1.Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis: An introduction. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar

A useful practical guide that provides overview of various types of discourse analysis.Google Scholar

2.Johnstone, B. (2017). Discourse analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

This book includes theoretical and practical advice on how to locate context, roles, and power in text.Google Scholar

3.Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods, practice and using software. Sage.Google Scholar

This book provides a wide-ranging look at qualitative text analysis, including hermeneutics, various qualitative text analysis methods, and computer assistance. It provides practical advice throughout.Google Scholar

4.Grimmer, J., and Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3),267–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

For those considering using computer models to identify commonalities or patterns in large amounts of text, this is a helpful resource on the use of such techniques.Google Scholar

Allan, J. I. (2018). Seeking entry: Discursive hooks and NGOs in global climate politics. Global Policy, 9(4),560–569.Google Scholar

Allan, J. I. (2020). The new climate activism: NGO authority and participation in global climate governance. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barkemeyer, R. (2017). Climate policy: Uncovering ocean-related priorities. Nature Climate Change, 7(11),761–762.Google Scholar

Baya-Laffite, J., Gray, I., De Pryck, K, et al. (2014). Absolute and relative visibility of countries in the UNFCCC negotiations, 1995–2013. http://climaps.eu/#!/map/absolute-and-relative-visibility-of-countries-in-the-unfccc-negotiations-1995-2013.Google Scholar

Baya-Laffite, N., and Cointet, J. P. (2016). Mapping topics in international climate negotiations: A computer-assisted semantic network approach. In Kaun, A. and Kubitschko, S., eds., Innovative methods in media and communication research. London: Palgrave-Macmillan, pp. 273–291.Google Scholar

Benedick, R. (1998). Ozone diplomacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Betsill, M. M., and Corell, E., eds. (2008). NGO diplomacy: The influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environmental negotiations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Biniaz, S. (2016). Comma but differentiated responsibilities: Punctuation and 30 other ways negotiators have resolved issues in the international climate change regime. Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law, 6(1),37.Google Scholar

Blaxekjær, L. Ø., and Nielsen, T. D. (2015). Mapping the narrative positions of new political groups under the UNFCCC. Climate Policy, 15(6),751–766.Google Scholar

Brun, A. (2016). Conference diplomacy: The making of the Paris Agreement. Politics and Governance, 4(3),115–123.Google Scholar

Clark, P., and Stothard, M. (2015). “COP21: US adds weight to group pushing for strong climate deal.” Financial Times. www.ft.com/content/d690ddea-9ec2-11e5-b45d-4812f209f861.Google Scholar

Depledge, J. (2005). The organization of international negotiations: Constructing the climate change regime. London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar

Engfeldt, L-G. (2009). From Stockholm to Johannesburg and beyond. Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Hadden, J., and Seybert, L. A. (2016). What’s in a norm: Mapping the norm definition process in the debate on sustainable development. Global Governance, 22(2),249–268.Google Scholar

Hein, J., Guarin, A., Frommé, E., and Pauw, P. (2018). Deforestation and the Paris climate agreement: An assessment of REDD+ in the national climate action plans. Forest Policy and Economics, 90,7–11.Google Scholar

Jernnäs, M., and Linnér, B. O. (2019). A discursive cartography of nationally determined contributions to the Paris climate agreement. Global Environmental Change, 55,73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kamau, M., Chasek, P., and O’Connor, D. (2018). Transforming multilateral diplomacy: The inside story of the sustainable development goals. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kemp, L. (2016). Bypassing the ‘ratification straitjacket’: Reviewing US legal participation in a climate agreement. Climate Policy, 16(8),1011–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klein, D., Carazo, M. P., Doelle, M. Bulmer, J. and Higham, A., eds. (2019). The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Analysis and commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McConnell, F. (1996). The Biodiversity Convention: A negotiating history. London: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar

Meadowcroft, J., and Fiorino, D., eds. (2017). Conceptual innovation in global environmental governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Mills-Novoa, M., and Liverman, D. M. (2019). Nationally determined contributions: Material climate commitments and discursive positioning in the NDCs. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 10(5),e589.Google Scholar

Morgera, E., and Tsioumani, E. (2010). Yesterday, today, and tomorrow: Looking afresh at the Convention on Biological Diversity. Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 21(1),3–40.Google Scholar

Pouliot, V., and Thérien, J. P. (2018). Global governance in practice. Global Policy, 9(2), 163–172.Google Scholar

Prior, L. (2008). Repositioning documents in social research. Sociology, 42(5),821–836.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thew, H., Middlemiss, L., and Paavola, J. (2021). Does youth participation increase the democratic legitimacy of UNFCCC-orchestrated global climate change governance? Environmental Politics, 30(6),873–894.Google Scholar

Thew, H., Middlemiss, L., and Paavola, J. (2022). “You need a month’s holiday just to get over it!” Exploring young people’s lived experiences of the UN Climate Change Negotiations. Sustainability, 14 (7),4259.Google Scholar

Tørstad, V., and Sælen, H. (2018). Fairness in the climate negotiations: What explains variation in parties’ expressed conceptions? Climate Policy, 18(5),642–654.Google Scholar

Venturini, T., Baya-Laffite, N., Cointet, J.-P. et al. (2014). Three maps and three misunderstandings: A digital mapping of climate diplomacy. Big Data & Society 1(2),1–19.Google Scholar

1.Burnham, P., Gilland Lutz, K., Grant, W. and Layton-Henry, Z. (2008). Elite Interviewing. In Burnham, P., Gilland Lutz, K, Grant, W, and Layton-Henry, Z (eds.), Research Methods in Politics. 1st ed. Basingstoke: Red Globe Press, pp. 231–46.Google Scholar

The chapter is an accessible and relatively short introduction to the technique and various steps of elite interviewing for political science research.Google Scholar

2.Korkea-Aho, E. and Leino, P. (2019). Interviewing Lawyers: A Critical Self-Reflection on Expert Interviews as a Method of EU Legal Research. European Journal of Legal Studies 12, 17–47.Google Scholar

This paper discusses the personal experiences of the authors – who are legal researchers – in respect of expert interviews.Google Scholar

3.Mosley, L., ed. (2013). Interview Research in Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

The book aims to provide a comprehensive guide to graduate students and faculty on interview-based research in political science.Google Scholar

Aberbach, J. D. and Rockman, B. A. (2002). Conducting and Coding Elite Interviews. PS: Political Science and Politics 35(4), 673–6.Google Scholar

Allan, J. I. (2020). The New Climate Activism: NGO Authority and Participation in Climate Change Governance. Toronto: Toronto University Press.Google Scholar

Berry, J. M. (2002). Validity and Reliability Issues In Elite Interviewing. PS: Political Science & Politics 35(4),679–82.Google Scholar

Bogner, A., Littig, B. and Menz, W., eds. (2009). Interviewing Experts. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Burnham, P., Gilland, K. Grant, W. and Layton-Henry, Z. (2008). Research Methods in Politics. 1st ed. Basingstoke: Red Globe Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dexter, L. A. (1970). Elite and Specialized Interviewing. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Doel, R. E. (2003). Oral History of American Science: A Forty-Year Review. History of Science 41(4),349–78.Google Scholar

Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (1996). Global Risk, Uncertainty, and Ignorance. In Kasperson, J. and Kasperson, R., eds., Global Environmental Risk. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, pp. 173–94.Google Scholar

George, A. L. and Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Goldstein, K. (2002). Getting in the Door: Sampling and Completing Elite Interviews. PS: Political Science and Politics 35(4),669–72.Google Scholar

Hughes, H. and Vadrot, A. (2019). Weighting the World: IPBES and the Struggle over Biocultural Diversity. Global Environmental Politics 19(2),14–37.Google Scholar

Korkea-Aho, E. and Leino, P. (2019). Interviewing Lawyers: A Critical Self-Reflection on Expert Interviews as a Method of EU Legal Research. European Journal of Legal Studies 12,17–47.Google Scholar

Leech, B. L. (2002). Asking Questions: Techniques for Semistructured Interviews. Political Science and Politics 35(4),665–8.Google Scholar

Pierce, R. (2008). Research Methods in Politics: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Shopes, L. (2014). ‘Insights and Oversights’: Reflections on the Documentary Tradition and the Theoretical Turn in Oral History. The Oral History Review 41(2),257–68.Google Scholar

Stephens, N. (2007). Collecting Data from Elites and Ultra Elites: Telephone and Face-to-Face Interviews with Macroeconomists. Qualitative Research 7(2),203–6.Google Scholar

Suganami, H. (1999). Agents, Structures, Narratives. European Journal of International Relations 5(3),365–86.Google Scholar

Toussaint, P. (2021). Loss and Damage and Climate Litigation: The Case for Greater Interlinkage. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 30(1),16–33.Google Scholar

Vadrot, A. B. M. (2014). The Politics of Knowledge and Global Biodiversity. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Weiner, C. (1988). Oral History of Science: A Mushrooming Cloud? The Journal of American History 75(2), 548–59.Google Scholar

Yamineva, Y. (2017). Lessons from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Inclusiveness across Geographies and Stakeholders. Environmental Science & Policy 77,244–51.Google Scholar

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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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

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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar

Doolittle, A. A. (2010). The politics of indigeneity: Indigenous strategies for inclusion in climate change negotiations. Conservation and Society 8(4), 286–291.Google Scholar

Eastwood, L. E. (2013). The Social Organization of Policy: An Institutional Ethnography of UN Forest Deliberations. London: Routledge.Google 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.Google Scholar

Gray, N. J. (2010). Sea change: Exploring the international effort to promote marine protected areas. Conservation and Society, 8(4), 331–338.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

Griffin, L. (2012). Where is power in governance? Why geography matters in the theory of governance. Political Studies Review, 10(2), 208–220.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.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.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar

Pink, S. (2009). Doing Sensory Ethnography. New York: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Pink, S., and Morgan, J. (2013). Short-term ethnography: Intense routes to knowing. Symbolic Interaction, 36(3), 351–361.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar

Schaffer, F. C. (2015). Elucidating Social Science Concepts: An Interpretivist Guide, vol. 4. London: Routledge.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar

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.Google 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.Google 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

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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.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, 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.Google 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

1.Borgatti, S., Everett, M., and Freeman, L. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar

This is the “entry level” software for carrying out SNA. It is simple to use and generates both statistical analysis and network visualizations. It can be downloaded here: https://sites.google.com/site/ucinetsoftware/home.Google Scholar

2.Borgatti, S., Everett, M., and Johnson, J. (2018). Analyzing Social Networks. London: Sage.Google Scholar

This is specifically designed to introduce you to the ucinet software.Google Scholar

3.Hadden, J. (2015). Networks in Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

This is a particularly fine use of SNA in relation to environmental negotiations. It tracks NGO and social movement activism at UNFCCC COPs, and it shows how the spread of more confrontational tactics amongst movement actors in the run-up to the Copenhagen COP in 2009 was shaped by the structure of the networks of NGOs.Google Scholar

4.Scott, J. (2012). Social Network Analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

This is a readable, clear textbook on SNA, describing its underlying assumptions, key concepts and terms, and basic procedures regarding data collection analysis extremely effectively.Google Scholar

Alter, K., and Meunier, S. (2009). The Politics of International Regime Complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1),13–24.Google Scholar

Böhmelt, T., Koubi, V., and Bernauer, T. (2014). Civil Society Participation in Global Governance: Insights from Climate Politics. European Journal of Political Research 53(1),18–36.Google Scholar

Cao, X., and Ward, H. (2017). Transnational Climate Governance Networks and Domestic Regulatory Action. International Interactions, 43(1),76–102.Google Scholar

Carroll, W. (2010). The Making of a Transnational Capitalist Class. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar

Corbera, E., Calvet-Mir, L., Hughes, H., and Paterson, M. (2016). Patterns of Authorship in the IPCC Working Group III Report. Nature Climate Change, 6(1),94–99.Google Scholar

Fisher, D. R., Leifeld, P., and Iwaki, Y. (2013). Mapping the Ideological Networks of American Climate Politics. Climatic Change, 116(3–4),523–545.Google Scholar

Frank, D. (1999). The Social Bases of Environmental Treaty Ratification, 1900–1990. Sociological Inquiry, 69(4),523–550.Google Scholar

Fransen, L., Schalk, J., and Auld, G. (2016). Work Ties Beget Community? Assessing Interactions among Transnational Private Governance Organizations in Sustainable Agriculture. Global Networks, 16(1),45–67.Google Scholar

Green, J. F. (2013). Order out of Chaos: Public and Private Rules for Managing Carbon. Global Environmental Politics, 13(2),1–25.Google Scholar

Hadden, J. (2014). Explaining Variation in Transnational Climate Change Activism: The Role of Inter-Movement Spillover. Global Environmental Politics, 14(2),7–25.Google Scholar

Henriksen, L. F., and Ponte, S. (2018). Public Orchestration, Social Networks, and Transnational Environmental Governance: Lessons from the Aviation Industry. Regulation & Governance, 12(1),23–45.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, M. (2017). Exploring Constitution and Social Construction Through Network Analysis. In Barkin, J. S. and Sjoberg, L., eds., Interpretive Quantification: Methodological Explorations for Critical and Constructivist IR. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 72–95.Google Scholar

Hollway, J., and Koskinen, J. (2016). Multilevel Embeddedness: The Case of the Global Fisheries Governance Complex. Social Networks, 44(January), 281–294.Google Scholar

Hughes, H., and Paterson, M. (2017). Narrowing the Climate Field: The Symbolic Power of Authors in the IPCC’s Assessment of Mitigation. Review of Policy Research, 34(6),744–766.Google Scholar

Kim, R. (2013). The Emergent Network Structure of the Multilateral Environmental Agreement System. Global Environmental Change, 23(5),980–991.Google Scholar

Marsden, P. (2005). Recent Developments in Network Measurement. In Carrington, P. J., Scott, J., and Wasserman, S., eds., Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 8–30.Google Scholar

Marsden, P. (1990). Network Data and Measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1),435–463.Google Scholar

Morin, J.-F., Louafi, S., Orsini, A., and Oubenal, M. (2017). Boundary Organizations in Regime Complexes: A Social Network Profile of IPBES. Journal of International Relations and Development, 20(3),543–577.Google Scholar

Morin, J.-F., Pauwelyn, J., and Hollway, J. (2017). The Trade Regime as a Complex Adaptive System: Exploration and Exploitation of Environmental Norms in Trade Agreements. Journal of International Economic Law, 20(2),365–390.Google Scholar

Paterson, M. (2019). Using Negotiation Sites for Richer Collection of Network Data. Global Environmental Politics, 19(2),81–92.Google Scholar

Paterson, M., Hoffmann, M., Betsill, M., and Bernstein, S. (2014). The Micro Foundations of Policy Diffusion Toward Complex Global Governance An Analysis of the Transnational Carbon Emission Trading Network. Comparative Political Studies, 47(3),420–449.Google Scholar

Pearce, W., Holmberg, K., Hellsten, I., and Nerlich, B. (2014). Climate Change on Twitter: Topics, Communities and Conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 Report. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e94785.Google Scholar

Raustiala, K., and Victor, D. (2004). The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources. International Organization, 58(2), 277–309.Google Scholar

Robins, G. (2015). Doing Social Network Research: Network-Based Research Design for Social Scientists. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Sapinski, J. P. (2015). Climate Capitalism and the Global Corporate Elite Network. Environmental Sociology, 1(4),268–279.Google Scholar

Stadfeld, C., Hollway, J., and Block, P. (2017). Dynamic Network Actor Models: Investigating Coordination Ties through Time. Sociological Methodology, 47(1),1–40.Google Scholar

Thistlethwaite, J., and Paterson, M. (2016). Private Governance and Accounting for Sustainability Networks. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(7),1197–1221.Google Scholar

Venturini, T., Laffite, N. B., Cointet, J.-P. et al. (2014). Three Maps and Three Misunderstandings: A Digital Mapping of Climate Diplomacy. Big Data & Society 1(2), 2053951714543804.Google Scholar

Ward, M., Stovel, K., and Sacks, A. (2011). Network Analysis and Political Science. Annual Review of Political Science, 14(1),245–264.Google Scholar

Widerberg, O. (2016). Mapping Institutional Complexity in the Anthropocene: A Network Approach. In Pattberg, P. and Zelli, F., eds., Environmental Politics and Governance in the Anthropocene: Institutions and Legitimacy in a Complex World. London: Routledge, pp. 81–102.Google Scholar