Why not if you use a linguistic method!

I think you will get better comments if you give a little more context for your question? What are the relations you want to study and what do you mean by "structural dialectology"? The only use I know of that concept is Uriel Weinreich's in the 1960s who asked about the possibility of combining Bloomfieldian structuralism and dialectology. The tension of course is that structuralism describes language as synchronic selfcontained systems, whereas dialectology requires fluidity and diachrony. So the way that people usually combine structural and dialectological approaches is that they construct -lects as separate synchronic systems which they then compare. This works well for historical dialectology, but not so well for sociolinguistic dialectology.

Thank you very much, Sir. By this question I mean to know if the use of bound morphemes (such as suffixes and prefixes) be considered from structural point of view, as phonemes have been considered in terms of disystems. Similarly, I am interested to know some sources which consider morphemes from this perspective. 

I think the vast majority of linguistic theory since the 1930s has employed a structural approach to morphology. Saussurean structuralism continues to be foundational for both generative and functionalist paradigms in linguistics today. Just as phonemes, morphemes are structural units that fit together into diasystematic networks of paradigmatic and syntactic relations. A clue is that anything that ends in -eme indicates that they are units within a structural system based on the Saussurean dichotomy between langue/parole-system/usage. So the very idea of the morpheme as a unit of meaning, implies a structuralist perspective.

Thank you very much sir. Still I would like to know if someone has studied morphemes of various dialects from structural point of view in dialectology and also the concerned sources.