Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T13:10:39.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research Note: Reflections on Methods from an Interdisciplinary Research Project in Global Environmental Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2019

Louisa Parks Open the ORCID record for Louisa Parks [Opens in a new window]  and
Elisa Morgera Open the ORCID record for Elisa Morgera [Opens in a new window]
Louisa Parks
Affiliation:
University of Trento, School of International Studies and Department of Sociology and Social Research, Trento (Italy). Email: louisa.parks@unitn.it.
Elisa Morgera
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow (UK). Email: elisa.morgera@strath.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research note reflects on the methods (as distinct from methodology) used in a five-year interdisciplinary and multi-site research project in global environmental law, and their links to questions of research ethics. We highlight the iterative processes that proved necessary to compare five case studies on local communities engaged in varied discussions on fair and equitable benefit sharing in different regions of the world and their implications for international environmental law. The note recommends explicit reflection on research methods and ethics to acknowledge and address power relationships in global environmental law research.

Keywords

International environmental lawGlobal environmental lawResearch methodsResearch ethicsComparative case studies
Type
Symposium Article
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , November 2019 , pp. 489 - 502
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

This contribution is part of a collection of articles growing out of the conference ‘Global Environmental Law’, held at the Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow (United Kingdom (UK)), 4–5 Sept. 2017. The symposium was convened under the aegis of the BeneLex project, n. 1 below.

References

1 BeneLex, ‘Benefit-Sharing for an Equitable Transition to the Green Economy: The Role of Law’, funded by the European Research Council (Grant 335592).

2 Drawing on Walker, N., Intimations of Global Law (Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 15–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Morgera, E., ‘Bilateralism at the Service of Community Interests? Non-Judicial Enforcement of Global Public Goods in the Context of Global Environmental Law’ (2012) 23(3) European Journal of International Law, pp. 743–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 See generally Morgera, E., Buck, M. & Tsioumani, E. (eds), The Nagoya Protocol in Perspective: Implications for International Law and Implementation Challenges (Martinus Nijhoff, 2012)Google Scholar.

5 Morgera, n. 3 above, p. 761.

6 Ibid., p. 746.

7 Walker, n. 2 above, pp. 126, 148–77.

8 See Section 2. We address methodology in more depth elsewhere: see E. Morgera, L. Parks & M. Schroder, ‘Methodological Challenges of Transnational Environmental Law’, in V. Heyvaert & L.-A. Duvic-Paoli (eds), Research Handbook of Transnational Environmental Law (Edward Elgar, 2019 forthcoming).

9 E. Fisher et al., ‘Maturity and Methodology: Starting a Debate about Environmental Law Scholarship’ (2009) 21(2) Journal of International Law, pp. 213–50; and see generally A. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos & V. Brooks (eds), Research Methods in Environmental Law: A Handbook (Edward Elgar, 2017).

10 J.W. Moses & T.L. Knutsen, Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research, 2nd edn (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

11 Ibid.

12 L. Parks & E. Morgera, ‘The Need for an Interdisciplinary Approach to Norm Diffusion: The Case of Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing’ (2015) 24(3) Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, pp. 353–67.

13 See, e.g., P. Reason & H. Bradbury, The Sage Handbook of Action Research (Sage, 2008); Moses & Knutsen, n. 10 above.

14 Morgera, n. 3 above; see also Parks & Morgera, n. 12 above.

15 Parks & Morgera, n. 12 above.

16 D. Della Porta, ‘Comparative Analysis: Case-Oriented versus Variable-Oriented Research’ in D. Della Porta & M. Keating (eds), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective (Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 198–222.

17 The case studies are described in more depth in L. Parks, ‘Challenging Power from the Bottom Up? Community Protocols, Benefit Sharing, and the Challenge of Dominant Discourses’ (2018) 88 Geoforum, pp. 87–95, at 87–8.

18 Ibid.; see also Parks & Morgera, n. 12 above.

19 M. Kaldor, Global Civil Society: An Answer to War (Polity Press, 2003); A.A. Choudry & D. Kapoor, NGOization: Complicity, Contradictions and Prospects (Zed Books, 2013).

20 E. Pittaway, L. Bartolomei & R. Hugman, ‘Stop Stealing Our Stories: The Ethics of Research with Vulnerable Groups’ (2010) 2(2) Journal of Human Rights Practice, pp. 229–51.

21 For an in-depth discussion of inter- and multi-disciplinarity within the research project, see Morgera, Parks & Schroder, n. 8 above.

22 L. Parks, ‘Spaces for Local Voices? A Discourse Analysis of the Decisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity’ (2018) 9(2) Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, pp. 141–70.

23 But see G.A. Sarfaty, ‘International Norm Diffusion in the Pimicikamak Cree Nation: A Model of Legal Mediation’ (2007) 48(2) Harvard International Law Journal, pp. 441–82; E. Lees & J.E. Viñuales, The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2019); Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos & Brooks, n. 9 above.

24 This was considered a serious flaw in global law research more generally by W. Twining, ‘Diffusion of Law: A Global Perspective’ (2004) 36 Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, pp. 1–45; for discussion in an environmental law context see E. Morgera, ‘Global Environmental Law and Comparative Legal Method(s)’ (2015) 24(3) Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, pp. 254–63, at 258, 263.

25 L. Parks & E. Morgera, ‘An Inter-Disciplinary Methodology for Researching Benefit-Sharing as a Norm Diffusing in Global Environmental Law’, Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper No. 2014/42, BeneLex Working Paper No. 2, 14 Nov. 2014, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2524333.

26 Ibid.

27 D. Della Porta, ‘How Many Approaches in the Social Sciences? An Epistemological Introduction’, in D. Della Porta & M. Keating (eds), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective (Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 19–39.

28 See, e.g., U. Flick, An Introduction to Qualitative Research (Sage, 2014), p. 317.

29 See, e.g., Taylor, K.M. Blee & V., ‘Semi-Structured Interviewing in Social Movement Research’, in Klandermans, B. & Staggenborg, S. (eds), Methods of Social Movement Research (University of Minnesota Press, 2002), pp. 92–117Google Scholar.

30 Ibid.

31 See, e.g., Frankfort-Nachmias, C. & Nachmias, D., Research Methods in the Social Sciences (St Martin's Press, 1992)Google Scholar.

32 Vermeylen, S. & Clark, G., ‘An Alternative Ethics for Research: Levinas and the Unheard Voices and Unseen Faces’ (2017) 20(5) International Journal of Social Research Methodology, pp. 499–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Reason & Bradbury, n. 13 above.

34 E.g., Parks, n. 22 above.

35 Ibid.

36 Vermeylen & Clark, n. 32 above.

37 Crowhurst, I. & Kennedy-Macfoy, M., ‘Editorial. Troubling Gatekeepers: Methodological Considerations for Social Research’ (2013) 16(6) International Journal of Social Research Methodology, pp. 457–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Fisher et al., n. 9 above; Tsioumani, E., ‘Beyond Access and Benefit-Sharing: Lessons from the Law and Governance of Agricultural Biodiversity’ (2018) 21 The Journal of World Intellectual Property, pp. 106–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 E. Morgera, ‘Under the Radar: The Role of Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing in Protecting and Realising Human Rights Connected to Natural Resources’ (2019) 23(7) International Journal of Human Rights, pp. 1098–139. See also P. Marchegiani, E. Morgera & L. Parks, ‘Indigenous Peoples’ Rights to Natural Resources in Argentina: The Challenges of Impact Assessment, Consent and Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing in Cases of Lithium Mining’, BeneLex Working Paper No. 19, 17 Jan. 2019, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3317375.

40 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 5 June 1992, in force 29 Dec. 1993, available at: http://www.cbd.int/convention/text.

41 Parks, n. 22 above; Parks, n. 17 above; Parks, L. & Schroder, M., ‘What We Talk About When We Talk About “Local” Participation in International Biodiversity Law: The Changing Scope of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities’ Participation under the Convention on Biological Diversity’ (2018) 11 Participation and Conflict, pp. 743–85Google Scholar.

42 Vermeylen & Clark, n. 32 above.

43 See European Commission, ‘Ethics’ (2019), available at : https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/ethics_en.htm.

44 Morgera, E., ‘Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing at the Crossroads of the Human Right to Science and International Biodiversity Law’ (2015) 4(4) Laws, pp. 803–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Pittaway, Bartolomei & Hugman, n. 20 above.

46 Massey University, ‘A Brief Introduction to Te Ara Tika’ (undated), available at: https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Human%20Ethics/Documents/Te%20Ara%20Tika%20summary.pdf?91A1B6C1CCBE36D7116F20C62124D4EB.

47 See, e.g., CBD Secretariat, CBD Decision XIII/18, ‘Mo'otz Kuxtal Voluntary Guidelines’ (14–17 Dec. 2016), Doc. CBD/COP/DEC/XIII/18. Note that our project was not intended to draw on the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities, and we made an express commitment not to include references to any such knowledge inadvertently revealed to us in our notes. We were interested in understanding the practical constraints and legal demands of these communities, and their understanding and experience of the role of international law, if any, in protecting their traditional knowledge and traditionally owned/used resources.

48 For details of research outputs, see Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance, available at: https://www.strath.ac.uk/research/strathclydecentreenvironmentallawgovernance/benelex/researchoutputs.

49 Morgera, n. 39 above.

50 Reason & Bradbury, n. 13 above.