Editing Structuration theory (section)

==Criticisms and additions==
Though structuration theory has received critical expansion since its origination, Giddens' concepts remained pivotal for later extension of the theory, especially the duality of structure.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Elkafrawi |first1=Nermin |last2=Roos |first2=Annie |last3=Refai |first3=Deema |date=2022-03-01 |title=Contextualising rural entrepreneurship – A strong structuration perspective on gendered-local agency |journal=International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship |volume=40 |issue=8 |language=en |pages=1019–1040 |doi=10.1177/02662426211069851 |issn=0266-2426|doi-access=free }}</ref>

===Strong structuration===
Rob Stones argued that many aspects of Giddens' 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:
#Places its ontology more ''[[in situ]]'' than abstractly.<!--what does that mean?-->
#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";<ref name="Structuration theory" />{{rp|9}} and
#* ''outcomes'' (as both structures and events).
#Increases attention to epistemology and methodology. Ontology supports epistemology and methodology by prioritising:
#* the question-at-hand;
#* appropriate forms of methodological bracketing;
#* distinct [[Methodology|methodological]] steps in research; and
#* "[t]he specific combinations of all the above in composite forms of research."<ref name="Structuration theory" />{{rp|189}}
#Discovers the "meso-level of ontology between the abstract, philosophical level of ontology and the ''in-situ'', [[ontic]] level."<ref name="Structuration theory" /> Strong structuration allows varied abstract ontological concepts in experiential conditions.
#Focuses on the meso-level at the temporal and spatial scale.
#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."<ref name="Structuration theory" />

===Post-structuration and dualism===
[[Margaret Archer]] objected to the inseparability of [[structure and agency]] in structuration theory.<ref name="Archer">Archer, M. (1995). ''Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref> 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."<ref name="Structuration theory" /> Archer criticised structuration theory for denying time and place because of the inseparability between structure and agency.<ref name="Structuration theory" />

[[Nicos Mouzelis]] reconstructed Giddens' original theories.<ref name="Conceptualising constraint">Healy, K. (1998). "Conceptualising constraint: Mouzelis, Archer, and the concept of social structure." ''Sociology, 613''(4), pp.613-635.</ref> 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.<ref name="Restructuring structuration theory">Mouzelis, N. (1989). "Restructuring structuration theory." ''The Sociological Review, 32''(3), pp.509-522.</ref> Mouzelis reexamined human social action at the "[[Syntagmatic analysis|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."<ref name="Back to sociological theory" />{{rp|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."<ref name="Back to sociological theory">Mouzelis, N. (1991). ''Back to sociological theory: The construction of social orders.'' New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.</ref>{{rp|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.<ref name="Parker structuration theory">Parker, J. (2000). ''Structuration'' Buckingham: Open University Press.</ref> Equally, Robert Archer developed and applied analytical dualism in his critical analysis of the impact of New Managerialism on education policy in England and Wales during the 1990s<ref>{{cite book |last1=Archer |first1=Robert |title=Education policy and realist social theory : primary teachers, child-centred philosophy and new managerialism. |publisher=Routledge |isbn=9780415464338 |url=https://www.routledge.com/Education-Policy-and-Realist-Social-Theory-Primary-Teachers-Child-Centred/Archer/p/book/9780415464338|date=2007-12-24 }}</ref> and organization theory.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Archer |first1=Robert |title=The Place of Culture in Organization Theory: Introducing the Morphogenetic Approach |journal=Organization |date=2000 |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=95–128 |doi=10.1177/135050840071006 |s2cid=145352259 |url=https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840071006}}</ref>

===John B. Thompson===
{{Main|John Thompson (sociologist)}}

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")<ref name="Structuration theory" />{{rp|46}} wrote one of the most widely cited critiques of structuration theory.<ref name="Theory of Ideology">Thompson, J.B. (1984). ''Studies in the theory of ideology''. Cambridge: Polity Press.</ref> 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 {{em|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."<ref name="Theory of Ideology" />{{rp|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 rule]]s may be relevant to social structure, to study them "presupposes some structural points of reference which are not themselves {{em|rules}}, with regard to which [of] these semantic rules are differentiated"<ref name="Theory of Ideology" />{{rp|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 {{em|differentially}}, affecting unevenly various groups of individuals whose categorization depends on certain assumptions about social structures."<ref name="Theory of Ideology" />{{rp|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 a manager could draw upon a "rule" to fire a tardy employee; rather, they were {{em|elements}} which "{{em|limit}} the kinds of rules which are possible and which thereby {{em|delimit}} the scope for institutional variation."<ref name="Theory of Ideology" />{{rp|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."<ref name="Theory of Ideology" />{{rp|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 "[[social institutions|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."<ref name="Theory of Ideology" />{{rp|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."<ref name="Theory of Ideology" />{{rp|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",<ref name="Contemporary critique">Giddens, A. (1981). ''A contemporary critique of historical materialism: vol 1: Power, property, and the state.'' London: Macmillan.</ref>{{rp|54}} and described structuration as a "mode of institutional articulation"<ref name="A reply to my critics">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.</ref>{{rp|257}} with emphasis on the relationship between time and space and a host of institutional orderings including, but not limited to, rules.

Ultimately, Thompson 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."<ref name="Structuration theory" />{{rp|51}}<ref name="Sewell" />

===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 [[Schema (Kant)|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.<ref name="Sewell" />{{rp|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 (sociology)|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."<ref name="Sewell">Sewell, Jr., W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: duality, agency, and transformation. ''The American Journal of Sociology, 98''(1):1-29.</ref>{{rp|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."<ref name="Sewell" />{{rp|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 [[social solidarity|solidarity]]).

===Technology===
{{see also|Theories of technology}}
This theory was adapted and augmented by researchers interested in the relationship between [[technology]] and social structures, such as [[information technology]] in organizations. [[Gerardine DeSanctis|DeSanctis]] and [[Marshall Scott Poole|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". "[[Appropriation (sociology)|Appropriation]]s" 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.<ref name="DeSanctis and Poole">Desanctis, G. & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. ''Organization Science, 5''(2):121-147.</ref>

[[Wanda Orlikowski]] applied 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]]."<ref name="Orlikowski 1992">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</ref>{{rp|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<ref name="DeSanctis and Poole" /> for enactment (use). The "practice lens" shows how people enact structures which shape their use of technology that they employ in their practices.<ref name="Orlikowski 2000">Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. ''Organization Science, 11''(4):404-428.</ref> 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.<ref name="Stillman 2006">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.</ref>

Workman, Ford and Allen rearticulated structuration theory as ''structuration agency theory'' for modeling socio-biologically inspired structuration in [[security software]].<ref name="Workman, Ford, & Allen 2008">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.</ref> 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.

=== Four-flows-model ===
The four flows model of organizing is grounded in structuration theory. McPhee and Pamela Zaug (2001)<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=McPhee|first1=Robert D.|last2=Zaug|first2=Pamela|date=2001-09-01|title=Organizational Theory, Organizational Communication, Organizational Knowledge, and Problematic Integration|url=https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/51/3/574-591/4110024|journal=Journal of Communication|language=en|volume=51|issue=3|pages=574–591|doi=10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02897.x|issn=0021-9916|url-access=subscription}}</ref> identify four communication flows that collectively perform key organizational functions and distinguish organizations from less formal social groups:

* Membership negotiation—socialization, but also identification and self-positioning;
* Organizational self-structuring—reflexive, especially managerial, structuring and control activities;
* Activity coordination—Interacting to align or adjust local work activities;
* Institutional positioning in the social order of institutions—mostly external communication to gain recognition and inclusion in the web of social transactions.

===Group communication===
Poole, Seibold, and McPhee wrote that "group structuration theory,"<ref name="Group communication">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.</ref>{{rp|3}} provides "a theory of group interaction commensurate with the complexities of the phenomenon."<ref name="Group communication 2">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.</ref>{{rp|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 properties|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.<ref name="Group communication" />

===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."<ref name="PR">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.</ref>{{rp|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 {{em|should}} transform.<ref name="PR" />

=== COVID-19 and structure ===
the [[COVID-19]] pandemic had huge impact on society since the beginning.{{Citation needed|date=April 2022}} When investigating those impacts, many researchers found helpful using structuration theory to explain the change in society. Oliver (2021)<ref>{{Citation|last1=Oliver|first1=Gillian|title=Societal Information Cultures: Insights from the COVID-19 Pandemic|date=2021|url=https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-71292-1_48|work=Diversity, Divergence, Dialogue|volume=12645|pages=618–634|editor-last=Toeppe|editor-first=Katharina|place=Cham|publisher=Springer International Publishing|language=en|doi=10.1007/978-3-030-71292-1_48|isbn=978-3-030-71291-4|access-date=2021-11-15|last2=Jeurgens|first2=Charles|last3=Lian|first3=Zhiying|last4=Haraldsdottir|first4=Ragna Kemp|last5=Foscarini|first5=Fiorella|last6=Wang|first6=Ning|series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |s2cid=232294007 |editor2-last=Yan|editor2-first=Hui|editor3-last=Chu|editor3-first=Samuel Kai Wah|url-access=subscription}}</ref> used "a theoretical framework derived from Giddens' structuration theory to analyze societal information cultures, concentrating on information and health literacy perspectives." And this framework focused on "the three modalities of structuration, i.e., interpretive schemes, resources, and norms." And in Oliver's research, those three modalities are "resources", "information freedom" and "formal and informal concepts and rules of behavior". After analyzing four countries framework, Oliver and his research team concluded "All our case studies show a number of competing information sources – from traditional media and official websites to various social media platforms used by both the government and the general public – that complicate the information landscape in which we all try to navigate what we know, and what we do not yet know, about the pandemic."

In the research of interpreting how remote work environment change during COVID-19 in [[South Africa]], Walter (2020)<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Matli|first=Walter|date=2020-12-02|title=The changing work landscape as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic: insights from remote workers life situations in South Africa|journal=International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy|language=en|volume=40|issue=9/10|pages=1237–1256|doi=10.1108/IJSSP-08-2020-0386|issn=0144-333X|doi-access=free}}</ref> applied structuration theory because "it addresses the relationship between actors (or persons) and social structures and how these social structures ultimately realign and conform to the actions of actors" Plus, "these social structures from Giddens's structuration theory assist people to navigate through everyday life."

Zvokuomba (2021)<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kabonga|first1=Itai|last2=Zvokuomba|first2=Kwashirai|date=2021-09-29|title=Surviving on the margins: Volunteers' agency to survive poverty and vulnerability in Zimbabwe|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00208728211045423|journal=International Social Work|volume=66 |issue=4 |pages=1135–1141|doi=10.1177/00208728211045423|s2cid=244235701 |issn=0020-8728|url-access=subscription}}</ref> also used Giddens' theory of structuration "to reflect at the various levels of fragilities within the context of COVID-19 [[lockdown]] measures." One example in the research is that "theory of structuration and agency point to situations when individuals and groups of people either in compliance or defiance of community norms and rules of survival adopt certain practices." And during pandemic, researched pointed out "reverting to the traditional midwifery became a pragmatic approach to a problem." One example to support this point is that "As medical centers were partly closed, with no basic medication and health staff, the only alternative was seek traditional medical services. "

=== Business and structure ===
Structuration theory can also be used in explaining business related issues including operating, managing and marketing.

Clifton Scott and Karen Myers (2010<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Scott|first1=Clifton|last2=Myers|first2=Karen|date=February 2010|title=Toward an Integrative Theoretical Perspective on Organizational Membership Negotiations: Socialization, Assimilation, and the Duality of Structure|url=https://academic.oup.com/ct/article/20/1/79-105/4085663|journal=Communication Theory|language=en|volume=20|issue=1|pages=79–105|doi=10.1111/j.1468-2885.2009.01355.x|url-access=subscription}}</ref>)studied how the duality of structure can explain the shifts of members' actions during the membership negotiations in an organization by This is an example of how structure evolves with the interaction of a group of people.

Another case study done by Dutta (2016<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Dutta|first1=Dev K.|last2=Malhotra|first2=Shavin|last3=Zhu|first3=PengCheng|date=February 2016|title=Internationalization process, impact of slack resources, and role of the CEO: The duality of structure and agency in evolution of cross-border acquisition decisions|url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1090951615000395|journal=Journal of World Business|language=en|volume=51|issue=2|pages=212–225|doi=10.1016/j.jwb.2015.07.001|url-access=subscription}}</ref>) and his research team shows how the models shift because of the action of individuals. The article examines the relationship between [[Chief executive officer|CEO]]'s behavior and a company's cross-border [[Mergers and acquisitions|acquisition]]. This case can also demonstrate one of the major dimensions in the duality of structure, the sense of power from the CEO. Authors found out that the process follows the theory of duality of structure: under the circumstances of CEO is [[Overconfidence effect|overconfident]], and the company is the limitation of resources, the process of cross-border acquisition is likely to be different than before.

Yuan ElaineJ (2011<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Yuan|first1=Elaine J.|last2=Ksiazek|first2=Thomas B.|date=2011-05-25|title=The Duality of Structure in China's National Television Market: A Network Analysis of Audience Behavior|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08838151.2011.570825|journal=Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media|language=en|volume=55|issue=2|pages=180–197|doi=10.1080/08838151.2011.570825|s2cid=55934782 |issn=0883-8151}}</ref>)'s research focused on a certain demographic of people under the structure. Authors studied Chinese TV shows and audiences' flavor of the show. The author concludes in the relationship between the audience and the TV shows producers, audiences' behavior has higher-order patterns.

Pavlou and Majchrzak argued that research on business-to-business [[e-commerce]] portrayed technology as overly [[determinism|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"<ref name="Business to business">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.</ref>{{rp|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.