Practices: An Introduction

Dr Antony Beckett

Introduction

One of the most fundamental questions in any form of research or attempt to explain a
phenomenon is the selection of the ‘unit of analysis’. Quite simply this means what are we
going to look at in attempting to explain something; a group of cells, an organ, a biological
system or the entire human? This seemingly innocuous choice has massive implications for
the type of answers we generate and how those answers can be used to explain phenomena.
Looking at an individual organ in the body may give us lots of detail about how that organ
functions, it composition and development, but might tell us little about that organ fits into a
wider biological system such as our blood system or how it interacts with other organs.
Issues around the choice of unit of analysis are particularly problematic in the social sciences.
In studying complex phenomena such as trust, co-operation between individuals, or even
supposedly simple decisions like going for a walk with someone are actually very difficult to
study.

The problems of studying complex phenomena and knowing what unit of analysis to use are
equally problematic when discussing innovation. It is possible to identify four approaches to
studying innovation which characterise much of the mainstream academic literature. Each
use a different unit of analysis.

1. Organizationally focused models

These models focus on how organizations seek to manage and direct innovation
within their boundaries. The unit of analysis here is the organization and the process
by which innovation develops within organizations.
2. Classification models
Classification models seek to classify innovations in to different ‘types’;
incremental/radical/sustaining/disruptive. Here the unit of analysis is the innovation
itself.
 3. Process models
This type of innovation has similarities with the first type, both look at the process of
innovation. The difference here is that rather than process within organizations the
unit of analysis embraces a wider definition of innovation process. Thus, innovation
is described in terms of networks, open versus closed or innovation funnels
4. Business model innovation
Here a differentiation is drawn between product/service innovation, where
organizations create new products/services and those instances where organizations
create a new business model which often creates existing products/services but does
so in an innovative manner. The obvious example here is Uber. Here the unit of
analysis is the entire organization.

These approaches to innovation use either organisations or processes as their unit of analysis.
So that the understanding of innovation they generate is framed in these terms. A rather
different approach is found in the work of Tony Ulwick a consultant and writer based in the
USA. Ulwick’s work focuses on what he terms ‘jobs to be done’. He argues very
convincingly that consumers ‘buy’ things, products or services, to ‘get things done’ in their
lives. Therefore, in order to innovate we need to understand the ‘jobs’ that people want to
achieve, to look at what products or services they are currently using to ‘do’ that job and to
identify their frustrations and irritations with those existing solutions. Ulwick introduces this
idea in his 2002 Harvard Business Review paper ‘Turn Customer Input into Innovation’ and
these ideas are elaborated further in the 2008 Harvard Business Review paper ‘The
Customer-Centred Innovation Map’ by Bettencourt and Ulwick. In this approach the ‘job to
be done’ is the unit of analysis and innovation emerges where that job to be done is carefully
mapped and the frustrations of the individual in trying to ‘do’ that job are fully articulated.
Successful innovations he argues are design to ameliorate those frustrations, to remove them,
so that the user or consumer can get that job done and move onto something else.

Ulwick’s work attempts to re-frame our understanding of innovation by changing the ‘unit of
analysis’ and looking at ‘jobs’ to be done rather than organisations or the process of
innovation. I want to develop that approach further by altering the ‘unit of analysis’ and
focus, not on jobs to be done, but ‘practices’. Using practices as a lens, the unit will explore
the links between ‘doing things’ in our daily lives, like playing the piano or cooking,
consumption, buying and using products and services, and innovation, creating new products
and services which make it easier to do things in our lives, or dramatically change how we
‘do’ things. Crucially practices are the ‘site’ of innovation, it’s where the effects of
innovation become manifest.

Defining Practices

One of the central problems for those wanting to study humans and the social life in which
they both participate and create is the choice of the ‘unit of analysis’. The choice of a unit of
analysis is neither neutral nor arbitrary. Focusing on a particular unit of analysis will shape
the way one comes to ‘see’ and understand both individuals and their social world.
Historically the most commonly used unit analysis is that of the ‘individual’. Subjects as
diverse as economics, psychology and sociology take humans as their basic unit of analysis.
It maybe that sometimes these individual humans operate in groups, but ultimately, they are
motivated, whether alone or in groups, by their personal desires. In doing this they are
making an implicit assumption which is rarely, if ever, articulated; individual human
characteristics such as behaviour, beliefs, dispositions and attitudes shape not only the
individual, but all the social world in which they exist. This includes the institutions they
create, including schools, social clubs, businesses, organisations like hospitals and
universities right through to armies and governments. All sociality is a product of the
individual and therefore, by looking at humans we can analyse and explain that social world.
This approach is sometimes defined as ‘upward’ conflation; the desires, beliefs and
behaviours of individuals are conflated, drawn together, to explain and analyse larger social
groupings like the ones I have just listed. Some scholars have argued for the opposite, for
‘downward’ conflation. These scholars argue that there exist overarching factors such as
gender, ethnicity or social class which ‘determine’ the lives, beliefs and desires of
individuals. For them the key unit of analysis is for example, social class. Social class
‘explains’ why individuals believe what they do or why intuitions function in particular ways.

Practice ‘theory’ is an attempt to move away from both these approaches. Rather than using
individuals or broad social factors, practice theorists focus on ‘practices’ as the key unit of
analysis. For them the world we inhabit, the social groups we belong to, the firms and
organisations in which we work and socialise and our individual desires, beliefs and even
needs, all come from practices and how we perform those practices.

Defining practices however is not straightforward. Cooking is a practice, so is walking,

swimming, bodily care, driving a car, educating children, childcare, Do-It-Yourself (DIY),
cleaning, playing tennis and so on. Within each of these practices there are many activities;
chopping food, booking a car service, reading to children, drilling a hole in a wall, which we
undertake as we perform the practice. In a recent publication Alan Warde (2016) identified
four ways in which a practice might be identified:

1. The existence of instruction manuals. Practices will often have instruction manuals
written about them, how to perform the practice, recipe books, how-to put-on make-
up guides, styling tips for dressing.
2. Time spent on performing the practice. Another good indication of a practice is
recognition of time spent performing the practice or activities related to it; personal
hygiene and brushing your teeth for example. Personal hygiene is a practice and
brushing your teeth is one of the key activities performed as part of that practice.
3. A third criterion is that there are, or have been, disputes with participants of the
practice about the standards of the performance, in light of expectations over how the
practice should be performed.
4. Practices are usually supported by suites of specialised equipment. These objects and
services are usually appear together, often being sold in conjunction with one another
or explicitly confirming their mutual association, like pen and paper, cars and garages,
microwaves and freezers.
5. A final, additional criterion not specified by Warde, is the existence of ‘experts’ who
offer authoritative understandings on how the practice should be performed. These
experts would include; famous chefs, dancers, vloggers, TV personalities and pundits
writing in newspapers and magazines. This is not to say that all performances of the
practice must follow the advice and guidance of these experts, but that they often set
out a ‘right’ way of performing the practice which many feel compelled to re-produce
in their everyday lives. These experts are often highly attuned to new ways of
performing the practice or to how external discourses could or are redefining its
performance.
In defining a practice, it is useful to use these five elements and if you can’t identify a least
three of them, then you are probably not looking at a practice. It can be difficult to
differentiate between a practice and an activity that sits within a practice. Take brushing your
teeth for example. There are ‘experts’ on the internet who determine how you should brush
your teeth, there is specialised equipment, and we spend time each day brushing our teeth.
However, there are not really any disputes about how to brush your teeth, advice across both
the UK and USA, for example, is remarkably consistent and whilst there are lots of video
instructions on how to brush your teeth there are not instruction manuals. So, brushing your
teeth is probably not a practice, but personal hygiene, embracing a range of activities, is.
What this example highlights is that it is not always easy to separate practices are entities
from particular activities and the boundaries between practices and activities are changing.
Maybe brushing your teeth will become a practice as new technologies re-define how it is
done and disputes emerge as to which technologies are best.

In defining practices, it is useful to differentiate between practices as an entity and as a

performance. Cooking exists as an entity as a noun, a concept that we understand and can
talk about, and it exists as a performance, a verb something we do in our daily lives.

Practices as Entities

One simple way of thinking about practices is to define them in terms of elements; as we
perform a practice we bring these elements together. Following Shove et al (2012) I define
practices in terms of three elements:

Competences and knowledge

Meanings and norms

Materials and non-materials

Competences and Knowledge

This element includes all the skills, know-how and techniques involved in performing a
practice; by reading Jamie Oliver’s cookery books our understanding of how to cook can be
developed which then changes how we perform the practice of cooking.

Meanings and Norms

Here I include symbolic meanings, ideas, aspirations and the norms involved in performing
the practice. What does a ‘good’ mother do when preparing food for her child? How does
she get her children to eat five fruit and vegetables a day? What constitutes a bad father?
Every practice ‘carries’ meanings which are reproduced when we perform that practice and
there are always norms that determine ‘how’ that practice should be performed. Those
meanings and norms change overtime and can have a very powerful influence over how the
practice is performed and by whom, where, when.

Materials and Non-materials

The performance of practices usually involves using things, artefacts but also non-material
elements, electricity, software programmes, radio waves. Materials and the technologies they
embody develop and change overtime and directly influence how a practice is performed.
The development of the microwave and the freezer has dramatically altered the practice of
cooking and where and when food is consumed, eating is also a practice. Even our bodies are
a material element within practices; the body itself is a component of practice.
 Competences and Knowledge

Practice
Goals

Meanings and Norms Materials and

Non-Materials

Background Discourses

Figure 1: The elements of a practice

Background discourses

One element that I have included in the above diagram, but which lies outside the practice
itself, are background discourses. Discourses are sets of ideas contained within publications;
books, magazines, on TV, on internet videos and websites and these discourses shape how
the practice should be performed. A good example is the UK government’s five fruit and
vegetable a day campaign which encourages the consumption of five portions of vegetables
and fruit a day. Importantly, that discourse ‘frames’ how individuals perform both cooking
and eating, the government hopes that UK citizens will respond and change how they cook
and eat to reflect this discourse. These discourses ‘re-frame’ the norms and meanings within
the practice and are important, not only to understand how practices are performed, but also
in terms of innovation; changing discourses create new opportunities for innovation.
Supermarkets, recognising that individuals wanted to respond to the governments suggestions
around five fruit and vegetables a day, created products that allowed consumers to access
fruit or vegetables more easily and labelled products in-line with the discourse, ‘this product
is equivalent to one portion of your five-a-day’. Thus, the discourse provided supermarkets
with new opportunities for innovation and to ‘help’ their customers ‘solve’ the problems they
faced in their daily lives as they attempt to perform the practices of cooking and eating in line
with the norms which define the practice.

Practices as Performance

The above example highlights the links between the practice as an entity and the performance
of that practice. When performing a practice, we reproduce it, carrying that practice forward,
and often changing the practice as we carry it forward, altering the sequencing of activities,
how a set of activities are performed or the linkage to other practices. We can change where
and when practices are performed, or who performs them and in this sense, we are all
‘innovators’ as we make tiny changes to our reproduction of practices as we perform them in
our daily lives. Practices can be performed in different ways, for example, when thinking
about teaching it can be performed in a large lecture theatre, or in a laboratory, or in a
seminar room. And even within a seminar room there are different forms of performance;
when studying accounting students might be expected to work individually on accounting
problems, whereas in a sociology seminar they might be required to work in groups talking
about ideas, or making presentations.1 Through performance individuals can signal
difference, take for example owning and using a car. For some this provides an opportunity
to display wealth, or their view of themselves as young, or socially responsible, brands of
motor vehicles are then tailored to reflect these different performances. A good example is
found in the article from The Guardian on cycling tribes. Although light hearted in tone what
this paper clearly illustrates is how different groups of cyclists ‘perform’ cycling in different
ways and that it carries very different meanings and providing different identities.

To ‘survive’ practices must ‘enrol’ new performers and some practices have endured for
thousands of years as successive waves of individuals have been enrolled into the practice.
Others are recent innovations, snowboarding is a recent practice that developed out of a
fusion between skiing and skateboarding. Some practices that were important no longer enrol
large numbers of performers, Christianity in the UK for example, has far fewer adherents
than it did in the 19th Century, which is why so many empty church buildings are converted

1
Notice how the physical space in which teaching is performed ‘frames’ the nature of that performance, the
type of room or space in which teaching takes places ‘scripts’ the roles of teachers and students. In large lecture
theatres students as ‘passive’ sitting listening to the lecturer, whereas in seminars they will be more active.
What this illustrates is the interaction between the physical elements of a practice, rooms, desk, and chairs and
how that practice is performed.
into luxury flats. Not only can practices disappear and new ones appear, but existing
practices can be utterly transformed. Romance, for example, has undergone extraordinary
change with the emergence of internet dating and Tinder.

Cooking: An Example of a Practice

Cooking is possibly the first practice developed by humans as they recognised the nutritional
benefits of processing raw food stuffs through their control of fire. 2 Cooking consists of a
whole range of rountinised bodily activities; reading a recipe, locating ingredients, bringing
them together, weighing or measuring them, preparing them by chopping, slicing, crushing
and cutting, combining them, before heating, serving and eating them. These activities link
together a number of other elements; mental actions such as understanding instructions in a
recipe and the linking of those instructions to bodily actions, measuring out quantities or
understanding the significance in the difference between crushing and chopping. In
combination these activities and understandings form ‘competences’ a knowhow, how to do
something. To perform these competences successfully we require ‘things’; garlic crushers,
chopping boards, cookers, fridges and so forth. They also require background knowledge,
how a cooker works, how food is safely stored in a fridge or freezer, how long items take to
defrost or the implications of different types of heat. The norms of cooking relate to
activities such as washing hands, storing food stuffs and cleaning tools. It is important to
know the norms that govern the practice if we are to perform that practice effectively or in
this case to cook a meal or bake a cake. Practices are oriented toward a set of ends, or goals,
what we seeking to achieve as we carry out or perform the practice. In terms of cooking it is
possible to identify a whole range of different ends towards which the practice is oriented.
We might be cooking to entertain, and that end itself may assume a range of different forms
from a summer’s barbecue to a buffet or a romantic dinner, we might be preparing healthy
meals for the children or trashy food to watch television or using yesterday’s leftovers. In all
these instances in performing the practice of cooking we have an overall sense of what we are
doing, even if most of the time our objective or end is rarely articulated. Finally practices
give rise to institutions. In the case of cooking, to colleges where cooking is taught, to
restaurants, to organisations that check the quality and hygiene standards, guides that
recommend restaurants, even works of fiction, films and novels based around cooking.

2
In ‘Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human’ (2009) Wrangham argues that the control of fire enabled
humans to engage in cooking and this sparked the final round of evolutionary development of humans and lead
to the creation of the ‘practice’ of cooking because it demanded the co-operation of a group of humans.
Practices also sit within a ‘background’ which we take-for-granted. So, when cooking we
assume gas and electricity will be available, that supermarkets will stock the items we need,
that we are fit and able to go shopping to acquire the ingredients we need. All practices ‘sit-
in’ these backgrounds which only become apparent when they go wrong or we deliberately
attempt to think about them. Forces such as aging, or climate change affect our lives through
practices and how practices are performed. As we age we change the practices we perform or
find it increasingly difficult to perform certain practices, such as walking, bathing, shopping
and even cooking. Or we adjust how we perform a practice, so old people are one of the
major markets for ready meals because they often live alone or don’t want to, or no longer
feel confident to cook, so ready meals for one are a very useful alternative.

So, my unit of analysis is not the individual person, but practices. As we grow up we are
socialised into performing practices, we learn how the practice is reproduced in the culture
conditions in which we live. Practices are both individual; by which I mean they are carried
forward by the individual as they reproduce that practice in their daily lives, and yet they are
also collective; many people perform a practice like cooking, so we are connected to each
other through our performance of a practice.

Conclusion

Our daily lives are configured by the practices we perform, and those performances are
influenced by a variety of factors; our age, health, gender and physical characteristics, the
physical spaces in which they are performed, even factors such as our faith and the climate.
The performance of practices is central to our lives because through them we ‘do’ things in
the world; cook meals, play tennis, dance, drive cars, look after children. Our ability to
perform a practice provides us with ‘agency’; the ability to do things in the world. As we
develop from novice to being an expert or at least competent our skill and confidence in
performing the practice develops and so we are able to ‘do’ things to a higher standard; sing,
cook, to drive and so on. Agency is important because the way we ‘get things done’ is
through ‘stuff’; material elements, computers, cars, chairs, beds, road markings and signs and
things we can’t see, computer programmes, gas and electricity. The list of stuff is almost
endless and if you change that stuff, you change how we exercise agency and that affects the
norms around how we do things and the meanings which are carried and conveyed. But
agency is not stable; it’s not always ‘us’ doing things with stuff, sometimes the stuff does
things to us. Think about how seatbelts operate in cars, in my car if you don’t fasten the
seatbelt an alarm is set off and there is no way of turning it off. The car exercises agency
over me, making me do something. If the car breaks down it is no longer a ‘tool’ which I
use, but again exercises agency over me as I need to repair it. All the material and non-
material world is like this, agency shifts between humans and stuff so that we can say that
there is a ‘relation’ between us and all the stuff around us.

The key change here is the switch from looking at innovation in terms of people,
organisations, or even the innovation itself and instead to focus on practices. That switch
opens new ways of thinking about the world generally and innovation in particular. It also
helps us to differentiate between ‘individual’ and ‘general’ innovation. Individual innovation
occurs where we as individuals make small adjustments to how we perform practices. We
alter the positioning of materials, we stick things together, we change materials to make them
more comfortable and easier to use and combine different elements to create new recipes.
(Sugru is a wonderful example of how materials can be personalised in the performance of
practice, have a look here: https://sugru.com/). We make these small adjustments in response
to small frustrations in our lives, they enable us to perform the practice more quickly,
comfortably or better achieve the goal of the practice. Whereas general innovation occurs
where the performance of practice is changed, not for one person, but for many. Now it is
very possible for these two ‘levels’ of innovation to be connected; an innovation by an
individual can be so successful that it becomes widely adopted. But general innovations also
occur by accident, or are a quite deliberate attempt to use or devise a technology that changes
a practice.

Looking at innovation through the lens of practice also helps us to differentiate between
incremental and radical or even disruptive forms of innovation. One of the key debates in the
innovation literature has been around the distinction between transformative or disruptive
innovation versus sustaining or incremental innovation (Christensen, 1997; Danneels, 2004) 3.
Traditionally scholars have struggled to deal with this issue because they have used the
innovation itself as the unit of analysis. Seen from a practice perspective this issue is much
easier to resolve; some innovations leave the performance of the practice largely unchanged,
whereas others utterly transform its performance. The key to understanding both the impact
of an innovation and what it is changing is to understand its impact on the practice,
3
Christensen, Clayton (1997), The Innovators Dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail,
Boston, Mas HBR Press.
Danneels, Erwin (2004) Disruptive Technology Reconsidered: A Critique and a Research Agenda, Product
Innovation Management, Vol 2 (July) 2004.
particularly in terms of the three elements of practice I identified earlier. Disruptive
innovation ‘disrupts’ the practice, dramatically altering how it is performed, and possibly the
way in which it functions in our daily lives. The impact of digitisation on photography is an
obvious example.

The practice lens won’t generate new innovations on its own. It’s simply a framework, a
starting point to help you think about what it is people do in their lives and how they do those
things. Like all frameworks it only comes ‘alive’ when used by someone to interrogate the
world and combined with design thinking it can help to begin thinking about how to innovate.