Unity through disunity: Strengths, values, and tensions in the disciplinary discourse of ecological economics

Ecological economics has existed as a field for over 30 years. The field has since its inception strived to transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries and incorporates many substantially different perspectives. Despite continuous discussion about the fundamentals and direction of the field, ecological economists maintain a perception that ecological economics is at its core one field, although there are various approaches within it. The present study draws on the concept of disciplinary discourse to explore the field's perceived strengths and the values pursued through its research. I carried out interviews with editors and editorial board members of the journal Ecological Economics in order to investigate how actors in a central location expressed this discourse. Respondents hold that the field's strengths are its theoretical robustness, breadth, and open and dynamic nature. They also hold that the field should pursue the scientific values of consistency, societal relevance, and novelty. However, the operationalization of these values in the institutional and intellectual environment of ecological economics is underscoring tensions within the field, including the question of whether to enforce strict exclusionary boundaries against mainstream economic approaches.