The Reflexive side of Structuration Theory
Monday, November 02, 2009
0
comments
One of the most interesting aspects of Structuration theory (ST) is the idea of reflexive monitoring of action by human actors, which offers an insight into how structuration processes can persist over time and space. ST's basic concepts: duality of structure, structuration and its three modalities, as you can see in my previous post, explain how human action and social structures are interdependent. The modalities (or dimensions) of structuration: interpretive scheme, norms and facilities define the process of structuration but also provide us with analytical lenses through which we can explore it.
How do people use their social structures and modalities to act? Or as Orlikowski (2000) would say how do people enact structures?
Giddens' explanation is through the concept of reflexive monitoring of action. When people act they use their knowledge (of what they are doing) at the level of practical consciousness. Practical consciousness is the actors’ ability to act according to their stock of personal knowledge but which they are not able to explain. It is what they “know how to do” Giddens (1979). Another level, discursive consciousness, is the actors’ ability to explicitly articulate their actions and motivations in terms of their knowledge. That is when actors are able to explain what and why they are doing things. To achieve practical and discursive consciousness actors need to act in a reflexive way. Reflexive action happens at an unconscious level, so you do not need to be thinking on what you are doing all the time. It is the natural way of doing things based on what we know and have (as in the modalities of structuration.) Reflexive monitoring of actions means that actors are always assessing their own actions, the ones of the people around them and the results of those actions. The result of this assessment may be a continuation of actions as they were happening or their modification. The reproduction of structures (as they were) leads to routinisation of actions. This means that routines are created which form patterns of interactions which become institutionalized, that is they become part of the structure of the social system in which actors are interacting. However these routines are only a temporal effect as unacknowledged conditions and unintended consequences of action can alter the results and lead to change. These adjustments occur at incremental paces as each actor monitors their actions. Seen from a societal point of view these changes can be seen as individual, slow, imperceptible changes but which aggregated lead to the evolution of societies.
Atkinson and Brooks (2003) see the reflective monitoring of actions as not accounting for conscious, dramatic change. That is, for overt initiatives, such as the implementation of an information system in an organization, which can interrupt the flow of slow change to impose new technologies. This means that there is one actor or actors (e.g., the IT department) which is consciously trying to solve a problem by changing the structures (and interpretive schemes, norms and facilities) of their users. However Jones and Karsten (2008) disagree and state that the dimensions of the duality of structure already account for emancipatory change in every instant of action. That is, the actions of the IT department could be studied by the use of the modalities and considering the reflective monitoring of actions of Software developers' own actions and the ones of their users.
Giddens, A., (1979), Central problems in social theory : action, structure and contradiction in social analysis, Basingstoke, Macmillan.
Jones, MR, and 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', Organisation Science, 11(4), 404-428.
How do people use their social structures and modalities to act? Or as Orlikowski (2000) would say how do people enact structures?
Giddens' explanation is through the concept of reflexive monitoring of action. When people act they use their knowledge (of what they are doing) at the level of practical consciousness. Practical consciousness is the actors’ ability to act according to their stock of personal knowledge but which they are not able to explain. It is what they “know how to do” Giddens (1979). Another level, discursive consciousness, is the actors’ ability to explicitly articulate their actions and motivations in terms of their knowledge. That is when actors are able to explain what and why they are doing things. To achieve practical and discursive consciousness actors need to act in a reflexive way. Reflexive action happens at an unconscious level, so you do not need to be thinking on what you are doing all the time. It is the natural way of doing things based on what we know and have (as in the modalities of structuration.) Reflexive monitoring of actions means that actors are always assessing their own actions, the ones of the people around them and the results of those actions. The result of this assessment may be a continuation of actions as they were happening or their modification. The reproduction of structures (as they were) leads to routinisation of actions. This means that routines are created which form patterns of interactions which become institutionalized, that is they become part of the structure of the social system in which actors are interacting. However these routines are only a temporal effect as unacknowledged conditions and unintended consequences of action can alter the results and lead to change. These adjustments occur at incremental paces as each actor monitors their actions. Seen from a societal point of view these changes can be seen as individual, slow, imperceptible changes but which aggregated lead to the evolution of societies.
Atkinson and Brooks (2003) see the reflective monitoring of actions as not accounting for conscious, dramatic change. That is, for overt initiatives, such as the implementation of an information system in an organization, which can interrupt the flow of slow change to impose new technologies. This means that there is one actor or actors (e.g., the IT department) which is consciously trying to solve a problem by changing the structures (and interpretive schemes, norms and facilities) of their users. However Jones and Karsten (2008) disagree and state that the dimensions of the duality of structure already account for emancipatory change in every instant of action. That is, the actions of the IT department could be studied by the use of the modalities and considering the reflective monitoring of actions of Software developers' own actions and the ones of their users.Giddens, A., (1979), Central problems in social theory : action, structure and contradiction in social analysis, Basingstoke, Macmillan.
Jones, MR, and 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', Organisation Science, 11(4), 404-428.
Labels:
structuration theory
Posts
