Nuevas tecnologías y servicios.

Research based on Giddens theory of structuration has a distinguished history in IS (Jones et al. 2008). Structuration theory takes the counterpoint of other sociological lenses, by positing

the mutual constitution of agency and structures. On the one hand, theorists such as Marx or Bourdieu offer a holistic perspective for understanding the society and suggest that the individual is determined by social structures. On the other hand, theorists like Weber, the founder of the methodological individualism stream, argue that individuals’ enactments originate social structures. By positing that the individual, action and social structure all interact together, the perspective of Giddens somewhat reconciles these contradictory views and emphasizes their complementarities. Emphasizing structuration, Giddens views structures

in movement rather than as having stable, regular properties that can be portrayed and/or predicted by laws (Jones et al. 2008).

A way of analyzing interactions between IT and organizations is notably provided by Orlikowski (1992). In order to tackle this issue, and in response to problems found in prior conceptualizations, Orlikowski (1992) advances the structurational model of technology

based on Giddens’ (1984) theory of structuration. In this theory, Orlikowski (1992) set forth three modalities of structuration. These modalities are interpretive schemes, resources, and norms. Consistent with structuration theory (Giddens 1984), system users are viewed as constrained as well as enabled by the IT artifact – that embeds structure –, which is the result of previous actions (Orlikowski 1992). Given these properties of IT, we need to understand how middle managers interpret IT constraints and enact strategic behaviors related to IT. Two key elements constitute the structurational model of technology: the duality of structure, and the interpretive flexibility of technology. The duality of structure refers to the fact that the

technology is the product of human action, and that certain patterns of use of the technology become institutionalized and constitute the structure. The interpretive flexibility of technology

draws from the separation of the actions that constitute the technology and the action that the technology constitutes. It refers to “the degree to which users of a technology are engaged in

its constitution (physically and/or socially) during development and use” (p. 409). Hence, social actors enactments are likely to occur within the limitations posed by constraints embedded in the IT artifact.

In spite of its interest for understanding the interactions between IT and organizations, the structurational model of technology is not without its own difficulties. Indeed, this model considers social structures are embedded in technology, which violates the original perspective of Giddens (1984) on the mutual constitution of social facts and structures (e.g., De Vaujany 2003; Godé-Sanchez 2008; Groleau 2000; Orlikowski 2000). As argued by Jones and Karsten (2008):

Structure, as defined by Giddens, cannot be inscribed or embedded in technology, since to do so would be equivalent to give it an existence separate from the practices of social actors and independent of action, thereby turning the duality, which is such a central feature of Giddens’s position, into a dualism (p. 6).

In a second stance, Orlikowski (2000) proposed the practice lens in order to understand

specifically user enactments of structures. In this perspective, instead of seeing the IT artifact as being the structure, the researcher considers what makes the structure is user recurrent enactments of IT. In this research Orlikowski (2000) attempted going beyond prior conceptualizations such as the structurational model of technology (Orlikowski 1992) and adaptative structuration theory (DeSanctis 1994), which views structures as being embodied in the IT artifact. Orlikowski (2000) identified two major problems in these conceptualizations. The first one is the postulate the IT becomes stabilized after their development. The researcher argues that empirical evidence suggest that IT are not static and evolve over time, and that their properties can be modified by users. The second one is the postulate that social structures are embodied in the IT. Conversely, Orlikowski argues that this position is not consistent with the postulate of Giddens that the IT has no material

as the “set of rules and resources instantiated in recurrent social practice”. The researcher further argues that “while a technology can be seen to embody particular symbol and material properties, it does not embody structures because those are only instantiated in practice” (Orlikowski 2000, p. 406). This perspective thus favors a view of IT as dynamic and which

use is situated in practice. It views the IT as closely linked to human agency through a

recursive relation. Indeed, it considers that in using IT, individuals shape the structure that will in turn determine their uses.

The practice perspective of Orlikowski (2000) has been shown to be a relevant approach, including with such constraining technologies as ERP systems (Boudreau et al. 2005). Unfortunately, as suggested by Chu and Robey (2008), this perspective still does not allow to fully understand “how and why actors use technology” (p. 16). Though, we believe the perspectives offered by both the structurational model of technology and the practice perspective still offer a relevant conceptualization of IT. However, key issues regarding the relation between agency and structures remain unresolved. Indeed, although agency is central in IS structuration research, researchers, overall, provided little theorization about how human agency occurs within around IT (Chu and Robey 2008; Jones and Karsten 2008). According to Jones and Karsten (2008):

Structural research has, arguably, paid insufficient attention to the continuous operation of agency, the mutuality of constitution, or its pervasiveness. Thus the persistence of agency would suggest that IS researchers need to be sensitive to actor’s roles in sustaining and modifying settings, perhaps especially in those that are considered to be unchanging (and, perhaps, unchangeable) (Jones et al. 2008, p. 25).

Especially, some applications of the structurational model of technology may fail to explain the social, cognitive and contextual motives of human action, which are seen in an “unproblematic light” (Thompson 2004, p. 11). Jones and Karsten (2008) argue that elements of agency and structure should be taken simultaneously into account instead of one at a time.

The intrinsic interconnection between social actors and social institutions suggests that researchers need to pay equal attention to how individuals contribute to organizational and social power relationships, norms, and meanings, and to how individual practices are shaped by these, rather than privileging one or the other or focusing only on those structures most immediately evident in the specific setting” (Jones et al. 2008, p. 25)

In fact, Leonardi and Barley (2008) argue that researchers are sometimes confuse in distinguishing the material from the social and the determinism from the voluntarism.

Overall, these concerns suggest that, so far, IS structuration research offers an interesting but incomplete understanding of the relations between agency and structure. For all these reasons, it is necessary to reintegrate accounts of human agency and motivation for action in conceptualizations aiming at understanding IT structuration.