated with academic innovations. This is problematic. Since they were excluded from the study, their inclusion and participation in shared governance has been disregarded.
Reflection: This study perpetuates the appearance of exclusion of staff and non-tenure track faculty in shared governance processes. Many negative qualities of the practice of shared governance were uncovered.