Structurating activity theory: An integrative approach to policy knowledge

Communication Theory

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 21-49

  Canary, Heather E ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION; KNOWLEDGE; POLICY MAKING; THEORETICAL STUDY;

EID: 74549209630     PISSN: 10503293     EISSN: 14682885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2009.01354.x     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Adams D. Usable knowledge in public policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration 2004, 63:29-42.
2. Ashcraft K L, Mumby D K. Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of organization 2004, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
3. Ball S J. What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: The Australian Journal of Educational Studies 1993, 13:10-17.
4. Banks S P, Riley P. Structuration theory as an ontology for communication research. Communication Yearbook 1993, 16:167-196.
5. Barrett S M. Implementation studies: Time for a revival? Personal reflections on 20 years of implementation studies. Public Administration 2004, 81:249-262.
6. Bell S. " Appropriate" policy knowledge, and institutional and governance implications. Australian Journal of Public Administration 2004, 63:22-28.
7. Birkland T A. An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making 2005, Armonk, NY, M. E. Sharpe
8. Blackler F. Knowledge, knowledge work, and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies 1995, 16:1021-1046.
9. Blackler F, Crump N, McDonald S. Organizing processes in complex activity networks. Organization 2000, 7:277-300.
10. Boer N I. Knowledge sharing within organizations: A situated and relational perspective 2005, Rotterdam, Erasmus Research Institute of Management
11. Boisot M H. Information space: A framework for learning in organizations, institutions and culture 1995, London, Routledge
12. Brookshire R, Klotz J. Selected teachers' perceptions of special education laws. 2002, November)., Paper presented at the annual conference of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Chattanooga, TN.
13. Buzzanell P M, Liu M. Struggling with maternity leave policies and practices: A poststructuralist feminist analysis of gendered organizing. Journal of Applied Communication Research 2005, 33:1-25.
14. Canary H E. The communicative creation of policy knowledge: A structurating-activity approach. 2007, Unpublished dissertation, Arizona State University.
15. The activity system. 2004, http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/pages/chatanddwr/activitysystem/, Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research., Retrieved June 3, 2006, from
16. Choo C W. The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions 1998, New York, Oxford University Press
17. Clases C, Wehner T. Steps across the border-Cooperation, knowledge production and systems design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 2002, 11:39-54.
18. Cole M, Engeström Y, Salomon G. A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations 1993, 1-46. In, (Ed.),, (pp., Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press
19. Cook S D N, Brown J S. Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science 1999, 10:381-400.
20. Cooren F, Taylor J R, Van Every E J, Cooren F, Taylor J R, Van Every E J. Introduction. Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text and conversation 2006, 1-16. In, (Eds.),, (pp., Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
21. Crawdad text analysis system version 1.2 [Computer Software] 2005, Chandler, AZ, Crawdad Technologies, LLC.
22. Davydov V V, Engeström Y, Miettinen R, Punamäki R-L. The content and unsolved problems of activity theory. Perspectives on activity theory 1999, 39-52. In, (Eds.),, (pp., Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press
23. Dutro E, Valencia S. The relationship between state and district content standards: Issues of alignment, influence and utility. Education Policy Analysis Archives 2004, 12:1-49.
24. Engeström Y, Chaiklin S, Lave J. Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context 1993, 64-103. In, (Eds.),, (pp., Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press
25. Engeström Y, Carlgren I, Handal G, Vaage S. Teachers as collaborative thinkers: Activity-theoretical study of an innovative teacher team. Teachers' minds and actions: Research on teachers' thinking and practice 1994, 43-61. In, (Eds.),, (pp., London, Falmer
26. Engeström Y, Engeström Y, Miettinen R, Punamäki R-L. Activity theory and individual and social transformation. Perspectives on activity theory 1999a, 19-38. In, (Eds.),, (pp., Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press
27. Engeström Y, Engeström Y, Miettinen R, Punamäki R-L. Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. Perspectives on activity theory 1999b, 377-404. In, (Eds.),, (pp., Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press
28. Engeström Y. Communication, discourse and activity. Communication Review 1999c, 3:165-185.
29. Fairhurst G T, Putnam L. Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory 2004, 14:5-26.
30. Farrell A, Geist-Martin P. Communicating social health: Perceptions of wellness at work. Management Communication Quarterly 2005, 18:543-592.
31. Foot K A. Cultural-historical activity theory as practice theory: Illuminating the development of a conflict-monitoring network. Communication Theory 2001, 11:56-83.
32. Furney K S, Hasazi S B, Keefe K C. Multiple dimensions of reform. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 2005, 16:169-176.
33. Gallucci C. Communities of practice and the mediation of teachers' responses to standards-based reform. Education Policy Analysis Archives 2003, 11. http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n35, Retrieved March 6, 2006 from
34. Giddens A. New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretive sociologies 1976, New York, Basic Books
35. Giddens A. Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis 1979, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press
36. Giddens A. The constitution of society 1984, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press
37. Giddens A. The nation-state and violence 1987a, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press
38. Giddens A. Social theory and modern sociology 1987b, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press
39. Giddens A. The consequences of modernity 1990, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press
40. Glaser B G. Theoretical sensitivity 1978, Mill Valley, CA, Sociology Press
41. Hall P M, McGinty P J W. Policy as the transformation of intentions: Producing program from statute. Sociological Quarterly 1997, 38:439-467.
42. Heaton L, Taylor J R. Knowledge management and professional work: A communication perspective on the knowledge-based organization. Management Communication Quarterly 2002, 16:210-236.
43. Hong J, Engeström Y. Changing principles of communication between Chinese managers and workers: Confucian authority chains and Guanxias social networking. Management Communication Quarterly 2004, 17:552-585.
44. Jephcote M, Davies B. Recontextualizing discourse: An exploration of the workings of the meso level. Journal of Education Policy 2004, 19:547-564.
45. Kirby E, Krone K J. " The policy exists but you can't really use it": Communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research 2002, 30:50-77.
46. Kuhn T, Corman S R. The emergence of homogeneity and heterogeneity in knowledge structures during a planned organizational change. Communication Monographs 2003, 70:198-229.
47. Lam A. Embedded firms, embedded knowledge: Problems of collaboration and knowledge transfer in global cooperative ventures. Organization Studies 1997, 18:973-996.
48. Leiter V, Krauss M W. Claims, barriers, and satisfaction: Parents' requests for additional special education services. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 2004, 15:135-146.
49. Lektorsky V A, Engeström Y, Miettinen R, Punamäki R-L. Activity theory in a new era. Perspectives on activity theory 1999, 65-69. In, (Eds.),, (pp., Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press
50. Lindlof T R, Taylor B C. Qualitative communication research methods 2002, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
51. McLaughlin M W. Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1987, 9:171-178.
52. McPhee R D, McPhee R D, Tompkins P K. Formal structure and organizational communication. Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions 1985, 149-177. In, (Eds.),, (pp., Beverly Hills, CA, Sage
53. McPhee R D, Corman S R, Dooley K. Theoretical and methodological axioms for the study of organizational knowledge and communication. 1999, May)., Paper presented at the 49th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.
54. McPhee R D, Poole M S, Jablin F M, Putnam L. Organizational structures and configurations. The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods 2001, 503-543. In, (Eds.),, (pp., Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage
55. Meisenbach R J, Remke R V, Buzzanell P M, Liu M. " They allowed": Pentadic mapping of women's maternity leave discourse as organizational rhetoric. Communication Monographs 2008, 75:1-24.
56. Moss G. Changing practice: The national literacy strategy and the politics of literacy policy. Literacy 2004, 38:126-133.
57. Assistance to states for the education of children with disabilities and preschool grants for children with disabilities, 34 CFR parts 300 and 301. Federal Register 2006, 71(156):46540-46845. National Archives and Records Administration.
58. Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation 1995, New York, Oxford University Press
59. Odden A R, Odden A R. The evolution of education policy implementation. Education policy implementation 1991, 1-12. In, (Ed.),, (pp., Albany, NY, State University of New York Press
60. Patriotta G. Organizational knowledge in the making: How firms create, use, and institutionalize knowledge 2003, Oxford, Oxford University Press
61. Poole M S, Seibold D R, McPhee R D. Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech 1985, 71:74-102.
62. Smit B. Teachers, local knowledge, and policy implementation: A qualitative policy-practice inquiry. Education and Urban Society 2005, 37:292-306.
63. Sørensen C, Lundh-Snis U. Innovation through knowledge codification. Journal of Information Technology 2001, 16:83-97.
64. Spillane J P, Reiser B J, Reimer T. Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research 2002, 72:387-431.
65. Stein S J. The culture of education policy 2004, New York, Teachers College Press
66. Taylor J R. The other side of rationality: Socially distributed cognition. Management Communication Quarterly 1999, 13:317-326.
67. Taylor J R, Van Every E J. The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface 2000, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
68. Tsoukas H, Vladimirou E. What is organizational knowledge? Journal of Management Studies 2001, 38:973-993.
69. Tywoniak S A. Knowledge in four deformation dimensions. Organization 2007, 14:53-76.
70. Vygotsky L S, Cole M, John-Steiner V, Scribner S, Souberman E. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes 1978, Trans.)., Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press
71. Weintraub F. The evolution of LD policy and future challenges. Learning Disability Quarterly 2005, 28:97-99.