Claire Mills' Site
December 9, 2019 by Claire 3 Comments
Savannah Kleeman says
December 10, 2019 at 12:50 pm
Claire, really great work in your final research presentation! The presentation was very well done and you explain your thoughts and concepts very well. Your research question and puzzle offer a significant context to study. Just a few points of clarification to recommendation. When speaking about the actors involved in the policymaking, although American policymakers have the most significant influence, it could be helpful to consider in what ways other actors contribute to this conversation. Have you also found specific examples of the rhetoric in policymaking that shows the representation of wither securitization or denial of climate change through your current research? Pinpointing specific rhetoric can be helpful to begin moving forward with your research. Great job! I am very excited to see where your project goes in the future!
Carly Holencik says
December 10, 2019 at 1:42 pm
Claire- I enjoyed your presentation! It really felt like you were speaking to the viewer rather thank just reading off a document, which I appreciated. It made it easier to understand/kept me engaged. You did a good job of outlining your literature review jn a way that made it easy to comprehend, but what are the shortcomings and gaps of that pre-exisiting scholarship? How will you engage with this in your own research? You detailed trustworthiness by saying you will suspend judgement, tying it into refelexivity, but what about the other aspects of trustworthiness, like member-checking? How else will you make sure to meet the evaluative standard of trustworthiness? When looking at the respresentations of climate change, it seems that your are looking at official discourses, but besides referencing statements by very high-ranking government officials, who else could be considered part of the official discourse? For my own research, I addressed this by looking at documents from nonpartisan government agencies, like Canada’s equivalent of the EPA. Overall, I thought you did a great job of making sure your presentation, in terms of what you were saying, wasn’t too word-dense and full of jargon, which made it much more understandable and interesting.
December 10, 2019 at 2:12 pm
You do a really great job of engaging your audience and providing details on your research design. In particular, I really liked how you categorized and conceptualized your models/bodies of literature and how they tie into the American “policy-making arena.”
Your justification for conducting a historical review, especially studying the origins of discourse is well-done. In regards to your data sources and timeframe, narrowing it down by “critical events” or key actors/speeches/blow-up points could be more beneficial.
We discussed honing in on the 90s which could be a possibilty, but another would be considering small-n comparison with interpretivist elements of understandings as arguments which could allow you to compare cases of instances where the U.S. would ratify an agreement to where the U.S. does not.
Overall, I’m looking forward to seeing what you find. Good luck!
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *