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)