Abstract
This article highlights the analytical potential of a praxeological approach to analyse creativity. Following extensive empirical research on creativity as well as theoretical considerations by Ludwig Wittgenstein and Harold Garfinkel, I demonstrate how alleged mental abilities, such as creativity, can become a topic of a praxeological research by decomposing the phenomenon as an assemblage of different actors, performances, bodies and materials. I outline three methodological principles—a process-based view, the following of the actors and the importance of the empirical settings as analytical directives—to suggest that such a perspective allows insights in more general aspects of a methodology of practice. Shifting these thoughts to the level of everyday research practice, I discuss the role of interviews within a praxeological research design. By distinguishing different interview usages, I show how interviews help reconstruct actors’ categorisations, how they can be used as a complementary substitute for some situation analysis, how interviews provide data about the act of interviewing and finally, how interviews support the essential reconsideration of one’s own interpretations. All in all, my short reflections emphasise the promising value of a praxeological approach for an analysis of cognitivist or mental categories in general.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The term ‘praxeological’ is not understood, as it is often used in the German discussion about practice theory, as an exclusive term for the Bourdieuian theory of practice. To the contrary, it is understood in the overall meaning of a general theory of practice, for example, combining analysis in the tradition of Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of practice (1977, 1990a) as well as the ‘neopraxeology’ of the ethnomethodologists (Bergmann 2011; Garfinkel 1974). However, as it can be seen, the methodological aspects I discuss here have a certain focus on the latter.
- 2.
There are even more issues, which can be elaborated on the topic of creativity, for example, the relationship of the dynamics and stability of practices. But, this article discusses only the three.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
This especially marks a difference to the well-known pragmatist idea of creativity as a basic part of action (Joas 1997).
- 6.
- 7.
For a more detailed analysis, see Krämer (2014).
- 8.
In this respect there are conceptual interferences with American pragmatism (Emirbayer and Maynard 2011).
- 9.
- 10.
As an exception, one could think of practices, which are not observable because they are carried out alone or in secret (e.g. masturbation or using the bathroom). But such ‘invisible’ practices are observable in principle because they can be and are sometimes performed in the public and can be therefore, observed by others. Additionally, several practices one carries out alone are known by others because they have learned the same practices given similar socialisation processes.
- 11.
Langenohl (2009) makes us aware that these are somehow forgotten in the sociological debate. This could be the reason why the (German) praxeological discussion does not focus on the methodological knowledge of ethnomethodology.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
The main reasons were a lack of time and observation occasions because my position as a copywriter attached me to the creative department as well as my lack of access permission as an intern.
- 15.
Even in advertising, especially in the context of big campaigns, interviews and interview research take a new and bigger meaning.
- 16.
The passage is cited according to the English abstract of the article, http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2064 [accessed 31 March 2014].
References
Bergmann, J. R. (2011). Nachruf. Harold Garfinkel (1917–2011). Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 40(4), 227–232.
Bilton, C. (2008). Management and creativity. From creative industries to creative management. Malden, USA u.a.: Blackwell.
Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind. Myths and mechanisms. London, New York: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990a). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990b). The scholastic point of view. Cultural Anthropology, 5(4), 380–391.
Breidenstein, G., Hirschauer, S., Kalthoff, H., & Nieswand, B. (2013). Ethnografie, Die Praxis der Feldforschung. UVK/UTB: Konstanz.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation. Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belied. A new sociology of knowledge (pp. 57–78). London: Routledge.
Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries. Contracts between art and commerce. Cambridge (MA), London: Harvard University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity, flow and the psychology of discovery. New York: Harper Collins.
Czyzewski, M. (1994). Reflexivity of actors versus reflexivity of accounts. Theory, Culture & Society, 11(4), 161–168.
DCMS (1998). Creative industries mapping document. London.
Deppermann, A. (2013). Interview as text vs. interview as interaction. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 14(3). Retrieved November 28, 2016 from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1303131.
Emirbayer, M., & Maynard, D. W. (2011). Pragmatism and ethnomethodology. Qualitative Sociology, 34(1), 221–261.
Garfinkel, H. (1963). A conception of and experiments with, ‘trust’ as a condition of stable concerted actions. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and social interaction. Cognitive determinants (pp. 187–238). New York: Ronald Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Garfinkel, H. (1974). The origins of the term ‘ethnomethodology’. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology. Selected readings (pp. 15–18). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology. Perspectives and developments (pp. 337–366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Gobo, G. (2008). Doing ethnography. Los Angeles u.a.: Sage.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.
Göttlich, U., & Kurt, R. (Eds.). (2012). Kreativität und Improvisation. Soziologische Positionen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Grabher, G. (2002). The project ecology of advertising: Tasks, talents and teams. Regional Studies, 36(3), 245–262.
Hartley, J. (Ed.) (2007). Creative industries. Malden (MA) u.a.: Blackwell.
Hennion, A., & Méadel, C. (1993). In the laboratories of desire. Advertising as an intermediary between products and consumers. Réseaux—The French Journal of Communication, 1(2), 169–192.
Hesmondhalgh, D., & Baker, S. (2012). Creative labour. Media work in three cultural industries. London, New York: Sage.
Hillebrandt, F. (2009). Praktiken des Tauschens. Zur Soziologie symbolischer Formen der Reziprozität. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Huber, B. (2013). Arbeiten in der Kreativindustrie. Eine multilokale Ethnografie der Entgrenzung von Arbeits- und Lebenswelt. Frankfurt/M., New York: Campus.
Joas, H. (1997). The creativity of action. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Juchem, J. G. (1988). Kommunikation und Vertrauen. Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Reflexivität in der Ethnomethodologie. Aalano: Aachen.
Koppetsch, C. (2006). Das Ethos der Kreativen. Eine Studie zum Wandel von Arbeit und Identität am Beispiel der Werbeberufe. Konstanz: UVK.
Krämer, H. (2012). Graphic Vision. Praktiken des Sehens im Grafikdesign. In Stephan Moebius & Sophia Prinz (Eds.), Das Design der Gesellschaft. Zur Kultursoziologie des Designs (pp. 205–226). Bielefeld: transcript.
Krämer, H. (2014). Die Praxis der Kreativität. Eine Ethnografie kreativer Arbeit. Bielefeld: transcript.
Langenohl, A. (2009). History vs. genealogy. Why ethnomethodology was forgotten in the debate on social-scientific reflexivity. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 10(3). Retrieved November 28, 2016 from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs090345.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. (2010). The making of law. An ethnography of the conseil d’etat. Cambridge (UK), Malden: Polity Press.
Latour, B., & Stark, M. (1999). Factures/fractures: From the concept of network to that of attachment. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, 36, 20–31.
Manske, A. (2007). Prekarisierung auf hohem Niveau. Eine Feldstudie über Alleinunternehmer in der IT-Branche. München, Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag.
McKinlay, A., & Smith, C. (Eds.). (2009). Creative labour. Working in the creative industries. Houndsmills, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Moeran, B. (1996). A Japanese advertising agency: An anthropology of media and markets. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple. ontology in medical practice. Durham, London: Duke University Press.
Pratt, A. C., & Jeffcut, P. (2009). Conclusion. In A. C. Pratt & P. Jeffcut (Eds.), Creativity, innovation and the cultural economy (pp. 265–276). London u.a.: Routledge.
Raunig, G., & Wuggenig, U. (2011). Critique of creativity: Precarity, subjectivity and resistance in the creative industries. London: MayFlyBooks.
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.
Schatzki, T. (1996). Social practices. A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press.
Schiek, D., & Apitzsch, B. (2013). Doing work. Atypical employment in the film and in the automobile industry in comparison. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 23(2), 181–204.
Schmidt, R., & Volbers, J. (2011). Siting praxeology. The methodological significance of ‘public’ in theories of social practices. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 41(4), 419–440.
Seyfert, R. (2012). Beyond personal feelings and collective emotions: Toward a theory of social affect. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(6), 27–46.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data. Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London u.a.: Sage.
Smith, C., & McKinlay, A. (2009). Creative industries and labour process analysis. In C. Smith & A. McKinlay (Eds.), Creative labour. Working in the creative industries (pp. 3–28). Houndsmills/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Spradley, J. P. (2003). Asking descriptive questions. In Mark R. Pogrebin (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to criminal justice. Perspectives from the field (pp. 44–53). London u.a.: Sage.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thiel, J. (2005). Creativity and space: Labour and the restructuring of the german advertising industry. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (2006). Tractatus logico-philosophicus, Tagebücher 1914-1916, Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Krämer, H. (2017). Creativity at Work: Methodological Challenges for a Praxeological Research Program. In: Jonas, M., Littig, B., Wroblewski, A. (eds) Methodological Reflections on Practice Oriented Theories. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52897-7_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52897-7_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52895-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52897-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)