Marlot Kuiper

67 Research Perspective: Professional routines of routines in surgery are for example patient discussions, patient handovers, multidisciplinary team meetings and radiology meetings. These routines structure work and inhibit norms and values about how work should be conducted. Routine Theory has its roots in economics, and this ‘capabilities perspective’ is still prominent in strategy research. From this view routines are typically examined as whole entities. Consequently, this ‘capabilities perspective’ has mostly emphasized stability and inertia of routines (March and Simon 1958; Cyert and March 1963; Nelson and Winter 1982). A more recent and well- established perspective in the literature is based on the idea that routines are practices with internal dynamics that contribute to both stability and change in organisations (Feldman et al. 2016; Feldman and Pentland 2003). By contrast, the practice perspective focuses on the internal structure of routines, draws from sociology, and is evident in organisational theory research. This perspective thus focuses on change and generates opportunities to open up the ‘black box’ of routines. 3.2.1 Routine Dynamics Routine dynamics research emphasizes the processual nature of routines and the dynamics of stability and change within them (Feldman, 2016; Feldman & Pentland, 2003). The key assumption is that change in organisations does, or does not, happen in and through daily work practice. In theory on organisational practice the term is framed in a variety of ways. Many studies equate practice with the actions of individual members (Sherer & Spillane, 2011). Still, actors do not act in isolation; a person acts, someone reacts, and it is in their interactions that practice takes shape (Bourdieu, 1990; Weick, 1979). People act in organisations, but do so in relation to others. Practice, then, is fundamentally about interactions. Because multiple people enact routines, my research focuses specifically on interactions. Besides relationality, focusing on routines enables me to attend the duality of structure and agency, examining how structure and agency work together. Drawing from Latour’s analysis of power (1986), Feldman and Pentland (2003) argue that organisational routines exist in principle as well as in practice. On the one hand, routines consist of abstract, generalized ideas of the routine, used to refer to a certain activity of justify what people do. These are the ostensive aspects. On the other hand, routines consists of “actual performances by specific people, at specific times, in specific places” (Feldman and Pentland 2003, p.94). 3