Giddens, structuration theory and Strategy as Practice

Abstract

Introduction Giddens' (1984) structuration theory has an obvious appeal for Strategy as Practice researchers. Of course, Giddens is a practice theorist himself; for him, understanding people's activity is the central purpose of social analysis. But more than this, he has developed concepts of agency, structure and structuration that have intrinsic importance to practice research. His conception of human agency affirms that people's activity matters – practice needs studying because it makes a difference to outcomes. At the same time, his notion of social structure allows for both constraint and enablement – to understand activity, we must attend to institutional embeddedness. Finally, the processual concept of structur ation brings together structure and agency to give them flow – continuity but also the possibility of structural change In this chapter I will develop the case for the relevance of Giddens' structuration theory to Strategy as Practice research. This case will not be monomaniac: structuration theory is not easy to apply empirically and there are alternative approaches that can do more or less similar kinds of job. Accordingly, I shall investigate how management researchers have already tried to apply structuration theory in empirical research, including within the Strategy as Practice tradition. I shall also compare structuration theory with two quite close alternatives, both similarly concerned for the relationship between structure and agency: the practice theoretic approach of Pierre Bourdieu and the Critical Realist approach associated with Roy Bhaskar and Margaret Archer.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 152 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.