Research proposal and annotated bibliography

Milestone Two: Annotated Bibliography Guidelines

Guidelines

Your final project entails developing a full strategic analysis on a publicly held multinational enterprise (MNE). For Milestone Two, you will submit your current research summary and annotated bibliography. This Milestone is due in Module Four.

Current Research Summary

Your summary should be 2–3 paragraphs in length detailing the research involved to date. This portion of the milestone is submitted for feedback only.

Annotated Bibliography

Annotated bibliographies provide you with the opportunity to cite, summarize, and compare and contrast resources you will use in a paper. You will cite each resource in APA style, write an approximately 150-word description that summarizes the central theme and scope of the resource, and compare and contrast it with other resources.

Depending on the assignment, the annotated bibliography may serve a number of purposes, including but not limited to reviewing the literature on a particular subject; illustrating the quality of research you have done; providing examples of the types of resources available; describing other items on a topic that may be of interest to the reader; and/or exploring the subject for further research. Your purpose here is to prepare to complete a final research paper on developmental psychology by locating a minimum of three to five current research articles (from the past three years) that you might potentially include in your final paper; these articles should relate to either Piaget’s theory and/or Vygotsky’s theory. The articles should provide sufficient information for you to compare and contrast the two theories. (Source: http://lib.skidmore.edu/library/index.php/writing-an-annotated-bibliography)

Sample Annotated Bibliography of a Journal Article

The following example is what your final product for each resource should look like. This example (for the psychological research article A Bad Taste in the Mouth: Gustatory Disgust Influences Moral Judgment) employs APA style for the journal citation. The writer of this annotation follows the above points to create an annotation that summarizes the article’s main points and draws connections between that resource and other resources:

Eskine, K. J., Kacinik, N. A., & Prinz, J. J. (2011). A bad taste in the mouth: Gustatory disgust influences moral judgment. Psychological Science, 22(3), 295–299.

Annotation: In this article, Eskine and colleagues describe the results of an experiment that examined whether the taste in a person’s mouth influences the moral judgments that the person makes. The authors, who are researchers at the City University of New York, hypothesized that there would be a relationship between these two variables because prior research has shown that there are strong links between basic emotions and moral judgments. Indeed, the authors found that participants given a bitter drink made harsher moral judgments than those given a non-bitter drink. This article is extremely useful for my paper because it provides evidence that seemingly unimportant sensory information can influence moral judgments. Also, it nicely complements the work of Chapman et al. (2009), who found that emotional disgust and morality utilize similar brain regions. One limitation, though, is that all of the participants in the study were college students. They may have responded differently to the moral situations than older or younger participants.

Abstract from author: Can sweet-tasting substances trigger kind, favorable judgments about other people? What about substances that are disgusting and bitter? Various studies have linked physical disgust to moral disgust, but despite the rich and sometimes striking findings these studies have yielded, no research has explored morality in conjunction with taste, which can vary greatly and may differentially affect cognition. The research reported here tested the effects of taste perception on moral judgments. After consuming a sweet beverage, a bitter beverage, or water, participants rated a variety of moral transgressions. Results showed that taste perception significantly affected moral judgments, such that physical disgust (induced via a bitter taste) elicited feelings of moral disgust. Further, this effect was more pronounced in participants with politically conservative views than in participants with politically liberal views. Taken together, these differential findings suggest that embodied gustatory experiences may affect moral processing more than previously thought.

Consider these highly relevant resource options as applicable:

Primary Resources

• Corporate

• • Current annual and quarterly reports to the current date

  • Corporate investor website

  • Transcripts of quarterly investor conference calls

• Cultural and Institution Data

• • The Hofstede Centre : Cultural dimensions

  • Ease of Doing Business Index

  • Transparency International: Corruption Perceptions Index

• Country Economic Data

• • The Economist Intelligence Unit (also political, demographic, risk, and more)

  • World Trade Organization (WTO)

  • World Bank (WB)

  • CIA World Factbook

  • The Heritage Foundation: Index of Economic Freedom

• World Stock Exchange Listings

• • Available at the World Federation of Exchanges (www.world-exchanges.org)

Secondary Resources

• Contemporary events, opinion, and analysis

• • Financial Times, WSJ, Reuters, Bloomberg

  • Industry associations

Note: Wikipedia, eHow, Investopedia, and similar websites are not acceptable professional or academic resources. They may, however, point your research in valuable directions.

Format

The annotated bibliography should use 1.5 line spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and Works Cited in APA format.