Talk:Structuration theory

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zhaozhhan. Peer reviewers: Shuxin Zhao, Rorogaga.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyedit

I'm attempting the requested copyedit. The language is indeed "truly convoluted" as the GA reviewer noticed. Saying that it is less bad than the original gives it too much credit. Consider:

Giddens observed that in social analysis, the term structure referred generally to "rules and resources" and more specifically to "the structuring properties allowing the 'binding' of time-space in social systems, the properties which make it possible for discernibly similar social practices to exist across varying spans of time and space and which lend them "systemic" form." Agents—groups or individuals—draw upon these structures to perform social actions through embedded memory, called memory traces. Memory traces are thus the means through which social actions are carried out. Structure is also, however, the result of these social practices.

Defining terms through other terms that themselves have to be quoted (implying some special meaning) defeats the purpose. Definitions have to use normal language, otherwise the whole thing becomes a matter of nested Russian dolls. Here we have "structure", "rules and resources", "structuring properties", "binding", "systemic", "structures", embedded memory (which I do not quote, but also cannot interpret) "memory traces" and social practices (unintelligible.) If the use of these terms is unavoidable, their use should be footnoted, so that the reader has a hope at finding out what they are intended to mean.

I can copyedit only by willfully ignoring the meaning of these sentences and only trying to simplify their form (not structure!).

Lfstevens (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Specific comments/issues

1. I left comments in the text also, in cases in which I wanted clarification/information, but didn't see a resulting discussion.
2. The Routinization section reads as though Bettelheim (routines are durable) contradicts Goffman (routines have to be "worked at", but they are presented as though they agree.
3. The term "reproduction" is used to describe the persistence of systems over time. Why not use the latter word?
4. The article quotes him as saying ""The degree of "systemness" is very variable. ...I take it to be one of the main features of structuration theory that the extension and 'closure' of societies across space and time is regarded as problematic." The reader needs to know what is meant by "closure". Closing down as in the end of a society? Some form of independence or disconnectedness from the outside?
5. "Reflexive monitoring is a commonplace, yet utterly essential, characteristic of agency, and refers to the ability of agents to pursue their wants and desires through monitoring the flow of their actions as well as the settings and contexts in which those actions occur." If something is commonplace, the implication is that it happens commonly, but not universally. I went with essential. Also in what sense is it reflexive? As in what the doctor checks when he bonks your knee? As in Reflexivity (social theory)? As in self-related elements in a set? Later it becomes "coordinate ongoing projects, goals, and contexts". Need help.
6. Agents subsequently "rationalize," or evaluate, the success of those efforts. Rationalization and evaluation are not the same things in common understanding. Why quote one but not the other? What do they mean here? "Through action, agents can produce structures; thrugh reflexive monitoring and rationalization, they can transform them." How can rationalization transform a structure? Doesn't rationalization mean finding a post hoc explanation for an action?
7. "Agents, while bounded in structure..." what does this mean?
8. "Giddens recognizes actors as having knowledge that is reflexive and situated in context, and that habitual, widespread use of knowledgeability makes structures become institutionalized." What is reflexive knowledge?
9. "it is always possible for agents to either act or refuse to do so". The word "refuse" implies choice. I said "agents can always choose whether to act." If choice is not correct, refuse is not right. So it could say "agents can always either act or not."
10. What does "Places the ontology of structuration more in "situ" than on an abstract level" mean?
11. What is "methodological bracketing"?
12. What does "scale" mean in "Focusing on the meso-level at the temporal and spatial scale." Is there some greater or lesser scale?
13. Words fail: "the connected concepts of a horizon of action"?
14. "She primarily examines structural frameworks and the action within the limits allowed by those conditions." The conditions aren't listed.
15. "She maintains that structure precedes agency". Temporally? Logically?
16. What does syntagmatic mean here? The other uses in WP related to linguistics, and use it as an umbrella term for units of language at different scales. I linked to Syntagmatic analysis.
17. "Parker advocates for a theoretical reclamation historical sociology and macro-structures using concrete historical cases, because such a model better explains the creation and transformation of social structures such as institutions and rules, cultural traditions, patterns of regular behaviour, and distributions of power and inequality." OK, but what is that reclamation?
18. What is the difference between an actor and an agent? As in "It is necessary to outline the broader social system to be able to analyze agents, actors, and rules within that system."
19. Is the model of structures and agents meaningful only in a social context?
20. Many quotations still have no page #s.

First pass is complete.

1. Why "modality" instead of "mode"
2. I added the technical tag, because the text remains opaque. More examples?
3. The term "reproduction" and the phrase "creation and reproduction" and variants appear throughout when it seems like a shorter phrase such as "evolution" or "change" might serve. The article should explain why it chooses the former. (Lack of inertial effects?)
4. Are authoritative and allocative resources mere memory traces or are we talking guns?
5. The structures and society page seems circular (legitmation is norms and norms is legitimation. Need a crisper presentation. I left it fearing I was missing something.
6. The term "the duality of structure" seems to be itself reified. I reverted my change to "structure duality" not wanting to transgress, but I definitely prefer the more compact locution.

OK. That's it. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs) 12–14 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Structuration → Structuration theory – Title should clearly be "Structurational theory" (which is what Encyclopaedia Britannica calls it) but that is set up as a redirect so I cant do it myself. "Structuration" is just a dictionary word [1][2]. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC) --Relisted. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC) – Penbat (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I have no problem with the move. I would point out that "Structurational theory" would be improper, as "structuration" does not modify "theory", so should not be made into an adjective. To be most grammatical, it should be "Theory of structuration" (a noun that is an object of a preposition) but that was given up in usage some time ago to avoid having thousands of index items starting with "Theory of". Some indices use "Structuration, Theory of" but most use the shorthand version of "noun Theory (also a noun). Meclee (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Social theory of structuration or Structuration (social theory). This word "structuration" is one of many ambiguous, esoteric labels in social sciences that re confusing to general readers, even readers somewhat familiar with social theories. "Structuration theory" is not quite good enough, and has a grammar problem as er Meclee. Structurism is not a type of theory, but is something labelled as a social theory. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Most keen on "Structuration theory" which is also good enough for Encyclopaedia Britannica. Second choice is Structuration (social theory).--Penbat (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Structuration theory. I'm pulling rank here - I have a graduate degree in sociology, and briefly worked in the field. Okay, I guess Wikipedia doesn't weigh that metric, but I also happen to have The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, which has an entry on "structuration" that reads, "Structuration theory is a social ontology, defining what sorts of things exist in the world..." Cheers! bd2412 T 02:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @BD2412: - Forgive an off-point remark, but having read a few sociology texts, I'm pretty convinced the -ology suffix is getting used in the same sense it's used in things like Scientology. NickCT (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It's the other way around. L. Ron Hubbard decided to create a legitimate-sounding neologism by combing the existing words, "science" and "ontology". bd2412 T 19:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
      • But that's my point. You hear the word "sociology" and you think to yourself, "Hey! That sounds legitimate. It's got 'ology' in it." Then you actually read the text books..... NickCT (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support, per nom. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Glancing at this from afar the term "structuration" rarely seems to appear without "theory" next it. Putting the two together seems in-line with WP:COMMONNAME. NickCT (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Structuration theory. I could "pull rank" in that I have a PhD in sociology and have taught it for 30 years. Instead, I'll just be very specific that I support re-naming to Structuration theory. Meclee (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support I am agencylessly structured to respek teh authoritah of my co-editors pulling rank. (: ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Peer Review from Shuxin Zhao

This page is already very good. It has a clear structure and detailed explanation, I believe readers will have a good understanding of this theory after going through this page. For further improvement, I have a few suggestions.

First, you could capitalize the subtitles (e.g. Premises and Origins, Duality of Structure, etc.). In that way, this page will look more formal.

Also, I think "Duality of structure", "Structure and society" and "Agents and society" could be merged under one parent section named "Theory Content" or something.

Finally, I noticed that this page lacks applications of theory, so maybe you could find some research about this theory and sort them out, then add a big section to respectively introduce those studies. I believe it will help readers better understand this theory.

Shuxin Zhao (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review from Jenny Xu

This page is great as it is comprehensive and everything written here is relevant to the structuration theory. It maintains a neutral tone and also does not rely too heavily on the original research, judging from the bibliographies. I love it how this page includes a section about criticism, which can give the readers a better understanding of this theory from another perspective. However, I do think that there are too many direct quotes under "premise and origins" and it is better to paraphrase them. Also, under "duality of structure", the third paragraph lacks citations.--Rorogaga (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgetown University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)