572590

research-article2015
OSS0010.1177/0170840615572590Organization StudiesBook Review

Book Review

Organization Studies
2015, Vol. 36(5) 689691
Book Review The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0170840615572590
www.egosnet.org/os

Davide Nicolini
Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013

Reviewed by: Dvora Yanow, Keele University, UK

In the dizzying series of turns in social theorizing, one of the more recent is the so-called practice
turn. In his ambitiously conceived Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction,
Davide Nicolini seeks to give an account of both what a practice orientation is a turn away from and
what it turns toward. The theoretical scope of the book is ambitious, and in my reading Nicolini
succeeds in presenting a range of approaches to the study of practices. Were I to have the opportu-
nity to teach a course on practice theories note the plural, one of Nicolinis main points this book
would likely be its backbone (with one hesitation, to which I will return). I have already recom-
mended it to researchers looking for a good overview of the topic. It is a clear demonstration of the
continued utility of books, and not just journal articles, for disseminating scholarly knowledge. UK
REF policy-makers, take note.
On the historical account of the flow of these ideas, Chapters 1 and 2 are Nicolini at his best,
synthesizing vast amounts of disparate literature in a way that can shape an entire field of study.
His history traces the idea of practice, in the form of phronetic praxis, to Plato and Aristotle;
observes its disappearance into modernist sciences privileging of pure theory at the hands of
thinkers from Galileo to Kant; and traces its resurgence in the work of Marx and the phenomeno-
logical thinking of Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and Heidegger, up to present-day theorists. Coming
from the tradition of direct immersion in what people do in the form of ethnographic observation,
initially, as a practitioner-participant of community organization and later influenced by Donald
Schns keep your hands dirty with the data approach to professional practices I would never
have thought to look to some of these sources for the origins of practice theorizing. And so I
found this an interesting and, for me, unusual genealogy of ideas.
The book then takes up six varieties of practice theorizing, pretty much covering the theoretical
landscape in devoting a chapter to each: Bourdieu, Giddens, and social praxeology; theories of
community and of learning; activity theory; ethnomethodology; phenomenologically-inspired the-
orizing, in particular in the work of Schatzki; and theories that focus especially on language. How
Nicolini handles the latter illustrates the character of all of these chapters. Facing the breadth of
language-centered theories and approaches, Nicolini gives an overview that explains the bases for
their differences and then takes up three examples, each requiring an extensive command of the
literature in its own right: ethnomethodological conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis,
and mediated discourse analysis. It is this same wide scholarly reach that marks each of the first

Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 3, 2016

690 Organization Studies 36(5)

eight chapters. In another astute book-making decision, Nicolini illustrates the applicability of each
of these approaches through a single, rolling case, the practice of telemedicine, premiered in the
books introduction and recurring at the end of each substantive chapter. In the ninth and final
chapter, Nicolini seeks to translate the concerns common across these theoretical approaches into
a pluralistic program of research methods.
By contrast with the first eight chapters, which are, on the whole, masterful, content-wise, the
final, methods chapter left me dissatisfied. I appreciate (and share) Nicolinis insistence on a plural-
istic approach to practice-focused research methods his programmatic eclecticism as well as
his argument that, in the end, theories and methods are not separable, coming instead as a package.
But although his notions of zooming in and out as one follows a practice are potentially generative,
metaphorically, the chapter did not succeed, in my reading, in showing clearly how and when this
metaphor might be translated into, well, practice. Despite the programmatic promise of the chapters
title (Bringing it all together: A toolkit to study and represent practice at work), I found it much
more theoretical (and its repetitiveness sorely in need of editing). Starting to read the book, I had
been anticipating a chapter that might stand alone as a useful orientation for those wishing to under-
take a practice study. Although this one provides the occasional insight, I would still need to turn
elsewhere for such material.
Given the breadth of scholarship explored in this book, and done well, it seems a bit small-
minded to carp about things missing or gone awry. One of my concerns circles around the rolling
case. Nicolini provides his readers with the rare opportunity to explore the same casehis study
of telemedicine as a practicefrom different theoretical angles. The conceptual vision underlying
this idea, which is a theoretical-analytic nirvana rarely achieved, is superb; would that others might
adopt it! Whether it is the same case, however, is actually a potentially provocative question from
a methodological perspective, as each theoretical lens shapes its own research question and
therebyone might argueits own case. Although the absence of such discussion does not detract
from the books accomplishments, I would have liked Nicolini to explore this matter, especially as
it would seem to support his argument concerning the intertwining of theory and method(s).
Moreover, such multiplicity requires an author to tell us what is at issue before launching into
the analysis. That is, although each case analysis might well stand on its own when taken up in
discrete journal articles, the relationships of each to the others require explicit engagement when
used ad seriatim in a book to do the work of comparative theoretical illustration. What, for exam-
ple, does Bourdieus idea of habitus (rolling case, Chapter 3) enable an analyst to see, do, and say
(that other approaches, by implication, do not)? The case analysis there is opaque to a reader who
is not aware of the hierarchies of status, power, and authority characterizing different occupational
roles in a medical practice (something that is still not common knowledge outside of health care
fields). The presented case material needs to be sequenced in such a way as to lead the reader into
the problematic (e.g. Ch. 3, n. 34, referring the reader to the introduction does not help: the material
there [pp. 1719] gives an account of telemedicine and heart failure but does not explain which
balance of forces opportunity the nurses neglected to turn to their favor [p. 72]). The theoretical
discussion that precedes each case account does not make its application obvious. This use of case
narratives calls upon an author to provide an ongoing reflexive account that not only shows but
tells where and how each form of theorizing brings something to the analytic table.
Second, I would have liked a discussion of the differences, if any, between studying social prac-
tices and work practices. Are both of these natural organizational studies domains? This issue is
coming increasingly to the fore in my engagements with management and organizational studies
doctoral students taking up practice studies. I suspect that they are moved to talk about social rather
than work practices due to the sort of literature they are reading that of philosophers and social theo-
rists (e.g. Schatzki, Dreyfus, Heidegger, Wittgenstein), who invoke as empirical examples misplaced

Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 3, 2016

Book Review 691

eyeglasses or a malfunctioning automobile gearshift, rather than of organizational and other social
scientists who might be looking at actual workplace practices (e.g. Barleys funeral home and hospi-
tal cases or Orrs copier technicians). Given the prevalence of social practice(s) in the theoretical
literature, but work and organization as two-thirds of his book title, I do not think it unfair to have
expected Nicolini to take up this matter. And a related concern: how do current work practice studies
relate to an older, yet still vibrant, tradition in organizational sociology of studying occupations, pro-
fessions, and work? Lotte Bailyn, Ed Schein, and John Van Maanen organizational and manage-
ment studies scholars in good standing all studied socialization to organizational life; Tim Hall and
others explored careers and organizations, surely also an aspect of work practices; and then there is
the long line of Chicago School studies of doctors and teachers, jazz musicians and druggies, slum
dwellers and tramps, and so on some of these clearly organization-based work practices. In addi-
tion to locating practice studies in the context of ancient history and classical times, it would have
been most useful to have this contextualizing extended to the more recent, and both analytically and
methodologically related, past. (I hope, in so noting, I have not committed the sin of bad or lazy
social science [p. 234] of which Nicolini accuses those of us who use the term context.)
Why would I hesitate, as I indicated above, to use this book in teaching? The book is rife with
grammatical and usage errors, typos, missing and incorrect references, and other book-making
problems that one expects copy-editors to repair. These problems often interfered with my under-
standing of the text, and I do not want to assign material that I cannot myself understand. Given its
status in the publishing world, I expect more of Oxford University Press. There is much to like
about this book, and it comes at a good moment for researchers not only in organizational studies
but also in policy analysis, international relations, and other social sciences in which the practice
turn is taking off. I hope OUP will bring out a properly edited and proof-read edition which will
reflect well on both publisher and author and which I will then have no hesitation recommending
or assigning.

Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 3, 2016