Some very promising material here, Karen. You’ve gathered a lot of material and presented a handful of interesting critical perspectives. I think you have some work to do in articulating how your project is different from Pates. If you can answer that question (and I hope your use of Hess might help you depart from Pate), you will likely find your way to a clearer restructuring of the introduction, methods, and results sections. Some questions and comments to guide our conversation in conference: Introduction – We should talk about generating a question without answering it. I think the introduction actually already answers the question–partly because it offers results, I think, and partly because the way you ask it already offers an implicit claim. Methods – I’m struggling in places to follow the logical order of this section. That initial paragraph is particularly challenging for me. I hope you can walk me through that part of the piece. – IN general, I’ll encourage you to spend some time with outlining in order to clarify how your different paragraphs fit together logically. – Consider synthesizing Hess and Kurland rather than listing them separately. – Pate poses a problem for your project, I think. He sounds like he’s a part of conversation. (see page 5-6) Discussion – I think the early material qualifies as results. Let’s talk about that material. – Discussion is your chance to raise limitations, implications, broader questions or consequences. Style – in general, I’ll encourage you to drop the announcing style unless it’s genuinely more efficient than the alternatives. See page 5 for an example of a likely unnecessary announcement.

1. While it seems a localist effort, it’s consumption patterns call that into question. 2. Furthermore, the tension between community and economic power was crucial for the history fo the organization. —- – but there is a focus on community building – it also fosters self-reflection – there do seem to be genuine economic benefits (not profit driven) – MORE?