The Affordance of practice - the influence of structure and setting on practice (RV of 2006/48/OB)
Author: Weeks, John ; Fayard, Anne-LaureINSEAD Area: Organisational Behaviour Series: Working Paper ; 2007/30/OB Publisher: Fontainebleau : INSEAD, 2007.Language: EnglishDescription: 44 p.Type of document: INSEAD Working Paper Online Access: Click here Abstract: Theories of practice are distinct from other forms of theorizing about behavior not because of the phenomena they address. Rather, theories of practice are distinguished by their rejection of three familiar dualisms that organize our field: Physical realism versus social constructionism; Voluntarism versus determinism; and Subjectivism versus objectivism. Practice theory seeks the terrain between the easier, simplistic extremes at each end of these three dimensions. Existing theories of practice, such as those based on Bourdieu's concept of habitus, have tended to give us a better understanding of how social and symbolic structures shape practice than of how the material setting, as it is socially and physically constructed, does so. We argue that Gibson's theory of affordances, offers a useful way of thinking about how practice is patterned by setting that neatly complements the understanding that Bourdieu's theory of habitus gives us of how practice is patterned by structure. Our objective in this paper is to show how affordances and habitus may be used together to provide a rich way of describing practice. We contrast the habitus-affordance approach to the most fully developed attempt to conceptualize both the social and material aspects of practice, actor-network theory to show the limitations of actor-network theory that create a conceptual space for habitus-affordance. We conclude by giving examples of how habitus and affordance can be bridged in this way. Previous title: Affordance of practice - Weeks, John R.;Fayard, Anne-Laure - 2006 - INSEAD Working Paper| Item type | Current location | Collection | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode | Item holds |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Digital Library | Available | BC007990 |
Theories of practice are distinct from other forms of theorizing about behavior not because of the phenomena they address. Rather, theories of practice are distinguished by their rejection of three familiar dualisms that organize our field: Physical realism versus social constructionism; Voluntarism versus determinism; and Subjectivism versus objectivism. Practice theory seeks the terrain between the easier, simplistic extremes at each end of these three dimensions. Existing theories of practice, such as those based on Bourdieu's concept of habitus, have tended to give us a better understanding of how social and symbolic structures shape practice than of how the material setting, as it is socially and physically constructed, does so. We argue that Gibson's theory of affordances, offers a useful way of thinking about how practice is patterned by setting that neatly complements the understanding that Bourdieu's theory of habitus gives us of how practice is patterned by structure. Our objective in this paper is to show how affordances and habitus may be used together to provide a rich way of describing practice. We contrast the habitus-affordance approach to the most fully developed attempt to conceptualize both the social and material aspects of practice, actor-network theory to show the limitations of actor-network theory that create a conceptual space for habitus-affordance. We conclude by giving examples of how habitus and affordance can be bridged in this way.
Digitized
There are no comments for this item.