The role of practice

organisation.  The  current  performativity  programme  contributes  to  

management  and  organisation  studies  most  notably  in  its  offer  of  frameworks   to  consider  the  relationship  between  local,  context  specific  micro  practices  and   their  role  in  macro  level  movements  or  changes.  In  the  study  of  markets  STS   has  inspired  the  conceptualisation  that  markets  are  considered  as  ‘in  the   making’,  in  other  words  that  the  micro  level  daily  sociomaterial  practices  of   market  actors  can  make  markets  so  producing  effects  at  a  macro  level.    

   2.4.1 The role of practice  

Reconnecting  the  productive  sociomaterial  practices  of  market  actors  to   markets,  opening  the  possibilities  to  consider  the  different  roles  and   contributions  for  a  variety  of  practices  in  the  study  of  markets,  or  the  

performative  practice-­‐based  examination  of  how  markets  are  configured,  first   emerged  in  Callon’s  ‘The  Laws  of  the  Markets’  (1998).  In  this  collection  of   essays,  which  set  out  a  case  for  examination  of  processes  and  practices  in  the   formation  of  markets  within  Western  economies,  Callon  primarily  suggested  a   performative  role  for  economists,  arguing  that  their  practice  of  economics  had   an  active  role  in  transforming  and  shaping  markets.  Whilst  Callon  described   the  ‘activities’  of  economics  as  understanding  and  analysing,  significantly,   MacKenzie  (2006)  theorised  the  productive  nature  of  economics  in  his  study  of   financial  markets,  proposing  that  the  models  and  approaches  of  economics   served  as  an  ‘engine’  (p.  12),  an  active  force  with  the  capacity  for  transforming  

its  environment.  Importantly,  MacKenzie’s  work  recognised  that  the  micro   practices  of  economics  were  part  of  meso  infrastructure  contributing  to  the   organisation  of  an  economy  at  a  macro  level,  thus  the  work  of  Callon  and   MacKenzie  show  that  markets  enact  rather  than  just  describe.  

In  the  study  of  markets  the  use  of  performativity  theory  was  welcomed  by   Overdevest  (2011)  who  considered  that  prior  to  the  work  of  academics  such  as   Callon  (1998)  and  MacKenzie  (2006)  the  constant  changing  and  unstable   nature  of  markets  had  been  under  theorised.  Drawing  on  the  idea  that  markets   are  formed,  not  found,  Overdevest  saw  similarities  between  a  performative   practice-­‐based  view  of  markets  and  the  philosophical  tradition  of  pragmatism.  

Drawing  on  pragmatic  theory,  Overdevest  described  the  recursive  practices   and  processes  involved  in  configuring  markets  and  outlined  where  the  social   and  humanitarian  as  well  as  economic  concerns  needed  to  be  considered,  for   example  in  the  marketisation  of  new  areas  of  society  previously  discussed  in   this  chapter.  Together  with  Callon  and  MacKenzie,  Overdevest  is  a  proponent   of  the  practice-­‐based  approach  to  studying  markets  including  observing  the   concrete  actions  of  those  involved  in  market-­‐related  activities.  Contributing  to   an  understanding  of  the  workings  within  performative  practices,  Overdevest   identified  the  similarities  between  pragmatism  and  performative  market  

practices  based  on  the  problem,  the  solution  or  the  ‘putting  ideas  into  practice’  

approach  encountered  when  the  practices  of  different  market  actors  are   observed  in  a  market  setting.  Linking  to  earlier  discussions  in  this  chapter   about  performativity  and  knowledge  production,  the  context  of  a  market  

allows  practice  to  be  what  works  and  what  does  not  work,  generating  learning,   knowledge  and  expertise  resulting  from  repeated  practice.    

It  is  important  to  explain  that  a  case  for  marketing  to  be  recognised  as  a   performative  practice  in  Market  Studies,  was  first  set  out  by  Cochoy  (1998)  in   Callon’s  collection  of  essays.  Cochoy  argued  for  marketing  to  be  considered   alongside  economics  and  management  as  a  performative  discipline  capable  of   contributing  to  the  study  of  markets.  As  well  as  arguing  that  marketing  was  an   important  contributor  to  the  shaping  and  forming  of  markets,  Cochoy  made  a   further  and  significant  observation  proposing  that,  with  markets  as  the  context,   an  important  contribution  could  be  made  to  marketing  theory.  Drawing  

together  productive  performativity  and  the  emerging  nature  of  markets,   Cochoy  saw  markets  as  an  ideal  setting  in  which  to  conduct  an  examination  of   the  ‘doing’  or  the  practices  of  marketing.  More  recently  Araujo  et  al.  (2010)   have  argued  for,  as  well  as  supported,  the  reconnection  of  the  academic  

marketing  discipline  to  marketing  practice  in  the  practical  context  of  markets.  

Echoing  the  observations  of  Cochoy,  Araujo  et  al.  suggest  that  in  a  market   context  the  performativity  of  marketing  concepts,  tools,  ideas  and  techniques   could  be  examined  in  detail  (p.  7).  What  they  point  towards,  then,  is  the   important  role  that  marketing  practice  plays  for  the  formation  and  

maintenance  of  markets.  Advancing  the  discussion  to  consider  the  specific  role   of  marketing  in  markets  the  final  section  of  the  chapter  draws  together  the   previous  examination  of  both  performativity  and  Market  Studies  considering   what  comprises  marketing  activities  drawing  on  the  tenets  of  performativity  

2.5 Productive marketing practice    

Marketing  is  described  as  the  day-­‐to-­‐day  work  undertaken  to  build  the  

‘infrastructure’  (Araujo  et  al.,  2010,  p.  6)  needed  to  organise  markets.  Thinking   about  this  in  detail  Cochoy  and  Dubuisson-­‐Quellier  (2013)  described  the  

‘people  (recruitment  experts,  consumer  activists,  distributors,  etc.),  the  

occupations  (marketing,  design,  packaging,  etc.)  and  devices  (press,  consumer   guides,  standards,  etc.)  whose  task  is  ‘to  work  on  the  market’,  i.e.  to  construct   it,  move  it,  organise  it,  manage  and  control  it’  (p.  4).  Accordingly,  if  these   people  and  things  can  have  such  consequences,  and  their  practice  can  shape   and  form  markets,  then  it  is  important  to  understand  how  this  practice  is   performed  and  how  it  builds  and  maintains  markets.  

Building  on  the  work  of  Callon  (1998),  specific  details  of  performative  

marketing  practice  was  provided  by  Kjellberg  and  Helgesson  (2006,  2007)  who   developed  a  practice-­‐based  view  of  markets  through  a  micro-­‐level  focus  on  how   the  activities  undertaken  by  market  actors  are  accomplished.  They  broadened   an  understanding  of  how  markets  emerge  and  are  shaped  by  addressing  and   expanding  an  understanding  of  ‘market’  practices  and  relating  these  activities   to  ‘marketing’  practice  (2007,  p.  142).  They  developed  a  theoretical  framework   which  sought  to  redress  what  they  saw  as  a  focus  amongst  academic  research   into  marketing  practice  which  mainly  considered  the  activities  undertaken  in   marketing  as  based  around  a  linear  model,  devoid  of  context,  that  concentrated   on  the  buying  and  selling  of  products  and  services.  Consequently,  the  

conceptualisation  Kjellberg  and  Helgesson  proposed,  and  its  focus  on  a  wide   range  of  market  practices  which  might  contribute  to  configuring  a  market,  has   significance  in  the  case  of  marketisation.  Based  on  their  strong  belief  in  the   importance  of  studying  the  practical  workings  of  markets,  the  theoretical   framework  proposed  is  very  useful  in  the  study  of  emerging  markets  being   undertaken  in  this  thesis  through  its  focus,  firstly,  on  the  mechanisms  of   markets,  specifically  ‘what’  is  being  constructed,  formed,  included  and  

exchanged  in  a  market,  and,  secondly,  in  a  consideration  of  ‘how’  this  is  done   (2007,  p.  141).    

To  understand  how  and  why  the  actions  associated  with  a  specific  activity  

‘shaped’  markets  Kjellberg  and  Helgesson  (2006,  2007)  employed  the  concept   of  translation.  Helpful  in  acknowledging  and  tracing  the  contributions  made  by   all  the  very  different  elements  within  market  practice  at  a  micro  level,  

translation  explains  how  these  converge  to  influence  what  may  emerge  locally   in  an  organisation  but  can  also  ‘transform’  at  a  macro  or  sector  level  

(Czarniawska,  2009).  Translation  describes  the  connection  and  combination  of   a  sociomaterial  market  practice  giving  depth  to  the  meaning  when  a  

‘contribution’  is  suggested  or  recognised  from  practices  such  as  marketing   activities.  Drawing  on  the  work  of  Serres,  translation  has  also  been  described  as   a  transformation;  the  results  of  association  of  different  elements  or  forms   (Brown,  2002).  Examining  the  work  undertaken  by  Serres,  Brown  (2002)  

suggested  the  influence  from  Serres  could  be  seen  in  the  writing  of  both  Latour   (2005)  and  Callon  (1998),  notably  in  their  use  of  relationality  and  convergence  

to  inform  their  thinking  on  a  continual,  complex  and  entangled  construction  of   reality.  Brown  (2002)  also  proposed  that  translation  could  be  understood  as  a   form  or  spread  of  communication  (p.  7),  preserving  the  ethereal  nature  which   characterises  translation  but  helping  to  provide  an  alternative  account  of  what   is  happening  as  well  as  what  may  be  necessary  ‘interaction’  between  the  

components  involved  in  translation.  What  the  concept  of  translation  points  to   is  the  dynamic  nature  of  performative  processes:  that  the  coming  together  of   different  elements  produces  something  which  goes  beyond  simply  adding   together  its  constitutive  parts.    

Kjellberg  and  Helgesson  (2006,  2007)  employed  translation  to  consider  in   detail  how  the  stages  or  procedures  in  segmentation  ultimately  produced   segments,  suggesting  ‘chains  of  translations’  (2006,  p.  846)  to  describe  what   forms  then  emerge  from  this  marketing  tool.  Specifically,  they  identified  the   replacement  by  ‘segments’  of  customers  and  the  emergence  of  customer  groups   for  targeting,  a  routine  part  of  marketing  practice.  Proposing  a  second  chain  of   translation,  Kjellberg  and  Helgesson  acknowledged  the  interrelatedness  of  all   market  practices,  seeing  translation  as  occurring  in  marketing  practice  at  both   these  levels,  or  a  network  of  translations  that  link  normalising,  exchange,  and   representational  practices.  Translation  was  used  to  explain  the  ongoing  result   or  consequence;  how  a  market  ‘becomes’  and  remains  constantly  changing  or  

‘in  the  making’  (2007,  p.  151).    

Observing  outcomes,  effects  or  consequences  of  market  practices,  Kjellberg   and  Helgesson  (2006,  2007)  identified  and  categorised  the  day-­‐to-­‐day  

accomplishments,  which  included  the  models  and  tools  of  marketing,  seeing   that  the  contribution  of  the  activities  was  either  as  part  of  exchange,  

normalising  or  representational  market  practice.  Moreover,  they  proposed  it   was  the  activities  in  these  three  interlinked  categories  which  best  described  the   processes  which  were  being  enacted  or  accomplished  in  a  market  setting  (2006,   p.  843).  Whilst  regarding  each  of  the  three  categories  of  market  practices  as   performative  and  productive  with  effects  and  consequences,  it  is  in  the   exploration  of  detail  in  the  processes  at  work  within  each,  as  well  as  between   the  three  categories  of  market  practice,  that  further  the  contribution  of  this   framework  to  understanding  the  contribution  of  very  different  market   practices  in  Market  Studies.    

Furthering  the  work  of  Kjellberg  and  Helgesson  (2006,  2007),  Diaz  Ruiz  (2013)   has  argued  for  a  more  significant  contribution  to  be  acknowledged  from  the   marketing  activity  described  as  marketing  research,  categorised  under  the   heading  of  a  representational  market  practice.  Focusing  on  this  one  aspect  of   marketing  practice,  Diaz  Ruiz  saw  this  specific  practice  of  market  research  as   instrumental  in  its  capacity  to  sort,  privilege  and  deconstruct  (p.  250)  in  a   market  context.  Diaz  Ruiz  detailed  what  he  saw  as  the  ‘constructive  dimension’  

(p.  256)  of  market  research  discussing  the  ‘insights’  or  the  valuable  and  useful   understandings  generated  from  this  marketing  practice.  In  his  most  recent   work  with  Holmlund  (2017),  this  has  been  developed  further  into  what  they  

described  as  actionable  marketing  knowledge  and  here  they  developed  the   consequences  of  this  form  of  performative  marketing  practice  in  a  study  of  the   recommendations  which  are  made  to  clients  (ibid).  Suggestions  that  

representational  market  practices  put  forward  a  comprehensible  view  of  a   market  have  specific  relevance  in  emerging  markets  or  sectors  in  which   marketisation  processes  may  have  begun.  At  a  time  when  a  central  focus  or   market  object  may  have  yet  to  emerge  or  be  contested  by  market  actors  a   specific  role,  and  influence,  emerges  for  representational  practices.  

Through  the  work  of  Diaz  Ruiz  (2013)  and  Diaz  Ruiz  and  Holmlund  (2017)  and   the  specific  study  of  one  market  practice,  questions  can  be  asked  as  to  whether   all  market  practices  are  equal  in  the  part  they  contribute  to  shaping  and  

forming  a  market  and  furthermore,  if  some  practices  become  ‘better‘  or  more   instrumental  than  others  when  describing  the  generation  of  insights  as  

characterising  many  of  the  activities  which  constitute  marketing  research  (Diaz   Ruiz,  2013;  Diaz  Ruiz  and  Holmlund,  2017).  Furthermore,  this  study  of  a  specific   marketing  practice  is  an  example  of  what  has  been  described  in  earlier  sections   of  this  chapter  as  the  building  of  effective  performative  discipline-­‐specific   knowledge  (Lyotard,  1984)  shown  here  as  the  circulation  and  dominance  or   representational  marketing  activities.    

2.5.1 Marketing concepts and tools    

Diaz  Ruiz  (2013)  began  to  explore  the  significance  of  marketing  tools  and   concepts,  concluding  that  they  were  instrumental  because  the  case  of  the   market  researchers  identified  that  the  insights  and  provision  of  something  of  

‘value’  to  the  organisation  had  further  consequences.  What  emerges  is  a  role   for  those  who  use  such  marketing  tools  in  justifying,  for  example,  the  fees   charged  for  their  services  to  clients.  Furthermore,  through  using  these  

marketing  tools  an  opportunity  to  build  a  platform  or  reputation  of  marketing  

‘expertise’  emerges.  Looking  specifically  at  what  comprised  marketing  

activities,  Cochoy  (1998)  saw  marketing  to  be  a  material  practice  based  around   employing  a  series  of  recognised  tools  and  concepts.  Cochoy  charted  the   application  of  marketing  theory  taught  in  business  schools  over  the  past  

century  acknowledging  that  the  marketing  discussed,  both  in  education  and  in   the  workplace,  contained  reference  to  several  marketing  tools.  Studying  at  a   micro  level  the  activities  of  marketing  practitioners,  and  referring  to  their  use   of  templates  or  frameworks,  Cochoy  proposed  a  role  for  these  frameworks  in   the  building  of  a  recognised  body  of  marketing  knowledge.  Considering  an   amalgamation  of  the  curriculum  which  was  taught  within  marketing  education   at  business  schools  with  what  was  applied  in  the  day-­‐to-­‐day  work  of  

practitioners,  Cochoy  believed  it  was  this  combination  which  together  secured   a  body  of  marketing  understanding  which  had  become  recognised  within  the   marketing  discipline  as  marketing  practice.