Public Administration Perspective

The Theoretical-Philosophical Framework of "Practice-Based Analysis": A New Approach in Organizational Studies

Document Type : Based on PhD Thesis

Authors

1 PhD Candidate in Public Management, Faculty of Economics and Management, Lorestan University, Visiting Scholar at Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Economics and Management, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Economics and Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

4 Full Professor, Faculty of Economics and Management, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran

5 Lorestan UniversityFull Professor, Faculty of Economics and Management, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran

Abstract

Purpose: Within conventional frameworks of human behavior studies, whether in society or organizations, a dualism of individualistic, agency-based approaches and social, structure-based approaches has often been established. However, a third set of approaches, known as "practice-based studies," has sought to transcend this dualism and seek the link between this dualism in the form of change-stabilization and agency-structure in people's daily behavior. In this sense, the practice-based approach, which has been achieved in efforts to link individual agency and social structure, can study various aspects of human behavior, including organizational behavior, which differs from the previous two approaches (personal and social). However, despite the presentation of numerous theories in the theoretical realm, the methodological foundation of this field is not well known, and this can be a barrier to the use of these approaches in studies in various fields such as organizational behavior.
Design/ methodology/ approach:  In studies of the practice field, a wide range of research approaches are used. These approaches can be divided into two general categories: general and specific methodologies. In the general stage; after interviewing the members of the expert panel, the data obtained from the interviews are thematically analyzed; in the first stage, the main and sub-themes are extracted and in the second stage, the sub-themes that refer to “daily activities and actions” are labeled practice and are selected as the “unit of analysis”; in fact, our unit of analysis is “practices” and practices are also referred to current action and everyday activities. In this method, approaches and models of practice theories, such as Schatzki’s ontology model, Bourdieu’s praxeology model, Boltanski’s model, Rakowitz, etc., are usually used to categorize the main themes. In the specific methodology of this field, the praxiography method is introduced, which focuses on everyday details and actions to provide a deeper analysis of practices.
Research Findings: Applying such an approach to organizational studies opens a new window to a deeper understanding of organizations. This approach provides a new understanding of the organization and a new perspective on managerial issues
Limitations & Consequences: Although practice theories contribute to a different understanding of social and organizational issues and phenomena and have significant potential, the methodological literature in this field is nascent and debatable.
Practical Consequences: The results of this type of research are valuable not only for researchers, but also for managers and employees, because by provide new insights, decision-making can become more targeted and effective. Overall, this approach helps us analyze organizational phenomena with precision and from a different angle, and ultimately, achieve a more comprehensive understanding of organizational performance.
Innovation or value of the Article: Practice theories propose a "Copernican revolution" for many seemingly familiar phenomena in organization and management studies, offering the opportunity to reinterpret all conceivable organizational phenomena. The practice-based approach suggests that the fundamental units for understanding organizational phenomena are practices, not merely individual agents. For this reason, practices are prioritized because only when we understand the set of practices involved in a scene of action can we ask what kind of action and “activism” is made possible by these particular circumstances. Practice-based research, as a specific research approach in this field, seeks to understand social phenomena differently by focusing on three dimensions: "material, meaningful, and skillful. Therefore, in order to develop the application of this approach in social and organizational studies, this research has attempted to study and analyze the theoretical methodology of practice theories from the perspective of different researchers, while introducing a real research study to researchers.
Paper Type: Original Paper
 

Keywords

  1. Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2007). Management accounting as practice. Accounting, organizations and society, 32(1-2), 1-27.
  2. Arnaud, N., Faure, B., Mengis, J., and Cooren, F. (2018). Interconnecting the practice turn and communicative approach to organizing: A new challenge for collective action: Introduction to the Special Issue, Management, 2(2), pp. 691-704.
  3. Alvesson, M. & Spicer, A. (2019). Neo-Institutional Theory and Organization Studies: A Mid-Life Crisis?. Organization Studies, 40(2), pp. 199-218.
  4. Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2011). Decolonializing Discourse: Critical Reflections on Organizational Discourse Analysis. Human Relations, 64(3), 327–350
  5. Brennan, N., and Kirwan, C., 2015. Audit Committees: practices, practitioners and praxis of Accounting, Auditing and Accountability, 28(4), pp. 466-493
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Bueger, Ch. (2014). Pathways to practice: praxiography and international politics. European Political Science Review, 6:3, 383–406.
  8. Bueger, C., and F. Gadinger. )2018(. Doing Praxiography: Research Strategies, Methods and Techniques. In International Practice Theory, 131–161. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
  9. Brown, J., and Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), pp. 198-213.
  10. Corradi, G., Gherardi, S., and Verzelloni, L. (2010). Through the practice lens: Where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading? Management Learning, 41(3), 265–83.
  11. Cohen, I. J. (1996). Theories of Action and Praxis. In B. S. Turner (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 2, 73–111.
  12. Dipboye, R. L. (2018). Social Processes in Organizations. Emerald review of industrial and organizational psychology.
  13. Feldman, M. S. and Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–53.
  14. Gunn, C. N. (2022). Organizational governance: a praxiography of three cricket clubs in Lancashire, Doctoral dissertation, Business Administration at the University of Central Lancashire.
  15. Golsorkhi, D. Rouleau. L., Seidl, D., and Vaara. E. (2014). What is Strategy as Practice? In: Rouleau, D., Seidl, D., Vaara, E., Golsorkhi, D. (eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University, pp. 1-45.
  16. Geiger, D. (2009). Revisiting the concept of practice: Toward an argumentative understanding of practicing. Management Learning, 40(2), 129–44.
  17. Gherardi, S. (2019). How to Conduct a Practice-Based Study: Problems and Methods. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  18. Hui, A., Schatzki, T.R., and Shove, E., (eds.) )2017(. The nexus of practices: connections, constellations, practitioners. Oxon: Routledge.
  19. Heisserer, B., and Rau, H., )2015(. Capturing the consumption of distance? From practice theory to the empirical investigation of everyday travel. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17(3), pp. 1-21.
  20. Jarzabkowski, P., and Bednarek, R., (2018). Toward a social practice theory of relational competing. Strategic Management Journal, 39, pp. 794-829.
  21. Lammi, I. (2018). A Practice Theory in Practice. Analytical Consequences in the Study of Organization and Socio-Technical Change. PhD. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.
  22. Leith, D., & Yerbury, H. (2019). Knowledge sharing and organizational change: Practice interactions in Australian local government. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(4), 1041-1051.
  23. Kemmis, S. (2010). Research for praxis: Knowing doing. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 18(1), 9-27.
  24. Kuo, W. P. (2019). Living with abnormal drought in rain-soaked Taiwan: Analysis of water consumption practices and discourses. Anthropological Notebooks, 25(2).
  25. Koopman, Colin, and Tomas Matza. 2013. Putting Foucault to Work: Analytic and Conceptual in Foucaultian Inquiry. Critical Inquiry 39 (4): 817–840
  26. Lounsbury, Michael, and Marc J. Ventresca. 2003. (The new structuralism in organizational theory. Organization, 10: 457–480.
  27. Mylan, Josephine & Southerton & Dale (2017). The Social Ordering of an Everyday Practice: The Case of Laundry, Sociology.
  28. Muller, Sophie Merit. (2016). Becoming the Phenomenon? An Alternative Approach to Reflexivity in Ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry 22 (9): 705–717.
  29. Miettinen, R., D. Samra-Fredericks and D. Yanow (2009), Return to practice: an introductory essay, Organization Studies 30(12): 1309–1327.
  30. Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice Theory, Work and Organization. An Introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  31. Nicolini, D., (2017). Practice Theory as a Package of Theory, Method, and Vocabulary: Affordances and Limitations. In: Jonas, M., Littig, B., Wroblewski, A. (eds.) Methodological Reflections on Practice-Oriented Theories. Springer [e-book], pp. 19-34.
  32. Narayanan, V., & Adams, C. A. (2017). Transformative change towards sustainability: the interaction between organisational discourses and organisational practices. Accounting and Business Research, 47(3), 344-368.
  33. Ortner, S. (1984). Theory in anthropology since the 60s. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26/1, 126–66.
  34. Pickford, H. W. (2017). Poiesis, praxis, aisthesis: Remarks on Aristotle and Marx. Aesthetic Marx, 23-48.
  35. Rouse, J. (1999). Understanding scientific practices: cultural studies of science as a philosophical program. In M. Biagioli (ed.), The Science Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, 442–56.
  36. Rouse, J. (1996). Engaging science: How to Understand its Practices Philosophically, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  37. Rouse, J. (2007). Social practices and normativity. Philosophy of the social sciences, 37(1), 46–56.
  38. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist theorizing.’ European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2).
  39. Stanley, B. Shove, E. Carmona, C, &. Kelly, M. P. (2016). Theories of practice and public health: understanding (un)healthy practices, Critical Public Health, Vol. 26, No.
  40. Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2014). Enlarging the Strategy-as-Practice Research Agenda: Towards Taller and Flatter Ontologies. Organization Studies, 35(10), 1407–1421.
  41. Schatzki, T. R. (1996). Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  42. Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical exploration of the constitution of
  43. social life and change. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
  44. Schatzki, T. R. (2005). The Sites of Organizations. Organization Studies, 26, 465–84.
  45. Schatzki, T. R. (2006). The time of activity. Continental Philosophy Review, 39(2), 155–82.
  46. Schatzki, T. R. (2011). The timespace of human activity: On performance, society, and history as indeterminate teleological events. Plymouth: Lexington Books.
  47. Schatzki, T. (2016). Keeping track of large social phenomena. Geographische Zeitschrift, 104(1), 4–24.
  48. Schatzki, T. (2017). Persons and practices. Management Theory and Practice, 7(1), 26–53.
  49. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practices: Everyday life and how it changes. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  50. Smallman, C., 2007. The process of governance: through a practice lens. Managerial Law, 49(5-6),
  51. 236-248
  52. Taylor, C. (1971). Interpretation and the sciences of man. The Review of Metaphysics, 25(1): 3–51.
  53. Therborn, G. (2014). Social practice, social action, social magic. Acta sociológica, 16(3), 157-174.
  54. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  55. Hui, A., Schatzki, T., & Shove, E. (Eds.). (2017). The nexus of practices: Connections, constellations,
  56. Abingdon: Routledge.
  57. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  58. Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (2017). The Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies. SAGE Publication
  59. Loscher, G., Splitter, V., & Seidl, D. (2019). Theodore Schatzki’s theory and its implications for organization studies. Management, Organizations and contemporary social theory. London: Routledge.
  60. Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., and Leca, B. (2009). Institutional work: actors and agency in
  61. institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  62. Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd edn.). Reading, MA: McGraw Hill.
  63. Warde A., (2005). Consumption and Theories of Practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2), p.131-
  64.  
  65. Wainwright, J. (2022). Praxis. Rethinking Marxism, 34(1), 41-62.
  66. Whittington, R., 2006. Completing the Practice Turn in Strategy Research. Organization Studies, 27(5), pp. 613-634.
  67. Zhang, B. H., & Ahmed, S. A. (2020). Systems Thinking—Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, Peter Senge, and Donella Meadows. Science education in theory and practice: an introductory guide to learning theory.
Public Administration Perspective
Volume 16, Issue 4 - Serial Number 64
January 2026
Pages 55-78