Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:13:21.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Adapting

Responding to Unforeseen Research Circumstances

from Part IV - Implementing and Adapting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2023

By
Alice B. M. Vadrot
Edited by
Hannah Hughes  and
Alice B. M. Vadrot
Hannah Hughes
Affiliation:
Aberystwyth University
Alice B. M. Vadrot
Affiliation:
Universität Wien, Austria
Get access

Summary

Agreement-making has always been, and continues to be, shaped by gradual change and unforeseen situations on site, to which both participants and researchers must adapt. This chapter provides guidance on how to cope with the unexpected, discusses specific situations that may occur on site, and shows how to make use of digital and hybrid sites in methodological and conceptual terms. First, it presents a set of typical unforeseen situations that may arise at any point during the research process, especially during fieldwork, and identifies strategies for adapting to these kinds of unanticipated events. Second, it illustrates how the methodology of an entire research project can be modified by using the example of how the ERC research project MARIPOLDATA responded to the indefinite postponement of BBNJ IGCs in 2020. Third, it points to the advantages and disadvantages of digital ethnography, and, fourth, discusses the future role of digital and hybrid meetings for the study of global environmental agreement-making.

Keywords

methodologydigital ethnographysurveynegotiationsCOVID-19
Type
Chapter
Information
Conducting Research on Global Environmental Agreement-Making , pp. 267 - 284
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Further Reading

1.Vadrot, A. B. M., Langlet, A., Tessnow-von Wysocki, I. et al. (2021). Marine biodiversity negotiations during COVID-19: A new role for digital diplomacy? Global Environmental Politics, 21(3), 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
One of the first papers to discuss the impact of COVID-19 on global environmental agreement-making and the study thereof; uses the BBNJ case and describes the results of a survey conducted to assess state and nonstate actors communication patterns and use of digital formats during the global lockdown in 2020.Google Scholar
2.Chasek, P. (2021). Is it the end of the COP as we know it? An analysis of the first year of virtual meetings in the UN Environment and Sustainable Development arena. International Negotiation, 12(3), 1–32.Google Scholar
Provides an overview on how different agreements adapted to COVID-19 and what the future of the COP might look like after the pandemic.Google Scholar
3.Vadrot, A. B. M., and Ruiz Rodríguez, S. C. (2022). Digital multilateralism in practice: Extending critical policy ethnography to digital negotiation sites. International Studies Quarterly, 66(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqac051.Google Scholar
Proposes a definition of digital multilateralism as a set of digital and physical diplomatic practices performed across space and time by state and nonstate actors engaged in a joint enterprise of simultaneous negotiation through physical and digital infrastructures in information-rich, highly interactive environments and illustrates how critical policy ethnography can be expanded to digital negotaiton sites using the BBNJ case.Google Scholar

References

Adler, E., and Pouliot, V. (2011). International practices. International Theory, 3(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Adler-Nissen, R., and Drieschova, A. (2019). Track-change diplomacy: Technology, affordances, and the practice of international negotiations. International Studies Quarterly, 63, 531–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler-Nissen, R., and Eggeling, K. (2022). Blended diplomacy: The entanglement and contestation of digital technologies in everyday diplomatic practice. European Journal of International Relations, 28(3), 640–666.Google Scholar
Allan, J., Soubry, B., Rosen, T. and Tsioumani, E. (2021). The State of Global Environmental Governance 2020. Report, International Institute for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
Beaulieu, A. (2017). Vectors for fieldwork: Computational thinking and new modes of ethnography. In Hjorth, L., Horst, H., Galloway, A., and Bell, G.., eds., The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography, London: Routledge, pp. 29–39.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. M., Corson, C., Gray, N. J., MacDonald, K. I. and Brosius, J. P. (2014). Studying global environmental meetings to understand global environmental governance: Collaborative event ethnography at the tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Environmental Politics, 14(3), 1–20.Google Scholar
Chasek, P. (2001). Earth Negotiations: Analyzing Thirty Years of Environmental Diplomacy. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
Craggs, R. and Mahony, M. (2014). The geographies of the conference: Knowledge, performance and protest. Geography Compass, 8(6), 414–430.Google Scholar
Death, C. (2011). Summit theatre: Exemplary governmentality and environmental diplomacy in Johannesburg and Copenhagen. Environmental Politics, 20(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. J., and Foot, K. A., eds., Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 167–193.Google Scholar
Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. J., and Kirsten, A., eds. (2014). Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, P. A. (2016). Memory, body, and the online researcher: Following Russian street demonstrations via social media. American Ethnologist, 43(3), 500–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hine, C. (2017). From virtual ethnography to the embedded, embodied and everyday internet. In Hjorth, L., Horst, H., Galloway, A., and Bell, G., eds., The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography. London: Routledge, pp.21–28.Google Scholar
Hughes, H., and Vadrot, A. B. M. (2019). Weighting the world: IPBES and the struggle over biocultural diversity. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2), 14–37.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, D. and Wajcman, J., eds. (1985). The Social Shaping of Technology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Mol, A. (2002). The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, K. and Haas, P. M. (2019). Being there: International negotiations as study sites in global environmental politics. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2), 4–13.Google Scholar
Pink, S. (2013). Doing Visual Ethnography, 3rd ed. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Pink, S. (2014). Digital–visual–sensory design anthropology: Ethnography, imagination and intervention. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 13(4), 412–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suiseeya, K. R. M., and Zanotti, L. (2019). Making influence visible: Innovating ethnography at the Paris Climate Summit. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2), 38–60.Google Scholar
Tessnow-von Wysocki, I., and Vadrot, A. B. M. (2020). The voice of science on marine biodiversity negotiations: Systematic literature review. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 614282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tessnow-von Wysocki, I., and Vadrot, A. B. M. (2022). Governing a divided ocean: The transformative power of ecological connectivity in the BBNJ negotiations. Politics and Governance, 10(3).Google Scholar
Tunçalp, D., and Lê, P. L. (2014). (Re)Locating boundaries: A systematic review of online ethnography. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 3(1), 59–79.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×