Using Concepts from Structuration Theory and Consequence of Modernity to Understand IS Deployment in Health-Care Setting

Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 29)


The use of structuration theory in the field of information systems is long debated. Questions on its applicability and suitability have led to many insightful studies and papers in this area. We, in this chapter, draw on these studies and provide a complementary view on use of ST in studying IS deployment. While doing so, we draw on Giddens’s recent work and utilise telehealth implementation case study as an example.


Structuration theory Telehealth Technology acceptance 



Consequence of modernity


Information communication technology


Information systems


Structuration theory


  1. Avgerou, C., & Madon, S. (2004). Framing IS studies: Understanding the social context of IS innovation. In C. Avgerou, C. Ciborra, & F. Land (Eds.), The social study of information and communication tecahnology innovation, actors, and contexts (pp. 162–182). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barley, S. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of Radiology Departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barley, S. (1990). Images of imaging: Notes on doing logitudinal field work. Organization Science, 1(3), 222–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryant, C., & Jary, D. (2001). The contemporary Giddens: Social theory in a globalizing age. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, R., Inglis, S., McAlister, F., Cleland, J., & Stewart, S. (2007). Telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes for patients with chronic heart failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 334(7600), 942. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39156.536968.55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  9. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press in association with Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Heeks, R. (2006). Health information systems: Failure, success and improvisation. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 75, 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heeks, R., & Davies, A. (1999). Different approaches to information age reform. In R. Heeks (Ed.), Reinventing government in the information age: International practice in IT-enabled public sector reform (pp. 22–48). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones, M., & Karsten, H. (2008). Giddens’s structuration theory and information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 127–157.Google Scholar
  13. Jones, M., & Orlikowski, W. (2007). Information technology and the dynamics of organisational change. In R. Mansell, C. Avgerou, D. Quah, & R. Silverstone (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of information and communication technologies (pp. 293–313). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Jones, M., Orlikowski, W., & Munir, K. (2004). Structuration theory and information systems: A critical reappraisal. In J. Mingers & L. Willcocks (Eds.), Social theory and philosophy for information systems (pp. 297–328). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Kobb, R., & Chumbler, N. (2006). Home telehealth for veterans. In R. Wootton, S. L. Dimmick, & J. C. Kvedar (Eds.), Home telehealth: Connecting care within the community (pp. 86–97). London: Royal Society of Medicine Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lehoux, P., Sicotte, C., Denis, J., Berg, M., & Lacroix, A. (2002). The theory of use behind ­telemedicine: How compatible with physicians’ clinical routines? Social Science & Medicine, 54(6), 889–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. May, C., Finch, T., Mair, F., & Mort, M. (2005). Towards a wireless patient: Chronic illness, scarce care and technological innovation in the United Kingdom. Social Science & Medicine, 61(7), 1485–1494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. May, C., Gask, L., Atkinson, T., Ellis, N., Mair, F., & Esmail, A. (2001). Resisting and promoting new technologies in clinical practice: The case of telepsychiatry. Social Science & Medicine, 52(12), 1889–1901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. May, C., Harrison, R., Macfarlane, A., Williams, T., Mair, F., & Wallace, P. (2003a). Why do telemedicine systems fail to normalize as stable models of service delivery? Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 9(Suppl 1), S1:25–S1:26.Google Scholar
  20. May, C., Mort, M., Williams, T., Mair, F., & Gask, L. (2003b). Health technology assessment in its local contexts: Studies of telehealthcare. Social Science & Medicine, 57(4), 697–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Orlikowski, W. (1991). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in ­organizations. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Orlikowski, W. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in ­organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Orlikowski, W. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7, 63–92.Google Scholar
  24. Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peddle, K. (2007). Telehealth in context: Socio-technical barriers to telehealth use in Labrador, Canada. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 16, 595–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pozzebon, M., & Pinsonneault, A. (2001). Structuration theory in the IS field: An assessment of research strategies. In Global Corporation in the new millennium, the 9th European conference on information systems (pp. 205–217). Bled: University of Maribor.Google Scholar
  27. Pozzebon, M., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Challenges in conducting empirical work using structuration theory: Learning from IT research. Organization Studies, 26(9), 1353–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rose, J. (2002). Interaction, transformation and information systems development – An extended application of soft systems methodology. Information Technology and People, 15(3), 242–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sahay, S. (1997). Implementation of information technology: A time-space perspective. Organization Studies, 18(2), 229–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sahay, S., & Walsham, G. (1997). Social structure and managerial agency in India. Organization Studies, 18(3), 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting information systems in organizations. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Walsham, G. (1997). IT and changing professional identity: Micro-studies and macro-theory. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(12), 1081–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Walsham, G., & Han, K. (1991). Structuration theory and information systems research. Journal of Applied System Analysis, 17, 77–85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Systems and ComputingBrunel UniversityUxbridgeUK

Personalised recommendations