Send message to Author

Short abstract:

An exploratory study of ecological sufficiency and its epistemic underpinnings through semi-structured interviews was analysed with a grounded theory approach, adopting Public Understanding of Science (Wynne, 1992) and Configuring Fields(Stirling, 2019) as an analytical lens for discussion.

Long abstract:

An exponentially growing number of academic publications and policy initiatives show that the concept of ecological sufficiency is receiving increasing attention and acceptance among academic and policy circles. Despite the increasing popularity and its promises to become an "antidote to the expansive modernity"(as noted by an interview participant), underlying knowledge and policy-making practices that constitute the sufficiency concept remain a topic for the STS field to explore. For example, what does "enough" or "excess" mean in different contexts, and what are the ways of knowing these "boundaries"? In addition, what are the embedded political and responsibility aspects described by the scholars in the field and the policies on the ground? This study builds on 12 semi-structured interviews that ask these questions to the scholars who authored some of the most recognised publications about this concept. To explore such epistemic dimensions of the Sufficiency concept, interviews have been analysed with a constructivist grounded theory approach, adopting Public Understanding of Science (Wynne, 1992) and Configuring Fields(Stirling, 2019) as an analytical lens for discussion.

Study results suggest that the public uptake of the sufficiency concept is significantly hindered by some of the simplified and top-down rationales applied to socio-material questions. For the sufficiency movement to avoid settling into a lighter version of modernity, "deeper" reflections on the embedded politics of knowledge-making appear necessary.

By discussing these challenges, this study aims to initiate dialogue between STS and sufficiency scholarships by highlighting insights important to recognise for the wider movement of transformations.