TY - JOUR
T1 - Challenges and opportunities for re-framing resource use policy with practice theories: The Change Points approach
AU - Watson, Matt
AU - Browne, Alison
AU - Evans, David
AU - Foden, Mike
AU - Hoolohan, Claire
AU - Sharp, Liz
N1 - Funding Information:
Policy implementation of practice theories in the UK was spearheaded by the Sustainable Practices Research Group (SPRG) – part funded by the UK and Scottish Governments. In their international review of behaviour change initiatives, Southerton et al. (2011) used detailed case studies to exemplify how such initiatives might move beyond the individual to attend to the social and material constituents of practices. The subsequent work of the SPRG culminated in a more direct exposition of practice thinking and its implications for policy ( Spurling et al., 2013 ). This report aimed to enable a shift in governmental understandings of behaviour from ‘the expression of an individual's values and attitudes’ to ‘the observable expression of [a] social phenomenon’ ( Spurling et al., 2013 : 47). Of particular note was a recognition of systemic interdependencies between practices and the resulting complexities for designing change initiatives.
Funding Information:
The research underpinning this paper was funded by the ESRC Nexus Network with two grants, ‘The Nexus at Home’ and ‘Reshaping the Nexus at Home’ across University of Sheffield and University of Manchester (Watson (PI), Browne, Evans, Sharp). Follow on work has been funded by ESRC Impact Accelerator funding via University of Sheffield and University of Manchester.
Funding Information:
The research underpinning this paper was funded by the ESRC Nexus Network with two grants, ?The Nexus at Home? and ?Reshaping the Nexus at Home? across University of Sheffield and University of Manchester (Watson (PI), Browne, Evans, Sharp). Follow on work has been funded by ESRC Impact Accelerator funding via University of Sheffield and University of Manchester. A wide range of partners have played significant roles in the research process, including Tom Andrewartha & Tim Wagstaff (Northumbrian Water Group); Helen Atkinson, Joanna Disson & Alice Rayner (Food Standards Agency); Simon Blyth (Actant Consulting); Rob Lawson & Dene Marshallsay (Artesia Consulting); Jessica Phoenix, Stacy Sharman & Emma Webb (Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs); Carmen Snowdon & Nicci Russell (Waterwise); Rachel Gray & Sarah Bromley (Waste Resource Action Programme); Dani Jordan & Joanna Trewern (WWF-UK). Workshop participants, from early evidence gathering events through to workshops applying the approach, are also gratefully acknowledged. Peter Jackson, Alan Warde and Dale Southerton were active in the early part of the research process, as co-Investigators on the initial grant and as advisory board members on the second project. We are grateful to editors and reviewers for valuable comments on the paper, and also to Sam Outhwaite for significant input on this paper.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020
PY - 2020/5/1
Y1 - 2020/5/1
N2 - Concerns about the climate crisis and the escalating pace of global consumption are accelerating the pressure on governments to moderate public demand for resources like water, food and energy. Notwithstanding their increasing sophistication, standard behavioural change approaches continue to be criticised for a narrow understanding of what shapes behaviour. One alternative theoretical position comes from practice theories, which draw on interpretive and relational understandings to focus on practices rather than people's behaviour, and hence highlight the complex and distributed set of factors shaping resource use. While practice theories have gained considerable interest from policy institutions within and beyond the UK they so far have had limited impact upon policy. It has even been argued that there are insurmountable challenges in reconciling the ontological commitments of practice theories with the realities of policy processes. This article advances academic and policy debates about the practical implications of practice theories. It works with evidence from transdisciplinary research intended to establish whether and how key distinctive insights from social practice research can usefully be brought to bear on policy. We pursued this through co-productive research with four key UK national policy partners, focusing on effective communication of social practice research evidence on agreed issues. A key outcome of collaboratively negotiating challenging social theory to usefully influence policy processes is the ‘Change Points’ approach, which our partners identified as offering new thinking on initiatives promoting reductions in people's use and disposal of resources. The Change Points approach was developed to enable policy processes to confront the complexities of everyday action, transforming both how problems are framed and how practical initiatives for effecting change are developed. We discuss the case of food waste reduction in order to demonstrate the potential of Change Points to reframe behaviour change policy. We end the paper by addressing the potential and limitations of informing policy with insights from practice theories based upon the successes as well as the challenges we have met. This discussion has broader implications beyond practice theories to other fields of social theory, and to debates on the relations between academic research and policy more broadly. We argue that, through a co-productive approach with policy professionals, and so engagement with the practices of policy making, it is possible to provide a partial and pragmatic but nevertheless effective translation of key distinctive insights from practice theories and related research, to reframe policy problems and hence to identify spaces for effecting change for sustainability.
AB - Concerns about the climate crisis and the escalating pace of global consumption are accelerating the pressure on governments to moderate public demand for resources like water, food and energy. Notwithstanding their increasing sophistication, standard behavioural change approaches continue to be criticised for a narrow understanding of what shapes behaviour. One alternative theoretical position comes from practice theories, which draw on interpretive and relational understandings to focus on practices rather than people's behaviour, and hence highlight the complex and distributed set of factors shaping resource use. While practice theories have gained considerable interest from policy institutions within and beyond the UK they so far have had limited impact upon policy. It has even been argued that there are insurmountable challenges in reconciling the ontological commitments of practice theories with the realities of policy processes. This article advances academic and policy debates about the practical implications of practice theories. It works with evidence from transdisciplinary research intended to establish whether and how key distinctive insights from social practice research can usefully be brought to bear on policy. We pursued this through co-productive research with four key UK national policy partners, focusing on effective communication of social practice research evidence on agreed issues. A key outcome of collaboratively negotiating challenging social theory to usefully influence policy processes is the ‘Change Points’ approach, which our partners identified as offering new thinking on initiatives promoting reductions in people's use and disposal of resources. The Change Points approach was developed to enable policy processes to confront the complexities of everyday action, transforming both how problems are framed and how practical initiatives for effecting change are developed. We discuss the case of food waste reduction in order to demonstrate the potential of Change Points to reframe behaviour change policy. We end the paper by addressing the potential and limitations of informing policy with insights from practice theories based upon the successes as well as the challenges we have met. This discussion has broader implications beyond practice theories to other fields of social theory, and to debates on the relations between academic research and policy more broadly. We argue that, through a co-productive approach with policy professionals, and so engagement with the practices of policy making, it is possible to provide a partial and pragmatic but nevertheless effective translation of key distinctive insights from practice theories and related research, to reframe policy problems and hence to identify spaces for effecting change for sustainability.
KW - Behaviour change
KW - Food waste
KW - Policy
KW - Resource consumption
KW - Social practice
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/f2353bf2-c077-3e7a-95ff-a8d00bada4b0/
U2 - 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102072
DO - 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102072
M3 - Article
SN - 0959-3780
VL - 62
JO - Global Environmental Change
JF - Global Environmental Change
M1 - 102072
ER -