Conclusion

Conclusion

The study of structuration in IS has made significant contribution to the discipline over the past 20 years. Structuration theory blossomed into popularity at about the same time that IS scholars were seeking theoretical models that included human behavior along with the technology and that accommodated group interaction with technology, not just individual human-computer interaction. At a time when researchers were perplexed by inconsistent and contradictory effects of new, advanced information technologies such as e-mail, group decision tools, and the like, structuration theory offered a ready base of explanation. The infusion of structurational thinking has helped to move the IS field from the study of technology to the study of action, from predicting direct affects of technology on people to exploring recursive shaping of technology and people over time. The agency emphasis of structuration theory has fulfilled a call for greater attention to the study of social forces influencing technologies and their use. Over time, hardware and software have drifted to the background of the research psyche, and in their place have come groups, organizations, and institutions. ^[8]

Recently, Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) lamented a general drift away from focus on IT within the IS field. They plead for a refocus by scholars on IT as artifact. Looking ahead, will structuration theory continue to meet the needs of the discipline? As discussed at the start of this paper, a danger of the structuration perspective is that it can remove technology from the picture altogether. But our review also has emphasized that structuration theory can accommodate modeling and empirical testing of IT as artifact; numerous scholars have demonstrated this to be the case, especially (but not only) in experimental settings. We believe that there is more that structuration theory can contribute than has been brought to the fore by IS scholars to date. In other words, the usefulness of structuration theory to the discipline has not yet run its course. To move ahead, we believe that much greater specificity and quantification are needed, both with regard to the structural potential of IT and the social processes in which IT operates. The most valuable embarkation at this juncture is to articulate structuration models that provide more detailed accounts of the constructs and relationships presented in our Figure 1, that accommodate both functional and constitutive analyses, that can be put to the test using multiple methods, and that lead to accumulation of clear thinking about IT design, use, and outcomes.

Several promising ventures lie ahead. We mention just a few here. First are programs of research that embed related areas of IS study inside of structuration models. For example, Salisbury, Chin, Gopal, and Newsted (2002) embed the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior inside a model of appropriation behavior. The result is a more powerful explanation of group use of an IT and a model that is highly specified and subject to critical review. Similarly, Dennis and Garfield (2001) specify and examine the role of leadership and participation processes within a study of faithful versus ironic appropriation of a GSS. Research of this sort is conceptually rich and detailed, and it shows how structuration processes relate to other important social processes, such as decision making, social influence, and attitude formation.

Second are programs of research that—like those just described—embed other relevant theory within a structuration framework and are both micro and institutional in applicability. Such programs of research are able to build large-scale models of social/ institutional change, all the while remaining rich in detail and specificity. We attempted such an approach in our earlier work, some of which has been referred to in this manuscript. But a more recent and impressive illustration lies in the efforts of Jankowski and Nyerges (2001a, 2001b), who have developed a modified version of adaptive structuration theory which they call EAST ("enhanced" AST). Gradually they are building what they call a participatory, geographic information science that has structuration theory as its core. Their five-year program of theory testing and grounded theory development has produced an increasingly specified research model for the study of community discourse and decision making surrounding high-risk social change, including health-care management, transportation improvement, and habitat restoration. Their focus is on the application of geographic information systems to groups, organizations, and communities involved in these change initiatives. Their research occurs at micro, global, and institutional levels and incorporates many of the methods that have been described in this chapter.

Finally, programs of study that penetrate the complexities of the structure-action relationship over time are promising ventures for the IS field. Orlikowski's (2002) recent work on knowledge enactment and organizational learning is illustrative, as is a program of research at the Telematica Instituut (see Hettinga, 2002) which takes an evolutionary view of structuration in IS. Related areas of study with high potential for IS scholars include the structuration of online communities, global learning processes, and collective knowledge systems.

The theory of structuration is fascinating, its constructs captivating, its language at once clarifying and bewildering. Our analysis has highlighted the range of possibilities for empirical study that can be driven by this powerful theoretical paradigm. We have outlined important requirements and shown how scholars can build a cumulative research agenda. We hope our review will further progress in this vibrant area of study.

^[8]For a sense of the extent to which the IS field has drifted away from the study of technology, the reader is referred to a recent text by Currie and Galliers (1999).