Book contents
- Conducting Research on Global Environmental Agreement-Making
- Series page
- Conducting Research on Global Environmental Agreement-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures, Tables and Boxes
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Developing a Methodology
- Part II Navigating Sites
- Part III Collecting and Analysing Data
- Part IV Implementing and Adapting
- 13 Experiences
- 14 Adapting
- 15 Conclusions
- Index
- References
14 - Adapting
Responding to Unforeseen Research Circumstances
from Part IV - Implementing and Adapting
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2023
Book contents
- Conducting Research on Global Environmental Agreement-Making
- Series page
- Conducting Research on Global Environmental Agreement-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures, Tables and Boxes
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Developing a Methodology
- Part II Navigating Sites
- Part III Collecting and Analysing Data
- Part IV Implementing and Adapting
- 13 Experiences
- 14 Adapting
- 15 Conclusions
- Index
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Conducting Research on Global Environmental Agreement-Making , pp. 267 - 284Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
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. (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. (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