This slide seemed to go over well during my presentation at the Postdigital Backlash conference in Zagreb last month, so we have shared the figure openly:
Molloy, K., & Thomson, C. (2026). A model for degrowth pragmatism (Version 1). figshare. doi.org/10.6084/m9.f...
doi.orgA model for degrowth pragmatismThis figure visualises a pragmatic model to digital degrowth in education. Using a micro, meso, and macro framing, we position degrowth pragmatism as a practical, ground-level model for change, which builds upon Vetters' (2018) micro-level Matrix for Convivial Technology and Jones' (2021) macro-level, theoretical assessment of educational good using four vectors of degrowth. Our meso-level approach is informed by our collective experience and scholarship as educational technology practitioners (Molloy & Thomson, 2023a; Molloy & Thomson, 2023b; Molloy et al. 2025). ReferencesJones, A. H. (2021). What is an Educational Good? Theorising Education as Degrowth. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 55(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12494Molloy, K., & Thomson, C. (2023). Humanising Learning Design with Digital Pragmatism. In L. Czerniewicz & C. Cronin (Eds.), Higher Education for Good: Teaching and Learning Futures. https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0363.17 Molloy, K., & Thomson, C. (2023). Humanising Online Learning through the Lens of Engaged Pedagogy. In T. Jaffer, S. Govender & L. Czerniewicz (Eds.), Learning Design Voices. (pp. 151-165). https://doi.org/10.59668/279.10563 Molloy, K., Costello, E., Brunton, J,. & Thomson, C. (2025). Critical and Creative Methods: From Learning Design Practice to Research. TechTrends, 69(6), 1134–1140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-025-01154-1 Vetter, A. (2018). The Matrix of Convivial Technology – Assessing technologies for degrowth. Journal of Cleaner Production, Technology and Degrowth, 197, 1778–1786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.195