Hubbry Logo
Structuration theoryStructuration theoryMain
Open search
Structuration theory
Community hub
Structuration theory
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Structuration theory
Structuration theory
Structuration theory
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The theory of structuration is a social theory of the creation and reproduction of social systems that is based on the analysis of both structure and agents (see structure and agency), without giving primacy to either. Furthermore, in structuration theory, neither micro- nor macro-focused analysis alone is sufficient. The theory was proposed by sociologist Georges Gurvitch and later refined by Anthony Giddens, most significantly in The Constitution of Society,[1] which examines phenomenology, hermeneutics, and social practices at the inseparable intersection of structures and agents. Its proponents have adopted and expanded this balanced position.[2] Though the theory has received much criticism, it remains a pillar of contemporary sociological theory.[3]

Premises and origins

[edit]

Sociologist Anthony Giddens adopted a post-empiricist frame for his theory, as he was concerned with the abstract characteristics of social relations.[according to whom?] This leaves each level more accessible to analysis via the ontologies which constitute the human social experience: space and time ("and thus, in one sense, 'history'").[1]: 3  His aim was to build a broad social theory which viewed "[t]he basic domain of study of the social sciences... [as] neither the experience of the individual actor, nor the existence of any form of societal totality, but social practices ordered across space and time."[1]: 189  His focus on abstract ontology accompanied a general and purposeful neglect of epistemology or detailed research methodology, consistent with other types of pragmatism.

Giddens used concepts from objectivist and subjectivist social theories, discarding objectivism's focus on detached structures, which lacked regard for humanist elements and subjectivism's exclusive attention to individual or group agency without consideration for socio-structural context. He critically engaged classical nineteenth and early twentieth century social theorists such as Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, Alfred Schutz, Robert K. Merton, Erving Goffman, and Jürgen Habermas.[2] Thus, in many ways, structuration was "an exercise in clarification of logical issues."[4]: viii  Structuration drew on other fields, as well: "He also wanted to bring in from other disciplines novel aspects of ontology that he felt had been neglected by social theorists working in the domains that most interested him. Thus, for example, he enlisted the aid of geographers, historians and philosophers in bringing notions of time and space into the central heartlands of social theory."[2]: 16  Giddens hoped that a subject-wide "coming together" might occur which would involve greater cross-disciplinary dialogue and cooperation, especially between anthropologists, social scientists and sociologists of all types, historians, geographers, and even novelists. Believing that "literary style matters", he held that social scientists are communicators who share frames of meaning across cultural contexts through their work by utilising "the same sources of description (mutual knowledge) as novelists or others who write fictional accounts of social life."[1]: 285 

Structuration differs from its historical sources. Unlike structuralism it sees the reproduction of social systems not "as a mechanical outcome, [but] rather ... as an active constituting process, accomplished by, and consisting in, the doings of active subjects."[4]: 121  Unlike Althusser's concept of agents as "bearers" of structures, structuration theory sees them as active participants. Unlike the philosophy of action and other forms of interpretative sociology, structuration focuses on structure rather than production exclusively. Unlike Saussure's production of an utterance, structuration sees language as a tool from which to view society, not as the constitution of society—parting with structural linguists such as Claude Lévi-Strauss and generative grammar theorists such as Noam Chomsky. Unlike post-structuralist theory, which put similar focus on the effects of time and space, structuration does not recognise only movement, change and transition. Unlike functionalism, in which structures and their virtual synonyms, "systems", comprise organisations, structuration sees structures and systems as separate concepts. Unlike Marxism, structuration avoids an overly restrictive concept of "society" and Marxism's reliance on a universal "motor of history" (i.e. class conflict), its theories of societal "adaptation", and its insistence on the working class as universal class and socialism as the ultimate form of modern society. Finally, "structuration theory cannot be expected to furnish the moral guarantees that critical theorists sometimes purport to offer."[3]: 16 

Main ideas

[edit]

Duality of structure

[edit]

Giddens observed that in social analysis, the term structure referred generally to "rules and resources" and more specifically to "the structuring properties allowing the 'binding' of time-space in social systems". These properties make it possible for similar social practices to exist across time and space and that lend them "systemic" form.[1]: 17  Agents—groups or individuals—draw upon these structures to perform social actions through embedded memory, called memory traces. Memory traces are thus the vehicle through which social actions are carried out. Structure is also, however, the result of these social practices. Thus, Giddens conceives of the duality of structure as being:

...the essential recursiveness of social life, as constituted in social practices: structure is both medium and outcome of reproduction of practices. Structure enters simultaneously into the constitution of the agent and social practices, and 'exists' in the generating moments of this constitution.[5]: 5 

Giddens uses "the duality of structure" (i.e. material/ideational, micro/macro) to emphasize structure's nature as both medium and outcome. Structures exist both internally within agents as memory traces that are the product of phenomenological and hermeneutic inheritance[2]: 27  and externally as the manifestation of social actions. Similarly, social structures contain agents and/or are the product of past actions of agents. Giddens holds this duality, alongside "structure" and "system," in addition to the concept of recursiveness, as the core of structuration theory.[1]: 17  His theory has been adopted by those with structuralist inclinations, but who wish to situate such structures in human practice rather than to reify them as an ideal type or material property. (This is different, for example, from actor–network theory which appears to grant a certain autonomy to technical artifacts.)

Social systems have patterns of social relation that change over time; the changing nature of space and time determines the interaction of social relations and therefore structure. Hitherto, social structures or models were either taken to be beyond the realm of human control—the positivistic approach—or posit that action creates them—the interpretivist approach. The duality of structure emphasizes that they are different sides to the same central question of how social order is created.

Gregor McLennan suggested renaming this process "the duality of structure and agency", since both aspects are involved in using and producing social actions.[6]: 322 

Cycle of structuration

[edit]

The duality of structure is essentially a feedback–feedforward[clarification needed] process whereby agents and structures mutually enact social systems, and social systems in turn become part of that duality.[citation needed] Structuration thus recognizes a social cycle. In examining social systems, structuration theory examines structure, modality, and interaction. The "modality" (discussed below) of a structural system is the means by which structures are translated into actions.

Interaction

[edit]

Interaction is the agent's activity within the social system, space and time. "It can be understood as the fitful yet routinized occurrence of encounters, fading away in time and space, yet constantly reconstituted within different areas of time-space."[1]: 86  Rules can affect interaction, as originally suggested by Goffman. "Frames" are "clusters of rules which help to constitute and regulate activities, defining them as activities of a certain sort and as subject to a given range of sanctions."[1]: 87  Frames are necessary for agents to feel "ontological security, the trust that everyday actions have some degree of predictability. Whenever individuals interact in a specific context they address—without any difficulty and in many cases without conscious acknowledgement—the question: "What is going on here?" Framing is the practice by which agents make sense of what they are doing.[1]

Routinization

[edit]

Structuration theory is centrally concerned with order as "the transcending of time and space in human social relationships".[1] Institutionalized action and routinization are foundational in the establishment of social order and the reproduction of social systems. Routine persists in society, even during social and political revolutions, where daily life is greatly deformed, "as Bettelheim demonstrates so well, routines, including those of an obnoxious sort, are re-established."[1]: 87  Routine interactions become institutionalized features of social systems via tradition, custom and/or habit, but this is no easy societal task and it "is a major error to suppose that these phenomena need no explanation. On the contrary, as Goffman (together with ethnomethodology) has helped to demonstrate, the routinized character of most social activity is something that has to be 'worked at' continually by those who sustain it in their day-to-day conduct."[1] Therefore, routinized social practices do not stem from coincidence, "but the skilled accomplishments of knowledgeable agents."[2]: 26 

Trust and tact are essential for the existence of a "basic security system, the sustaining (in praxis) of a sense of ontological security, and [thus] the routine nature of social reproduction which agents skilfully organize. The monitoring of the body, the control and use of face in 'face work'—these are fundamental to social integration in time and space."[1]: 86 

Explanation

[edit]

When I utter a sentence I draw upon various syntactical rules (sedimented in my practical consciousness of the language) in order to do so. These structural features of the language are the medium whereby I generate the utterance. But in producing a syntactically correct utterance I simultaneously contribute to the reproduction of the language as a whole. ...The relation between moment and totality for social theory... [involves] a dialectic of presence and absence which ties the most minor or trivial forms of social action to structural properties of the overall society, and to the coalescence of institutions over long stretches of historical time.[1]: 24 

Thus, even the smallest social actions contribute to the alteration or reproduction of social systems. Social stability and order is not permanent; agents always possess a dialectic of control (discussed below) which allows them to break away from normative actions. Depending on the social factors present, agents may cause shifts in social structure.

The cycle of structuration is not a defined sequence; it is rarely a direct succession of causal events. Structures and agents are both internal and external to each other, mingling, interrupting, and continually changing each other as feedbacks and feedforwards occur. Giddens stated, "The degree of "systemness" is very variable. ...I take it to be one of the main features of structuration theory that the extension and 'closure' of societies across space and time is regarded as problematic."[1]: 165 

The use of "patriot" in political speech reflects this mingling, borrowing from and contributing to nationalistic norms and supports structures such as a police state, from which it in turn gains impact.

Structure and society

[edit]

Structures are the "rules and resources" embedded in agents' memory traces. Agents call upon their memory traces of which they are "knowledgeable" to perform social actions. "Knowledgeability" refers to "what agents know about what they do, and why they do it."[1] Giddens divides memory traces (structures-within-knowledgeability[2]) into three types:

  • Domination (power): Giddens also uses "resources" to refer to this type. "Authoritative resources" allow agents to control persons, whereas "allocative resources" allow agents to control material objects.
  • Signification (meaning): Giddens suggests that meaning is inferred through structures. Agents use existing experience to infer meaning. For example, the meaning of living with mental illness comes from contextualized experiences.[7]
  • Legitimation (norms): Giddens sometimes uses "rules" to refer to either signification or legitimation. An agent draws upon these stocks of knowledge via memory to inform him or herself about the external context, conditions, and potential results of an action.

When an agent uses these structures for social interactions, they are called modalities and present themselves in the forms of facility (domination), interpretive scheme/communication (signification) and norms/sanctions (legitimation).

Thus, he distinguishes between overall "structures-within-knowledgeability" and the more limited and task-specific "modalities" on which these agents subsequently draw when they interact.

The duality of structures means that structures enter "simultaneously into the constitution of the agent and social practices, and 'exists' in the generating moments of this constitution."[5]: 5  "Structures exist paradigmatically, as an absent set of differences, temporally "present" only in their instantiation, in the constituting moments of social systems."[5]: 64  Giddens draws upon structuralism and post-structuralism in theorizing that structures and their meaning are understood by their differences.

Agents and society

[edit]

Giddens' agents follow previous psychoanalysis work done by Sigmund Freud and others.[1] Agency, as Giddens calls it, is human action. To be human is to be an agent (not all agents are human). Agency is critical to both the reproduction and the transformation of society. Another way to explain this concept is by what Giddens calls the "reflexive monitoring of actions."[8] "Reflexive monitoring" refers to agents' ability to monitor their actions and those actions' settings and contexts. Monitoring is an essential characteristic of agency. Agents subsequently "rationalize," or evaluate, the success of those efforts. All humans engage in this process, and expect the same from others. Through action, agents produce structures; through reflexive monitoring and rationalization, they transform them. To act, agents must be motivated, must be knowledgeable must be able to rationalize the action; and must reflexively monitor the action.

Agents, while bounded in structure, draw upon their knowledge of that structural context when they act. However, actions are constrained by agents' inherent capabilities and their understandings of available actions and external limitations. Practical consciousness and discursive consciousness inform these abilities. Practical consciousness is the knowledgeability that an agent brings to the tasks required by everyday life, which is so integrated as to be hardly noticed. Reflexive monitoring occurs at the level of practical consciousness.[9] Discursive consciousness is the ability to verbally express knowledge. Alongside practical and discursive consciousness, Giddens recognizes actors as having reflexive, contextual knowledge, and that habitual, widespread use of knowledgeability makes structures become institutionalized.[1]

Agents rationalize, and in doing so, link the agent and the agent's knowledgeability. Agents must coordinate ongoing projects, goals, and contexts while performing actions. This coordination is called reflexive monitoring and is connected to ethnomethodology's emphasis on agents' intrinsic sense of accountability.[1]

The factors that can enable or constrain an agent, as well as how an agent uses structures, are known as capability constraints include age, cognitive/physical limits on performing multiple tasks at once and the physical impossibility of being in multiple places at once, available time and the relationship between movement in space and movement in time.

Location offers are a particular type of capability constraint. Examples include:

  • Locale
  • Regionalization: political or geographical zones, or rooms in a building
  • Presence: Do other actors participate in the action? (see co-presence); and more specifically
  • Physical presence: Are other actors physically nearby?

Agents are always able to engage in a dialectic of control, able to "intervene in the world or to refrain from such intervention, with the effect of influencing a specific process or state of affairs."[1]: 14  In essence, agents experience inherent and contrasting amounts of autonomy and dependence; agents can always either act or not.[2]

Methodology

[edit]

Structuration theory is relevant to research, but does not prescribe a methodology and its use in research has been problematic. Giddens intended his theory to be abstract and theoretical, informing the hermeneutic aspects of research rather than guiding practice. Giddens wrote that structuration theory "establishes the internal logical coherence of concepts within a theoretical network."[2]: 34  Giddens criticized many researchers who used structuration theory for empirical research, critiquing their "en bloc" use of the theory's abstract concepts in a burdensome way. "The works applying concepts from the logical framework of structuration theory that Giddens approved of were those that used them more selectively, 'in a spare and critical fashion.'"[2]: 2  Giddens and followers used structuration theory more as "a sensitizing device".[10]

Structuration theory allows researchers to focus on any structure or concept individually or in combination. In this way, structuration theory prioritizes ontology over epistemology. In his own work, Giddens focuses on production and reproduction of social practices in some context. He looked for stasis and change, agent expectations, relative degrees of routine, tradition, behavior, and creative, skillful, and strategic thought simultaneously. He examined spatial organization, intended and unintended consequences, skilled and knowledgeable agents, discursive and tacit knowledge, dialectic of control, actions with motivational content, and constraints.[2] Structuration theorists conduct analytical research of social relations, rather than organically discovering them, since they use structuration theory to reveal specific research questions, though that technique has been criticized as cherry-picking.[2]

Giddens preferred strategic conduct analysis, which focuses on contextually situated actions. It employs detailed accounts of agents' knowledgeability, motivation, and the dialectic of control.[1]

Criticisms and additions

[edit]

Though structuration theory has received critical expansion since its origination, Giddens' concepts remained pivotal for later extension of the theory, especially the duality of structure.[11]

Strong structuration

[edit]

Rob Stones argued that many aspects of Giddens' original theory had little place in its modern manifestation. Stones focused on clarifying its scope, reconfiguring some concepts and inserting new ones, and refining methodology and research orientations. Strong structuration:

  1. Places its ontology more in situ than abstractly.
  2. Introduces the quadripartite cycle, which details the elements in the duality of structure. These are:
    • external structures as conditions of action;
    • internal structures within the agent;
    • active agency, "including a range of aspects involved when agents draw upon internal structures in producing practical action";[2]: 9  and
    • outcomes (as both structures and events).
  3. Increases attention to epistemology and methodology. Ontology supports epistemology and methodology by prioritising:
    • the question-at-hand;
    • appropriate forms of methodological bracketing;
    • distinct methodological steps in research; and
    • "[t]he specific combinations of all the above in composite forms of research."[2]: 189 
  4. Discovers the "meso-level of ontology between the abstract, philosophical level of ontology and the in-situ, ontic level."[2] Strong structuration allows varied abstract ontological concepts in experiential conditions.
  5. Focuses on the meso-level at the temporal and spatial scale.
  6. Conceptualises independent causal forces and irresistible causal forces, which take into account how external structures, internal structures, and active agency affect agent choices (or lack of them). "Irresistible forces" are the connected concepts of a horizon of action with a set of "actions-in-hand" and a hierarchical ordering of purposes and concerns. An agent is affected by external influences. This aspect of strong structuration helps reconcile an agent's dialectic of control and his/her more constrained set of "real choices."[2]

Post-structuration and dualism

[edit]

Margaret Archer objected to the inseparability of structure and agency in structuration theory.[12] She proposed a notion of dualism rather than "duality of structure". She primarily examined structural frameworks and the action within the limits allowed by those conditions. She combined realist ontology and called her methodology analytical dualism. Archer maintained that structure precedes agency in social structure reproduction and analytical importance, and that they should be analysed separately. She emphasised the importance of temporality in social analysis, dividing it into four stages: structural conditioning, social interaction, its immediate outcome and structural elaboration. Thus her analysis considered embedded "structural conditions, emergent causal powers and properties, social interactions between agents, and subsequent structural changes or reproductions arising from the latter."[2] Archer criticised structuration theory for denying time and place because of the inseparability between structure and agency.[2]

Nicos Mouzelis reconstructed Giddens' original theories.[13] Mouzelis kept Giddens' original formulation of structure as "rules and resources." However, he was considered a dualist, because he argued for dualism to be as important in social analysis as the duality of structure.[14] Mouzelis reexamined human social action at the "syntagmatic" (syntactic) level. He claimed that the duality of structure does not account for all types of social relationships. Duality of structure works when agents do not question or disrupt rules, and interaction resembles "natural/performative" actions with a practical orientation. However, in other contexts, the relationship between structure and agency can resemble dualism more than duality, such as systems that are the result of powerful agents. In these situations, rules are not viewed as resources, but are in states of transition or redefinition, where actions are seen from a "strategic/monitoring orientation."[15]: 28  In this orientation, dualism shows the distance between agents and structures. He called these situations "syntagmatic duality". For example, a professor can change the class he or she teaches, but has little capability to change the larger university structure. "In that case, syntagmatic duality gives way to syntagmatic dualism."[15]: 28  This implies that systems are the outcome, but not the medium, of social actions. Mouzelis also criticised Giddens' lack of consideration for social hierarchies.

John Parker built on Archer and Mouzelis's support for dualism to propose a theoretical reclamation of historical sociology and macro-structures using concrete historical cases, claiming that dualism better explained the dynamics of social structures.[16] Equally, Robert Archer developed and applied analytical dualism in his critical analysis of the impact of New Managerialism on education policy in England and Wales during the 1990s[17] and organization theory.[18]

John B. Thompson

[edit]
Main article: John Thompson (sociologist)

Though he agreed with the soundness and overall purposes of Giddens' most expansive structuration concepts (i.e., against dualism and for the study of structure in concert with agency), John B. Thompson ("a close friend and colleague of Giddens at Cambridge University")[2]: 46  wrote one of the most widely cited critiques of structuration theory.[19] His central argument was that it needed to be more specific and more consistent both internally and with conventional social structure theory. Thompson focused on problematic aspects of Giddens' concept of structure as "rules and resources," focusing on "rules". He argued that Giddens' concept of rule was too broad.

Thompson claimed that Giddens presupposed a criterion of importance in contending that rules are a generalizable enough tool to apply to every aspect of human action and interaction; "on the other hand, Giddens is well aware that some rules, or some kinds or aspects of rules, are much more important than others for the analysis of, for example, the social structure of capitalist societies."[19]: 159  He found the term to be imprecise and to not designate which rules are more relevant for which social structures.

Thompson used the example of linguistic analysis to point out that the need for a prior framework which to enable analysis of, for example, the social structure of an entire nation. While semantic rules may be relevant to social structure, to study them "presupposes some structural points of reference which are not themselves rules, with regard to which [of] these semantic rules are differentiated"[19]: 159  according to class, sex, region and so on. He called this structural differentiation.

Rules differently affect variously situated individuals. Thompson gave the example of a private school which restricts enrollment and thus participation. Thus rules—in this case, restrictions—"operate differentially, affecting unevenly various groups of individuals whose categorization depends on certain assumptions about social structures."[19]: 159  The isolated analysis of rules does not incorporate differences among agents.

Thompson claimed that Giddens offered no way of formulating structural identity. Some "rules" are better conceived of as broad inherent elements that define a structure's identity (e.g., Henry Ford and Harold Macmillan are "capitalistic"). These agents may differ, but have important traits in common due to their "capitalistic" identity. Thompson theorized that these traits were not rules in the sense that a manager could draw upon a "rule" to fire a tardy employee; rather, they were elements which "limit the kinds of rules which are possible and which thereby delimit the scope for institutional variation."[19]: 160  It is necessary to outline the broader social system to be able to analyze agents, actors, and rules within that system.

Thus Thompson concluded that Giddens' use of the term "rules" is problematic. "Structure" is similarly objectionable: "But to adhere to this conception of structure, while at the same time acknowledging the need for the study of 'structural principles,' 'structural sets' and 'axes of structuration,' is simply a recipe for conceptual confusion."[19]: 163 

Thompson proposed several amendments. He requested sharper differentiation between the reproduction of institutions and the reproduction of social structure. He proposed an altered version of the structuration cycle. He defined "institutions" as "characterized by rules, regulations and conventions of various sorts, by differing kinds and quantities of resources and by hierarchical power relations between the occupants of institutional positions."[19]: 165  Agents acting within institutions and conforming to institutional rules and regulations or using institutionally endowed power reproduce the institution. "If, in so doing, the institutions continue to satisfy certain structural conditions, both in the sense of conditions which delimit the scope for institutional variation and the conditions which underlie the operation of structural differentiation, then the agents may be said to reproduce social structure."[19]: 165 

Thompson also proposed adding a range of alternatives to Giddens' conception of constraints on human action. He pointed out the paradoxical relationship between Giddens' "dialectic of control" and his acknowledgement that constraints may leave an agent with no choice. He demanded that Giddens better show how wants and desires relate to choice.

Giddens replied that a structural principle is not equivalent with rules, and pointed to his definition from A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism: "Structural principles are principles of organisation implicated in those practices most "deeply" (in time) and "pervasively" (in space) sedimented in society",[20]: 54  and described structuration as a "mode of institutional articulation"[21]: 257  with emphasis on the relationship between time and space and a host of institutional orderings including, but not limited to, rules.

Ultimately, Thompson concluded that the concept of structure as "rules and resources" in an elemental and ontological way resulted in conceptual confusion. Many theorists supported Thompson's argument that an analysis "based on structuration's ontology of structures as norms, interpretative schemes and power resources radically limits itself if it does not frame and locate itself within a more broadly conceived notion of social structures."[2]: 51 [22]

Change

[edit]

Sewell provided a useful summary that included one of the theory's less specified aspects: the question "Why are structural transformations possible?" He claimed that Giddens' overrelied on rules and modified Giddens' argument by re-defining "resources" as the embodiment of cultural schemas. He argued that change arises from the multiplicity of structures, the transposable nature of schemas, the unpredictability of resource accumulation, the polysemy of resources and the intersection of structures.[22]: 20 

The existence of multiple structures implies that the knowledgeable agents whose actions produce systems are capable of applying different schemas to contexts with differing resources, contrary to the conception of a universal habitus (learned dispositions, skills and ways of acting). He wrote that "Societies are based on practices that derived from many distinct structures, which exist at different levels, operate in different modalities, and are themselves based on widely varying types and quantities of resources. ...It is never true that all of them are homologous."[22]: 16 

Originally from Bourdieu, transposable schemas can be "applied to a wide and not fully predictable range of cases outside the context in which they were initially learned." That capacity "is inherent in the knowledge of cultural schemas that characterizes all minimally competent members of society."[22]: 17 

Agents may modify schemas even though their use does not predictably accumulate resources. For example, the effect of a joke is never quite certain, but a comedian may alter it based on the amount of laughter it garners regardless of this variability.

Agents may interpret a particular resource according to different schemas. E.g., a commander could attribute his wealth to military prowess, while others could see it as a blessing from the gods or a coincidental initial advantage.

Structures often overlap, confusing interpretation (e.g., the structure of capitalist society includes production from both private property and worker solidarity).

Technology

[edit]
See also: Theories of technology

This theory was adapted and augmented by researchers interested in the relationship between technology and social structures, such as information technology in organizations. DeSanctis and Poole proposed an "adaptive structuration theory" with respect to the emergence and use of group decision support systems. In particular, they chose Giddens' notion of modalities to consider how technology is used with respect to its "spirit". "Appropriations" are the immediate, visible actions that reveal deeper structuration processes and are enacted with "moves". Appropriations may be faithful or unfaithful, be instrumental and be used with various attitudes.[23]

Wanda Orlikowski applied the duality of structure to technology: "The duality of technology identifies prior views of technology as either objective force or as socially constructed product–as a false dichotomy."[24]: 13  She compared this to previous models (the technological imperative, strategic choice, and technology as a trigger) and considered the importance of meaning, power, norms, and interpretive flexibility. Orlikowski later replaced the notion of embedded properties[23] for enactment (use). The "practice lens" shows how people enact structures which shape their use of technology that they employ in their practices.[25] While Orlikowski's work focused on corporations, it is equally applicable to the technology cultures that have emerged in smaller community-based organizations, and can be adapted through the gender sensitivity lens in approaches to technology governance.[26]

Workman, Ford and Allen rearticulated structuration theory as structuration agency theory for modeling socio-biologically inspired structuration in security software.[27] Software agents join humans to engage in social actions of information exchange, giving and receiving instructions, responding to other agents, and pursuing goals individually or jointly.

Four-flows-model

[edit]

The four flows model of organizing is grounded in structuration theory. McPhee and Pamela Zaug (2001)[28] identify four communication flows that collectively perform key organizational functions and distinguish organizations from less formal social groups:

  • Membership negotiation—socialization, but also identification and self-positioning;
  • Organizational self-structuring—reflexive, especially managerial, structuring and control activities;
  • Activity coordination—Interacting to align or adjust local work activities;
  • Institutional positioning in the social order of institutions—mostly external communication to gain recognition and inclusion in the web of social transactions.

Group communication

[edit]

Poole, Seibold, and McPhee wrote that "group structuration theory,"[29]: 3  provides "a theory of group interaction commensurate with the complexities of the phenomenon."[30]: 116 

The theory attempts to integrate macrosocial theories and individuals or small groups, as well as how to avoid the binary categorization of either "stable" or "emergent" groups.

Waldeck et al. concluded that the theory needs to better predict outcomes, rather than merely explaining them. Decision rules support decision-making, which produces a communication pattern that can be directly observable. Research has not yet examined the "rational" function of group communication and decision-making (i.e., how well it achieves goals), nor structural production or constraints. Researchers must empirically demonstrate the recursivity of action and structure, examine how structures stabilize and change over time due to group communication, and may want to integrate argumentation research.[29]

Public relations

[edit]

Falkheimer claimed that integrating structuration theory into public relations (PR) strategies could result in a less agency-driven business, return theoretical focus to the role of power structures in PR, and reject massive PR campaigns in favor of a more "holistic understanding of how PR may be used in local contexts both as a reproductive and [transformational] social instrument."[31]: 103  Falkheimer portrayed PR as a method of communication and action whereby social systems emerge and reproduce. Structuration theory reinvigorates the study of space and time in PR theory. Applied structuration theory may emphasize community-based approaches, storytelling, rituals, and informal communication systems. Moreover, structuration theory integrates all organizational members in PR actions, integrating PR into all organizational levels rather than a separate office. Finally, structuration reveals interesting ethical considerations relating to whether a social system should transform.[31]

COVID-19 and structure

[edit]

the COVID-19 pandemic had huge impact on society since the beginning.[citation needed] When investigating those impacts, many researchers found helpful using structuration theory to explain the change in society. Oliver (2021)[32] used "a theoretical framework derived from Giddens' structuration theory to analyze societal information cultures, concentrating on information and health literacy perspectives." And this framework focused on "the three modalities of structuration, i.e., interpretive schemes, resources, and norms." And in Oliver's research, those three modalities are "resources", "information freedom" and "formal and informal concepts and rules of behavior". After analyzing four countries framework, Oliver and his research team concluded "All our case studies show a number of competing information sources – from traditional media and official websites to various social media platforms used by both the government and the general public – that complicate the information landscape in which we all try to navigate what we know, and what we do not yet know, about the pandemic."

In the research of interpreting how remote work environment change during COVID-19 in South Africa, Walter (2020)[33] applied structuration theory because "it addresses the relationship between actors (or persons) and social structures and how these social structures ultimately realign and conform to the actions of actors" Plus, "these social structures from Giddens's structuration theory assist people to navigate through everyday life."

Zvokuomba (2021)[34] also used Giddens' theory of structuration "to reflect at the various levels of fragilities within the context of COVID-19 lockdown measures." One example in the research is that "theory of structuration and agency point to situations when individuals and groups of people either in compliance or defiance of community norms and rules of survival adopt certain practices." And during pandemic, researched pointed out "reverting to the traditional midwifery became a pragmatic approach to a problem." One example to support this point is that "As medical centers were partly closed, with no basic medication and health staff, the only alternative was seek traditional medical services. "

Business and structure

[edit]

Structuration theory can also be used in explaining business related issues including operating, managing and marketing.

Clifton Scott and Karen Myers (2010[35])studied how the duality of structure can explain the shifts of members' actions during the membership negotiations in an organization by This is an example of how structure evolves with the interaction of a group of people.

Another case study done by Dutta (2016[36]) and his research team shows how the models shift because of the action of individuals. The article examines the relationship between CEO's behavior and a company's cross-border acquisition. This case can also demonstrate one of the major dimensions in the duality of structure, the sense of power from the CEO. Authors found out that the process follows the theory of duality of structure: under the circumstances of CEO is overconfident, and the company is the limitation of resources, the process of cross-border acquisition is likely to be different than before.

Yuan ElaineJ (2011[37])'s research focused on a certain demographic of people under the structure. Authors studied Chinese TV shows and audiences' flavor of the show. The author concludes in the relationship between the audience and the TV shows producers, audiences' behavior has higher-order patterns.

Pavlou and Majchrzak argued that research on business-to-business e-commerce portrayed technology as overly deterministic. The authors employed structuration theory to re-examine outcomes such as economic/business success as well as trust, coordination, innovation, and shared knowledge. They looked beyond technology into organizational structure and practices, and examined the effects on the structure of adapting to new technologies. The authors held that technology needs to be aligned and compatible with the existing "trustworthy"[38]: 179  practices and organizational and market structure. The authors recommended measuring long-term adaptations using ethnography, monitoring and other methods to observe causal relationships and generate better predictions.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Structuration theory

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Structuration theory is a sociological framework developed by British sociologist to explain the recursive interplay between social structures and human agency in the production and reproduction of social systems. At its core is the duality of structure, which posits that social structures—comprising rules and resources—are simultaneously the medium through which occurs and the outcome of that action, enabling and constraining agents while being continually reproduced or transformed by them. Giddens first outlined the theory in his 1979 work Central Problems in Social Theory and fully elaborated it in The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (1984), emphasizing how everyday practices across time and space sustain societal order. The theory addresses the longstanding structure-agency debate in sociology by rejecting dualism in favor of a relational perspective, where agents are knowledgeable and reflexive actors who monitor their own actions and draw upon structural properties to navigate social contexts. Key elements include agency, defined as the capacity to act intentionally within constraints; time-space distanciation, which refers to the stretching of social relations across distances; and routinization, the habitual practices that maintain social systems. Giddens argued that structures only exist virtually in the minds of agents until instantiated through interaction, forming a cycle of structuration that accounts for both stability and change in societies. Structuration theory has profoundly influenced multiple disciplines beyond sociology, including organizational studies, information systems research, and , by providing tools to analyze how power, institutions, and shape social phenomena. For instance, it has been applied to understand migration patterns through the lens of institutional power and individual agency, and to examine how mediates social structures. Despite critiques for its abstractness and challenges in empirical testing, the theory remains a for integrating micro-level actions with macro-level structures in contemporary social analysis.

Origins and Foundations

Historical Context

, a prominent British sociologist born in 1938, developed structuration theory during his academic career, which included teaching positions at the in the 1960s and later as a professor of at , from 1969 to 1997. His work emerged as a response to the post-war dominance of in , which emphasized social equilibrium and overlooked human agency, prompting Giddens to seek integrative frameworks amid shifting theoretical paradigms. At Cambridge, Giddens engaged deeply with evolving debates, later moving to the London School of Economics, where he served as director from 1997 to 2003, but his foundational contributions to structuration occurred primarily during the Cambridge years. The theory's intellectual foundations were laid in Giddens' 1979 book, Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis, where he first articulated the concept of structuration as a way to reconcile agency and , critiquing the dualism inherent in prior sociological traditions. This work drew on critiques of functionalism, as represented by ' emphasis on normative integration and Robert Merton's middle-range theories, which Giddens argued reified social systems at the expense of actors' reflexive capabilities. He also challenged , particularly Claude Lévi-Strauss's approach, for conflating with and neglecting the temporal and practical dimensions of social life, while extending criticisms to for its deterministic view of historical processes that subordinated individual action to economic forces. To bridge micro- and macro-level , Giddens integrated elements from and —focusing on everyday practices and interpretive understandings—with systems theory's emphasis on patterned social relations, aiming to transcend the objectivist-subjectivist divide. Giddens provided the most comprehensive exposition of structuration theory in his 1984 book, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, which formalized the duality of structure as his proposed solution to the longstanding agency-structure problem in sociology. This development occurred against the backdrop of 1970s and 1980s British sociology, where intense debates over the agency-structure dichotomy reflected broader social transformations, including the rise of globalization and increasing individualism that challenged traditional collectivist frameworks. In this era, sociologists grappled with how individual reflexivity could coexist with enduring social institutions amid economic shifts and cultural upheavals, positioning Giddens' theory as a timely intervention in these discussions.

Core Premises

Structuration theory rests on the foundational premise of , which refers to the psychological need of individuals for trust, continuity, and predictability in their daily routines to sustain a stable sense of self and avoid existential anxiety. This security is achieved through the reflexive monitoring of actions within social practices, allowing agents to navigate uncertainty while maintaining a coherent biography. A central critique in the theory is the rejection of both structural determinism, which views social structures as external forces constraining individual action, and voluntarism, which portrays agents as autonomous actors unbound by social constraints. Instead, structuration theory posits a duality where structures are both the medium and outcome of human agency, unifying these opposing perspectives. Social life is inherently embedded in time-space contexts, where interactions are stretched across temporal and spatial distances through mechanisms like disembedding, the process by which social relations are lifted from local contexts and rearticulated elsewhere via symbolic tokens or expert systems. This analysis emphasizes how modernity intensifies time-space distanciation, enabling global interconnections while altering traditional forms of presence and proximity. The theory distinguishes between systems and structures: social systems consist of observable, reproduced patterns of interaction and relations among actors, whereas structures represent the virtual, underlying rules and resources that agents draw upon and instantiate in their practices. Structures are not reified entities but memory traces internalized by knowledgeable agents, facilitating the duality of structure. These properties highlight the skilled, knowledgeable accomplishment of by agents.

Central Concepts

Duality of Structure

The duality of structure represents the foundational principle of structuration theory, positing that social structures are simultaneously the medium of and the outcome from social practices. In this conception, structures do not exist as independent entities external to but are instantiated through the knowledgeable actions of agents, who draw upon them to enable and constrain their conduct while recursively reproducing or transforming them. Structures manifest as rules and resources, which mediate social interaction. Rules encompass significatory aspects that facilitate interpretive schemes for assigning meaning to actions; regulative elements that sanction conduct through normative expectations; and evaluative components that involve the application of sanctions to enforce compliance. Resources, in turn, include allocative forms, such as material objects or transformative capacities over the environment, and authoritative resources, which denote capabilities generating command over persons or outcomes. These elements both empower actors by providing the means for purposeful activity and limit possibilities through embedded constraints, ensuring that social life remains patterned yet open to variation. Central to the duality is the idea that structures persist solely as memory traces within the practical consciousness and unconscious motivations of agents, rather than as objective or reified phenomena. Agents' knowledgeability—encompassing reflexive monitoring of action and tacit understandings—embeds these traces, allowing structures to guide conduct without requiring explicit . This internalizes structure within agency, rejecting any ontological separation between the two. The recursive nature of duality forms a dynamic feedback loop: agents invoke structural properties in the course of action, thereby instantiating them in practice, which in turn may modify those properties through or deliberate innovation. This process underscores structuration as the ongoing production and reproduction of social systems across time and space, where interpenetrate without hierarchy. Illustrative examples highlight this interplay. In language, syntactical and semantic rules serve as structures enabling communication, yet everyday usage by speakers reproduces and subtly alters these rules, evolving the system over time. Similarly, relations in capitalist societies function as allocative and authoritative resources that constrain economic actions while being perpetuated through routine exchanges and legal practices, potentially shifting via collective challenges. By reframing the traditional structure-agency dualism—which treats them as opposed or separable—as a unified duality, structuration theory overcomes dichotomies in social analysis, emphasizing their mutual constitution.

Agency and Knowledgeability

In structuration theory, human agents are conceptualized as knowledgeable and reflexive actors who possess the capacity to monitor their own conduct and the social contexts in which they operate. This reflexivity enables agents to pursue purposive actions while providing discursive accounts of their reasons, distinguishing them from passive entities in social systems. Agency is thus not merely intentional behavior but the inherent ability to "act otherwise," influencing events through transformative interventions. A key aspect of agent knowledgeability is the distinction between discursive and practical consciousness. Discursive consciousness refers to the explicit, articulable knowledge that agents can verbalize, such as rationales for decisions or interpretations of social norms. In contrast, practical consciousness encompasses the tacit, unarticulated "stocks of knowledge" that underpin routine actions and enable agents to "go on" in everyday practices without conscious reflection. Much of this practical knowledge remains inaccessible to discursive awareness, forming the habitual basis for . Agents' actions often generate that extend beyond their immediate intentions, thereby contributing to the ongoing reproduction of social structures. These outcomes arise from the bounded nature of knowledgeability, where even reflexive monitoring cannot fully anticipate systemic feedbacks. For instance, an action like operating a device may inadvertently signal to others, altering the social environment in unforeseen ways. Such unintended effects recursively shape future conditions of action, linking agent intentions to broader structural patterns. Power in structuration theory is understood as the transformative capacity embedded in all agent actions, rather than a possession exclusive to elites or dominant groups. Every agent exercises power by mobilizing resources—allocative (control over material objects) or authoritative (control over human conduct)—to achieve outcomes. This capacity is inherent to agency, allowing interventions that both draw upon and reshape structural properties. Agency operates within structural constraints that limit possible actions, yet these same structures provide enablements that facilitate agent capabilities. Structures impose boundaries through rules and resources that condition conduct, but they simultaneously offer the medium for reflexive monitoring and transformation. Thus, agents reproduce structures in the course of their activities while retaining the potential to alter them through innovative practices. This duality of structure frames the interplay between agent reflexivity and enduring social properties.

Modalities of Practice

In structuration theory, the modalities of practice refer to the three dimensions—signification, domination, and —through which agents draw upon structural properties in their social interactions, thereby reproducing those structures as both medium and outcome of action. These modalities serve as the channels linking agency to , enabling knowledgeable agents to instantiate abstract rules and resources in concrete practices. The modality of signification involves the use of interpretive schemes, which are sets of rules that facilitate the and communication of meaning in social interaction. Agents rely on these schemes to make sense of their circumstances and the actions of others, drawing upon shared linguistic and discursive resources to achieve mutual understanding. For instance, in everyday communication, interpretive schemes allow participants to interpret utterances and behaviors within a common framework, ensuring coherence in social exchanges. The modality of domination pertains to the exercise of power through facilities, which are structured resources that confer transformative capacity upon agents. These facilities are divided into allocative resources, involving control over products or conditions of the environment, and authoritative resources, concerning the coordination of through control over the activities of others. Agents mobilize these resources asymmetrically in interactions, influencing outcomes while simultaneously reproducing the power relations embedded within them. The modality of encompasses the application of normative rules and sanctions that regulate and justify social conduct. These norms provide evaluative standards for actions, with sanctions—ranging from approval to disapproval—reinforcing and within social systems. Through legitimation, agents not only adhere to established expectations but also invoke them to validate their own behaviors, thereby sustaining the normative order. The modalities are interconnected, forming a recursive loop where signification provides the interpretive basis for domination and , while power exercises and normative justifications, in turn, shape meaningful communication. For example, rules of signification enable mutual understanding that underpins the allocation of resources in domination, which is then legitimized through shared norms. This interplay embodies the duality of , as the modalities connect recursive practices to structural . As virtual properties, the modalities exist as "absent" or latent dimensions of social systems, instantiated only through the knowledgeable conduct of agents across time and . They are not tangible entities but transformative relations stored in agents' memory traces and reproduced in ongoing practices, allowing structure to persist without determining action.

The Structuration Process

Interaction and Signification

In structuration theory, interaction constitutes the primary site of social engagement, particularly through face-to-face encounters where agents draw upon the modality of signification to foster mutual understanding and produce meaning. These encounters involve agents mobilizing interpretive schemes—stocks of knowledge that encode shared significations—to interpret and respond to each other's actions in real time. Signification structures, as rules of semiotics, provide the foundational framework for this process, enabling agents to attribute meaning to behaviors within the constraints and possibilities of their social context. Hermeneutic processes underpin these interactions, as agents continually interpret one another's actions through shared cultural codes embedded in and systems. This involves a recursive understanding where practical — of social rules—guides the application of interpretive schemes, allowing for the of meanings without explicit reflection. Giddens describes this as a "double hermeneutic," wherein lay actors' interpretations intersect with broader social practices, ensuring that meanings are not static but dynamically reproduced through ongoing . These shared codes, such as linguistic conventions, facilitate coherence in interaction by linking individual intentions to collective understandings. A representative example of this dynamic is everyday conversations, where participants reproduce social norms through the use of . In a casual exchange, speakers rely on interpretive schemes to infer intent from words and tones, adhering to unspoken rules of that signify or ; such interactions subtly reinforce cultural expectations without deliberate intent. This process highlights how signification operates in mundane settings to maintain social continuity. Within the broader cycle of structuration, interaction via signification generates immediate outcomes—such as clarified meanings or resolved ambiguities—that serve as inputs for subsequent phases, thereby perpetuating the reproduction of social structures. These momentary exchanges instantiate structural properties, transforming abstract rules into concrete practices that agents can draw upon in future actions. Temporally, interactions represent ephemeral instantiations of structures, occurring at the intersection of agents' time-paths in specific locales, yet contributing to the enduring patterning of social systems over time. This temporal underscores how signification in interaction bridges the immediate present with historical continuity, allowing structures to persist through recursive human activity.

Routinization and Domination

In structuration theory, routinization refers to the process by which recurrent social interactions are transformed into habitual, taken-for-granted practices that provide agents with and sustain the continuity of social institutions. These routines, grounded in the practical consciousness of actors, involve repetitive activities that extend across time and space, embedding social practices within broader structural contexts. Routinization thus serves as a mechanism for stabilizing , allowing individuals to minimize anxiety through predictable patterns of that are not typically subject to reflexive scrutiny. The modality of domination plays a central in this routinization, as agents draw upon resources—allocative resources, such as control over material objects and environments, and authoritative resources, involving the coordination of human activity—to exercise power and achieve intended outcomes in social interactions. Through domination, power is not merely repressive but generative, enabling actors to transform fleeting encounters into enduring routines while simultaneously reproducing existing inequalities, as those with greater access to resources can impose their will more effectively on others. For instance, in hierarchies, authoritative resources like managerial positions allow supervisors to coordinate labor and allocate tasks, thereby routinizing employee compliance and perpetuating control structures that favor those in power. Over time, these routinized practices exert feedback on the underlying rules and resources of social structures, either reinforcing them through habitual or altering them in response to changing conditions, such as shifts in power dynamics. Much of this process occurs as unacknowledged conditions of action, operating below the level of discursive consciousness in the realm of practical , where agents perform routines without explicit of their structural implications. This interplay between routinization and domination underscores how initial interactions, mediated by power and resources, evolve into trusted habits that both draw upon and reshape the structural properties of society.

Reproduction and Legitimation

In structuration theory, denotes the ongoing instantiation of social structures through the recursive practices of agents, whereby structures serve simultaneously as the medium and outcome of , ensuring their persistence across time and space. This process relies on the regularized enactment of routines, where agents reflexively monitor and familiar patterns of behavior, thereby maintaining the conditions for without necessarily intending systemic continuity. As Giddens explains, "he rules and resources drawn upon in the production and of are at the same time the means of " (p. 19). Legitimation forms the normative facet of reproduction, encompassing the invocation of shared norms and sanctions to evaluate and authorize conduct, thus normalizing routines and upholding . Norms function as rules of sanctioning that agents draw upon to legitimize actions, penalizing deviations through social disapproval or institutional mechanisms, which reinforces structural stability. For instance, in everyday interactions, agents invoke normative expectations—such as ethical conventions or legal standards—to justify their conduct, closing the structurational cycle by linking back to interpretive and power dimensions. This legitimation process, grounded in mutual among agents, fosters and the seamless integration of practices into enduring social forms. Within this framework, agents account for their actions through discursive and practical , articulating rationales that invoke legitimating norms and thereby perpetuate or subtly alter structures. This accounting mechanism completes the loop of structuration, as reflexive explanations of conduct draw upon the same rules and resources that enabled the initial interaction, ensuring normative coherence. However, reproduction is not mechanically deterministic; agents possess the capacity for , allowing deviations from routines that can seed when normative sanctions are contested or reinterpreted. Central to and reproduction is the of control, which highlights how even subordinate agents exercise transformative power to resist domination, leveraging allocative or authoritative resources to challenge imposed norms and facilitate systemic . Subordinates, while constrained by existing structures, can appropriate resources in unforeseen ways, invoking alternative that undermine routine reproduction and enable transformation. This dialectical tension underscores that power is not merely repressive but generative, allowing agents to negotiate and reshape normative orders. Over the long term, reproduction through legitimated practices leads to the maintenance of social systems, where of routine actions accumulate to either reinforce stability or precipitate gradual . When agents consistently adhere to normative sanctions, structures endure as institutionalized patterns; conversely, innovative appropriations within the can disrupt this equilibrium, driving adaptive changes that reflect the dynamic interplay of agency and . These outcomes emphasize structuration's emphasis on time-space distanciation, where localized practices aggregate into broader systemic persistence or reconfiguration.

Methodological Implications

Ontological and Epistemological Guidelines

Structuration theory's ontological foundation posits as continually produced and reproduced through the recursive practices of knowledgeable agents, rejecting any dualistic separation between subjects and objects in social analysis. This view, rooted in the duality of , treats not as an external constraint but as both the medium and outcome of , instantiated in ongoing social practices across time and space. As Giddens articulates, "the basic domain of study of the social sciences... is neither the experience of the individual actor, nor the existence of any form of societal totality, but social practices ordered across space and time." Ontologically, this implies that social systems exist only through their reproduction by agents, with no pre-given essence independent of human activity. Epistemologically, structuration theory dismisses positivist approaches that seek universal laws or objective measurements akin to natural sciences, favoring interpretive methods attuned to agents' reflexivity and mutual knowledge. Giddens critiques for overlooking the interpretive character of social life, where actors routinely monitor and rationalize their conduct in context-specific ways. Instead, research must engage the "double hermeneutic," whereby social scientists interpret the already-interpreted meanings of social actors, potentially reshaping those meanings upon re-entry into social life. As Giddens explains, "the conceptual schemes of the social sciences therefore express a double hermeneutic" in contrast to the single hermeneutic of natural sciences. This reflexive process underscores the need for methodologies sensitive to lay knowledgeability, avoiding reifications that treat social phenomena as brute facts. Methodological guidelines for structurational research emphasize generative processes over static descriptions, directing attention to how structures enable and constrain agency without resorting to functionalist explanations that assume systemic equilibrium. Key principles include: (1) conceptualizing social life as a skilled, reflexive accomplishment involving signification, , and domination; (2) avoiding grand narratives or totalizing theories that privilege either micro- or macro-levels in isolation; (3) prioritizing the of time-space relations in the constitution of social practices; (4) rejecting deterministic models in favor of understanding agency as transformative potential; (5) focusing on the duality of as the basis for linking action to institutions; (6) distinguishing institutional —which examines enduring properties of social systems—from strategic conduct , which probes agents' reflexive monitoring and alteration of rules and resources; and (7) employing interpretive immersion in actors' "forms of life" to achieve hermeneutic penetration without imposing external causal schemas. These guidelines ensure research captures the recursive interplay of agency and , as in Giddens' assertion that " must not be conceptualized as simply placing constraints upon human agency, but as enabling." The duality of thus serves as the ontological basis for these methodological orientations, bridging abstract theory with empirical inquiry.

Empirical Research Strategies

Empirical research strategies in structuration theory provide operational frameworks for investigating the interplay between agency and in social settings, drawing selectively from the theory's ontological foundations to guide and analysis. These strategies employ methodological to avoid reifying either structures or agents, allowing researchers to examine social practices as both constraining and enabling. Central to this approach is the recognition that empirical inquiry must capture the recursive processes through which structures are produced and reproduced in everyday actions. Institutional analysis maps observable social systems and recurrent patterns of interaction to reveal how structural properties—such as rules of signification, facilities of domination, and norms of —are embedded in practices. This bracket temporarily suspends attention to individual motivations to focus on the emergent properties of institutions, illustrating the duality of where systems both draw on and instantiate structural elements. Giddens outlines institutional as a way to study the "virtual" existence of structures through their manifestation in observable social arrangements. In practice, it involves identifying position-practice relations and networks that sustain social systems over time. Strategic conduct analysis shifts focus to agents' knowledgeable actions, examining how individuals reflexively apply structural modalities to navigate and influence their contexts. This approach highlights ' internal structures, including general dispositions (e.g., habitual orientations) and conjuncturally specific (e.g., of immediate opportunities and constraints), to explain strategic . Stones develops this bracket to center the "agent-in-focus," enabling detailed exploration of how agents reconcile their knowledgeability with external conditions without reducing outcomes to deterministic forces. It underscores Giddens' view that agents are competent in their routine activities, actively drawing on structures to achieve intended and . Spatio-temporal analysis traces the extension of social practices across time and , analyzing how local interactions contribute to broader regionalization and distanciation. This strategy investigates time-space edges—boundaries where practices are coordinated or stretched— to understand how structures operate beyond immediate locales, such as in global networks or historical trajectories. Giddens integrates this dimension to emphasize that social analysis must account for the contextual embedding of action in temporal rhythms and spatial arrangements. It complements the other brackets by revealing how conduct and institutions are not static but dynamically reproduced through ongoing processes. To implement these strategies, researchers often employ qualitative methods suited to capturing dynamic processes. facilitates in-depth observation of interactions, as in Barley's comparative field study of radiology technicians adopting imaging technology, where 10 months of immersion revealed shifts in structures and interpretive schemes. Historical analysis, meanwhile, reconstructs patterns of reproduction over extended periods, exemplified by Barrett and Walsham's examination of systems in the London insurance market, drawing on nine years of archival and interview data to trace changes in power relations and routines. Case studies combining these techniques allow for , linking micro-level observations to macro-level patterns. A primary challenge in applying these strategies is balancing micro- and macro-level analyses without succumbing to , where agent actions are overlooked in favor of systemic forces, or dualism, which separates from agency. The theory's abstract nature demands rigorous to maintain analytical focus, yet integrating findings across brackets can be complex, requiring iterative movement between agent conduct and institutional contexts. Strong structuration theory addresses this by explicitly linking internal and external structures, promoting a multi-level that enhances empirical tractability while preserving the theory's core duality.

Applications

Organizational and Management Contexts

In structuration theory, organizational structures are conceptualized as dualities of rules and resources that agents draw upon and reproduce through their practices. Rules encompass interpretive schemes that facilitate signification—enabling shared understandings—and normative elements that support , while resources include allocative ones (such as material assets) and authoritative ones (such as hierarchical power distributions). Hierarchies, for example, serve as authoritative resources that are perpetuated through routinized interactions, constraining yet enabling and coordination within firms. This duality underscores how structures are not static impositions but dynamically instantiated in everyday organizational activities. The theory illuminates organizational change processes by emphasizing agents' reflexivity, which allows them to appropriate rules and resources for amid disruptions like mergers or strategic shifts. In cross-border acquisitions, CEOs exercise agency through overconfidence and slack resources to path dependencies formed by prior experiences, thereby influencing entry-mode decisions such as versus minority . An of 4,812 U.S. firms' acquisitions from 2000 to 2010 revealed that these factors significantly enable path-breaking changes, highlighting the recursive interplay between (e.g., historical routines) and agency in internationalization strategies. Similarly, reflexivity supports broader adaptations in , where agents iteratively reshape structures to align with evolving goals. Leadership applications of structuration theory portray influence as a recursive , where leaders leverage to transform organizational structures. A of a from 2014 to 2023 demonstrated how leaders used two cycles—framed as structurational es—to double the client base and increase assets sevenfold, by enhancing mission alignment, internal coordination, and external despite transitions and external challenges. This approach builds enduring strategizing , extending structuration's duality to public and nonprofit contexts. In group communication, structuration theory informs models like the four-flows framework, which integrates , influence, and agency to explain how communication constitutes organizations. Developed by McPhee and colleagues, the model outlines four flows: membership negotiation (shaping identities and roles), reflexive self-structuring (using resources like policies for internal steering), activity coordination (aligning actions through shared knowledge), and institutional positioning (managing external relations). Fulk and DeSanctis applied this in analyzing , particularly in distributed teams, where flows facilitate the reproduction of structures amid diverse influences, such as power asymmetries in . Public relations draws on structuration theory to frame as an agent-structure interplay, where communication practices safeguard across levels. Thiessen and Ingenhoff's framework applies Giddens' concepts to , integrating strategic (macro-level alignment with societal norms), integrated (meso-level internal-external coherence), and situational (micro-level tailored messaging) elements. Through signification (sense-making), (trust-building), and domination (perception control), organizations reproduce , as seen in multidimensional protection during crises. This approach emphasizes agents' reflexive use of rules and resources to maintain functional, social, and emotional legitimacy.

Technology and Information Systems

Structuration theory has been widely applied in information systems research to analyze the interactions between technology and social action, including digital participation; it serves as a foundational framework for studies on how information systems shape and are shaped by user practices. Adaptive structuration theory (AST), developed by Gerardine DeSanctis and Marshall Scott Poole, extends Giddens's structuration theory to explain how advanced information technologies influence organizational structures through group appropriation processes. In AST, is not merely a tool but a set of structures that groups appropriate via their rules and resources, leading to faithful or ironic adaptations that shape social practices and outcomes in group decision support systems. For instance, when groups use , they draw on the technology's built-in features—such as templates for —but interpret and modify them according to existing norms, thereby reproducing or transforming organizational routines. Wanda Orlikowski's work further refines this perspective by conceptualizing technology as the duality of structure, where information systems emerge from and recursively influence human action in organizations. In her 1992 study of case management software in consulting firms, Orlikowski demonstrated how users' ongoing interactions with the technology produce emergent structures, such as new interpretive schemes for client interactions, which in turn alter the technology's role over time. This duality underscores that technologies like systems are not fixed artifacts but outcomes of structurational processes, evolving through practices of signification, , and domination. Modalities of practice, such as interpretive rules in software use, thus play a key role in this appropriation without predetermining technological impacts. In and digital platforms, structuration theory illuminates how trust is reproduced through online interactions and institutional mechanisms. Paul A. Pavlou and Ann Majchrzak applied the theory to intermediaries, showing that platforms' structural properties—such as feedback systems and contracts—enable users to enact trust via routines of monitoring and sanctioning, which sustain virtual exchanges. Their analysis reveals that trust emerges not from alone but from the duality of agentic adaptations and platform rules, fostering repeated transactions in environments like online marketplaces. Recent applications extend structuration to within frameworks, emphasizing recursive structuring in predictive systems. A 2025 study proposes an Structuration framework comprising three layers—data input, algorithmic processing, and output interpretation—where AI forecasting models co-evolve with human practices, such as data annotation routines that reinforce biases or enable ethical adjustments. This approach highlights how structuration theory accounts for AI's role in reproducing social structures, like predictive inequalities in applications, through ongoing human-AI interactions. In tech-mediated groups, such as virtual teams, the four-flows model derived from structuration theory explains organizational emergence through communication flows. Robert D. McPhee and Pamela Zaug's framework identifies flows of membership , self-structuring, activity coordination, and institutional positioning, which in digital settings manifest as flows of attention (e.g., via notification systems) and influence (e.g., through shared editing tools in collaborative platforms). These flows illustrate how technologies like video conferencing reproduce structures by channeling reflexive monitoring and sanctioning, ensuring coherence in distributed work despite physical separation.

Contemporary Societal Issues

Structuration theory has been applied to analyze the societal impacts of the , particularly in how cultures and structural constraints shaped public responses and vulnerabilities. In a study of national responses to the pandemic, Oliver et al. (2021) utilized Giddens' structuration theory to conceptualize societal cultures, demonstrating how pre-existing structures of access and influenced the and uptake of guidelines across different countries, thereby affecting compliance and outcomes. Similarly, Walter (2020) employed structuration theory to examine the rapid shift to in , highlighting how agents' reflexive adaptations to lockdown-induced structures—such as digital infrastructure inequalities—reproduced or challenged existing power dynamics in labor markets. In , Zvokuomba (2021) applied the theory to explore lockdown vulnerabilities, revealing how and inequality as structural properties exacerbated community fragilities, with agents' constrained agency leading to heightened risks during enforced isolation measures. Recent extensions of structuration theory address governance challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI), especially in multi-agent systems where recursive interactions mirror Giddens' duality of structure. A 2025 framework, the MAS Structuration Model, positions structuration theory as a tool for in multi-agent systems, emphasizing how agents' rules and resources recursively shape and system behaviors to prevent unintended societal harms. Complementing this, recursive governance approaches inspired by Giddens have been proposed for and control, framing AI deployment as a structurational process where human oversight and algorithmic structures co-evolve, ensuring accountability in high-stakes applications like autonomous decision systems. In the realm of , 2025 studies have leveraged structuration theory to investigate AI's role in organizational development and human-AI collaboration, focusing on how these technologies alter signification, domination, and in societal contexts. For instance, the MAS Structuration Model has been applied to analyze human-AI interactions in collaborative environments, showing how agents' reflexive use of AI tools restructures production and power relations, fostering adaptive societal norms in industries undergoing . Public health applications post-2020 have increasingly incorporated strong structuration theory to unpack choices, emphasizing the interplay between individual agency and structural constraints in crisis response. Research applying strong structuration theory to highlights its utility in explaining why individuals in diverse settings make varying compliance decisions during pandemics, attributing divergences to positioned practices that mediate between personal reflexivity and societal structures like healthcare access and policy enforcement. Amid business disruptions from crises, structuration theory illuminates shifts in membership categories and practices, with foundational work by Scott and Myers (2010) extended to recent events to show how agents' routinized behaviors adapt to structural changes, such as interruptions, thereby reproducing or transforming economic inclusion in digital marketplaces.

Criticisms and Extensions

Strong Structuration Theory

Strong structuration theory, developed by Rob Stones in his 2005 book Structuration Theory, extends ' original framework by emphasizing a more robust integration of external structural influences that Giddens somewhat underemphasized, thereby providing a stronger ontological and methodological foundation for empirical analysis. Stones critiques the abstract nature of Giddens' duality of , building upon it to create a more concrete model that prioritizes the interplay between agents and structures in specific contexts. Central to this extension is the quadripartite cycle of structuration, which delineates the dynamic process as follows: external structures (pre-existing social conditions beyond immediate agent control) shape agents' conduct; this conduct, in turn, draws upon and modifies internal structures (agents' , motivations, and resources); the resulting outcomes then feed back to reinforce or alter external structures, ensuring a recursive loop. This cycle enhances analytical precision by distinguishing these four elements—external structures, agents' conduct, internal structures, and outcomes—allowing researchers to trace structuration processes more systematically than in Giddens' original formulation. Stones introduces methodological bracketing as a four-step analytical strategy to operationalize this cycle empirically, alternating between agent-centered and structure-centered perspectives: first, analyze external structures conditioning action; second, examine agents' internal structures and strategic conduct; third, assess the outcomes of that conduct; and fourth, evaluate feedback effects on external structures. This approach, refined from Stones' earlier proposal, promotes disciplined empirical investigation by temporarily "bracketing" one dimension to focus on the other, facilitating iterative without reducing complexity. The theory has been applied to enhance empirical depth in fields like , particularly post-2020 amid the , where it elucidates how external policy structures influence healthcare workers' conduct and outcomes in app-based symptom tracking systems. For instance, studies using strong structuration theory have analyzed global interventions by mapping quadripartite cycles to reveal how power asymmetries in resource distribution constrain agents' responses to pandemics. Overall, strong structuration theory improves upon Giddens' model by affording greater attention to power asymmetries—such as unequal access to structural resources—and contextual constraints that limit agentic possibilities, thereby enabling more nuanced examinations of in unequal settings.

Post-Structurational Critiques and Dualism

Post-structurational critiques of Anthony Giddens' structuration theory emerged prominently through Margaret Archer's morphogenetic approach, which challenges the theory's core duality of structure by advocating for analytical dualism and temporal separation between structural conditioning and agential elaboration. In her 1995 work, Archer argues that Giddens' framework conflates structure and agency into a simultaneous duality, thereby obscuring the sequential processes of social change; instead, her morphogenetic cycle posits four phases—structural conditioning, socio-cultural interaction, structural elaboration, and cultural conditioning—that allow agency to emerge independently over time, enabling morphogenesis (change) or morphostasis (stability). This approach directly critiques structuration's recursive model for failing to account for the emergent properties of stratified social reality, where pre-existing structures condition but do not instantaneously instantiate agency. Revivals of dualism in critiques highlight Giddens' alleged of ontological levels, resulting in conceptual that undermines the theory's . Scholars like Nicos Mouzelis contend that structuration's duality reduces structure to virtual rules and resources instantiated solely through human action, blurring the distinction between systemic properties and agential practices, which leads to an over-voluntarist bias and difficulty in distinguishing constraining structures from enabling ones. This revival of analytical dualism posits that structures possess relative from agents, allowing for a clearer delineation of causal mechanisms in , in contrast to Giddens' emphasis on their mutual constitution. Critiques regarding further expose structuration's limitations in explaining radical transformation as opposed to routine . William Sewell Jr. argues that Giddens' privileges the duality's recursive stability, providing insufficient mechanisms for "eventful" transformations where structures are reconfigured through contingent events and multi-sited practices, thus rendering radical shifts—like revolutionary upheavals—analytically underdeveloped. Such analyses suggest that structuration's focus on knowledgeable agents reproducing systems overlooks how dislocations in resource distribution or rule application can precipitate non-reproductive change, confining the to incremental rather than discontinuous dynamics. In the domain of technology, post-structurational critiques fault Giddens for overemphasizing human agency at the expense of material affordances inherent in technological artifacts. Wanda Orlikowski's examination reveals that structuration neglects the duality of technology itself, where artifacts not only enable but also constrain actions through their material properties, such as software interfaces that afford specific interactions while limiting others, thereby requiring an extension to incorporate non-human elements as active structurating forces. This oversight leads to an anthropocentric bias, ignoring how technologies' affordances—defined as relational possibilities between users and objects—shape social practices independently of intentional agency. Overall, these critiques underscore debates about structuration theory's abstractness, which hinders its empirical by lacking operationalizable guidelines for distinguishing between in concrete settings. Marlei Pozzebon and Alain Pinsonneault highlight that the theory's ontological breadth, while innovative, results in methodological vagueness, complicating the techniques Giddens proposed and leading to inconsistent applications in fields like information systems research. Consequently, scholars advocate for more grounded adaptations to enhance , though the theory's conceptual ambiguity persists as a barrier to rigorous empirical validation.

Adaptations by Thompson and Others

John B. Thompson adapted ' structuration theory to the domain of mediated communication in his seminal work, emphasizing how transform social relations by stretching them across time and space. In The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media (1995), Thompson introduced the concept of "stretched social relations," where media enable non-localized interactions through forms like mediated quasi-interaction, in which individuals engage with symbolic content produced by distant others without direct reciprocity. This adaptation highlights the duality of structure in media contexts, where technological and institutional properties of media both constrain and enable agency, reshaping 's social landscape. Giddens himself extended structuration theory to address and , integrating concepts like time-space compression to explain how global processes intensify structuration dynamics. In The Consequences of Modernity (1990), he described how disembedding mechanisms—such as symbolic tokens and expert systems—facilitate the lifting of social relations from local contexts, allowing structuration to operate on a transnational scale and contributing to the "runaway world" of . These extensions underscore the theory's relevance to understanding global interconnectedness, where agency and structure recursively influence expansive social systems. Other key adaptations include change models that incorporate , particularly in organizational settings. Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST), developed by Gerardine DeSanctis and Marshall Scott Poole, refines Giddens' framework to examine how groups appropriate advanced technologies, emphasizing faithful versus ironic appropriations that drive and organizational change. In business contexts like acquisitions, structuration has been applied to model how pre-existing structures and agentic actions interplay during integration, fostering hybrid forms that address cultural and operational gaps. Additionally, the four-flows model, advanced by Robert D. McPhee and colleagues, extends structuration beyond small groups to broader organizational networks by identifying communication flows—membership , reflexive self-structuring, activity coordination, and institutional positioning—that constitute and sustain structures. These adaptations collectively enhance structuration theory's utility by tailoring its core principles of duality and recursion to domain-specific challenges, such as media transformation, global dynamics, technological innovation, and networked organizations, thereby bridging theoretical abstraction with empirical application.

References

  1. https://opentext.ku.edu/teams/chapter/structuration-theory/
  2. https://misq.umn.edu/gidden-s-structuration-theory-and-information-systems-research.html
  3. https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520039759/central-problems-in-social-theory
  4. https://www.politybooks.com/bookdetail/?isbn=9780745600065
  5. https://www.siue.edu/GEOGRAPHY/ONLINE/Wolfel05.pdf
  6. https://www.lse.ac.uk/people/lord-tony-giddens
  7. https://uregina.ca/~gingrich/319m606.htm
  8. https://www.arasite.org/giddcp.htm
  9. https://dokumen.pub/central-problems-in-social-theory-action-structure-and-contradiction-in-social-analysis-9781350362888-9780333272947.html
  10. https://assets.cambridge.org/97805212/61975/sample/9780521261975ws.pdf
  11. https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520057289/the-constitution-of-society
  12. https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/269854181/Anthony_Giddens_and_structuration_theory.pdf
  13. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/sociology/structuration-theory
  14. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Constitution_of_Society.html?id=x2bf4g9Z6ZwC
  15. https://books.google.com/books/about/Central_Problems_in_Social_Theory.html?id=jpxkQ-1elyAC
  16. http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_constitution_of_society.pdf
  17. https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/HJSA/article/download/7043/5693
  18. http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/56680/1/13.pdf
  19. https://projects.itforchange.net/mavc/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Handout-3-Cheat-Sheet-on-Structuration-Theory-.pdf
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080449104006593
  21. https://books.google.com/books/about/New_Rules_of_Sociological_Method.html?id=uyrWvhZ4Mx0C
  22. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/112720/1/emre.12490.pdf
  23. https://pesquisa-eaesp.fgv.br/sites/gvpesquisa.fgv.br/files/arquivos/marlei_pozzebon_challenges_in_conducting_empirical_work_using_structuration.pdf
  24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2015.07.001
  25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342898144_Structuration_Theory
  26. https://folia.unifr.ch/rerodoc/278672/files/2011_Thiessen_Ingenhoff_Safeguarding_reputation_strategic_integrated_situational.pdf
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252918417_Gidden%27s_structuration_theory_and_information_systems_research
  28. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.5.2.121
  29. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.3.3.398
  30. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/structuration-theory-capturing-complexity-business/6138
  31. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392388119_Artificial_Intelligence_Structuration_in_Machine_Learning
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240259693_Introducing_strong_structuration_theory_for_informing_qualitative_case_studies_in_organization_management_and_accounting_research
  33. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0038038591025004007
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1568494621011169
  35. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-23627-014
  36. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/realist-social-theory/D46221F29C69F26D8ADA58B3BB7D9694
  37. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337112445_The_Morphogenetic_Approach_Critical_Realism%27s_Explanatory_Framework_Approach
  38. https://www.academia.edu/1050129/Beyond_the_Structure_Agency_Dualism_An_Evaluation_of_Giddens_Theory_of_Structuration_
  39. https://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/constraint98.pdf
  40. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357435647_Structuration_Theory_Understanding_Social_Change_and_Transformation
  41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25148831
  42. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236591952_The_Materiality_of_Technology_An_Affordance_Perspective
  43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247733977_Challenges_in_Conducting_Empirical_Work_Using_Structuration_Theory_Learning_from_IT_Research
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.