Contemporary sociology has generally aimed toward a reconciliation of structure

and agency as concepts. Anthony Giddens's developed "Structuration Theory" in

such works as The Constitution of Society (1984). He presents a developed
attempt to move beyond the dualism of structure and agency and argues for the
"duality of structure" - where social structure is both the medium and the
outcome of social action.[2] For Giddens, an agent's common interaction with
structure, as a system of norms, is described as "structuration". The term
"reflexivity" is used to refer to the ability of an agent to consciously alter his or
her place in the social structure; thus globalization and the emergence of the
'post-traditional' society might be said to allow for "greater social reflexivity".
Social and political sciences are therefore important because social knowledge,
as self-knowledge, is potentially emancipatory.

Duality of structure
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]:p.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]:p.5

Giddens uses "the duality of structure" 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]:p.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," as the core of structuration theory. [1]:p.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]:p.322

Cycle of structuration
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

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]:p.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]:p.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

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]:p.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]:p.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. [Additionally, t]he monitoring of the body, the control and use of face in 'face work'—these
are fundamental to social integration in time and space."[1]:p.86

Explanation

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]:p.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]:p.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
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)
 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]:p.5 "Structures exist
paradigmatically, as an absent set of differences, temporally "present" only in their instantiation, in the
constituting moments of social systems."[5]:p.64 Giddens draws upon structuralism and post-
structuralism in theorizing that structures and their meaning are understood by their differences.

Agents and society

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).[citation needed]
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." [7] "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.[8] 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]:p.14 In
essence, agents experience inherent and contrasting amounts of autonomy and dependence; agents can
always either act or not.[2]

Methodology of structuration theory

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]:p.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]:p.2 Giddens and followers used
structuration theory more as "a sensitizing device".[8]

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

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

"Strong structuration"
Rob Stones argued that many aspects of Gidden's 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]:p.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
* "The specific combinations of all the above in composite forms of research." [2]:p.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

Margaret Archer objected to the inseparability of structure and agency in structuration theory. [9] 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 a place because of the inseparability
between structure and agency.[2]

Nicos Mouzelis reconstructed Giddens' original theories.[10] 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. [11] 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."[12]:p.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." [12]:p.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.[13]
John B. Thompson
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]:p.46 wrote one of the
most widely-cited critiques of structuration theory.[14] 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." [14]:p.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" [14]:p.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." [14]:p.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 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."[14]:p.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."[14]:p.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." [14]:p.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."[14]:p.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",[15]:p.54 and described structuration as a "mode of institutional
articulation"[16]:p.257 with emphasis on the relationship between time and space and a host of
institutional orderings including, but not limited to, rules.

Ultimately, Thomas 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]:p.51[17]

Change
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.[17]:p.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." [17]:p.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."[17]:p.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
This theory was 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 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.[18]

Wanda Orlikowski applied 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."[19]:p.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[18] for enactment (use). The "practice lens" shows how people enact structures which shape
their use of technology that they employ in their practices.[20] 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.[21]

Workman, Ford and Allen rearticulated structuration theory as structuration agency theory for
modeling socio-biologically inspired structuration in security software.[22] 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.

Business
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" [23]:p.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.

Group communication
Poole, Seibold, and McPhee wrote that "group structuration theory," [24]:p.3 provides "a theory of group
interaction commensurate with the complexities of the phenomenon." [25]:p.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.[24]

Public relations
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." [26]:p.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.[26]

See also
  Social structure
 Structure and agency
 Social change
 Text and conversation theory
 Macrosociology
 Constitutive criminology
 Health geography
 A Community of Witches: Wicca and modernity
 Comparative contextual analysis
 Sociology of space
 Theories of technology
 Grand theory
 Archaeology of religion and ritual
 Action theory

References
1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the
theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. ISBN 0-520-05728-7.
2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Stones, R. (2005). Structuration theory. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
3. ^ a b Bryant, C.G.A., & Jary, D. (1991). Coming to terms with Anthony Giddens. In C.G.A.
Bryant & D. Jary (Eds.), Giddens' theory of structuration: A critical appreciation (pp. 1-32).
New York, NY: Routledge.
4. ^ a b Giddens, A. (1993). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of
interpretative sociologies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
5. ^ a b c Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and
contradiction in social analysis. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
6. ^ McLennan, G. (1997/2000/2001). Critical or positive theory? A comment on the status of
Anthony Giddens' social theory. In C.G.A. Bryant & D. Jary (Eds.), Anthony Giddens:
Critical assessments, (pp. 318-327). New York, NY: Routledge.
7. ^ Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
8. ^ a b Ilmonen, K. (2001). Sociology, consumption, and routine. In J. Gronow & A. Warde
(Eds.), Ordinary Consumption (pp. 9-25). New York, NY: Routledge.
9. ^ Archer, M. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
10. ^ Healy, K. (1998). "Conceptualising constraint: Mouzelis, Archer, and the concept of social
structure." Sociology, 613(4), pp.613-635.
11. ^ Mouzelis, N. (1989). "Restructuring structuration theory." The Sociological Review, 32(3),
pp.509-522.
12. ^ a b Mouzelis, N. (1991). Back to sociological theory: The construction of social orders. New
York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
13. ^ Parker, J. (2000). Structuration Buckingham: Open University Press.
14. ^ a b c d e f g h Thompson, J.B. (1984). Studies in the theory of ideology. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
15. ^ Giddens, A. (1981). A contemporary critique of historical materialism: vol 1: Power,
property, and the state. London: Macmillan.
16. ^ Giddens, A. (1989). A reply to my critics. In D. Held & J. B. Thompson (Eds.), Social
theory of modern societies: Anthony Giddens and his critics, (pp.249-301). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
17. ^ a b c d Sewell, Jr., W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: duality, agency, and transformation.
The American Journal of Sociology, 98(1):1-29.
18. ^ a b Desanctis, G. & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology
use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2):121-147.
19. ^ 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
 20. ^ Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for
studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4):404-428.
21. ^ Stillman, L. (2006). (Ph.D Thesis). Understandings of Technology in Community-Based
Organisations: A Structurational Analysis. Monash University, Australia. Retrieved from:
http://webstylus.net/?q=node/182.
22. ^ Workman, M., Ford, R., & Allen, W. (2008). A structuration agency approach to security
policy enforcement in mobile ad hoc networks. Information Security Journal, 17, 267-277.
23. ^ Pavlou, P.A>, & Majchrzak, A. (2002). Structuration theory: Capturing the complexity of
business-to-business intermediaries. In M. Warkentin (Ed.), Business to business electronic
commerce: Challenges & solutions (pp.175-189). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
24. ^ a b Waldeck, J.H., Shepard, C.A., Teitelbaum, J., Farrar, W.J., & Seibold, D.R. (2002). New
directions for functional, symbolic convergence, structuration, and bona fide group
perspectives of group communication. In L.R. Frey (Ed.), New directions in group
communication (pp.3-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
25. ^ Poole, M.S., Seibold, D.R., & McPhee, R.D. (1996). The structuration of group decisions.
In R.Y. Hirokawa & M.S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (pp.114-
146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26. ^ a b Falkheimer, J. (2009). On Giddens: Interpreting public relations through Anthony
Giddens' structuration and late modernity theory. In O. Ihlen, B. van Ruler, & M. Frederiksson
(Eds.), Public relations and social theory: Key figures and concepts (pp.103-119). New York,
NY: Routledge.

External links
 Anthony Giddens'The constitution of society: An outline of the theory of structuration..
Giddens' most comprehensive work on structuration theory. Available in part for free online
via Google Books
 This book is intended to provide an accessible introduction to Giddens' work and also to
situate structuration theory in the context of other approaches. Available in part for free online
via Google Books.
 A critical assessment of Giddens' entire body of work. Available in part for free online via
Google Books.
 Social theory for beginners. Available in part for free online via Google Books.
 Anthony Giddens: The theory of structuration - Theory.org.uk.
 A YouTube video detailing the structure of structuration theory as contrasted with Talcott
Parsons's action theory.