The utility of social practice theory in risk research

Heidenstrøm, Nina

doi:10.1080/13669877.2021.1936608

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, Hersted and Gergen (2013) posit that: As such, in this study, the notion of 'relational leadership practices' shares similar meaning to 'relational leading' (Hersted & Gergen, 2013), which is conceptualised as a 'dispersive practice' when contrasted with the construct of 'leadership' per se as an 'integrative practice' (Alpenberg & Scarbrough, 2021;Schatzki, 1996). Lastly, the paper presents the findings using the typology of 'practice of interest' (main theme) versus 'intersecting practices' (sub-themes) (Heidenstrøm, 2022).…”

Section: Application In This Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

RSCL onto-epistemology and practice approach to reconceptualise responsible leadership theory

Ntakumba

Jongh

2023

SAJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This article explores how the relational social constructionist leadership (RSCL) ontology and epistemology, as well as the practice approach, could be employed to reconceptualise the responsible leadership theory.Design: This paper presents a literature review on the responsible leadership and relational leadership theories. It also reviews literature on the RSCL onto-epistemology as its theoretical framework and the practice approach as its methodology. The empirical analysis that is underlined by the abductive mode of enquiry is based on nine interviews with leaders from the Twende Mbele (TM) African Partnership for Monitoring and Evaluation.Findings: The findings comprise one main theme (relational leadership practice of interest) called identifying. Identifying constitutes five sub-themes (intersecting relational leadership practices): context identity, gender identity, government identity, language identity and champions identity. Recommendations to reconceptualise responsible leadership theory are based on the discussion of the findings.Practical implications: The findings could enhance the quality, intentionality and practicality of inter-organisational leadership stakeholder engagement strategies. The social construction of leaders as role models, in the form of cultivating their identity as champions beyond the internal positional leaders, could be practiced by business leaders in other organisational settings to champion social-relationality and ethics-orientation in society in line with the core tenets of responsible leadership theory.Originality/value: The RSCL onto-epistemology and the practice approach methodology provide conceptual tools to advance responsible leadership theory from a leader-centric focus to the collective domain of leadership research by using leadership practices as the unit of analysis.

show abstract

Section: Application In This Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

RSCL onto-epistemology and practice approach to reconceptualise responsible leadership theory

Ntakumba

Jongh

2023

SAJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within that, we are looking to make space for the cultural specificity of how this dynamic unfolds, as well as its material dimension -we are less concerned with individualized social processes. Therefore, we engage with the analytically potent notion of social practice theory [16, 51, 95, 96, 102-104, 108, 110], a framework that decenters the individual and focuses on a practice as a unit of inquiry [48]. Specifically, we build on Shove, Pantzar, & Watson's [109] framework that focuses on the dynamics of social practice as a way of charting and understanding patterns of stability and change.…”

Section: Why Is Understanding Ai Ethics As Social Practice Necessary?mentioning

confidence: 99%

German AI Start-Ups and “AI Ethics”: Using A Social Practice Lens for Assessing and Implementing Socio-Technical Innovation

Sloane

Zakrzewski

2022

2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current AI ethics discourse focuses on developing computational interpretations of ethical concerns, normative frameworks, and concepts for socio-technical innovation. There is less emphasis on understanding how AI practitioners themselves understand ethics and socially organize to operationalize ethical concerns. This is particularly true for AI start-ups, despite their significance as a conduit for the cultural production of innovation and progress, especially in the US and European context.This gap in empirical research intensifies the risk of a disconnect between scholarly research, innovation and application. This risk materializes acutely as mounting pressures to identify and mitigate the potential harms of AI systems have created an urgent need to rapidly assess and implement socio-technical innovation focused on fairness, accountability, and transparency.In this paper, we address this need. Building on social practice theory, we propose a framework that allows AI researchers, practitioners, and regulators to systematically analyze existing cultural understandings, histories, and social practices of "ethical AI" to define appropriate strategies for effectively implementing sociotechnical innovations. We argue that this approach is needed because socio-technical innovation "sticks" better if it sustains the cultural meaning of socially shared (ethical) AI practices, rather than breaking them. By doing so, it creates pathways for technical and socio-technical innovations to be integrated into already existing routines.Against that backdrop, our contributions are threefold: (1) we introduce a practice-based approach for understanding "ethical AI";(2) we present empirical findings from our study on the operationalization of "ethics" in German AI start-ups to underline that AI ethics and social practices must be understood in their specific cultural and historical contexts; and (3) based on our empirical findings,

show abstract

“…While there have been significant changes in gambling environments, studies have still largely adopted a rationality approach to understanding gambling risk (Hing et al, 2019 ; Bagot et al, 2021 ). Such approaches involve a focus on the individual and the choices or decisions they make to manage predefined risks (Heidenstrøm, 2022 ). While these individual perspectives can provide “ important insights into the micro-level process of everyday experiences,” they do not typically acknowledge that people's experiences and conceptualizations of risk are “ bound up within social and material structures and that individuals are positioned within a social world” (Heidenstrøm, 2022 , p. 241).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such approaches involve a focus on the individual and the choices or decisions they make to manage predefined risks (Heidenstrøm, 2022 ). While these individual perspectives can provide “ important insights into the micro-level process of everyday experiences,” they do not typically acknowledge that people's experiences and conceptualizations of risk are “ bound up within social and material structures and that individuals are positioned within a social world” (Heidenstrøm, 2022 , p. 241). Although technology has enabled the rapid transformation of gambling environments and the increased exposure of individuals to gambling products and promotions, presently, few studies have looked at these contexts through a public health or sociological lens.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Older adults' perceptions of the risks associated with contemporary gambling environments: Implications for public health policy and practice

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionRapid changes in the Australian gambling environment have amplified the risks for gamblers and pose significant threats to public health. Technological advances, saturation of marketing, and the embedding of gambling in sport have all contributed to significant changes in the gambling risk environment. Older adults have witnessed the changes to the way gambling is provided and promoted in public spaces, but little is known about how these changes have shaped the way they conceptualize the risks associated with gambling.MethodGuided by critical qualitative inquiry, semi structured interviews were conducted with 40 Australian adults aged 55 years and older, who had gambled at least once in the last 12 months. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to interpret the data.ResultsParticipants discussed gambling environments in Australia and how they had changed through the proliferation of gambling products, environments, and opportunities; the risks posed through the embedding of gambling in community and media environments; the role of technology in gambling environments; and the role of marketing and promotions in the changing gambling environments. Participants recognized that these factors had contributed to gambling environments becoming increasingly risky over time. However, despite the perception of increased risk, many participants had engaged with new gambling technologies, products, and environments.DiscussionThis research supports the adoption of public health responses that include consideration of the environmental, commercial, and political factors that may contribute to risky gambling environments.

show abstract

The utility of social practice theory in risk research

Cited by 18 publications

References 78 publications

RSCL onto-epistemology and practice approach to reconceptualise responsible leadership theory

RSCL onto-epistemology and practice approach to reconceptualise responsible leadership theory

German AI Start-Ups and “AI Ethics”: Using A Social Practice Lens for Assessing and Implementing Socio-Technical Innovation

Older adults' perceptions of the risks associated with contemporary gambling environments: Implications for public health policy and practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About