IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v240y2026ics0921800925003155.html

Pluralism and integration? A systematic review of ecological economics methodological foundations

Author

Listed:
  • Kretschmer, Max-Friedemann
  • Engler, John-Oliver
  • von Wehrden, Henrik
  • Rathgens, Julius
  • Ament, Joe A.

Abstract

For decades, Ecological Economics has spent many resources on research-paradigmatic conflicts. The resulting lack of methodological alignment and consistency creates transaction cost, divides the research community and undermines the paradigmatic agreement needed in working on shared goals. Building on a multivariate statistical full-text analysis of all empirical research papers published in the journal Ecological Economics in the period 1989–2021 (N = 3972), we empirically investigate the landscape of research methods used in the journal Ecological Economics. Our statistical results support the existence of five different methodological clusters. We argue that sustaining pluralism without fragmentation requires context-dependent choices of methods, supported by a diversification of Ecological Economics orientational paradigms. Methods should be understood as means rather than ends, valued for their ability to address questions aligned with the field's pre-analytical vision.

Suggested Citation

  • Kretschmer, Max-Friedemann & Engler, John-Oliver & von Wehrden, Henrik & Rathgens, Julius & Ament, Joe A., 2026. "Pluralism and integration? A systematic review of ecological economics methodological foundations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:240:y:2026:i:c:s0921800925003155
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108832
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800925003155
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108832?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:ecolec:v:240:y:2026:i:c:s0921800925003155. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.