The elements of making: a social practice perspective for everyday creators
Abstract
In contrast to behavioural approaches that attempt to explain creativity, social practice theories commonly emphasize aspects of the material world that shape and reproduce how people engage with them. How might social practice theory clarify how making affects millions of hobbyist creators – and what makes making matter to them? This article examines the theoretical work tying creativity to social practice. It then reports on a project in which small groups of everyday creators in the United Kingdom (n = 95) gathered in workshops to discuss their experiences and opinions regarding the materials, meanings, and competences of making. A model-making research method instigated peer discussion revealing both individual and shared accounts of practice. The data indicated that participants, regardless of practice, experienced creating as an ongoing performance providing many benefits that promote personal and societal transformation. With our graphic iteration of the elements of making, we assert that the meanings these makers attached to their various do-it-yourself practices were underscored by the materials they worked with and the competences they built in creating.
Keyword : affordance theory, creativity, everyday creators, makers, social practice theory, sociomaterial culture
How to Cite
Risner, I., Gauntlett, D., & Culpepper, M. K. (2022). The elements of making: a social practice perspective for everyday creators. Creativity Studies, 15(2), 590–605. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2022.14489
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Amabile, T. M. (2017). In pursuit of everyday creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 335–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.200
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Culpepper, M. K. (2018). “Yeah, That’s What I Am Now”: Affordances, action, and creative identity. In L. Martin & N. Wilson (Eds.), Palgrave handbooks. The Palgrave handbook of creativity at work (pp. 107–124). Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77350-6_5
Culpepper, M. K., & Gauntlett, D. (2021). Inviting everyday creators to make, think, and talk. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100933
Daniel, R. (2021). Exploring creativity through artists’ reflections. Creativity Studies, 14(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2021.11207
Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414845
European Commission. (2022). Digital do it yourself: Results. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/644344/results
Gauntlett, D. (2007). Creative explorations: New approaches to identities and audiences. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203961407
Gauntlett, D. (2018). Making is connecting: The social power of creativity, from craft and knitting to digital everything. Polity Press.
Gherardi, S. (2017). Sociomateriality in posthuman practice theory. In A. Hui, Th. Schatzki, & E. Shove (Eds.), The nexus of practices: Connections, constellations, practitioners (pp. 38–51). Routledge.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Routledge.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2012). Habitual creativity: Revising habit, reconceptualizing creativity. Review of General Psychology, 16(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026611
Glăveanu, V. P. (2017). Thinking through creativity and culture: Toward an integrated model. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315135625
Glăveanu, V. P., & Tanggaard, L. (2014). Creativity, identity, and representation: Towards a socio-cultural theory of creative identity. New Ideas in Psychology, 34, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2014.02.002
Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203559055
Jamone, L., Ugur, E., Cangelosi, A., Fadiga, L., Bernardino, A., Piater, J., & Santos-Victor, J. (2018). Affordances in psychology, neuroscience, and robotics: A survey. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, 10(1), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCDS.2016.2594134
Marcus, L., Giusti, M., & Barthel, S. (2016). Cognitive affordances in sustainable urbanism: Contributions of space syntax and spatial cognition. Journal of Urban Design, 21(4), 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1184565
Moeran, B. (2016). Anthropology and business: Crossing boundaries, innovating praxis. The business of creativity: Toward an anthropology of worth. de T. Waal Malefyt (Series Ed.). Routledge.
Nicholls, A., & Ziegler, R. (Eds.). (2019). Creating economic space for social innovation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198830511.001.0001
Paek, K.-M. (2019). The transformative potential of creative art practices in the context of interdisciplinary research. Creativity Studies, 12(1), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2019.9701
Pilotta, J. J. (2020). Kinesthesia: The creative condition for health communication. Creativity Studies, 13(2), 449–459. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2020.12696
Pretz, J. E., & Nelson, D. (2017). Creativity is influenced by domain, creative self-efficacy, mindset, self-efficacy, and self-esteem. In M. Karwowski & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Explorations in creativity research. The creative self: Effect of beliefs, self-efficacy, mindset, and identity. J. C. Kaufman (Series Ed.) (pp. 155–170). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809790-8.00009-1
Price, W. (2022). One of the world’s most popular kitchen tools was a complete fluke. Gear Patrol.
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310222225432
Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 325–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2014.958035
Risner, I. (2013). The Integration of digital technologies into designer–maker practice: A study of access attitudes and implications [PhD/Doctoral Thesis, University of the Arts London]. London, United Kingdom. https://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/id/eprint/8760/1/Risner-PhD-thesis-2013.pdf
Salvia, G. (2016). The satisfactory and (possibly) sustainable practice of do-it-yourself: The catalyst role of design. Journal of Design Research, 14(1), 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1504/JDR.2016.074782
Schatzki, Th. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In Th. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & von E. Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). Routledge.
Schatzki, Th. R. (1996). Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527470
Schatzki, Th. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. The Pennsylvania State University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780271023717
Shove, E., & Pantzar, M. (2007). Recruitment and reproduction: The careers and carriers of digital photography and floorball. Human Affairs, 17(2), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10023-007-0014-9
Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446250655
Silvia, P. J., Rodriguez, R. M., Beaty, R. E., Frith, E., Kaufman, J. C., Loprinzi, P., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2021). Measuring everyday creativity: A Rasch model analysis of the Biographical Inventory of Creative Behaviors (BICB) scale. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100797
Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540505053090
Withagen, R., & Kamp, van der J. (2018). An ecological approach to creativity in making. New Ideas in Psychology, 49, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2017.11.002
Yu, H., Zuo, Sh., Liu, Y., & Niemiec, Ch. P. (2021). Toward a personality integration perspective on creativity: Between- and within-persons associations among autonomy, vitality, and everyday creativity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(6), 789–801. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1818810
Zelizer, V. A. (2011). Economic lives: How culture shapes the economy. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691139364.001.0001
Ziegler, R. (2017). Citizen innovation as niche restoration: A type of social innovation and its relevance for political participation and sustainability. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 8(3), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2017.1364286
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Culpepper, M. K. (2018). “Yeah, That’s What I Am Now”: Affordances, action, and creative identity. In L. Martin & N. Wilson (Eds.), Palgrave handbooks. The Palgrave handbook of creativity at work (pp. 107–124). Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77350-6_5
Culpepper, M. K., & Gauntlett, D. (2021). Inviting everyday creators to make, think, and talk. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100933
Daniel, R. (2021). Exploring creativity through artists’ reflections. Creativity Studies, 14(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2021.11207
Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414845
European Commission. (2022). Digital do it yourself: Results. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/644344/results
Gauntlett, D. (2007). Creative explorations: New approaches to identities and audiences. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203961407
Gauntlett, D. (2018). Making is connecting: The social power of creativity, from craft and knitting to digital everything. Polity Press.
Gherardi, S. (2017). Sociomateriality in posthuman practice theory. In A. Hui, Th. Schatzki, & E. Shove (Eds.), The nexus of practices: Connections, constellations, practitioners (pp. 38–51). Routledge.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Routledge.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2012). Habitual creativity: Revising habit, reconceptualizing creativity. Review of General Psychology, 16(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026611
Glăveanu, V. P. (2017). Thinking through creativity and culture: Toward an integrated model. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315135625
Glăveanu, V. P., & Tanggaard, L. (2014). Creativity, identity, and representation: Towards a socio-cultural theory of creative identity. New Ideas in Psychology, 34, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2014.02.002
Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203559055
Jamone, L., Ugur, E., Cangelosi, A., Fadiga, L., Bernardino, A., Piater, J., & Santos-Victor, J. (2018). Affordances in psychology, neuroscience, and robotics: A survey. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, 10(1), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCDS.2016.2594134
Marcus, L., Giusti, M., & Barthel, S. (2016). Cognitive affordances in sustainable urbanism: Contributions of space syntax and spatial cognition. Journal of Urban Design, 21(4), 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1184565
Moeran, B. (2016). Anthropology and business: Crossing boundaries, innovating praxis. The business of creativity: Toward an anthropology of worth. de T. Waal Malefyt (Series Ed.). Routledge.
Nicholls, A., & Ziegler, R. (Eds.). (2019). Creating economic space for social innovation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198830511.001.0001
Paek, K.-M. (2019). The transformative potential of creative art practices in the context of interdisciplinary research. Creativity Studies, 12(1), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2019.9701
Pilotta, J. J. (2020). Kinesthesia: The creative condition for health communication. Creativity Studies, 13(2), 449–459. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2020.12696
Pretz, J. E., & Nelson, D. (2017). Creativity is influenced by domain, creative self-efficacy, mindset, self-efficacy, and self-esteem. In M. Karwowski & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Explorations in creativity research. The creative self: Effect of beliefs, self-efficacy, mindset, and identity. J. C. Kaufman (Series Ed.) (pp. 155–170). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809790-8.00009-1
Price, W. (2022). One of the world’s most popular kitchen tools was a complete fluke. Gear Patrol.
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310222225432
Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 325–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2014.958035
Risner, I. (2013). The Integration of digital technologies into designer–maker practice: A study of access attitudes and implications [PhD/Doctoral Thesis, University of the Arts London]. London, United Kingdom. https://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/id/eprint/8760/1/Risner-PhD-thesis-2013.pdf
Salvia, G. (2016). The satisfactory and (possibly) sustainable practice of do-it-yourself: The catalyst role of design. Journal of Design Research, 14(1), 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1504/JDR.2016.074782
Schatzki, Th. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In Th. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & von E. Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). Routledge.
Schatzki, Th. R. (1996). Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527470
Schatzki, Th. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. The Pennsylvania State University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780271023717
Shove, E., & Pantzar, M. (2007). Recruitment and reproduction: The careers and carriers of digital photography and floorball. Human Affairs, 17(2), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10023-007-0014-9
Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446250655
Silvia, P. J., Rodriguez, R. M., Beaty, R. E., Frith, E., Kaufman, J. C., Loprinzi, P., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2021). Measuring everyday creativity: A Rasch model analysis of the Biographical Inventory of Creative Behaviors (BICB) scale. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100797
Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540505053090
Withagen, R., & Kamp, van der J. (2018). An ecological approach to creativity in making. New Ideas in Psychology, 49, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2017.11.002
Yu, H., Zuo, Sh., Liu, Y., & Niemiec, Ch. P. (2021). Toward a personality integration perspective on creativity: Between- and within-persons associations among autonomy, vitality, and everyday creativity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(6), 789–801. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1818810
Zelizer, V. A. (2011). Economic lives: How culture shapes the economy. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691139364.001.0001
Ziegler, R. (2017). Citizen innovation as niche restoration: A type of social innovation and its relevance for political participation and sustainability. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 8(3), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2017.1364286