Resources: Main Page | Research Methods (A) | Major Theories (B) | Issues and Contemporary Topics (C) | Professional Community (D)
Aisle B (Major Theories): Classical Theories (BA) | Org. Behavior – Individual (BB1) | Org. Behavior – Groups & Teams (BB2) | Org. Behavior – Systems & Culture (BB3) | Contingency Theories (BC) | Org. Design (BD) | Org. Development & Change (BG) | Human Relations Theories (BH) | Institution Theories (BI) | Leadership Theories (BL) | Modern Management Perspectives (BM) | Postmodern & Critical Theories (BQ) | Sociology & Anthropology (BS)
Rack BI (Institution Theories): Old Institutionalism | New Institutionalism | Institutional Work | Institutional Logics | Scandinavian Institutions | World Society Theory | Structuration Theory (BI.S)
Jump to: Importance | Foundational Works | Research Areas | TAOP Resources | References
Structuration theory started with the work of Anthony Giddens and sought to resolve a fundamental debate in social theory — does human agency (individual action) determine social phenomena, or do social structures determine human behavior? While the original structuration theory was difficult to apply in research, scholars have offered various refinements to the theory can are useful empirically. Thus, structuration theory has brought about considerable advancements in the broader field of institution theory.
Overview and Importance of Structuration Theory
Structuration theory, as originally presented by Anthony Giddens, posits that social structures both constrain and enable human action, highlighting the duality of structure where agents reproduce and transform social contexts through their actions (Chatterjee et al., 2019). This theory fundamentally addresses the interaction between structure and agency, arguing that institutions are the outcomes of ongoing practices by individuals. Every time individuals engage with these institutions, they contribute to their reproduction or alteration (Iyamu & Roode, 2010).
In the realm of institutional theory, structuration theory emphasizes the dynamic interplay of social actors and the institutions they inhabit. Institutions are viewed not merely as rigid structures but as entities that can evolve through the actions of individuals (Adithi, 2018). For instance, Scott notes that a significant development in institutional theory has been the shift from solely looking at structural determinants to understanding the actions of individuals within those structures, which aligns closely with Giddens’ views (Scott, 2014). This evolution allows for greater recognition of agency and strategic behavior in the context of institutional conformity and change (Greenwood et al., 2014).
Moreover, the relationship between structuration theory and institutional theory lies in the assertion that both frameworks can mutually inform one another. While institutional theory often highlights the role of formal rules and norms, structuration theory addresses how these elements are enacted through daily practices and social interactions (Chatterjee et al., 2019). By incorporating insights from structuration theory, institutional theorists can better understand how institutions are not only shaped by but also reshape social actions over time, thus addressing criticisms that institutional approaches sometimes overlook the mechanisms of change (Greenwood et al., 2014; Meyer & Höllerer, 2014).
Origins
The origins of structuration theory can be traced back to Giddens’ critique of traditional sociological perspectives. Prior theories often treated social structures and individual actions as separate entities, leading to a dichotomy that obscured their interdependent nature. Giddens proposed that structures are not merely constraints on social action; rather, they are the very conditions that enable such actions to take place. His theory posits that individuals, through their everyday practices, reproduce and potentially transform the social rules and systems in which they operate (Lipscomb, 2006).
Giddens also drew upon the concepts of discourse and power to contextualize the dynamics of social life. By emphasizing practical consciousness (what individuals know intuitively) and discursive consciousness (what they articulate in social discourse), he underscored the complexity of social practices and the ways in which knowledge is embedded within and emergent from these practices (Heracleous, 2013). Giddens’ framework encompasses notions of temporality, contextuality, and the recurrent nature of social interaction, which further solidifies the interconnectedness of agents and structures (Hardcastle et al., 2005).
Criticisms
Despite its contributions, structuration theory has been criticized over its methodological vagueness and the complexity of its terminology. Some scholars have described it as a second-order theory, one that generalizes concepts of human society without providing concrete empirical methodologies for application (Chatterjee et al., 2019). Critics have also pointed to the challenges posed by Giddens’ somewhat infeasible approach to ethnography that can be time-consuming and requiring extensive and laborious data collection (Lipscomb, 2006).
Offshoots and Extensions to the Theory
Structuration theory has evolved considerably since Giddens first introduced it, spawning several significant theoretical offshoots. Each of these subtheories has contributed unique perspectives to organization studies by adapting, extending, or reconceptualizing aspects of the original theory. The following is a short list with their key contributions and organizational implications.
Adaptive Structuration Theory. Developed primarily by Gerardine DeSanctis and Marshall Scott Poole in the early 1990s, Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) represents one of the most influential adaptations of Giddens’ work. To them, structuration involved the following four constructs: (1) technology structures, or rules and resources offered by technologies; (2) spirit, or the general intent or values underlying a technology’s features; (3) appropriation, or how users adapt technology structures in actual use; and (4) structural features that are specific capabilities provided by technology (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994).
Strong Structuration Theory (SST). Initially proposed by Rob Stones (2005), SST broadens Giddens’ framework by adding empirical depth and specificity to the dynamics of structure and agency. He proposed that structuration has a quadpartite nature, that included: (1) external structures: The objective social conditions that exist independently of the agent, (2) internal structures that included the specific knowledge agents have about particular contexts they’re navigating and general dispositions, knowledge, and tendencies, (3) active agency where agents draw upon their internal structures to act in specific situations, and (4) outcomes both internal and external such as impacts on the organization and an agent’s own structures. This subtheory encourages researchers to consider the nested levels of social phenomena—macro, meso, and micro—with a focus on how agents navigate and reinterpret their contexts (Heracleous, 2006).
Structurational Theory of Technology. Developed primarily by Wanda Orlikowski, this approach applies structuration concepts specifically to technology use in organizations. Its core concepts include: (1) technology as both product and medium of human action, (2) interpretive flexibility, or how the same technology can be interpreted and used differently, (3) how technology structures emerging from recurring use patterns, and (4) how technology use evolves over time. This perspective helps explain why technology implementations often fail to deliver expected benefits, such as when the focus for change has been on technology features rather than emergent practices.
Discursive Structuration Theory. Discursive Structuration Theory extends Giddens’ original model by incorporating elements of discourse analysis. This approach focuses on how language and communication shape structures and practices within organizations. According to this subtheory, organizational discourse is not just a tool for communication but plays a central role in constructing conditions of possibility for action (Heracleous, 2002, 2006). Discursive Structuration Theory helps elucidate how power dynamics and cultural narratives influence organizational structures. It emphasizes that the ways in which individuals talk about their experiences and the practices of their organizations inform and alter the structures within which they operate. In this sense, organizational outcomes are seen as contingent on the discursive practices that prevail within specific contexts, thus providing a critical lens for analyzing issues such as change management (Tremblay, 1997).
Some Foundational Works on Structuration Theory
The following is a short and necessarily incomplete list of scholars and their most important works that either directly led to the development of structuration theory or whose ideas strongly parallel it, such that later scholars uncovered the connections.
Anthony Giddens. Anthony Giddens is unquestionably the central figure in structuration theory. His work represents the first comprehensive formulation of structuration as a theoretical framework. His key works include the following:
- New Rules of Sociological Method (1976) This book marked Giddens’ initial move toward structuration theory. Here, he began critiquing existing approaches in sociology and laying groundwork for his alternative perspective. He emphasized the need to recognize the “double hermeneutic” in social sciences—the fact that researchers interpret a world already interpreted by social actors themselves.
- Central Problems in Social Theory (1979) This represents the first systematic presentation of structuration theory. Giddens introduced his concept of the “duality of structure”—the idea that social structures are both the medium and outcome of social practices. He challenged the dualism between objective structural sociology and subjective interpretive approaches.
- The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (1984) This is widely regarded as Giddens’ magnum opus on structuration theory. He provided a comprehensive account of his theoretical framework, elaborating concepts like practical consciousness, discursive consciousness, routinization, and the stratification model of action. This book stands as the definitive statement of structuration theory.
- The Consequences of Modernity (1990) While not strictly about structuration theory, this work applies structuration concepts to understand modern institutions and their global impact. Giddens explored how time-space distanciation affects social relations in modernity.
- Modernity and Self-Identity (1991) This book extends structuration thinking to issues of identity in late modernity, showing how individuals reflexively construct identities amid institutional changes.
Pierre Bourdieu. While not usually classified as a structuration theorist per se, Pierre Bourdieu developed a theoretical approach with remarkable similarities to Giddens’ work. His theory of practice also attempted to overcome the structure-agency divide. In his book, Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977), Bourdieu introduced his concept of “habitus”—internalized dispositions that generate practices—which parallels aspects of Giddens’ practical consciousness. He explored how individuals embody social structures while retaining capacity for strategic action. Then, in The Logic of Practice (1990), he further developed practice theory, elaborating on concepts like “field” and exploring the relationship between embodied dispositions and social structures.
Margaret Archer. Much like Bourdieu, Archer was not a direct advocate of structuration theory, but her critical engagement with Giddens’ work has been foundational in shaping the development and refinements of structuration approaches. Two works of hers are worth mention. First, Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory (1988) saw Archer critique Giddens’ conflation of structure and agency, arguing for “analytical dualism” instead of the duality of structure. This critique spurred further development and clarification of structuration theory. Then in Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach (1995), Archer presented her alternative to structuration theory, emphasizing the temporality of structure-agency relationships and the emergent properties of social structures.
Contemporary Areas of Research
Contemporary research into structuration theory has expanded its applicability and sought to address its limitations, progressively refining the theoretical framework for diverse fields, particularly in organization studies. This evolving focus reflects the theory’s relevance across various domains, as scholars attempt to integrate insights from multiple disciplines to enhance our understanding of social structures and agency interplay. Here, we delve into specific areas of research that aim to improve structuration theory today.
Digital Transformation and Structuration. Contemporary structuration researchers are looking into how digital technologies are transforming structuration processes. For example, scholars like Wanda Orlikowski, Brian Pentland, and Martha Feldman are examining how digital technologies create new forms of structuration that operate at different tempos and scales than traditional social structuration. Digital structures can be encoded, replicated, and transmitted in ways that physical structures cannot. Another new direction explores how algorithms and artificial intelligence systems participate in structuration processes. These technologies don’t just mediate human agency but increasingly exercise forms of algorithmic agency themselves, creating complex human-algorithmic structuration dynamics. Researchers like Susan Scott and Nicholas Berente are pioneering work in this area. And finally, as social interactions increasingly occur in virtual spaces, researchers are examining how structuration processes unfold differently in digital environments where physical constraints are absent. This includes studies of how users create, maintain, and transform structures in virtual worlds, online communities, and digital platforms.
Applying Strong Structuration Theory. Increasing scholarly attention centers on utilizing Strong Structuration Theory (SST) to navigate the intricacies of complex settings. For example, Coad et al. (2015, 2016) argue that SST offers robust tools for overcoming existing limitations in structuration research within this domain. They suggest that SST’s framework can deepen the understanding of agency and the diffusion of management accounting practices, providing essential insights into how structures can evolve within organizational contexts. This research aims to refine methodological approaches and enhance the empirical applications of structuration concepts, thus improving how accounting artifacts and practices are understood and analyzed.
Structuration Across Scales and Systems. Contemporary researchers are working to improve structuration theory’s ability to connect micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis, for example building on SS, researchers are developing more sophisticated models for analyzing how structuration processes connect across different scales—from interpersonal interactions to organizational systems to societal institutions. This work helps address a common criticism that structuration theory struggled to connect different levels of analysis. Likewise, scholars like John Mingers and Leslie Willcocks are developing approaches that better integrate structuration theory with systems thinking, creating frameworks that can account for both human agency and emergent system properties simultaneously. Plus, another promising research direction examines how structuration processes operate across institutional boundaries—particularly important in understanding complex challenges like sustainability transitions that require coordination across multiple sectors and institutions.
Time, Process, and Historical Development. Time was always central to Giddens’ theory, but contemporary researchers are developing more sophisticated approaches to temporality. For example, building on practice theory and process philosophy, researchers are developing approaches that place greater emphasis on the ongoing, processual nature of structuration rather than discrete structures and actions. Ann Langley and Haridimos Tsoukas have contributed significant work in this direction. Meanwhile, historians and historical sociologists are incorporating structuration concepts to understand how structures evolve over longer time periods than typically studied in organizational research. This work helps explain both continuity and dramatic transformations in social systems over time. Also, research by Deborah Ancona and others examines how different structuration processes operate at different tempos and rhythms, creating complex temporal ecologies within organizations and institutions.
Related Episodes from the Talking About Organizations Podcast
125: Institution and Action — Steven Barley
124: Postcolonial Theory — Anshuman Prasad
123: Markets as Politics — Neil Fligstein
121: Rhetoric vs. Reality — Mark Zbaracki
120: Institutional Isomorphism — DiMaggio & Powell
107: Institutionalized Rules and Formal Structures — Meyer & Rowan
75: Institutionalization – Philip Selznick
67: Professions & Professionalism — Andrew Abbott
31: Process Studies, PROS and Institutional Theory LIVE
23: Influence of Institutions and Factor Markets — Mike Wright
Related Resource Pages
Rack BA — Classic Organization and Management Theory
Rack BB1 – Organizational Behavior (Micro-Individual)
Rack BB2 — Organizational Behavior (Meso-Groups and Teams)
Rack BB3 — Organizational Behavior (Macro-Org/System)
Rack BC — Contingency Theory
Rack BD — Organizational Design
Rack BG — Organizational Development and Change
Rack BH – Human Dimension – Culture, Climate, Identity
Rack BI — Institution Theory
Rack BL — Leadership Theories
Rack BM – Modern Management Theories
Rack BQ — Postmodern and Critical Theories
Rack BS — Sociology & Anthropology
References
Adithi, A. (2018). Development of institutional theory and its application to MNE context: A review of literature. FOCUS: Journal of International Business, 4(02), 124-141. https://doi.org/10.17492/focus.v4i02.11693
Anthropic. (2024). What is structuration theory and how is it related to institution theory; Please explain in detail the origins of structuration theory; What about strong structuration theory by Rob Stones, did this improve structuration theory or complicate it; What other subtheories of structuration theory exist and how do they contribute to organization studies; Who are the most important foundational scholars in structuration theory and what are their best known works; What are contemporary areas of research into improving structuration theory; What are popular contemporary research topics where structuration theory is being applied. Claude (March 2024 version) [Large Language Model].
Archer, M. S. (1988). Culture and agency: The place of culture in social theory. Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press.
Chatterjee, I., Kunwar, J., & den Hond, F. (2019). Anthony Giddens and structuration theory. In Clegg, S. & Pina e Cunha, M. (eds.), Management, organizations and contemporary social theory (pp. 60-79). Routledge.
Coad, A., Jack, L., & Kholeif, A. O. R. (2015). Structuration theory: Reflections on its further potential for management accounting research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 12(2), 153-171. https://doi.org/10.1108/qram-01-2015-0013
Coad, A., Jack, L., & Kholeif, A. O. R. (2016). Strong structuration theory in accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(7), 1138-1144. https://doi.org/10.1108/qram-01-2015-0013
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization science, 5(2), 121-147. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.2.121
Giddens, A. (1976). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretive sociologies. New York: Basic Books.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis (Vol. 241). Univ of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Univ of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford University Press.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford University Press.
Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R. and Whetten, D. (2014). ‘Rethinking institutions and organizations’. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 1206–1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12070
Hardcastle, M. A. R., Usher, K. J., & Holmes, C. A. (2005). An overview of structuration theory and its usefulness for nursing research. Nursing Philosophy, 6(4), 223-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-769x.2005.00230.x
Heracleous, L. (2002). The contribution of a discursive view to understanding and managing organizational change. Strategic Change, 11(5), 253-261. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.601
Heracleous, L. (2006). A tale of three discourses: The dominant, the strategic and the marginalized. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 1059-1087. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00629.x
Heracleous, L. (2013). The employment of structuration theory in organizational discourse: Exploring methodological challenges. Management Communication Quarterly, 27(4), 599-606.
Iyamu, T. & Roode, D. (2010). The Use of Structuration Theory and Actor Network Theory for Analysis: Case Study of a Financial Institution in South Africa. International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation (IJANTTI), 2(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.4018/jantti.2010071601
Lipscomb, M. (2006). Rebutting the suggestion that Anthony Giddens’s Structuration Theory offers a useful framework for sociological nursing research: A critique based upon Margaret Archer’s Realist Social Theory. Nursing Philosophy, 7(3), 175-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-769x.2006.00261.x
Meyer, R. and Höllerer, M. (2014). ‘Does institutional theory need redirecting?’. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 1221–1233.
Scite. (2024). What is structuration theory and how is it related to institution theory; Please explain in detail the origins of structuration theory; What about strong structuration theory by Rob Stones, did this improve structuration theory or complicate it; What other subtheories of structuration theory exist and how do they contribute to organization studies; Who are the most important foundational scholars in structuration theory and what are their best known works; What are contemporary areas of research into improving structuration theory; What are popular contemporary research topics where structuration theory is being applied. Scite (April 2024 version) [Large Language Model].
Scott, W. R. (2014). W. Richard SCOTT (1995), Institutions and Organizations. Ideas, Interests and Identities. M@n@gement, 17(2), 136-140. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.172.0136
Tremblay, M. (1997). On the modularity of case theory: A case against the visibility hypothesis. In Di Sciullo, A. (ed.), Projections and interface conditions: Essays o modularity (pp. 109-129). https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195104141.003.0005
The inclusion of external links is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute endorsement by TAOP or any of its members.
Jump to: Importance | Foundational Works | Research Areas | TAOP Resources | References
Rack BI (Institution Theories): Old Institutionalism | New Institutionalism | Institutional Work | Institutional Logics | Scandinavian Institutions | World Society Theory | Structuration Theory (BI.S)
Aisle B (Major Theories): Classical Theories (BA) | Org. Behavior – Individual (BB1) | Org. Behavior – Groups & Teams (BB2) | Org. Behavior – Systems & Culture (BB3) | Contingency Theories (BC) | Org. Design (BD) | Org. Development & Change (BG) | Human Relations Theories (BH) | Institution Theories (BI) | Leadership Theories (BL) | Modern Management Perspectives (BM) | Postmodern & Critical Theories (BQ) | Sociology & Anthropology (BS)
Resources: Main Page | Research Methods (A) | Major Theories (B) | Issues and Contemporary Topics (C) | Professional Community (D)