Talk:Structuration theory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Past conversation

Reagle, may we avoid accusing one another of plagiarism just because you weren't satisfied with the original stub that this article began as?

I do not see any accusations of plagiarism here, only questions about clarification.

I think we need to "collectively" decide on a citation format. I propose APA for all socio-cultural theories (as is the custom in the research literature). Beyond these - we should either pick the "Chicago" style or the "IEEE/ACM" style -but the citation formats are out of control here in Wiki, in my opinion. Also, I reformatted the citations according to APA format (in the mean time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.192.201 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Renaming as Structuration

I think this page needs to be renamed Structuration. Not one other article on a sociology theory begins with "Theory of...". They are all just called by the name of the theory. If you disagree please let me know, otherwise I will rename next week sometime. JenLouise 00:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It would also make sense to call the page Structuration Theory, which the way it's usually referred to in academic contexts. Also, the introductory abstract should be revised so it reads less like a ripped off paraphrase of <http://www.theory.org.uk/giddens2.htm>.

While I get the point being made, actually, I disagree with this recommendation. Structuration theory has been seminal, and has spawned several strains (e.g. adaptive structuration theory, structuration agency theory). People who are looking up information (like they do in a encyclopedia) are likely not to find what they are looking for (since structuration is used in many contexts) -at least not easily. If the name is changed, people who are looking specifically for this seminal theory might not recognize it, or may not have enough context for some search engines to find or list high in a list. Moreover, there are other "theory" in titles on Wiki -see for one, adaptive structuration theory! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.136.215 (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Structuration theory is a seminal term, and has provided the foundation of other (better operationalized) use of the terms, c.f.: http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Levels%20of%20theories/meso/AST_theory.doc/ - calling this page structuration is in one sense okay since it combines the other derivatives, but it is confusing to someone who is trying to understand this well-known theory. I don't understand why people who have commented here cannot understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a treatise -the references should give the readers sufficient sources to learn if they don't understand. I suggest that the title be changed back to its original (correct) form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.125.2 (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I was happy to see the article on Structuration, and I think its content is largely accurate. As of 5/10/10, I have done several edits on the article, mostly to clarify the duality of structuration and balance its presentation. It's important to emphasize the link of constraint to enablement, and to note the axiom that all action is transformational. I also disagreed with, and changed, the statements that nonhumans can be agents. I think the point of Giddens' stratification model of agency is to say that agency requires the power to reflect, rationalize, etc., and with rare exceptions in the animal world, only humans have these capacities. This involved a change that removed the passage described as illogical, below. I too think the best title for the article is "Structuration Theory". The article is about a theory, not directly about the social process of structuration. ----

Typo? Illogical?

This quote from the current version: " To be an Agent is to be a human, albeit not all agents are human beings. " strikes me as illogical; should it perhaps instead read "To be human is to be an agent, albeit not all agents are human beings."? Could anyone more familiar with Giddens' work comment on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.13.34 (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right. The modifictaion you suggest is much more logical. Giddens says that to be an agent it is not necessary to have consciousness or volition, simply the capacity to influence other agents. Since animals and objects around us can influence us, they can also be considered to be sources of agency (see for instance Alfred Gell's Art and Agency 1998).163.1.117.224 16:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

What a hideous, unforgivable abuse of the language. If Giddens is still alive he should be forced to speak only Latin for the rest of his days.

Giddens

Having tried to use this for research, I think that this article could be bettered with a critique of the theory; and use subject specific terminology less, when more simplistic terms could be utilised - some areas of the page appear laden with terminology which may not be necessary. Sorry if that appears critical - it's an excellent start, and I'll hopefully be able to help with this rather than merely stating that view - and I hope others may agree.~CortalYX^Talk? 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Vague?

This page introduced several concepts to me, and about doubled my academic knowledge of sociology. I found it generally clear, informative and concise. I would suggest that someone with knowledge of the subject remove a few instances of the words "thus" and "therefore" and break up one or two long sentences. That said, I don't think that the [vague] tags are deserved, nor the "confusing and unclear" banner.Rule11 (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Current large-scale edits

For the "Help me" tag, I'm looking for general feedback re: usability, readability, copyediting–anything that could be used to improve the article! Thank you! Mjscheer (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm deactivating this help request, as it is now superfluous to the RFC below. Thank you for requesting input, and thank you for your work on the article. Begoon ^talk 22:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Formal request for feedback

Looking for feedback on accuracy, readability, comprehensiveness, and any suggestions or comments on changes that have been made or ways the article could be improved! Mjscheer (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for feedback outside of the formal RFF above

Hello! My name is MJ. Recently, I have made some large-scale changes to the Structuration page: reformatting the entire page by taking out entire sections (i.e., "Basic assumptions"), integrating new sections ("Criticisms and additions to structuration theory" and "Methodology"), and rewriting most of the content. I did not intend to remove anything that previous authors considered critical to the theory, though I may have done so unintentionally. I am a new editor in Wikipedia, and I hope to inspire a discussion about what could be done to improve the clarity, comprehensiveness, and/or usefulness of the content and structure of the page. As you can see, I have made a formal request for feedback, but I have also read much about the inefficiency/ineffectiveness associated with the a RFF (no offense, any administrators!). I wanted to give anyone who wants to comment on the article a chance to do so easily. I've been very inspired by the dialogues that I have seen on Wikipedia thus far and hope that other (more experienced! or not experienced at all! either way!) editors will engage in discussion about the content of the page either through the RFF above or through the discussion space provided below. Thanks for your time and suggestions! Mjscheer (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello again MJ. You're right, you often have to poke people. It can take years before they come along, especially on a specialised topic. As I said before I think it's a great rewrite. I'd like to see some mention of the feminist critique (see eg ISBN 052126197X), and undoubtedly others will find endless things to improve, link, format, standardise, and so on, but I don't really have much more to add. It covers the ground well. One thing I can't help thinking though, the wider obvious context with structure and agency in Habermas and Bourdieu is possibly undermentioned in the article, IMO. It might be out of scope, but then I don't really have the time right now to do much about it. Good luck. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, zzuuzz. You've been really helpful, and extremely nice. I don't have any experience with the feminist critique of structuration theory, but thank you for bringing it to my attention! I hope to get to it at some point. As for Habermas & Bourdieu, those are really great ideas and I put some links in the article. Thanks again! Mjscheer (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, MJ! Very good overview of Giddens. I've upped the class of the article to "B" for Sociology. The language is a bit tough to wade through in places. I'd be happy to do a bit of copy editing to clarify some language; I have no substantive comments at the moment. Meclee (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouraging words, Meclee! By any chance, do you remember what the article was rated before? I agree the language is pretty gnarly. I've done the best I can for now! As a sidenote, relating to the GA discussion below, I've fixed the citations, added some clarifying language, and expanded the scope a little bit. Thanks for your help! Mjscheer (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

MJ, The article was previously rated 'start class'. Thank you for the additional work. I will now recommend the article for GA status. Best wishes. Meclee (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to major in philosophy but can't really handle college right now. I've completed about 3 or 4 semesters do far. That being said, for someone that hasn't really taken a philosophy class but has an interest in it, it's very difficult for me to read this. There needs to either blue links to other pages for theories or philosophical terms, or the ability to understand terms by reading between the lines. I still have no idea what I was reading about. I think that this is probably a very interesting topic, and your professor probably understood everything you said, but encyclopedias need to be understood by the masses. Let me know if you need to know more of what I'm having trouble understanding. Thepoodlechef (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Structuration/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Meclee (talk · contribs) 16:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Place on hold. Supplied initial copy edit. However, several direct quotations appear in the article, which are in need of page numbers added to the citation. Meclee (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Support: Removing hold as article has been revised to address issues. Will wait another 7 days for any additional comments before assigning 'GA' status. Changed WikiProject Sociology assessment to GA-class. Meclee (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, there is something weird here. Where is the review? And Meclee, are you the nominator? If so, you cannot be the reviewer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not the nominator; the article was nominated by User:Mjscheer, as instructed for a student project. I should have made it more clear that, with the exception of the page numbers for quotes as noted above, I found the article passes Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria. The page number issue having been addressed by User:Mjscheer, I added my support for GA status. Meclee (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• This article is filled concepts that are unfamiliar to the general reader and are not explained . The lede is not understandable to the general reader and is filled with jargon and technical concepts.
• The section: Criticisms and additions to Giddens's structuration theory degenerates into a series of list
• The article is confusing. It needs to be simplified and rendered into language the general reader can understand, with adequate explanations of jargon and links to explanatory terms. Wikipedia is not for academic papers. Below is the template for the GA criteria. Please evaluate this article using them. Thanks!MathewTownsend (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Personally I found the lead readable, but I am a grad student in sociology, and already familiar with Giddens. How an average high school student would deal with it... I am afraid you are right that they would not be able to understand much from it. The lead would benefit from expansion with much of it explained in a more simple language that a lay person, without any social science background, would understand. PS. One more comment: "John B. Thompson" section should be renamed to something else, it is a bit jarring in the article to have sections named after content, and then one suddenly named after a person. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review form

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

Mindful of the difficulty of this topic (for truly convoluted language, read Giddens in the original) and previous comments regarding the density of the language, after several passes by various editors to revise language, I find the article to be "reasonably well written". Having said that, some of the explanation of Gidden's theory in the lede might be better moved to later in the article, with a more simplified introduction to the topic. Meclee (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

With the addition of page numbers for quotations, I find the article to be factual accurate and verifiable. Meclee (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

The main aspects of structuration theory appear to be well addressed. Some of the presented criticisms might be further developed; but the focus in that area is adequate for a GA class article.

1. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

The article gives both Giddens' own claims about his work and representative critiques of his work, so meets NPOV. Meclee (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

Fortunately, no edit wars, here. Meclee (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

No appropriate images available. Meclee (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Pass - with further lede editing mentioned above. Meclee (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Pass - revisions made; listed as GA. Meclee (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)