3.4 Analysis
199
Please note that although I have mentioned practices throughout, I have not gone
into detail. Before concluding this chapter, I will discuss the overarching practices by
using the practice theory, and I will link these to thoughts on epistocracy that are manifested in routinised activities within an epistemic structure, and which characterise
the policy landscape.
3.5 Practice Theory as a Direction-Finding Beacon
Focusing one’s attention on practice theory is a productive way of producing realworld considerations (Pouliot and Thérien 2018) from the PULSE
3 analysis. As
has already been mentioned above, a PULSE
3 analysis, as a practice, highlights the
various research worldviews, theories, causal mechanisms and problem-solving and
critical perspective types that are at play in a text that promotes a practice, or range
of practices. The concept ‘practice’ is like an adhesive or ‘ontological entity that
cuts across paradigms under different names but with a related substance’ (Adler
and Pouliot 2011: 10). In other words, ‘practice’ is the ‘ontological core concept that
amalgamates the constitutive parts’ of life, since practices link the material aspects
with the meaningful elements of life, and the structures with processes (Adler and
Pouliot 2011: 10). This conceptual glue does not only operate at an ontological level,
but also in the epistemological realm. Having said that, research worldviews and
perspectives, including causal mechanismsand problem-solving and critical theories, have a common and related substance—they all constitute various practices in
academia and in the world of work.
Since practices are omnipresent in social life, various social scientific disciplines
have theorised about them in isolation, with a theory highlighting a certain action,
or group of practices, and another perspective doing likewise with dissimilar practices. For instance, in IR and Political Science, researchers have put certain practices,
like global governance, in the realm of liberal institutionalism (Pouliot and Thérien
2018). This is because certain practices have specific traits (Adler and Pouliot 2011)
or belong to a certain type of theorisation, based on particular characteristics. Practices that have material features generally fall under liberal institutionalism, while
researchers associate practices that have a more symbolic appearance with social
constructivism. Practices also have a psychological component, since they contain
emotional states (Reckwitz 2002), and scholars could investigate them by using the
political psychology approach. This shows that practices have either empirical or
normative characteristics (Reus-Smit and Snidal 2008) that lend them to a certain
type of theoretical analysis. Then, there is also the ‘black boxing’ of security issues
that researchers do not investigate alongside economic matters or practices. For
instance, rational choice theorists investigate practices that are aligned with costbenefit calculations, while systemic theories explore structural constitutive practices
(Adler and Pouliot 2011). Practice theory holds the ‘promise’ of ‘…a new dialogue
of ideas, in order to better understand the pressing matters of…’ social life (Adler
and Pouliot 2011).
199
Please note that although I have mentioned practices throughout, I have not gone
into detail. Before concluding this chapter, I will discuss the overarching practices by
using the practice theory, and I will link these to thoughts on epistocracy that are manifested in routinised activities within an epistemic structure, and which characterise
the policy landscape.
3.5 Practice Theory as a Direction-Finding Beacon
Focusing one’s attention on practice theory is a productive way of producing realworld considerations (Pouliot and Thérien 2018) from the PULSE
3 analysis. As
has already been mentioned above, a PULSE
3 analysis, as a practice, highlights the
various research worldviews, theories, causal mechanisms and problem-solving and
critical perspective types that are at play in a text that promotes a practice, or range
of practices. The concept ‘practice’ is like an adhesive or ‘ontological entity that
cuts across paradigms under different names but with a related substance’ (Adler
and Pouliot 2011: 10). In other words, ‘practice’ is the ‘ontological core concept that
amalgamates the constitutive parts’ of life, since practices link the material aspects
with the meaningful elements of life, and the structures with processes (Adler and
Pouliot 2011: 10). This conceptual glue does not only operate at an ontological level,
but also in the epistemological realm. Having said that, research worldviews and
perspectives, including causal mechanismsand problem-solving and critical theories, have a common and related substance—they all constitute various practices in
academia and in the world of work.
Since practices are omnipresent in social life, various social scientific disciplines
have theorised about them in isolation, with a theory highlighting a certain action,
or group of practices, and another perspective doing likewise with dissimilar practices. For instance, in IR and Political Science, researchers have put certain practices,
like global governance, in the realm of liberal institutionalism (Pouliot and Thérien
2018). This is because certain practices have specific traits (Adler and Pouliot 2011)
or belong to a certain type of theorisation, based on particular characteristics. Practices that have material features generally fall under liberal institutionalism, while
researchers associate practices that have a more symbolic appearance with social
constructivism. Practices also have a psychological component, since they contain
emotional states (Reckwitz 2002), and scholars could investigate them by using the
political psychology approach. This shows that practices have either empirical or
normative characteristics (Reus-Smit and Snidal 2008) that lend them to a certain
type of theoretical analysis. Then, there is also the ‘black boxing’ of security issues
that researchers do not investigate alongside economic matters or practices. For
instance, rational choice theorists investigate practices that are aligned with costbenefit calculations, while systemic theories explore structural constitutive practices
(Adler and Pouliot 2011). Practice theory holds the ‘promise’ of ‘…a new dialogue
of ideas, in order to better understand the pressing matters of…’ social life (Adler
and Pouliot 2011).