ABSTRACT
The literature that has produced and consolidated the turn to practice and put in motion the ‘bandwagon of practice-based studies’ (Corradi, Gherardi and Verzelloni, 2010) is now in need of better understanding of the differences among approaches to practice. Since the beginning of what has been called a re-turn to practice (Miettinen, Samra-Fredericks and Yanow, 2009), it has been stressed that a unified theory of practice does not exist and ‘disagreements reign about the nature of embodiment, the pertinence of thematizing it when analyzing practices, the sorts of entities that mediate activity, and whether these entities are relevant to practices as more than mere intermediaries among humans’ (Schatzki, 2001a: 11).
