The Influence of Practitioners

People who perform practice can also change; therefore the population of carriers provides a mechanism of change. Whilst practice theory decentralises the individual from analysis, human individuals are nevertheless necessary in order to recognise their “unique capacities and active involvement in the dynamics of practice” (Watson, 2012, p491). Therefore the success of a practice is reliant upon practices recruiting individuals who are able and willing to perform them and to hold onto them, preventing them from possible defection to other practices. Indeed for practices to survive more than a generation, they need to recruit fresh cohorts of carriers to replace those who either defect or die. For certain practices this recruitment is perceived to be easier or more simply put, expected. For instance, cities are fundamentally planned around the movement of cars and therefore moving around in any other way is generally more difficult. Therefore it is generally assumed that once of an adult age people are expected to learn to drive in order to get around. In some extremes it is considered that “people are required to adopt or refrain from certain practices by law”

(Shove et al., 2012, p.69). What is critical here then is that for some practices, where participation may be more voluntary, such first encounters are critical in both

recruiting but also retaining ‘faithful cohorts’ of committed carriers are critical for the practices persistence and maintenance (Shove et al., 2012, p.69).

Referring back to the concept of communities of practice, such social network is viewed to provide a mechanism in which practices circulate and are picked up by individuals. Shove and Pantzar’s study on Nordic Walking provides such an example in which it spread between individuals with similar common interests. Furthermore, Shove et al. (2012, p.68) acknowledge that individuals engage in multiple practices and therefore belong to multiple communities at any one time. Thus, social networks overlap and generate what seem to be chance encounters and unpredictable

experiences but yet, are situated within and result from the practices that they carry.

As practices are not considered as static but rather dynamic in being remade and changed, if only fractionally through the performances of its cohort population, this also draws to attention those who have the opportunity to shape the future of a practice but also those who are subsequently shaped by the experience (Shove et al, 2012).

Although Watson identifies three mechanisms in which change of practice can happen (practice to practice interaction; change in the element structure; and the influence of practitioners), the difficulty of establishing and identifying the location of change within these can be difficult. This is particularly evident between the mechanisms of elements and carriers due to their interdependencies with one another. As Watson (2012, p.490) states for technological change to affect practice, it is to be integrated by a ‘practitioner’, which emphasises that the carriers themselves maintain the life of the practice through their performance. Therefore this relationship between elements and carriers, policy and practice, is an important and dynamic relationship.

2.4 Conclusion

The first part of the chapter focused on outlining the key components of practice theory with regard to understanding how cycling social sites contribute to cycling practices and forms of cycling culture. Practices relate to a routinised behaviour consisting of several elements all interconnected to one another as “a temporally unfolding and spatially dispersed nexus of doings and sayings” (Schatzki, 2008, p.89).

Shove et al.’s (2012) simplified and succinct model of three key elements: ‘materials’,

‘competence’, and ‘meanings’ provides a valuable framework in which this research can utilise. Further understandings of practice-as-entity and practice-as-performance

highlights how various performances of a particular practice such as cycling may share a number of elements yet also include a number of unique elements in respect to their performance. This therefore contributes to the understanding of social sites contributing to particularised cycling practices at an entity level. The role of community of practice introduces an understanding of practices being shared as cultural practices across various scales. In particular reference to Wenger’s (1999) mutual engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoire, communities of practice contribute to performances and practices by providing sites of interaction between people and particular elements of practices, including particular norms, images and rules. This concept therefore contributes to the on-going development of the

materials, meanings and competences of a particular practice. Finally, the first section concluded with reference to systems of practices. Here, practices are placed in wider context of a broader system of practices which contribute to the enabling and

structuring of a given performance. What this identifies then is that investigation may not be with the specific practice at hand but understanding the broader dynamics of systems of practice in which people are arguably caught in may provide opportunities to enact change.

Whilst the first part of the chapter sought to outline key concepts in order to critically define and outline practices, the second part sought to explore a growing awareness and theorisation of practice theories capturing the dynamism of social practices.

Watson (2012, pp.490-491) dispelled criticism that theories of practice only focus on the reproduction and repetition of practices through the introduction of three

mechanisms in which a change in a practice can happen (practice to practice interaction; change in the element structure; and the influence of practitioners).

Relationships between practices can have both positive and negative consequences.

Practices may feed off of one another in a cooperative relationship whilst others maybe in competition. Practices may have elements in common and therefore provide a connective tissue between the two. Practices may also bundle together to form broader complexes of practices whilst others may steal people through the process of defection. The life of elements referred to the alteration of practices through the introduction of new elements or when existing elements were combined in new ways.

It was also raised that changes to elements maybe continuous and less noticeable and therefore reviewing practices over time may enable to see such change over the

practices history. Whilst elements can be introduced and configured within

performance, elements can consequently fall out of use, leading to a process of social-fossilisation. Finally, people who perform a practice can change; therefore the

population of carriers provides a mechanism of change. Practices are reliant on recruiting individuals who are willing to perform and hold onto them preventing potential defection to other competing practices. Going forward then in regards to this research, these metaphors will assist in the conceptualisation of how practices are born, grown, maintained and potentially decline.

[This page is intentionally left blank]