The Influence of a Structurationist View on Strategic Management Research*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In this article, strategic management research using structuration theory from 1995 to 2000 is reviewed. I describe and analyse the theoretical articulations adopted to make sense of strategy using a structurationist view. I found that, instead of being applied as the sole theoretical foundation, Giddens’ propositions have been incorporated into other perspectives, the effects of which should be known by researchers looking for theoretical frameworks that avoid dichotomist thinking. The paper draws on the effects that structurationist arguments may produce regarding classical oppositions such as micro/macro and voluntarist/determinist. Its main contribution is to show how theoretical complementarities using structuration theory are promising avenues of research in the strategic management field. It also suggests that, although other alternatives of avoiding dichotomist logic exist, making a choice among them is more a question of ontological affinity than of making the ‘better choice’ among competing accounts. There are several routes to advance the understanding of the possibilities of human choice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".