Structure, Culture and Agency

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Structure, Culture and Agency Structure, Culture and Agency Professor Margaret Archer is a leading critical realist and major contemporary social theorist. This edited collection seeks to celebrate the scope and accomplishments of her work, distilling her theoretical and empirical contributions into four sections which capture the essence and trajectory of her research over almost four decades. Long fascinated with the problem of structure and agency, Archer’s work has constituted a decade-long engagement with this perennial issue of social thought. However, in spite of the deep interconnections that unify her body of work, it is rarely treated as a coherent whole. This is doubtless in part due to the unforgiving rigour of her arguments and prose, but is also a byproduct of sociology’s ongoing compartmentalisation. This edited collection seeks to address this relative neglect by collating a selection of papers, spanning Archer’s career, which collectively elucidate both the development of her thought and the value that can be found in it as a systematic whole. This book illustrates the empirical origins of her social ontology in her early work on the sociology of education, as well as foregrounding the diverse range of influences that have conditioned her intellectual trajectory: the systems theory of Walter Buckley, the neo-Weberian analysis of Lockwood, the critical realist phil- osophy of Roy Bhaskar and, more recently, her engagement with American prag- matism and the Italian school of relational sociology. What emerges is a series of important contributions to our understanding of the relationship between structure, culture and agency. Acting to introduce and guide readers through these contri- butions, this book carries the potential to inform exciting and innovative socio- logical research. Tom Brock is Lecturer in the department of Sociology at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK. Mark Carrigan is Research Fellow in the Centre for Social Ontology at the University of Warwick, UK. Graham Scambler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology at UCL, UK, and Visiting Professor of Sociology at Surrey University, UK. Ontological Explorations Other titles in this series The Politics of Childhoods Real and Imagined Volume 2: practical application of critical realism and childhood studies Priscilla Alderson Critical Realism, Environmental Learning and Social-Ecological Change Edited by Leigh Price and Heila Lotz-Sisitka Metatheory for the Twenty-First Century Critical realism and integral theory in dialogue Edited by Roy Bhaskar, Sean Esbjörn-Hargens, Nicholas Hedlund and Mervyn Hartwig The Post-Mobile Society From the smart/mobile to second offline Edited by Hidenori Tomita Enlightened Common Sense The philosophy of critical realism Roy Bhaskar A Complex Integral Realist Perspective Towards a new axial vision Paul Marshall Crisis System A critical realist and environmental critique of economics and the economy Edited by Petter Næss and Leigh Price Structure, Culture and Agency Selected Papers of Margaret Archer Edited by Tom Brock, Mark Carrigan and Graham Scambler Structure, Culture and Agency Selected Papers of Margaret Archer Edited by Tom Brock, Mark Carrigan and Graham Scambler First published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2017 selection and editorial matter, Tom Brock, Mark Carrigan and Graham Scambler; individual chapters, the contributors. The right of Tom Brock, Mark Carrigan and Graham Scambler to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-93294-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-67887-0 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Sunrise Setting Ltd., Brixham, UK Contents Foreword vii Acknowledgements x Introduction xiii Morphogenesis: realism’s explanatory framework1 1 Thinking and theorizing about educational systems 36 2 On predicting the behaviour of the educational system 50 3 The myth of cultural integration 59 4 The vexatious fact of society 77 5 Morphogenesis versus structuration: on combining structure and action 102 6 For structure: its reality, properties and powers: a reply to Anthony King 128 7 The private life of the social agent: what difference does it make? 138 8 The ontological status of subjectivity: the missing link between structure and agency 151 9 Reflexivity as the unacknowledged condition of social life 165 10 A brief history of how reflexivity becomes imperative 184 vi Contents 11 Morphogenic society: self-government and self-organization as misleading metaphors 215 12 The generative mechanism reconfiguring Late Modernity 235 13 How agency is transformed in the course of social transformation: don’t forget the double morphogenesis 259 The trajectory of the morphogenetic approach: an account in the first person 282 Interview with Maggie 293 Structure, Culture and Agency: selected papers of Margaret Archer: annotated bibliography 306 Index 314 Foreword It is my honor and great pleasure to have been invited to write this Foreword to the collected work of Margaret (or Maggie, as she prefers) Archer. In one sense, of course, the collection is a deserved tribute that expresses how the collectors feel about her. The collection, however, is primarily meant as a service to the field. The fact is that, although critical realists span multiple disciplines – philosophy, theo- logy, education, business organization and more – among sociologists, Maggie Archer stands first. Her work, most well-known and most drawn-upon, represents what I have elsewhere called the canonical positions of critical realism in sociology. It thus is a service to scholars concerned with critical realism that encapsulated here in this collection are Archer’s most seminal statements. In this brief Foreword, I want to identify what I consider the crux of Archer’s work. But first I would like to take the opportunity to say something about her as a person. In his Sacred Project of American Sociology, Christian Smith describes meetings of the American Sociology Association (ASA) as “tediously stratified,” where “the ‘best’ sociologists largely circulate and talk with their own kind ::: In fact, most of everyone’s eye movements at the ASA meetings involve checking out other people’s name tags, hung unceremoniously from lanyards around their necks, to see if their names are recognizable and at what college or university they work.”1 All I can say is that, both as a person and as a sociologist, Maggie Archer displays no such status-orientation. As the biblical passage puts it, she is no “respecter of persons,” meaning that she is not one to differentiate by social class. Instead, Archer always, in my experience, distinguishes rather by cogency of thought, finding it, if anything, more among the obscure than among the prominent. In comparison, then, with what characterizes ASA meetings, Archer’s personal and professional open- ness is very refreshing. But let me turn to the work. Clearly, Archer’s work spans decades and develops over time. The present collection marks that development. Clearly, I cannot com- ment on it all. What I can do is identify what I believe is key to it all, namely two related positions: Analytical Dualism and the Morphogenetic/Morphostatic (MM) approach. As the latter depends on the former, I will begin with that. Contemporary sociology is largely uncomfortable with binary distinctions. It is uncomfortable with the realist distinction between subject and object; it is viii Foreword uncomfortable with the distinction between culture and agency; equally uncom- fortable with the distinction between structure and agency; and uncomfortable even with the distinction between culture and structure. That discomfort has led to all kinds of collapse or, in Archer’s word, conflation. For pragmatist and Bourdieusean perspectives, both widespread, the distinction between subject and object and other such putatively Cartesian oppositions are to be overcome either by some sort of non-realist dialectic or by the concept of habitus. With the so-called cultural turn, social or organizational structure was swallowed by culture (i.e., reduced to rules or schema), and, then, with the so-called practice turn, culture (and with it now structure) has been conflated with practice (agency). The end is Hegel’s “night in which all cows are black.” Lost, that is, are the distinct concepts through which to unravel different kinds of social causality. Against this conflationist tendency stands Archer’s analytical dualism. The designation may now be somewhat misleading as there are several dualisms Archer seeks to preserve. In Culture and Agency Archer
Recommended publications
  • Structure and Agency: an Analysis of the Impact of Structure on Group Agents Elizabeth Kaye Victor University of South Florida, [email protected]
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Scholar Commons | University of South Florida Research University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School January 2012 Structure and Agency: An Analysis of the Impact of Structure on Group Agents Elizabeth Kaye Victor University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the American Studies Commons, and the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Scholar Commons Citation Victor, Elizabeth Kaye, "Structure and Agency: An Analysis of the Impact of Structure on Group Agents" (2012). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4246 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Structure and Agency: An Analysis of the Impact of Structure on Group Agents by Elizabeth Kaye Victor A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Rebecca Kukla, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Stephen Turner, Ph.D. Colin Heydt, Ph.D. Bryce Hueber, Ph.D Douglas Jesseph, Ph.D. Walter Nord, Ph.D. Date of Approval: May 16, 2012 Keywords: Group Agency, Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Ethics, Human Resource Management Copyright © 2012, Elizabeth Kaye Victor Dedication I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my father and friend, Joe.
    [Show full text]
  • Econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Stör, Lorenz Working Paper Conceptualizing power in the context of climate change: A multi-theoretical perspective on structure, agency & power relations VÖÖ Discussion Paper, No. 5/2017 Provided in Cooperation with: Vereinigung für Ökologische Ökonomie e.V. (VÖÖ), Heidelberg Suggested Citation: Stör, Lorenz (2017) : Conceptualizing power in the context of climate change: A multi-theoretical perspective on structure, agency & power relations, VÖÖ Discussion Paper, No. 5/2017, Vereinigung für Ökologische Ökonomie (VÖÖ), Heidelberg This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/150540 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ www.econstor.eu VÖÖ Discussion Papers VÖÖ Discussion Papers · ISSN 2366-7753 No.
    [Show full text]
  • Structuration Theory Amid Negative and Positive Criticism
    Structuration theory amid negative and positive criticism Wafa Kort Ligue laboratory Assistant at ISG Tunis E-mail : [email protected] Jamel Eddine Gharbi Ligue laboratory Lecturer at FSEG Jendouba E-mail : [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper tries to sum up the criticism that turns around structuration theory to help the applications in MIS field. The literature review allow to advance three categories of criticisms: (1) the conflation of structure and human agent, (2) the complexity and the outspread of the theory that lead to contradictions, and (3) the lack of assumptions and methodological guidelines. Some recommendations are given to direct future researches. Key words: Structures, Agency, Duality of structural, Time-space dimension. Introduction Structuration theory is more and more used in the field of management information system. In fact, it offers the possibility to conceptualize IT artifact in a dynamic way and goes beyond the deterministic conceptualization in previous studies. The concept of the duality of structure is the main concept in structuration theory. It means that structural properties are at the same time the result and medium of practices which are organized in a recursive way. It allows a new perspective of the relationship between technology and user. Hence, the use of structuration theory in the IS field aims to provide a theoretical approach that helps the understanding of the interaction between user and information technology, the implications of these interactions, and the way to control their consequences (Pozzebon and Pinsonneault, 2005). More specifically, structuration theory allows human agency to surface and gives them the power to explain the difference of outcome in presence of technology (Boudreau and Robey, 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • Nobody to Shoot? Power, Structure, and Agency: a Dialogue. Journal
    This article was downloaded by: On: 30 January 2009 Access details: Access Details: Free Access Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Power Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t778749998 Nobody to shoot? Power, structure, and agency: A dialogue Clarissa Hayward a; Steven Lukes b a Washington University in Saint Louis, Political Science, b New York University, Sociology, Online Publication Date: 01 April 2008 To cite this Article Hayward, Clarissa and Lukes, Steven(2008)'Nobody to shoot? Power, structure, and agency: A dialogue',Journal of Power,1:1,5 — 20 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/17540290801943364 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17540290801943364 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure and Agency in Organizational Contexts of Women in Stem
    Michigan Technological University Digital Commons @ Michigan Tech Dissertations, Master's Theses and Master's Dissertations, Master's Theses and Master's Reports - Open Reports 2015 STRUCTURE AND AGENCY IN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXTS OF WOMEN IN STEM Sidouane Patcha Lum Michigan Technological University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/etds Part of the Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons Copyright 2015 Sidouane Patcha Lum Recommended Citation Patcha Lum, Sidouane, "STRUCTURE AND AGENCY IN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXTS OF WOMEN IN STEM", Master's Thesis, Michigan Technological University, 2015. https://doi.org/10.37099/mtu.dc.etds/958 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/etds Part of the Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons STRUCTURE AND AGENCY IN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXTS OF WOMEN IN STEM By Sidouane Patcha Lum A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In Rhetoric and Technical Communication MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY 2015 ©2015 Sidouane Patcha Lum This thesis has been approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Rhetoric and Technical Communication. Department of Humanities Thesis Advisor: Dr. M. Ann Brady Committee Member: Dr. Patricia Sotirin Committee Member: Dr. Robert Johnson Committee Member: Dr. Sarah Green Department Chair: Dr. Ronald Strickland To my parents With Love and Gratitude TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cheat Sheet on Structuration Theory
    Voice or Chatter? Orientation Webinar, IT for Change Handout 3: Cheat Sheet on Structuration Theory 1. What is structure according to Giddens? According to Giddens, structure is a sum of “rules and resources, organized as properties of social systems” that exists only as structural properties (1984, p. 25). Structure for Giddens is both medium and outcome as it is created through process. Thus, social life is perceived as process and not product. Structuration looks at norms as value-based benchmarks emerging out of the coming together of formal rules and informal and implicit codes. It is not just the stated rules that count but how bureaucracy interprets these things. 2. How does Giddens define agency? “Agency refers not to the intentions people have in doing things but to their capability of doing those things in the first place (which is why agency implies power: cr. the Oxford English Dictionary definition of an agent, as 'one who exerts power or produces an effect'). Agency concerns events of which an individual is the perpetrator, in the sense that the individual could, at any phase in a given sequence of conduct, have acted differently. Whatever happened would not have happened if that individual had not intervened. Action is a continuous process, a flow...” (Giddens, 1984, p.9) 3. How is power conceived in Giddensian terms? Like Foucault (1979), Giddens' views of power is relational and based on a dialectic of control in which “all forms of dependence offer some resources whereby those who are subordinate can influence the activities of their supervisors” (Giddens, 1984, p.16).
    [Show full text]
  • OPPRESSION and RESISTANCE: STRUCTURE, AGENCY, TRANSFORMATION STUDIES in SYMBOLIC INTERACTION Series Editor: Norman K
    OPPRESSION AND RESISTANCE: STRUCTURE, AGENCY, TRANSFORMATION STUDIES IN SYMBOLIC INTERACTION Series Editor: Norman K. Denzin Recent Volumes: Volumes 1À35: Studies in Symbolic Interaction Volume 36: Blue Ribbon Papers: Interactionism: The Emerging Landscape Volume 37: Studies in Symbolic Interaction Volume 38: Blue Ribbon Papers: Behind the Professional Mask: The Self-Revelations of Leading Symbolic Interactionists Volume 39: Studies in Symbolic Interaction Volume 40: 40th Anniversary of Studies in Symbolic Interaction Volume 41: Radical Interactionism on the Rise Volume 42: Revisiting Symbolic Interaction in Music Studies and New Interpretive Works Volume 43: Symbolic Interaction and New Social Media Volume 44: Contributions from European Symbolic Interactionists: Reflections on Methods Volume 45: Contributions from European Symbolic Interactionists: Conflict and Cooperation Volume 46: The Astructural Bias Charge: Myth or Reality? Volume 47: Symbolic Interactionist Takes on Music STUDIES IN SYMBOLIC INTERACTION VOLUME 48 OPPRESSION AND RESISTANCE: STRUCTURE, AGENCY, TRANSFORMATION EDITED BY GIL RICHARD MUSOLF Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI, USA United Kingdom À North America À Japan India À Malaysia À China Emerald Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2017 Copyright r 2017 Emerald Publishing Limited Reprints and permissions service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Structuration Approach of Anthony Giddens
    Himalayan Journal of Sociology & Antropology-Vol. V (2012) The Structuration Approach of Anthony Giddens ? Mukunda Lamsal Abstract Structuration Theory developed by Anthony Giddens, a British sociologist, in response to claims by post-structuralism, holds that the structures that humans ind themselves in are determined for them, and volunteerism, that suggests that humans are completely free to create their lived environment. Structuration theory has a several unique nomenclature to explain the relationships that the human “agency” has with institutions or “structure”. This paper explains the use of the words and relate them to relevant examples. The understanding that Structuration Theory gives us can be very useful for understanding geographic phenomenon such as the idea of the time-space continuum. Urban arenas have a very complex set of relationships between humans and their environments; housing, movement within the environment, etcetera. The paper is also focused on understanding the connections between Giddens’ theory and the ield of geography. The main focus of this paper is on exploring the complexities of Giddens’ Structuration Theory and understanding how it is currently being implemented in societies. Keywords: Structuration, structuralism, agency, structure Introduction Societies in the developed world are becoming highly advanced and have undergone various changes in their value, knowledge and physical systems. The ield of Sociology has attempted to categorize such changes as a result of various entities acting upon other actors (people), institutions or classes. Sociology has only been around since the mid nineteenth century but has provoked some of the most heated debates concerning human geography. The role we play in our shared reality with the world has come under the studies of some of the most prestigious sociologists, like Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber.
    [Show full text]
  • How the Structure-Agency Debate Can Illuminate Policy Implementation
    Commentary What’s Policy Got to Do with It? How the Structure-Agency Debate Can Illuminate Policy Implementation CYNTHIA E. COBURN Northwestern University How does policy influence human behavior? All theories of policy implemen- tation have at their root assumptions about the nature of human action. Some (e.g., principal-agent theories) emphasize autonomous actors making a series of individual choices to maximize their interests. Studies of policy implementation in this vein (e.g., Lane 2013; Loeb and McEwan 2006; Sabatier and Maz- manian 1980) investigate how policy design—often the balance between sanc- tions and rewards—shapes individual choices and how that, in turn, relates to intended and unintended outcomes. Other theories (e.g., social networks) focus on the ways that individual action is shaped by social interaction and peer effects. Studies that take a network perspective on implementation (e.g., Coburn, Russell, et al. 2012; Frank et al. 2004) investigate how individuals’ embeddedness in systems of social relations influences what they learn about policy in the first place and how they respond. Other theories of implementation (e.g., sensemaking theory, institutional theory) focus on the way that individuals’ and groups’ interpretations of policy are shaped by cultural ideas available to them in the environment. This approach (e.g., Bridwell-Mitchell 2015; Burch 2007; Coburn 2004; Spillane et al. 2002) investigates how cultural ideas are embedded in social structure, influencing what individuals even think to do as they implement policies in the classroom, Electronically published March 18, 2016 American Journal of Education 122 (May 2016) © 2016 by The University of Chicago.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing a Structure/Agency Approach to Transnationalism Thomas Lacroix
    Designing a Structure/Agency approach to transnationalism Thomas Lacroix To cite this version: Thomas Lacroix. Designing a Structure/Agency approach to transnationalism. 2012. halshs- 00819982 HAL Id: halshs-00819982 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00819982 Preprint submitted on 2 May 2013 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Working Papers Paper 65, October 2012 Designing a structure/agency approach to transnationalism Thomas Lacroix This paper is published by the International Migration Institute (IMI), Oxford Department of International Development (QEH), University of Oxford, 3 Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3TB, UK (www.imi.ox.ac.uk). IMI does not have an institutional view and does not aim to present one. The views expressed in this document are those of its independent author. The IMI Working Papers Series IMI has been publishing working papers since its foundation in 2006. The series presents current research in the field of international migration. The papers in this series: analyse migration as part of broader global change contribute to new theoretical approaches advance understanding of the multi-level forces driving migration Abstract Research on post-migration processes usually focuses either on micro-level behaviours or on macro-level interactions between states and their diasporas.
    [Show full text]
  • How Structure, Culture, and Agency Affects Feedback Angelica Sleiman University of San Diego
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of San Diego University of San Diego Digital USD Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2018-05-20 Performance Feedback: How Structure, Culture, and Agency Affects Feedback Angelica Sleiman University of San Diego Follow this and additional works at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/dissertations Part of the Educational Leadership Commons, Elementary and Middle and Secondary Education Administration Commons, and the Elementary Education and Teaching Commons Digital USD Citation Sleiman, Angelica, "Performance Feedback: How Structure, Culture, and Agency Affects Feedback" (2018). Dissertations. 105. https://digital.sandiego.edu/dissertations/105 This Dissertation: Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Digital USD. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital USD. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK: HOW STRUCTURE, CULTURE, AND AGENCY AFFECTS FEEDBACK by Angelica Sleiman A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2018 Dissertation Committee Lea Hubbard, PhD Paula A. Cordeiro, EdD Heather Lattimer, EdD University of San Diego © Copyright by Angelica Sleiman All Rights Reserved 2018 University of San Diego School of Leadership and Education Sciences CANDIDATE’S NAME: Angelica Sleiman TITLE OF DISSERTATION: PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK: HOW STRUCTURE, CULTURE, AND AGENCY AFFECTS FEEDBACK APPROVAL: _____________________________________, Chair Lea Hubbard, PhD- _____________________________________, Member Paula A. Cordeiro, EdD - _____________________________________, Member Heather Lattimer, EdD - DATE: April 24, 2018 ABSTRACT Federal and state mandates have placed an added pressure on teachers to demonstrate “effective” instructional practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Structuration Theory and Its Contribution to Explanations of Migration
    Migration in the New World Order: Structuration Theory and its contribution to Explanations of Migration Richard L. Wolfel Department of Geography Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Edwardsville, IL 62026-1459 (618) 650-2943 Fax: (618) 650-3591 [email protected] The reconstitution of economic, political and social factors is an important characteristic of the contemporary world. The changing structure of societies represents a dramatic change in the motives for migration. As a result of these major societal changes, the explanations of migration need evaluation in order to address the complex social, political and economic factors that have become important in this era. Not only does this transitional era require an examination of the methodological approaches to migration, but it also requires a rethinking of migration. A theory that can address both individual and societal factors is necessary to understand migration. The insights presented in this research are informed by the work of Anthony Giddens. In his theory of structuration, Giddens emphasizes that both individual and societal forces are influential on the constitution of society and incorporates this into one explanation. Some migration studies have utilized Giddens’ work in their projects, but none have focused on all of the elements of structuration theory. This study seeks to use Giddens’ theory of structuration as a method of bringing both macro and micro influences of migration into a more complete explanation of the migration decision making process. Structuration Theory and Migration Structuration theory is "an approach to social theory concerned with the intersection between knowledgeable and capable social agents and the wider social systems and structures in which they are implicated" (Gregory, 1994: 600).
    [Show full text]