Ver Tablas y Gráficas de medias de la información discriminada por cursos, en la base de datos del caso

Up to now the description of practice theory has been somewhat theoretical and one which defines and conceptualises a performance of practice. However, the theoretical structure since 2010 has begun to conceptualise and theorise its use in the

development of behaviour change, most specifically in relation to climate change and the investigation of future sustainable practices. As a result, this section outlines the emphasis on the current paradigm of behaviour, driven by the ‘ABC’² model of

‘attitudes driving behaviour that individuals choose’, before arguing that interventions in practices does not require intervention in an individual’s choice but rather to

understand how certain practices are done, produced, re-produced and prevented.

2.2.1 Reconceptualising Behaviour Change

People carry out a multitude of different social practices in which the individual becomes a unique crossing point of practices. This emphasises the social world being populated by diverse social practices whereby individuals ‘consist in’ the

performance of such practices. Theories of practice therefore approach the relationship between social structure and human action as a recursive one with

structure and action co-constitutive of one another (Watson, 2012). Giddens contends that:

“The basic domain of study of the social sciences, according to the theory of structuration, is neither the experience of the individual actor, nor the existence of any form of social totality, but social practices ordered across space and time” (1984, p.2)

For Shove et al., this theorisation provides an explanation of change that does not prioritise human agency, or conceptualise stability as an outcome of given structures

2 Shove (2010b, p.1274) defines that for the most part, social change is reliant on the ABC model in that: ‘values and attitudes (the A), are believed to drive the kinds of behaviour (the B) that individuals choose (the C).’

(2012, p.4). As a result the practice itself becomes the focus of analysis with the over emphasis of individualism reduced and located within or part of social practices (Hargreaves, 2011; Warde, 2005). Shove (2010a, p.1) criticises recent behavioural change tactics, which emphasise individual choice as a space of change, and instead argues this transition and re-centring of investigation onto practices when stipulating:

“Rather than focusing on individuals – and on views, beliefs and actions as if these were matters of personal choice – recent research analyses and seeks to understand the changing characteristics of the shared social practices these individuals reproduce.”

For Shove et al., behavioural-change literature including those of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) emphasise behaviour as a matter of choice in which attitudes and beliefs are particularly important (2012, p.141). Behaviour is therefore very

individualistic referred to a matter of personal preference both in terms of action and in relation to change. Shove et al. (2012, pp.143-146) sets out four points of

difference that exist between theories of behaviour and theories of practice relating to:

basis of action, process of change, positioning of policy, and transferable lessons.

First, the basis of action for change in behaviour change situates the individual as the primary agent of change rather than the shared and social convention of practice in theories of practice. Secondly, theories of practice acknowledge an emergent process in which a stream of events unfolds and thus the unit of analysis “may undergo metamorphosis over time and change meaning” (2012, p144). For Geels and Schot variance theory emphasises immediate causation, with it not being “necessary to know the twists and turns of an entity’s history to explain it” (Geels and Schot, 2010, p.94). Whilst process theory requires the tracing of events and explanation of this, highlighting broad and structural patterns and trends, thus process theories being

‘causally deep’ (ibid). Third, in relation to the position of policy and intervention, I have already outlined how policy makers are themselves part of the practice system and are therefore not outside looking in or implementing actions which have an effect in isolation, but rather involved with the complex system contributing to the

emergence and evolution of such practices. It should therefore be assumed that policy making within theories of practice are not a matter of pursuing pre-defined outcomes but rather it is better to conceptualise it as a:

“More process-based ‘succession of short and fairly rapid steps’ involving sequences of ‘trial-and-error’ learning or ‘serial adjustment’, anchored in and never detached from the details and specifications of the practices in question” (Shove et al., 2012, p.145).

This is heavily contrasted to theories of behaviour change whereby policy makers and policies themselves are viewed as intervening from the outside using various

instruments relating to ‘carrots, sticks and sermons’ in the attempt to remove barriers and provide the opportunities in which individuals make the ‘better’ choice

themselves. And finally, theories of behaviour emphasise the learning from efforts to change behaviour in other countries and other spaces of daily life, referring to the idea that behaviours are outcomes of identifiable factors and therefore it is “possible to identify, quantify and evaluate the merits of behaviour change techniques” (Shove et al., 2012, p.145). Theories of practice on the other hand refer to the historical and culturally specific trajectories of what individuals do and thus reflect such practices and its relations to others.

Questions arise as to why policy has not been reframed from behaviour change to practice change as of yet. To suggest integration between the two would be naïve due to the contrasting nature of the paradigms and therefore the difficulty even

impossibility of a merger (Shove, 2010a). Observing institutional organisations such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the United Nations Environment Programme, Shove (2010b) draws to attention the current importance of defining evidence as information that can translate policy goals into something that is manageable and achievable. A potential reason as to why practice theory hasn’t been adopted by many is that there potentially remains a barrier of the usefulness of practice theory within policy and practice. The difficulty of aligning social practice outcomes with the ABC model is that this ABC model is self-perpetuating, in that the results of this enquiry generate the concrete and manageable data, thus creating a self-fulfilling cycle of credibility (Latour & Woolgar, 1986) which then limits the ability of grounded analysis of relevant social practices to be explored. Shove et al. comment that the chances of capturing recruits within the policy world remain difficult due to the ABC model not only being a theoretical position but also a political one (Shove et al., 2012, p.164). This locates both the problem and response as a matter of individual

behaviour and with this, the government’s task is in essence to encourage citizens to adopt pro-environmental behaviours and down play the extent to which institutional structures sustain unsustainable conventions and ways of life (ibid). Thus, for a practice-theoretical approach to be utilised, for Shove et al., the position of policy needs to be highlighted and exploited rather than obscuring these roles.

This implicates policy as being integral to the system and patterns of practice and not just an external influencing factor. In understanding transitions and changes of

practices Shove et al. (2012, p.144) point out the tendency to assume cause-and-effect explanation between policy intervention and behaviour change. This would indicate a process relating to theories of variance whereby the outcome is a result of the

independent variable acting upon the dependent variable. However, Shove et al. stress that the process of policy change and pick up isn’t necessarily as simplistic.

Fundamentally theories of process may demonstrate a better understanding in which outcomes are traced by the ‘stream of events through which a process unfolds’. This refuses that the world is constituted of fixed entities, maintaining unitary identity through time and instead establishes a more emergent concept of process that allows transformation over time and change. This emergent process or transition of change occurs through pluralistic networks involving ‘government, the market and civil society’ (Shove et al., 2012, p.161). Policy interventions therefore do not exist outside of the system, driving long-term change in a particular direction through carrot, stick or sermon methods but are instead apart of the reflexive process in which they rely on non-state actors in the uptake and implementation of the public policy. Policy exists within and a part of the system, intervening on the basis of what has emerged from previous interventions, becoming a part of the process of feedback and emergence with the capacity to actively configure and shape the landscapes in which practices do and do not take hold (Watson, 2012; Shove and Walker, 2010). This therefore diverts away from intervening in ‘choices’ as provided by personal travel planning for example and instead towards the reflection as to why certain practices are done, produced, re-produced as well as how and why others are prevented (Morris et al., 2012).