Structuration Theories and Complex Adaptive Social Systems: Inroads to Describing Human Interaction Dynamics

This paper argues that sociological and social psychological concepts, through a theory of action perspective, can contribute to defining coarse-grained social structures as multidimensional attractors (Goldstein, Hazy, & Lichtenein, 2010) and fine-grained human interaction dynamics as sources of nonlinear and unanticipated social outcomes. By using Gidden's (1984) structuration theory to define the dimensions of the coarse-grained social system and applying Stones's (2005) "strong" structuration theory to the fine-grained social system, we clarify the aspects of human interaction dynamics and their relationship to the coarse-grained social system. The paper concludes with three interrelated conclusions and their implications for understanding the "dynamics" of human interactions.INTRODUCTIONOver the past 15 years, complexity science concepts have had a growing influence on our understanding of emergent social phenomena. Constructs such as leadership (Hazy, Goldstein, & Lichtenstein, 2007) and social entrepreneurship (Schwandt, Holliday, & Pandit, 2008) are no longer seen as only individual or personal attributes, but can now be considered as macro, or coarse-grained (Gell-Mann, 2002), level phenomena resulting from human interactions within the social system (or organization). Although significant advances have been made in clarifying the usefulness of complexity principles (e.g., nonlinearity, emergence, schemata, coevolution, and self-organizing and generation) in explaining social systems as a whole, concerns arise as to our lack of specificity and understanding of the human interaction dynamics at the fine-grained level of the social system (Gell-Mann, 2002) and their transposition to the coarse-grained social phenomena (Hazy & Ashley, 2011).These concerns have manifested themselves in calls for additional efforts to pragmatically define human interactions at the fine-grained level of analysis and move to an understanding of how these pragmatic elements contribute to, and are affected by, coarse-grained social phenomena. The 2012 Academy of Management National Conference highlighted these concerns by opening a line of exploration around the field of "human interaction dynamics" as "the unique and heterogeneous detail within the micro-states that occur during interactions-including the rules that govern these interactions" (Hazy & Surie, 2012: 2).The undervaluing of the fine-grained level of analysis may have resulted from a focus on coarse-grained social systems questions concerning comparisons of organizational and/or institutional constructs (complexity leadership, social entrepreneurship, economic markets) (Padgett & Powell, 2012) at the expense of fine-grained social dynamics. Coarse-grained levels only provide information about the "conditions of existence" of the institution or system as a whole (Mouzelis, 1995). There is nothing wrong with asking questions about the conditions of existence of the organizational ecosystem; however, this ontological level of analysis tends to cloak more specific, but messy, fine-grained agent actions within the organization. This in turn has left the complexity sciences with little understanding of the conceptual nature of human interaction dynamics as complex adaptive systems (Buckley, 1968).Specificity and clarity at the epistemological level of understanding necessitate multiple and cross-disciplinary contributions (Allen, Maguire, & McKelvey, 2011; Padgett & Powell, 2012; Powell & Colyvas, 2008; Prietula, 2011). In this context, the purpose of this paper is to address the undervaluing of the fine-grained social system level through the integration of strong structuration theory (Stones, 2005) with the concepts of complex adaptive systems (Buckley, 1998b; Yasmin & Allen, 2011). It is our intention to make a contribution that will both aid practitioners in their application of complexity science to the social milieu and aid in the development of a stronger conceptualization of human interactions at the "algorithm level, where fundamental choices are made in what constructs are represented (and how), what dynamics are defined (and how) in the model, and how they interact (this is where the theory is specified)" (Prietula, 2011:103). …