3 thoughts on “Final Presentation”

  1. Hi Carly!

    This is a really well-done presentation. You gave a clear and concise overview of your research project and methodology. I especially liked the level of detail in how you are applying pre-existing literature to your own research topic, particularly U.S. centric environmental concepts/actions to Canada. In regards to your literature, have you thought about other names for the conceptual groups (maybe based off of Dauvergne and Clapp’s four from ESGH)? The concepts and theories within your review are extremely tied to neoliberalism and its challengers, collective action, resource management, etc. so that could be a more nuanced, recognizable way to name and organize them.

    For your “pro” representation of the KP, will you be focusing on the understanding that it barely affects the economy or that it is beneficial in the long-run? Both seem important but I’m not sure if they should/could be separated if there are enough texts/actors that represent both?

    Your case justification is good and the texts like Milton Friedman’s book and the Prime Minister’s favorite book sound really interesting, too! My only other question is if you will analyze the actual Kyoto Protocol? Could the language used or way it was written have impacted Canada’s understanding of climate change/ the effectiveness of int’l agreements thus making it easier to withdraw or change their stance?

    Overall, your topic is very interesting and I’m excited to learn about your findings!

  2. Really interesting puzzle selection! I think you’ve found a really interesting area of research. Also, your review of literature is expansive and links well into your topic and your methodological explanation of why interepretivism is well suited to this topic is thorough and effective.

    One key thing to think about: You discuss how the growth of neoliberalism in Canada led to a shift in the representation of the Kyoto Protocol and therefore a shift in policy outcome. You also mention how there were critiques from members of parliament during the initial adoption of the protocol. What were those critiques? Were they based in something different from the neoliberal critiques that led to the withdrawal from the agreement? Were they mostly made by the conservative party against the liberal party that backed the agreement? I ask because I think you might also need to consider how a shift in political power may have contributed to the puzzling outcome you describe. Chretien was a liberal PM and Harper was a conservative PM, so this likely was a factor in the change in policy. Now, that shift in power from the liberal to conservative party might be related to the develop of this neoliberal mood and its effect on the discourse on issues such as the Kyoto Protocol, so it doesn’t necessarily explain away your puzzle. These are just some contextual factors to think about as you continue your research.

  3. Carly, great work on your final research presentation. I think you did a great job setting up your research puzzle, context, and question. I also thing you did a good job to acknowledge the power dynamic within actors that shape the representation of the object of inquiry. This is very important to keep in mind as you continue to research. You plan to look at government responses to the Kyoto Protocol until Canada withdrew for the agreement, but it could also be interesting to look after the withdrew occurred, especially to see if the representation of the protocol changed or remained the same. I also think that it is important to take into account the international role of other countries in relation to Canada and how their actions may have affected the decision of Canada to withdraw. You do a great job overall in your final research presentation and I look forward to seeing where your research continues to progress.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *