The Pluralistic Paradigm : Tension and Consensus within a (Trans)Discipline
Ecological economics (EE) distinguished itself from mainstream economics through its unique “preanalytic vision” (Daly, 1991) and a commitment to methodological pluralism (Norgaard, 1989). However, each methodology is derived from a certain theoretical vision (Kuhn, 1970), begging the question – can a field be methodologically pluralistic without implicitly condoning a variety of theoretical frameworks? This tension, between a desire to contest mainstream ideology on one hand and the commitments of methodological pluralism on the other, was present at ecological economics earliest days (Røpke, 2004) and remains present in the discourse today (Lundgren, 2022). To assess how EE scholars view the state of their (trans)discipline I conducted semi-formal interviews with twenty members of the EE community and undertook a thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2012) of the responses. I identify the practice of ‘ecosystem service valuations’ (ESV) as a contentious site of disagreement, where long-standing philosophical tensions caused by pluralism become manifest. I make analytical deductions regarding sentiment in the field pertaining to the permissibility of mainstream methods and important areas of inquiry moving forward. Despite significant concern over the practice of monetary valuation, I conclude that the field of EE remains firmly committed to its central vision and overarching goal