Project 2- Grass Roots Movements and Smart Growth Ballston

Preliminary Proposal

My first potential research topic is the Anti-Walmart movements around the country. Operating on the basis that such a hegemonic corporation hurts small town economies and often touting the slogans, ‘Buy Local’ and ‘Sprawlmart’, this movement is clearly based on localism. A question I could ask is, ‘to what extent/ are these protests based on preservationist (wanting to preserve small town quaintness) interests versus economic concerns?’ Or a question could be, ‘to what extent does Walmart damage local regional culture?’
Another potential topic would be the ‘Not in my backyard’ campaigns of the 1970s-90s which opposed chemical waste from factories being dumped into local water sources. Their methods ranged from rallies and demonstrations to blocking off build sites. As the ‘protectiveness’ of ones origin is evident in the NIMB campaigns, I could examine if these initiatives eventually worked to unite the community, or if it influenced policy on local government levels.
In a way these anti-Walmart and NIMB campaigns both target unbridled market powers and put the responsibility for change in the hands of the local.

Reformed Proposal with Sources

Topic
In this paper I will examine the ongoing fight of my hometown Ballston Spa, NY against the construction of a Walmart superstore. Concerns of village resident range from the destruction of local jobs and forests to an increase in traffic and crime. Basing my claims on case studies of other small towns I will investigate how a Walmart would effect a historically vibrant town such as Ballston. Additionally, I will research why some locations are chosen over others, with an emphasis on the apparent preference for already relatively weak economies.
Archive
• Greenwald, Robert, dir. Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price. 2005. Film.
• “The High Cost of Walmart.” Infographic. SumOfUs. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.
• “Wal-Mart Means Fewer Jobs, Less Small Businesses, More Burden on Taxpayers.” Popular Resistance. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.

Conversation
• Beaver, William. “Battling Wal-Mart: How Communities Can Respond.” Business and Society Review 110.2 (2005): 159-69. Print.
o This article exemplifies how the movement against Walmart is a grassroots movement tied to larger anti-corporation initiatives.
• Goetz, Stephan J., and Hema Swaminathan. “Wal-mart and County-Wide Poverty.” Social Science Quarterly 87.2 (2006): 211-26. Print.
o The article shows the economic impact of this superstore on small towns and counties. I would be able to link this to my argument regarding the decimating of local cultures.
• Altner, Doug. “Why Do 1.4 Million Americans Work at Walmart, with Many More Trying To?” Forbes. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.
• Isidore, Chris. “Walmart Ups Pay Well above Minimum Wage.” CNN Money. CNN, n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.
o I think that this new advancement would offer a good counter argument to my claim that Walmart hurts local communities. This article shows how the cooperation is now adapting its employees’ conditions as a result of growing external pressure.
• Worstall, Tim. “Walmart Destroys Jobs, Yes but the Benefits Go to the Consumers, Not the Top.” Forbes 11 Aug. 2013: n. pag. Forbes. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.
o This article would also be used in a counter argument as it suggests that low prices may actually help the people in the under resourced communities Walmart serves.

Question
This case will require examining other socially adverse effects of Walmart, other than just economic ones. I will also need to look at how this case relates to the general trend of globalization and neoliberal hegemony.

Script for in class project proposal

Ballston Spa, NY my darling hometown has been the proposed site of a Walmart superstore for the last ten years. Although initially stone walled by the grassroots movements, zoning laws were changed to permit the superstore to break ground within village limits.
Smart Growth Ballston, is a community movement which mobilizes local citizens in different ‘Sprawl-Mart’ campaigns. In my paper I will examine the rhetoric used by this grass roots movement to determine if it fits into Hess’s model of Localism which emphasizes social justice and environmental sustainability.
To do this I will use the Smart Growth Ballston website as my primary document, along with statements issued from them at various town hall and zoning board meetings. The tension in this situation arises from the question if Smart Growth actually reflects the desires of village citizens. The intended site is located in one of the lowest socioeconomic sectors in the region and despite extensive studies done on the effects of Walmart on local business and how it contributes to the cycle of poverty, there has been a new wave of unexpected support for the Big Box store from locals who claim that the convenience of the superstore will actually improve their quality of life.
My question will thus examine whether the SGB movement is true localism and reflects the desires of the people, or if it is merely holding trying to impose its vision, based on historic and small town nostalgia, from a relatively privelleged perspective. I think that by looking at the basis of this movement that it will encourage other citizens to look discerning at local movements in their areas.

Outline for Rough Draft

INTRO
• Background- Ballston Spa, Walmart, yada yada
• Question
• Define Localism and Politics of Scale
METHODS
• Localism as defined by Hess
• Politics of Scale Smith and Kurtz
• Examining their statements/ website
• Examining board meetings minutes
• A study of polls
• A brief study of other movements nation wide
RESULTS
• Does not use politics of scale
• Does reflect the will of the majority and fit Hess’s definition
DISCUSSION
• It coulda shoulda been made larger
• but polls are hard- not everyone is represented
• cannot tell if SGB reached out to other organization- how big it got
Hess
• onging destruction of natural habitats by resource extraction ventures 4
• environmental and social justice problems are also deeply intertwined
• the degree to which localist politics are consistent with or in tension with goals of sustainablility and justice
• political goals are consistent with those of anti-corporate, anti-globalization movement
• “the loss of democracy to corporatocracy” pg.11
• “the extent to which localism can contribute solutions to the world’s environmental and social problems” pg. 14
• “with a mission of community stewardship- and an ability to choose environmental and social values over growth” 15

First Draft with Peer comments

Revision plan after peer review

The main plan that I made from my peer conference was to fix the structure of my paper which did not fit nicely into the IMRD. Also, I was urged to make my introduction more direct.

Conference Draft

Comments From Conference Draft

Great start, Allyson. You’re working with the IMRD structure creatively and successfully here. There’s work to do in refining your question (and your presentation of it in the introduction), but you offer clear methods and some convincingly supported results. A few comments to guide our conference conversation: Introduction – I think this can be compressed significantly. – I also think you probably want to try to avoid seeming to offer answers to your question. (perhaps the question needs clarifying). Results – Some really interesting claims here. – I think it makes sense to start results with an account of the arguments that the national movement is making (to set up a comparison). – Paragraphing might be tightened up. See page 5 comment. See also page 6. – You have a challenge because you offer “absence of” arguments. Those are tricky! Let’s talk about page 7 to see if we can refine your approach. -Does the outcome of the process belong here to conclude results? Discussion – you’re structure here is very sensible. Nicely designed. Additional notes: – have you thought at all about spaces of dependence? – How about exploring anti-chain advocacy?

Final Draft and Evaluation

An Anti-Walmart Grassroots Strategy Evaluation

Abstract:

Smart Growth Ballston is a grassroots organization which aims to promote sustainable economic and environmental growth in the town of Ballston Spa, New York. Their most recent struggle was against the construction of a Walmart superstore inside the village. By using their own website and other activist actions taken by the group and comparing them to the larger discussion and anti-Walmart movements in the country, I will determine how successfully SGB utilizes different advocacy strategies. These strategies include Smith and Kurtz’s notion of politics of scale, the appeal to larger geographic regions to add legitimacy or support to a movement, and Cox’s idea of creating varied spaces of engagement in which political discourse can occur. SGB did not fully utilize the potential of politics of scale, however did succeed in creating and utilizing different spaces of engagement to support their movement. Although this movement was ultimately unsuccessful in prohibiting the incoming superstore, their campaign’s shortcomings holds valuable lessons which future grassroots movements could learn from.

Introduction: Structuring Resistance

Ballston Spa, New York has been the proposed site of a Walmart superstore for the last ten years. Although Smart Growth Ballston initially stonewalled the chain, in 2013 yielding to corporate pressures the zoning laws were changed to allow the big box store to break ground within village limits (Davidson). Since this change, the SGB movement has revamped their efforts and relaunched their “Sprawl-mart” campaign. However, despite extensive campaigning and effective community mobilization, SGB’s most recent bout against corporate dominance was not entirely fruitful. While they did succeed in placing some limits on the store’s size by cutting out a significant portion of its retail and garden sections, (“Town of Ballston Zoning”) construction will begin after the state mandated environmental impact investigation is performed. In this paper I will investigate the strategies used by SGB to resist Walmart, and to what extent their limited results indicate a failure in advocacy strategy.

Methods: Scaling the Movement and Spaces of Engagement

The principle advocacy strategies which I will analyze in this piece are ‘politics of scale’ and ‘spaces of engagement’. Both lenses come from the article Community Gardens and Politics of Scale in New York City written by activist leaders Christopher Smith and Hilda Kurtz. In their work Smith and Kurtz advocate for the use of politics of scale to form a successful localist movement. They define this technique as “the ways in which social actors draw on relationships at different geographical scales to press for advantage in a given political situation” (199). This notion is highly applicable to grassroots movements. Often, in order to bring either more attention, or more legitimacy to their cause, a small movement might try and link their stance with a larger activist movement. Affiliation with a more well-known organization might increase the publicity of a relatively isolated cause and make their agenda more difficult for officials to ignore. Another advantage of scaling up a project could be the partnership between several seemingly disconnected groups with similar objectives. By expanding the scope of the issue to include a wider geographical area one could gain a broader base of supporters who would be willing to advocate for the cause. This tactic is illustrated by the NYC garden movement which “overlap[ped] the local coalitions with the citywide coalition” by organizing the different neighborhoods and boroughs into a cohesive unit of opposition (Smith & Kurtz 203).

However, politics of scale are often combated by the opposing side’s own efforts to scale the grassroots’ issues. This often manifests itself as “dominant political actors [exerting] control over weaker actors by confining their activities to a ‘manageable scale’ “(200). In the case of the NYC garden movement this method is evidenced in the city hall’s attempt to bargain with community members on the level of neighborhood blocks, instead of acknowledging the more powerful citywide movement as a whole. In this situation, as in most, governments can more easily dismiss plaintiffs by addressing issues on a case by case basis and ignoring overarching trends. Similarly, ‘scaling down’ a movement inhibits these coalitions and larger lobbies from being formed (Smith & Kurtz 204).

Another lens through which to analyze the SGB movement comes from Kevin Cox’s (1998) theory of ‘spaces of dependence’ and ‘spaces of engagement’. According to Cox, “spaces of dependence’ are places that are necessary to fulfill a certain action while ‘spaces of engagement’ are locales where political struggles occur to defend those specific ‘spaces of dependence’ (200). In other words, a space of engagement is any location where political or democratic discourse can occur. This activist proposes that we see these places not solely as “spatial areas but as [any] network that link[s] local actors” (200). This is relevant to the platform which grassroots activists choose to employ. Ranging from physical spaces, such as town meeting halls and street corners, to less direct fronts, such as internet campaigns, different spaces of political engagement influence the scale and outcome of a movement.

To determine how these politics of scale and spaces of engagement are implemented in the case of the Ballston Spa Walmart, I began by comparing SGB to already existing anti-Walmart projects and other more prominent claims made against the superstore. This allowed me to see what strategies were being employed on both a national and regional level. Then, in order to understand to what extent SGB incorporates these various approaches I looked into their practices with evidence directly sourced from their website. Finally, to gauge the impact of incorporating these methods I considered subsequent events, as portrayed in several news sources.

Results: Implementation of Advocacy Strategies

An extensive amount of ink has been spilt defaming Walmart and other profit hungry corporations around the country by highlighting the loss of local business that they cause. One of the most high profile pieces includes the popular expository documentary, Walmart: The high cost of low prices by Robert Greenwald. The thesis of this work is that Walmart ‘hollows out’ small towns by offering prices which “mom and pop” stores cannot compete with, thus destroying local economies. The film relies heavily on interviews and firsthand accounts to craft this message. Opening with a family hardware business unable to keep the doors open once a Walmart supercenter is built in their town, Greenwald envelops viewers in the struggles of Middle America. The injustice of the situation is reemphasized in the zoning law exceptions made by the local governments and special tax breaks offered to the big box store (Greenwald). The case featured has much in common with the current conflict in Ballston Spa and would be relevant evidence in the SGB campaign, especially in response to those who claim that the incoming store will stimulate growth in the 5,000 resident town.

The national argument that Walmart feeds and maintains a cycle of poverty is also pertinent to the Smart Growth movement. Greenwald’s expose substantiates this claim by interviewing current and past workers at Walmart. Time and again the interview subjects reference the difficulties associated with minimum rate wages (regardless of time employed), the purposeful scheduling of inconsistent ‘part-time’ hours and the lack of benefits. Based on testimonies from the labor board, Walmart’s anti-union stance is faulted for creating these unjust working conditions which lead to dependency (Greenwald). The pinnacle of this argument is the testimony of one middle manager who reports that in her store they distribute welfare and food stamp registration forms to all employees (Greenwald). The claim that Walmart creates jobs and therefore stimulates the economy is commonly employed by both Ballston Spa residents and Town Board Members who support the store (Davidson). The evidence presented in this criticism constitute a convincing case against Walmart’s supposed job creation. While yes, jobs are created this film demands that viewers ask, ‘will this type of economic growth improve the quality of life for villagers?’ As fitting as these personal accounts are to the SGB movement one would expect them to be integral parts of their campaign. However, such anecdotal evidence of Walmart contributing to the cycle of poverty is conspicuously absent from their website (Smart Growth Ballston).

Another aspect that could be considered especially pertinent in the case of Ballston Spa is the trend that Walmart has of targeting lower socio-economic areas for new stores. It has been suggested that “they know that the poor are their most important customers” and work to “locate its stores near them” (Carrier 95). As the proposed build site is in the center of one of the lowest socio-economic areas in the entire county this would have been an incredibly salient argument, had SGB leaders considered such larger trends (“Median Household Income”). By not incorporating such potentially vital information, Smart Growth Ballston limits the potential of their arguments.

Similarly, one might also expect a higher reliance on statistical evidence, such as that offered by the paper Walmart, American consumer-citizenship, and the erasure of class. The main argument of this piece states that when “[Walmart] moves into an area, [it] depresses prevailing wage rate, and unleashes a cycle in which profits, lower consumer prices and poverty level wages are intertwined” (Carrier 95) The support for this claim comes from the national data that at just over $7 an hour fulltime Walmart workers make approximately $12-14,000 a year. Which in the US is considered to be below the poverty line. Additionally, 46% of Walmart workers’ children are uninsured or on Medicaid (96). Again, the expected emphasis on concrete national statistics is notably missing from the case forwarded by Smart Growth Ballston.

Yet, there were some sporadic connections made to the broader anti-Walmart campaign. Such gestures include an infographic published on their site which references the Virginia Supreme Court case in which it was concluded that “Walmart parking lots are a virtual magnet for crime”. As well as the Institute for the Study of Labor’s statement that “Walmart destroys 3 jobs for every 2 that they create” (“Smart Growth Ballston”). Additionally, some politics of scale were employed as SGB referenced that the crime rate in Bethlehem increased tenfold (from 50 incidents a year to 475) after adding a Walmart. But this only increases the scale to a very limited degree, as Bethlehem is in the same Capital District of NY as Ballston is. Despite these modest examples of scaling, the majority of issues raised were very specific to the town of Ballston Spa and did not tie into the larger national conversation.

In general Smart Growth Ballston movement missed the opportunity to harness politics of scale in their debate by only referencing local impacts of a Walmart. Although including national critiques would only bolster the SGB movement, such anti-corporate discourse was hardly employed to fight the Walmart in Ballston Spa. The majority of the arguments made were structured around hyper-specific local consequences, such as the concern of increased traffic and the stress on local resources. One of the most popular concerns voiced was that the current infrastructure would not be able to support the estimated “increase in traffic on Routes 50 and 67”. The necessary alterations, included a traffic circle, would require the dislocation and possibly destruction of locally owned shops and the seizure of private property. Another statistic provided by SGB was the estimated cost $60,280- $64,116 that the town would incur as a result of its strain on emergency and construction services. By focusing so wholly on immediate physical structure and resource dilemmas that could potentially be remedied with fund allocation and more construction, SGB failed to acknowledge the grander economic and social consequences which are more convincing.

Not only does Smart Growth Ballston not contribute or make reference to the grander activist conversation, they do not try to align the actions of their movement with other similar organizations. More than just the rhetoric and statistics that they employee, all events held and action plans made are entirely independent of any larger, more encompassing group. “Save Main Street” is a campaign which is taking place throughout the country. Their movement champions the “commercial and cultural vitality of downtown” in response to the “suburbs, shopping malls, and big box retailers [which] dominat[e] the American landscape (“National Main Street”). Despite having an agenda very similar to that of SGB, no obvious effort is made on behalf of SGB to connect the two. Another prominent organization which I examined was Popular Resistance. Their main tool is a site which acts as a forum for numerous popular protests, including an “anti-big box” section which featured many articles focusing on Walmart. Created in Washington DC this source demonstrates how idea and information spreading can connect activists nationwide (Popular Resistance). While potentially a partner with SGB there is no evidence of a direct connection. Sprawl Busters is another movement I encountered which was more specifically aimed at stopping the spread of large corporations. Although their site was not a platform for discussion, this Massachusetts based group archives news reports from “448 [towns which beat] big box stores in their community at least once, or pressured a developer to withdraw” (“Your Victories”). This list includes the town of Ballston and their initial success in 2007 and the struggles that Smart Growth Ballston has faced hereafter. Sprawl Busters represents an attempt to increase the scale of individual fights and to organize them into a cohesive ‘battle’, ‘small towns vs. corporations’. However this data sharing was entirely one sided as SGB makes no references, and in their omission seem to be entirely unaware of this project. Had a coalition of similarly purposed groups been formed, one would expect it to be well advertised. However, since there is no mention of any partnership on their site or in local news sources, it can be assumed that this did not occur.

However, even though Smart Growth Ballston may not directly link itself with other grassroots initiatives it does utilize spaces of engagement to spread their message and garner support. The internet is one such space which widens their platform. The SGB webpage clearly describes their agenda, actions taken and planned, and has easy access to news sources and all official documents regarding the proposed Walmart construction. The transparency of the site and the medium of information dispersal could be considered one way in which SGB does successfully use politics of scale. By using the internet as a platform they widen the scope of their cause beyond board meetings and pamphlet campaigns. Those who might not have been able to physically make a stance in support of their movement are able to show their support in this alternative space of engagement through a Facebook like, conveniently linked to the SGB page, or by sharing the site via email or blog spot (Smart Growth Ballston).

Ultimately, this movement achieved only a limited scope of success. Some restrictions were placed on the incoming Walmart’s size by cutting out significant portions of its retail and garden sections (“Town of Ballston Zoning”) and, as a way to ‘compromise’ with protesters a local products section will be included (Kasper). However, despite these minor victories the corporate project will continue as planned. Yet, one cannot claim that the unsuccessfulness of SGB was a result of their poor advocacy tactics. Although they did not effectively evoke politics of scale, Smart Growth Ballston did increase the base of their movement by using the internet as a platform and by creating new spaces of democratic discourse.

Discussion: SGB Outcomes and Effectiveness

The Smart Growth Ballston movement does not effectively utilize politics of scale yet it does successfully employ and create spaces of engagement. While their ignorance of politics of scale may have limited the outcome of their project and not allowed it to grow, the internet and community workshops solidified its local base. While the method of Smith and Kurtz could be considered a useful framework to implement any level of social change I think that it is most vital when the organization being combatted is a corporation with as much influence as Walmart. The world’s number one employer and one of its most notorious robber barons, Walmart is not an opponent easily beat by a small group of grassroots activists. Lawyers and long legal battles are no obstacle to this corporate giant, the only way that a local movement could possibly contend is if it were to unify with other similar groups. The Wal-Mart Litigation Project is an organization which recognizes this disequilibrium and tries to level the playing field by instructing lawyers in how to successfully challenge the chain based on past successes. One of their principle suggestions is to try and connect similar cases to form a more effective legal body (Wal-Mart Litigation Project). Whether filing suit or trying to impose regulations, the lesson stands- a large, united front is most successful. The potential success of this method is evidenced in the case of the NYC gardens movement. By combining their separate complaints about the city’s sale of community garden land the initiative garnered far more public support and were able to challenge the neoliberal desires of town hall.

However, the case of Smart Growth Ballston is not one of complete failure of advocacy strategy. The movement was successful as expanding its support by creating new political spaces of engagement and by utilizing the internet and social media to reach a wider audience. Additionally, it could be argued that even though the growth of a group of digitally based supporters did not benefit the cause in Ballston Spa, that it will benefit other movements in the future. In the case of Sprawl Busters the SGB site contributes to their politics of scale, thus becoming a part of the larger conversation and movement against corporate dominance.

Some of the limitations in this investigation stem from the sources and a possibly limited access to information. Despite the relatively transparent nature of the Smart Growth Ballston Website, one cannot know all of the actions taken by the organization to potentially increase the scope of their project. Perhaps other, more distant news sources were contacted and did not respond, or maybe other organizations did not deem it beneficial to align themselves with an anti-Walmart campaign in Ballston Spa. Furthermore, although one can speculate at what potential outcomes could have been based on the success of the Garden Movement in NYC, it is hard to conclude that a similar tactic would have altered the outcome of the Walmart fight, given how different the situations are. In the one the matter of the gardens the conflict was between public and private lands. Whereas, in Ballston Spa the fight was to limit what the owner (Walmart) could do with their private property. Similarly, SGB could just have been appealing to their audience. While they may still be concerned about national trends, referencing the immediate impact on residents might have been the best was to garner local support.

Bibliography

Carrier, James G., and Don Kalb. Anthropologies of Class: Power, Practice and Inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2015. Microform.
Davidson, L. D. “Just Saying no Again: Walmart’s Plan for Ballston Spa.” The Daily Gazette. N.p., 15 June 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2016.
Greenwald, Robert, dir. Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price. 2005. Film.
Hess, David J. “Localist Movements in a Global Economy.” Urban and Industrial Environments. N.p, 2009
Kasper, Marty. “Public hearing over proposed Ballston Spa Walmart held.” News 10. abc, 21 Nov. 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2016.
“Median Household Incom.” Map. City Data. Onboard informatics, 2016. Web. 1 Feb. 2016.
“Welcome to National Main Street.” org. National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2016. Web. 21 Feb. 2016

“Smart Growth Ballston.” Save Ballston. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Feb. 2016.
Smith, Christopher M & Kurtz, Hilda E. “Community Gardens and Politics of Scale in New York City.” Geographical Review. p, Apr. 2003.
“Find a Lawyer Near You to Handle Your Case!” The Wal-Mart Litigation Project. N.p., 2016. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.
“Town of Ballston Zoning Board of Appeals.” Zoning Board of Appeals. Ballston Spa, NY. 4 Mar. 2015. Print.
“Wal-Mart Means Fewer Jobs, Less Small Businesses, More Burden on Taxpayers.” Popular Resistance. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2016.
“Your Victories.” Sprawl Busters. N.p., 12 Dec. 2013. Web. 21 Feb. 2016

Dear Allyson:

Thanks for your hard work on this major project. The changes exhibited in this final draft exhibit robust engagement with the research, drafting, and revision. I hope this assignment has helped you develop new research abilities, including the ability to generate and refine questions, the ability to locate, critically examine, and synthesize diverse sources, and your ability to adapt to new document structures.

Below, you’ll find (1) a brief paragraph summarizing a formative assessment of your work in this unit, (2) an evaluative assessment of the project, which corresponds to the rubric at the end, (3) a numerical breakdown of your grades for assignments in this unit (which culminates in the final grade for the project), and (4) a copy of the rubric for project 2, which is also available on our course Canvas page.

Marginal comments are less frequent here than they were on the draft. If you’d like to discuss any of the comments above or below, please let me know. I’m happy to do so.

All the best,

Nick

Formative Assessment

You’ve crafted a complex and interesting research project. You demonstrated growth in your ability to think of the relationship between interpretive methodology and analysis, I think. The methods section shows a sound understanding of the ways in which academic scholarship demands methodological clarity. You use the IMRD structure to good effect there and elsewhere.

Source incorporation and overall structural coherence also seem like strengths in this assignment. While you might continue to think about local paragraphing as an area for improvement, paragraph ordering seems logical and dynamic. Keep topic sentences (or “argument based topic sentences,” if you need the reminder) in mind as you move into future academic writing contexts.

Evaluative Assessment

Composing Element	“Excellent” 100-90	“Good” 89-80	“Acceptable” 79-70
Style; Mechanics	Very clear. With the exception of a few topic sentences where abstract subjects made the document a bit less accessible than it could have been, your language choices seem solid.
Audience (excluding other rubric elements)	You made some informed decisions about adapting to a semi-informed audience in several places (particularly in the methods section). The minor confusion with the introduction seemed more a result of the slight misuse of the Abstract than a problem with audience.
Question; Argument; Significance	The claim you advance in discussion is very clear. And you motivate your question in the introduction very efficiently. This area is a strength for the project.
Evidence; Archive;	I was occasionally a bit confused about your presentation of evidence. Take the first paragraph in results, for example. At first, that seems like it’s about doubting Walmart’s value. But by the time I get to the 2^nd and 3^rd paragraphs, it’s clearer you mean that to be evidence for the claim that SGB was missing opportunities. Clearer signal phrasing at the start of that section (SGB had the opportunity to exploit a powerful national narrative against Walmart) would have explained the function of that evidence a bit better.
IMRD STRUCTURE	Pass: the document does use the IMRD Document Structure
Logical Structure; Arrangement;	A couple of minor hiccups: the introduction is a bit light on information (this seemed like a mistake based on your fear of redundancy; see marginal notes on intro). Elsewhere, you might have done a bit better in foregrounding logical transitions between paragraphs. Still, paragraphing is generally strong—focused and coherent.
Application of debate; Use of critical lens	The critics you selected were highly relevant and served to organize your thinking in productive ways. The results were marked in productive ways by the methodological summary that preceded it.

Grade Breakdown

Your Initial Revision Grade: 94

Your Pre-Revision Grades:

Initial Proposal (1 pt available): 1pt

Formal Proposal (2 pts available): 2pt

Bibliography and updated proposal (4 pts available): 4pt

Project Pitch (8 pts available): 8pt

Workshop Draft (10 pts available): 10pt

Conference Draft (10 pts available): 10pt

Your Final, Project 2 Grade*: 94

*Final Project 2 Grade = Initial Revision Grade – (sum of total available pre-revision grades – sum of total received pre-revision grades).

PROJECT 2 RUBRIC

Composing Element	“Excellent” 100-90	“Good” 89-80	“Acceptable” 79-70
Style; Mechanics	The language of the project is clear and accessible, including word choice and syntax. Clarity and simplicity are balanced with some syntactical complexity, and the project uses varied sentence structures for different effects. There are almost no errors, typos, or other mistakes.	The language of the project is usually clear. Clarity and simplicity are occasionally disrupted by confusing syntax or word choice. The project uses varied sentence structures. There are a few typos, errors, or other mistakes.	The language of the project is clear in places but regularly causes confusion. The sentences are either repetitively structured or disruptively complex. Typos, errors, and other mistakes appear frequently.
Audience (excluding other rubric elements)	The information provided is shaped to be accessible and compelling to an audience unfamiliar with the archive but familiar with our shared readings on localism.	Most information is shaped to be accessible and compelling to the appropriate audience. Some necessary information is occasionally missing or excessive.	There are many cases where information is not adequately shaped for the appropriate audience. Frequently, claims, evidence, or important context is left unexplained or shaped for an inappropriate audience.
Question; Argument; Significance	The project’s main question (its case-level question) is clearly expressed in the introduction, and an audience can see why the question is significant. The answer to the case-level question is clearly stated in the discussion. In that discussion, the project provides a rich account of how that argument (the case-level answer) generates a larger significance.	The project’s main case-level question is expressed in the introduction, and the answer to that question is clearly expressed early in the discussion. The project offers a broader significance for the claim or the question. While all of these elements are clearly present, there may be some minor confusion about the scope of the question, the precision of the answer, or the logical connection between claim and broader significance.	The project presents a case-level question and an answer somewhere in the document. The question, the answer, or the broader significance of both are in some way problematic–unclear, vague, or unconvincing.
Evidence; Archive;	The project always marshals detailed, appropriate evidence to support the claims it makes about the archive. That evidence is precise and incorporated elegantly into argumentative paragraphs. If visual aids are used, they enhance but do not replace the project’s presentation of evidence in language.	The project often marshals detailed, appropriate evidence to support its claims. Those details are often but not always fully or convincingly connected to the claims, or they are not always clearly described or incorporated.	The project sometimes marshals detailed evidence in support of its claims. Those details often fail to convincingly support those claims; they are unclearly described or incorporated; or, several key claims are unsupported by evidence.
IMRD STRUCTURE	As we agreed in class, the implementation of the IMRD structure will be evaluated under “logical structure; arrangement” below. The assignment requires an adapted IMRD structure, however. The total absence of that structural feature will result in a failing grade for the assignment.
Logical Structure; Arrangement;	The project arranges information, claims, and sources in a clear, logical, and dynamic way. The project’s sections are focused and coherent. The relationships between sections of the project are clearly articulated, and their arrangement clarifies the project’s argument and motive.	The project arranges information, claims, and sources in a clear and logical way. Sections are usually coherent, although there may be minor digressions. The relationships between sections are usually but not always clear. Arrangement of the sections is logical.	The project arranges information, claims, and sources within sections that are sometimes coherent. The relationships between sections are often unclear. The arrangement of the sections undermines or obscures the logic of the project’s argument.
Application of Conversation; Use of critical lens	The project presents ideas and arguments from the scholarly conversation clearly and accurately. It explains or interprets the conversation for its readers, and it uses the terms of the conversation to generate claims about the archive. The debate it represents contains diverse perspectives. All sources used are credible, and citation is complete, consistent, and enhances the credibility of the project.	The project presents ideas and arguments from the conversation, but may sometimes be somewhat unclear or inaccurate in its account of the sources. It often but not always makes the key ideas from the conversation clear for the reader, and its analyses of the archive are usually driven by the ideas of the conversation. All sources used are credible, and citation is complete and consistent.	The project presents ideas and arguments from the conversation, but it doesn’t make those ideas clear and may misinterpret the sources it uses. Ideas summarized or paraphrased are often difficult to understand or arranged in a confusing way. The connection between the conversation and the text is occasionally difficult to follow. Most sources are credible, and citation is complete.

Final Reflection- IMRD Challenge

The IMRD structure is typically used to present academic research. This thesis-last format is the favorite of scientists for it allows for reproducibility, a principle essential in a field based on quantitative results. It is valued so highly because it is believed that in order to give credibility to one’s research, others must be able to follow the same steps to reach the same results.
However, in the last project I adapted this structure to fit a qualitative investigation. Instead of experimenting, gathering data, and performing graphical analyses I was interpreting documents and events through a critical lens. In order to successfully communicate my findings in the IMRD structure, it required slight alterations and a different interpretation of the usual categories (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion). By presenting my investigation in this method it changed the purpose of my project from what it would have been if I’d used the usual thesis-first format.
The introduction which I wrote did not differ too drastically in purpose from what is expected in a pure IMRD paper or in the usual analytical paper. I began by establishing the shared context necessary for readers to understand my investigation. The title of this section was “structuring resistance” and in this space I described the Smart Growth Ballston Movement and their history with Walmart. Additionally, I mentioned key terms and concepts, such as ‘politics of scale’ and ‘spaces of engagement’. I then alluded to the rest of my research procedure, or the ‘plan’ for the rest of my paper. Instead of ending my intro with a strongly stated initial claim, as I would typically do in an analytical paper, I presented a question to be answered, “to what extent [do SGB’s] limited results indicate a failure in advocacy strategy?”
In the methods section of the paper I presented my lens to the audience, “politics of scale” and “spaces of engagement”. Similar to a thesis first essay I described and thoroughly explained these concepts. This is a very different approach than what one would find in a purely scientific investigation which would be far less explanatory and more simply listing a procedure. It was necessary for me to adopt an analytical structure because a specific critical lens is something that is probably not familiar to most, whereas performing certain measurements and mixtures is standardized and therefore do not warrant further explanation. Additionally, in this section I described from what sources I gathered my data and the sequence of my investigation. Without incorporating the findings themselves, I noted where I would encounter information and alluded to what I expected to garner from each source.
The results section, entitled “implementation of advocacy strategies”, stays true to the scientific IMRD format by presenting and interpreting the evidence. In this part I described actions taken and not taken by SGB activists and how they eventually influenced the outcome of their movement. All conclusions drawn were only on the proximate scale, relating directly to the movement in Ballston Spa.
The discussion section was the true crux of the paper. This part was used to delve into the evidence in an even more critical way, drawing on other resources outside the normal scope of my investigation that were not strictly outlined as evidence. One of the main claims that I made in this part was that “Walmart is not an opponent easily beat by a small grassroots movement” and that it is necessary to employ politics of scale. To further engage in the existing scholarly discussion I likened the case of SGB to the NYC garden movement. This comparison added significance to my findings by putting them in the context of the larger conversation. Additionally, in the discussion section, I was able to expose the limitations of my investigation, a process similar to presenting a counter argument in an analytical essay.
Initially it was very difficult for me to adapt this structure. I found it frustrating having to separate methods and results, when I am so used to connecting my evidence and analysis. However, thinking in terms of the different objectives of each format helped me adapt to the new structure. I think that for this adaptation to be successful that it was necessary to incorporate some of the strategies of the thesis first format, such as the explanation of the lens, into the IMRD. Writing in an IMRD format changed the purpose of my project from what it might have been in a typical analytical structure. My project presented readers with a conceptual framework for their own analysis. While they may not have been particularly invested in the case of a localist movement in Upstate New York, by outlining the steps and procedure that I took, this procedure gives them a way to look at, and possibly investigate the success of grass roots movements in their own areas. This end result is very different than if I had implemented a pure analytical structure which would narrow my conclusion to the scope of Ballston Spa.
One of the features in this format which really highlights the IMRD purpose is the abstract. Similar to the other divisions in this paper fills the role of concisely informing the audience of what they will be reading and what question will be answered. This emphasizes the utilitarian objectives of the IMRD structure.