Rutinas De Pensamiento

Archer argues that social theorists historically have been trapped in the fallacy of conflation while theorising the connection between ‘parts and people’ or

‘structure/culture and agency’ and therefore they tend to elide both of them (1995). Logically, they can be elided/conflated in three possible ways, which is called

upward, downward and central version of conflation. Archer criticises all three

forms of conflations to build an argument in the favour of non-conflationary way of theorising the ‘problem of structure/culture and agency’ (Archer, 1995; 1996). 2.7.2.1 Downwards Conflation

The proponents of downward conflation attempt to resolve the structure-agency issue by considering people as epiphenomenal to parts (Archer, 1996, p. xv). This means that they endorse the subordination of agency and claim human behaviours are entirely modelled by society (Archer, 1995, p.5). This deterministic account of agency is also labelled as society creates man model (Harvey, 2002, p.166) or society’s being (Archer, 2000, p. 5). By using the yardstick of dependency,

subordination, or neglect of agency, Archer (1996, p. 38) and Sibeon (2004, p. 39-

41) argue that a number of theorists, such as Soronkin and Parsons as functionalists, Levi-Strauss and Durkheim as structuralists, Lacan and Foucault as

sociologist etc., despite differences in their foci, committed the mistake of downwards conflation with varying deterministic impact on agency.

In relation to my study, I can argue that downwards conflationary models tend to varyingly reduce the independence of academics and stress the deterministic impact of university environment on their practices. In practice, academics generally enjoy a high degree of independence in their practice owing to ‘academics freedom’, which is a prominent feature of universities (Sporn, 1996, p. 41) because

organisational environments (ideational and/or material) do not choreograph academics’ performance completely. The phenomenon of individual freedom becomes more prominent in the case of research practice, especially in the field of social sciences, because a researcher needs to play an active role throughout the research process and it becomes more important at data analysis stage. However, these practices are only guided, not determined, by the existing methods and

techniques. For the sake of argument, if I apply downwards conflationary solution of structure-agency issue and assume that structure/culture (the environment)

formulates the actions of academics, there should not be any significant difference among the levels of academics’ performances within the same university or faculty. But the reality is completely different; it is quite possible that two academics working in the same university and having similar backgrounds may have different levels of research performance. In short, I share Archer’s (1995) belief that the downwards conflationary solution of ‘the structure/culture-agency issue’ is not appropriate for the investigation of social phenomena (research culture) because it refuses to recognise the autonomy of agency (academics in my study).

Consequently, all approaches based on the promises of downwards reduction are unable to provide adequate theoretical grounding for my research project.

2.7.2.2 Upwards Conflation

The supporters of upward conflationary thinking address the ‘structure/culture- agency issue’ by taking exactly opposite position than that of downward reductionists. They reduce structure/culture to agency and view it to be an

epiphenomenon of agency (Archer, 1995, pp.80-84). This perspective promotes a marginalised image of structure/culture which primarily depends on or is driven by the actions of agency, in other words, they view society as an aggregation of individual actions (Archer, 1995; Sibeon, 2004). The approach which endorse the supremacy of agency over structure/culture has also been known as ‘man creates society’ (Harvey, 2002, p.167) or ‘Modernity’s Man’ (Archer, 2000, p.4) model. Archer argues that the central point of upward conflation is the delegation of

inadequate autonomy to structure/culture vis-à-vis agency. By using this assumption as litmus test, she also claims that the instrumentalists and Habermas as critical

theorist represent two different accounts of Neo-Marxism and preserve the thesis of

upwards conflation (Archer, 1996, p.56).

In the case of my study, if I apply upwards conflationary thinking to solve the ‘problem of structure/culture and agency’ then I need to assume the supremacy of academics over university structure/culture and to consider the outcomes of current academics’ actions as structure/culture which can be reduced to academics. However, it has been found that a wide range of physical and social factors (see Bland et al., 2005; Balnd and Ruffin 1992; Santo et.al. 2009) are necessary for conducting research such as libraries, IT facilities, mentoring, etc. which cannot be reduced to academics because of their distinctive characteristics. In addition, individual academics do not have entire control over their working environments; it is not common that every academic is free to choose his/her teaching and/or research workload, or financial incentives etc. according to his/her personal preferences. I thus argue that it is not possible for me to sustain upwards conflationary thinking while investigating the research culture in the university. As Archer also argues against the use of upwards conflationary approaches for social analysis because they not only marginalise structure/culture but also prevent us to gain an

understanding of social stability/change by examining the reciprocal influences of one on the other (Archer, 1995, p.80).

2.7.2.3 Central Conflation

Central conflationary thinking was evolved in order to address the criticism on two extreme positions taken by theorists on the ‘structure/culture-agency issue’ and to present a new solution of the issue. The central conflation (Archer, 1996, pp.72-96; 1995, pp.87-89) considers that structure/culture and agency are mutually constitutive and treats them as two faces of an inseparable ‘duality’. In other words, this kind of elision of structure/culture and agency occurs without reducing either agency into structure/culture or vice versa. Consequently, the proponents of this stance

effectively reject upwards and downwards conflationary thinking and acknowledge equal status of structure/culture and agency (Archer, 1995), believing that

structure/culture can shape agency and at the same time agency can also contribute in the modelling of structure/culture. Moreover, they claim on the basis of their conception of ‘duality’ , that structure/culture and agency cannot be delineated by any means (Archer, 1996, p.78). Zygmunt Bauman and Anthony Giddens are major theorists who attempted to solve the dilemma of structure/culture-and agency by taking central conflationary stance (Archer, 1996, p.72). One of the main flaws in this kind of conflationary approach is their inability to make distinction between structure/culture and agency which not only disregards the autonomy of both

structure/culture and agency (Archer, 1995, p.101) but also makes it unable to explain when structural/cultural transformation does or will occur.

This basic flaw in the central conflation thinking makes it inappropriate for my research in the following ways. First, the elision (although it gives equal weight to both structure/culture and agency) does not allow me to disentangle academics from their ideational/organisational environments, which is necessary to understand the powers and properties of each of them. Second, the investigation of research culture, which is central to my study, needs to examine the interrelationship of academics and their environments but it cannot be done without separating them whereas, the central conflationists are against the separation of agency and structure/culture.

In summary, each of the three versions of conflationary thinking is unable to provide any satisfactory solution of the ‘structure/culture- agency dilemma’,

particularly in relation to my study. I therefore argue that all approaches which endorse any form of conflation do not provide sufficient theoretical foundations for the investigation of research culture in a university. This situation logically leads me towards some non-conflationary solution of the problem.