Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:30:02.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - Developing a Methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2023

Edited by
Hannah Hughes  and
Alice B. M. Vadrot
Hannah Hughes
Affiliation:
Aberystwyth University
Alice B. M. Vadrot
Affiliation:
Universität Wien, Austria
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Conducting Research on Global Environmental Agreement-Making , pp. 23 - 90
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Further Reading

1.Chasek, P. S. (2001). Earth Negotiations: Analyzing Thirty Years of Environmental Diplomacy. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
This book is a standard work that gives an overview over thirty years of global environmental negotiations, how they work, and how they have changed over time. It is a key source for scholars new to the field and illustrates what negotiation sites look like from an insider perspective.Google Scholar
2.Mitchell, R. B., Andonova, L. B., Axelrod, M. et al. (2020). What We Know (and Could Know) About International Environmental Agreements. Global Environmental Politics 20, 103–121.Google Scholar
This article introduces the International Environmental Agreements Data Base (IEADB) cataloging the texts, memberships, and design features of over 3,000 multilateral and bilateral environmental agreements. The authors have created a comprehensive review of the evolution of international environmental law, including how agreements have changed over time.Google Scholar

References

Abend, G. (2008). The Meaning of “Theory.” Sociological Theory 26, 173–199.Google Scholar
Baker, L. M. (2006). Observation: A Complex Research Method. Library Trends 55 (1), 171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G. and Williams, J. M. (2008). The Craft of Research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (2003). Participant Objectivation. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9, 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craggs, R. and Mahony, M. (2014). The Geographies of the Conference: Knowledge, Performance and Protest. Geography Compass 8 (6), 414–430.Google Scholar
Death, C. (2011). Summit Theatre: Exemplary Governmentality and Environmental Diplomacy in Johannesburg and Copenhagen. Environmental Politics 20 (1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Flick, U. (1995). Qualitative Forschung. Theorie, Methoden, Anwendung in Psychologie und Sozialwissenschaften. Reinbek: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
Gross, N. (2009). A Pragmatist Theory of Social Mechanisms. American Sociological Review 74, 358–379.Google Scholar
Hughes, H. and Vadrot, A. B. M. (2019). Weighting the World: IPBES and the Struggle over Biocultural Diversity. Global Environmental Politics 19 (2), 14–37.Google Scholar
Hughes, H., Vadrot, A., Allan, J. I. et al. (2021). Global Environmental Agreement-Making: Upping the Methodological and Ethical Stakes of Studying Negotiations. Earth System Governance 10, 100121.Google Scholar
Timmermans, S. and Tavory, I. (2012). Theory Construction in Qualitative Research: From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis. Sociological Theory 30 (3), 167–186.Google Scholar
Vadrot, A. B. M., Langlet, A., Tessnow-von Wysocki, I. et al. (2021). Marine Biodiversity Negotiations During COVID-19: A New Role for Digital Diplomacy? Global Environmental Politics 21 (3), 169–186.Google Scholar

Further Reading

1.Powner, L. C. (2015). Empirical Research and Writing: A Political Science Student’s Practical Guide. Los Angeles: Sage/CQ Press.Google Scholar
This book provides a concrete guide to planning, conducting, and writing up empirical social science research.Google Scholar
2.Timmermans, S., and Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
This article outlines a pragmatic approach to moving between theory and empirical data to generate conceptual innovation in social science research.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2015).Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
This book provides an excellent overview of the various choices that scholars make in the practice of conducting qualitative research, including the question of whether and how to integrate theoretical concepts into the research design.Google Scholar

References

Albin, C. (1999). Can NGOs enhance effectiveness of international negotiation? International Negotiation, 4(3), 371–387.Google Scholar
Andresen, S. and Skodvin, T. (2008). Non-state influence in the International Whaling Commission, 1970 to 2006. In Betsill, M. and Corell, E., eds., NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 119–148.Google Scholar
Bennett, A. and Checkel, J. T. (2015). Process tracing: From philosophical roots to best practice. In Bennett, A. and Checkel, J. T., eds., Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytical Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–37.Google Scholar
Bernstein, S., Betsill, M. M., Hoffmann, M. J. and Paterson, M. (2010). A tale of two Copenhagens: Carbon markets and climate governance. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 39(1), 161–173.Google Scholar
Betsill, M. M. (2008). Reflections on the analytical framework and NGO diplomacy. In Betsill, M. and Corell, E., eds., NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 177–206.Google Scholar
Betsill, M. M. (2015). NGOs. In Bäckstrand, K. and Lövbrand, E., eds., Research Handbook on Climate Governance. Cheltenham: EE Elgar, pp. 251–261.Google Scholar
Betsill, M. M. and Corell, E. (2001). NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: A framework for analysis, Global Environmental Politics, 1(1), 65–85.Google Scholar
Betsill, M. M. and Corell, E., eds. (2008). NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Betsill, M. M., Dubash, N., Paterson, M. et al. (2015). Building productive linkages between the UNFCCC and the broader global climate governance landscape. Global Environmental Politics, 15(2), 1–10.Google Scholar
Biersteker, T. J. (1995). Constructing historical counterfactuals to assess the consequences of international regimes. In Rittberger, V., ed., Regime Theory and International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 315–338.Google Scholar
Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corell, E. and Betsill, M. M. (2001). A comparative look at NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: Desertification and climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 1(1),86–107.Google Scholar
Corell, E. and Betsill, M. M. (2008). Analytical framework: Assessing the influence of NGO diplomats. In Betsill, M. and Corell, E., eds., NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 19–42.Google Scholar
Cox, R. and Jacobson, H. K. (1973). The framework for inquiry. In Cox, R. and Jacobson, H., eds., The Anatomy of Influence: Decision Making in International Organization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. and Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Dellas, E., Pattberg, P. and Betsill, M. (2011). Agency in earth system governance: Refining a research agenda. International Environmental Agreements, 11(1), 85–98.Google Scholar
George, A. L. and Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keck, M. and Sikkink, K. (1999). Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics. International Social Science Journal, 51(159), 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. (1972). Transnational Relations and World Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
King, G. , Keohane, R. O. and Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry. New Haven, CT: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Knoke, D. (1990). Political Networks: The Structural Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Nasiritousi, N. (2016). Shapers, Brokers and Doers: The Dynamic Roles of Non-State Actors in Global Climate Change Governance (published PhD dissertation, Linköping University Electronic Press).Google Scholar
Nasiritousi, N. (2019). NGOs and the environment. In Davies, T., ed., Routledge Handbook of NGOs and International Relations. London: Routledge, pp. 329–342.Google Scholar
Nasiritousi, N., Hjerpe, M. and Linnér, B.O. (2016). The roles of non-state actors in climate change governance: understanding agency through governance profiles. International Environmental Agreements, 16, 109–126.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, A. N. (2000). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, 2nd ed. London: Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.Google Scholar
Thew, H. (2018). Youth participation and agency in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. International Environmental Agreements, 18, 369–389.Google Scholar
Witter, R., Marion Suiseeya, K. R., Gruby, R. L. et al. (2015). Moments of influence in global environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 24(6), 894–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

1.Inoue, C. Y. A. (2018). Worlding the Study of Global Environmental Politics in the Anthropocene: Indigenous Voices from the Amazon. Global Environmental Politics 18(4), 25–42.Google Scholar
Inoue challenges us to think hard about our methodological starting points in the study of global environmental politics, and it is increasingly important to engage with this from the outset.Google Scholar
2.Litfin, K. (1994). Ozone Discourse: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
This is an excellent study of the role of science and scientists in treaty making and an example of how Foucault’s notion of discourse can inspire a new approach that results in further conceptual development.Google Scholar

References

Acharya, A. (2016). Advancing Global IR: Challenges, Contentions, and Contributions. International Studies Review 18(1), 4–15.Google Scholar
Anderl, F. and Witt, A. (2020). Problematising the Global in Global IR. Millennium 49(1), 32–57.Google Scholar
Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T. and Norrie, A. (1998). Critical Realism: Essential Readings. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bäckstrand, K. and Lövbrand, E. (2006). Planting Trees to Mitigate Climate Change: Contested Discourses of Ecological Modernization, Green Governmentality and Civic Environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics 6(1), 50–75.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, R. (1998). Philosophy and Scientific Realism. In Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T. and Norrie, A.(eds.), Critical Realism: Essential Readings. London: Routledge, pp. 16–47.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1986) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. Translated by Peter Collier. Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, C. (1977). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Translated by Richard Nice. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Brand, U. and Vadrot, A. B.M. (2013). Epistemic Selectivities Towards the Valorization of Nature in the Nagoya Protocol and the Making of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). LEAD: Law, Environment and Development Journal 9(2), 202–222.Google Scholar
Death, C. (2010). Governing Sustainable Development: Partnerships, Protests and Power at the World Summit. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Epstein, C. (2008). The Power of Words in International Relations: Birth of an Anti-Whaling Discourse. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2018). “A Clean Planet for all: A European Strategic Long-Term Vision for a Prosperous, Modern, Competitive and Climate Neutral Economy” (COM (2018) 773 final). Brussels: European Commission https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0773 (last accessed July 2022).Google Scholar
European Commission. (2019). “Communication”: The European Green Deal (COM (2019) 640 final). Brussels: European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1591201354409&uri=CELEX:52019DC0640 (last accessed July 2022).Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1969). L’archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1971). L’ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (2004). Naissance de la biopolitique: cours au Collège de France (1978–1979). Paris: Gallimard & Seuil.Google Scholar
Gilio-Whitaker, D. (2019). As Long as Grass Grows: The Indigenous Fight for Environmental Justice from Colonization to Standing Rock. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Hajer, M. A. (1997). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hay, C. (2002). Political Analysis: Contemporary Controversies: A Critical Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hughes, H. (2015). Bourdieu and the IPCC’s Symbolic Power. Global Environmental Politics 15(4), 85–104.Google Scholar
Hughes, H. and Vadrot, A. B. M. (2019). Weighting the World: IPBES and the Struggle over Biocultural Diversity. Global Environmental Politics 19(2), 14–37.Google Scholar
Huysmans, J. (2002). Shape-Shifting NATO: Humanitarian Action and the Kosovo Refugee Crisis. Review of International Studies 28(3), 599–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, P. (2008). Pierre Bourdieu, the “Cultural Turn” and the Practice of International History. Review of International Studies 34(1), 155–181.Google Scholar
Lacan, J. (2007). The Seminar, Book XVII. The Other Side of Psychoanalysis. New York and London: W. Norton.Google Scholar
Lacan, J., Miller, J. A and Sheridan, A. (1998). The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis. New York: Norton and Company.Google Scholar
Leander, A. (2002). Do We Really Need Reflexivity in IPE? Bourdieu's Two Reasons for Answering Affirmatively. Review of International Political Economy 9(4),601–609.Google Scholar
Leander, A. (2005). The Power to Construct International Security: On the Significance of Private Military Companies. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 33(3), 803–25.Google Scholar
Lövbrand, E., Stripple, J., and Wiman, B. (2009). Earth System Governmentality: Reflections on Science in the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change 19, 7–13.Google Scholar
Luke, T. W. (1995). On Environmentality: Geo-Power and Eco-Knowledge in the Discourses of Contemporary Environmentalism. Cultural Critique 31, 57–81.Google Scholar
Methmann, C. (2013). The Sky is the Limit: Global Warming as Global Governmentality. European Journal of International Relations 19, 69–91.Google Scholar
Oels, A. (2005). Rendering Climate Change Governable: From Biopower to Advanced Liberal Government? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 7(3), 185–207.Google Scholar
Okereke, C., Bulkeley, H. and Schroeder, H. (2009). Conceptualizing Climate Governance Beyond the International Regime. Global Environmental Politics 9(1), 58–78.Google Scholar
Pettenger, M. E., ed. (2007). The Social Construction of Climate Change: Power, Knowledge, Norms, Discourses. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Rutherford, S. (2007). Green Governmentality: Insights and Opportunities in the Study of Nature’s Rule. Progress in Human Geography 31, 291–307.Google Scholar
Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Sharma, A. (2021). Decolonizing International Relations: Confronting Erasures through Indigenous Knowledge Systems. International Studies 58(1), 25–40.Google Scholar
Stavrakakis, Y. (1999). Lacan and the Political. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stripple, J. and Bulkeley, H. (2013). On Governmentality and Climate Change. In Bulkeley, H. and Stripple, J. (eds.), Governing the Climate: New Approaches to Rationality, Power and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Vadrot, A. B. M. (2014a). The Politics of Knowledge and Global Biodiversity. Routledge studies in biodiversity politics and management. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vadrot, A. B. M. (2014b). The Epistemic and Strategic Dimension of the Establishment of the IPBES: Epistemic Selectivities at Work. Innovation: The European Journal for Social Science Research 27(4), 361–378.Google Scholar
Vadrot, A. B. M. (2017). Knowledge, International Relations and the Structure–Agency Debate: Towards the Concept of “Epistemic Selectivities.” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 30(1), 61–72.Google Scholar
Vadrot, A. B. M. (2020). Building Authority and Relevance in the Early History of IPBES. Environmental Science & Policy 113(11), 14–20.Google Scholar
Wacquant, L. J. D. (1989). Towards a Reflexive Sociology: A Workshop with Pierre Bourdieu. Sociological Theory 7(1), 26–63.Google Scholar
Wacquant, L. J. D. (1998) Pierre Bourdieu. In Stones, R (ed.), Key Sociological Thinkers. London: Macmillan Press, pp. 335–370.Google Scholar
Wendt, A. E. (1987). The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory. International Organization 41(3), 215–229.Google Scholar
Williams, M. C. (2007). Culture and Security: Symbolic Power and the Politics of International Security. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yusoff, K. (2018). A Billion Black Anthropocenes or None. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Further Reading

1.de La Cadena, M. (2015) Earth-Beings: Ecologies of Practice Across Andean Worlds. Durham, NC: Morgan Lectures Series: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
In this book, Marisol de la Cadena tells us stories and strategies of Indigenous Peoples in the Andes on building relations with humans and nonhumans to achieve balance in contention to difference between many different lifeways and environments. Although it is not a book on the role of Indigenous Peoples or of a specific Indigenous group in negotiations, it addresses in a detailed and relational way how the Turpos, an extended family of Quechua people, have been building what she calls political strategies to keep their world alive in relation to the other political environments or worlds that make the Andean region. By telling this story, she also expands on her way of doing research with them and producing knowledge about politics there and elsewhere.Google Scholar
2.Brysk, A. (2000). From Tribal Village to Global Village: Indian Rights and International Relations in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
3.Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the Pluriverse Radical Interdependence Autonomy and the Making of Worlds. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
4.Li, T. M. (2014). Land’s End Capitalist Relations on an Indigenous Frontier. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

References

Apiah, K. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. London: Allen Lane Books.Google Scholar
Beier, J. M. (2005). International Relations in Uncommon Places Indigeneity, Cosmology, and the Limits of International Theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Benhabib, S. (2006). Another Cosmopolitanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blaser, M. (2014) Is Another Cosmopolitics Possible? Cultural Anthropology, 13(4), 545–570.Google Scholar
Clifford, J. (1997). Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
de la Cadena, M. (2010). Indigenous Cosmopolitics in the Andes: Conceptual Reflections beyond “Politics.” Cultural Anthropology, 25(2), 334–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01061.x.Google Scholar
de la Cadena, M. with Blaser, M., eds. (2018). A World of Many Worlds. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Escobar, A. (2008). Territories of Difference Places, Movements, Life, Redes. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, C. (2006). Activist Research v. Cultural Critique: Indigenous Land Rights and the Contradictions of Politically Engaged Anthropology. Cultural Anthropology, 21(1), 96–120.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. (2021). Working Towards Ethical Guidelines for Research Involving the Sámi. Sámiráđđi–Saami Council. Available at https://lcipp.unfccc.int/sites/default/files/2022-06/Working%20towards%20ethical%20guidelines%20for%20research%20involving%20the%20Sami_0.pdf (last accessed 11.08.2022).Google Scholar
Krenak, A. (2019). Ideias para adiar o Fim do Mundo. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, Revista ANTHROPOLÓGICAS, 31(1), 317–326.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. (1995). Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography, Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117.Google Scholar
Mato, D. (2000). Not “Studying the Subaltern,” but Studying with “Subaltern”: Social Groups, or, at Least, Studying the Hegemonic Articulations of Power. Nepantla: Views from South, 1(3).479–752.Google Scholar
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Strathern, M. (1990). The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia,1st ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tsing, A. L. (2005). Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connections. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
UNFCCC (2021): LCIPP Webinar 2: What Does Ethical and Equitable Engagement of Indigenous Knowledge of Climate Change Look Like? https://lcipp.unfccc.int/calendar-events/lcipp-webinar-2-what-does-ethical-and-equitable-engagement-Indigenous-knowledge-climate-change-look (last accessed 16.08.2022).Google Scholar
Vecchione-Gonçalves, M. (2009). Between the Leader of Virtù and the Good Savage Indigenous Struggles and Life Projects in the Amazon Basin. In Beier, J. M., ed., Indigenous Diplomacies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 133–154.Google Scholar
Vecchione-Gonaçalves, M. (2014). Managing Borders, Nurturing Life: Existences, Resistances and Political Becoming in the Amazon Forest. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Hamilton: McMaster University. Available at https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/handle/11375/1609.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×