Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory

Citation: Martha S. Feldman, Wanda J. Orlikowski (2011) Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory. Organization Science (RSS)
DOI (original publisher): 10.1287/orsc.1100.0612
Semantic Scholar (metadata): 10.1287/orsc.1100.0612
Sci-Hub (fulltext): 10.1287/orsc.1100.0612
Internet Archive Scholar (search for fulltext): Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory
Download: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/66516
Tagged: Sociology (RSS) Sociology (RSS), Practice Lens (RSS), Structuration Theory (RSS), routines (RSS), Practice Theory (RSS)

Summary

In this piece, Feldman and Orlikowski articulate a practice perspective on organizational phenomena, contrast it with previous approaches, describe their scholarly journeys to a practice perspective and identify the value and challenges associated with this perspective.

Taking a practice perspective implies a focus on "the relationship between specific instances of situated action and the social world in which the action takes place." Giddens's structuration and Bordieu's theory of practice are exemplars.

Feldman and Orlikowski first identify that one can take a practice perspective with regard to empirical phenomena, matters of theory and matters of philosophy. The authors focus primarily on the theoretical level, though they draw heavily upon their empirical work. They then scan the Strategy, Knowledge and Institutionalist literatures for examples of practice-focused work.

Feldman offers her path to the development of a practice-focused theory of organizational routines, and Orlikowski offers her path from Giddens's original conception of structuration (which foregrounded technology) to a modified approach which brought "technologies-in-practice" to the fore. In essence hers was a move away from the technological artifact in general to the situated and particular engagement with that technology.

While organizational scholars have been pushing since the 60s for engagement with the action (rather than the being) of organizations, actually adopting a practice perspective remains unusual and somewhat risky. Readers want "to know what knowledge has been acquired or what resources are being used rather than how knowing is achieved or action is resourced."

The authors hold that it is very difficult to write, let alone think from a practice perspective. The core difficulty here is categorization: on the one hand we survive and operate by creating and connecting abstract categories and dualities (e.g. agency/structure, good/bad), and on the other the closer we examine the dynamics inherent in our reality the more difficult it is to hold fast to these distinctions.

The authors claim that practice perspective scholars respond by inventing new terms, writing in circular language and spending more time in the field. In return for all this effort, the authors claim, a practice perspective allows for "powerful theoretical generalizations" (e.g. Lave's "cognition in practice") and practical guidance that acknowledges and incorporates the real-world complexities of the systems with which managers must contend.

Theoretical and Practical Relevance

Organization Science 22 (2011): 1240-1253