influence an intervention) CAPACITY (social-structural resources available to agents) CAPABILITY (possibilities presented by the intervention) POTENTIAL (social-cognitive resources available to agents)
31 framework. Moreover, implementation was shown to vary across contexts due to differences in preconditions (Thomas, Bendtsen & Krevers, 2014b).
2.5.2 Theory and the duality of structure and agency
Structuration Theory
Whilst social network analysis holds an account of human agency which is limited to self-interest (Burt, 2000; Granovetter, 1973), Structuration Theory moves one step further towards systems thinking through proposing a complex and reciprocal relationship between structure and agency in partnerships (Giddens, 1984). Agency can be defined as an individuals’ capacity to express free will and to act
independently, whilst structure can be defined as patterns within society, such as social networks or socioeconomic stratifications, which limit or facilitate
individuals’ capacity for free will (Giddens, 1984).
Structuration Theory takes the understanding of networks to the next level by proposing the duality of structure and the recursiveness of social praxis. The duality of structure suggests that structure and agency should never be studied in isolation due to their interdependency, as one cannot be fully understood without the other (Giddens, 1984). It proposes that individual actors have active agency which can reproduce or change social structure (Greenhalgh & Stones, 2010). Within
Structuration Theory, structure is not simply defined as the pattern of ties between actors. It represents the context of social agency as an outcome and mediator, not as a detached phenomenon (Giddens, 1984). Moreover, agents are considered to be socially embedded whereby a flow of interactions are path and context dependent and embedded into social practices (Sydow & Windeler, 1998). The difficulty of employing these abstract concepts outlined by Giddens (1984) has been widely acknowledged (Greenhalgh & Stones, 2010).
Strong Structuration Theory
Strong Structuration Theory has been developed to bridge the gap between the philosophical level, or ontology-in-general, and substantive level, or ontology-in- situ, of structuration. Although Giddens’ Structuration Theory (1984) has been hailed for providing a competent explanation of ontology-in-general at an abstract
32 level, it has been criticised for being far removed from the reality of specific actions that take place at a specific time and space and, indeed, not even engaging with or acknowledging the importance of applying the theory to real situations. The addition of detail regarding how to analyse the duality of structure provides a potentially effective solution to the limited practical applicability, which Structuration has been criticised for (Greenhalgh & Stones, 2010).
As it is relatively new, Strong Structuration Theory (Greenhalgh & Stones, 2010) has only been employed in one published study of health and wellbeing. This was a study which aimed to understand the interaction between population and individual- level obesity risk factors in pre-school children (Chan, Deave & Greenhalgh, 2010). Despite this, several published studies have theorised its potential use in
understanding implementation within different disciplines, such as health care governance (Bodolica, Spraggon & Tofan, 2015) information technology and
technology adoption (Greenhalgh & Stones, 2010; Neves, Franz, Munteanu, Baecker & Ngo, 2015) and management (Lee et al., 2007). This suggests that Strong
Structuration Theory would lend itself to understanding a school setting in relation to health and wellbeing.
Strong Structuration theorises structuration in a quadripartite cycle to elaborate on the duality of structure (Greenhalgh & Stones, 2010). Strong Structuration Theory outlines four components of the duality of structure that can be analysed separately (see Figure 2). These are external structures, internal structures within the agent, active agency and outcomes. For clarity within this thesis, the component ‘external structures will be split into two: ‘external structures’ will describe structures external to the school, whilst ‘internal structures’ will describe structures which are within school grounds, but external to individuals. Following on from this, the component ‘internal structures’ will be renamed ‘intrinsic factors’ to describe agents’ knowledge and dispositions. This change in terminology promotes clarity and aims to allow differentiation between structures. This is visually represented in Figure 2.
The first of these components is ‘intrinsic factors’, which include general dispositions, such as attitudes and moral principles, and conjuncturally-specific
33 knowledge, such as how individuals are supposed to act within the external and internal structures. Giddens purports that conjuncturally-specific knowledge is made up of the following three structures. Structures of signification, or interpretive schemas refer to the conjunctural knowledge of the hermeneutic schemas of other agents within the context, or how others would interpret actions (Giddens, 1984). Structures of domination refer to the level of knowledge regarding agents’ own power capacities in relation to who they rely on for resources and who can command power over them within the context. Finally, structures of legitimation refer to the level of conjunctural knowledge regarding agents’ normative beliefs and the pressure upon them within the immanent interaction and, therefore, how agents are likely to behave.
The second of these components is ‘internal and external structures’, which are conceived as the structural context of action, both internal and external to the school, and exist autonomously from the structures that exist within an individual. These are mediated by networks of social relations which connect social positions associated with identity and practice (position-practices). These networks are, in turn, changed or reproduced by active agents. The third component, ‘active agency’, focuses specifically on how agents combine factors, such as context, time and space constraints, knowledge of what actions are expected from them and knowledge of likely rewards or negative outcomes, when deciding how to act within the external structures. The fourth component, ‘outcomes’ can be defined as change, elaboration, reproduction or preservation of external and internal structures as well as events. These occur as a result of the interplay of internal and external structures, which produce action via active agency. This action will then produce intended and/or unintended consequences depending largely on the active agent’s level of accuracy and depth of knowledge of the context prior to taking action (Greenhalgh & Stones, 2010).
34 Giddens has been criticised for underplaying the role of others in producing action and over-individualising the process through his focus on intrinsic factors and overlooking the role of external social pressures. For example, Thrift (1996) emphasises the need to consider an agent’s actions in relation to a network of position-practices and their relations. The agents within this network can affect outcomes, even though they may not be directly involved in an immanent
interaction. Within Strong Structuration, Stones has aimed to retain the concept of the knowledgeable and active agent whilst theorising the extent to which their actions are constrained by external forces (Greenhalgh & Stones, 2010).
EXTERNAL AND