Skip to Main Content
UTA Libraries logo

Anthropology

Guide for research in anthropology, archaeology, and related fields.

Why Annotate?

For annotated bibliography assignments, it may be tempting to simply write a description of the source, but this exercise is not just about summarizing content. Your annotation shows your ephemeral thinking process to your instructor by describing the quality and usefulness of a source for your specific project. It should answer at least some of the questions below depending on your assignment.   

What is this thing? Is it a peer-reviewed journal article, a newspaper article, dissertation, popular non-fiction work, or something else? If you are struggling with answering this question, ask your professor or contact your subject librarian.

Who wrote it and why?  There are many types of authority and expertise. Is the author an academic professional, industry expert, reporter, or something else? Who is their intended audience, and what were they trying to achieve through their writing? 

How objective is this source? Different disciplines have different methods of reducing bias in their work.  Some forms of information are inherently biased, but they may still play a role in research. 

What are they saying? Rephrase ideas in your own words. This helps move information from your short-term working memory to your long-term recall memory and connect it with things that you already know. 

What role can this source play in my research? Sources exist on spectrum from “not at all useful” to “essential for understanding this topic.” Your annotations will help you to explain why and how you might use something. 

 

For more about annotating and how you can use it for studying and learning, check out this blog post Why You Should be Annotating.

 

 

Authority: When we use the word authority in the context of evaluating a resource we are referring to the trustworthiness, reliability, credibility, or expertise of an information creator. Authority is socially constructed and contextual.

When an experienced journalist writes an article for a well-regarded mainstream magazine about a new treatment for cancer, that article could be considered trustworthy and accurate according to the standards of journalistic communication. The journalist has authority in this area and the work can be called authoritative. It could be used in any case where popular media information is appropriate such as self education about the topic, writing a K-12 essay, distribution at a patient kiosk in a doctor's office, etc.

That same journalist would not be qualified to write a scholarly research article for a peer-reviewed oncology journal. Their journalism work could not be used as background for a scholarly literature review about cancer treatment. The standards for how information is communicated and created in the field of oncology are very different from journalism. The journalist would not have the correct expertise or qualifications in this context regardless of their good intentions or qualifications in another field. The journalist lacks authority in this context, and their work could not be called authoritative in situations where scholarly literature is needed.

Primary source: Information that is as close to the source as you can possibly get. Think of this as the "evidence" that something has happened. Common primary sources are letters, diaries, photos, current events news articles, original data, and government documents.

Secondary source: Information that is generated after the fact and may summarize or analyze primary documents and information. Common secondary sources are popular non-fiction books, journal articles, and retrospective newspaper articles.

 

Why do we care?
Whether or not a source is primary or secondary can depend on context, and there is no single definition that will cover all cases. Trying to define what is primary and what is secondary tells us how confident we can be that any given source is truthful and accurate for our information needs. It's another way of thinking about authority. Ethnographies are an interesting example.

Let's look at a classic older ethnography, Nisa: The Life and Words of a !Kung Woman by Marjorie Shostak, which reports on fieldwork Shostak conducted in the 1960s and 1970s. If my research interest is in the !Kung and their culture, then this is a blend between a primary and secondary source. Shostak interprets what she learned directly from the !Kung to create what she believed was an accurate picture of their culture. She was trained according to the standards of her time, and professional anthropologists generally agree that this is a quality work from this era.

We still need to approach this source with some amount of caution because of the distance between us and the true primary source, the !Kung themselves. Shostak was writing for a Western audience and was not herself a member of the !Kung community. It could be that she misunderstood some things, that she was influenced by her own culture or training, or that she left things out intentionally or unintentionally. We can't go back in time and talk to the !Kung whom Shostak was working with. We can't even talk to Shostak who is now deceased. So this sort-of secondary sort-of primary source may be the best we can do. As long as we've taken the time to think about the limitations of this source and the implications for our research we can proceed.

On the other hand, if my research interest was ethnographers of this era then Nisa: The Life and Words of a !Kung Woman is closer to a real primary source. Shostak talks a lot about her experience as an ethnographer in the book, and the work itself is direct evidence of how published ethnographies of this time were structured and what content was considered appropriate. Even more primary would be Shostak's field notes or video of her conducting fieldwork, but we may not be able to gain access to such unique materials easily.

 

Popular: Sources published in newspapers and magazines intended for general audience.

Scholarly: Well researched sources that have been written for scholars, students, and experts in the discipline area.

Peer Reviewed: Articles that have been evaluated by other professionals in the field to check for accuracy and adherence to disciplinary standards. Note that academic books (monographs) are generally not peer reviewed, but they can still be considered scholarly.

Article: Articles are the individual "stories" published in a newspaper, magazine, or journal. For example, the story about the Rangers published in Sports Illustrated is an article.

Journal: Journals contain several articles published about a specific subject area and are typically scholarly. For example, the article about stem cells was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

Database: Databases index millions of articles published in thousands of newspapers, magazines, and journals. There are databases that index sources from many different discipline areas, while others are subject specific. For example, the New York Times can be accessed by searching the database Nexis Uni.

 

Can I use popular materials for research?
As an undergraduate student you will probably use peer-reviewed scholarly sources and academic monographs (books) for the bulk of your research.  However, popular media is a manifestation of cultural practice, and can be an opportunity for your to add your own observations about a topic. When popular materials are used in research, they are often presented as evidence of the attitudes, practices, or norms being investigated. They can even be the subject of study if they are studied in a systematic or methodical way (example: an anthropologist conducts a systematic study of fashion magazines for their research on visual culture). If you are unsure whether using popular sources is appropriate for your project, speak with your instructor.

 

SIF Method- Reading critically

The SIFT method was developed by Mike Caulfield to help students think critically about resources. It is not strictly a checklist, nor is the main goal to eliminate "bad" resources. The goal is to evaluate resources in context to determine their usefulness to any particular project or to your own personal bank of knowledge.

S - Stop and ask yourself what do I know about this resource?  Who is the author?  What is the intent behind this resource?  Does it matter if this resource is biased?  Am I have a reaction to this resource that might interfere with my own objectivity?  What was my original purpose in looking this up?

I - Investigate the answers to the above questions. Go into enough detail that you can be sure to put that resource in the appropriate context. In annotated bibliographies, this rationalization of whether or not to use a resource, and how to use it, will form the backbone of the annotation.

F - Find better (or other) coverage that will support, negate, or complement this resource. You may discover a much more complete resource elsewhere. You may find scholarly resources that support the arguments of popular resources. Depending on your own expertise in a subject, you may need to find something to help you better understand the claims being made.

T - Trace claims, quotes, data, and other components back to their original sources when possible. It is especially important to trace quotes and data back to their original source and determine whether the meaning stays the same when read in the original context.  Be especially cautious of cases where the original work is in another language. Translation adds another layer of complexity to resource evaluation.