perspectives as well as across three levels of social organization. The changes in MA were supposed and maintained by associated changes in the legitimating grounds, representational schemes and domination perspectives that are grounded in the ST, and cannot be sufficiently understood without considering these three interrelated perspectives as well as the influences from the organizational field and the societal level (see Dillard et al. 2004). Along with ST, Giddens (1984) suggests that structural properties can be usefully divided into rules and
resources (power), where rules are related to both the constitution of meaning and sanctions (Englund et al. 2011). Namely, three dimensions of structures are identified: (i) signification (rules); (ii) legitimation (rules); and (iii) domination (power) (as was displayed in Figure 3-8). The core notion of ST is that structures and systems are recursively interrelated through the
duality of structure (ibid.). Table (3.2) summarizes the fundamental building blocks of ST developed by Englund et al. (2011) in the light of the pioneering work of Giddens (1976; 1979; 1984).
170
Table (3-2) Key Elements of Structuration Theory (ST)
Core Notions Key Aspects
Structure and System Structures and systems are treated as distinctive concepts. Social systems are constituted of situated practices, while structures are virtual and out of time and space existing only as they are recursively involved in the (re)production of systems
Structure as Rules and Resources
Structures may be analyzed as sets of rules and resources, organized as reproduced properties of social systems.
Duality of Structure Structuration processes are recursive in that the duality of structure suggests that structure works as both the medium for, and outcome of, social systems. The duality of structure thus connects the reproduction of systems across time-space with the production of situated interactions.
Knowledgeable Actors
Agents are treated as knowledgeable, who know a great deal about the workings of social systems by virtue of their participation in such systems. The stocks of knowledge which actors draw upon in the (re)production of interaction are embedded in actors„ unconscious motives, their practical consciousness of how to go on, and in their discursive consciousness of such practices.
Power as an Integral Element of Social Life
Human actions are logically connected to their transformative capacity, whereby actors may make a difference. Consequently, apart from their meaningful and normative content, social interactions always involve power.
Structuration Structuration refers to the „ongoingness‟ (durée) of social systems, involving both continuity and change. To study structuration is to study the conditions governing their (re)production.
(Source: Englund et al. 2011:31)
Table (3.2) shows that there are many similarities and interrelationships between ST, institutional theory and power theory. However all have limitations as well. Perceiving the limitations of institutional theory and ST, as the latter lacks attention to the history, MA researchers find it more appropriate to integrate institutional theory as well as power theory with ST. For instance, Granlund (2001) incorporated ST and institutional theory to study the nature and sources of the stability of MAPs or systems. Seal (2003) integrated institutional theory and ST to explain local authority budgeting practices whilst Conrad and Guven Uslu (2011) used conceptions from ST and institutional theory to scrutinize the implementation of payment by results and its implications for organizational change.
Some researchers also used notions of ST to develop OIE framework in order to understand MAC at micro level. Hardy (1996) presents a model that describes four dimensions of power which enable and constrain organizational change. These four dimensions, as discussed in section (3.6.3), are grounded in dominance structure in accordance with Giddens‟ ST. Similarly, Barley and Tolbert (1997) combined institutional theory and ST to develop a
171
recursive model of organizational change. This framework particularly extends the duality between institutions (structure) and action (agency) in accordance with ST, by locating them within their historical contexts. Accordingly, Burns and Scapens (2000) have used a modified version of Barley and Tolbert‟s (1997) model intentionally to study MAC at organizational level.
On the other hand, some researchers have used ST to develop NIS framework to examine MASs at macro level. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) argue that the evaluation of the initiation and maintenance of power relationships (domination structures) must assist with the realization of these relationships on two sides: (1) the ability to identify norms and standards that form and lead behavior (legitimation structures); and (2) the ability to restrict appropriate forms of structure and policy (signification structures) that become taken-for-granted (institutionalized) (see also, Dillard et al. 2004). Clegg (1989:188-9) argues that a theory of power must recognize that “power necessarily involves reciprocity because it is always constituted within a relational universe of meaning”. The communication of the interests of powerful groups must be reproduced before the existing power structures are reconstituted (duality of structure). This reproduction process is part of the recursive process of institutionalization representing a significant component of power that is necessary for understanding changes in the institutionalization process (Dillard et al. 2004).
Extending these ideas, Dillard et al. (2004) have developed a multilevel framework of the dynamics associated with the institutionalization process, which integrates ST with institutional theory to theorize change at multiple levels i.e. societal, field, and organizational level. Dillard et al‟s (2004) framework shows the potential to enable researchers to study the institutionalization of MAPs as a process, considering the social, political and economic aspects that make up the context in which an organization operates (Moore 2011). Dillard et al. (2004) suppose that meaningful change is more likely to be motivated and better understood where the societal context can be explicated and linked to social action through the various levels of the social order (ibid.). At organizational level, it is helpful to integrate the dynamics of the Burns and Scapens framework into Dillard et al‟s framework. Thus, by drawing on the theoretical synthesis between Dillard et al‟s framework, Burns and Scapens‟ framework and Hardy‟s model of power mobilization theory, a contextual framework can be constructed to explain MAC at multiple levels, as in the JCO (see figure 3.13).
172
(Source: Author)
The foundation laid in this section is that ST provides a meta-theoretical representation of the key dynamics of institutional theory and that it not only illustrates the primary context dimension but also presents the dynamics for institutional change (Dillard et al. 2004). Through the vehicle of the institution and structuration, “institutionalists provide the possibility of a contextual and culturally sensitive account. It is an account in which the actions of institutions are not reducible to the universal rational calculations of individuals found within them, but are embedded within, and constrained by, a local institutional culture of social relations, tacit rules and formal regulations” (MacLeod 2004:62). Burns points out that institutional "theories utilised in the future will likely represent a „hybrid‟ framework which draws from insights of various institutional (and non-institutional) perspectives" (2001:35). In doing so, the institutional theory can offer guidance on organizational change, first by providing a convincing definition of radical (as opposed to convergent) change and, second, by signaling the contextual dynamics that precipitate the need for organizational adaptation (Greenwood and Hinings 1996). Consequently, the following section explains the integrated „contextual‟ framework in more detail.