What can an “ethnographic sensibility” contribute to research on climate change governance? With its emphasis on meaning making and understanding what may lie beneath more obvious interactions and processes, ethnographic methodologies, particularly collaborative event ethnography, are increasingly deployed to address complex questions and achieve conceptual leverage on issues related to climate governance. Drawing on literature in climate anthropology, material geography, and political ethnography, and with examples from our own fieldwork experiences, we devise a heuristic typology underpinned by an ethnographic sensibility to help guide the fieldwork phase of a research project. Building on the well-established practice of hanging out , we introduce hanging around , which attends to spatiality and matter; hanging in , which addresses issues of access and trust; and hanging back to guide the practice of reflexivity. We articulate what fieldwork with an ethnographic sensibility entails and discuss its potential and implications for climate governance research.

This article surveys the use of process tracing as a method in research on global and comparative environmental politics. It reveals that scholars have been reluctant to explicitly embrace the method, even though a great deal of environmental politics research relies on process tracing and studies causal mechanisms. I argue that the growing number of critiques that the subfield is overly descriptive and insufficiently focused on explanation is one consequence of the reluctance to explicitly embrace process tracing. Drawing on recent debates on causal mechanisms within the philosophy of social science and a growing literature on how to trace processes, this article outlines best practices in the application of the method in the study of environmental politics. I consider some ways in which the use of process tracing in the study of environmental politics may be different from its use in other areas of comparative politics and international relations.

How does an idea emerge and gain traction in the international arena when its underpinning principles are contested by powerful players? The adoption in 2013 of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) puzzled observers, because key state parties, such as the United States, had historically opposed the policy. This article examines the roles of frame contestation and ambiguity in accounting for the evolution and institutionalization of the “loss and damage” norm within the UNFCCC. The article applies frame analysis to the data from coverage of the negotiations and elite interviews. It reveals that two competing framings, one focused on liability and compensation and the other on risk and insurance, evolved into a single, overarching master frame. This more ambiguous framing allowed parties to attach different meanings to the policy that led to the resolution of differences among the parties and the embedding of the idea of loss and damage in international climate policy.