Introduction
The contemporary world faces constant social, economic, and political change. Climate change, economic development, environmental challenges, and rapid technological advancement spur conversation across various business and political sectors. For instance, global communication wards off cultural barriers and increases business opportunities: business executives must communicate effectively with their superiors and other stakeholders for seamless operations. Thus, communication takes a central position in the current global framework. In essence, communication refers to meaningful interaction between people. Plus, the role of communication comes under the work of renowned sociologists like Karl Max and Emile Durkheim. While several theories attempt to provide a basis for the communication process, the adaptive structuration theory extensively captures communication’s historical and international dimensions. In addition to forming part of key life skills, major theoretical perspectives provide a broader understanding of effective communication.
Background of the Adaptive Structuration Theory
Technological advancements have dramatically transformed communication, both in a complex and dynamic manner. Organizations that adopt technological innovation experience more efficient, faster, and easier communication. The adaptive structuration theory (AST) captures the trend in its entirety. As Schneidewind et al. (2018) highlighted, Anthony Giddens introduced the structuration concept, which binds the space and time factor system. The two properties essentially govern the rules and resources of social systems. Several theorists supported the social theory and argued that the human structures that influenced individual actions were based on external constraints or volunteerism, such that a person can create their lived experiences. However, Giddens argued that the social construct was evolutionary and that the social theory failed to capture the individual’s role in influencing social reality.
The basis of structuration identifies the correlation between social forces and an individual. Gidden’s structuration theory attempts to balance people’s roles and positions in their respective social systems (Schneidewind et al., 2018). Following the assumptions, Giddens proposed that people experience restricted preferences and knowledge but form the basis for creating social structures that produce change. As Kolasi (2020) highlights, instead of defining the social forces, Giddens primarily concerned himself with proving the duality between agency and structures. For one, Giddens specified that a strong correlation existed between agency and structure: they are inseparable. People create societal structures through shared or invented values that get reinforced by social acceptance. However, the structures constrain human action and behavior such that they lose autonomy over certain conditions.
Following Giddens’ arguments, structures form the modalities, rules, and resources that impact human action. In more depth, systems of interaction display structural qualities. Consider speech as a system of interaction, widely used over the decades. The audience understands a speaker’s monologue if they are familiar with the language. As such, language becomes the structure since it uses strict guidelines to ensure that the speaker uses the appropriate expression: the speaker’s knowledge of the language influences the understanding of the speech. Therefore, structuration encompasses structures that lie in institutions or traditions that reproduce systems of interaction (Kolasi, 2020). Nonetheless, Giddens asserted that the structures change during unintentional consequences. For instance, a lack of attention to social norms creates other experiences and behavior.
Structures significantly dictate certain outcomes, positive or otherwise, which introduces the adaptive structuration concept. Scott Poole created the AST based on Giddens’ structuration theory (Zhu et al., 2021). The scholar took a critical approach to determine the dynamics of communication, including its linear models that predict or affect a chain of events. AST brings to focus the interaction between human action, information technologies, and social structures. The theory purports that people create social, and technological constructs using embedded norms, resources, and schemes that continually shape each other: new structural sources emerge as technological structures are increasingly applied during social interaction. However, certain contingencies, like the environment, can offer alternative sources of AIT structures. In this view, internal and group decisions affect AIT appropriateness.
Application of the Theory
AST provides a viable approach to understanding the role of advanced information technology in communication. Information and communication technologies (ICT) form the groundwork of safe, reliable, and seamless connectivity. In contemporary society, information technology holds center stage in communication, interaction between people and institutions, and other social aspects (Barrett, 2018). For example, businesses currently face unprecedented growth in online demand and such developments prompt proactive efforts that utilize ICT platforms. Through computers and smartphones, people can send and receive timely feedback by use of emails, messages, or calls. As Mierlo et al. (2018) implied, the AST extends this adaptive behavior to the individual and organization levels and captures the extensive topology of change. As per the theory, communication can occur at any level, from institutional to global, and technology is applied to provide each sector with an opportunity for growth (Barrett, 2018; Mierlo et al, 2018). Additionally, the AST accounts for how people and institutions organize themselves, providing a basis for specific outcomes. In this respect, the use of advanced technologies and services involves structural coordination between interested parties to establish new services or solutions for upgrading existing systems.
People and organizations use information technology in different dynamics, including the role of technology in creating communication structures. Plus, new tools or systems are often introduced to increase work efficiency. The implementation of new information and communication technology reinforces these efforts by creating a new dynamic of interaction in any space. However, the technocentric perception varies across individuals, which can further influence the impact of technology on social outcomes (Barrett, 2018; Mierlo et al., 2018). The AST points out the limitations of technocentric views and, instead, emphasizes social aspects. For example, the AST analyzes the advent and utilization of new media technologies in present societies like mass transpiration, the internet, telephone, printed press, and electricity. Consider the use of audiotapes to record quality summaries for transcription in group interactions. The adaptive structuration theory can be applied in such settings to establish consistent effects of advanced technology during an interaction.
Furthermore, information technology can potentially improve decision-making processes, communication, and efficiency. While ICT catalyzes organizational change, some companies remain resistant to technological implementation. Institutions previously made technological improvements occasionally, but the current business and economic landscape warrant a constant upgrade. Plus, emerging innovations offer radically more effective products and solutions. Faik et al. (2020) contend that the application of information technology across industries is pervasive, changing social structures at a dramatic pace. For instance, information technology develops various communication channels that increase productivity within an entity. Apart from introducing new business models, information technology helps organizations leverage more innovations to remain relevant and competitive. Despite many strides, companies face challenges in terms of aligning innovation with existing systems and managing the change process. Thus, the AST is crucial in positively reinforcing these structures for acceptable social outcomes.
Conclusion
In summary, the adaptive structuration theory highlights the influence of respective agencies on the communication structure. Structural duality is crucial in understanding interaction complexities that exist between individuals and institutions, from micro to global levels. Therefore, AST reconciles the relationship between structuration and social action by enabling communication between various parties. The theory takes the position that people lack complete autonomy over a set of societal norms, subsequently influencing experiences and interactions. For example, social forces like innovation have structured contemporary society, changing interaction and modes of communication. Therefore, the AST shows the impact of technological innovation on communication that further brings social change.
References
Barrett, A. K. (2018). Technological appropriations as workarounds: Integrating electronic health records and adaptive structuration theory research.Information Technology & People, 31(2), 368-387.
Faik, I., Barrett, M., & Oborn, E. (2020). How information technology matters in societal change: An affordance-based institutional logics perspective. MIS Quarterly, 44(3), 1359-1390.
Kolasi, K. (2020). Structuration theory. The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, 1-4.
Mierlo, J., Bondarouk, T., & Sanders, K. (2018). The dynamic nature of HRM implementation: A structuration perspective.The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(22), 3026-3045.
Schneidewind, U., Augenstein, K., Stelzer, F., & Wanner, M. (2018). Structure matters: Real-World laboratories as a new type of large-scale research infrastructure: A framework inspired by Giddens’ structuration theory. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 27(1), 12-17.
Zhu, C., Song, B., & Zhou, L. (2021). Improving the performance of hospital information system usage: Adaptive structuration theory and job demand-control perspectives. Research Square, 2-20.