Post-positivist methods are common in Human Resource Development (HRD) theory and research, however some argue that this perspective limits analysis, and there is opportunity for more alternative paradigmatic approaches in this discipline (Callahan, 2007; Deetz, 2001; Elliott & Turnbull, 2005; Fenwick, 2004; Githens, 2007; Lynham, 2000; Rigg, Stewart, Trehan, 2004, 2007; Sambrook, 2004, 2008; Stewart, 2007, Valentin, 2006). Structuration theory (ST) is a viable option, as it provides a means for organization analysis and initiation of change interventions, but does so from an alternate paradigm perspective. ST, formulated by Anthony Giddens (1984), provides a framework for understanding the interplay between individuals and organizations and how this interplay develops and provides opportunity for organizational change. The purpose of this article is to illuminate ST as an alternative approach to HRD that does not draw from the post-positivist tradition and provide suggestions for how one might apply this theory toward research.
ArcherM. S. (1982). Morphogenesis versus structuration: On combining structure and action. British Journal of Sociology, 33, 455-483.
2.
BarleyS. R.TolbertP. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18, 93-117.
3.
BieremaL. L.CsehM. (2003). Evaluating AHRD research using a feminist research framework. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 5-26.
4.
BodenD. C. (1994). The business of talk. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
5.
BryantC. G. A. (1992). Sociology without philosophy? The case of Giddens’s structuration theory. Sociological Theory, 10, 137-149.
6.
BurkeW. W. (2008). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
CallahanJ. L. (2004). Reversing a conspicuous absence: Mindful inclusion of emotion in structuration theory. Human Relations, 57, 1427-1448.
8.
CallahanJ. L. (2007). Gazing into the crystal ball: Critical HRD as a future of research in the field. Human Resource Development International, 10, 77-82.
9.
CallahanJ. L. (2009). Manifestations of power and control: Training as the catalyst for scandal at the United States Air Force Academy. Violence Against Women, 15, 1149-1168.
10.
CallinicosA. (1985). Anthony Giddens: A contemporary critique. Theory and Society, 14(2), 133-166.
11.
ClarkJ.ModgilC.ModgilS. (1990). Anthony Giddens: Consensus and controversy. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.
12.
ComstockD. E. (1982). A method for critical research. In BredoE.FeinbergW. (Eds.), Knowledge and values in social and educational research (pp. 370-390). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
13.
CormanS. R. (2005). Postpositivism. In MayS.MumbyD. K. (Eds.), Engaging organizational communication, theory, & research: Multiple perspectives (pp. 15-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
DeetzS. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In JablinF. M.PutnamL. L. (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research and methods (pp. 3-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
DeSanctisG.PooleM. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121-147.
16.
ElliottC.TurnbullS. (2005). Critical thinking in human resource development: An introduction. In ElliotC.TurnbullS. (Eds.), Critical thinking in human resource development: Routledge studies in human resource development (pp. 1-7). London, UK: Routledge.
17.
FairhurstG. T.PutnamL. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14, 5-26.
18.
FenwickT. J. (2004). Toward a critical HRD in theory and practice. Adult Education Quarterly, 54, 193-209.
19.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
20.
GiddensA. (1990). Structuration theory and sociological analysis. In ClarkJ.ModgilC.ModgilS. (Eds.), Anthony Giddens: Consensus and controversy (pp. 297-315). London, UK: Falmer Press.
21.
GioiaD. A.PitreE. (1990). Multiparadigm perspective on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15, 584-602.
22.
GithensR. P. (2007). Critical action research in human resource development. In NafukhoF. M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference (pp. 481-488). Bowling Green, OH: Academy of Human Resource Development.
23.
GreeneJ. C. (1990). Three views on the nature and role of knowledge in social science. In GubaE. (Ed.), The paradigm dialogue (pp. 227-245) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
GubaE. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
HaugenL. K. (2006). The case for complexity: A look at the relationship between individual and structure from the inside out. Human Resource Development International, 9, 49-67.
27.
KimS. (2003). Research paradigms in organizational learning and performance: Competing modes of inquiry. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 21(1), 9-18.
28.
KissackH. C.CallahanJ. L. (2010). The reciprocal influence of organizational culture and training and development programs: Building the case for a culture analysis within program planning. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34, 365-380.
29.
KuhnT. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
30.
LincolnY. S. (1990). The making of a constructivist: A remembrance of transformations past. In GubaE. (Ed.), The paradigm dialogue (pp. 67-87). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31.
LincolnY. S.LynhamS. A. (2011). Criteria for assessing theory in human resource development from an interpretive perspective. Human Resource Development International, 14, 3-22.
32.
LincolnY. S.LynhamS. A.GubaE. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
LynhamS. A. (2000). Theory building in the human resource development profession. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 159-178.
34.
MarsickV. J. (1990). Altering the paradigm for theory building and research in human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1, 5-24.
35.
MerriamS. B. (1982). Some thoughts on the relationship between theory and practice. In MerriamS. B. (Ed.), Linking philosophy and practice (pp. 87-91). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
36.
MerriamS. B. (1991). How research produces knowledge. In PetersJ. M.JarvisP. (Eds.), Adult education: Evolution and achievements in a developing field of study. (pp. 42-65). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
37.
MishlerE. G. (1979). Meaning in context: Is there any other kind?Harvard Educational Review, 49(1), 1-19.
38.
PallasA. M. (2001). Preparing education doctoral students for epistemological diversity. Educational Researcher, 30(5), 6-11.
39.
PooleM. S.McPheeR. D. (2005). Structuration theory. In MayS.MumbyD. K. (Eds.), Engaging organizational communication, theory, & research: Multiple perspectives (pp. 171-196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
PopkewitzT. S. (1990). Whose future? Whose past? Notes on critical theory and methodology. In GubaE. (Ed.), The paradigm dialogue. (pp. 46-66). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
41.
PopperK. (1972). Objective knowledge. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
42.
PozzebonM. (2004). The influence of a structurationist view on strategic management research. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 247-272.
43.
PozzebonM.PinsonneaultA. (2005). Challenges in conducting empirical work using structuration theory: Learning from IT research. Organization Studies, 26, 1353-1376.
44.
PredA. (1990). Context and bodies in flux: Some comments on space and time in the writings of Anthony Giddens. In ClarkJ.ModgilC.ModgilS. (Eds.), Anthony Giddens: Consensus and controversy (pp. 117-129). London, UK: Falmer Press.
45.
ReedM. I. (1997). In praise of duality and dualism: Rethinking agency and structure in organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 18, 21-42.
46.
RiggC.StewartJ.TrehanK. (2004). Guest editorial: A critical turn in HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(8), 1.
47.
RiggC.StewartJ.TrehanK. (2007). Introduction: A critical take on a critical turn in HRD. In RiggC.StewartJ.TrehanK. (Eds.), Critical human resource development: Beyond orthodoxy (pp. 1-16). London, UK: Prentice Hall.
48.
SaldanaJ. (2003). Longitudinal qualitative research: Analyzing change through time. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.
49.
SambrookS. (2004). A “critical” time for HRD?Journal of European Industrial Training, 28, 611-624.
SarasonY. (1995). A model of organizational transformation: The incorporation of organizational identity into a structuration theory framework. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, USA, 47-51.
52.
SarasonY.DeanT.DillardJ. F. (2006). Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and opportunity: A structuration view. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(3), 286-305.
53.
SarasonY.DillardJ. F.DeanT. (2010). How can we know the dancer from the dance?Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 238-243.
54.
Scully-RussE. (2005). Agency versus structure: Path dependency and choice in low-wage labor markets. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 254-278.
55.
SewellW. H. (2005). Logics of history:Social theory and social transformation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
56.
ShulerS.Davenport SypherB. (2000). Seeking emotional labor: When managing the heart enhances the work experience. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 50-89.
57.
SpradleyJ. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
58.
SpradleyJ. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
59.
StewartJ. (2007). The future of HRD research: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats, and actions. Human Resource Development International, 10, 93-97.
60.
StubbsM.MartinI.EndlarL. (2006). The structuration of blended learning: Putting holistic design principles into practice. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 163-175.
61.
TorracoR. J. (2005). Work design theory: A review and critique with implications for human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 85-109.
62.
TownleyB. (1994). Reframing human resource management: Power, ethics, and the subject at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
63.
ValentinC. (2006). Researching human resource development: Emergence of a critical approach to HRD enquiry. International Journal of Training and Development, 10, 17-29.
64.
WardlowG. (1989). Alternative modes of inquiry for agriculture education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 30(4), 2-7.
65.
WeaverG. R.GioiaD. A. (1994). Paradigms lost: Incommensurability vs. structurationist inquiry. Organization Studies, 15, 565-590.
66.
WhittingtonR. (1992). Putting Giddens into action: Social systems and managerial agency. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 693-712.
