Handbook of Cultural Anthropology--Review and Evaluation

Bock, P.K. (Ed.). (1994). Handbook of Psychological Anthropology. Westport: Greenwood Press.

Bock’s Handbook of Cultural Anthropology presents an overview of the discipline as it has existed since the 1930’s, and also provides information on the trends and new discoveries being made in the field at the time of the book’s publication (Bock 1994, pg. vii). Consequently, the scope of this work is broad. A history and critique of the discipline is provided that will help the reader understand both the origins of psychological anthropology, and how the study has changed over the sixty years between its conception and the Handbook’s publication. Furthermore, in the second part of the book, information is presented on the cutting edge of psychological anthropology, and articles describe studies being done in fields from dream research to child development.

In spite of its broad scope, this work is intended for a fairly narrow audience. The language and topics presented are written for an individual who is already familiar with the major areas of study and terminology in psychological anthropology. It would be difficult for a layman to pick up the work and really grasp what each of the contributing authors describe in their respective articles. In spite of that, it is still possible to glean some information from the work with just a little bit of background in the field. Therefore this work should be recommended primarily to those who are studying psychological anthropology, although it could serve as a helpful source even for an individual who has not been initiated in the field. It would just need to be paired with an introduction to the discipline so that the lay reader could better grasp what the authors write.

The timeliness of this work leaves some to be desired. On the one hand, the examination of the history of psychological anthropology from the mid to late twentieth century would still be of use to a reader interested in researching how the discipline has changed and grown since its conception. On the other hand, this work has become an historical artifact in itself. The information it presents is over twenty years old, and is therefore outdated. Even the critique that it has to offer on historical methods and theories could be outdated as well. Moreover, the current research presented in Part II of this work is now all dated; new studies have almost certainly been done that replace everything presented here. Thus, the timeliness of this work is less than desirable, unless the reader is seeking historical perspectives.

The authority of the Handbook makes up for its age. The editor, Philip K. Bock, was a professor of Anthropology at the University of New Mexico with decades of experience in both fieldwork and academic research. He is widely published and the editor of the Journal of Anthropological Research (Bock 1994, pg. 402). As a result, Bock is well qualified to oversee the assembly and publication of this Handbook. Not only is he well-versed in the specific discipline of psychological anthropology, he is also experienced with other sub-disciplines of anthropology, and would thus be able to choose contributions that amply reflect the then-current state of psychological anthropology, but that also would contribute to the broader field of anthropology as a whole. The contributing authors for this work are also well respected, well-published anthropologists from a wide variety of well-known institutions.

In addition to being very authoritative, this work is also exceedingly well documented. Each of the contributing authors presents an extensive bibliography for their articles. Also, the editor provides a select bibliography at the end of the Handbook that provides even more resources. Thus, this work is extremely well documented with good resources, and this gives even more weight to its authority in the field.

Finally, this work contains articles on a broad spectrum of topics dealing with issues in a variety of cultures. There is no real bias that I could discern in examining the text, although I admit that I am not well versed enough in psychological anthropology to definitively say that this work provides an accurate overview of the discipline. If there is a bias, it would be towards certain theories and academic pursuits, and not towards any individual or group of individuals. So, this book appears to be reasonably free of bias. 

Anthropology Module Synthesis

The article for this week, “Evolving Internet Reference in Anthropology,” presented a list of sources for anthropological research and offered some critique on each. Although the list appeared to be good, many of the electronic resources are now available collectively through a few anthropology databases. Thus, I would think that since 2005 finding literature and sources in anthropological research has probably become significantly simpler. Moreover, I checked a few of the links to see if they are still active, and I was not surprised to find that in the nine years since the article’s publication, there were more than a few broken links. Consequently, although the information the article provides on the changing nature of anthropology reference work is still good, the resources it suggests are largely outmoded.

The second article I read, on CRL’s resources for colonial Latin America, was good but also outdated. It was published in 2002, and as one of my classmates commented, CRL’s collection has probably changed significantly since then. Even so, I was impressed at the scope of CRL’s holdings in terms of breadth within the study of colonial Latin America, but also age. Some of the documents available were several hundred years old. Consequently, it seems like CRL would be a fantastic institution to point users towards if they are looking for rare or very old resources.

I also perused the suggested links on the course wiki. The American Anthropological Association website was extremely helpful as it presented a long list of resources presented by each of the sub-disciplines of anthropology. This would be a good tool to use to help patrons who are seeking information on a specific anthropological topic. The list of Top 100 Anthropology Blogs was somewhat helpful, but I found some broken links, and others require the user to either log in or create an account. While I am fine with creating a free account to access information, some older library users are either unwilling to set up a plethora of accounts, or lack the technical skills to do so. Thus, the list of blogs would be a useful starting point, but the discerning librarian would need to be aware that parts of it may be inaccessible. The Cultural Survival Quarterly website was an interesting resource on the plights and status of different indigenous peoples around the world, many of whom are vanishing. This would be a good resource for individuals doing research on the current state of indigenous peoples, or for those researching how modern nations interact with the native peoples in their lands. Since many indigenous populations are marginalized, this could also be a useful resource for anthropologists studying marginalized peoples and cultures. Finally, although the information it presents appears to be good overall, some of it was preachy and sensationalist. Although many of the claims made were likely true, I was put off by the strong tone.

The YouTube videos were my favorite activity coming out of this week for two reasons. First, they were a reminder that in spite of its somewhat checkered reputation, there is good information to be found on YouTube, and this is a resource that we as reference librarians should not be ignorant of. As such, this is another tool that I am adding to my reference arsenal. Second, some of the videos found by my classmates were absolutely fascinating. There was one documentary in particular, which examined an Indian arranged marriage, which I thought was extremely well done. Outside of print resources, the documentaries and lectures on YouTube do a lot to add to the field of anthropology. And even though they may not be as traditionally academic as journals or books, they certainly should not be ignored by either the librarian, or the patron doing research in the discipline.

Finally, I briefly examined the Anthropology SubReddit. I was disappointed that it did not contain any sub-SubReddits like the Economics module did. However, I found this resource to be a useful jumping off point for anthropological research. Likewise, I was pleasantly surprised that the links on this Reddit tended to be for reputable resources, more so than the other modules that we have examined thus far. I could honestly see myself recommending the Anthropology SubReddit to a patron seeking more information on the discipline. 

Economic Handbook of the World: 1982--Review and Evaluation

Banks, A.S (Ed.). (1982). Economic Handbook of the World: 1982. New York: McGraw Hill.

            The Economic Handbook is a resource designed to give the user a quick guide to the economic standing of every nation existing in the world in 1982. It presents basic information, such as monetary unit, GNP, GDP and debt, but also adds some geography and politics to provide context for the economic standing of each nation. An article goes on to expound on the current state of each nation’s economy, domestic trends, foreign relations, and the future of the economy in the nation. This handbook is part of a larger series published yearly; however this was the only copy I could find on library shelves.

            As a result, the scope of this work is very broad, but rather shallow. It provides a snapshot of each nation’s economy as it existed in 1982, and also gives some high-level commentary on current status and future trends. Thus, a lot of ground is covered and this work is very broad in terms of the geographic area it relates to, but does not provide a ton of information on any one country.

            This work is written for an audience that is familiar with both economics and the state of political affairs in the early eighties. Although the language is simple and the information presented is relatively straightforward, there are frequent references to economic terms and world events that would cause the lay reader some trouble. Furthermore, even for a reader familiar with economics, the casual references to 1980’s world events would also prove puzzling to an individual who did not have some understanding of history. In spite of this however, the book still remains relatively accessible and could prove a useful resource to an individual studying economic history.

            The timeliness of this work suffers from its design. The Handbook was written to be published yearly, and thus each iteration is designed to be used only within very narrow time constraints. As a result, this work is quite outdated. The world has moved on in the last thirty-two years and there is little information in this book that is directly relevant to the state of affairs today, outside of the examination of historical trends. For example, economic data are presented for both East and West Germany, and also the USSR, none of which have existed since 1991. It could serve as a good resource for an economic historian, or an economist who was searching for information regarding past trends and states of affairs, but beyond that, this work would not be terribly useful to the modern economist.

            The head editor of the series, Arthur Banks, was a respected political science professor at Binghamton University. He passed away in 2011. He was an avid worker in broad-spectrum data analysis, and personally oversaw the writing and editing of each iteration of the Handbook (Ellis 2011). As such, this work has a decent amount of authority. It is overseen and edited by an individual uniquely qualified to present information on the global state of affairs who was a professor at a reputable institution. Furthermore, the work is published by McGraw-Hill, which is a well-known and respected academic publishing company. Thus, in spite of its poor timeliness, this work carries a decent amount of authoritative weight.

            The documentation for this work is abysmal. There are no cited references, and only the briefest suggestion of the international agencies that served as the sources for the information contained within the Handbook. I would speculate that this information was probably given in an accompanying volume that has since been lost or misplaced by the library. However, as a standalone piece, the Handbook’s information is significantly weakened by the lack of even a partial reference list.

            Finally, this work is relatively objective. In stereotypical economic fashion, it merely presents facts and figures and provides little in the way of interpretation. Because it was published in the US, there is some western-centric bias.  In spite of that, said bias is barely noticeable throughout the work and does not present a serious barrier to the information being presented. Overall, the work is quite objective.

Ellis, K. (2011). “Arthur S. Banks, professor emeritus of political science, dies”. Binghamton University. Retrieved from http://www.binghamton.edu/inside/index.php/inside/story/1546/arthur-s.-banks-professor-emeritus-of-political-science-dies/.

Economics Module Synthesis

The American Economic Association Resources for Economists was a resource that I do not quite understand how to use. I searched through data for different states, and had no idea what I was looking at. I am sure that a little more background in economics would have provided me with some grounding as to how this resource could best be used, but I was mystified. I was also frustrated with the user interface, which I found slow, antiquated, and difficult to understand. As a reference librarian, I could see recommending this resource if a patron was requesting specific information not available elsewhere, but overall, I was not impressed. I would assume that much of the data presented on this site is probably available in other resources that are better designed and maintained.

            On the flip side, I was rather taken with the Econ Talk site from the Library of Economics and Liberty. I found their searchable archives to be intuitive, and the topics of the talks seemed both timely and germane to the current state of affairs in economics. The talks are also presented in a manner that does not require an economics degree to grasp the information being presented, but they still contain enough depth to interest economists of all levels. This site would be a useful resource for a patron seeking to keep up to date on economics, or to provide background or deeper insight into a specific topic. Again, the searchable archives make this resource especially useful.

            Another good resource I found was the Iowa State University e-Library LibGuide.  It provides a cornucopia of economics resources from reference-based material to journal articles to raw data. Furthermore, what stood out to me about this particular Guide is that it contains a series of tabs dedicated to educating the user on how to use the resources it presents, and also how to find good economic information in general. I think that providing the tools to help users learn to research on their own, and explanation of the use of the various sources, is what separates good Guides from the great ones. The Iowa State Economics Guide is one that I would recommend in a heartbeat.

            On the other end of the spectrum, as contrast, is the Worcester Polytechnic Institute Economic Science Guide. It merely gives a list of databases with no explanation as to how to search them, and little or no commentary as to what each of them contains. I found this guide to be rather opaque. Its only redeeming quality was the link to ask a librarian for help on the left side.

            Finally, I was more taken with Reddit’s Economics subReddit than I have been with any of the other subReddits we have examined thus far in the course. The general subReddit provided the standard mix of quasi-scholarly posts, trolls, and requests for help. I felt about this page as I have the other Reddit pages we have examined; it would serve as a good starting point, like Wikipedia, but would not be that useful for anyone who was seeking more than pedestrian economic information. Where this subReddit really shines, though, is in the specific economics subReddits. I examined two in a little more depth. The first is the Economics subReddit of economics, which presents links to good, up-to-date economics information and articles from respected publications like the Atlantic. This is a resource that I would recommend as a reference librarian. It looks like it could be useful for patrons seeking economics information in a variety of depths.

            The other subReddit I looked at was badeconomics, and this one was hilarious. While not meant to be serious in any way, this site presented a series of opinion posts and humorous ponderings on economics. This is not a viable resource for doing good economics research, but it is certainly a noteworthy diversion. I would probably recommend this tongue-in-cheek to patrons that I knew well or who looked like they could use a laugh. I think that it is as much the reference librarian’s role to help users access information is it is to relieve some of the stress often associated with hunting for it. This resource fits the latter bill, and as such has a place in my personal arsenal. 

World War II in Europe: An Encyclopedia--Review and Evaluation

Zabecki, D.T. (Ed.). (1999). World War II in Europe: An encyclopedia. (Vols. 1-2). New York: Garland.

            The scope of Zabecki’s World War II in Europe: An Encyclopedia is limited by its topic, but provides a thorough treatise of all major aspects of the European Theatre in the Second World War. The work is divided into two volumes, six sections, and a variety of appendices that make navigation of the information easy and intuitive. The encyclopedia is not designed to be an exhaustive examination of the Second World War in Europe, but rather to acquaint the reader with the major events, players, weapons, campaigns and strategy of that conflict. Thus, the entries do not include some of the lesser-known battles and figures, but it does include good information on all major players. Furthermore, Zabecki purposefully extended the scope of the book to include entries describing people or events that occurred before the war started in 1939, and also entries that include information coming from after the end of the war in 1945. He states that the reason for this is that the events leading up to the war started long before the German invasion of Poland, and the effects of the conflict have extended far past the annihilation of Nazi Germany. For instance, it was not until October 3, 1990 that Germany was finally reunited, and Berlin was released from control by occupying forces (Zabecki 1999, pg. XI). Consequently, the encyclopedia does an excellent job balancing the need for a broad scope of information, and a desire to keep the information succinct and relevant. What this work lacks in specificity it makes up for in convenience.

            This encyclopedia is intended for use by any individual. It includes specific historical information and additional reading lists that make it an excellent starting point for the professional historian. However, its entries are written in a manner and language that make it easily accessible to the lay reader as well. It does not assume that its audience has any but the most general prior knowledge of the European Theater or World War II in general, and by reading several entries, even the most uninitiated reader would be able to grasp the themes, significant events, and major currents of the European conflict.

            The timeliness of this work is perhaps its greatest weakness. As Zabecki comments in his Preface, the history of World War II is a dynamic and ever-changing subject (1999, pg. XI). There is research being done today that is still turning up new information about the war that would not be included in this resource written fifteen years ago. Thus, in spite of its thorough treatment of the European Theatre, the discerning historian or librarian would need to seek other, more modern resources to fact-check and expand on the entries included in this encyclopedia. On the other hand, the history contained in this work is well-sourced and solid. So although some of it may be a bit dated, the vast majority of the information provided is still timely and appropriate.

            The head editor of this work, David Zabecki, is a retired Major General of the U.S. Army. He holds a PhD in military science from Britain’s Royal Military College of Science, served as a Senior Security Advisor, and is the author of several historical works (U.S. Naval Institute 2014). Consequently, he is uniquely qualified to serve as the head editor for such a work as he has both a firsthand understanding of the military, and also an extensive background in studying military science. As such, this encyclopedia presents a significant amount of authority on the subject. The entries were contributed by one hundred and fifty-five authors from eight different countries, which further lends credence to the work as an authoritative piece because it is not written from a purely British or American perspective. Moreover, the resources included in the additional reading lists at the end of every entry are significant secondary sources. This shows that the information used to build this encyclopedia was carefully researched and synthesized, providing highly authoritative information on the subject.

            World War II in Europe is also well documented. Every entry contains a list of works that were either used to help construct the entry, or that are related to it and can serve as additional reading. Moreover, there is a select bibliography included in the second volume of the encyclopedia that provides an impressive list of other resources used in the construction of this work.

            Finally, this encyclopedia remains fairly objective. The team of contributors from a variety of nations ensures that the information contained within does not lean too heavily on any one national viewpoint. Furthermore, this diversity provides entries written from perspectives that readers may be unfamiliar with.  Lastly, the entries present just the facts of their subjects, and do not speculate. Consequently, the reader is left to draw their own conclusions about the events and individuals described in the pages of this magnificent resource.

Work Cited

U.S. Naval Institute. 2014. David T. Zabecki. Retrieved from http://www.usni.org/author/david-t-zabecki

History Module Synthesis

            The resources we visited this week have been some of my favorite that I have encountered in the LIS program at Kent thus far. As an undergraduate history major, I have a love for history, and the resources presented here really appealed to my personal interests.

            On that note, I was intrigued by the article, “Historians and Their Information Resources.” I agreed with much that was included in the article, but was surprised when the authors stated that historians tend to avoid e-journals (Dalton & Charnigo 2004, pg. 414). I have extensively used e-journals in historical research throughout my time as an historian, and have been encouraged to do so by my professors. When I posed this quandary to the class, one of my colleagues commented that he thought the authors may have meant e-journals to refer to those periodicals published solely online, with no print edition. That would make more sense, but I still would want to read a more updated article on historians’ use of sources in their research to see if e-resources have gained any traction in the last ten years. I had meant to try and track down such an article on my own, but ended up running out of time this week. If I find anything, I will post it as an attachment to this post.

            Part of the reason I would want to read an update on how historians use e-resources is because there were several presented this week that were quite impressive. The first one I examined was the Library of the Royal Society Centre for the History of Science’s website which contains many impressive print documents magnificently scanned for use online. I perused an anatomy sketchbook from some few hundred years ago, and tried to decipher the handwritten notes from the captain of a sea voyage. These two primary source documents were accessed for free, and were presented at a high enough resolution as to allow for detailed study. The controls of the viewer were a bit clunky, but overall I was impressed with the presentation. I think that digitizing books and displaying them in a format similar to how the Library of the Royal Society Centre for the History of Science exhibits some of their works would allow for public access to works that are too old or too brittle to remain in circulation. Doing so would prove a powerful tool to librarians seeking to connect their patrons with historical resources. This also has implications for the future of preservation. If we are able to virtually recreate a book down to the almost microscopic level, it could provide far more widespread and far longer access to material that is currently falling prey to decay. I work daily with books from the mid-fifteenth century to the mid-eighteenth, and I can say unequivocally that even print material housed in ideal preservation conditions does not last forever. I know that digital media does not either, but creating copies of works that might otherwise molder in obscurity would help prolong access to that information.  

            In examining the LibGuides this week I continued to be impressed by the scope of resources presented. One of my colleagues highlighted Theresa Murdock’s Guide from the University of Washington. I was also impressed with the quality and depth of the guide. I have noticed, too, that the University of Washington consistently creates very good LibGuides. Their guides for both their medical residents and their College of Nursing are also well done and intuitive to use. I explored those two in conjunction with the work I am doing for my practicum. Knowing this about the University of Washington is helpful, because it provides an additional resource I can turn to for help as a librarian. If I am posed a question on a subject I do not know well, it seems that university’s guides could offer another good portal to information.

            I was taken with the Digital Librarian’s History Section for reasons similar to why I liked the Library of the Royal Society Centre’s website. Both resources offer access to good electronic versions of primary sources. I spent some time looking through the Alexander’s Palace Time Machine which contains a myriad of pictures depicting the palace as it stood in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The opulence of the palace is stunning, and so is the quality of the prints that are presented on the website. This type of access to electronic versions of primary sources is something that has not existed for long, and something that would be of great importance to a researching historian. For the first time we, as librarians, have the power to connect historians with primary sources from thousands of miles away, without either of us ever having to leave our office. This has huge implications for both the nature and the quality of research that can be supported for a relatively low cost.

            Finally, I liked looking through the History subReddit. Like Political Science’s sub Reddit last week, it was not populated with good resources for research, but it is certainly an amusing read. I continue to think that Reddit, like Wikipedia, is a good jumping-off point for further study, but should never be used as a source in and of itself. As a librarian, I think that this source could be used as a recommendation for people with interests in specific areas of study, or as a way to keep up on the current state of a particular subject, but I would never recommend it as a good research tool.  

Political Science Module Synthesis

            I was impressed with the variety of nontraditional resources presented in this week’s activities. The first of these I examined was the political science librarian blogs feed. I was amazed to see a plethora of different types of information, including news on current events, political theory, commentary on politics, and many others. I spent some time perusing a couple of librarians who had collected resources on ISIS and the ongoing crisis in the Middle East. I found these resources particularly helpful because the librarians succinctly put together information that gave background, up-to-date new stories, and commentary. I was able to quickly find all of the information that I wanted to brief myself on what is happening in Syria and Iraq, and was also able to find intelligent commentary from professional political scientists.

            As such, I was taken with the librarian blog feed as a resource. I have never encountered a similar resource before now, and in all of my classes blogs have been more or less ignored as a means of finding information. This activity has added a new tool to my information seeking arsenal. Furthermore, from my experience, it seems that blog feeds such as this can act as electronic encyclopedias on current events. However, any librarian using such a resource would want to ensure that it was coming from a reputable creator, and that it did present information from authoritative, unbiased sources. Otherwise, using blogs could lead users down long rabbit trails of bad information.

            The link to the MIT Opencourseware site further revealed to me the breadth of the field of political science. In scanning the options, it is clear that political science as a discipline spills into the fields of law, history, and sociology. I was also impressed with the opportunities presented by the site as a resource. A librarian could use the Opencourseware as a starting point to help identify material for any of the fields of study identified by the course’s title. And because MIT is a respected institution, it can be assumed that the required reading for the different classes would be good resources, and also useful for providing the reader with a strong understanding of the topic at hand.

            Reddit, too, is a resource that I have never considered using as a portal to information, and certainly have not encountered in any of my other library science coursework. The information on Reddit differed from that on the librarian blog feed in that Reddit contained a little less breadth, was less authoritative, and had more information on how to find jobs and the viability of political science as a marketable degree. Thus, Reddit would be a useful tool to help a patron make a decision about obtaining a degree in political science, and also to help point a political science graduate down the right path to career or further degrees. Because Reddit lacks good authority I would not use this as a primary tool for information seeking, but it is an excellent one to have in my arsenal.  

            LibGuides are a resource that I have only been introduced to in the past week, and I have grown fond of them. They are an outstanding and succinct way to stand on the shoulders of other librarians in a given field. As my undergraduate degree is in history, I am uninitiated in the field of political science. However, scanning through a few of the LibGuides, I was quickly able to identify major publications in the field, and also was able to identify how the discipline branches out into sub-disciplines. I think that these guides are an amazing resource for a librarian to use for answering a patron’s question if it falls outside their area of expertise. Already I have personally seen this in my practicum, where I am using them to become familiar with nursing as an academic discipline. I have no prior training in the medical field, but by using LibGuides I am gaining a good understanding of the current state of nursing, and what publications and resources I should focus on.  

            The CQ Press Electronic Library was a far more traditional resource. It reminds me a lot of JSTOR, or the Wiley databases that I have used in my work both at OSU and Mount Carmel. I think that it is a wonderful resource, and an excellent finding tool. I particularly liked the ability to save citations in a personal profile that remedies the need to perform searches multiple times. This is a feature that JSTOR also provides, and one I used extensively during my undergraduate research. Consequently, the CQ Press Electronic Library is something that I would suggest to patrons for continued exploration of their topic, and as a good tool for doing political science research.  

            On another note, the article that I read from the International Political Science Abstracts, “The Library Re-Visited,” was critiquing undergraduate political science research in a manner that was in line the goals stated in the Political Science Research Competency Guidelines. From both works I gathered that librarians play a significant role in assisting political science students gather and synthesize information. Both the article I read and the Guidelines focused on students being able to identify good resources, and also broaden their search to find information they had previously missed. As librarians, that is our specialty, and we play a strong role in helping to ensure that we are teaching our patrons how to search, as well as providing information. With both the traditional resources that are usually taught in library school, and the non-traditional resources introduced in this module, we should be able to help students find all of the information they need and more.  

The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory--Review and Evaluation

Dryzek, J.S., Hong, B., & Phillips, A. (Eds.). 2006. Oxford Handbook of Political Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

            The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory is a well-rounded, well-researched political science resource. The Handbook is published by the Oxford University Press, a reputable publisher of academic materials with a long and respected history. Furthermore, the contributing authors for the handbook are all professors or other respected political theorists from major academic institutions from around the world. Finally, in performing a quick scan of the sources each of the contributing authors use to write their articles, it can be quickly seen that they are all pulled from other reputable publications and resources. Consequently, the Handbook is a highly authoritative work. The information that it presents is clearly backed by rigorous scholarly study, and is presented by excellent authors coming from esteemed institutions.

            As an authoritative work, the documentation contained within the Handbook is superb. All of the contributing authors’ sources are included in references appended to each article, and the editors include their own reference list for their introduction. Moreover, as previously mentioned, the documented sources are from reputable publications and institutions.

            The scope of the Handbook is quite broad. In the introduction the editors state that their goal is to provide information on everything from the core of political theory to its cutting edges as they existed at the time of the book’s publication (Dryzek et al. 2006, pg. 34). And it seems that this is a goal that they accomplish. The book includes articles on every major aspect of political theory as it existed in the early part of the twenty-first century. The book is not designed to be a historical retrospective on political theory, however. The articles are focused on the major parts of political theory from the end of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first centuries (Dryzek et al. 2006, pg. 31). Furthermore, because the Handbook is written to provide a broad-spectrum look at political theory, it does not delve too deeply into any one aspect of the discipline. Consequently, the scope of the work provides the reader with a good understanding of major, recent issues in political theory, but does not provide an historical or granular examination of political theory as a discipline.

            The broad scope of this work makes it a relatively objective resource as well. Even though individual contributing authors within it may have biases, the editors selected and arranged the works so that multiple viewpoints on a variety of topics are presented. This enables the reader to make up their own mind about the theories and issues being presented. Thus, the individual parts of the work may lack in objectivity, but the Handbook as a whole is an objective piece.  

             The Handbook is written for an audience that is familiar and comfortable with political theory.  The lay reader would struggle to follow the discussions contained within, and the editors and contributing authors frequently reference theories and works that are not commonly known. The authors’ introduction provides some assistance in giving brief descriptions of the major theories presented, but it is not a resource that is designed to introduce its readers to the discipline. Rather, it is intended for academic political theorists who are already established in the study. The goal of the work is to keep its audience up to date on what is happening in the field of political theory.

            As this resource was written over eight years ago, the timeliness of the work is not as strong as it could be. Political theory is a discipline that tends to transform and move fast, as is commented on by the editors in their introduction (Dryzek et al. 2006, pgs. 14-15). Accordingly, it can be expected that there are already new theories, critiques, and revisions of the theories contained within this Handbook. Also, it is likely that there are a slew of new resources and authors that have arisen since its publication. In spite of this, however, the work is still recent enough to be a useful tool in political theory research, or to help acquaint the political theorist with the modern state of the discipline. Furthermore, the authoritativeness of the work means that it still stands as a relevant, powerful resource that accurately reflects the state of the discipline at the time it was written.