The formation of practices

Theories of practice have particular relevance in the formation of practice, principally in the way the elements of practice interact, balance, or disintegrate (see section 3.3; the elements of practice). Whilst some theorists focus on how other branches of SPT operate, in relation to the formation of practices (Reckwitz, 2002), Shove et al. (2012) provide an in-depth examination of the implications of the co-occurrence of practices, for their elements and for the wider context. SPT assumes that a practice involves the active integration of the elements - material, meaning, and competence - and through these is seen “as a

provisionally recognizable entity” (ibid. p.82). This assumption leads to another,

which assumes that practices are defined by what practitioners actually recognise them to be, at a given moment. The life path of a practitioner strongly shapes the life path of their (evaluation) practice, but because of the dynamics of everyday life, that practice is provisional. This aspect of a provisional practice resonates with that of “provisional stability” developed by Saunders et al. (2005, p.37), in relation to how an evaluation message travels across a specific trajectory of implementation. This notion appears to have enhanced the practice of evaluation within complex, popular, and politicised domains of HE and the European Union (EU) funding programs (further developed in chapter four; a SPT view of evaluation). However, the way EP is framed is relatively consistent and the permanent integration of its elements is vital to the formation and interaction of evaluation with other practices occurring simultaneously –

98

concurrent practices. In other situations, a single practice needs to be deconstructed and its elements purposively separated to be taught to novice practitioners, as the example of RUFDATA (Saunders, 2000) illustrates (see section 4.3; SPT applications to EP).

This research is interested in observing if and how EP is communicated, inducted and exemplified to practitioners, by whom, and with what intention. To do so, I explore the co-occurrence of other practices or working activities restricting EP; as well as new practices replacing those already in existence. This replacement, however, may be gradual or non-existent, because some older practices still exist but are enacted less frequently than usual. For example, when practitioners formulate interventions to tackle a specific problem by means of designing a project, the practice of design is vital, whereas when the project’s evaluation begins, the practice of evaluation tends to replace the practice of design (EuropeAID, 2004). In this vein, Lizardo and Strand (2010) suggest that the knowledge within the formation of each practice is “born of first-hand,

embodied experience and, does not live in the realm of discursive

consciousness” (p.11), which means that there are challenges for the EP,

because a situation of concurrent practices does not allow for the embodied experience to persist (in terms of knowledge and competence); rather it facilitates the accumulation of practices, instigating potential change. In this regard, it is acceptable, and almost inevitable, that a practice is likely to concur with others, generating consequences for their enactment and for the practitioners involved. To better understand the importance of the co-occurrence of practices and if and how it influences the change over time, I outline three important aspects: first, the pre-formation, formation and de-formation of

99

practices; second, the role of time, and, third, the role of space in the formation of practices.

3.5.2.1 Pre-formation, formation and de-formation of practices

Shove et al. (2012) conceptualise the pre-formation, formation and de-formation of connections between practices, to analyse how they are connected and shape each other. Three scenarios were drawn: the first, in which practices exist without being integrated, because their elements are not in competition; e.g. evaluating and cleaning, as in the activity of cleaning the office, practitioners use different skills from those used in their EP; second, practices are provisionally linked by co-occurrence or co-dependence; e.g. the practice of project design and project evaluation, because one implementation cannot be evaluated if a project has not been designed (EuropeAID, 2004). Third, the connections between practices are no longer sustained; e.g. the practice of reflection and the practice of evaluation in a DE setting are challenged by the funder’s evaluation demand, which restricts the possibility of practitioners’ reflective practice (Bracken and Bryan, 2010; Bourn, 2014). As we live in an interdependent world it might appear that connections between practices are obvious but they “can

and do co-exist and co-depend in ways that their practitioner-carrier barely

recognises” (Shove et al., 2012, p.84). Considering a given practice through this

analytical lens helps the process of recognition and, perhaps, increases understanding of why people do things in a certain way, rather than another.

3.5.2.2 Time and practice: timeline as a tool to depict change

In describing the trajectories of change, Shove et al. (2012) outline how a certain practice has changed and become established in society and how its embedding

100

has influenced the structure and social arrangements of that practice. The potential of the analysis of the trajectories of practices is that by analysing the past, one can make sense of a specific trajectory of practice; why its meaning has changed and what type of competences are currently required that were not necessary in the past. As a result, interpretations of how a certain practice’s position has emerged, sustained or disappeared over time are crucial to explore its trajectory of change; particularly, how the notion of time interferes with changes in practice (over time). For instance, while some commentators conceptualise time through the relations between time given and payment (Hochschild, 2000), others highlight the multi-tasking idea and conceptualise the day as a series of short and repeated episodes (Hess, 2006). A DSP lens draws on Southerton (2003), who suggests that these same short episodes are the outcome of changing interactions between practices. Practices come with sets of requirements necessary for competent and meaningful engagement (Hess, 2006), which have consequences for how the time is organised and scheduled.

A timeline, as a tool to depict change in EP, enables the reflection about how the social world is fast changing; hence, one implication of the co-occurrence of practices for change is the need to capture which practices or working activities are persisting and why. Also, a timeline (of EP) makes visible other persistent reconfigurations of practice, as well as depicting the effects of concurrent practices, in terms of time, space and resources. Hence, the relevant issue about time, to my research, is the demands that a specific EP make in terms of their duration, timing and sequence, so topics, such as how the research participants respond to the requirements of EP set by the funders; how the current evaluation practised by NPOs is becoming more demanding; how the change in meaning

101

associated with the time contours of EP is likely to be investigated. These topics are explored through the analysis of the co-occurrence of EP with other working activities, in a DE working environment.

3.5.2.3 Space and practice: working environment

There are various ways in which space represents and influences relations between practices. Shove et al. (2012) considers that places like offices and homes can have “emergent consequences for the trajectories of individual

practices and, hence for the collection of practices that are, and that are not,

enacted in such environments” (p.85). As mentioned throughout this section, it

is likely that a routinised practice clashes with other practices or working activities, however this is not negative or positive, it is the way DSP operates, because spatial and temporal aspects do impact on how various practices co- occur. A DSP lens offers a conceptualisation for this problematic in terms of

“complexes and bundles [,which are] loose-knit patterns like those based on co-

location, sometimes turn into stickier forms of co-dependence” (ibid. p. 87).

Nevertheless, this is not always the case; there are many situations in which practices co-occur well. “Complexes” are practices that end up depending on each other, either because of “timing, proximity or necessary co-existence” (ibid.). These complexes are likely to appear in various working environments and my research explores how the co-occurrence of EP with other working activities influences the practice of evaluation, in a DE context. This leads to how practices co-occur through four possible effects: competition, collaboration, selection and integration.

102