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-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:33:50.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part IV - Implementing and Adapting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2023

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

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Conducting Research on Global Environmental Agreement-Making , pp. 247 - 300
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.Dimitrov, R. (2012). The politics of persuasion: The UN climate change negotiations. In Dauvergne, P., ed., Handbook of global environmental politics, 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 72–86.Google Scholar
Emphasizes the important role of the dynamics and circumstances of the negotiation process and, consequently, the need to observe the negotiation sites in order to explain negotiation outcomes.Google Scholar
2.Bäckstrand, K., Kuyper, J. W., Linnér, B. O. and Lövbrand, E. (2017). Non-state actors in global climate governance: From Copenhagen to Paris and beyond. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 561–579.Google Scholar
Provides a good overview of the history of nonstate actor participation in the UNFCCC, and is a good introduction to a larger body of excellent critical work in this space.Google Scholar
3.Tessnow-von Wysocki, I., and Vadrot, A. B. M. (2020). The voice of science on marine biodiversity negotiations: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 1044.Google Scholar
Introduces the reader to the complex negotiations and highlights its relevance for future marine biodiversity governance by giving an overview of the current state of the art on the main topics identified in peer-reviewed literature related to the BBNJ process until 2020.Google Scholar
4.Paterson, M. (2019). Using negotiation sites for richer collection of network data. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2), 81–92.Google Scholar
Highlights the immense opportunities of negotiation sites for the collection of network data and pragmatically addresses issues researchers may encounter when sampling network data.Google Scholar

References

Bourdieu, P., and Wacquant, L. J. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. M., Corson, C., Gray, N. J., MacDonald, K. 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
De Santo, E. M., Ásgeirsdóttir, Á. , Barros-Platiau, A. et al. (2019). Protecting biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction: An earth system governance perspective. Earth System Governance 2, 100029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2019.100029.Google Scholar
Dimitrov, R. (2016). The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Behind closed doors. Global Environmental Politics, 16(3), 1–11.Google Scholar
Eastwood, L. E. (2019). Negotiating the environment: Civil society, globalisation and the UN. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research, 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Gaskell, G. and Bauer, M. W. (2000). Towards public accountability: Beyond sampling, reliability and validity. In Gaskell, G. and Bauer, M. W., eds., Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook for social research. London: Sage, pp. 336–350.Google Scholar
Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S., eds., Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 163–194.Google Scholar
Hale, T. (2016). “All hands on deck”: The Paris Agreement and nonstate climate action. Global Environmental Politics, 16(3), 12–22.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice. New York: Routledge.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
Hughes, H., Vadrot, A. B. M., Allan, J. I. et al. (2021). Global environmental agreement-making: Upping the methodological and ethical stakes of studying negotiations. Earth System Governance, 10, 100121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission UNESCO. (2020). The science we need for the ocean we want: The United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265198.Google Scholar
Kahler, M. (2011). Networked politics: Agency, power, and governance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), 1–28.Google Scholar
Kerr, R. and Sturm, D. (2019). Moving beyond “insider or outsider”: The ethnographic challenges of researching elite sport facilities in New Zealand. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(9–10), 1137–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krauss, S. E. (2005). Research paradigms and meaning making: A primer. The Qualitative Report, 10(4), 758–770.Google Scholar
Leiter, T. (2021a). Progress in implementing adaptation: Insights from project proposals and scientific literature. In United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), ed., The Adaptation Gap Report 2020, pp. 33–40. www.unep.org/resources/adaptation-gap-report-2020.Google Scholar
Leiter, T. (2021b). Do governments track the implementation of national climate change adaptation plans? An evidence-based global stocktake of monitoring and evaluation systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 125, 179–188.Google Scholar
Leiter, T., and Pringle, P. (2018). Pitfalls and potential of measuring climate change adaptation through adaptation metrics. In Christiansen, L., Martinez, G., and Naswa, P., eds., Adaptation metrics: Perspectives on measuring, aggregating and comparing adaptation results. Copenhagen: UNEP DTU Partnership, pp. 29–48.Google Scholar
Madden, R. (2010). Being ethnographic: A guide to the theory and practice of ethnography. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Mandani, K. (2013). Modeling international climate change negotiations more responsibly: Can highly simplified game theory models provide reliable policy insights? Ecological Economics, 90, 68–76.Google Scholar
Thew, H., Middlemiss, L. and Paavola, J. (2020). “Youth is not a political position”: Exploring justice claims-making in the UN Climate Change Negotiations. Global Environmental Change, 61, 102036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thew, H., Middlemiss, L. and Paavola, J. (2021). Does youth participation increase the democratic legitimacy of UNFCCC-orchestrated global climate change governance? Environmental Politics, 30(6), 873–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thew, H., Middlemiss, L. and Paavola, J. (2022). “You need a month’s holiday just to get over it!” Exploring young people’s lived experiences of the UN climate change negotiations. Sustainability, 14(7), 4259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vadrot, A. B. M. (2020). Multilateralism as “site” of struggle over environmental knowledge: The North-South divide. Critical Policy Studies, 14, 233–245.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Gray, P. A. (2016). Memory, body, and the online researcher: Following Russian street demonstrations via social media. American Ethnologist, 43(3), 500–510.Google Scholar
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: SAGE.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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

References

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
Betsill, M. M. and Corell, E., eds. (2008). NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of Science and Reflexivity. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
Burch, S., Gupta, A., Inoue, C. Y. A. et al. (2019). New directions in earth system governance research. Earth System Governance 1, 100006.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. (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 27, 1–32.Google Scholar
Coleman, L. M., and Hughes, H. (2014). Distance. In Aradau, C, Huysmans, J, Neal, A, and Voelkner, N, eds., Critical Security Methods: New Frameworks for Analysis. Oxon and New York; Routledge, pp. 142–158.Google Scholar
Craggs, R., and Mahony, M (2014). The geographies of the conference: Knowledge, performance and protest. Geography Compass, 8(6), 414–30Google Scholar
Death, C. (2011). Summit theatre: Exemplary governmentality and environmental diplomacy in Johannesburg and Copenhagen. Environmental Politics, 20(1), 1–19Google Scholar
Haraway, D. J. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.Google Scholar
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: SAGE.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, H., Vadrot, A., Allan, J. I. et al. (2021). Global environmental agreement-making: Upping the methodological and ethical stakes of studying negotiations. Earth System Governance, 10, 100121Google Scholar
Mackenzie, D. and Wajcman, J., eds. (1985). The Social Shaping of Technology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. B., Andonova, L. B., Axelrod, M. et al. (2020). What we know (and could know) about international environmental agreements. Global Environmental Politics, 20, 103–121.Google 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
O’Neill, K., Weinthal, E., Marion Suiseeya, K. R. et al. (2013). Methods and global environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 38, 441–471.Google Scholar
Pink, S. (2013). Doing Visual Ethnography, 3rd ed. London: SAGE.Google 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
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
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
Vadrot, A. B. M., Ruiz-Rodríguez, S. C., Brogat, E. et al. (2022). Towards a reflexive, policy-relevant and engaged ocean science for the UN decade: A social science research agenda. Earth System Governance, 14, 100150.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Vadrot, A. B. M. (2020). Multilateralism as a ‘site’ of struggle over environmental knowledge: The North–South divide. Critical Policy Studies, 14(2), 233–245.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
×