Thank you Natalie!

Bianca

Structuration theory is quite a lot discussed in the context of organizations research. Maybe Clegg et al. (2006). The SAGE Handbook of organization studies, especially the chapter of M. Alvesson & S. Deetz "Critical Theory and Postmodernism Approaches to Organization Studies" might be a good introduction?

Best, Britta

Hi Bianca,

I used structuration theory in my PhD, I used it to explain the links between livelihoods, resource use and the feedback loops changing the social, economic and ecological determinants of livelihoods in tropical forest areas.  My thesis ended looking at how structuration theory brings us to an understanding of human/environment relations as socio-ecological systems.  My paper on Research Gate about livelihoods in Cameroon forests shows the socio-economic analysis undertaken within the structuration framework. It doesn't discuss the theory though.  The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework promoted by DfiD in the 1990's was developed on the back of Gidensian thinking applying structuration theory too.

Hope that's useful?

Cheers

Bianca

Hi Bianca

I am using structuration theory as one theoretical lens to examine the impact of intersectional social hierarchies on depression in Canadian men in my current PhD research.  I am particularly interested how social position in multiple realms may influence men's opportunities to perform hegemonic masculinities, and how this in turn affects men's mental health outcomes.

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Bianca, I am using structuration theory to examine the impact of early marriages & illiteracy in women at time of their marriages  in my current PhD research. 

I just published a paper in Ecology and Society that draws from structuration theory and other organizational systems theories: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol20/iss1/art2/

I think Giddens himself provided some useful examples of empircal applications in the last chapter of The Constitution of Society. This is a lucid and good discussion, but an awkward one, since two out of three cases he discussed is "structurationist" without drawing on or even acknowledging structuration theory. As critics commented, this would seem to suggest that research could satisfactorily deal with the "duality of the structure and agency" without any help from Giddens't theory. But I think Giddens does bring out the ways in which structuration theory could guide empirical research.

I think also you could find some useful pointers in Rob Stones _Structuration Theory_, in which he tries to develop an in situ version of structuration, as opposed to the rather general and abstract ontological version found in Giddens. I also seem to recall there are some applications of the theory collected in the four volume Anthony Giddens: Critical Assesments: http://books.google.no/books/about/Anthony_Giddens.html?id=CqHtobKUSv8C&redir_esc=y

However, Giddens was rather critical of most empirical applications of his theory, as I think he explains shortly in his reply in the Held and Thompson collection. 

Dear all, 

thank you for very helpful and useful replies! I can see that some of you have used or are using structuration theory in a quite similar way to mine, namely to study complex systems. I study bioenergy adoption and sustainability outcomes (environmental, social and economic) in two regional case studies. Specifically, why despite the proclaimed sustainability goals and attempts, usually bioenergy adoption does not ensure sustainability? What are the hidden causes? I take the standpoint of structuration theory of the dynamic interplay of structure-agency and system dynamics´s feedback loops .

Thanks again for your contributions

Bianca

hi. There is almost a requirement when we talk about theory of culture. In my thesis I cited Giddens because his theory is fundamentalto explain culture matters into mobility problems. 

About complex systems, cognitive science and a critical aproach to posmodernism in anthopology please find http://carlosreynoso.com.ar/el-surgimiento-de-la-antropologia-posmoderna-1991/

The framework is useful but not without its limitations. Do look at the work of of the great living minds in our time Margaret Archer and see how her CR lens views Giddens.

Dear Bianca. I have used Guiddens´theory as part of my research in terms of people's behaviour in their attempt to consolidate housing in poorer areas in Mexico. The following are the links to my research:

http://encore.lib.gla.ac.uk/iii/encore/search/C__SHern%C3%A1ndez%20Velasco%2C%20Carlos%20Roberto.__Orightresult?lang=eng&suite=cobalt 

http://theses.gla.ac.uk/5483/

I hope this can be helpful.

Regards, 

I adopted Giddens extendedly in my  doctoral thesis in order to investigate social media communication. Unfortunately it is written in German:

http://tinyurl.com/p7dcc4d 

http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-8349-4051-3

Here is an article that employed my argumentation about structuration in a concise manner:

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/raizfpers/doi_5f10.1688_2f1862-0000_5fzfp_5f2013_5f01_5fhauptmann.htm

Regards

Stefan

Please read Archer first. Professor Archer has systematically critiqued it. Her framework is a much more sophisticated pathway than Giddens. Theories should not be cut copy paste jobs but emerge from a deeper emerge philosophical commitments and be ethical and certain in a Wittgensteinian sense. I am going to use xyz,s theory at one level may be semantic nonsense because one does not know the contours of one's data yet nor does one know the theorist well enough. One must allow the data to emerge and call a theoretical framework that suits itself. At one level this kind of work calls for the Proustian autopilot and at another level it calls for continual dogged engagement with theory and method as two parts of the same logic of discovery just as geniuses of time who cared little for power or position did Wittgenstein, Ramanujan etc.

Take a pill, my friend, AND STOP DESCREDITING OTHERS' ACADEMIC WORK WITHOUT HAVING IT READ!

The answer applies to you as well Sir who may be seeing apparitions in daylight. There is no attempt to discredit anyone and there was no intention to undermine anyone's work. These were observations about the logic of discovery and the intersection of theory and research and why it is an iterative emergent process and a caveat against force fitting any particular conceptual frame with a body of data.

 I end my argument here and will refrain from posting or writing anything more. I believe in the Socratic dialogue and sharing what little I know. I request your to pardon if these observations offended your sensibilities.  I am fine and alert and need no medication. Thank you. I have never been replied to in such a manner. This should mark my end in this new website which I thought was nice way to join the conversation and pass on insights garnered from a stage I see many here find themselves. 

The answer also had its roots in the analytic tradition of Philosophy where giants have tread G.E.M.Anscombe, P.F.Strawson , Saul Kripke, Michael Dummett etc and from there the micro-sociology of Goffmann, who all cumulatively offer a valuable counterpoint to Bourdieu,Giddens and Foucault.

One must not pass judgement without reading through the argument.Semantic realism and semantic nonsense are the meat and potatoes of philosophy and social theory. With this it is pertinent to stop and neither expend time nor thoughts because silence has its own virtues. 

I have applied Gidden's structuration theory to delineate the concept of agency, for it is directly linked to the sex work/prostitution dichotomy.

Dear Anuratha,

I think you should keep telling your opinions. Different opinions, perspectives and experiences can just be a great opportunity for learning. Besides, nobody forces me or anyone else to apply a theory or an approach to that theory, if I don`t agree with it.

Thank you all for the answers.

Bianca

Giddens‘ structuration theory has been and is used extensively in organization research. See for example:

 1.     Own empirical studies (see full list under publications):

Sydow, Jörg/Windeler, Arnold (1998): Organizing and evaluating interfirm networks: A structurationist perspective on network processes and effectiveness. In: Organization Science 9 (Special Issue: Managing Partnerships and Strategic Alliances), S. 265-284.

Windeler, Arnold/Sydow, Jörg (2001): Project networks and changing industry practices - Collaborative content production in the German television industry. In: Organization Studies 22 (6), S. 1035-1061.

Sydow, Jörg/Windeler, Arnold/Schubert, Cornelius/Möllering, Guido (2012): Organizing R&D Consortia for Path Creation and Extension: The Case of Semiconductor Manufacturing Technologies. In: Organization Studies 33 (7), S. 907–936.

Manning, Stephan/Sydow, Jörg/Windeler, Arnold (2012): Securing access to lower-cost talent globally: The dynamics of active embedding and field structuration. In: Regional Studies 46 (9), S. 1201-1218.

Schubert, Cornelius/Sydow, Jörg/Windeler, Arnold (2013): The means of managing momentum: Bridging technological paths and organisational fields. In: Research Policy 42, S. 1389– 1405.

 2.    Overview articles

 Bryant, Christopher G. A./Jarry, David (Hrsg.) (1996): Anthony Giddens. Critical Assessments. 4 Bände. London: Routledge.

Pozzebon, Marlei (2004): The influence of a structurationist view on strategic management research. In: Journal of Management Studies 41 (2), S. 247-272.

Pozzebon, Marlei/Pinsonneault, Alain (2005): Challenges in conducting empirical work using structuration theory: Learning from IT research. In: Organization Studies 26 (9), S. 1353-1376.

Englund, Hans/Gerdin, Jonas/Burns, John (2011): 25 Years of Giddens in accounting research: Achievements, limitations and the future. In: Accounting, Organizations and Society 36, S. 494–513.

@Arnold, thank you for this overview. Some of them have been very helpful for my study of Giddens. I may add:

Jones, M. R., & Karsten, H. (2008). Giddens’s Structuration Theory and Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 127–157.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428. doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600

Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (2004). Structuration Theory in Information Systems Research. In M. E. Whitman & A. B. Woszczynski (Eds.), The Handbook of Information Systems Research (pp. 206–248). London: Idea Group Publishing.

@Anuratha, it is perfectly all right to have discussed the value of theoretical accounts critically. However, in this case, it should at least be have some critical content. Unfortunately, your critics does not go beyond name-dropping. And the academics you mentioned are even very problematic for putting agains Giddens. For example Erving Goffman - I cannot see any contradiction between Goffman and Structuration Theory. On the contrary, Giddens and Goffman wanted the same - balancing of the sociological dimensions action and structure, which have been separated too much by scholars. Giddens conducted this balance rather theoretically, Goffman rather with observational means. Moreover, Giddens (1984) refers to Goffman on at least 20 pages in order to put his argumentation forward.

Hello Bianca:

The professors John Mohr and Harrison White wrote an excellent article where they adopt the main theses of Giddens about the  institutionalization process. "How to model an institution" .In my opinion, they have developped powerful insights grounded in Giddens theory of agency. Is an exceptional framework in order to operationalize the metatheoretical work of Anthony Giddens.

I hope to be useful

All the best

Silvio Salej Higgins

Bianca,

We are searching, here in Brazil,  in a Ph.D Thesis, the institutionalization process for building anti-corruption forums, among public and civil society organizations. Our main data are interaction structures or social networks.

Thanks a lot

Silvio Salej Higgins

I have used Giddens to offer meaningful explanations on teachers' attitude towards educational change. I've rejected through paradigms of teachers' stance both Structuralism and Functionalism. I've then offered an explanation based on Giddens. This is partly un upcoming paper which will soon be submitted for publishing. Are you also intending to use structuration theory on the educational feld Bianca?

Hi, i am using structuration theory to help explain social exclusion processes amongst the "underclass". With emphasis on "strong structuration"

Bianca: Let’s hope you‘re still holding onto structuration. The theory is beautiful when seen through the lens of physics, and particularly dynamical systems. Draw in the institution (of Douglass North), and there emerges the reflexivity of structuration. See:Article Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) on Moulding States: The No...

Preprint Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) in Africa: Harking the Holonomic

I would like to add the following articles:

Foundation article:

Desanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use - Adaptive Structuration Theory 19. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.2.121

Recently published studies:

Jones, M. R., & Karsten, H. (2015). Qjfteriy Theory Giddens ’ s Structuration Information Systems Research1. Management Information Systems Research Centre, 32(1), 127–157

Pozzebon, M., Mackrell, D., & Nielsen, S. (2014). Structuration bridging diffusion of innovations and gender relations theories: A case of paradigmatic pluralism in IS research. Information Systems Journal, 24(3), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12007