Over the last 15 years, structurational approaches have become an important theoretical perspective within the IS research community (Jones, 1999; Poole and Desanctis, 2000; de Vaujany, 2001), and exert an increasing influence on management studies as a whole (Whittington, 1992; Rojot, 1998; Giordano, 1998), whether in French or English-speaking literature.

What does this theoretical perspective consists in and how can one account for its breakthrough? As regards Information System research, it seems that the structurational framework is particularly relevant to understanding the potential “social innovation in use” IT implementation can result in. Basically, structurationists illuminate on a fundamental socio-technical dynamic. IT implementation can be either neutral, regenerative, or disruptive for a given organisation. This paper uses both a pure structurational perspective (Giddens framework) as well as a rival model (the morphogenetic approach), in order to deepen these basic states and to develop a qualitative evaluation of IT use.

In the first part of this article, structurational approaches along with three “socio-technical archetypes” are introduced. They enable the reader to capture the gist of structurational approaches. A dynamic way of combining them is also proposed, by means of two appropriative trajectories. Then, in a second part, the preceding reading grid is illustrated and accommodated through four case studies.

1. Structurational approaches : an overview.

1.1         The sources of structurational approaches

The IS research community, like many other communities in social sciences, can adopt several theoretical stances to study its object of research. On the whole, they vary in accordance with the importance they give to action or structures, to human agents or the system they belong to, to functionalism or emergentism (see table 1). Thus, from Archer’s (1982, p 455) point of view, “successive developments have tilted either towards structure or towards action, a slippage which has gathered in momentum over time”. It is nonetheless very rare that social theory really makes it possible to combine action and structure in a dynamic way[1].

Taking this starting point, structurational approaches, whether Giddens’ Structuration Theory (Giddens, 1979, 1984), Bhaskar’s TMSA[2] (Bhaskar, 1979), Archer’s morphogenetic approach (Archer, 1982, 1995) or some institutionalists[3], have tried to develop some kind of an integrative perspective. Structurationists have worked out general frameworks aiming at grasping the way people produce or reproduce social structures in societies. The gist of the matter for them is thus to understand the various conditions in which the role system a society is based on can evolve, putting together action and structures. Up to a certain extent, structurationists’ problematic is a very general question regarding every social scientist.

In accordance with Jones (1999) and de Vaujany (2001c), it is important to notice that structurational approaches, in spite of being consistent, do not form a homogeneous stream of research. Some researchers give a certain exteriority to structures, a “causal efficacy”, in order to study the interplay between action and structures. They adopt a very analytic way of analysing IT use. Other researchers try to “conflate” action and structures. Considering structures only as “mnesic traces” in the mind of actors, they view their conditioning power as depending on users’ willingness. The resulting theoretical framework then draws on a psychosocial perspective. In a nutshell, these are the main differences between the morphogenetic approach[4] (cf. Archer, 1995) and Structuration Theory (Giddens, 1979, 1984).  Archer puts forward two basic propositions that underlie her model :

(i)                  “That structure necessarily pre-dates the action(s) leading to its reproduction or transformation”

(ii)                “That structural elaboration necessarily post-dates the action sequences which gave rise to it » (p 15)[5]”

In line with these propositions, Archer takes three social steps into account : structural (or cultural) conditioning, social (or cultural) interaction, structural or (cultural) elaboration. Past actions thus have effects “in their own right” later on. They constrain and facilitate actors' actions by means of a conditioning process, i.e. they “simply set a price on acting against one’s self-declared interest and a premium on following them (consequently detectable regularities do not even approximate to constant conjunctures” (p 90). This principle does not result in a new form of determinism. The middle part of the morphogenetic/morphostatic cycle includes a potential “promotive creativity”, innovative actions. Besides (and this is a key difference), Archer’s model integrates various kinds of actions, linked to two sorts of agents : “corporate” and “primary” agents. The first category has a lot of resources, clear-cut projects, and a strong group awareness. The second category has only marginal resources at its disposal, no group consciousness and no projects motivated by a common interest. The first group plays a much more active role in structures evolution”[6]. But in both cases, the final form of the social system is not produced by a specific groupal action. “Unexpected consequences”, emergent properties define the final outcome. The latter can be described through four “second order emergent properties” (Archer, 1995 ; p 218) : necessary compatibility or incompatibility ; contingent compatibility or incompatibility. They each correspond to four situational logics : protection, compromise, elimination, opportunism.

To conclude this brief presentation of the Morphogenetic model, it is important to stress an important point. Even specific, Archer’s model shares a common matrix with Structuration Theory which makes it possible to present it as a global stream of research. Starting with the same project (recombining structures and action), they both agree on the following propositions (Hodgson, 1999)[7]:

a)      Dependance of social structures upon individuals;

b)      Rejection of methodological individualism

c)      Dependence of individuals upon social structures

d)      Rejection of methodological collectivism

Nevertheless, structurational approaches are not a “ready to use” research framework. Washam introduces Structuration Theory by speaking about a “meta-theoretical” approach (Walsham and Han, 1991; Walsham, 1993)[8] which needs to be associated with intermediate theories, that is to say a web of concepts more linkable to the study of a concrete setting. Structurational approaches are then a sort of theoretical galaxy which will “sensitise” the researcher to some important aspect of the social phenomena under study, and which will help her/him to give a minimal coherence and relevance to her/his construct.

Table 1: Perspectives on IT-organisation relationship: an overview.

 

1.2         Three socio-technical archetypes to condense the structurational framework.

How can the structurational approach be applied to the case of network technology implementation[10] ? As suggested before, an intermediate theory is required. It is proposed here to use an archetypal model consistent with a structurational stance. This archetypal model consists of different stylised elements (three socio-technical archetypes and two appropriative trajectories) which will be helpful in shedding light on socio-technical dynamics.

A socio-technical archetype is a “structurational state, a long-lasting socio-technical configuration described by means of structurationist dimensions”. In other words, it is suggested that the social dynamic linked to the use of IT can be described using three basic ideal-types: Neutral (N), Disrupted (D) and Regenerated (R).

In the regenerated situation, the use of IT results in new ways of interacting. New social structures are produced. Roles within the organisation are redefined, which may also translate a deeper change in organisational norms, interpretive schemes, or facilities. Barley (1990) explains why the role system is studied to examine the evolution of social structures:  “If one conceives structure as a global pattern that emerges from the relationships that exist among all members of a collectivity, then it is possible to link shifts in role relations directly and empirically to structural change by examining properties of social networks” (p 69). Barley (1986 ; p 83) also suggests to find out organisational scripts, i.e. “Outlines of recurrent patterns of interaction that define, in observable and behavioural terms, the essence of actors' roles” (quoting Schanck and Abelson, 1977). This is the precise technique implemented by Barley (1986 ; 1990) to study the opportunity for structuring implied by the use of scanners in hospitals and the changes in the radiologist-technician interactional scripts.

In the neutral case, either the use of IT dissolves into pre-existing social structures or it is not used at all. The role system is kept and technology is implemented in a routinely. Organisational scripts are not modified. The “government co-ordination agency” case as presented by Walsham (1993; p X) illustrates this situation. Studying one of the systems implemented, Walsham explained that: “(…) the routinisation of the activities outside the GCA was not disrupted by the Intis system; they carried on largely as before with little change to their structure of signification with respect to their role and work on development activities, and the need to be coordinated between agencies”.

In the disrupted situation, structures are destroyed by IT use or create tension with specific social structures. This last configuration can thus can be an archetype “per se”[11] or can be superimposed on the two preceding archetypes. For instance, regenerated and neutral situations can coexist. Developing his case study, Barley (1986) explained that : “As role reversals, clandestine teaching, and incidents of blaming the technologist gradually defined a new interaction order, the radiologists’ moral authority tarnished and the technologists began to regard the inexperienced radiologists with disdain (…) Unaccustomed to having their knowledge perceived as inadequate, anxious that they might make a serious mistake and baffled by the computer technology, they began to express hostility toward the technologists.” (Barley, 1986 : pp. 93-94).

An interesting point can be raised at this stage : these three socio-technical archetypes can be interpreted either from Archer’s (1995) or from Giddens’ (1979, 1984) perspective. On the one hand, from the latter, socio-technical archetypes are specific psycho-sociological situations where structural properties are instanciated in a particular way. Technology does not exist away from its use and agents willingness is central in every social move. Ontological security[12] is either maintained or broken by actors’ actions. On the other hand, from the former’s perspective, socio-technical archetypes have a more concrete and objective dimension. Socio-political struggles, material conditions, agents’ various creative capacities weigh on the potential evolution of the social system.

The chart on the newt page describes the archetypes by means of Structuration Theory and the Morphogenetic Approach :

Table 2: Structurational sub-streams and their interpretation of each archetype.

 

1.3         Two general sequences of archetypes : the balancing-point and the improvisational dynamics.

1.3.1.1  Using the three socio-technical archetypes previously worked out, it is now possible to describe some general trajectories linked to IT implementation. An appropriative trajectory can be defined as “a general and regular sequence of socio-technical archetypes, a structurational dynamic”. From our point of view, the theoretical and empirical literature suggests two trajectories : the balancing point dynamic and the improvisational dynamic.

1.3.2        The balancing-point dynamic.

From this first perspective, routine is the most common state of a social system. IT uses can thus have two sub-trajectories, each leading to the same final state. One the one hand, the new technology can first involve analogical uses, then local or global disruptions concomitant with local changes, before a global move to the regenerated socio-technical archetype and later, to a new routine (sequence N-D-R-N. We go through two symbolic gates: G1 (the move from routine to change) and G2 (the move from disruption to a new social order). This first sequence corresponds to the situation described by Barley (1986, 1990). The general idea is summed up this way by the author : “(…) to occasion the structuring of organizations, technologies first disturb or confirm ingrained patterns of action to reformulate or ratify scripts, which, in turn, delimit the organization’s institutional structure” (Barley, 1986 : p 84). On the other hand, the new technology can also directly induce a regeneration of the social system (sequence N-R-N). The case study developed by Orlikowski (2000) epitomises this second situation. A new software results in new social configurations, without major tensions for the role system. Anyway, whatever sub-trajectory is taken into account, the gist of the matter lies in going through the first symbolic gate (G1), which embodies the move from the neutral archetype to another different archetype. The cases developed by Walsham (1993), Grote and Baitch or Muhlman (2001) illuminate these two points : the existence of a (strong) gate G1, and the inertia of socio-technical systems. Activities then always come back to a routinised state (“With time, recurrent behaviour leads to the formation of an interaction order and a set of shared typifications that generally acquire the moral status of taken-for-granted facts” Barley, 1990 ; p 67).

As in the case of archetypes themselves, the balancing point dynamic can be understood from Structuration Theory or the morphogenetic approach points of view. As regards Giddens, the overall process is in the mind of actors. The gate G1 is the point where the “ontological security” feeling is broken (for the first sub-trajectory). Anxiety resurfaces. And all social activities sooner or later become routine. That is why, if the dynamic ends with the regenerated archetype, the system always comes back to a long-lasting neutral archetype. How can one (a researcher, a project manager, a user…) judge if the organization comes back to the neutral archetype ? From Giddens perspective (rather interpretative) it all depends on the actor's point of view. When what was a” social innovation in use” becomes routine from the agents’ point of view, the system is back to the neutral archetype. From Archer’s point of view, things are more concrete. The tension is in the “conditioning context”, through logical or practical incompatibilities. Agents have various interests, capabilities and comprehension of the social contexts. Structures have, up to a certain extent, heterogeneous “causal efficacy”. And the regenerated, neutral or disrupted nature of the social system can be determined “objectively”[13].

1.3.3        The improvisational dynamic.

A second appropriative dynamic is put forward more and more in the structurationnist literature. It is what is called the improvisational dynamic. Orlikowski (2000) recently promoted this idea, which had been already presented in a non-structurationnist article (cf. Orlikowski and Hoffman, 1997). From this point of view, structurational processes linked to IT use are much more ongoing and intertwined than the work of Desanctis and Poole (1994) or even than a part of Orlikowski and Robey’s (1992) work may suggest. Archetypes arise continuously in organisations. For the same part of the social system, uses can be at the same time regenerating, disrupting, and neutral. Technology is constantly “re-enacted” globally (its general sense) or locally (the sense of a given functionality). The consistence and stability of the first dynamic is questioned. It is also likely that the sensemaking process is a bit different from an improvisational point of view, with more retrospective creation of forms[14].

1.3.4        Comparison of the two trajectories

It is possible to sum up differences between the balancing point dynamic and the improvisational trajectory by means of the following table:

 

Table 3: Comparison between the balancing-point and the improvisational dynamic.

Is balancing-point trajectory totally inconsistent with the improvisational dynamic[15]? We do not agree on this point. Everything depends on the level of observation, the time scope studied, and the conditioning power of the socio-technical context. In practice, it is also clear that most organisational members behave simultaneously in improvisational and balancing terms. IT users are thus different from jazz musician[16] and from the forces of law and order…But the forthcoming case studies will now be helpful in precising this interesting point.

2. Illustration and adaptations of the structurational approach : four case-studies.

In this second part, the theoretical framework previously developed will be applied to four case studies : A, B, C and D. For each case, the “premodel” will enter into an assimilation-accommodation process. On some occasions, the data collected was able to be assimilated by the premodel. Other times, it was not possible, and it was necessary to accommodate it. This is what happened with the appropriative trajectories.

The methodology followed conforms to the case study methodology as proposed by Yin (1994). Semi-structured interviews[17] were carried out with end-users and IS managers met several times. A questionnaire was submitted as regards to their instrumental uses of the technology. We also did direct observations of steering committee meetings and read various internal and external documents.

The tool under study (Intranets) has been divided into three sub-technologies :

(1)   Electronic mail

(2)   Newsgroups

(3)   Data bases and tools in an HTML format

The interview structure scrupulously respected these categories, with a part for each tool.

The four sites have the following characteristics :

Table 4: Presentation of sites A, B, C and D.

The four sites were not studied in the same way. A and B were analysed longitudinally, i.e. by means of repeated interviews, and continuous observations (one and a half years for A, one year for B). C and D have been studied transversally. People were asked to retrospectively reconstitute their appropriative dynamic. A single set of interviews was used. Besides, study of sites A and B was more global than C and D. For A and B, we tried to study the appropriative dynamic from a corporate point of view, taking into account the company as a whole (B) or looking at some regional areas (A). As regards C and D, the research has been focused on very local dynamics : the security service of a big R&D centre for C and headquarters for D.

2.1 Case A

For the first site, the socio-technical context was classic. A was a big company with a divisional structure, partly state-owned, and had been engaged in telecommunication activities for more than 50 years. The group changed significantly during the study: (end of 98-beginning of 1999) : more decentralisation, redeployment of administrative agents, new product orientation (towards new technologies)… The Intranet was rather a meta-Intranet, i.e. a technical structure destined to support functional, divisional, regional or operational web sites.

The socio-technical configuration clearly corresponded to the neutral archetype and illustrated the difficulties to go through gate 1.

The overall Intranet (launched two years before our research) was studied, along with a regional sub-Intranet put at the users’ disposal one week before the first interview. At all levels, the technology was used in a way that strongly reproduced (and reinforced) organisational compartments and the role system. Users from a given branch only visited the part of the network dedicated to them. Newsgroups were used in a rather conservative manner, in spite of their openness. As soon as some deviant behaviours arose (for instance, criticism of management) auto-regulatory mechanisms emerged. Contrary to the goal assigned by IS managers to technology, Intranet was not at all a way to develop more transversality within the organisation. Moreover, the various control systems deployed by IS managers in order to channel, limit or facilitate the use of IT were also strongly reproductive of pre-existing social structures. For the regional Intranet, IS managers were all located in the headquarters’ office, and no real transversal webs were set up. Nonetheless, for a small part of our sample, technology supported a decompartmentalisation of the organisation through a catalysis phenomenon,i.e., "the willing transformation, by means of a factor, in the context of this transformation, the catalyst" (Avenier, 1999). Technologies were used in order to develop transversal communications and cooperation. Users got in touch with new people through the mail directory or Intranet bases. New social structures come into being through other media such as telephone or direct meetings. Intranet had only had a leverage effect on this phenomenon.

However, a very interesting pattern was also noticed. It was specific to the mail system, and to the people of our panel located within the regional head office[18] : the active traceability pattern, and the passive traceability pattern.

The active traceability pattern had the following characteristics : every time an employee took an initiative, he informed his superior by means of a direct mail or copies (cc :) sometimes coupled with acknowledgement of reception. The mail was then stocked by the user. We actually met someone who kept three copies of their mails : on the person's hard-disk, on the mail server, and on printed paper ! This type of appropriation was rather specific to the regional headquarters, where the atmosphere at work was deteriorating during the period of the research. The reason for this was that several people were redeployed from administrative functions to operational units. Therefore, people did not want to give reasons to their hierarchy to redeploy them. All this resulted in “unexpected consequences”: a break in confidence, and paradoxically, a worse social climate.

The interactional script can be described in the following manner:          

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

C1: Correspondent 1

C2: Correspondent 2

Figure 1 : The active traceability pattern.

C1 represents a correspondent looking for active traceability. He or she communicates with another actor, C2, in a hierarchical position (T1), using the mail as some kind of informational shield. The actor then loses a part of his or her autonomy, and at the same time gains more “ontological security”. In the case of a conflict, he or she can defend him or herself (T2) by means of the stored mail.

Sometimes, the reverse situation could also be found : the passive traceability pattern. Some people, often in hierarchical positions, avoided committing themselves officially, by means of mail, which “leaves traces” ("In order to get precise information that looks like official information, I use the phone. The mail leaves traces" ). Users in this case prefer media without memory. Several people in charge of human resource management thus avoided leaving traces that could make concerned employees think they could be redeployed. This second dynamic can be illustrated in the following manner: