Between the hand and the head

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to add a new term to the vocabulary of practice-based studies: “formativeness”, which denotes the kind of knowledge that is generated in the process of realizing the object of the practice and that is discovered while the form of the object is being shaped. This term focuses the analysis on how the elements of a practice are held together, rather than on what elements are involved in a practice. Design/methodology/approach – Inspired by grounded theory, an empirical research study on craftswomen and their practical creativity (between the hand and the head) was designed. Storytelling was used in order to elicit the verbalization of the craftswomen's ways of knowing/doing, and the episodic interview was the technique employed to access and present the data. Findings – Formativeness can be described and interpreted as the effect of the following dimensions: the emergence of the object, the golden rule of realization, forming by hybridization, experimentation, playfulness, attachment to matter, and proper realization. Originality/value – The study's contribution may be evaluated in relation to how a vocabulary for describing and interpreting knowing-in-practice is constructed. Formativeness makes it possible to name the process by which ways of doing are discovered while activities are being performed. It contributes to a critique of representational knowledge, while offering an alternative line of inquiry.

“People Gather for Stranger Things, So Why Not This?” Learning Sustainable Sensibilities through Communal Garment-Mending Practices

“…Although there is no single definition of what is meant by a practice, Reckwitz has defined practice as a "routinized type of behavior which consists of several elements, interconnected to one another: forms of bodily and/or mental activities, 'things' and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion, and motivational knowledge" [15] (p. 249). One of the distinguishing features of theories of practice is that the intentionality of the individual behind a practice is not taken as their starting point [16]; instead an egalitarian view on the performances of practices is sought. In other words, agency is understood to be distributed between the non-human and the human elements that make up a practice [16].…”

“…One of the distinguishing features of theories of practice is that the intentionality of the individual behind a practice is not taken as their starting point [16]; instead an egalitarian view on the performances of practices is sought. In other words, agency is understood to be distributed between the non-human and the human elements that make up a practice [16]. Thus, understandings of everyday practices are not reduced to explanations based on individual motivations or drivers alone.…”

“…Instead of focusing just on the "why" of daily practices, practice theories focus on the "how". Investigations into how practices occur, as they occur or happen, allow importance to be assigned to the context in which they are occurring [16,17].…”

“…When the focus is shifted away from the human or individual when trying to understand practices, the dynamics of the materiality or the non-human elements come to the surface [16,17]. Materiality or material elements are then not taken to be mere background tools mediating a practice or assisting learning; rather, they are understood as equal elements making up a practice.…”

“…Materiality or material elements are then not taken to be mere background tools mediating a practice or assisting learning; rather, they are understood as equal elements making up a practice. Therefore, materials are not viewed as static, but as dynamic and deeply entangled within the social, and through a relational constitution of the two results in bringing forth performances of everyday practices [16]. Taking an egalitarian approach to practices also means rejecting dichotomies between mind/body, knowing/doing, object/subject, human/non-human, individual/collective, and formal/informal learning.…”