IAH
Topic:  Whose work goes into space science? How do different kinds of work contribute? Who besides astronauts and scientists do work that makes a difference?  
文体：Annotated Bibliography
页数：  two pages （ two resource）（single）1000 words要求： ·     MLA, APA, or Chicago style bibliographic entry

·     A summary of the article; someone who hasn’t read it should be able to understand what the article is saying overall

o   Include the main claims and types of evidence used to support the argument (if an argument is made)

·     A summary of the most relevant details

·     A brief explanation of what your group could use this source for – it should be clear why this is a relevant source

·     An analysis of the audience and purpose

o   Scholarly or popular published media or other?

o   Publication – where was it published? Who is the audience of this journal/website/etc.?

o   What is the main purpose? How is the author trying to intervene in a larger conversation?

o   Audience knowledge/values/interest

·     An analysis of the credibility of the source

o   Who wrote it? Where was it published?

o   What in the article itself suggests credibility or not?

·     An analysis of what shapes the knowledge work (at least one of the following, but not all):

o   Fairness or bias

o   Discipline or field of specialization of the author/publication

Cultural or historical contexts/other communities the author/audience are part of

All analysis should show precise, clear reasoning – think about how to make your language explain the reasons for your conclusions in a precise way.

due：02/03/2019  

Example：

Martin, Emily. “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science has Constructed a Romance

       Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles.” Signs16.3 (1991): 485-501.

ProQuest. Web. 14 Jan. 2019.

This article analyzes how stereotypical gender roles have affected scientific writing about human reproduction. Using numerous examples from science textbooks and other scientific communications, Martin demonstrates how the role of the egg is portrayed as passive or negative, while the role of the sperm is portrayed as active, assertive, and heroic. Martin begins by explaining how the reproductive biology associated with (cis) women is viewed in scientific literature as wasteful and negative, which places her analysis in the context of a broader pattern of how reproductive systems are portrayed in anti-woman ways. Martin notes that these portrayals persist even when they are not scientifically well-supported, which suggests that these gender stereotypes are detrimental to scientific understanding. For example, Martin notes that while the egg is often portrayed as waiting passively without taking action, this portrayal is counter to the usual scientific convention of calling the protein member of a pair of binding molecules “the receptor” (496). Moreover, recent research has shown that “sperm and egg are mutually active partners” (Schatten and Schatten, qtd. in Martin 494). Martin concludes the essay with a section on the “Social Implications” of these results, as well as specific proposals for ways of reframing reproductive biology in a more accurate and scientifically productive way.

Martin, a cultural anthropologist who writes often about cultural aspects of women’s health and views of women’s bodies, writes to show how science has been shaped by a “fairy tale” view of gender (486). Her stated purpose is to improve science and more broadly to take power away from stereotypes, as seen in her concluding statement that “by becoming aware of when we are projecting cultural imagery onto what we study, will improve our ability to investigate and understand nature. Waking up such metaphors, by becoming aware of their implications, will rob them of their power to naturalize our social conventions about gender”(501). Martin published the article in the journal Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, a peer-reviewed journal focusing on interdisciplinary feminist scholarship, which therefore is likely to have an audience of scholars from a wide range of subject areas, but all of whom are likely to have an interest in analysis that focuses on gender stereotypes. Martin’s anthropological background can be seen in how the article uses specific instances to explore broader questions about culture; the intended audience of feminists likely means that she assumes that her readers will already be aware of other scholarship showing that gender stereotypes can be harmful, and that cultural products can subtly or unintentionally reproduce gender stereotypes.

Martin’s professional status as a well-known anthropologist, as well as the peer-reviewed journal’s reputation, suggest that this source is likely to be credible in terms of the factual information presented. The article enhances its credibility by using a large number of examples from multiple sources in order to support the argument that these gendered portrayals of egg and sperm are common and not just found in a couple of cases. The author also demonstrates credibility by drawing on a number of then-recent scientific studies to illustrate why these “fairy tale” portrayals are not accurate, and explaining each analysis thoroughly and clearly. For all of these reasons, this source is highly credible.