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-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T22:20:42.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Ethnography

From Method to Methodology at Plural Sites of Agreement-Making

from Part III - Collecting and Analysing Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2023

By
Kimberly R. Marion Suiseeya  and
Laura Zanotti
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

What does it mean to engage ethnography in the study of global environmental politics, particularly at sites of global agreement-making? This chapter explores how different forms of ethnography, including traditional field-based, digital, visual, and spatial approaches, can uncover and interrogate the hidden dynamics that shape the production of global environmental governance. The chapter introduces readers to how ethnographic approaches to these sites have inspired new ways of asking questions about global environmental politics. It considers the opportunities and challenges of adopting transdisciplinary and feminist approaches to ethnography, both in terms of practical concerns in the field and broader disciplinary concerns. It further provides a toolkit for designing ethnographic research with significant attention to the ethical dimensions of ethnography, from project conception through to results communication and data stewardship across the life of the project.

Keywords

ethnographypowerethicsreflexivityglobal environmental governance
Type
Chapter
Information
Conducting Research on Global Environmental Agreement-Making , pp. 186 - 209
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.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
This special issue includes a collection of articles that emerged from a collaborative event ethnography at one site: the Tenth Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. It provides an introduction into the diverse ways in which scholars have used ethnography at a global agreement-making site.Google Scholar
2.Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., and Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
This volume is a must-have practical guide for researchers engaging ethnography. It covers the entire ethnographic process from research development to data collection, analysis, and write-up.Google Scholar
3.Lightfoot, S. (2016). Global Indigenous Politics: A Subtle Revolution. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Pachirat, T. (2017). Among Wolves: Ethnography and the Immersive Study of Power. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
This book presents ethnography in a six-act play, drawing the reader deeply into the various ethical, epistemological, and practical considerations that ethnographers confront. It helps students understand what it means to cultivate an ethnographic sensibility.Google Scholar
5.Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2021). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
This volume is essential for all researchers, especially those who study power and politics. By engaging researchers in questions of how, why, and with/for whom we do research, Tuhiwai Smith demonstrates how researchers can and should practice iterative reflexivity throughout their work.Google Scholar

References

Adeyeye, Y., Hagerman, S., and Pelai, R. (2019). Seeking procedural equity in global environmental governance: Indigenous participation and knowledge politics in forest and landscape restoration debates at the 2016 World Conservation Congress. Forest Policy and Economics, 109, 102006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ali, T., Paton, D., Buergelt, P. T. et al. (2021). Integrating indigenous perspectives and community-based disaster risk reduction: A pathway for sustainable indigenous development in Northern Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balazs, C. L., and Morello-Frosch, R. (2013). The three Rs: How community-based participatory research strengthens the rigor, relevance, and reach of science. Environmental Justice, 6(1), 9–16.Google Scholar
Barnett, M., and Duvall, R. (2005). Power in international politics. International Organization, 59(1), 39–75.Google Scholar
Behar, R. (1996). The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology that Breaks Your Heart. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Benjamin, R. (2016). Informed refusal: Toward a justice-based bioethics. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(6), 967–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, H. R. (2017). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 5th ed. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Betsill, M., and Correll, E., eds. (2008). NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beyers, F., and Heinrichs, H. (2020). Global partnerships for a textile transformation? A systematic literature review on inter-and transnational collaborative governance of the textile and clothing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 261, 12113.Google Scholar
Boellstorff, T., Nardi, B., Pearce, C., and Taylor, T. L. (2012). Ethnography and Virtual Worlds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brosius, J. P. (2006). What counts as local knowledge in global environmental assessments and conventions. Bridging scales and knowledge systems: concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment, 129–144.Google Scholar
Brosius, J. P., and Campbell, L. M. (2010). Collaborative event ethnography: Conservation and development trade-offs at the fourth world conservation congress. Conservation and Society, 8(4), 245–255.Google Scholar
Brumann, C. (2021). The Best We Share: Nation, Culture and World-making in the UNESCO World Heritage Arena. Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Calliari, E., Serdeczny, O., and Vanhala, L. (2020). Making sense of the politics in the climate change loss and damage debate. Global Environmental Change, 64, 102133.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., Tiwari, R., and Banerji, H. (2021). Migrants’ narratives on urban governance: A case from Kolkata, a city of the global south. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13021009.Google Scholar
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Clemons, T., Faas, A. J., Genovese, T. R. et al. (2018). What's in your bag, anthropologists? Anthropology News, 59(4), e208–e220.Google Scholar
Collins, S. G., Durington, M., and Gill, H. (2021). Multimodal anthropologies. American Anthropologist, 123(1), 142–146.Google Scholar
Conklin, B. A. (1997). Body paint, feathers, and VCRs: Aesthetics and authenticity in Amazonian activism. American Ethnologist, 24(4), 711–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbin, J. M., and Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.Google Scholar
Corson, C., Brady, B., Zuber, A., Lord, J., and Kim, A. (2015). The right to resist: Disciplining civil society at Rio+ 20. Journal of Peasant Studies, 42(3–4), 859–878.Google Scholar
Corson, C., Campbell, L. M., and MacDonald, K. I. (2014). Capturing the personal in politics: Ethnographies of global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 14(3), 21–40.Google Scholar
Corson, C., Worcester, J., Rogers, S., and Flores-Ganley, I. (2020). From paper to practice? Assembling a rights-based conservation approach. Journal of Political Ecology, 27(1), 1128–1147.Google Scholar
De Moor, J. (2018). The “efficacy dilemma” of transnational climate activism: The case of COP21. Environmental Politics, 27(6), 1079–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Pryck, K. (2020). Intergovernmental expert consensus in the making: The case of the summary for policy makers of the IPCC 2014 synthesis report. Global Environmental Politics, 21(1), 108–129. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00574.Google Scholar
Death, C. (2011). Summit theatre: Exemplary governmentality and environmental diplomacy in Johannesburg and Copenhagen. Environmental Politics, 20(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Dicks, B., Soyinka, B., and Coffey, A. (2006). Multimodal ethnography. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doolittle, A. A. (2010). The politics of indigeneity: Indigenous strategies for inclusion in climate change negotiations. Conservation and Society 8(4), 286–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastwood, L. E. (2013). The Social Organization of Policy: An Institutional Ethnography of UN Forest Deliberations. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastwood, L. E. (2018). Negotiating the Environment: Civil Society, Globalisation and the UN. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Eastwood, L. E. (2021). Using institutional ethnography to investigate intergovernmental environmental policy-making. In Luken, P. C and Vaughan, S, eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Institutional Ethnography. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 193–211.Google Scholar
Fletcher, R. (2014). Orchestrating consent: Post-politics and intensification of Nature™ Inc. at the 2012 World Conservation Congress. Conservation and Society, 12(3), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, N. J. (2010). Sea change: Exploring the international effort to promote marine protected areas. Conservation and Society, 8(4), 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, N. J., Corson, C., Campbell, L. M. et al. (2020). Doing strong collaborative fieldwork in human geography. Geographical Review, 110(1–2), 117–132.Google Scholar
Griffin, L. (2012). Where is power in governance? Why geography matters in the theory of governance. Political Studies Review, 10(2), 208–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, A. (2002). Wondrous Difference: Cinema, Anthropology, and Turn-Of-The-Century Visual Culture. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gruby, R. L., and Campbell, L. M. (2013). Scalar politics and the region: Strategies for transcending Pacific Island smallness on a global environmental governance stage. Environment and Planning A, 45(9), 2046–2063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagerman, S., Witter, R., Corson, L. et al. (2012). On the coattails of climate? Opportunities and threats of a warming Earth for biodiversity conservation. Global Environmental Change, 22(3), 724–735.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. (1992). The promises of monsters: A regenerative politics for inappropriate/d others. In Grossberg, L., Nelson, C., & Treichler, P., eds., Cultural Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 295–337.Google Scholar
Hughes, H., and Vadrot, A. B. (2019). Weighting the world: IPBES and the struggle over biocultural diversity. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankowski, F., Louafi, S., Kane, N. A. et al. (2020). From texts to enacting practices: Defining fair and equitable research principles for plant genetic resources in West Africa. Agriculture and Human Values, 37(4), 1083–1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10039-3.Google Scholar
Jaworski, A., and Thurlow, C., eds. (2010). Semiotic Landscapes: Language, Image, Space. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. C., Avenarius, C., and Weatherford, J. (2006). The active participant-observer: Applying social role analysis to participant observation. Field Methods, 18(2), 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, P. W., and Lora-Wainwright, A. (2015). Exporting harm, scavenging value: Transnational circuits of e-waste between Japan, China and beyond. Area, 47(1), 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukutai, T., and Taylor, J. (2016). Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda, Canberra: Australia National University Press.Google Scholar
Kuschnir, K. (2016). Ethnographic drawing: Eleven benefits of using a scketchbox for fieldwork. Visual Ethnography, 5(1), 103–134.Google Scholar
Larsen, P. B., and Buckley, K. (2018). Approaching human rights at the World Heritage Committee: Capturing situated conversations, complexity, and dynamism in global heritage processes. International Journal of Cultural Property, 25(1), 85–110.Google Scholar
Little, P. E. (1995). Ritual, power and ethnography at the Rio Earth Summit. Critique of Anthropology, 15(3), 265–288.Google Scholar
Lövbrand, E., Hjerpe, M., and Linnér, B. O. (2017). Making climate governance global: How UN Climate Summitry comes to matter in a complex climate regime. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 580–599.Google Scholar
Low, S. M., and Merry, S. E. (2010). Engaged anthropology: Diversity and dilemmas: An introduction to supplement 2. Current Anthropology, 51(S2), S203–S226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, J., and Levin, J. (2015). Hanging out in international politics: Two kinds of explanatory political ethnography for IR. International Studies Review, 17(2), 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGranahan, C., ed. (2020). Writing Anthropology: Essays on Craft and Commitment. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, K. I. (2010). Business, biodiversity and new “fields” of conservation: The world conservation congress and the renegotiation of organisational order. Conservation and Society, 8(4), 256–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24(1), 95–117.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. E. (2008). The end(s) of ethnography: Social/cultural anthropology's signature form of producing knowledge in transition. Cultural Anthropology, 23(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Marion Suiseeya, K. R. (2014). Negotiating the Nagoya Protocol: Indigenous demands for justice. Global Environmental Politics, 14(3), 102–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marion Suiseeya, K. R., and Zanotti, L. (2019). Making influence visible: Innovating ethnography at the Paris climate summit. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2), 38–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marion Suiseeya, K. R., Zanotti, L., and Haapala, K. (2021). Navigating the spaces between human rights and justice: Cultivating Indigenous representation in global environmental governance. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 49(3), 604–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1835869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, S., Mahanty, S., To, P. et al. (2019). Learning from “actually existing” REDD+ A synthesis of ethnographic findings. Conservation and Society, 17(1), 84–95.Google Scholar
Monfreda, C. (2010). Setting the stage for new global knowledge: science, economics, and indigenous knowledge in “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” at the Fourth World Conservation Congress. Conservation and Society, 8(4), 276–285.Google Scholar
Peña, P. (2010). NTFP and REDD at the fourth world conservation congress: What is in and what is not. Conservation and Society, 8(4), 292–297.Google Scholar
Pickering, J. (2019). Deliberative ecologies: Complexity and social–ecological dynamics in international environmental negotiations. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2), 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pink, S. (2009). Doing Sensory Ethnography. New York: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pink, S., and Morgan, J. (2013). Short-term ethnography: Intense routes to knowing. Symbolic Interaction, 36(3), 351–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przybylski, L. (2020). Hybrid Ethnography: Online, Offline, and In Between, New York: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Rinehart, R. E., and Earl, K. (2016). Auto-, duo-and collaborative-ethnographies: “Caring” in an audit culture climate. Qualitative Research Journal, 16(16), 210–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saldaña, J. (2014). Coding and analysis strategies. In Leavy, P., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, H. T., ed. (2014). Convention Center Follies. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, F. C. (2015). Elucidating Social Science Concepts: An Interpretivist Guide, vol. 4. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatz, E., ed. (2009). Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scott, D., Hitchner, S., Maclin, E. M., and Dammert B, J. L. (2014). Fuel for the fire: Biofuels and the problem of translation at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Environmental Politics, 14(3), 84–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, A. (2014). Mohawk Interruptus, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P. et al. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond – lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26, 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thatcher, J., O’Sullivan, D., and Mahmoudi, D. (2016). Data colonialism through accumulation by dispossession: New metaphors for daily data. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(6), 990–1006.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.Google Scholar
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.Google Scholar
Tuck, E. and Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Vadrot, A. B. M. (2020a). Multilateralism as a “site” of struggle over environmental knowledge: The north-south divide. Critical Policy Studies, 14(2), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2020.1768131.Google Scholar
Vadrot, A. B. M. (2020b). Building authority and relevance in the early history of IPBES. Environmental Science and Policy, 113, 14–20.Google Scholar
Vadrot, A., Langlet, A., and Tessnow-von Wysocki, I. (2021a). Who owns marine biodiversity? Contesting the world order through the “common heritage of humankind” principle. Environmental Politics, 31(2), 226–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vadrot, A., Langlet, A., Tessnow-von Wysocki, I. et al. (2021b). Marine biodiversity negotiations during COVID-19: A new role for digital diplomacy? Global Environmental Politics, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vine Deloria, J. R. (1997). Anthros, Indians, and planetary reality. In Biolsi, T. and Zimmerman, L. J., eds., Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria, Jr., and the Critique of Anthropology, Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press, pp. 209–222.Google Scholar
Wedeen, L. (2010). Reflections on ethnographic work in political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 13, 255–272.Google Scholar
Widick, R., and Foran, J. (2016). Whose utopia? Our utopia! Competing visions of the future at the UN climate talks. Nature and Culture, 11(3), 296–321.Google Scholar
Wilmer, H., Meadow, A. M., Brymer, A. B. et al. (2021). Expanded ethical principles for research partnership and transdisciplinary natural resource management science. Environmental Management, 68(4), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01508-4.Google Scholar
Witter, R., Marion Suiseeya, K. R., Gruby, R. L. et al. (2015). Moments of influence in global environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 24(6), 894–912.Google Scholar
Wolfinger, N. H. (2002). On writing fieldnotes: Collection strategies and background expectancies. Qualitative Research, 2(1), 85–93.Google Scholar
Zanotti, L. and Marion Suiseeya, K. R. (2020). Doing feminist collaborative event ethnography. Journal of Political Ecology, 27(1), 961–987.Google Scholar
Zanotti, L. and Palomino-Schalscha, M. (2016). Taking different ways of knowing seriously: Cross-cultural work as translations and multiplicity. Sustainability Science, 11(1), 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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
×