Structuration Research on Group Communication

Group Argumentation

Seibold, Meyers, Canary, Brashers, and colleagues have conducted an extensive program of research on the structuring of group arguments (Seibold & Meyers, 2007; Seibold, Meyers, & Shoham, 2010). Structuration Argument Theory (SAT) views argumentation as a situated practice (rather than a set of static claims and counterclaims or a discourse) in which group argument is “a system of interaction produced by members engaged in advancing arguables, or utterances, that are contentious and potentially disagreeable to other members” (Seibold & Meyers, 2007, p. 316). In addition to rules of logic, group argument is constituted by social norms and microinteractional recipes for turn-taking and other moves, which in turn are constituted in the observable interactional practice of argument.

SAT distinguishes several interconnected “mechanisms” of structuration in group argument, including microinteractional moves drawing on rules of logic, informal argument, or norms; joint argumentation; and action of the modalities of structuration, through which the argument simultaneously serves as interpretation, norm, and facility for the exercise of power and influence. Research using SAT has shown how the structuration of argument lines serves to forge agreement and elucidated the role of “the interpenetration of these argument structures with other group structures (member characteristics, majority status, communication channels, and decision-making methods) in the production of group decision outcomes” (Seibold & Meyers, 2007, p. 324). SAT has also linked characteristics and weight of argument to outcomes including the choices groups make and the confidence and satisfaction members have in those choices.

Decision Development

Poole (1983; Poole & Doelger, 1986) developed a structurational theory of decision development. Research has shown that rather than following a univocal series of phases as they make decisions, groups may follow several different paths that vary in terms of complexity and in terms of their resemblance to the linear phasic model of decision making. The structurational model argues that the path the group follows is determined by several factors, including member interpretations of their task, their decision logics (theories of the best way to make the decision under the circumstances), and external factors, such as schedule and unexpected problems. The degree of compatibility among members’ interpretations and decision logics determines whether the group’s decision path is simple (rational or solution-oriented sequences) or more complex; incompatibility and conflict over the task and decision logics result in more complex paths (Poole & Dobosh, 2010).

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Groups

Adaptive structuration theory (AST) is concerned with the implementation and use of ICTs in groups and organizations (DeSanctis, Poole, Zigurs, & Associates, 2008; Poole & DeSanctis, 1990). AST posits that the impacts of ICTs on group and organizational processes and outcomes depend on the structures incorporated in the technology and on the structures that emerge as users attempt to appropriate the technology to adapt it to the tasks at hand. When members appropriate structural elements from objects such as information technologies, they may adopt them directly (which involves specifying how the elements fit into the current activity stream), change them, combine them with other structures, or use them in ways that run counter to the spirit in which they were designed (e.g., use a vote to suppress dissent). Appropriation occurs in a bid-response-elaborate process in which multiple members construct an object-in-practice, and local patterns of appropriation build over time to global patterns that hold over multiple episodes of a practice (Poole & DeSanctis, 1992).

AST distinguishes two elements of ICT structures, spirit and features. Structural features are specific rules and resources that are embodied in the material ICT artifact, while spirit is the general intent with regard to values and goals underlying a given set of structural features. When features are used faithfully in ways compatible with spirit, outcomes of technology use are predictable and depend on how well the ICT is suited to the challenges the group faces, both externally and in its internal processes. However, if ICT structural features are used in ways incompatible with the spirit of the ICT, outcomes are much less predictable. This is what accounts for the unintended consequences of ICTs in groups and organizations, why they sometimes fail to deliver intended benefits or why their effects are unexpected. AST was originally developed to explain the use of group support systems, but has been applied to a wide array of ICTs, including enterprise-level systems and mobile systems, as well as to nontechnological phenomena such as leadership in groups.

Group Deliberation

Gastil and colleagues (Burkhalter, Gastil, & Kelshaw, 2002; Gastil, Black, & Moscovitz, 2008; Sager & Gastil, 2006) developed a structurational model of group deliberation that focused on political discussions and jury decision making, but has important implications for organizational democracy and participation. Effective deliberation is “careful weighing” of the topic at hand and alternatives for addressing it; it builds participants’ knowledge and knowledgeability about the deliberative process and it reinforces their sense of community and common fate (Burkhalter et al., 2002, pp. 401-404).

The model posits four self-reinforcing cycles that occur through participation in effective deliberations: (a) cultivation of “deliberative habits” structures norms that make deliberative discussions more effective, further reinforcing deliberative habits; (b) development of a sense of civic identity and commonality with others that increases perceived common ground, which in turn reinforces the impact of deliberation on creating identity and commonality; (c) cultivation of analytical skills and competence during deliberations increases members’ political knowledge and skills, which in turn builds further analytical competence; and (d) participants’ motivations to participate being enhanced as they enjoy the feeling of political efficacy, which sets up a self-reinforcing cycle. The end result is the production and reproduction of meanings, norms, and power relations that are configured to optimize deliberative participation and in turn reinforce the structures-in-practice that enable participation. It is important to note that the cycles operate positively only when deliberations are effective; if deliberations are ineffective or manipulative, then the cycles could just as easily create fragmented, discordant publics.

The Constitution of Groups and Their Members

The structurational perspective implies that as groups engage in various practices, they constitute themselves as going entities and their members as agents/subjects. Poole et al. (1985) argued that through group interaction, members position themselves as subjects, members of the group—for example, as citizens doing service on a jury. This constitutive process brings into intersection multiple structural features appropriated from social institutions that mediate one another and sometimes generate contradictions.

Witmer’s (1997) study of a local Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) chapter illuminates how the chapter drew on the national AA organization for structuring principles that set the tone for the chapter’s culture and emphasized the mediation of a key founding member in this process. The chapter also created its own local variants in the modalities of signification, legitimation, and domination, many of which exhibited resistance to the national organization. The variants of national (institutional) structures that the chapter enacted rendered the abstract principles of AA locally meaningful and thereby enabled members to restructure their day-to-day practices. They also situated the founder of the group as a unique and exemplary recovering alcoholic and members as alcoholics and adherents of his approach.

Silva and Sias (2010) explored ways in which groups structure the relationships of members to organizations. In a study of a religious organization, they identify three functions that groups served in mediating the structuration of member identification with the organization. The

connection function provides members with local copresent linkages to the organization and an environment in which to express their connection/relationship to the organization. The restructuring function enables members to restructure conflicting individual and organizational identity structures. The buffering function enables members to disidentify with a portion of the organizational identity and still maintain a sense of organizational identification. (Silva & Sias, 2010, p. 145)

Kellogg, Orlikowksi, and Yates (2006) and Keyton, Ford, and Smith (2008) illuminated how groups mediate interorganizational collaboration. Kellogg et al. focused on moves that members employ to clarify their roles vis-à-vis one another and build collaborations. Keyton et al. explored how a coordinating team attempts unsuccessfully to balance different stakeholders.