Mentor Meeting – Professor Nicholson 4/18

On Wednesday, April 18, 2018, I spoke with Professor Nicholson to discuss wrapping up my research. We went over the logistics of my upcoming presentations at the 306 Undergraduate Poster Conference as well as the SIS Undergraduate Research Symposium. We went through how to reorganize my presentation and editing details on my poster. We also discussed my final paper both regarding structure and content. Structurally, there were minor details to change. Regarding content, I am to focus on my introduction and conclusion to ensure a proper ‘flow.’ Professor Nicholson also urged me to think back about what I have learned in International Research and how I will use this to develop and strengthen my research skills in the future.

Mentor Meeting- Dr. Boesenecker 4/13

On Friday, April 13, 2018, I spoke with Dr. Boesenecker. We met briefly to discuss my abstract and the upcoming poster conference. Dr. Boesenecker was able to provide substantial feedback including how to incorporate a solid first sentence. Leading with the question itself rather than a general and broad “hook” would allow readers to know the specific content that they would be reading about.  Dr. Boesenecker also discussed the importance of using stronger methodology terminology. The use of the specific terminology would address any concerns that readers may have specific to small-n case study research. Lastly, regarding my abstract. Dr. Boesenecker suggested the use of softer language when discussing my findings. I found that my intuitions were not true and that use of softer language can allow for more discussion and elaboration rather than stating “I rejected” or “I falsely hypothesized.” Dr. Boesenecker and I also briefly discussed what to expect at the SIS Undergraduate Research Poster Conference and the ways to balance 4 months and 25 pages of research into simplified, eye-catching key terms and charts.

Mentor Meeting- Dr. Jackson 3/21

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, I skyped with Dr. Jackson. Dr. Jackson regarding the last collective advising workshop. We spoke about the possible directions for my project and how to clearly articulate my question. We spoke about how becoming attached to the Discourse Analysis methodology itself had seemed to make me lose focus on the question that I was constantly concerned about. Dr. Jackson challenged me to think about the avenues of my research and how they fit in the with the small-n case methodology. This methodology would serve me better because I was generally interested in the effects of international policy on domestic law.

Marginalization and Activism in Academia

The class discussion on the historical character of knowing has been easily one of the most fascinating and realistic seminars. I strongly believe that there has been a pattern to “white-wash” history. I mean this in that, the clear historical racial divisions have led scholarship to be dominated by one group of people, white men. So now, we consider, how do we diversify our learning? Are we to diversify it?

Students at Soas want to “decolonize” their learning and with this, I agree.[1] They state that we treat western European thinkers as unquestionable, a through personal experience, I see this.[2] Historical thinkers like Descartes states “I think, therefore I am.” He spent time questioning his being and in academia, we take this. Why do we not challenge Descartes and think, well, what is the worth of doing this? Why can our beings themselves just be accepted? Yes, I agree with the Soas students, we do not question thinkers enough, we learn about their thoughts and then attempt to apply them, but rarely do we challenge.

One author stated, “When people speak, they speak ideas, not identity.”[3] I completely disagree with this. The identity of people shapes their ideas. The writings of W.E.B. DuBois are fundamentally different because he was marginalized and thus has different ideas.  This concerns my future scholarship because I believe it would be worth that for all research to have some section on personal identity. For example, I am studying environmental politics for many reasons. It is a topic that I deeply care about. Why? It could be because I grew up on the beach, where the location served purposes beyond recreation but was a fundamental aspect of people’s livelihoods. The ocean provides fish for food. The beach area itself is a tourist destination which bolsters the small local economy. Maintaining the environment is necessary for economic growth. My identity, who I am, influences my ideas and thoughts.

This all leads me back to one of my original questions: Are we to diversify our learning? Yes. How? By the truth. There is a historical inaccuracy. Something else came alive to be very real for me during the readings specifically regarding W.E.B. DuBois.

“Yet, this is not a question of adding more thinkers to the sociology canon. If Morris is right, there is an argument to made that Du Bois and the Atlanta School should replace the Chicago School, not just be added alongside it. For, with The Scholar Denied, Du Bois can no longer be seen as the “first black sociologist”, the originator of “African-American sociology,” or the one who pioneered the study of African-American communities. He must instead be seen as the first scientific sociologist who is the rightful progenitor of American sociology itself.”[4]

By “diversifying” learning, we do not need to get rid of Plato and Aristotle, rather we need to add the thinkers that were present in their rightful place in history. Furthermore, as stated, history is dominated by white male thinkers, and it would be worth it to take the time to recognize the absence of voices from marginalized groups. Their scholarship is less present in our syllabi because they did not have the same access to sharing their voices.
Go, Julian. The Case for Scholarly Reparations. http://berkeleyjournal.org/2016/01/the-case-for-scholarly-reparations/. 11 January 2016.

Kenan, Malik. Are Soas students right to ‘decolonise’ their minds from western philosophers?. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/19/soas-philosopy-decolonise-our-minds-enlightenment-white-european-kenan-malik.  19 February 2017.

[1] Malik Kenan, Are Soas students right to ‘decolonise’ their minds from western philosophers?, https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/19/soas-philosopy-decolonise-our-minds-enlightenment-white-european-kenan-malik,  19 February 2017.

[2] Ibid 2017

[3] Ibid 2017

[4] Julian Go, The Case for Scholarly Reparations, http://berkeleyjournal.org/2016/01/the-case-for-scholarly-reparations/, 11 January 2016.

Grappling with the Divisions in Sciences (Bacon & Weber)

Bacon and Weber insist on a separation between the sphere of science proper and those of ethics, religion, morals, and values. Bacon states that in becoming a scientist, there is a lack of challenging norms.[1] Normative knowledge is, therefore, necessary to distinguish between other knowledge and an overlap would corrupt moral understandings. Weber states science can contribute to technology, methods of thinking and to help gain clarity, however, science does not provide general knowledge or ultimate meaning.[2]  Technical means and calculations are valuable and then the questions “do they have any meanings that go beyond the purely practical and technical?”[3] Calculations and values cannot collide because in a way, ‘science’ falls short of understanding values. If the two forms of knowledge were to overlap, Weber would fear that science would be corrupted with political thought. Weber states that “the tension between the value-spheres of ‘science’ and the sphere of the ‘holy’ is unbridgeable.”[4] Due to the different types of questions that are asked for these two forms of thought, Weber argues that knowledge must be organized.

The benefits from this division include that of specialization. If there is specialization, people can become experts in a field and advocate for that field to the fullest extent. While it is useful for have a holistic view, that can be introduced through conversations among experts. Some view that ‘science’ is based on facts and normative knowledge is based on human interactions with themselves and the world around them. These thoughts are derived from two different experiences and therefore should be understood by their differences.

However, there must be a consideration of conceptual frameworks and the material under evaluation. I believe that in regards to the framework of my research, it requires the fluidity of the “open circle” rather than one divided. As someone who is (now) using the neo-positivist framework, I see a strong relationship with ‘science.’ For example, the language that is used (variables, hypothesis, etc.) has a strong connection to ‘science.’ By dividing the two worlds, normative research is not able to borrow from scientific methods. But in considering the actual evidence I would evaluate, I would have to take a few steps back in my research to question my assumptions. I would have to, in a way, follow Nietzsche, who believes that there is no divide and everything is up for interpretation, therefore, assumptions would not be possible.[5]

[1] Francis, Bacon. “Preface: The Great Renewal,” in Seminar 4 Readings, ed. Laura Field. American University. 2017. 7.

[2] Max, Weber. “Science as a Vocation,” in Seminar 5 Readings, ed. Laura Field. American University. 2017. 10

[3] Ibid, 4

[4] Ibid,11

[5] Friedrich, Nietzsche. “Beyond Good and Evil,” in Seminar 6 Readings, ed. Laura Field. American University. 2018. 5-9.
Bacon, Francis. “Preface: The Great Renewal,” in Seminar 4 Readings, ed. Laura Field. American University. 2018.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Beyond Good and Evil,” in Seminar 6 Readings, ed. Laura Field. American University. 2018.

Weber, Max. “Science as a Vocation,” in Seminar 5 Readings, ed. Laura Field. American University. 2018.

Mentor Meeting 2/22

On Thursday, February 22, 2018, I spoke with Dr. Nuesiri, a scholar on REDD+ in Nigeria. I explained my project and he spoke about the brief history about REDD+. During the earlier environmental agreements, forestry and land management were not spoken of often. To stimulate this conversation, RED came into play. He mentioned specifically that Costa Rica had a big role in REDD+ because their representatives suggest increased measures for carbon sequestration and reduction which, in turn, would increase the need for financial support from developed nations. REDD+ is unique in that developing countries have a larger voice at the table because of financial benefits. Furthermore, countries such as Norway increase their environmental stewardship. They are able to contribute to greening industries in other countries rather than domestically where sustainable measures may have larger negative economic impacts. After REDD+ was completed, there was the question as to if “REDD is dead” due to the lack of timely follow through on REDD+ programming. Chris Lang pushes this idea forward that REDD is not helping the environmental sustainability agenda. Dr. Nuesiri suggested I examine Lang’s interviews and in contrast read Redeeming REDD+, written by Michael Brown. Should we rethink REDD+ or is it working the way it was meant to? Dr. Nuesiri also explained to me that this is the time to think critically about the issue of forest governance.

Mentor Meeting 2/14

On Wednesday, February 14, 2018, I met with Professor Nicholson, my faculty mentor. We discussed the various ways to go about the methodology discussion. To some degree, quantitative analysis may be necessary in choosing my cases or examples that I will highlight through my research. It will not drive my research, rather serve the purpose of selecting “cases.” There needs to also be a decision on tracing the domestic policy of one country or a general stance. After I conduct minor quantitative analysis, I may find it more necessary to have a small or large number of “cases” to examine. Professor Nicholson and I also discussed the context of REDD+. REDD+ at first was very exciting and since the agreement in 2011, there has been a concern as to its impacts and its future. REDD+ is monumental within the field of international land management, and therefore the conversation and analysis on REDD+ must continue. Professor Nicholson recommended the reading “Timber” by Peter Dauvergne and Jane Lister which specifically focuses on the economic value of timber resources.

Mentor Meeting 2/13

On Tuesday, February 13, 2018, I met with Professor Paul Wapner. We discussed how REDD+ is an example of “mission creep.” If REDD+ did not expand, the question arises of what could have been. Would RED have been enough? Would RED have higher concentrated successes? Professor Wapner was helpful in offering suggestions on how to exemplify this in my paper through a type of case selection. It may be valuable to consider which countries pledged to fund the program and if they did contribute. Then, the contributions compared to deforestation rate would shed light on to the successes and failures of this program.