Dale Southerton

Social practice theory (SPT) represents a growing body of research that takes the ‘doings and sayings’ (social practices) of everyday life as its core unit of enquiry. Time use surveys (TUS) represent a substantial source of micro‐data regarding how activities are performed across the 24‐h day. Given their apparent complementarities, we ask why TUS have not been utilised more extensively within SPT‐inspired research. We advance two contentions: (1) ontological tensions obscure the relevance of TUS data in addressing core SPT research questions, and (2) SPT concepts do not readily translate for application in TUS analysis. In response, we operationalise Schatzki's (2019) concepts of activity events and chains to explore types and forms of temporal activity connection. Using TUS data we examine three activity events: sleeping, reading, and eating. Two types of temporal activity connection (sequence and synchronisation) are identified, together with four forms of connectivity (degrees of uniformity/diversity, sequential directionality, time‐varying connections, and symmetrical/asymmetrical relationships). While practices cannot be reduced to activity connections, we argue that this analytical approach offers a systematic basis for examining the ways in which activities combine to underpin the organisation of social practices. Further analysis to compare activity connections across practices, between different groups of practitioners, and over time would offer a valuable resource to empirically examine claims regarding core processes of societal change. We further contend that SPT approaches offer insights for time use research by providing a framework capable of recognising that activities are dynamic and variable rather than homogeneous and stable categories.

Questions about the future, and futurelessness, have attracted wide-ranging attention in recent years. Our article explores what Sociology offers. We reflect on the apparent contradiction that the future was bracketed off from the discipline in its early history, yet also offers rich theoretical, methodological and empirical resources for futures research. We demonstrate this through an analysis of the contributions to this Special Issue, each of which draws on explicitly Sociological theories and methods to consider futures in a range of fields. Finally, we explore further developments necessary for a Sociology of the Future. We argue that Sociology can and should be more directly involved in claiming what futures might be, should be and in materialising these claims. This means moving beyond Sociology – as a distinct set of resources – towards expansive engagement with other future-making actors. This may challenge and change Sociology but may also be key to its future.