Communicating and Organizing in Context

The Theory of Structurational Interaction

Beth Bonniwell Haslett

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781136674877
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Communicating and Organizing in Context integrates Giddens' structuration theory with Goffman's interaction order and develops a new theoretical base—the theory of structurational interaction—for the analysis of communicating and organizing. Both theorists emphasize tacit knowledge, social routines, context, social practices, materiality, frames, agency, and view communication as constitutive of social life and of organizing. Thus their integration in structurational interaction provides a coherent, communication-centric approach to analyzing communicating, organizing and their interrelationships.

This book will be a valuable resource for students and scholars as an orientation to the field of organizational communication and as an integration of organizing and communicating. It will also be useful for practitioners as a tool for understanding how conceptual frames limit possibilities and constitute the nature of organizing and members' participation in organizations.

SECTION II

Giddens’ Structuration Theory

In his work, Giddens (1984) develops the theory of structuration, which addresses the relationship of the individual to society and, more specifically, examines the practices of social interaction which produce and reproduce social systems. Within the duality of structuration, social structure is instantiated by moment-to-moment interaction. In addition, structuration theory provides an understanding of the institutions that are needed in society, their changes over time, and their sociohistorical contexts of organizing. Finally, Giddens’ differing levels and types of context and interaction may be viewed as frames, and thus consistent with frame theory.

For our purposes, because we are focusing on organizing and communicating, Giddens’ work is significant. While Goffman focuses on face-to-face interaction, Giddens extends interaction to encompass social practices that are distanciated in time and space. As such, his work explores critical organizing and communicating issues such as agency, structure, power and change.

In Chapter 5, the basic constructs of structuration theory (ST) are discussed. The duality of structure, time-space distanciation, historicity, and the modalities of structuration are among the topics covered. In Chapter 6, Giddens’ theory is further elaborated with consideration of the sociohistorical contexts of organizing, modernity, types of institutions, change, and globalization. And in Chapter 7, I discuss organizational research done using structuration theory as the theoretical framework for this research. Notable communication scholars applying structuration theory include McPhee, Poole, Seibold, and their colleagues, and Orlikowski and Yates with their work on new information technologies.

Through discussing structuration theory with a communicative focus, the close ties between Goffman and Giddens can readily be discerned. It is their synthesis, the theory of structurational interaction, that I believe will provide rich insights into organizing and communicating.

5

GIDDENS’ STRUCTURATION THEORY

A Brief Overview

Giddens is arguably one of the foremost social theorists of our time. His work has influenced governmental policies as well as significantly influenced sociological theory and social science generally. His work responds to the intellectual divisions in the 1960s and 1970s surrounding social theory, critical social and historical analysis, and the move toward recognizing the active, reflexive character of human conduct. His focus on reflexivity acknowledged the fundamental role of language and cognitive faculties in human activity, and incorporated language and meaning into all spheres of activity. In terms of the continuing debate surrounding structure and agency, Giddens is considered by many to be the most important figure in this debate (Bryant & Jary, 2001a).

Giddens’ structuration theory analyzed the larger political and economic environment in which organizing occurs, as well as the historical transition to modernity and postmodernity. Giddens also suggested the fundamental types of institutions which societies need in order to function, and incorporated material resources into his analyses of organizations. For our purposes, his focus on the duality of structure, which views interaction as the foundation for all organizing activities, is critical. In addition, he utilizes Goffman's interaction order as a foundation for his own work. Simply put, Giddens views structure as a characteristic of social systems which are produced and reproduced through social interaction; at the same time, interaction occurs within the structural properties of social systems. As such, both organizing and communicating recursively produce and reproduce one another.

I will focus on structuration theory and its implications for organizing and communicating. Structuration is an ontological theory, dealing with conceptions of human beings and human doings—“the situated activities of human agents, reproduced across time and space” (Giddens, 1984, p. 25). Action is always constituted through time and space, and “an ontology of time-space as constitutive of social practices is basic to the concept of structuration” (ibid., p. 3). And agents, through their actions, make a difference in the world (ibid., pp. 10–11).

The clash between objectivism and subjectivism is reframed by the duality of structure, which supports “an altered view of the intersection between saying (or signifying) and doing, offering a novel conception of praxis” (Giddens, 1984, p. xxii). For Giddens, the basic study of the social sciences is “neither the experience of the individual actor, nor the existence of any form of societal totality, but social practices ordered across time-space” (ibid., p. 2). Other aspects of his work will be addressed here only as they influence organizing and communicating, but it would be remiss not to recognize the wide-ranging contributions of his social theories.

One of Giddens’ major contributions to the study of communication may be his emphasis on the sociohistorical context of interaction and the concept of time in communication. As Giddens noted,

… the relation between language and the ‘context of use’ are of essential importance to social theory. … context cannot be treated as merely the ‘environment’ or ‘background’ of the use of language. The context of interaction is in some degree shaped and organized as an integral part of that interaction as a communicative encounter.

(Giddens, 1979, p. 83, italics in the original)

Miller (1999) pointed out that through historical data we gain the ability to look at different social contexts, the ability to consider processes of organizational communication over long periods of time, and the retrospective distance to use these events in contemporary theory building. Not an easy task, but Miller argues that, by using frameworks such as structuration theory, social movement theory and symbolic convergence theory to enhance the interpretive interplay between history and theory, we gain a much richer perspective on organizing and organizations.

Social interaction, for Giddens, occurs in the intersection of individual time-space paths and their relations to other agents. Structure is reflected in the “binding” of time-space so that similar social practices can exist across varying time and space contexts, and can be viewed as systemic (Giddens, 1984, p. 17). For Giddens, “social practices, biting into space and time, are considered to be at the root of the constitution of both subject and social object” (Giddens, 1984, p. xxii). As such, Giddens’ structuration theory deals with the “processual dynamic between structure and action” (Cohen, 1990a, p. 34) and larger patterns of information flow and interactional linkages are exposed through Giddens’ analyses.

Structuration Theory

Gidden's theory of structuration developed a “hermeneutic interpretive sociology” which avoided both functionalism and structuralism:

According to the theory of structuration, all social action consists of social practices, situated in time-space, and organised in a skilled and knowledgeable fashion by human agents. But such knowledgeability is always ‘bounded’ by unacknowledged conditions of action on the one side, and unintended consequences of action on the other. … By the duality of structure I mean that the structured properties of social systems are simultaneously the medium and outcome of social acts.

(Giddens, 1981, p. 19)

For Giddens, social life and social systems are recursive. As he noted, social practices are a mediating concept between agency and structure: we enact social practices and thus realize and act upon structures (Giddens, 1984, pp. 2–4). While social structures are reproduced through social interaction, there is always the possibility for change; change and continuity are always in tension with one another. In Giddens’ view, then, social systems “comprise the situated activities of human agents, reproduced across time and space. Analysing the structuration of social systems means studying the modes in which such systems, grounded in the knowledgeable activities of situated actors who draw upon rules and resources in the diversity of action contexts, are produced and reproduced in interaction” (Giddens, 1984, p. 25).

The duality of structure is used to assess social practices on two levels—the interactional level and structural level (Sydow & Windeler, 1997). The interactional level consists of communication, power and sanction while the structural level consists of signification, domination and legitimation; elements within these levels interact with one another.

Various modalities connect these two levels of interaction and structure: the modality of interpretative schemes connects communication with signification; facilities connect power with domination; and norms connect sanctions with legitimation. All aspects of both levels are simultaneously present in every interaction. As such, competent agents apply interpretive schemes appropriate to the context in which they are operating, and mobilize facilities that they have access to in order to accomplish their purposes. Finally, agents apply sanctions to maintain actions they deem legitimate in a given context.

TABLE 5.1 Modalities of Structuration and Social Institutions

Social Institutions*	Symbolic	Political/economic	Legal
Structures	Signification	Domination	Legitimation
Modalities	Interpretive schemes	Facilities	Norms
Interaction	Communication	Power	Legitimation

*All social institutions use all modalities; however, they vary in what modalities are most important. From most important to least important, these modalities are ranked S-D-L in symbolic institutions; D-S-L in political and economic institutions, and L-D-S in legal institutions. (Adapted from Giddens, 1984, p. 31 and 1979, p. 82.)

Language provides an autonomous semiotic system that underlies verbal communication. Thus, in social interaction, “‘messages’ are always ‘texts’ in the sense in which they are generated from, and express a plurality of codes” (ibid., p. 99). For Giddens, structures of signification involve a system of semantic rules and codes (Giddens, 1976, pp. 123–24). When studying signification on the institutional level (the level of social systems), signification is reflected in modes of discourse and symbolic systems (i.e., world views, interpretative frameworks) (Craib, 1992, p. 53). Ideology, for Giddens, instantiates structures of signification that support the interests of powerful social groups (Giddens, 1979).

Modalities of structuration. Modalities are “the mediation of interaction and structure in the process of social reproduction” (Giddens, 1976, p. 122). These practices interact and intersect one another both as processes and as institutional forms (Giddens, 1984, p. 33). Every interaction contains aspects of meaning, power and moral sanctions. For Giddens, structure as signification reflects semantic rules; as domination it reflects unequal distribution of resources; and as legitimation it reflects evaluative rules. These three corresponding modalities of structuration—interpretive schemes, facilities (control over people and resources), and norms—link social action with social structure.

The distinctions among signification, domination and legitimation are primarily analytic. As Giddens pointed out, “If signification is fundamentally structure in and through language, language at the same time expresses aspects of domination; and the codes that are involved in signification have normative force. Authorization and allocation are only mobilized in conjunction with signifying and normative elements; and, finally, legitimation necessarily involves signification as well as playing a major part in co-ordinating forms of domination” (Giddens, 1979, pp. 106–7).

Interpretive schemes, stocks of meanings, and mutual knowledge not only enable mutual sensemaking among interactants, but also provide some structural constraints. Giddens distinguished between mutual knowledge, which refers to the “authenticity of belief” (Giddens, 1984, p. 336), and common sense, which refers to the “propositional beliefs implicated in the conduct of day-to-day activities” (ibid., p. 337). An agent's positioning, power, access to information and the unintended consequences of action are limits upon knowledgeability.

Norms link institutional structures of legitimation with moral sanctions and accountability in human actions. Such norms are the expected rights and obligations of participants interacting in a wide range of contexts (Giddens, 1979). But Giddens distinguished between the taken-for-granted (knowledgeability) and the accepted-as-legitimate. “Social life, in all societies, contains many types of practice or aspects of practices which are sustained in and through the knowledgeability of social actors but which they do not reproduce as a matter of normative commitment” (Giddens, 1981, p. 65).

There are also more calculated approaches in which agents weigh the costs versus the benefits of following certain social practices. For Giddens, such calculations may be limited by an agent's social positioning, how knowledge is developed and accessed, the validity of belief systems, and the dissemination of knowledge (Craib, 1992, p. 85). In modern societies, reflexivity is continuous because there are few traditions, and new information is always being produced.

Authorization and allocation are two resources that comprise the structures of domination. Authorization involves control over people (political institutions), while allocation involves control over material resources (economic institutions). Domination involves a system of resources, and legitimation involves a system of moral rules (Giddens, 1976, pp. 123–24). Finally, legitimation operates through sanctions which can be constraining or enabling, as well as coercive or inducing. As Storper noted, for Giddens the “web of different temporalities is woven together through the process of legitimation: it is a key to transformation and mediation relations among practices, on the one hand, and rules and resources, on the other … legitimation is nothing more than the outcome of interaction” (Storper, 1997, p. 53).

Giddens (1979) suggests that four structures (that is, rules and resources in four areas) tie agents’ actions to social systems:

1. Signification—structures of meaning and communication;

2. Domination—structures of control and power; there are two distinct aspects: authoritative control that commands others, and allocative command which refers to control over objects or material goods; and

3. Legitimation—structures conferring legal or normative sanctioning.

Every action reflects these four structures, and actors strategically select from these structures to conduct everyday life. As Kaspersen observed, an agent “uses communication, power, and legitimation in all … actions” (Kaspersen, 2000, p. 61).

According to Giddens (1979), signification institutions (incorporating discourse, meaning and ideology) include churches, the media, and schools. Authoritative institutions include political institutions, while allocative institutions include economic institutions. Legitimation institutions include laws and jurisprudence. In order to have some degree of cohesiveness or social integration, societies must have all these types of institutions. And, in any analysis of social change, Giddens argues that one must look at all four institutions and their interrelationships in order to assess this change. These institutional distinctions provide a useful categorization for the institutions in a society (Giddens, 1979, p. 107). Thrift observed that different institutional orders—the political, symbolic, economic and legal—“will have different levels and distributions of contact in time-space” (Thrift, 1997a, p. 127).

All of these modalities operate simultaneously in interactions and social practices. According to Giddens, “structure cannot exist apart from the human actors who enact and interpret its dimensions” (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991, p. 149). In organizing and communicating, then, humans are knowledgeable actors (using interpretive schemes), exercising power (using resources), and are held accountable for their actions (using legitimation).

Orlikowski noted that structure is viewed as

the set of enacted rules and resources that mediate social action through three dimensions or modalities: facilities, norms, and interpretive schemes. … In their [agents’] recurrent social practices, they draw on their (tacit and explicit) knowledge of their prior action and the situation at hand, the facilities available to them (e.g., land, buildings, technology), and the norms that inform their ongoing practices, and in this way, apply such knowledge, facilities, and habits of the mind and body to “structure” their current action … In doing so, they recursively instantiate and thus reconstitute the rules and resources that structure their social action.

(Orlikowski, 2000, p. 409)

Thus “organizational reality can be analyzed in terms of the interlocking modalities comprising interpretive schemes, facilities, and norms” (Wilmott, 1981, p. 472).

These modalities can be bracketed for analysis, focusing on modalities as either features of social interaction (resources and rules) or as features of social systems. Modalities articulate the connection between the levels of action and system. As Giddens (1979, p. 81) puts it, the introduction of the level of modality provides “coupling elements” through which the bracketing of actors’ strategic conduct or the properties of social systems are eliminated in recognition of their interrelation (Wilmott, 1981, pp. 472–73). As such, Giddens’ structuration theory views structures as properties of social systems that are instantiated through social interaction and articulates “how interaction is accomplished by drawing upon the structural properties of social systems” (ibid., p. 473). Therefore, any and every interaction reflects an actor's strategic conduct as well as social structure—representing the duality of structure in which structure and agency co-occur.

Every institutionaliz...

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• COMMUNICATING AND ORGANIZING IN CONTEXT
• COMMUNICATION SERIES
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• CONTENTS
• List of Figures and Tables
• Acknowledgements
• Preface
• SECTION I A Framework for Organizing and Communicating
• SECTION II Giddens' Structuration Theory
• SECTION III Goffman on Communicating and Organizing
• SECTION IV Toward a Theory of Structurational Interaction
• References
• Index