Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Social practice theory offers valuable insights for public health research, particularly in understanding how health inequalities are sustained through everyday practices. A recent increase in social practice theory scholarship has focused on the development of flexible methodologies which allow for empirical investigations of social practices. This paper introduces a flexible, practice-based approach designed to address methodological challenges in studying interconnected practices, which we call a “method menu”. The method menu allows for the adaptable selection of data collection methods, including practice-based interviews, observations of practice spaces, and explorations of material and digital elements. The approach we outline also allows flexibility for the participants, by offering choice and control over engagement within the data collection process, with considerations of their preferences, availability and consent. Using a metaphorical menu structure, participants can engage in the research project and choose to commit to only a single interview or commit to multiple courses of data collection (i.e. interviews and home visit). The method menu facilitates modification of participation over time to address barriers to research participation. The method menu was developed and tested through research examining early childhood oral health practices within naturally living families. Developed using a social practice theory perspective, it facilitates the investigation of both individual performance of practices and their relational dynamics, particularly in contexts where traditional ethnographic methods or prolonged investigations may be constrained. Even where traditional ethnographic approaches are feasible, the method menu can offer researchers a way to undertake data collection that grants participants greater agency in determining their level of research engagement. The method menu responds to calls for methodological innovation within SPT research while acknowledging the complexities researchers may encounter within broader research fields.

Keywords

social practice theory methodology research design research participation

Introduction

Public health research and interventions have traditionally focused either on changing individual behaviors or addressing broad structural factors. Social practice theory offers a potential lens to view health outcomes as the outcomes of social practices, rather than the consequence of purely individual choices or structural determinants (Blue et al., 2016; Maller, 2015). Further, other approaches to research often struggle to capture both the mundane details of everyday practices and their broader social connections. This challenge is particularly acute in public health research, where understanding how health-related practices are sustained or changed across different social contexts is crucial for developing effective interventions (Baum & Fisher, 2014; Blue et al., 2016). SPT has already been used to examine persistent health inequalities that are embedded within daily life, including alcohol consumption (Hennell et al., 2021; Lyons et al., 2014; Meier et al., 2018; Wright et al., 2022); poly-tobacco use (McQuoid et al., 2020); and obesity and the concept of obese societies (Blue et al., 2021). Recently, social practice theory has also examined children’s oral health (Durey et al., 2021, 2024; Girard et al., 2024).

SPT can help to understand and impact social change by moving beyond traditional binary understandings of social phenomena as either individualist or structuralist (Spaargaren et al., 2016). At its core, this theoretical approach positions social practices as the fundamental building blocks of social reality, viewing them as historical, contingent, and deeply contextual entities that exist on a single level in line with a “flat ontology” (Schatzki, 2016). A reframe of health as the result of multiple practical arrangements intersecting and evolving within people’s lives can draw attention to connections which are often considered in fragmented ways (Blue et al., 2016; Maller, 2015).

Researchers face significant methodological challenges in applying SPT empirically because there is no singular, prescribed, practice-based methodology (Jonas et al., 2017; Shove et al., 2012). A recent scoping review of parenting studies using SPT provided critical insights into current research methods; including a predominant use of interviews as method and a tendency to examine practices in isolation (McLean et al., 2023). By using multiple, complementary methods that capture how practices persist across different times and spaces, with different people, the approach we outline in this paper extends practice-based methodologies beyond the use of single-method approaches.

Engaging the Participant Within the Process: A Flexible Menu Rather than a Fixed Protocol

Unlike other approaches which aim to create generalisable theories or models, SPT emphasises capturing the heterogeneity and complexity of social practices as they occur across different (real life) contexts. As Nolas (2014) argues, studies using SPT should “create knowledge through thick, ethnographic description, a close attention to both contemporary and historical detail and a use of a broad range of data” (p. 138). Researchers must therefore examine not just the “what” of people’s doings, or how these are explained by those doing them, but expand and consider how social practices change through repeated performances and then situate this knowledge in relation to social life (McMillan, 2017).

This paper responds to these challenges by introducing the ‘method menu’ to enable systematic investigation of social practices situated within the constraints of “real world” research contexts. Like ordering from a restaurant menu, this approach allows participants to choose their level of engagement in the research process based on their circumstances and preferences, from lighter involvement (e.g. a single episode of data collection, likened to an appetizer or starter) to more extensive participation (e.g. engagement in multiple ‘courses’ of data collection over time).

The method menu emphasizes the importance of enduring negotiability of participation, because it complements the evolutionary and dynamic nature of the relationship between researcher and participant (Boulton & Parker, 2007). Rather than participation being predefined and rigid, and something which the participant must either agree to (and participate) or not (and disengage from the study), power is granted to the participant to determine how they engage with the research and researcher, allowing trust to be fostered incrementally throughout the research process (Boulton & Parker, 2007).

While the metaphor of a menu might be considered straightforward, it was selected deliberately because of its straightforwardness. The use of the term “menu” was intended to capture the iterative decision making involved within data collection and analysis, and to emphasise the non-linear nature of this process. We recognised the value that the familiarity of a ‘menu’ had as an accessible entry point for understanding and navigating methodological choices through and within everyday life. Just as a culinary menu presents carefully curated combinations of ingredients transformed through specific techniques, our method menu represents theoretically grounded combinations of research methods that can be assembled to illuminate social practices to the researcher and research participant.

The metaphor of a “menu” also aligns with several theoretical principles within SPT. A menu highlights how practices are performed within the bounds of constraints (time, resources, knowledge), and positions the researcher and participant both as knowledgeable actors. Using the method menu is not just a matter of simply picking and choosing methods. In the same way a chef develops a menu, the researcher must consider how different methods complement or extend from one other, and what combinations of items from the menu might work within particular contexts. The items on the menu may or may not be subject to alteration dependent on the needs of different diners, or participants.

The menu metaphor emphasises participant agency in the research process while enabling rigorous investigation of social practices through multiple methods. It is presented as a response to calls for methodological innovation within SPT research, while acknowledging the need for guidance on complexities encountered in the research field, (Cozza & Gherardi, 2023; Jonas et al., 2017) and the importance of including participants within the research process. The method menu can facilitate investigation of both individual practice performances and the complex interconnections between practices, particularly in contexts where traditional extended ethnographic observation may not be feasible.

Context for the Paper

Theorists within SPT research see researchers themselves as carriers of practices and argue that they cannot stand outside of the practices they investigate (Nicolini, 2012; Shove et al., 2012). This understanding aligns with broader qualitative research principles that position knowledge as partial and situated, and researcher subjectivity as a valuable research resource rather than a limitation to be overcome (Braun & Clarke, 2024). Throughout this paper, we aim to provide transparency about how our theoretical assumptions and research goals shaped our methodological choices and interpretations. This reflexive approach is particularly important when investigating social practices, where researchers’ own experiences and assumptions may influence how they interpret and engage with the research (Nicolini, 2017).

This paper draws on research undertaken as part of a PhD within an Australian Research Council Discovery Project (ID: DP210101166) investigating social practices in relation to early childhood oral health within Australia. The broader aim of the PhD project was to examine social practices in the context of naturally living parents, identified as those who prioritise naturalness in relation to health, parenting and daily life. Oral health was positioned as an outcome of social practices parents participated in, such as food preparation and shopping, healthcare decision making and oral hygiene. While examples throughout the paper reference oral health and naturally living parenting, we anticipate that the method menu has applications for practice-based research more broadly. Its adaptability allows researchers to examine both discrete performances of practices (like toothbrushing or food preparation) as well as examining broader practical arrangements (how use of oral hygiene products and food products are informed by the ways parents seek knowledge from each other and other people).

Additionally, the method menu approach can be useful for participants who may be hesitant to engage in research, as it can allow participants to maintain agency over the level (and the nature) of their involvement in the project. This flexibility, combined with an analytical focus on how practices extend and connect, rather than analysis being tied to a specific content or topic area, indicates the method menu may be adaptable for investigating practices in other research contexts. Echoing Schmidt’s (2017) argument that SPT is fundamentally an empirical project, we now establish key theoretical foundations of social practice theory and practice-oriented ethnography before providing a detailed account of the method menu.

Social Practice Theory

Social practice theory’s value lies in its ability to provide fresh perspectives on health and social issues by examining how practices form, evolve, and interconnect (Durey et al., 2021; Schmidt, 2017). Health and wellbeing can be understood as outcomes of participation in diverse social practices (Maller, 2015), offering valuable insights for addressing contemporary challenges within an increasingly connected social world. Researchers can examine how practices emerge, persist, and evolve within broader social contexts, while maintaining sensitivity to their interconnected nature.

To provide methodological clarity, it is necessary to specify which principles of SPT have informed the development of the method menu (Halkier & Jensen, 2011). Shove and colleagues (2012) developed a tripartite model, which sees practices being made up of elements within three categories: meanings, materials and competences. Practices emerge, persist and dissolve as a result of the constitutive relationship between their elements and the practices they are a part of, emphasising the connectedness of social practices (McMillan, 2017). Reckwitz (2002b, p. 249) defined practice as “a routinised type of behavior which consists of several elements, interconnected to one other: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, “things” and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge.” Schatzki, described social practices as open-ended “sets of hierarchically organized doings and sayings, tasks and projects,” (2005, p. 471). Both of these definitions highlight how a practice is more than an individual behaviour or action. Instead, practices are complex arrangements of multiple elements that form recognisable patterns.

Drawing on these foundational understandings, we view practices as both the context for and outcome of social activity, where meanings, materials and competences are actively configured through everyday performance rather than existing as static structures. Practices then connect and intersect to make up our social reality (Blue & Spurling, 2016). In Table 1, we have summarised the key practice theoretical concepts we have drawn on to inform our approach. We then describe them in further detail below using the categories proposed by Shove et al. (2012). Although we speak about practices throughout the paper in connection with one another, we have drawn from a recent meta-synthesis (Girard et al., 2024) that examined toothbrushing as a discrete/isolated social practice to contextualise the different categories we introduce.

Table 1.

Elements of Practice as Considered by (Some) Practice Theorists

Theorist/s	Components or elements of social practice
Shove et al. (2012)	Meanings - Ideas - Symbolic significance - Aspirations	Materials - Things - Technologies - Tangible physical entities - ‘stuff of which objects are made’	Competence - Skill - Know how - Technique
Reckwitz (2002)	Mental activities - Social and symbolic significance - Motivations to participate - Beliefs - Norms - Engagements - Emotions	Things and their use - Objects - Technologies - Infrastructures - Tools - Products - The body	Background knowledge - Shared understandings - Practical understandings
Schatzki (2016; 2002, 2005)	General understandings - Teleoaffective structures - Rules	Material arrangements (as resources for practices)	Practical understandings - Rules

Competence

Competence as a part of social practice encompasses shared and general understandings of accomplished performances, including background and practical knowledge and having a sense of what needs to be done or not done within the bounds of a practice (intelligibility). Competence is understood as circulating between and within practices, rather than simply being passed between individuals (Shove et al., 2012). If we consider the example of toothbrushing as a social practice, competences can include knowing how often, or at what age, children should participate in toothbrushing, as well as the skilled know how involved in “doing” the toothbrushing itself (Girard et al., 2024). We can also consider how competences circulate between practitioners (e.g. from parent to dentist, from parent to parent, generationally, or from parent to child using educational songs and modelling) in ways that are contextually specific. There is also the matter of achieving accomplished practice, what happens when these efforts are unsuccessful, and how practice may be abandoned or changed. Ascribing competences to the practice itself allow a reframe of the complex dynamics of skill, knowledge and practical change that extends beyond only considering the individual.

Meanings

Meaning is a broad category of elements within social practice which remains comparatively undertheorised (Spotswood et al., 2023). It encompasses emotions, mental activities, forms of general and practice understanding, motivation, and social and symbolic significance (Reckwitz, 2002; Shove et al., 2012). For example, twice daily toothbrushing is considered “accomplished” practice by most parents (Girard et al., 2024), and there are understandings that “bad” teeth hold specific social and symbolic significances (Otto, 2017). There may also be other meanings directly related to the “matter” of the teeth. For example, the way some parents rationalise reduced toothbrushing performance because primary teeth will eventually fall out and are impermanent (Girard et al., 2024).

Within this broader conceptualisation of meaning, Schatzki (2002) offers a more precise theoretical construct of teleoaffective structures, defined as “a range of normativized and hierarchically ordered ends, projects and tasks, to varying degrees allied with normativized emotions and even moods” (p. 80). Teleoaffective structures are the shared understandings about what matters and what should be done, at a social, not individual, level. This might include the goals people have, the “appropriate” emotions within a practice, and what makes sense to be done (or not done). Importantly, teleoaffective structures are not individual characteristics or properties of practice participants, but rather properties of the practice itself. Like competences, they are expressed through the doings and sayings that constitute the practice, though these are performed by individual bodies. The teleoaffective structures of a given practice help to compose the minds and actions of different participants (Schatzki, 2002). Using our example, teleoaffective structures might include understandings of what makes a “good” parent, or how certain emotions (like care, love, anxiety, pride or dread) circulate within practices like going to the dentist.

Materials

Practice theorists agree that materials and the “non-human” are important within social practice; including but not limited to objects, tools, infrastructure and the “vibrant, dynamic material” that is the human body (Maller, 2019). However, opinion on the extent of the role materials play within practice differs (Nicolini, 2012). We position materials as being participants within practices, rather than external mediators of practice (Schmidt, 2017). This places emphasis on considering what the material’s role is instead of focusing on its nature. In considering our research inquiry, we understand social practices as those which include participation of both human bodies and other non-human materials (van der Poel & Bakker, 2016).

We can identify materials within toothbrushing: child centric toothbrushes, toothpastes, educational books, reward charts, the phone used to watch animated videos of beloved characters brushing their teeth (Girard et al., 2024). Yet, these materials are not uniform. They vary in brand, ingredients, taste, and texture, as well as cost and aesthetic from performance to performance. We can also explore the vibrant, dynamic material of the body itself (Maller, 2019), including how genetic predispositions might impact the accomplishment of “good” oral health (Hughes, 2021; Lod et al., 2014).

Teeth, sugar, bacteria and fluoride are also important material elements in relation to toothbrushing and other social practices. The teeth and mouth are important for social interactions and are subject to change as the child develops, introducing another layer of dynamism to a range of practices. Through these examples we can see that materials occupy different roles within multiple practices.

Space and Time within Social Practice

In addition to the elements of practice we have introduced, space and time act as mediators or resources for practices. Through repeat, unique enactments of performance by loyal practitioners, practices endure (and evolve) across space and time, which results in social change (Shove et al., 2012). If practices are to endure, the elements of which they are made need to be linked together consistently and recurrently over time. Practices compete for objective time as a finite resource, because time spent performing one practice is inevitably not available for the performance of other practices, unless practices become “squeezed” together or entangled with one another (Creek et al., 2023; Shove et al., 2012). Practices can also be co-located in physical and virtual space or extend across vast distances.

Although we have discussed elements of practice separately, in reality, they are complexly entangled with one another. They continuously interact, influencing the emergence, persistence, and transformation of practices. The introduction of new elements can result in the disappearance of others, ultimately resulting in practices emerging, evolving and disappearing across time and space (Shove et al., 2012). This perspective allows us to understand how an arrangement of practices more broadly contributes to “good” or “poor” oral health, rather than being the result of a discrete, individual behaviour.

Doing Social Practice Theory on the Ground: The Need for Methodological Guidance

A practice theory research approach must be grounded empirically, and “continually irritated” through empirical observations (Jonas et al., 2017), with methods defined by the field of practice under study. Practice-based research benefits from a rhizomatic approach (Nicolini, 2012), where investigations start in one place but extend across space and time, conceptualising practices hanging together in a web rather than a linear thread. This perspective reconceptualises the “size” of phenomena not as existing on different levels, but as descriptions of connective expansiveness (Spaargaren et al., 2016). What is then required is pragmatic methodological eclecticism that exploits different facets of practice (Nicolini, 2012). Nicolini (2017) argued that SPT overcomes the limitations of behaviour description by examining how the social world is produced and reproduced through everyday practices. Methods must then serve the specific foci of practice theory and adapt to different points of inquiry and interest (Bueger, 2019).

Traditional ethnographic approaches, whilst valuable, may not be feasible or appropriate in some contexts or with certain population groups when investigating social practice research questions. Focused ethnography has been proposed for practice based research because it enables researchers to enter fields of practice with specific questions and existing theoretical understanding, they aim to deepen (Durey et al., 2024). This approach might involve targeted field site visits and intense periods of engagement rather than continuous long-term immersion, with the researcher positioned as an informed outsider to the community of practice (Higginbottom et al., 2013).

While focused ethnography enables deep exploration of specific practices, contemporary practice theorists increasingly emphasize the importance of examining the connectedness of practices rather than studying them in isolation (Blue & Spurling, 2016; Shove, 2022). This creates a methodological tension: how can researchers maintain the targeted, efficient principles of focused ethnography while expanding beyond investigations of discrete practices? This challenge is particularly salient in health and social science disciplines where traditional lengthy ethnographic approaches are often impractical due to resource or funding constraints and participant availability (Cozza & Gherardi, 2023).

Contemporary ethnographic research is further complicated by longstanding epistemological tensions between ethnographic methods and institutional ethics review processes (Bell & Wynn, 2020). Contemporary researchers may face challenges in obtaining ethical approval for ethnographic research (a necessity for most research) as institutions often preference distanced and universalist over naturalistic forms of inquiry. This is exemplified through requirements being founded on positivistic ideals such as “predictive informed consent” and more anticipatory approaches to risk management (Mapedzahama & Dune, 2017).

There is considerable variation in both the practices examined and methods used within social practice theory-based research (Halkier, 2017; Jonas et al., 2017; McLean et al., 2023). While scholars have provided important methodological orientations for practice-based research (Jonas et al., 2017; Nicolini, 2009b, 2017; Sedlacko, 2017) there remains a need for concrete examples to test or demonstrate how such orientations can be applied to empirical research. The toolkit approach is one example of methodological flexibility used within practice-based research (Nicolini, 2012), and which served as a starting point for our empirical work and research design, culminating in the “method menu”. By documenting our experience of applying methodological flexibility in our specific research context (oral health), we aim to contribute to the growing body of work on empirical applications of practice theoretical methods.

The Methods Menu: A Way of Studying Practices

We propose use of a methodologically flexible approach we have termed the “method menu”, which includes three key method groups as potential pathways or ‘courses’ within practice-based research: practice-based interviews, observations of practice spaces, and explorations of materials and digital elements (Figure 1). The key components of the method menu, their purpose and theoretical underpinnings are summarised in Table 2, where we have highlighted how each aspect contributes to understanding practices and what potential analytical insights can be gained. The method menu was designed with a consideration of advice to “follow the actors” (Latour, 1987) and to “follow the practices” (Gherardi, 2019) in order to remain open to the connections between practices and their elements as they became interpretable. Participants were positioned as co-collaborators, with a vested interest in thinking deeply and reflexively about their own practices. Their engagement within data collection episodes provided an awareness of practice performances within their daily life outside of formal data collection episodes. The following of connections between practices highlighted the permeability of their boundaries.

Figure 1.

The Method Menu

Table 2.

Analytical Opportunities

Method menu component
Based interviews	Initial interview	• Establish researcher-participant relationship• Establish preferences for participant (level of engagement, which methods, frequency)• Introduce practice-oriented enquiry to participants• Identify practices and initial “paths” to follow• Preliminary explorations of elements in circulation• Establish preliminary interpretation of temporal and spatial arrangements• Identify disruptors or challenges to practice performance
	Follow up interview	• Iterative engagement with participants• Delve further into complexities of practice including variations in performances• Consider temporality in terms of practice• Examine how practices may adapt, endure or change over time• Further understanding of disruptions to practice performances• Corroborate recounts of practice performances across participant experiences
Observations in everyday settings	Sites of entryFollowing practices across sites	• Observe practice performances in situ• Capture “doings” of practice (including observing routines)• Understand how practices are spatially organised• Follow practices and practice connections across and between sites• Investigations of infrastructure and resources• Understand how identified practices may connect within broader arrangements
Observations of material and digital	Materials	• Determine how materials participate in, shape and mediate practices (including their absence)• Identify symbolic meanings and understandings within practices• Track the ways materials circulate as elements of practice• Examine how materials interact with other elements of practice• Identify ways materials are jointly recruited to practices
	Social media	Document how practices are represented or performed within virtual spaceUnderstand how practices are connected across physical and virtual spacesPotential opportunity for more longitudinal/historical analysis of practices when social media content is considered as artefacts of past practices

We acknowledge, however, that this approach requires certain competencies from both researcher and participant. Researchers must have a strong understanding of SPT and be comfortable in the flexibility and “messiness” inherent in a practice based investigation. Skills related to engaging in multiple qualitative methods and capacity for ongoing reflexive, iterative analysis are also required.

The collaborative and iterative nature of the method menu allows some of these competencies to develop through the research process itself, as researcher and participant must “work together” to understand. Expecting participants to have prior theoretical knowledge would be unrealistic, but the process benefits from participants being willing to reflect on their everyday routines and to be open to examining “taken-for-granted” aspects of their daily life. Participants need to be able to articulate their daily experiences and engage in sustained dialogue about their practices.

The method menu has been designed as a collaborative tool for both the researcher and research participants. For researchers, the menu provides a structured (yet flexible) means of investigating social practices in a theoretically rigorous way. Using the method menu allows researchers to follow practices across participants and places, tailor data collection methods based on iterative insights gained from the data; ensure theoretical consistency whilst mediating the need for depth and working within practical constraints. The participant’s expertise within the practices being studied can be acknowledged, whilst accommodating various constraints (e.g. time and availability). By following practices across a range of spaces and with a range of participants, considerations of how practices are spatially and temporally mediated were made clearer. A key example, discussed later, being the addition of social media and digital explorations to the method menu as it was used and tested during the research process. The metaphor also provided us with opportunities for deeper reflection on research practices themselves. Who has access to certain methods? What factors allow participants to engage (or lead participants to disengaging) from the research process? And how might this impact “who” remains involved in research processes? How do power dynamics influence participation?

We now dive into the method menu more explicitly to detail its individual components, and how different methods may be integrated within an investigation of social practice. In presenting this menu, we do not claim theoretical innovation within social practice theory, but we do propose that the method menu is a means of making practice-based research more accessible across disciplines and experience levels. Its value is in its ability to bridge theoretical understandings with practical applications. Much like a menu might bridge culinary expertise or skill of the chef (researcher) with everyday dining experiences of diners who visit the restaurant (participants), the method menu serves as both a relational and methodological tool throughout the research process. In each of the following sections, the account of the method menu is supplemented with examples from a practice-based research study which investigated social practices in relation to oral health of preschool children which was carried out by the authors.

Practice Based Interviews

There is contention amongst those working within branches of SPT over how insightful a practitioner talking about practice can be. Nettleton & Green (2014) caution practice-based researchers not to take reproductions of accounts literally, meaning attention should be paid to what is said and not said. It is also important that researchers remain cautious of reports of abstract concepts by practitioners (such as power) and be careful not to simply take words as evidence of their status as entities within practice (Sedlacko, 2017). Interviews that are practice based do not necessarily need to be structured, but they should allow the storylines of practitioners to be brought to the fore. Based on this advice, two types of interviews were used within the method menu; (1) initial interviews which introduced participants to non-judgmental explorations of daily practices; (2) Follow up interviews, which allowed for the expansion and refinement of interpretations of practice.

Initial Interview

Similar to how an appetizer might open a meal, initial interviews serve to introduce participants to practice theory. An initial interview focuses on rapport building and orienting participants to a practice-based way of thinking. This involved emphasising the sociality of practice, the elements of practices, and removing notions of judgement on individual behaviours. During the initial interviews, the researcher can explain the practice-based approach to the participant and garner the participant’s willingness to engage in data collection methods from the menu. A key outcome is the selection of the course the participant would like to take.

By establishing an open dialogue for discussion of potential avenues for data collection, participants are given the opportunity to re-evaluate their level of participation within the study on a regular basis. For example, in our study one participant met the researcher in a shopping centre food court because it aligned better with her routine. After completing an initial interview, a home visit was organised at a time when her mother could help with childcare during the visit. Similarly, several participants opted for an online interview to begin with, as this was more easily integrated into their day to day routine (and potentially allowed participants to get a “feel” or appetite for the project before committing to something more substantial, like a face to face interview). Our experience indicates that online interviews may be a means of increasing accessibility for both the researcher and participant.

During the initial interviews, the researcher was made privy to daily routines of participants. In some instances this led to a home visit, where topics in the initial interview could be expanded upon. For others, ongoing inclusion in the study involved asynchronous messaging or emailing with the researcher as this better suited their capacity for engagement (for example, sending follow up pictures of their child’s lunch box, or a social media post they saw which reminded them of the project). For others, repeat online interviews, sometimes including a “virtual home tour” done via camera were preferred over face-to-face contact.

With regards to the adoption of a practice-based approach, having a predetermined, rigid script of what to talk about with regards to social practices may perpetuate idealised versions of said practices, rather than the reality of the practices themselves (Nicolini, 2009). Interviews should therefore be semi-structured and follow a flexible question guide to ensure focus remains on the research question whilst allowing for explorations of the mundane and everydayness of life.

“Practice based talk” can be used in both forms of interview to elicit details on “gateway” practices. Hitchings (2011) summarised practice-based talk as a willingness to ask about the seemingly obvious and the presentation of alternatives to practitioners to foster deliberation on the logics and arrangements that sustain existing practices. Practice based talk involves asking questions focused on performativity related to the practices being investigated (Hitchings, 2011). Hitchings noted that it is an effective method if given enough time and space, and if the researchers make clear the type of knowledge which is required and why. This can be achieved by asking questions like “What did you do?” “Who else was there?” “What did you see?” or “How was the task performed?” (Heidenstrøm & Kvarnl, 2017), helping to increase understandings of the practice/s.

In our study, the initial interview was structured to begin broadly (by asking questions like “can you tell me about your average day?”) because the daily life of each parent was unique, which required the researcher to situate themselves. Practice based talk involved expanding on responses and then, based on participant’s responses following different pathways of investigation during the interview (and follow-up interviews).

Follow up Practice-Based Interviews

Follow-up interviews (like a main course) provide more substantial engagement within the practice-based research process and allow different ‘serving sizes’ of participation based on participant capacity (which can, like in any appetite or dining experience, change from day to day, or week to week). Practice-based interviews serve to detect relevance and differences by relating observed practices to other practices. They enable researchers to identify what is important to participants, which topics are prominent, and what problems participants consider valuable (Krämer, 2017).

Within the scope of a project, it can be difficult (sometimes impossible) for a researcher to observe every single performance or set of activities that are relevant to the research question. Interviews can resolve some of the limitations associated with constraints and demands placed on participant and researcher because they can be offered more flexibly, especially with the rise of online interviewing. Follow up interviews with key participants allow for renewed focus and for the researcher to reorient investigations in line with iterative analysis. Repeat interviews were arranged with participants to refine analysis and the researcher’s interpretations of the practices being studied. The researcher and participant were able to consolidate knowledge between meetings, and to “pick up where they left off,” which facilitated cumulative data collection.

The participant is positioned as the expert within their world and the researcher as a curious outsider. In reflection, the researcher’s self-presentation (a curious outsider, a non-parent, a woman, and someone with previous experience working with children and families) likely elicited specific information during interviews. This role allowed the researcher to remain curious, and to probe for practice information. At times, this looked like participants treating the researcher as a “potential recruit” to parenting (with phrases such as “I wish someone had told me this before I had children” or “this will be good to know for when you have kids”) when speaking about a certain ingredient or additive to avoid, or aspect of child development they had not been told about but that the parent saw as pertinent information for a potential novice.

Interviews can also be further strengthened through the incorporation of the Interview to the Double (ITTD) technique, which requires interviewees to imagine they are providing instructions to a double who will replace them in their role the following day (Nicolini, 2009a). ITTD principles can be applied to elicit detailed retrospective accounts of practice performances. Rather than simply describing what they do, practitioners are encouraged to engage with their practices analytically, as if instructing a substitute. The technique provides researchers with nuanced insights into practice while simultaneously offering practitioners an opportunity for reflection on their own participation in practices (Nicolini, 2009a). ITTD aligns with our practice-theoretical approach by supporting multifaceted representations of practice and helping surface the implicit knowledge, beliefs and teleoaffective structures that organise routine activities (Schmidt, 2017).

Inclusion of ITTD within the methods menu serves several theoretical and practical functions. ITTD explores performative aspects of social practice. Reference to an imaginary double allows for usually tacit knowledge to be made explicit to the outsider (researcher). For example, when parents described their morning routines to their imagined double, they surfaced detailed sequences that would have been difficult to capture through observation alone. The specific ways parents prepared foods, the coordination between practices like teeth brushing and getting dressed and commuting that had not been otherwise articulated in earlier interviews were identified.

ITTD also allowed temporal and organisational aspects of practice to become more explicit. When participants are faced with explaining their role to an unknowing double, it can lead to the identification of how practices are sequenced, coordinated and entangled with one another. An example of this is the way toothbrushing was sequenced within bedtime and “getting ready” routines, and how this was also entangled with parent employment. ITTD also aligns to our broader commitment to centering participant agency by positioning the individual parent as an expert of their own practice performances, which provided them the opportunity to reflect analytically on their experiences.

Interviews (both initial and follow up) focused on eliciting detailed instructions on how participants did things. Having participants verbally “walk” through their morning routine, or the preparation of snack foods revealed more practical understandings and forms of knowledge by allowing for ‘detailed first-hand descriptions of bodily movements, activities, utterances, or handlings of things’ (Nicolini, 2012, p. 401). This allowed discussions about less-than-ideal performances to be facilitated, which illuminated more implicit rules, standards and norms within practices. The integration of these interview methods within the method menu also maintains the broader flexible and participant-centered approach we adopted.

The combination of the initial and recurrent interviews (including ITTD) was particularly well suited to the “chaos” participants reported in relation to parenting. Interruptions became opportunities for deeper insight. When data collection was interrupted (for example, because a child or partner needed help during a virtual interview) this was considered a derailing of the research. Instead, moments of spontaneity and unplanned disruption often revealed rich, unanticipated insights into the dynamics of the day-to-day experience of participants that might have remained hidden in a more rigid research approach.

Practice-Based Observations

Direct observation provided crucial insights that interviews alone cannot capture and is therefore a central component of the method menu. Iterative development of an observation protocol was beneficial to ensure observations remained theoretically-informed while following practice connections and navigating the method menu. A protocol could include prompts for identifying practice connections across spaces, reflection on how practices extend beyond immediate observation sites, and consideration of absent elements or practices (Supplementary file). Developing a protocol can support the researcher to remain responsive to emerging patterns and unexpected observations throughout the course of data collection and analysis while maintaining theoretical consistency. Social practices extend across multiple sites and times through their performance in a nonhierarchical way (Shove, 2022). However, research must begin somewhere. Below, we have discussed observations in different spaces based on the research process, including both the sites where we entered the practice investigations, and the subsequent sites where we followed practices.

Sites of Entry to Practices (The Starting Point for Research)

Being present and able to observe is valuable because it allows for the clarification of differences between what people might say (or understand they do) and what they really do. Initial instances of observation often started in the spaces the participants themselves identified as significant to practices related to oral health (primarily, their home). These spaces do not represent definitive boundaries for which the practices exist within, but serve as a starting point for tracing practice connections.

During one home visit, a participant had spent a large amount of time analysing food labels with the researcher. They had pointed out “okay” ingredients from an oral health and dietary perspective, highlighting the efforts which went into maintaining naturalness, such as avoiding materials referred to as ‘toxic’, and the nuanced differences between different kinds of “natural” and “unnatural” sugars. This initial exploration was expanded when another participant, who had established themselves as a label-reading expert amongst parents, shared similar insights. The research then pivoted towards social media, where this competence of reading and scrutinising product labels was further elaborated upon through examining different content creators and podcasts.

When contextualised within broader discourse, these observations also intersected with recent research questioning the ‘healthiness’ of available toddler foods in Australia (Dunford et al., 2024). Further, the practice connections we traced also related to technological (material) developments, like the Yuka digital application (Yuka, nd), which had been sent to the researcher by an acquaintance familiar with the study. Yuka is designed to assist individuals to scan and “decipher” ingredient labels, assisting people in understanding the potential health impacts of different products, further mirroring the meanings around naturally living parenting; scrutiny of the healthiness and ‘naturalness’ of mainstream products is necessary.

Observing practices in the spaces they are performed allows the researchers to witness doings and sayings of participants and allow a deeper look into the “actual work” of practice performance (Nicolini, 2012). These observations can connect previous interview data with real-time performances of practices, revealing implicit rules and routines related to the practices. Preparation should be guided by ongoing reflection on data and theoretical sensitisation, ensuring each observation is focused on identifying new elements, gaining a deeper understanding of the practice, or interpreting connections between practices observed. For example, in domestic spaces, observations might begin in informal spaces like kitchens, allowing for natural conversation while witnessing routine practices.

These site visits can involve other existing methods, such as a walk along interview. A walk along interview, also referred to as a go-along interview (Kusenbach, 2018) involves the interviewer walking with the interviewee in a location while the practice being examined is performed. This approach allows for connections and articulations to be made about practice within the site of practice. Walk-along interviews can be conducted during home visits to explore key practice sites, such as kitchens and bathrooms, and to observe routines related to daily life (Heidenstrøm & Kvarnl, 2017).

There is also value in observing both disrupted practices and seemingly successful ones. In our study, during a home visit with one participant, the participant started to prepare a snack for their child and had mentioned how they tried to avoid packaged snacks, such as biscuits. As we walked through the fridge and then pantry, their child reached to the very back of a shelf to retrieve a “hidden” packet of biscuits that were “for emergencies”, which led to a discussion about the nuances (and challenges) of accomplishing a “healthy” snack time in day to day life. This example illustrates how using a range of methods can help to uncover the complex gaps between accomplished, idealised accounts of practice, and the necessarily dynamic, and sometimes unpredictable reality of daily life.

Following Practices Across Sites

The way the method menu is designed encourages an expansion of explorations into spaces connected beyond the entry of study. Coordinating observations in multiple locations with participants have resulted in fruitful practice-based research (Dyen et al., 2018; Fuentes et al., 2019). However, factors such as scheduling or participant recruitment constraints can make this challenging. Researchers can conduct independent field observations of identified locations to better understand the broader practice context.

For example, if participants describe specific shopping venues or community spaces as significant to their practices, researchers might independently observe these locations, noting environmental features, material arrangements, and social interactions that shape practice performance. These observations can inform subsequent interviews whilst providing the researcher valuable contextual understanding.

Observations across a range of spaces can also expand understandings of how social practices contribute to health, including what is present as well as what is notably absent. For example, when following practices into local shopping venues, researchers may document the availability or unavailability and pricing of healthy food options across different neighborhoods, and the marketing strategies that influence consumer choices.

Similarly, observations can reveal disparities in resources and infrastructure that affect health practices, such as the presence or absence of public transport to certain venues. Noting where certain practices, or meanings, materials and competences are abent can be as important as documenting where they are present, as these absences can reflect unequal distribution of resources or practice participation. The method menu also lends to observations or interactions within less tangible “spaces”, such as social media platforms (including blogs by practitioners) or exhibitions and public events relating to the practice/s being studies. These observations can help contextualise practices as part of (and as being reproduced by) broader socio-economic contexts that can create and sustain health inequalities (Baum & Fisher, 2014; Blue et al., 2016).

Field Notes

Through field notes the researcher constructs their interpretation of the world, or (in this case) the field of practice (Emerson et al., 2011). Cury (2015) argued that the writing of field notes should itself be a social practice, referring to the traditional process of writing them as having an “air of secrecy” and not exploring the practice of field noting risks ethnographic approaches to research becoming invisible, given it is so crucial to the process. Treating field noting as a social practice also ensures the generation of thick description (Geertz, 2008; Gertz, 1973). Although field notes are not a method in and of themselves, we feel it is important to recognise how they can be used throughout data collection within the structure of the method menu.

Field notes served as a crucial tool for maintaining sensibility for practice. When interpreting social practices, researchers construct one possible version of an understanding of the practices among many. As Sedlacko (2017) notes, this form of world-making requires careful attention to how researchers themselves become interwoven with the practices under study. Following Cozza and Gherardi’s (2023) concept that data ‘glows,’ field noting moved beyond mere description or recount to capture moments of insight that helped render deeper understandings of the practices being studied.

Field notes should include observations of doings and sayings, drawing on practice theory concepts, and may take the form of audio notes, self-addressed emails and text messages, as well as more formal writing using an electronic memo diary, written notes, visual maps or diagrams can be used to document practices and their characteristics. Through field notes, researchers can document and reflect on how their presence and interactions may shape both the practices being studied and their resulting interpretations of these practices. This reflexive process helps acknowledge the constructed nature of practice-based research while maintaining rigor in practice analysis.

Investigation of the Material and the Digital

Rather than treating materials and digital elements as separate from or external to practices, our method acknowledged their integral role within practice arrangements (Schmidt, 2019; Shove, 2022). Investigation of the material and the digital are considered as complementary ‘side dishes’ within the menu, in that they allow for understandings of practices gained in more substantial courses (such as interviews and observations) to be enhanced and extended upon, often highlighting crucial facets of practice arrangements. While materials were sometimes discussed and engaged with during data collection with participants, we also intentionally investigated materials in relation to their own role within the practice. This section details how we investigated the more than human parts of practice, with particular attention to materials and digital spaces.

Material Elements

Some contemporary theorising of social practice stipulates that the role of the materials within practice should be considered as a key part of the practice itself, rather than as mediators of practice (Clever & Ruberg, 2014; Gherardi, 2021; Reckwitz, 2002a; Shove et al., 2012). Rather than viewing materials as static entities within practice, they are considered as dynamic elements that evolve alongside practices (Rinkinen, 2019). In studying practices in a way that appropriately investigates human and non-human aspects of practice, Schmidt (2019) argued for use of methodological symmetry, supporting other recent post humanist or more than human considerations within interpretations of social practice theory (Gherardi, 2021).

As materials became relevant within the practice arrangements, the method menu accommodated supported investigations of the materials themselves. In our study, for example, as labels of food and oral hygiene products became an important element, the labels themselves were analysed to explore meanings around products and ingredients and how they echoed ideals of simplicity that are associated with naturalness.

While materials may be shared across multiple practices, their role and significance can vary depending on how they are integrated into each practice performance, hence their investigation needs to be iterative and based on data collected from other parts of the method menu. As an example, we found parents mobile phones were used to find recipes, check ingredients, play songs and videos during toothbrushing, and to document information found from various sources online. Investigations of material elements must capture not just what materials are present, but how they are used, how they connect different practices, and how they change over time through repeated practice performances (Nicolini, 2012; Schmidt, 2019; Shove, 2022).

Exploration of Digital Spaces and Social Media

In following practices using the method menu, social media became a significant point of connection between multiple practices. This finding led us to expand our investigation to social media and its contribution to the circulation of meanings, materials and competences in virtual spaces. Social media platforms, particularly those featuring short-form video content, provide practitioners with access to simulated practice performances, allowing them to develop competences and understand tacit knowledge through observation, which can then be enacted in daily life. These digital spaces may shape how practices are learned, performed and connected across time and space. Within online communities, practitioners have the opportunity to collectively negotiate and define what constitutes ‘good’ or ‘correct’ practice performances, while simultaneously providing infrastructures through which practices can spread and evolve (Shove et al., 2012).

Considerations for Future Research

Just as a menu must be tailored for different seasons, ingredient availability, and context, it is crucial that researchers consider their available ‘ingredients’ (resources), ‘kitchen capacity’ (institutional constraints), and ‘dining preferences’ (participant needs) when implementing this approach. The method menu requires careful consideration of several interconnected methodological and practical issues. This section outlines key considerations for researchers planning to employ similar approaches within their own practice-based investigations.

Theoretical and Methodological Implications

The method menu’s flexible structure aligns well with SPT’s capacity for initiative and creativity and how this can foster a new sensitivity to generate knowledge (Schatzki, 1996, 2002). The method menu supported us to trace how practices related to oral health within the home and how these were embedded within broader natural parenting approaches in digital and community spaces. Such connections would have been difficult to identify through interviews alone, or if we had only focused our investigations on a discrete practice (such as toothbrushing).

Additionally, the rhizomatic nature of practice-based research (Nicolini, 2012) means investigations typically unfold across multiple concurrent pathways rather than following linear progression. This requires careful attention towards maintaining theoretical consistency and reflexivity while allowing for explorations of how practices emerge and persist.

Practice based research must remain specific but also extend beyond only asking what the practice is, and look at the effects, influence and power associated with practices if its potential is to be recognised (Nicolini, 2009a). While the method menu enabled us to follow practices, it also presented us with methodological tensions. It became clear that ‘parenting practices’ could not be neatly bound or followed, because they were entangled with parents employment, children attending childcare and household management. Although methodological flexibility allowed these connections to be identified, maintaining analytical focus became crucial. A significant aspect of using the method menu was ensuring we did not stray too far from the path (research aim), which is a risk when working within an ontology in which “everything is connected to everything” (McMillan, 2017).

Data Collection

The method menu required management of a wealth of data from multiple sources, resulting in the juggling of what felt, at times, like multiple studies, each happening across varied temporalities and spaces. Some participants may opt for the ‘full course’, while others select 'à la carte’ options to better suit their circumstances, and the researcher must balance these accordingly.

Figure 2 shows data collection completed with one participant over the course of five months. The arrows show both chronological progression and methodological relationships between instances of data collection, indicating how one method led to or informed another, either through direct, chronological succession or through different types of engagement. This reflects the rhizomatic nature of practice-based research, where investigations can branch out in multiple directions while maintaining connections to the core research focus.

Figure 2.

Example of the Method Menu Process With a Participant

Interview 1 established initial rapport and understanding, and a broader discussion of the participant’s naturally living parenting journey. This interview then led to a home visit, where we explored (amongst other things) different toothpastes used.

During this home visit, the participant mentioned different health social media influencers and digital resources she used to inform the toothpastes she used, but also how this extended to decisions made related to her child’s diet. Interview 2 then served as a point of reflection and synthesis, leading to asynchronous explorations of social media and resources (such as health influencers, podcasts, and books) recommended by the participant. This progression opened multiple avenues of investigation, including a grocery store field visit and specific home-based observations.

Interview 3 brought these various threads together, allowing for the integration of insights gathered through multiple methods. Figure 2 demonstrates how the methods menu allows responsive, participant-led research that can adapt and expand while maintaining coherent connections between the episodes of data collection. Rather than following a predetermined path, the approach allowed a dynamic exploration of practices while maintaining methodological consistency and regular engagement with the participant.

Data was not collected with each participant one by one. Multiple “pathways” like the one shown in Figure 2 were juggled simultaneously. At some points these paths crossed over, and at other points the paths resulted in new threads to follow. The scope of data collection within the method menu needs to be moderated by the constraints of the research circumstances and constraints. Regular critical reflection on research questions and documented observations and field notes was essential for maintaining theoretical focus amid the (seemingly never ending) expanding lines of inquiry.

We found Nicolini’s (2012) methodological advice that investigations of the practices can be finalised when developed accounts illuminate both the constituent elements of practices under study and their interconnections across spatial and temporal dimensions helpful in this instance. This process requires development of convincing analytical accounts that explain not only how practices are constituted, but also how they relate to broader practice arrangements. Such accounts should demonstrate both the internal logic of individual practices and their positioning within wider networks of social practice, whilst remaining grounded within the wealth of data gathered from the method menu.

Participant Engagement

We are mindful of the potential burden placed on participants during extended data collection across a range of times and spaces. However, we consider the flexibility of the method menu approach to be a strength, given it acknowledges participants as co-creators of knowledge within practice-based research central to their daily life, and de-centres the researcher. We hypothesise that this may have fostered improved participant engagement.

Additionally, the flexibility and the need for reflexive engagement with each participant acknowledged that for some research participants, time availability and capacity are not stable. A flexible method for data collection allowed participants to be as involved with the project as was suitable for them. Positioning consent and engagement as an ongoing process allowed for varying levels of participation over time.

Resources Required from Researcher and Participant

The method menu requires careful consideration of resource allocation, particularly in comparison to more traditional research designs. The emphasis on multiple, concurrent methods of investigation necessitates substantial time investment from both researchers and participants. While this intensity of engagement supports rich understandings of social practices, it may present feasibility challenges within constrained research contexts. The extended timeframes typical of a practice-based approach require sustained resource allocation throughout the research process, which may conflict with institutional or funding body requirements. Resource demands need to be carefully evaluated against the potential benefits of deeper practice insights when considering this approach.

Conclusion

The method menu offers an innovative methodological approach for investigating how social practices are shaped by, and contribute to, broader patterns of social life, and consequently, can be used to research health. Its flexibility makes it particularly valuable for social research because it acknowledges that practices are embedded in complex social and material arrangements. The method menu’s adaptable approach could facilitate engagement with populations who may be excluded from research due to traditional methodological constraints. By reducing barriers, such as time and availability, resource limitations, and rigid research protocols, the method menu provides a pathway which can be used to explore diverse social experiences.

While the method menu introduces some challenges (some of which we have outlined above) it has many benefits. By providing rich, contextual understanding of practices, the method menu contributes to the broader goal of developing more equitable and effective research methods within health spaces. Future research could focus on adapting and testing this approach in different research contexts and exploring its potential for application within more participatory forms of research. Future applications could also extend to other research contexts, from health behaviours to community engagement initiatives. The potential to inform policy and intervention design is particularly promising, as the method menu reveals the complexities of engagement within practice/s and the important of context for identifying opportunities for change.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Understanding Social Practices Within Public Health Research: Developing an Innovative, Integrative and Qualitative ‘Methods Menu’

Supplemental Material for Understanding Social Practices Within Public Health Research: Developing an Innovative, Integrative and Qualitative ‘Methods Menu’ by Caitlan McLean, Linda Slack-Smith, and Paul R. Ward in International Journal of Qualitative Methods.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the participants within the research study which led to the development of the methodological approach described. We also thank members of the 2023 Lancaster University Practice Gathering who provided early insights and feedback that greatly assisted in the ongoing development of our work. We acknowledge investigators on the ARC grant (Sarah Baker,Barry Gibson,Hanny Calache and Dan McAullay) who are not authors on this paper,for their contributions to the overall concept and development of the project.

ORCID iD

Caitlan McLean

Ethical Approval

The study received ethics approval from the University of Western Australia Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number: 2021/ET000223).

Consent to Participate

Participants provided both written and verbal consent after a thorough explanation of the research objectives and data collection methods.

Funding

This research was supported by the Australian Government through the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (project DP210101166). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Australian Government or Australian Research Council.

Declaration of Conflicting Interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Baum

Fisher

(2014). Why behavioural health promotion endures despite its failure to reduce health inequities. Sociology of Health & Illness, 36(2), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12112

Bell

Wynn

L. L.

(2020). Research ethics committees, ethnographers and imaginations of risk. Ethnography, 24(4), 537–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138120983862

Blue

Shove

Carmona

Kelly

M. P.

(2016). Theories of practice and public health: Understanding (un)healthy practices. Critical Public Health, 26(1), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2014.980396

Blue

Shove

Kelly

M. P.

(2021). Obese societies: Reconceptualising the challenge for public health. Sociology of Health & Illness, 43(4), 1051–1067. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13275

Blue

Spurling

(2016). Qualities of connective tissue in hospital life: How complexes of practices change. In Hui

Schatzki

Shove

(Eds.), The nexus of practices (pp. 36–49). Routledge.

Boulton

Parker

(2007). Informed consent in a changing environment. Social Science & Medicine, 65(11), 2187–2198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.002

Braun

Clarke

(2024). Reporting guidelines for qualitative research: a values-based approach. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 22(2), 399–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2024.2382244

Bueger

(2019). Praxiography. Sage Publications Ltd.

Clever

Ruberg

(2014). Beyond cultural history? The material turn, praxiography, and body history. Humanities, 3(4), 546–566. https://doi.org/10.3390/h3040546

10.

Cozza

Gherardi

(2023). Introduction: The posthumanist epistemology of practice theory. In The Posthumanist Epistemology of practice theory (pp. 1–34). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42276-8_1

11.

Creek

Pollard

Allen

(2023). Theorising occupational therapy in diverse settings. Routledge.

12.

Cury

(2015). Fieldnotes as a social practice: Elevating and innovating Fieldnotes in applied ethnography, using a collaborative online tool as a case study. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry - Conference Proceedings, 2015, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/1559-8918.2015.01035

13.

Dunford

E. K.

Scully

Coyle

(2024). Commercially-produced infant and toddler foods—How healthy are they? An evaluation of products sold in Australian supermarkets. Maternal and Child Nutrition, 20(4), Article e13709. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.13709

14.

Durey

Gibson

B. J.

Ward

P. R.

Calache

Slack-Smith

(2021). Social practice theory: An innovative approach to considering preschool children’s poor oral health. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 49(4), 309–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.12659

15.

Durey

Ward

Haynes

Baker

S. R.

Calache

Slack-Smith

(2024). Applying social practice theory to explore Australian preschool children's oral health. JDR Clinical and Translational Research, 9(4), 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/23800844241235615

16.

Dyen

Sirieix

Costa

Depezay

Castagna

(2018). Exploring the dynamics of food routines: A practice-based study to understand households’ daily life. European Journal of Marketing, 52(12), 2544–2556. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-2017-0775

17.

Emerson

R. M.

Fretz

R. I.

Shaw

L. L.

(2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University of Chicago press.

18.

Fuentes

Enarsson

Kristoffersson

(2019). Unpacking package free shopping: Alternative retailing and the reinvention of the practice of shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50, 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.016

19.

Geertz

(2008). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The cultural geography reader (pp. 41–51). Routledge.

20.

Gertz

(1973). Thick description an interpretive theory of culture. Basic Books.

21.

Gherardi

(2019). How to conduct a practice-based study: Problems and methods (2nd ed.). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788973564

22.

Gherardi

(2021). A posthumanist epistemology of practice. In Neesham

Segal

(Eds.), Handbook of philosophy of management. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48352-8_53-1

23.

Girard

I. M.

Ward

Durey

McLean

Lund

Calache

Baker

S. R.

Slack-Smith

(2024). A qualitative meta-synthesis of carers' perceptions of factors influencing preschool children's oral hygiene practices-A social practices perspective. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 52(5), 677–689. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.12973

24.

Halkier

(2017). Questioning the ‘Gold Standard’ thinking in qualitative methods from a practice theoretical perspective: Towards methodological multiplicity. Methodological reflections on practice oriented theories (pp. 193–204). Springer.

25.

Halkier

Jensen

(2011). Methodological challenges in using practice theory in consumption research. Examples from a study on handling nutritional contestations of food consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540510391365

26.

Heidenstrøm

Kvarnl

(2017). Coping with blackouts: A practice theory approach to household preparedness. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26, 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12191

27.

Hennell

Piacentini

Limmer

(2021). ‘Go hard or go home’: A social practice theory approach to young people’s ‘risky’ alcohol consumption practices. Critical Public Health, 31(1), 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2019.1686460

28.

Higginbottom

G. M.

Boadu

Pillay

(2013). Guidance on performing focused ethnographies with an emphasis on healthcare research.

29.

Hitchings

(2011). People can talk about their practices. Area, 44(1), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01060.x

30.

Hughes

(2021). Epigenetics in oral health. In Peres

M. A.

Antunes

J. L. F.

Watt

R. G.

(Eds.), Oral epidemiology: A textbook on oral health conditions, research topics and methods (pp. 367–378). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50123-5_24

31.

Jonas

Littig

Wroblewski

(2017). Methodological reflections on practice oriented theories. Springer.

32.

Krämer

(2017). Creativity at work: Methodological challenges for a praxeological research program. In Jonas

Littig

Wroblewski

(Eds.), Methodological reflections on practice oriented theories (pp. 205–219). Springer.

33.

Kusenbach

(2018). Go-alongs. In Flick

(Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection (pp. 344–361). Sage.

34.

Latour

(1987). Science in action, how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.

35.

Lod

Johansson

Abrahamsson

K. H.

Larsson

(2014). The influence of epigenetics in relation to oral health. International Journal of Dental Hygiene, 12(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/idh.12030

36.

Lyons

A. C.

Emslie

Hunt

(2014). Staying ‘in the zone’ but not passing the ‘point of no return’: Embodiment, gender and drinking in mid-life. Sociology of Health & Illness, 36(2), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12103

37.

Maller

(2019). Dynamic bodies in theories of social practice: Vibrant materials and more-than-human assemblages. In Maller

Strengers

(Eds.), Social practices and dynamic non-humans: Nature, materials and technologies (pp. 87–107). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92189-1_5

38.

Maller

C. J.

(2015). Understanding health through social practices: Performance and materiality in everyday life. Sociology of Health & Illness, 37(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12178

39.

Mapedzahama

Dune

(2017). A clash of paradigms? Ethnography and ethics approval. Sage Open, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017697167

40.

McLean

Slack-Smith

Ward

P. R.

(2023). Using social practice theory to examine parenting: A scoping review. Methodological Innovations, 16(3), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/20597991231202897

41.

McMillan

(2017). The constitution of social practices. Routledge.

42.

McQuoid

Keamy-Minor

Ling

(2020). A practice theory approach to understanding poly-tobacco use in the United States. Critical Public Health, 30(2), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2018.1541226

43.

Meier

P. S.

Warde

Holmes

(2018). All drinking is not equal: How a social practice theory lens could enhance public health research on alcohol and other health behaviours. Addiction, 113(2), 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13895

44.

Nettleton

Green

(2014). Thinking about changing mobility practices: how a social practice approach can help. In Cohen

(Ed.), From Health Behaviours to Health Practices (pp. 82–94). Wiley.

45.

Nicolini

(2009a). Articulating practice through the interview to the double. Management Learning, 40(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507608101230

46.

Nicolini

(2009b). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391–1418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609349875

47.

Nicolini

(2012). Practice theory, work and organisation. Oxford University Press.

48.

Nicolini

(2017). Practice theory as a package of theory, method and vocabulary: Affordances and limitations. In Jonas

Littig

Wroblewski

(Eds.), Methodological reflections on practice oriented theories. Springer.

49.

Nolas

S. M.

(2014). Towards a new theory of practice for community health psychology. Journal of Health Psychology, 19(1), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105313500252

50.

Otto

(2017). Teeth: The story of beauty, inequality, and the struggle for oral health in America. The New Press. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=nlebk&AN=1701649&site=ehost-live&custid=ns251549

51.

Reckwitz

(2002a). The status of the “material” in theories of culture: From “social structure” to “artefacts”. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 32(2), 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00183

52.

Reckwitz

(2002b). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310222225432

53.

Rinkinen

(2019). Seeing wood for the trees: Placing biological processes within practices of heating and harvesting. In Maller

Strengers

(Eds.), Social practices and dynamic non-humans: Nature, materials and technologies (pp. 47–62). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92189-1_3

54.

Schatzki

(2016). Practice theory as flat ontology. In Practice theory and research (pp. 44–58). Routledge.

55.

Schatzki

T. R.

(1996). Social practices: A wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527470

56.

Schatzki

T. R.

(2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. In University park. Pennsylvania State University Press.

57.

Schatzki

T. R.

(2005). Peripheral vision: the sites of organizations. Organization Studies, 26(3), 465–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605050876

58.

Schmidt

(2017). Methodological reflections on practice oriented theories. In Jonas

Littig

Wroblewski

(Eds.), Methodological reflections on practice oriented theories (pp. 3–18). Springer.

59.

Schmidt

(2019). Materiality, meaning, social practices: Remarks on new materialism. In Kissmann

U. T.

Loon

J. v.

(Eds.), Discussing new materialism. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22300-7_7

60.

Sedlacko

(2017). Conducting ethnography with a sensibility for practice. In Jonas

Littig

Wroblewski

(Eds.), Methodological reflections on practice oriented theories (pp. 47–60). Springer.

61.

Shove

(2022). Connecting practices: Large topics in society and social theory. Routledge.

62.

Shove

Pantzar

Watson

(2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. Sage.

63.

Spaargaren

Weenink

Machiel

(2016). Practice theory and research. Routledge.

64.

Spotswood

Steele

Androulakis-Korakakis

Lucas

(2023). The dynamics of teleoaffective configuration in practice adaptation. Marketing theory. https://doi.org/10.1177/14705931231207310

65.

van der Poel

Bakker

(2016). Grounding the practice: Material elements in the constitution of tennis practices. In Practice Theory and Research (pp. 147–166). Routledge.

66.

Wright

C. J. C.

Miller

Kuntsche

(2022). What makes up wine o'clock? Understanding social practices involved in alcohol use among women aged 40–65 years in Australia. The International Journal on Drug Policy, 101, Article 103560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103560

67.

Yuka . (nd). Yuka. Retrieved 12th February from. https://yuka.io/en/

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.42 MB

0.00 MB

Understanding Social Practices Within Public Health Research: Developing an Innovative,Integrative and Qualitative ‘Methods Menu’

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Engaging the Participant Within the Process: A Flexible Menu Rather than a Fixed Protocol

Context for the Paper

Social Practice Theory

Competence

Meanings

Materials

Space and Time within Social Practice

Doing Social Practice Theory on the Ground: The Need for Methodological Guidance

The Methods Menu: A Way of Studying Practices

Practice Based Interviews

Initial Interview

Follow up Practice-Based Interviews

Practice-Based Observations

Sites of Entry to Practices (The Starting Point for Research)

Following Practices Across Sites

Field Notes

Investigation of the Material and the Digital

Material Elements

Exploration of Digital Spaces and Social Media

Considerations for Future Research

Theoretical and Methodological Implications

Data Collection

Participant Engagement

Resources Required from Researcher and Participant

Conclusion

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Understanding Social Practices Within Public Health Research: Developing an Innovative, Integrative and Qualitative ‘Methods Menu’

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iD

Ethical Approval

Consent to Participate

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interest

Supplemental Material

References

Supplementary Material