“Doing value” – Modelling of useful life based on social practices [original]

3rd PLATE Conference

September 18 – 20, 2019

Berlin, Germany

Nils F. Nissen

Melanie Jaeger-Erben (eds.)

Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin

Hipp, Tamina N.: “Doing value” – Modelling of useful life based on

social practices. In: Nissen, Nils F.; Jaeger-Erben, Melanie (Eds.):

PLATE – Product Lifetimes And The Environment : Proceedings, 3rd PLATE

CONFERENCE, BERLIN, GERMANY, 18 – 20 September 2019. Berlin: Uni-

versitätsverlag der TU Berlin, 2021. pp. 353 – 359. ISBN 978-3-7983-3125-9

(online). https://doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-9253.

This article – except for quotes, fi gures and where otherwise noted – is

licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0).

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

353

3rd PLATE 2019 Conference

Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019

”Doing value“ – Modelling of Useful Life Based on Social Practices

Hipp, Tamina(a,b)

a) Technische Universität Berlin, Zentrum Technik und Gesellschaft, Berlin, Germany

b) Technische Universität Berlin, Fakultät für Elektrotechnik und Informatik, Berlin, Germany

Keywords: Lifetimes of Devices; Replacement; Grounded Theory; Theories of Practice; Sociology of

Valuation.

Abstract: The extension of product lifetimes is discussed as an important aspect of sustainable con-

sumption. So far, models explaining lifetimes of devices are predominantly user-oriented and are

based on a methodological individualism. Systemic interrelationships are underestimated due to an

overemphasis on individual room for manoeuvre. This paper presents a model to explain the useful

life of devices, which – with recourse to practice theory – is taking technological change, the context

of use and the setting of actions into account. The model is based on qualitative interviews that were

analysed using grounded theory. At the core of the model are valuation processes that are located in

the interactions with the devices and carried out against the background of context of use. Based on

sociology of evaluation, it is explained how the value of a devices is produced, reproduced, increased

or decreased until they are replaced. Using mobile phones as an example, two types of forms of prac-

tice are presented and it is it derived how longevity might be promoted.

Introduction

Long lifetimes of consumer goods are dis-

cussed as an important element concerning

sustainability (e.g. van Nes & Cramer, 2006).

This paper presents a model for explaining the

duration in use of devices that takes systemic

interrelations into account instead of overem-

phasis on the freedom of action. The model is

developed based on qualitative interviews

which were analysed using Grounded Theory.

In the following, the current state of research

on the topic of lifetimes is briefly outlined and

practice theory is described as the major con-

ceptual background of this study. This is fol-

lowed by a description of the methodological

design. Then the main construct "doing value"

is explained with reference to sociology of

valuation, before the model is described and

its usability is outlined. In conclusion, the po-

tential of the model and its transferability to

other product groups are discussed.

Literature review

Since the end of the 1970s and the beginning

of the 1980s, research has been carried out

into product lifetimes, replacement and the

handling of garbage in various predominantly

social science disciplines such as economics,

marketing, design, psychology, sociology, an-

thropology and cultural studies (Cooper, 2010).

The studies focus more on decisions and cogni-

tions (purchasing, investment, marketing, de-

sign decisions), sometimes also on emotional

attachment, and less on the practical handling

of consumer goods. With regard to study de-

sign, quantitative methods predominate,

whereby the statistical relationships between

the useful life and the device category, socio-

demographic characteristics, the expected life-

time, as well as intentions and attitude such as

environmental awareness are often investigat-

ed (Echegaray, 2015; Gnanapragasam, Cole,

Singh, & Cooper, 2018; Jaeger-Erben & Hipp,

2018; Knight, King, Herren, & Cox, 2013; LE

Europe et al., 2018; Siddharth, Dehoust, Gsell,

Schleicher, & Stamminger, 2016; Wieser,

Tröger, & Hübner, 2015). In these studies, the

user is predominantly conceived - whether im-

plicitly or explicitly - as a benefit-maximizing

subject according to methodological individual-

ism and rational choice, who would act inde-

pendently and self-controlling. However, the

fact that only a small part of behaviour can be

explained by attitudes and intentions is much

discussed in attitude-behavioural research

(Hassan, Shiu, & Shaw, 2016; Sheeran, 2002;

Sheeran & Webb, 2016; Shove, 2010). The

inconsistency between user attitudes and be-

haviour was also found in relation to lifetimes of

devices (Evans & Cooper, 2010). Praxeological

354

3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019

Hipp T.

”Doing value“ – Modelling of useful life based on social practices

approaches, on the other hand, take structure

of society into account and may provide im-

pulses for research on (non-)sustainable use of

electronic products (Jaeger-Erben, Winzer,

Marwede, & Proske, 2016).

Practice theories

By drawing on practice theories, the separation

between actor and structure often found in the

social sciences is overcome conceptually and

methodically (Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina, & Savi-

gny, 2000). Social practices are set as the place

of the social and the smallest unit of analysis,

and routines are thus embedded in social con-

texts and settings that determine the meaning-

fulness of action supraindividually (Shove &

Spurling, 2013). Practice theory emphasizes the

materiality and physicality of social activity, arte-

facts are understood as important elements of

the formation of practice. Individuals are con-

ceived as carriers of practices that make mean-

ingful (mental) use of artefacts (materiality)

(Reckwitz, 2002), for which they need specific

competences. Social practices are performed

within a setting (see Figure 1). Interrelated con-

catenations of social practices are referred to as

forms of practice in the following, taking Hille-

brandt (2014) as a reference.

Figure 1. Elements of social practices © Own

illustration based on Jaeger-Erben 2016.

A practice-based approach enables the per-

spective that people do not consume in order

to meet needs, but that social practices require

consumption in order to be carried out (Warde

2005; Røpke, 2009; Shove, 2007). Thus the

questions arise for what the devices are used

for and how and why they are replaced and no

longer used for performing these practices.

Methodological approach

A qualitative approach was chosen for the in-

vestigation of the handling of devices. Both the

sampling and the analyse were carried out by

using (reflexive) grounded theory (Breuer,

Muckel, & Dieris, 2018; Bryant & Charmaz,

2011; Strauss & Corbin, 1996), since this

methodology is suitable for generating theories.

To date, 15 guideline-based in-home inter-

views, each lasting approximately 2 hours,

have been conducted, and more are planned.

The interviewees from different social segments

are between 14 and 79 years old and live all

over Germany. The data material was analysed

using the tool ATLAS.ti.

The focus of the interviews was on mobile

phones and washing machines. For both de-

vices, it was recorded how many of these de-

vices were used in life and how the devices

were replaced. During the analysis it became

apparent that reference was often made to a

"value" of the device and that this value seems

to be constitutive for many practices in dealing

with devices.

Conceptualization of valuation

processes

The empirical material suggests that a dynamic,

relative value of the devices is produced in and

through social practices. A recourse to the so-

ciology of valuations provides the theoretical

foundation for the reconstruction of these pre-

dominantly just implicit valuations. Although so

far only a few attempts have been made to

combine practice theories and sociology of

valuation (Arnould, 2014), this might be fruitful,

since part of the heterogeneous field of the

valuation sociology also deals with how valua-

tions are carried out operationally and which

practices are connected with it (Lamont 2012;

Kjellberg & Mallard 2013). If practices are seen

as an ontological basis, the combination with

practice theories is possible (Schatzki, 2016).

Thus the importance of materiality is also em-

phasized in the sociology of valuation (Meier,

Peetz, & Waibel, 2016).

Value is decoded as something that is pro-

duced in interaction – in contrast to economics,

which locate it in the object, or psychology,

which locate it in the subject (Ramírez, 1999;

Simmel & Frisby, 2004). In short: "(...) value

emerges from what people do" (Arnould, 2014,

p. 130). The value of a device is thus produced,

reproduced, upgraded or devalued in and by

the social practices in which the device is in-

volved or related to the device. The valuations

do not have to be conscious of the acting sub-

ject or be intended by him; instead, they are

produced and varied in their use of the device –

against the background of context of use and

setting. In order to emphasize the performative

355

3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019

Hipp T.

”Doing value“ – Modelling of useful life based on social practices

character of this valuation process, in the fol-

lowing this process is referred to as "doing val-

ue". "Doing value" is thus conceptualized as a

main construct, as implicit order schemata,

which encompasses both the processes of

emotionally founded value attribution (Krüger &

Reinhart, 2016, 2017) differentiated in the lit-

erature and the comparison-based weighing of

values (Bowker & Star, 2000).

In the sociology of valuation, often only single

moments of valuation (methodological situa-

tionalism, Knorr-Cetina & Cicourel, 1981) are

in focus. In order to analyse how the replace-

ment of a device occurs, however, concatena-

tions of valuations must be considered. The

model of the evaluation constellation (German

Bewertungskonstellation) of Meiers allows us

to analyse the transsituative character of valu-

ations. Therefore, elements1 of this concept

are adopted to elaborate the characteristics of

"doing value" (Meier et al., 2016):

1) Valuations are interlocked with positions

and relations that have specific structural

characteristics. The valuation of a device takes

place against the background of the context of

use, i.e. the suitability to do certain things with

it or to be able to represent the symbolic val-

ues required. Furthermore, the valuation takes

place in relation to the technological change

and the concrete setting. A device is valuated

relationally in comparison to another device.

2) Valuations have rules with transsituative

validity. Valuation rules indicate what the situa-

tion is about, which indications are used and

which logic is followed in the valuation. With

regard to the model, this can mean, for exam-

ple, "practicability" or "less effort".

3) Valuation processes require materiality. In

relation to the useful life, this is on the one

hand the material composition of the device

used (quality, functions, operability, etc.) and

on the other hand the wear and tear and de-

fects.

This characterization of the valuation process-

es forms the basis for the developed model.

Practice based model to explain

useful life of devices

In the literature, the lifetime of a device is di-

vided into the phases of acquisition, use, and

1 The model of the valuation constellation is based on a

methodical subject-object division. Therefore, only those

aspects of its model are used that are also based on a

practice-based approach.

give away2 (Murakami, Oguchi, Tasaki, Daigo,

& Hashimoto, 2010). My interviews suggest

that this order does not correspond to the logic

of social practice. Which device is purchased

does not arise from "nothingness", but is relat-

ed to handling experience with a previous

device in the specific context of use. Also, the

passing on of a device is often not to be ex-

plained exclusively with reference to the de-

vice itself (e.g. not repairable defect), but takes

place in relation to a potentially new device or

its positive valuation and accessibility. The

potentially new device thus serves as a refer-

ence standard, which forms the basis for the

valuation of the current device. According to

my interviews, even the first personal pur-

chase of a device is shaped by experiences of

using other devices (e.g. using washing ma-

chine at parents' house), the use of devices

with similar functions (e.g. experiences with

the computer are transferred to the

smartphone) or stories told by friends and

relatives. Accordingly, I model the usage

phase as the beginning, which explains the

product give away associated with the pur-

chase of a new device. The model is illustrated

in Figure 2.

The value of a device is permanently re-

produced, increased or decreased by so-

cial practices

A device is integrated by the user into the de-

sign of everyday life, for example a

smartphone for communication, entertainment

and information retrieval. Social practices are

also carried out in which the device is not a

substantial part of it, but which are related to

the device, for example by talking about the

device or looking for information about the

product. All these social practices of doing and

saying in the context of use, give away and

purchase are linked to valuations of the de-

vice. With each of these social practices, as

well as with the omission (e.g. no care practic-

es), the value of the device is produced, re-

produced, increased or decreased. The per-

formatively produced value of the device is

rarely reflected, but it has a meaningful char-

acter.

2 There are various definitions of product lifetime and

duration in use. With regard to duration in use, an addi-

tional distinction is often made between storage and repair

phases. For reasons of limited space, this article does not

go into this further, although storage and repair were also

part of the interviews.

356

3rd PLATE Conference Berlin, Germany, 18-20 September 2019

Hipp T.

”Doing value“ – Modelling of useful life based on social practices

The valuation processes takes place with re-

gard to various characteristics such as func-

tionality, quality, usability, modernity, design

and emotional attachment. Due to these differ-

ent dimensions, the revaluation or devaluation

can also be contradictory. For example, the

usability can improve due to the habituation

during the usage phase, while the valuation of

functionality and aesthetics can decrease due

to wear and tear. Overall, the gradual devalua-

tion of the current device is predominantly

carried out during use in parallel with the grad-

ual upgrading of a desirable new one.

The valuations manifest themselves in the

elements of social practices

Production, reproduction and changes in value

are evident in the three elements of social

practices: Materiality, meanings and compe-

tencies and are intertwined.

With regard to materiality, the devaluation of

the current device may be related to technical

(partial) defects, optical wear or the lack of

innovative applications, for example. These

can occur successively (e.g. battery slows

down, scratches) or spontaneously caused by

events (e.g. device falls down).

The meanings associated with the valuation

processes can be related both to the device

itself (e.g. emotional attachment, careful han-

dling to maintain functionality, enjoyment of

design) and to the everyday life (e.g. time

management). Regarding the upgrading of the

replacement device, the attractiveness of nov-

elty respectively the enthusiasm for new de-

vices plays a major role (see Frick, Jaeger-

Erben & Hipp, this volume).

The competences refer to the ability to handle

the device (e.g. know-how regarding care

practices, repair). They are either to be as-

signed to the wearer of the practice or they are

conveyed via media or friends and relatives.

"Doing value” takes place within a specific

setting and is related to the context of use.

The evaluation processes takes place within a

specific setting. The setting describes the envi-

ronment in which the social practices take

place and thus reflects not only milieu-specific

circumstances (e.g. household size, mobility,

financial resources) but also social (e.g. con-

ventions, values, role attributions) and techno-

logical change (e.g. product innovations). The

setting thus influences social practices and

their elements.

The setting also shapes the context of use, i.e.

for what purpose (e.g. communication, enter-

tainment, information) and how intensively a

Figure 2. Model of "doing value".

Loading more pages...