Abstract
Anthony Giddens’ theory of structuration provides a theoretical, ontological framework for understanding social life, and as such, offers the potential to provide new perspectives of the social interactions that constitute education. However, educational researchers have been slow to embrace Giddens’ ideas. This may be due to a continuing debate concerning the validity of structuration as a theoretical basis for sociological research, as well as the lack of established conventions for practicably employing structuration. This chapter reviews some critics’ concerns regarding the validity of structuration. Many of these relate to the notion of the duality of structure and agency, both in terms of how well, if at all, this notion reflects real life, and whether or not it is possible to effectively assess human behaviour in terms of such a duality. Despite these concerns, Giddens’ ideas are becoming incorporated into an increasing amount of social research, in fields that range from archaeology to business management. This chapter provides examples of the effective use of structuration, and highlights the fact that although Giddens’ did not prescribe the knowledge to be sought, nor the methodology to be followed, in order to use structuration in practical research, the ideals of structuration can be adapted for use across a wide range of social contexts. Some of the challenges researchers face in using structuration in an educational context are discussed, and an example of how to effectively adapt the ideals of structuration to a specific research issue—the development of educational rhetoric–reality gaps—is provided.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Data generation, including participation in professional development sessions, interviews and classroom observations were undertaken during the final school term of 2006, to coincide with the time that several schools were beginning to implement SSP.
References
Archer, M. S. (1982). Morphogenesis versus structuration: On combining structure and action. The British Journal of Sociology, 33(4), 455–483.
Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M. S. (1996). Social integration and system integration: Developing the distinction. Sociology, 30(4), 679–700.
Arts, B. (2000). Regimes, non-state actors and the state system: A ‘structurational’ regime model. European Journal of International Relations, 6(4), 513–542.
Bishop, J., & Russell, G. (1985). Study tours in Australia and the USA. Review of Environmental Education Developments, 13(2), 14–15.
Boucaut, R. (2001). Understanding workplace bullying: A practical application of Giddens’ structuration theory. International Education Journal, 2(4), 65–73.
Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and modern systems theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Burgess, R. G., & Rudduck, J. (1993). A perspective on educational case study: A collection of papers by Lawrence Stenhouse (Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research, papers 4). Coventry: University of Warwick.
Cassidy, T., & Tinning, R. (2004). ‘Slippage’ is not a dirty word: Considering the usefulness of Giddens’ notion of knowledgeability in understanding the possibilities for teacher education. Teacher Education, 15(2), 175–188.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 675–694). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cohen, I. J. (1989). Structuration theory: Anthony Giddens and the constitution of social life (Theoretical traditions in the social sciences). London: Macmillan.
Dear, M. J., & Moos, A. I. (1994). Structuration theory in urban analysis. In D. Wilson & J. O’Huff (Eds.), Marginalized places and populations: A structurationist agenda (pp. 3–25). Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Edwards, J. (2011). Towards effective socially-critical environmental education: Stories from primary classrooms. PhD thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Fien, J. (1993). Education for the environment: Critical curriculum theorising and environmental education. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Fien, J. (2001). Education for sustainability: Reorientating Australian schools for a sustainable future (Tela series). Fitzroy: Australian Conservation Foundation. http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/tela08_education_%20for_sustainability.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2014.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 420–434). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Giddens, A. (1982). Profiles and critiques in social theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1989). A reply to my critics. In D. Held & J. Thompson (Eds.), Social theory of modern societies: Anthony Giddens and his critics (pp. 249–301). Wiltshire: Redwood Burn.
Giddens, A. (1991). Structuration theory: Past, present and future. In C. G. A. Bryant & D. Jary (Eds.), Giddens’ theory of structuration: A critical appreciation (pp. 201–221). London: Routledge.
Gregson, N. (1987). Structuration theory: Some thoughts on the possibilities for empirical research. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 5, 73–91.
Gynnild, V. (2002). Agency and structure in engineering education: Perspectives on educational change in light of Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory. European Journal of Engineering Education, 27(3), 297–303.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jones, M., & Karsten, H. (2003). Review: Structuration theory and information systems research (Research papers in management studies). Cambridge: Judge Institute of Management, University of Cambridge.
Jones, O., Edwards, T., & Beckinsale, M. (2000). Technology management in a mature firm: Structuration theory and the innovation process. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 12(2), 161–177.
Kemmis, S., Cole, P., & Suggett, D. (1983). Orientations to curriculum and transition: Towards the socially-critical school. Melbourne: Victorian Institute of Secondary Education.
McKeown, R. (2002, July). Education for sustainable development toolkit, version 2. Energy, Environment and Resources Center, University of Tennessee, USA. http://www.esdtoolkit.org. Accessed 30 Sept 2014.
Merton, R. K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. L. (2001). Purposes and criteria. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The American tradition in qualitative research (pp. 328–338). London: Sage.
Morrow, R. A., & Torres, C. A. (2002). Reading Freire and Habermas. Critical pedagogy and transformative social change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Mouzelis, N. (1991). Back to sociological theory: The constitution of social orders. London: Macmillan.
Mouzelis, N. (2000). The subjectivist-objectivist divide: Against transcendence. Sociology, 34(4), 741–762.
Munir, K. A. (2005). The social construction of events: A study of institutional change in the photographic field. Organization Studies, 26(1), 93–112.
Murgatroyd, L. (1989). Only half the story: Some blinkering effects of ‘malestream’ sociology. In D. Held & J. B. Thompson (Eds.), Social theories of modern societies: Anthony Giddens and his critics (pp. 147–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parker, J. (2000). Structuration theory. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.
Phipps, A. G. (2001). Empirical application of structuration theory. Geografiska Annaler, 83B(4), 189–204.
Robertson, C. L., & Krugly-Smolska, E. (1997). Gaps between advocated practices and teaching realities in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 3(3), 311–326.
Rose, J. (1998, June 4–6). Evaluating the contribution of structuration theory to the information systems discipline. Sixth European Conference on Information Systems. Euro-Arab Management School, Aix-en-Provence, France.
Sawyer, R. K. (2002). Unresolved tensions in sociocultural theory: Analogies with contemporary sociological debates. Culture and Psychology, 8(3), 283–305.
Scheurich, J. J. (1997). Research method in the postmodern. London: Falmer Press.
Silverman, D. (2001). Analyzing talk and text. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The American tradition in qualitative research (Vol. II, pp. 333–351). London: Sage.
Sørensen, N. H. (1997). The problem of parallelism: A problem for pedagogic research and development seen from the perspective of environmental and health education. Environmental Education Research, 3(2), 179–187.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage.
Stapp, W. B., & Stapp, G. L. (1983). A summary of environmental education in Australia. Australian Association for Environmental Education Newsletter, 12, 4–6.
Stevenson, R. B. (2007). Schooling and environmental/sustainability education: From discourses of policy and practice to discourses of professional learning. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 265–285.
Stones, R. (2001). Refusing the realism-structuration divide. European Journal of Social Theory, 4(2), 177–197.
Stones, R. (Ed.). (2005). Structuration theory (Traditions in social theory). London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Taylor, V. J. (2003). Structuration revisited: A test case for an industrial archaeology methodology for far North Queensland. Industrial Archaeology Review, XXV(2), 129–145.
Thompson, J. B. (1989). The theory of structuration. In D. Held & J. B. Thompson (Eds.), Social theory of modern societies: Anthony Giddens and his critics (pp. 56–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thrift, N. (1985). Bear and mouse or bear and tree? Anthony Giddens’ reconstruction of social theory. Sociology, 19(4), 609–623.
Turner, J. H. (1990). Anthony Giddens’ analysis of functionalism: A critique. In J. Clark, C. Modgil, & C. Modgil (Eds.), Anthony Giddens, consensus and controversy (pp. 103–114). London: Falmer.
Turner, J. H. (2003). Structuration theory: Anthony Giddens. In The structure of sociological theory (7th ed., pp. 476–490). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Van Der Heijden, K. (2005). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation (2nd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Vaughan, B. (2001). Handle with care. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 185–200.
Walsham, G. (1998). IT and changing professional identity: Micro-studies and macro-theory. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 1081–1089.
Willmott, R. (1999). Structure, agency and the sociology of education: Rescuing analytical dualism. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(1), 5–21.
Wilson, D., & O’Huff, J. (Eds.). (1994). Marginalized places and populations: A structurationist agenda. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Wood, M. (2010, April 21–22). Dump the questionnaires and make it up: The value of fictional ‘data’ in management research. In Fourth European Conference on Research Methods in Business and Management, Paris, France.
Yates, J. (1997). Using Giddens’ structuration theory to inform business history. Business and Economic History, 26(1), 159–183.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Edwards, J. (2016). Putting Giddens into Practice. In: Socially-critical Environmental Education in Primary Classrooms. International Explorations in Outdoor and Environmental Education, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02147-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02147-8_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02146-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02147-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)