Conclusions

doi:10.1017/9781009179454.016

15 - Conclusions

Reflecting on the Future (Study) of Global Environmental Agreement-Making

from Part IV - Implementing and Adapting

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2023

Alice B. M. Vadrot and

Hannah Hughes

Edited by

Hannah Hughes and

Alice B. M. Vadrot

Show author details

Hannah Hughes: Affiliation:
Aberystwyth University
Alice B. M. Vadrot: Affiliation:
Universität Wien, Austria

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter brings central elements of the book to the fore, reflects the need for critical thinking, and problematizes the future of agreement-making and the study thereof. In doing so, it addresses critical questions that run through all chapters of the book: Why does it matter to “be there”? How do I navigate closeness and emotions? Is my data ever complete? What will “being there” mean in the future? Global environmental agreement-making is in constant flux, adapting to changing institutional circumstances, power relations, and new emerging environmental problems. Although the multilateral setting with its “old-fashioned” diplomatic practices and formalities creates the impression of stability, routine, and immutability, there is change and the possibility to do global environmental relations differently. We understand critical scholarship to have a vital role in illuminating enduring power relations and revealing potential openings for change and transformation to ensure agreement-making enables better collective stewardship of the Earth. This aspiration nourished the objective of this book to problematize how and why we conduct research at and on global environmental negotiations and to evaluate and expand the concepts and methods available to further this study. The chapter closes with a reflection on future research questions and themes.

Keywords

agreement-making critical thinking closeness reflexivity experiences emotions collaboration stakes participant observation fieldwork

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Conducting Research on Global Environmental Agreement-Making , pp. 285 - 300

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009179454.016 [Opens in a new window]

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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.CrossRef 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), 1–19CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef 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

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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef 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.