Shopping on line can be easy, simple and save you lots of money. It can also take a lot of your time, frustrate you, and result in unwanted purchases. Now the same can be said for regular high street shopping, but with the vast opportunity presented by the Internet it will pay you to spend a few minutes reading this and understanding how to better optimize your Structuration Theory shopping experience:
1. Compare - without doubt the biggest advantage that the Structuration Theory offers shoppers today is the ability to compare thousands of Structuration Theory at a time. This is a great thing, but not necessarily all the time! Too much can be daunting at times so take advantage of the great comparison sites and where possible let them do the hard work for you.
2. Research - if it has been said it will be on the internet. Ignorance is no longer a justifiable reason for buying the wrong thing. Take the time to research in detail everything that you could possible want to know about
3. Testimonials - don't know anybody that has bought a Structuration Theory? Wrong! If the Structuration Theory is good the internet will let you know. Use the Internet as a friend and get testimonials before you buy.
4. Questions - Got a question about Structuration Theory then search the Forums, FAQ's, Blogs etc. Don't be afraid to ask .....
5. Reputation - Never heard of the company selling Structuration Theory? Don't worry, no reason why you should know every company in the world, but you know someone that does! Use the internet to find out what people are saying about Structuration Theory and build up a picture of their reputation for sales, returns, customer service, delivery etc.
6. Returns - still worried that even after all of the above your Structuration Theory wont be what you want? Check out the returns policy. There is so much competition now that someone, somewhere is bound to offer the terms that you are comfortable with.
7. Feedback - happy with your Structuration Theory then let people know, after all you are depending on others people input in your buying decision, so why not give a little back.
8. Security - check for the yellow padlock on the Structuration Theory site before you buy, and the s after http:/ /i.e. https:// = a secure site
9. Contact - got a question about Structuration Theory, or want to leave a comment then check out the sites contact page. Reputable companies have them and respond.
10. Payment - ready to pay for your Structuration Theory, then use your credit card or PayPal! Be aware of companies that don't accept them, there may be genuine reasons but given the huge amount of choice you have when buying online there is no reason at all not to buy via credit card or PayPal.
The
theory of structuration, proposed by Anthony Giddens (1984) in
The Constitution of Society, (mentioned also in
Central Problems of Social Theory, 1979) is an attempt to reconcile theoretical
dichotomy of social systems such as
Structure and agency, subjective/objective, and
microsociology/
macrosociology perspectives. The approach does not focus on the individual actor or societal totality "but social practices ordered across space and time" (p. 2). Its proponents adopt this balanced position, attempting to treat influences of structure (which inherently includes culture) and agency equally. See structure and agency.
Basic assumptions
- Social life is not the sum of all micro-level activity, but social activity cannot be completely explained from a macro perspective.
- The repetition of the acts of individual agents reproduce the structure.
- Social structures are neither inviolable nor permanent.
The duality of structure
Structuration theory aims to avoid extremes of structural or agent determinism. The balancing of agency and structure is referred to as the
duality of structure: social structures make social action possible, and at the same time that social action creates those very structures.
For Giddens, structures are rules and resources (sets of transformation relations) organized as properties of social systems. Rules are patterns people may follow in social life. Resources relate to what is created by human action; they are not given by nature (explained further below)The theory employs a
recursive notion of actions constrained and enabled by structures which are produced and reproduced by that action. Consequently, this theory has been adopted by those with structuralist inclinations, but who wish to situate such structures in human practice rather than
reify them as an ideal type or material property. (This is different, for example, from
Actor-network theory which grants a certain autonomy to technical artifacts.) Additionally, the theory of structuration distinguishes between discursive and practical knowledge, recognizes actors as knowledgeable, such knowledge is reflexive and situated, and that habitual use becomes institutionalized.
A social system can be understood by its structure, modality, and interaction.
Structure is constituted by rules and resources governing and available to agents. (
Authoritative resources control persons, whereas
allocative resources control material objects.) The
modality of a structural system is the means by which structures are translated into action.
Interaction is the activity instantiated by the agent acting within the social system. There has been some attempt by various theorists to link structuration theory to systems theory (with its emphasis on recursive loops) or the
complexity theory of organizational structure (which emphasizes the adaptabililty that simple structures provide). Thus social systems have patterns of social relation that exist over time; the changing nature of space and time will thus determine the interaction of social relations and therefore structure. 19th century Britain - (time)- had a geographically defined space and there were certain rules set out by the time and space, therefore this effects the action thus determining structure and the structure is upheld in so far as it is reproduced in action. Hitherto social structures or 'model's of society' were taken to be beyond the realm of human control - the positivistic approach; the other social theory would be that of action creating society - the interpretivist approach. The duality of structure would argue that, in the most basic assumption, that they are one and the same--different sides to the coin of a similar problem of order.
Agency, as Giddens calls it, is human action. To be human is to be an agent, albeit not all agents are human beings. Agency is closely tied to social structures in so far as they interact and produce society together. Agents have knowledge of their society and this mutual knowledge that therein produces structures. The everyday, mundane life agents lead is part of the reproduction in society, thus caused by action and upheld in structure. Giddens refers to 'ontological security' in the trust people have in social structure and that everyday actions have some degree of predicablity thus ensuring social stability.
Agency, apart from reproduction of society, also can lead to the transformation of society. One way to explain this concept is by, what Giddens calls, the 'reflexive monitoring of actions' - Giddens has referred to reflexive monitoring a lot in his academic literature. Reflexive monitoring looks at the ability to look at actions to judge their effectivness in achieving their objectives: if agents can reproduce structure through action, they can also transform it.
Types of structures
Giddens identifies three types of structures in social systems, those of
signification,
legitimation, and
domination. These are analytical distinctions, rather than distinct ideal types, that mobilize and reinforce one another.
- Signification: produces meaning through organized webs of language (semantic codes, interpretive schemes and discursive practices).
- Domination: produces (and is an exercise of) power (sociology), originating from the control of resources.
To understand how they work together, consider how the signification of a concept (e.g., the use of the word "patriot" in political speech) borrows from and contributes to legitimization (e.g., nationalistic norms) and coordinates forms of domination (e.g., a
police state), from which it in turn gains further force.
Change
Sewell (1992) provides a useful summary of the theory as well as taking on one of its underspecified aspects: the question "Why are structural changes possible?" He argues changes arises from (p. 16-19):
- "The multiplicity of structures -- 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."
- the transposability of rules: they can be "applied to a wide and not fully predictable range of cases outside the context in which they were initially learned."
- the unpredictability of resource accumulation (e.g. investment, military tactics, or a comedian's repertoire).
- the polysemy of resources (e.g., to what should success in resource accumulation be attributed?).
- the intersection of structures: they interact (e.g. in the structure of capitalist society there are both the modes of production based on private property and profit, as well as the mode of labor organization based on worker solidarity).
Technology
This theory has been adapted and augmented by researchers interested in the relationship between technology and social structures (see
Theories of technology), such as
information technology in organizations. DeSanctis and Poole (1990) borrow from Giddens in order to propose an "adaptive structuration theory" with respect to the emergence and use of group decision support systems. In particular, they use Giddens' notion of "modalities of structuration," how social structures are appropriated into concrete situations, to consider how technology is used with respect to its "spirit."
Appropriations are the immediate visible actions that evidence deeper structuration processes and are enacted with moves (DeSanctis and Poole 1992:128). Appropriations may be faithful or unfaithful, be used instrumentally, and be used with various attitudes (1992:129).
Orlikowski (1992) borrows Giddens' structuration theory and applies her critique of 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" (p. 406). She compares this to previous models (the technological imperative, strategic choice, and technology as a trigger) and considers the importance of meaning, power, norms, and interpretive flexibility within the theory of structuration. Orlikowski (2000) revisits the theory of structuration so as to replace the notion of embedded properties (DeSanctis and Poole 1990, 1992, Orlikowski 1992) for enactment (use). The 'practice lens' permits one to examine how people, as they interact with a technology in their ongoing practices, enact structures which shape their emergent and situated use of that technology. While Orlikowski's work has been focussed on multinationals and corporates, it is equally applicable to the technology cultures which have emerged in smaller community-based organizations, and can be further adapted through the lens of sensitivity to gendered differences in approaches to the governance of technology (Stillman, 2006).
References
- Giddens, Anthony: The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, University of California Press; Reprint edition (January 1, 1986) ISBN 0-520-05728-7
- Desanctis, G. and Poole, M. S. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: the theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk, C. S., editor, Organizations and Communication Technology, pages 173-193. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
- Gauntlett, David (2002), Media, Gender and Identity: An Introduction, Routledge, London and New York. (Extracts available at www.theory.org.uk)
- Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3):398-427. Earlier version at the URI http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/2300
- Desanctis, G. and Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2):121-147.
- Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4):404-428.
- Sewell, W. F. (1992). A theory of structure: duality, agency, and transformation. The American Journal of Sociology, 98(1):1-29.
- Stillman, L. (2006) Understandings of Technology in Community-Based Organisations: A Structurational Analysis (PhD Thesis, Monash University, Australia)
Related
External links
- Anthony Giddens: The theory of structuration
- ANTHONY GIDDENS and STRUCTURATION
The
theory of structuration, proposed by
Anthony Giddens (1984) in
The Constitution of Society, (mentioned also in
Central Problems of Social Theory, 1979) is an attempt to reconcile theoretical dichotomy of social systems such as Structure and agency, subjective/objective, and
microsociology/
macrosociology perspectives. The approach does not focus on the individual actor or societal totality "but social practices ordered across space and time" (p. 2). Its proponents adopt this balanced position, attempting to treat influences of structure (which inherently includes culture) and agency equally. See structure and agency.
Basic assumptions
- Social life is not the sum of all micro-level activity, but social activity cannot be completely explained from a macro perspective.
- The repetition of the acts of individual agents reproduce the structure.
- Social structures are neither inviolable nor permanent.
The duality of structure
Structuration theory aims to avoid extremes of structural or agent
determinism. The balancing of agency and structure is referred to as the
duality of structure: social structures make social action possible, and at the same time that social action creates those very structures.
For Giddens, structures are rules and resources (sets of transformation relations) organized as properties of social systems. Rules are patterns people may follow in social life. Resources relate to what is created by human action; they are not given by nature (explained further below)The theory employs a
recursive notion of actions constrained and enabled by structures which are produced and reproduced by that action. Consequently, this theory has been adopted by those with
structuralist inclinations, but who wish to situate such structures in human practice rather than reify them as an
ideal type or material property. (This is different, for example, from
Actor-network theory which grants a certain autonomy to
technical artifacts.) Additionally, the theory of structuration distinguishes between discursive and practical knowledge, recognizes actors as knowledgeable, such knowledge is reflexive and situated, and that habitual use becomes institutionalized.
A social system can be understood by its structure, modality, and interaction.
Structure is constituted by rules and resources governing and available to agents. (
Authoritative resources control persons, whereas
allocative resources control material objects.) The
modality of a structural system is the means by which structures are translated into action.
Interaction is the activity instantiated by the agent acting within the social system. There has been some attempt by various theorists to link structuration theory to
systems theory (with its emphasis on recursive loops) or the
complexity theory of organizational structure (which emphasizes the adaptabililty that simple structures provide). Thus social systems have patterns of social relation that exist over time; the changing nature of space and time will thus determine the interaction of social relations and therefore structure. 19th century Britain - (time)- had a geographically defined space and there were certain rules set out by the time and space, therefore this effects the action thus determining structure and the structure is upheld in so far as it is reproduced in action. Hitherto social structures or 'model's of society' were taken to be beyond the realm of human control - the positivistic approach; the other social theory would be that of action creating society - the interpretivist approach. The duality of structure would argue that, in the most basic assumption, that they are one and the same--different sides to the coin of a similar problem of order.
Agency, as Giddens calls it, is human action. To be human is to be an agent, albeit not all agents are human beings. Agency is closely tied to social structures in so far as they interact and produce society together. Agents have knowledge of their society and this mutual knowledge that therein produces structures. The everyday, mundane life agents lead is part of the reproduction in society, thus caused by action and upheld in structure. Giddens refers to 'ontological security' in the trust people have in social structure and that everyday actions have some degree of predicablity thus ensuring social stability.
Agency, apart from reproduction of society, also can lead to the transformation of society. One way to explain this concept is by, what Giddens calls, the 'reflexive monitoring of actions' - Giddens has referred to reflexive monitoring a lot in his academic literature. Reflexive monitoring looks at the ability to look at actions to judge their effectivness in achieving their objectives: if agents can reproduce structure through action, they can also transform it.
Types of structures
Giddens identifies three types of structures in social systems, those of
signification,
legitimation, and
domination. These are analytical distinctions, rather than distinct ideal types, that mobilize and reinforce one another.
- Domination: produces (and is an exercise of) power (sociology), originating from the control of resources.
To understand how they work together, consider how the signification of a concept (e.g., the use of the word "patriot" in political speech) borrows from and contributes to legitimization (e.g., nationalistic norms) and coordinates forms of domination (e.g., a police state), from which it in turn gains further force.
Change
Sewell (1992) provides a useful summary of the theory as well as taking on one of its underspecified aspects: the question "Why are structural changes possible?" He argues changes arises from (p. 16-19):
- "The multiplicity of structures -- 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."
- the transposability of rules: they can be "applied to a wide and not fully predictable range of cases outside the context in which they were initially learned."
- the unpredictability of resource accumulation (e.g. investment, military tactics, or a comedian's repertoire).
- the polysemy of resources (e.g., to what should success in resource accumulation be attributed?).
- the intersection of structures: they interact (e.g. in the structure of capitalist society there are both the modes of production based on private property and profit, as well as the mode of labor organization based on worker solidarity).
Technology
This theory has been adapted and augmented by researchers interested in the relationship between
technology and social structures (see
Theories of technology), such as
information technology in organizations. DeSanctis and Poole (1990) borrow from Giddens in order to propose an "adaptive structuration theory" with respect to the emergence and use of group decision support systems. In particular, they use Giddens' notion of "modalities of structuration," how social structures are appropriated into concrete situations, to consider how technology is used with respect to its "spirit."
Appropriations are the immediate visible actions that evidence deeper structuration processes and are enacted with moves (DeSanctis and Poole 1992:128). Appropriations may be faithful or unfaithful, be used instrumentally, and be used with various attitudes (1992:129).
Orlikowski (1992) borrows Giddens' structuration theory and applies her critique of 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" (p. 406). She compares this to previous models (the technological imperative, strategic choice, and technology as a trigger) and considers the importance of meaning, power, norms, and interpretive flexibility within the theory of structuration. Orlikowski (2000) revisits the theory of structuration so as to replace the notion of embedded properties (DeSanctis and Poole 1990, 1992, Orlikowski 1992) for enactment (use). The 'practice lens' permits one to examine how people, as they interact with a technology in their ongoing practices, enact structures which shape their emergent and situated use of that technology. While Orlikowski's work has been focussed on multinationals and corporates, it is equally applicable to the technology cultures which have emerged in smaller community-based organizations, and can be further adapted through the lens of sensitivity to gendered differences in approaches to the governance of technology (Stillman, 2006).
References
- Giddens, Anthony: The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, University of California Press; Reprint edition (January 1, 1986) ISBN 0-520-05728-7
- Desanctis, G. and Poole, M. S. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: the theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk, C. S., editor, Organizations and Communication Technology, pages 173-193. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
- Gauntlett, David (2002), Media, Gender and Identity: An Introduction, Routledge, London and New York. (Extracts available at www.theory.org.uk)
- Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3):398-427. Earlier version at the URI http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/2300
- Desanctis, G. and Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2):121-147.
- Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4):404-428.
- Sewell, W. F. (1992). A theory of structure: duality, agency, and transformation. The American Journal of Sociology, 98(1):1-29.
- Stillman, L. (2006) Understandings of Technology in Community-Based Organisations: A Structurational Analysis (PhD Thesis, Monash University, Australia)
Related
External links
- Anthony Giddens: The theory of structuration
- ANTHONY GIDDENS and STRUCTURATION
