IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i9p7522-d1139110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Emergent Transdisciplinary Methodology for Effective Collaboration in Ecological Economics

Author

Listed:
  • Terrance Quinn

    (Department of Mathematical Sciences, College of Basic and Applied Sciences, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, USA)

Abstract

In ecological economics, common themes notwithstanding, there is a lack of consensus in basic views, with no signs of convergence. All the while, ecological, economic, and social crises continue to deepen globally. A question arises: philosophical speculation and mathematical modeling aside, how can we make progress in theory and praxis when there are mutually incompatible views and sources are transdisciplinary? This article describes a transdisciplinary methodology for effective collaboration that is already emergent in ecological economics, but which has not yet been identified. The method employed in the paper allows for but also is an extension of traditional empirical method. One looks not only to output (of, for example, disciplines) but also to operative methods generative of output. And so, for example, in the effort to interpret an author’s writings, one adverts not only to familiar sources of data but also to one’s own experience. Within this broader focus, components of the methodological solution to the problem in ecological economics begin to come into view. More specifically, sample texts from the literature reveal eight distinct but mutually dependent modes of thought and expression (or, in other words, eight distinct tasks). Four are past-oriented, and four are future-oriented. It also becomes evident that, at this time in history, these modes often are inadvertently combined in semi-random, fragmentary, and counter-productive ways. By the same token, however, when looking to future possibilities, emergent in contemporary ecological economics is a potential methodology for effective collaboration that will be explicitly centered on the eight modes identified. Because it will be grounded in operative methods rather than discipline-specific output, the methodology will be transdisciplinary functional collaboration.

Suggested Citation

  • Terrance Quinn, 2023. "An Emergent Transdisciplinary Methodology for Effective Collaboration in Ecological Economics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-22, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:9:p:7522-:d:1139110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/9/7522/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/9/7522/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clive L Spash, 2009. "Social Ecological Economics," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-08, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    2. Kaitlin Kish & Joshua Farley, 2021. "A Research Agenda for the Future of Ecological Economics by Emerging Scholars," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-17, February.
    3. Hanchu Liu & Jie Fan & Kan Zhou, 2018. "An Empirical Study on Spatial–Temporal Dynamics and Influencing Factors of Tea Production in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-15, August.
    4. Dzeraviaha, Ihar, 2018. "Mainstream economics toolkit within the ecological economics framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 15-21.
    5. Spash, Clive L., 2013. "The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 351-362.
    6. Costanza, Robert & Howarth, Richard B. & Kubiszewski, Ida & Liu, Shuang & Ma, Chunbo & Plumecocq, Gaël & Stern, David I., 2016. "Influential publications in ecological economics revisited," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 68-76.
    7. Clive L. Spash, 2019. "Substantive Economics and Avoiding False Dichotomies in Advancing Social Ecological Economics," SRE-Disc sre-disc-2019_05, Institute for Multilevel Governance and Development, Department of Socioeconomics, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    8. Pirgmaier, Elke, 2017. "The Neoclassical Trojan Horse of Steady-State Economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 52-61.
    9. Luca Coscieme & Paul Sutton & Lars F. Mortensen & Ida Kubiszewski & Robert Costanza & Katherine Trebeck & Federico M. Pulselli & Biagio F. Giannetti & Lorenzo Fioramonti, 2019. "Overcoming the Myths of Mainstream Economics to Enable a New Wellbeing Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-17, August.
    10. Clive L. Spash & Anthony Ryan, 2012. "Economic Schools of Thought on the Environment: Investigating Unity and Division," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 36(5), pages 1091-1121.
    11. Spash, Clive L., 2020. "A tale of three paradigms: Realising the revolutionary potential of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    12. David Barkin & Blanca Lemus, 2013. "Understanding Progress: A Heterodox Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-15, January.
    13. Lagoarde-Segot, Thomas & Martínez, Enrique A., 2021. "Ecological finance theory: New foundations," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    14. Spash, Clive L., 2019. "SEE Beyond Substantive Economics: Avoiding False Dichotomies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Costanza, Robert & Stern, David & Fisher, Brendan & He, Lining & Ma, Chunbo, 2004. "Influential publications in ecological economics: a citation analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3-4), pages 261-292, October.
    16. Faber, Malte & Manstetten, Reiner & Proops, John L. R., 1995. "On the conceptual foundations of ecological economics: A teleological approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 41-54, January.
    17. Spash, Clive L., 2012. "New foundations for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 36-47.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lundgren, Jakob, 2022. "Unity through disunity: Strengths, values, and tensions in the disciplinary discourse of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    2. Spash, Clive L., 2020. "A tale of three paradigms: Realising the revolutionary potential of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    3. Spash, Clive L., 2019. "Time for a Paradigm Shift: From Economic Growth andPrice-Making Markets to Social Ecological Economics," SRE-Discussion Papers 2019/07, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    4. Dube, Benjamin, 2021. "Why cross and mix disciplines and methodologies?: Multiple meanings of Interdisciplinarity and pluralism in ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    5. Buchs, Arnaud & Petit, Olivier & Roman, Philippe, 2020. "Can social ecological economics of water reinforce the “big tent”?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    6. Kaitlin Kish & Joshua Farley, 2021. "A Research Agenda for the Future of Ecological Economics by Emerging Scholars," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-17, February.
    7. Goddard, Jessica J. & Kallis, Giorgos & Norgaard, Richard B., 2019. "Keeping multiple antennae up: Coevolutionary foundations for methodological pluralism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Spash, Clive L., 2017. "The Need for and Meaning of Social Ecological Economics," SRE-Discussion Papers 2017/02, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    9. Plumecocq, Gaël, 2014. "The second generation of ecological economics: How far has the apple fallen from the tree?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 457-468.
    10. Bliss, Sam & Egler, Megan, 2020. "Ecological Economics Beyond Markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    11. Spash, Clive L., 2013. "The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 351-362.
    12. Clive Spash & Tone Smith, 2019. "Of Ecosystems and Economies: Re-connecting Economics with Reality," SRE-Disc sre-disc-2019_03, Institute for Multilevel Governance and Development, Department of Socioeconomics, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    13. Kish, K. & Mallery, D. & Yahya Haage, G. & Melgar-Melgar, R. & Burke, M. & Orr, C. & Smolyar, N.L. & Sanniti, S. & Larson, J., 2021. "Fostering critical pluralism with systems theory, methods, and heuristics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    14. Morgan, Jamie, 2017. "Piketty and the Growth Dilemma Revisited in the Context of Ecological Economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 169-177.
    15. Maksym Polyakov & Morteza Chalak & Md. Sayed Iftekhar & Ram Pandit & Sorada Tapsuwan & Fan Zhang & Chunbo Ma, 2018. "Authorship, Collaboration, Topics, and Research Gaps in Environmental and Resource Economics 1991–2015," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 217-239, September.
    16. Buch-Hansen, Hubert & Nesterova, Iana, 2021. "Towards a science of deep transformations: Initiating a dialogue between degrowth and critical realism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    17. Anderson, Blake & M'Gonigle, Michael, 2012. "Does ecological economics have a future?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 37-48.
    18. Herrmann-Pillath, Carsten, 2018. "The Case for a New Discipline: Technosphere Science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 212-225.
    19. Kube, Roland & Löschel, Andreas & Mertens, Henrik & Requate, Till, 2018. "Research trends in environmental and resource economics: Insights from four decades of JEEM," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 433-464.
    20. Remig, Moritz C., 2017. "Structured pluralism in ecological economics — A reply to Peter Söderbaum's commentary," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 533-537.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:9:p:7522-:d:1139110. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.