First introduced by the sociologist Anthony Giddens, (1984) in establishing the groundwork for social constructivism, Structuration Theory encapsulates the human individual as a purposive agent, responding to and with reason to activities; influencing, as well as being influenced by, available contexts or social structures (Giddens, 1984; Chell, 2008). Giddens’ theory encompasses as well as distinguishes the agent, structure and social system. Defining the agent as ‘purposeful, knowledgeable, reflexive and active,’ the structure is defined as the rules and resources recursively occurring (rules are often also understood as norms and social conventions), and the social system is defined as duality of both structure and agent with each unable to exist without the other (Rose, 1998; Sarason et al., 2006; Dutta et al., 2016).
A meta-theory, Structuration Theory presents a wider-world view of social and system integration, in which actors are ‘co-present’ to a wider social formation they are a part of (Kilminster, 1991). ‘Structures’, within this theoretical approach are not conceived as a barrier to action, but instead as an essential involvement to the action’s production and comprise the environments, societies and nation states in which entrepreneurs or businesses are located (Cassell, 1993; Chell, 2008). Structuration Theory presents the “conditions governing the continuity or transformation of structures, and therefore the reproductive systems” of an agent responding to a specific opportunity (Cassell, 1993, p. 118). As such, structures are understood to comprise unique environments as societies, nation states, institutions, rules and available resources where an agent is based (Giddens, 1984; Chell, 2008).
In regards to entrepreneurship study, Structuration Theory depicts the interplay of the entrepreneur within a social and economic system and as such, both evolve due to the influence of the other (Sarason et al., 2006). From this theoretical perspective, entrepreneurship can be characterized as a continual, ‘co-evolving’ process between the entrepreneur and the system housing a specific opportunity, in which the entrepreneur creates as well as discovers that entrepreneurial path and discovery influences the wider context. Specifically for Giddens (1984) the human agent is one looking to the possibility of ‘doing
otherwise’ in order to make a difference (Kilminster, 1991, p. 79), but action is limited to power differences and relative to resource mobilization capacity.
Structuration Theory investigates the relationship between agency and structure, perceiving the agent as an interdependent, reflexive element within a larger system, not a separate entity that operates independently from an environment or social system (Sarason et al., 2006; Chell, 2008). In viewing the entrepreneur and opportunity within a distinct operational context, it reflects the entrepreneur as a “reflexive agent engaging in purposeful action” (Giddens, 1984; Sarason et al., 2006, p. 287). Thus, this theoretical application recognizes the socio-economic structure as dynamic, but also subject to change, thus “dynamically creating opportunities based on subjective interpretations” (Chell, 2008, p. 76). As such, Structuration Theory has become increasingly recognized as a way to approach the theoretical aspects of entrepreneurship and is used in understanding entrepreneurs at the macro (national, regional level) and micro (individual, team level), but also meso (industry, institutional level) in order to analyse surrounding contextual institutions (Chell, 2008). While this study has not uniformly applied Structuration Theory as a model in its analysis of entrepreneurship, the theoretical conceptualization of its framework was informed by it. In doing so, perception of the entrepreneurship nexus provided an additional, but also more expansive perspective in how entrepreneurs can both interpret and influence their environment, viewing the entrepreneur as a reflexive agent to and within an interdependent operational context (Sarason et al., 2006). While Shane and Venkataraman’s individual –
opportunity nexus is one in which entrepreneurship is an overlap of the two independent
constructs, entrepreneurship through Structuration Theory presents the constructs as an interdependent duality6, unable to be separated in which the individual entrepreneur not only is benefited by distinct opportunities within an environment, but in turn benefits specific environments of operation, resulting in a co-evolving construction. Figure 2.3 depicts the author’s conceptualization of the co-evolving entrepreneurship construct, informed by
6 Shane and Venkataraman (2000) understood the entrepreneurship overlap as a dualism. Whereas
entrepreneurship through Structuration Theory understands it as a duality, comprised of linked, as opposed to separate, parts (Sarason et al., 2006).
Structuration Theory. This conceptualization was also developed as the conceptual framework used in this research: the Co-Evolving Entrepreneurship Nexus.
Figure 2.3. The Co-Evolving Entrepreneurship Nexus
(Source: Author Construct)
While entrepreneurship has long been understood through a more traditional sense through the discovery and filling of market gaps, i.e. the Kirznerian perspective, entrepreneurship from a Structuration Theory perspective sees both social and economic systems as dynamic but also influenced by entrepreneurial action (Sarason et al., 2006). Recent emerging research has further aided in the understanding of how individuals operate within specific systems and how they can be influenced by wider institutional arrangements (Jennings et al., 2013). In Giddens’ Structuration Theory, context is referred to a ‘social structure’ and the structural properties of these distinct systems consist of rules and/ or resources in use by human agent interaction. As such, the rules and resources inform the agent and are reaffirmed by the agent’s action (Giddens, 1984; Sarason et al., 2006; Mole and Mole, 2012). However, this research deviates from Giddens’ use of structure in its analysis of the
‘operational context,’ instead choosing to analyse the more formalized, tangible institutional structures existing within the Ethiopian and Rwandan coffee markets.
To be discussed in greater detail in Section 2.5, systems, as presented in this research, can influence resources such as finance availability, social capital, legitimacy, reputation, and experience of a given community or more specifically what a given network or community is willing or able to provide (Chell, 2008). These institutions can vary widely due to levels of enforcement and direct interaction, but largely include state involvement, legal structures, market formations and development of support mechanisms for entrepreneurs (Lee and Peterson, 2000; Jennings et al., 2013). Successful or unsuccessful entrepreneurship, in turn, impacts these systems and related operational outlooks.
Social ties improve upon an individual’s chances to successfully exploit an opportunity, as they may also be more likely to benefit from additional information or improved access to resources (Shane, 2003). Societal perceptions about entrepreneurship and potential for success have also been found to greatly influence an individual’s actions (Herrington and Kelley, 2012). As such, an entrepreneur may be propelled or constrained by specific opportunities or structures identified through the venturing process within a specific context and specific opportunities or structures may be created or constricted through the results of entrepreneurial actions making entrepreneurship relative to both the individual and context of operation (Sarason et al., 2006).
As discussed, it was critical to view entrepreneurship through the appropriate lens and context to fully appreciate and understand influence, action and decision making of entrepreneurs within targeted research areas. As entrepreneurship is viewed as an integral part of an environment and not a separate entity that operates independently from a social system, entrepreneurship processes are rooted in the corresponding country’s context and institutional frameworks (Acs et al., 2014). Recalling the co-evolution of the entrepreneur within and to a social and economic system, entrepreneurship can be characterized as a continual process between the entrepreneur and the operational landscape in which the entrepreneur discovers and creates opportunities while still being influenced by the wider operational landscape (Sarason et al., 2006).
2.3.2.1 Critique of Giddens’ Structuration Theory
Analysis of structure, in this research specifically referred to as the ‘operational context,’ and agent, provides a deductive framework in which to study these two aspects: the agent and structure without necessarily prioritising either the individual or the operational context, as well as examining how entrepreneurship can go on to shape institutions and wider economies (Mole and Mole, 2010). However, it is this same notion of equitable, interdependence of agent and structure (individual and operational context) that has drawn the most criticism of this approach. Particular critique, namely from Archer (1990, 1995), Rose (1998) and Layder (2006) discuss the conflation of the agent and structure as a limiting factor in analysis due to an inability of separation between the individual and specific social system. Additionally, the notion of interdependence of the agent’s reflexive action on a specific system does not allow for the further analysis of impact on the structure or the agent (Kort and Gharbi, 2013). While Giddens acknowledges some structures can ‘exist’ external to an agent (allocated resources i.e. raw materials, land), through his development of Structuration Theory, these two entities cannot exist without the other (Giddens, 1984; Kort and Gharbi, 2013, p. 94).
Giddens also states that rules are independent from structure as they exists in the agent’s conceptualization of structure, however this presents a disconnect in the rational (realist perspective) understanding that preordained rules are implemented by an existing social system or order (Rose, 1998; Kort and Gharbi, 2013). This contrasts with the realist view of how elements within a society and its members interact (Rose, 1998). The realist perspective allows the structure and agent to exist as distinct elements and interact over different lengths of time. As such, this separation allows for a detached and correspondingly distinct analytical review (Archer, 1995; Rose, 1998). Additionally, within Archer’s realist perspective, structures are properties of existing resources, both human and material, however these are continually needing to be improved, which fosters the notion for continuing ‘metamorphosis,’ and further explains a recursive nature of society (as perceived through a realist perspective) (Mole and Mole, 2012). In contrast, Giddens sees structure as subjective to the rules and resources perceived and created by the agent and as such, places greater emphasis on the interdependence of the agent, as opposed to the independent
structure (Mole and Mole, 2012). Additional disciplinary approaches to entrepreneurship are Equilibrium, Imperfect and Radical Innovation Theories (Economics) and Social Constructionism Theory (Sociology) (Chell, 2008). Recognized as alternative possibilities for analysing entrepreneurship, these theories were not specifically detailed due to applicability as well as time and space available within the overall thesis.
2.3.2.2 Examples of Applications of Structuration Theory
One reason this study chose to rely on Structuration Theory as a way of informing its approach to entrepreneurship was the lack of the theory’s actual implementation or empirical research in regards to entrepreneurship, it has only been discussed through theoretical assessments. This was, perhaps naively, viewed as a distinct opportunity to make a specific contribution to the wider research around the subject. However in hindsight, the lack of previous implementation or existence of wider empirical research using the theory could also have been interpreted as an incompatibility or difficulty in being able to fully apply the theoretical framework successfully. To date, no other studies have been found directly applying Structuration Theory as an empirical model analysing entrepreneurship. As such, within this space of lacking contextualized examples, this research was left to interpret applicability of elements of the theory.
While alternative research applying Structuration Theory to entrepreneurship has not been found, the theory has been used to study the fields of Organization, Information and Management Systems, Strategic Management as well as specific elements of Business Theory (Rose, 1998; Mole and Mole, 2012; Dutta et al., 2016). Within these disciplines, Structuration Theory has been lauded for its ability to reflect how individuals and businesses intersect within a wider organizational structure as well as how the recursive duality of structure and agency evaluates progress towards strategic change (Dutta et al., 2016). However, a critical, recognizable difference between these studies and this specific research is the application of ‘structure’. The above named studies understood structure in a more similar perception to Giddens’ original theory, with structure interpreted as rules and social norms existing across a specified time and space, developed by and continually influencing the agent (Rose, 1998; Dutta et al., 2016). Alternatively, this study deviates from Giddens’
interpretation of structure, choosing instead to perceive ‘structure’ as the more tangible elements within localized institutional systems of an ‘operational context’. This deviation and specific approach was implemented, as it was believed to be more applicable in regards to empirical research and analysis within the overall research design.