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
- 8 Texts
- 9 Interviews
- 10 Ethnography
- 11 Collaboration
- 12 Networks
- Part IV Implementing and Adapting
- Index
- References
11 - Collaboration
Working Together Across Time and Space
from Part III - Collecting and Analysing Data
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
- 8 Texts
- 9 Interviews
- 10 Ethnography
- 11 Collaboration
- 12 Networks
- Part IV Implementing and Adapting
- Index
- References
Summary
As the configuration of global environmental governance has become more complex over the past fifty years, numerous scholars have underscored the importance of understanding the transnational networks of public, private, and nonprofit organizations that comprise it. Collaborative Event Ethnography (CEE) is a relational methodology that aims to capture the dynamics of these constantly shifting networks. CEE draws on multisited, team, and institutional ethnography to assemble teams of researchers to study major international conferences, which offer important political spaces where these networks can be observed. Drawing on more than ten years of experience with CEE, we argue that strong approaches to collaboration offer rich opportunities for analyses of global environmental governance. In CEE, researchers collaborate on all aspects of the research process, from research design to analysis to writing. The aim of this chapter is to introduce CEE, providing a history of its development, reviewing the benefits and challenges of CEE, reflecting on the theoretical insights generated through CEE in relation to understanding environmental agreement-making, and offering practical guidance for researchers interested in using the methodology. Going beyond CEE, the chapter also considers collaboration in the context of the broader scholarly landscape.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Conducting Research on Global Environmental Agreement-Making , pp. 210 - 227Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Further Reading
1.Choy, T. K., Faier, L., Hathaway, M. J. et al. (2009a). Strong Collaboration as a Method for Multi-Sited Ethnography: On Mycorrhizal Relations. In Falzon, M.-A. (Ed.), Multi-Sited Ethnography: Theory, Praxis and Locality in Contemporary Research. New York: Routledge, pp. 197–214.Google Scholar
For those readers interested in strong collaboration, and how it differs from more common models of collaboration, this chapter elaborates on the relevant methodological and theoretical considerations.Google Scholar
2.Corson, C., Campbell, L. M., Wilshusen, P., and Gray, N. J. (2019). Assembling Global Conservation Governance. Geoforum 103, 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
In this paper, we elaborate on how the concept of “assemblage” can be used to understand GEG. We also consider the iterative development of theory and methodology in CEE in more detail.Google Scholar
3.Erickson, K., and Stull, D. (1998). Doing Team Ethnography: Warnings and Advice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For those interested in conducting CEE, this book provides more extensive and detailed advice regarding how to conduct ethnography collaboratively.Google Scholar
4.Sword, H. (2017). Air & Light & Time & Space: How Successful Academics Write. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
See, in particular, chapter 8 (pp. 123–134), which reflects on the collaborative writing process, including challenges, positive aspects, approaches, and resources for further reflection and learning. Chapter 9 (pp. 135–146) explores the benefits of writing retreats.Google Scholar
References
Bebbington, A., and Kothari, U. (2006). Transnational Development Networks. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 38(5), 849–886.Google Scholar
Billo, E., and Mountz, A. (2015). For Institutional Ethnography: Geographical Approaches to Institutions and the Everyday. Progress in Human Geography, 40(2), 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brosius, J., and Campbell, L. (2010). Collaborative Event Ethnography: Conservation and development trade-offs at the fourth world conservation congress. Conservation and Society, 8(4), 245–255.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. M., Corson, C., Gray, N. J. et al. (2014). Studying Global Environmental Meetings to Understand Global Environmental Governance: Collaborative Event Ethnography of the 10th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Environmental Politics, 14(3), 1–20.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. M., and Gray, N. J. (2019). Area Expansion Versus Effective and Equitable Management in International Marine Protected Areas Goals and Targets. Marine Policy, 100, 192–199.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. M., Gray, N. J., Fairbanks, L. W., Silver, J. J., and Gruby, R. L. 2013. Oceans at Rio+20. Conservation Letters, 6(6), 439–447.Google Scholar
CBD (2020). Zero Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. (CBD/WG2020/2/3). www.cbd.int/doc/c/efb0/1f84/a892b98d2982a829962b6371/wg2020-02-03-en.pdf.Google Scholar
Charles, A., Westlund, L., Bartley, D. M. et al. (2016). Fishing Livelihoods as Key to Marine Protected Areas: Insights from the World Parks Congress. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 26(S2), 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choy, T. K., Faier, L., Hathaway, M. J. et al. (2009b). A New Form of Collaboration in Cultural Anthropology: Matsutake Worlds. American Ethnologist, 36(2), 380–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corson, C., Brady, B., Zuber, A., Lord, J., and Kim, A. (2015). The Right to Resist: Disciplining Civil Society at Rio+20. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 42(3–4), 859–878.Google Scholar
Corson, C., Campbell, L., and MacDonald, K. I. (2014a). Capturing the Personal in Politics: Ethnographies of Global Environmental Governance. Global Environmental Politics, 14(3), 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corson, C., Gruby, R. L., Witter, R. et al. (2014b). Everyone’s Solution? Defining and Re-defining Protected Areas in the Convention on Biological Diversity. Conservation and Society, 12(2), 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corson, C., MacDonald, K. I., and Neimark, B. (2013). Grabbing “Green”: Markets, Environmental Governance and the Materialization of Natural Capital. Human Geography, 6(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Creamer, E. G. (2005). Promoting the Effective Evaluation of Collaboratively Produced Scholarship: A Call to Action. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 102, 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.198.Google Scholar
Creese, A., and Blackledge, A. (2012). Voice and Meaning-Making in Team Ethnography. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 43(3), 306–324.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
Gerstl-Pepin, C. I., and Gunzenhauser, M. G. (2002). Collaborative Team Ethnography and the Paradoxes of Interpretation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(2), 137–154.Google Scholar
Gray, N. J. (2018). Charted Waters? Tracking the Production of Conservation Territories on the High Seas. International Social Science Journal, 68(229–230), 257–272.Google 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
Gray, N. J., Gruby, R., and Campbell, L. M. (2014). Boundary Objects and Global Consensus: Scalar Narratives of Marine Conservation in the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Environmental Politics, 14(3), 64–83.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: Economy and Space, 45(9), 2046–2063.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, 100121.Google Scholar
Kanie, N., and Biermann, F. (2017). Governing through Goals: Sustainable Development Goals as Governance Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kern, L. R., Hawkins, R., Al-Hindi, K. F., and Moss, P. (2014). A Collective Biography of Joy in Academic Practice. Social & Cultural Geography, 15(7), 834–851.Google Scholar
Lewis, D., Bebbington, A., Batterbury, S. et al. (2003). Practice, Power and Meaning: Frameworks for Studying Organizational Culture in Multi-Agency Rural Development Projects. Journal of International Development, 15(5), 541–557.Google Scholar
Liboiron, M., Ammendolia, J., Winsor, K. et al. (2017). Equity in Author Order: A Feminist Laboratory’s Approach. Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience, 3(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117.Google 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
Massé, F., Dickinson, H., Margulies, J., Joanny, L., Lappe-Osthege, T., and Duffy, R. (2020). Conservation and Crime Convergence? Situating the 2018 London Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference. Journal of Political Ecology, 27 (1), 23–42.Google Scholar
Mountz, A., Bonds, A., Mansfield, B. et al. (2015). For Slow Scholarship: A Feminist Politics of Resistance through Collective Action in the Neoliberal University. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 14(4), 1235–1259.Google Scholar
Nader, L. (1972). Up the Anthropologist: Perspectives Gained from Studying Up. In Hymes, D. H. (Ed.), Reinventing Anthropology. New York: Pantheon Books, pp. 284–311.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
Silver, J. J., Gray, N. J., Campbell, L. M., Fairbanks, L. W., and Gruby, R. L. (2015). Blue Economy and Competing Discourses in International Oceans Governance. The Journal of Environment & Development, 24(2), 135–160.Google Scholar
Smith, D. (1987). The Everyday World As Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, D., ed. (2006). Institutional Ethnography as Practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.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
Wilshusen, P., and MacDonald, K. I. (2017). Fields of Green: Corporate Sustainability and the Production of Economistic Environmental Governance. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 49, 1824–1845.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 4
- Cited by