Main concepts of Structuration Theory

Structuration theory emphasises the duality of structure and agency an important component of which as Giddens (1984 p.14) notes is how ‘we create society at the same time as we are created by it’. Giddens views agency as the capacity of agents to make a difference or have an impact or as Giddens refers to it ‘transformative capacity’. This is closely linked to power as agency involves the exploitation of resources, thus without the resources one is

powerless to make a difference. Giddens (1984) acknowledges that there are two types of resources. Firstly, that which comes from the organisation of agents activities. This is known as authoritative. Secondly there are the resources that come from control of material

products or the natural world. This is known as allocative. It is the purposive utilization of these resources that result in intended and unintended consequences one of which is structure.

Structures according to Giddens view are rules and resources which are recursively implicated in social reproduction. These relationships are then stabilised across space and time. Giddens views actors as knowledgeable agents and not structural dupes therefore the double hermeneutic is also an important element of his work. The double hermeneutic refers to the way in which actors can become aware of social science theory and incorporate it into their daily routines. One example of this is in the common use of the term ‘Freudian slip’.

Due to the infiltration of these concepts into society the information becomes part of a stock of mutual knowledge. In light of this Giddens discusses the theory given to social interactions

Page

65

or behaviour as second order constructs with first order constructs referring to the actual social interaction or behaviour.

Giddens (1984) discusses how agents have three levels of consciousness. This is known as the stratification model. The first level is discursive consciousness and refers to what the agents can articulate of their motivations and intentions. The second level of consciousness refers to what agents are aware of but are unable to communicate. The final level of

consciousness is the unconscious motives that shape agents behaviour.

In spite of the infiltration of second order concepts into the stocks of mutual knowledge structuration theory doesn’t intend to produce generalisations like the natural sciences. This is because Giddens (1984) views the object of social sciences investigations as continually changing and rooted in a particular space and time. It is important to acknowledge that the stated research intentions of this research were to produce where possible some

generalisations on the behaviour of those living in rural areas. This may not be in line with a traditional Structuration Theory perspective, but the generalisations this research has

produced as with generalisations all research produces are contingently anchored in a specific place and time. Therefore I feel it is not mutually exclusive to use elements of Structuration Theory alongside the production of generalisations as long as they are explicit about when and to what they refer.

To summarise Clark (1990) structuration theory is a series of interrelated propositions; these propositions have been discussed above but are now briefly outlined below.

Table 3.1 structuration theory overview

STRUCTURATION THEORY OVERVIEW

Social practices lie at the root of the foundation of both individuals and society Agents accomplish social practices and have causal power and a tacit knowledge of their actions

The repetitive patterns of social practices which are stable across space and time constitute society

Structure is activity dependant and is the medium and outcome of a process of structuration – ‘the production and reproduction of practices across space and time’.

e

66

Structuration theory is not without its critics and some of the criticisms stem from the fact that according to Archer (1996), Giddens fails to explain why structures may continue to exist over time, after agents have stopped reproducing them. Layder (1987) and Archer (1990) also argue that Giddens undermines any sense of structures as pre-constituted and relatively autonomous. Furthermore Archer (1996) states that structuration theory cannot answer why some forms of human action create enduring structures and others do not.

A more comprehensive criticism of structuration theory comes from Jones and Karsten 2003 who argue that the writings are elusive, elitist and vague. Such criticisms come partially from the fact that the work spans 30 years and 30 books. Giddens also uses a variety of

terminology specifically developed for his ideas and concepts that without intense study of the theory can be difficult to comprehend. Due to the prolific nature of his work one

statement cannot accurately describe Giddens position according to Jones and Karsten (2003).

Specific criticism comes from Gregson (1987) amongst others who argue that structuration theory operates at too high a level of generality to provide guidance in certain empirical settings. Due to the abstract conceptual focus of the work by Giddens it is more of an ontological approach than a viable epistemology. This has been countered by Giddens (1989) who in the constitution of society gives a 10 point summary of guidelines for the overall orientation of social research. Giddens (1989) also offers writings on the four features of structuration theory research, as a means of outlining how Structuration Theory could be used by reseachers. Not that Giddens claims that structuration theory is an empirical approach instead elements of it should be considered in research. Furthermore Giddens (1990) doesn’t rule out any specific research methods as he believes fundamentally whether it is through survey, interview or participant observation all research is based on detailed study and interpretation of specific social settings. This is despite structuration theory and his approach being anti-positivist and post-empiricist (Jones and Karsten 2003).

The use of a structuration approach in this research stems from the fact that when people are asked to explain their behaviour or recount their decision process they are bounded by their knowledge as discussed by Giddens (1984). It is only in the process of asking unasked questions and through reflexivity of their answers that these hidden reasons and/or

processes can be explored. Structuration Theory has influenced migration research including this research through the work of biographical migration research (see Boyle 1993,1998, Halfacree 1995). This research is not biographical however it has impacted on this research, through the use of a lifetime approach to the definition of migration (discussed further in this chapter).

Page

67

It is important to note that this research is not an exercise in finding structures as can

sometimes be the case in research using a structuration approach (Bryant and Jary 1991). It is more a case in this project that the presence of structures is acknowledged within society both formal and informal. These include the labour market, the housing market and the structure of local communities such as reciprocity of child minding duties. The presence of these structures is undoubtedly going to impact on all residents of an area but it is their impact on in-migrants and the consequences this has on their economic activity behaviour that this research intends to explore. This research is not seeking out structures but is interested in the qualitative / quantitative accounts of life that are framed by these structures.

Structuration Theory has been utilised previously by Boyle and Halfacree (1993, 1998) in their work on migration. Initially they utilised Structuration Theory to underpin their assertion that a lifetime definition or biographical approach to migration research be used. Then in 1998 they utilised Structuration Theory to explain their collective behaviour theory of migration.

Boyle and Halfacree (1993) argue that migration should be considered more as a biographical experience which was rooted in Structuration Theory’s focus on context and culture (Giddens 1984). They went beyond the humanist bias suggested by the previous use of the term biographical and gave recognition to the structural constraints and enablement’s shaping the migration process. They drew attention to the place of migration within an individual’s life journey rather than seeing it as a goal directed behaviour or rational response to economic changes.

It is well understood that migration is a highly cultural experience for all those involved (Bottomley 1992, Fielding 1992). The biographical approach to migration sought to

demonstrate the complexity of the seemingly simple act of migration and its embeddedness within the everyday context (or structures) of daily life for those involved.

This research has also considered the culture of migration and therefore in attempting to highlight the contextual nature of migration has used a biographical or lifetime definition of migration. This is to ensure that migration is seen as part of the overall puzzle of an individual’s life journey. Structuration Theory understands actor’s decision making to be influenced by and influencing of the structures in which they operating. However structures persist over time and therefore it is imperative that this research considers migration that occurred both recently and in the past to be able to put into context the rationale behind migrant decision making.

e

68

In considering how best to conduct biographical research into migration Boyle and Halfacree (1998) set out 4 principles. These are explored below and how they have been approached in this research set out alongside;

Firstly, Boyle and Halfacree (1998) suggest research needs to move away from seeing migration as a response to something and acknowledge its part in the hurly burly of

everyday life. This is line with the Structuration Theory approach to viewing migration as part of the context and culture of actor’s lives. This has been incorporated in this research by using a lifetime definition of migration and discussing with migrants in the interviews and surveys their migration and economic activity across time.

Secondly, Boyle and Halfacree (1998) set out the importance of Giddens (1984) work on practical consciousness. They outline how practical consciousness is a key issue in the biographical approach as practical consciousness lies in the realm of common sense just as migration does for migrants. This research has utilised these concepts when conducting analysis particularly of the interviews.

Thirdly, they confirm that migration is not a consequence of 1 or 2 issues i.e. economic factors or quality of life factors alone but migration is driven by the combination of a large number of issues of varying importance. This consideration of a range of factors or push and pull factors for migrant decisions has been a feature of the research. The survey questioned migrants on the range of issues or factors that had encouraged them to migrate. This theme was further explored with migrants in relation to their economic activity and the reasons for self-employment.

Finally, Boyle and Halfacree (1998) in trying to move forward the debate on their Collective Behaviour Theory suggested that researchers should unpack migrants’ ‘practical

consciousness’. This was in order to understand the inherent knowledge that drives migration; they suggested discourse analysis as a means of doing this. However as this research whilst acknowledging the collective behaviour theory, was not primarily concerned with it, did not follow this route. The ideas discussed by Boyle and Halfacree (1998) on collective behaviour are of concern to this research as they use Structuration Theory’s focus on structures to explain the structural changes in society that are driving in-migration.

The previous paragraphs have been an overview of recent approaches in rural research and in particular an overview of the theories of Structuration Theory. It is not exhaustive but highlights key studies / theories that have shaped or influenced the approach adopted by this research.

Page

69

Panelli (2006) noted that in many rural studies new approaches have been developed but early approaches have continued to be important. Therefore it is important to note that it has not been a conscious decision to avoid discussion of work such as Pahl, Newby, and Bell, it is simply that this review has focused on contemporary rural research. For further

information on these rural sociologists see (Bell and Newby (1971), Newby (1979), Pahl (1966)). This research whilst not purporting to strictly follow any particular theory draws on a range of theories to be found in the literature. This research has utilised what some describe as an empiricist method in that it has used a survey as the instrument of measurement. This research has also been informed by some other approaches and theoretical constructs. For example some of the ideas of Structuration theory by Giddens (1984, 1989) particularly the time space constitution of human life has been considered. In this context this has been operationalized in the household survey by identifying points in time and asking questions of in-migrants economic activity at these points. This is because economic activity is rarely static and changes with the life course, so it is essential to understand the changing economic context of individual’s lives.

Often Structuration Theory is interpreted as predominantly a qualitative approach to enquiry, particularly in migration studies. This research (as will be discussed later in more depth) has not followed a purely qualitative approach. Instead Structuration Theory has influenced this research firstly through its influence on the literature in the field, particularly the biographical approach (Halfacree 1995) and the entrepreneurship literature (Jack and Anderson 2002, Stathopoulopu et al 2004). Secondly it has influenced this research through my interpretation of the theories which have been operationalized in the research design (see section 3.4).

Structuration Theory is what Blaikie (2000) would describe as theoreticians theory. It is set at a more general and abstract level than researchers theory (see criticisms of Structuration Theory earlier in the section). But it does suggest that researchers in studying a situation need to look at individuals and their decisions on how they are going to act but also at structures (or contexts and cultures as associated with the biographical approach advocated for migration studies) in which they are making those decisions. Therefore a key way in which Structuration Theory (and the associated biographical approach) has influenced this research has been to encourage me to look at individuals as people who have freedom to choose what they do but it has focussed attention on the social contexts (space and time) in terms of:

 Their histories (as reflected in the language they speak, the places they have lived in – their housing histories, their mobility, the education they have received, the

employment they have undertaken, and the households in which they live.

e

70

 The current area in which they live and its characteristics

It seems appropriate to note at this point that much rural research is not explicit about the conceptual framework in which it is working, obviously with a few notable exceptions (Anderson and Jack 2002, Cloke 1997). Therefore in order to investigate the research questions posed in this thesis, the broader ‘theoreticians theory’ discussed above has influenced the development of minor theory which is explicitly set out below. The following section continues to form part of the ‘concepts, theories, hypotheses and models’ section of the research design as outlined by Blaikie (2000).