This is very interesting and I especially like how you’ve situated recognition within the larger realm of great power politics. I think that comparing the discourses of the independent movement against what great powers say may also be interesting (for instance, how do the Kosovoans talk about the issue compared to the Americans?). This might shed some more light on the methods that great powers use to either distort the situation or frame their own action as just (this connects back to the idea Foucauldian discourse analysis and the examination of power structures). You might also be interested in the case of Chechnya, where Russia violently suppressed an independence movement (which would make their statement on Crimea incredibly hypocritical). I think you’re on the right track and look forward to seeing how your project progresses.
Overall, Griffin, I think this is an excellent and very clear presentation, so any recommendations I have will be pretty minor. You did a great job of explaining the puzzle and how you came to this point in your understanding of the topic; you justified the presence of different discourses well through the quotes you offer; you explained the intertextuality of the situation well (not only between Russia and the US in the two quotes but also to other governmental bodies); and your outlining of the context seems to have identified the major events in state formation. One thing I’d be interested in hearing more of is what you’re gaining and losing by choosing an interpretivist logic for your topic. I know it’s difficult to cover everything in only eight minutes, but understanding the tradeoffs you’re making is key to understanding your ontological assumptions more broadly. Second, although you touch on this, it would be worth explicitly asking “what becomes possible because of these discourses?” You mention the Crimea example, but very clearly explaining what object is being brought into existence through these discourses I think would enrich your presentation and clarify its impact. Lastly, although I’m sure this is in your paper itself, it would also be worth being very clear about how you’re mapping this topic for exposure. Some of that mapping includes the possibility for discourses that subvert the hegemonic ones you mention of the US and Russia, and those intricacies could also be fun places to explore. Great job and looking forward to seeing where you take it from here!
Hi Griffin,
You did a good job explaining your process to this point. I can clearly see how your research has evolved. In your lit review, you have good points and scholarship that you bring up, but my one question would be whether or not the first 2 groups are really different? You mention that the norms and interests group is part of external legitimacy. This made me wonder what was different about what the other group focused on. Additionally, if they both fall under that topic, would it potentially make sense to then make them 1 larger group of external legitimacy with the 2 subtopics that are the particular focuses? You then moved into your discourses, where you did a good job explaining things into detail and provided us with real examples of what you will be looking at. My one comment would be that I would have found it helpful to get a more general overview first. Because you dove directly into the specific, I was a bit lost in terms of where it fit into your overall picture of your discourses for a while. I’d also like to commend you for explicitly bringing up the intertextuality between the documents. That was a good point, and will be important in your research while following the interpretivist method. During your video, you also mentioned that you were considering expanding your research. However, my immediate impression was that it would be beyond the scope of your current research. You seem to be examining the precedent that was set, and then were suddenly discussing possibly moving into how it was justified before the actual event that is the thing that you are examining. Finally, I would suggest more clearly and explicitly explaining the steps of your methodology, while I understood what you are planning on doing because of my own knowledge of interpretivist research, it could be more clearly laid out so that anyone could understand it. You have all of the information there already, just lay it out in a clear step by step instruction presentation. However, on the whole, you seem to be doing well in the progression of your research. I look forward to seeing where you are going to go and what you are able to discover in regards to your conclusions.
Jordan Park says
This is very interesting and I especially like how you’ve situated recognition within the larger realm of great power politics. I think that comparing the discourses of the independent movement against what great powers say may also be interesting (for instance, how do the Kosovoans talk about the issue compared to the Americans?). This might shed some more light on the methods that great powers use to either distort the situation or frame their own action as just (this connects back to the idea Foucauldian discourse analysis and the examination of power structures). You might also be interested in the case of Chechnya, where Russia violently suppressed an independence movement (which would make their statement on Crimea incredibly hypocritical). I think you’re on the right track and look forward to seeing how your project progresses.
David says
Overall, Griffin, I think this is an excellent and very clear presentation, so any recommendations I have will be pretty minor. You did a great job of explaining the puzzle and how you came to this point in your understanding of the topic; you justified the presence of different discourses well through the quotes you offer; you explained the intertextuality of the situation well (not only between Russia and the US in the two quotes but also to other governmental bodies); and your outlining of the context seems to have identified the major events in state formation. One thing I’d be interested in hearing more of is what you’re gaining and losing by choosing an interpretivist logic for your topic. I know it’s difficult to cover everything in only eight minutes, but understanding the tradeoffs you’re making is key to understanding your ontological assumptions more broadly. Second, although you touch on this, it would be worth explicitly asking “what becomes possible because of these discourses?” You mention the Crimea example, but very clearly explaining what object is being brought into existence through these discourses I think would enrich your presentation and clarify its impact. Lastly, although I’m sure this is in your paper itself, it would also be worth being very clear about how you’re mapping this topic for exposure. Some of that mapping includes the possibility for discourses that subvert the hegemonic ones you mention of the US and Russia, and those intricacies could also be fun places to explore. Great job and looking forward to seeing where you take it from here!
Katherine says
Hi Griffin,
You did a good job explaining your process to this point. I can clearly see how your research has evolved. In your lit review, you have good points and scholarship that you bring up, but my one question would be whether or not the first 2 groups are really different? You mention that the norms and interests group is part of external legitimacy. This made me wonder what was different about what the other group focused on. Additionally, if they both fall under that topic, would it potentially make sense to then make them 1 larger group of external legitimacy with the 2 subtopics that are the particular focuses? You then moved into your discourses, where you did a good job explaining things into detail and provided us with real examples of what you will be looking at. My one comment would be that I would have found it helpful to get a more general overview first. Because you dove directly into the specific, I was a bit lost in terms of where it fit into your overall picture of your discourses for a while. I’d also like to commend you for explicitly bringing up the intertextuality between the documents. That was a good point, and will be important in your research while following the interpretivist method. During your video, you also mentioned that you were considering expanding your research. However, my immediate impression was that it would be beyond the scope of your current research. You seem to be examining the precedent that was set, and then were suddenly discussing possibly moving into how it was justified before the actual event that is the thing that you are examining. Finally, I would suggest more clearly and explicitly explaining the steps of your methodology, while I understood what you are planning on doing because of my own knowledge of interpretivist research, it could be more clearly laid out so that anyone could understand it. You have all of the information there already, just lay it out in a clear step by step instruction presentation. However, on the whole, you seem to be doing well in the progression of your research. I look forward to seeing where you are going to go and what you are able to discover in regards to your conclusions.