Methodological reflections on practice-based research in organization studies.
| Autor | Bispo, Marcelo de Souza |
| Cargo | Report |
Introduction
Practice-based studies or practice theories, are gaining prominence in the international academic production since the movement called Practice Turn from the 2000s (Miettinen, Samra-Fredericks, & Yanow, 2009; Schatzki, 2001). The theme, though ancient, gained new dynamics through reinvigorated theoretical articulations and more dialogue among researchers from various practical approaches.
In this context, the practice theories regarding the definition of what is to be practical arises at the same time, as a possibility to investigate and discuss various topics related to organization studies. Despite being a polysemous area, topics which which stand out include learning and knowledge (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Cook & Yanow, 1993; Fenwick, Nerland, & Jensen, 2012; Gherardi, 2001, 2006; Nicolini, Gherardi, & Yanow, 2003; Strati, 2007), strategy-as-practice (Jarzabkowski, 2004; Whittington, 1996), education (Bispo, 2015; Davis, 2012; Gherardi, 2015; Landri, 2012), science and technology (Orlikowski, 2000, 2007; Suchman, Blomberg, Orr, & Trigg, 1999).
This diversity of approaches on practice as well as the investigated research topics end up raising a discussion from the following question: what would be the most appropriate methodological possibilities to conduct a practice-based study? This question certainly makes room for debate on the subject. Talking about practice theories which leads to the determination that theoretical and conceptual polysemy must also be present, in diversity, the methodological possibilities for driving such a study.
Some authors have been collaborating in an attempt to build specific methods to account for an epistemology focused on practices. Therefore, it is possible to quote from Bourdieu (1977) with the idea of praxiology, Nicolini (2009a, 2009b, 2013) with the idea of shadowing, which is also supported by Gherardi (2012) and Czarniawska (2008), and Bispo and Godoy (2012, 2014) with ethnomethodology.
Thus, the main objective of this article (1) is to discuss methodological possibilities for empirical research on practice-based studies. The main reasons given are: (a) the large number of studies that have been taking practices as a theoretical framework, such as strategy, organizational learning, education, nursing, technology, among others; (b) the need to contribute to the advancement of research in the practice field; (c) and the fact that the study of practice still needs more methodological discussions (Gherardi, 2012; Nicolini, 2013).
It is important to define, from this introduction, that this is not a proposal for a specific method to investigate practices, but an epistemic and methodological discussion on the foundation of this kind of research. It is also an effort to debate the ways of access to and analysis of data that are highlighted and likely to support future research methods propositions on practices. This is a key point since I am not interested in addressing a methodology for a specific theory of practice, but rather remind that practice in itself is considered by many authors (Gherardi, 2012; Nicolini; 2013; Santos & Silveira, 2015) as an epistemology. Therefore, it is a previous or preparatory stage for conducting the empirical research itself; i.e., the epistemological viewpoint guides the strategies to access and analysis of empirical data.
In addition, my choice to carry out the proposed objective is, before conducting the empirical research itself, to rescue some philosophical assumptions of practice theories in the first part of the article in order to sustain the methodological possibilities that will be proposed and discussed in the second part of the text. Following is an open space for discussion of methodological limitations encountered and the possibilities of advancement of empirical research on practice-based studies. Final remarks will be presented seeking to bring a closure to this article from my point of view, as it is far from a consensual and consolidated solution.
Epistemological Aspects of Practice Theories
Before starting the discussion on the epistemological aspects of practice theories, I think it would be appropriate to say that this article is not intended to present the history, settings, or the traditions of practice-based studies. This option is due to the large number of publications that have contributed to this effect already (Azevedo, 2013; Bispo, 2013; Gherardi, 2006, 2012; Nicolini, 2013; Nicolini et al., 2003; Reckwitz, 2002; Schatzki, 2001).
My goal at this point of the text is to rescue the epistemological assumptions that led to the constitution of the movement of practice-based studies as a theoretical body. Issues which are relevant to a discussion on methods of empirical research on practice can be raised from them.
According to Nicolini, Gherardi and Yanow (2003) the notion of practice to scholars of the Practice Turn in its philosophical essence, is influenced by four major areas of knowledge - in the Marxist tradition, phenomenology, symbolic interaction, and the legacy of Wittgenstein. These influences greatly contributed to the understanding of practices when considered in relation to phenomena such as: knowledge, meaning, human activity, power, language, organizations, and organizing.
Added to this, it is still possible to highlight several contributions to the historical and technological changes that take place, and are also issues of practice field for those who share them. In addition to this, I will still include the contributions of post-humanism due to the importance of nonhumans to understand practices (Gherardi & Perrotta, 2014; Latour, 2005; Schatzki, 2001, 2003, 2010).
To redeem briefly the main ideas of these five traditions that philosophically support a big part of what has been built in the practice theories, beginning with Marxism. The notion of practice brings with it the idea that we only know facts and they are objects of our practice, so the thought and the world are always associated with human activity. Thus, thinking is just one of the human actions, the practice is composed by the union of our world's production with the result of this process. The practice is always the product of specific historical conditions resulting from previous practices that become our present practice. The process producing material also involves the creation of goods as the reproduction of society. The great contribution of this tradition, from the epistemological point of view, is to the effect that practice is an activity network in which knowing is not separate from doing (Gherardi 2006; Gherardi & Perrotta, 2014; Nicolini et al., 2003).
In turn, regarding phenomenology contributions to practice studies (Practice Turn) it is possible to mention the everyday organizational life through human life-world and the avoidance of dualisms. Thus, activities such as work, learning, innovation, communication, negotiation, conflict of objectives, the interpretation of these same objectives, and their own history, are within a flow of existence as a practical endeavor. Therefore, they are part of human existence. Based on the Dasein concept of Heidegger (1996), which means being there or being-in-the-world, phenomenology states that there is no distinction between subject and object, both are part of a social and historical setting in which there are not dualisms. Both subject and object only make sense as a construction of meaning that cannot be understood in isolation (Nicolini, 2013; Nicolini et al., 2003).
With regard to symbolic interactionism, this also makes a significant contribution to the understanding of practices, to highlight interactions between individuals, and between individuals and objects; so that all knowledge can be accessed through interaction. According to Blumer (1986), the movement of symbolic interactionism is built on three premises: the first one states that human beings act on facts based on the meaning they have for the groups to which they belong.
These facts include everything that humans can notice as physical objects; i.e., other human beings, individual categories such as friends or enemies, institutions, ideals, other activities, and situations encountered in their daily lives. The second shows that the significance of facts or drift arises from social interaction between a member and another. Finally, the third assumption states that the meaning of facts is proper and modified by an interpretative process used by people in order to deal with the events they face.
In short, symbolic interactionism indicates that meanings that facts have for humans are central in its conduct. Thus, human interaction is mediated by language and the use of symbols for the interpretation of facts; this is what provides access to the meaning of others' actions in the lived context (Blumer, 1986).
Another thought that contributes to the understanding of practices is the legacy of Wittgenstein, which brings the importance of the elements of language and meaning in their relationship with their own practice through language games. For Wittgenstein language promotes social practice and allows the construction of meaning and sense.
Thus, participation in practice means to be part of the language game, and appropriating it. Language is not just a means of conveying information, but also an action that builds meaning and practice itself. These ideas show that a practical understanding is always tacit, a silent game, not translated in words (Nicolini et al., 2003; Schatzki, 1996; Wittgenstein, 1953).
Post-humanism (Latour, 2005, 2013; Schatzki, 2001, 2006) as an epistemological position, tries to counter the role of the human against the non-human. Critical approaches in the social world and everyday life are understood only by human action, ignoring or taking non-humans as insignificant and with a non-agency status. The name post-humanism, despite its strageness, is a philosophical...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
