504138
research-article2013
MCQ27410.1177/0893318913504138Management Communication QuarterlyHaslett
Forum
Management Communication Quarterly
27(4) 596–598
Introductory Remarks: © The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
Structuration Theory sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0893318913504138
mcq.sagepub.com
Beth Bonniwell Haslett1
While Giddens’ structuration theory is widely known for its contribution to
understanding social order, political systems, modernity, and globalization,
its significance for communication is less widely recognized. Yet communi-
cation is central to Giddens’ view of social order and social evolution. Many
of his concepts have direct relevance for organizational communication.
A key concept of structuration is the duality of structure: “By the duality
of structure I mean that the structured properties of social systems are simul-
taneously the medium and outcome of social acts” (Giddens, 1981, p. 19).
That is, through interaction, participants draw upon structural resources of
signification, domination, and legitimation in their daily encounters, and thus
produce and reproduce social structures through their social practices. These
interactional, recursive patterns reflect institutional norms and practices and
can also be vehicles for change in organizations.
Related constructs include sociohistoricity or the acknowledgment that
agency occurs in particular times in the context of the surrounding social and
historical forces. Giddens argues that communication and transportation have
been key forces in the development of societies, changing from tribal to class
to nation-state forms of organizing. And all societies have institutions of sig-
nification (meaning), domination (power through allocation or authoriza-
tion), and legitimation (institutions that reflect the legal and moral standards
of the group). Thus, all interactions have elements of meaning, power, and
legitimation. The concept of distanciation or time–space relationships is also
critical to organizing—different forms and locales for organizing are a func-
tion of disembedding and reembedding activities across wide stretches of
1University of Delaware, Newark, USA
Corresponding Author:
Beth Bonniwell Haslett, Department of Communication, University of Delaware, 250 Pearson
Hall, Newark, DE 19711, USA.
Email: bjh@udel.edu
Haslett 597
time and space. It is important to understand that interaction (agency) cannot
be divorced from its surrounding social milieu.
From this brief overview, Giddens’ importance in the study of organizing
and communicating can readily been seen. The essays that follow, by Haslett,
Heracleous, Poole, and Putnam, explore different facets of structuration the-
ory and its applicability to studying organizational communication.
Heracleous explores structuration in organizational discourse and sug-
gests that structurational concepts can be used in the framing, analysis, and
interpretation of organizational discourse. He argues that Giddens utilizes
multiple levels of discourse in his structuration theory: discourse as discur-
sive consciousness, as ideology, as knowledge articulation, as language, and
as a stratification model for agency. Connecting structural features of dis-
course and the normative aspects of institutions will provide additional
insight into organizational discourse, particularly into unstated premises of
interpretation. Giddens’ methodological pluralism allows multiple methods
of analysis in applying structuration theory to organizational discourses.
Poole’s essay reviews the use of structuration theory in the analysis of
small group communication. Poole, McPhee, Seibold, and others have used
structuration theory to analyze the duality of structure in small groups, small
group composition, and argumentation. Structurational Argumentation
Theory (SAT) looks at the exercise of power, group relations, and group com-
position in forging arguments and reaching group decisions. Adaptive
Structurational Theory (AST) explores how groups implement and use infor-
mation technologies and how groups adapt technologies for their own uses.
Other studies have examined group composition and group deliberation pro-
cesses. He concludes by suggesting future directions for research.
Haslett has developed a new theory, Structurational Interaction (SI), which
fuses Giddens’ structuration theory with Goffman’s interaction order.
Through frame theory, Haslett synthesizes their work to develop a theoretical
perspective that offers a greatly expanded view of communicative context
and a more in-depth view of interaction itself. Through SI, more elaborated
analyses of practical consciousness, agent knowledgeability, communicative
contexts, and the linkages between modalities of communication and institu-
tional structures are possible. In addition, this new perspective on organizing,
communicating, and their interrelationships opens up new issues to explore
such as time–space relationships and how globalization impacts organizing
on the macro- and micro levels.
Putnam’s essay explores the use of Giddens’ structuration theory to
explore primary and secondary contradictions in organizational settings.
Contradictions lay the seeds for structural and system change as well as
mediate sense-making and agency in organizations. She clusters organiza-
tional studies on contradiction into three areas: how members make sense of
598 Management Communication Quarterly 27(4)
contradictions; how the dialectic of control plays out in ideological position-
ings that lead to contradictions; and how changes may disrupt sociohistorical
patterns. Putnam concludes by calling for studies that view organizations as
the enactment of dialectic processes.
Taken together, these essays remind us of the rich legacy provided by
Giddens’ structuration theory and suggest promising future directions for
research. Heracleous and Haslett argue for the importance of time and practi-
cal consciousness, while Heracleous and Poole highlight the methodological
pluralism in structuration theory. Putnam notes the impact of contradiction in
organizations, particularly contradictions that are not fully recognized by
organizational members. All essays highlight the importance and impact of
interaction and interpretation in organizations albeit in different contexts.
Giddens argues for the value of multiple methods of inquiry, and all essays
acknowledge the importance of differing theoretical approaches and methods
of analysis in investigating organizations and organizational discourse.
In addition, all essays acknowledge that Giddens’ structuration theory pro-
vides a very fruitful approach to understanding globalization; the impact of
mediated communication on our daily personal and professional lives, and
the ways in which economic, legal, and symbolic institutions shape our lives.
Given the speed at which globalizing forces are transforming organizations,
institutions, and daily life, understanding these processes stands as one of our
major scholarly challenges.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Reference
Giddens, A. (1981). A contemporary critique of historical materialism. Power, prop-
erty and the state. Volume 1. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Author Biography
Beth Bonniwell Haslett (PhD, University of Minnesota) is a professor in the
Department of Communication at the University of Delaware. Her research interests
span intercultural and organizational communication, and focus on issues of face,
cross-cultural communication, and the social impact of information and communica-
tion technologies. She is particularly interested in how culture influences the structure
and use of social media.
