Not Pushing Play and Walking Away
Renavigating Social and Media Structures with Human Agency Using Structuration Theory
For Renewed Creativity and Human Connection
Author Carolyn G. Mills, M.Ed. (PhD in progress)
Individuals are forgetting who they are with improvisation, walking away from their authenticity and creative path (Magsamen & Ross, 2023). Now more than ever, humanity needs to act intelligently with discernment as it chooses a reliable and trustworthy navigation system that will provide stability and certainty within today’s ever-changing communication landscape (Turkle, 2026). There is a critical need for individuals and organizations to rethink how they are navigating their experiences while understanding the ethical implications, risks, and consequences of replacing their authentic intuitive self with agentic artificial intelligence (Turkle, 2026). Reexamining social structures, media structures, and human agency using structuration theory with consideration to creativity, agency, and human connection is imperative.
Doors opening into human creativity can provide individuals and organizations with life-giving experiences that swing open to connection, resilience, purpose, and fulfillment (Magsamen & Ross, 2023; Miller, 2023). Even though human creativity can be thought of as messy with friction, changing how things appear, bending the rules, taking calculated risks, and shifting resources, it is the human act of creativity that can also be still, listening, noticing, and allowing for human agency with resilience (Magsamen & Ross, 2023; Miller, 2023; Turkle, 2026). Humans are not supposed to push play then walk away when navigating an uncertain world; there needs to be a more thoughtful use of human agency (Turkle, 2026). Navigating life’s failures and successes can be done in a co-creation process with human connection, prioritizing what matters, and acknowledging moral beauty (Miller, 2023). While human creativity and machine creativity can both change the story, the outcome, the industry, and even the structure in today’s changing digital ecosystem, structuration theory can provide insights into the necessary navigation system needed.
Structuration theory can be used to analyze how humans can still have agency, acting autonomously with creativity, so human connection and resilience can be maintained. Schultze (2000) described communication as a gift and humans as caretakers of it, but humans are not always holding the pen, allowing themselves to be the author of their agency (Lull, 2026). It is human agents that meaningfully produce, challenge, and alter the world surrounding them in a structuration process (Lull, 2026). If exploration should not be too free, it should be asked how free humans are within the systems and structures they are facing (Epstein, 2026; Lull, 2025). If creative vision and working in smaller sustainable steps within structure and clear boundaries is critical for problem-solving, it should be carefully thought of how using a structured approach can be beneficial in finding creative solutions and innovative breakthroughs (Epstein, 2026).
Every day, individuals, groups, and organizations are deeply affected by multiple structures, norms, and roles or the lack of them, but humans have the power to influence multiple structures around them (Littlejohn et al., 2025). At the same time, humans need moral structure for safety, expectations, and principles in guiding their actions, so structures and systems become crucial parts of structuration theory (Littlejohn et al., 2025). Giddens understood the duality of structure where rules and structure allow humans to have guidance and direction and then that action creates new rules and guidelines which then influence future acts (Littlejohn et al., 2025). Structuration theory then defines systems as noticeable “patterns of relationships” and structures as “rules, resources, expectations, and norms” (Littlejohn et al., 2025, p. 178). The guiding rules and structures then communicate the how of the creative process with understanding, interpretation, morality, and power (Littlejohn et al., 2025).
Literature Review
As a compelling sociological theory, structuration theory within external organizational communication further examines how structures can help or constrain individuals (Kerrigan et al., 2023). The current state of knowledge on the topic aims to address failing structures, a lack of regulation, and increasing distrust in disordered systems and structures. After examining the latest research, themes related to the illusion or marriage of agency, the promise and friction of creativity, the false promise of artificial intelligence are discovered, and the human need for purpose and creativity.
The Illusion or Marriage of Agency
It has been revealed by scholars that humans are never stuck since they are always capable of making choices; however, there are now structures such as algorithms, agents, and chatbots constantly at work, navigating a person into a confined set of pre-established opportunities (Markham et al., 2019). Who or what is then navigating humans into making decisions? How free a person is to choose to act may not be a matter of freedom, but a matter of factors outside of their control, pulling them into different directions and seducing them to make a certain choice; thus, agency has been described as human beings being the actor who can perform, reflect, and adjust (Endacott, 2024). It can appear as if humans must set their sails, adjust, and then repeatedly readjust, being aware of the changing winds surrounding them and remembering Markham et al.’s (2019) claim that a structured environment can be responsive to human actions. However, based on Turkle’s (2026) latest research, it can be seen how there is a more complex nuanced undercurrent that is pulling humans under and away from their human capability of agency.
With algorithms functioning as powerful agents, what happens when an individual’s sails must be readjusted repeatedly, but they are unaware of when they need to readjust their sails; in addition, what happens when humans are no longer powerful actors? (Markham et al., 2019). Social scientific research assumes that individuals perceive themselves as acting freely with decision-making (Lull, 2026). However, if actors or systems have agency is undetermined (Endacott, 2024). Agency can be both encouraged and held back by structures (Kerrigan et al., 2023). Research shows how there is a dependence on structure and agency since social action is what brings structures and structures allow social action (Kerrigan et al., 2023). Endacott (2024) advised human actors to have agency and for autonomous technologies to be performed through human agency. With the belief that humans have agency and choice, humans still perceive themselves as having limits and constraints since technologies will often navigate the user into a certain narrow set of possibilities (Endacott, 2024; Markham et al., 2019). How much freedom of agency a person has to navigate life’s challenges should then be re-examined (Endacott, 2024).
Markham et al. (2019) defined human control as feeling in control of results and shared how humans believe they have control and agency over various platforms and applications they use. Lull (2026) argued that humans are not the agents or authors of experience and do not have control. Quach et al. (2022) acknowledged how with data sharing comes layers of privacy risks, so these tensions can be navigated with use of structuration theory’s understanding. Lull’s (2026) contemporary view of structuration theory applied a determinist argument and concluded that even if individuals do not have free will, they will aim to take advantage of the agency they can; however, they may not be the authors of that agency. Lull (2026) claimed that humans then only can be productive under constraints and parameters like Epstein (2026) proposed. Lull (2026) argued further that individuals function like beginning artificial intelligence that needs programming. Within the constraints of generative AI, Turkle (2026) contended that individuals are not being prepared to navigate a life filled with friction, and that humanity is risking replacing themselves. With the indication that the computer is becoming the second self, individuals and organizations are allowing agentic AI’s digital twin to do their work (Turkle, 2026). Consumers, regulators, and firms are also found to be reactive with privacy responses instead of being proactive in their response (Quach et al., 2022).
Within human agency, there is a deep social need for collaboration (Kerrigan et al., 2023; Magsamen & Ross, 2023; Perreault et al., 2025). Global coordination with the United Nations with its Personal Data Protection and Privacy Principles can help organizations navigate today’s changing digital structures and systems more proactively with enforcement and regulation (Quach et al., 2022). Quach et al. (2022) shared a universal proactive privacy response approach with addressing privacy in a more coordinated way, so there can be enhanced data privacy regulation. Quach et al. (2022) called for urgency in addressing privacy tensions within today’s changing technological landscape. Navigating failing structures and ever-changing systems using structuration theory can then help to produce new privacy laws and regulation stringency (Quach et al., 2022). Organizations are then encouraged to enact their agency, aligning themselves with structuration themes related to consent, ownership, transparency, and control of data (Quach et al., 2022). Policymakers are advised to create privacy regulations responsibly while empowering consumer protection and agency (Quach et al., 2022).
Not only do organizations need to enact their agency, but storytellers and writers must exercise their human agency. In a recent research study, when the podcast producer realized he did not have agency, he was able to discover the significance of narration, gaining agency through collaboration and storytelling (Kerrigan et al., 2023). If the stories that individuals tell themselves matter significantly, storytelling should be examined in consideration with structuration theory (Magsamen & Ross, 2023). Kerrigan et al. (2023) defined agency as the podcasters’ choice within a certain set of rules and resources within the podcasting structure. Resources then have the potential to enable or hinder choices (Kerrigan et al., 2023). Using structuration theory, Perreault et al. (2025) also examined storytelling, but within the context of journalists who participate in reflexive monitoring. It was noted that collaboration was also required for the significant process of reflective monitoring, and that journalists had to learn how to navigate change with flexibility and adaptation (Perreault et al., 2025). Being able to navigate a changing communication landscape means that writers should not skip the hard parts of storytelling; instead, all creative thinkers should continue to share their lived experiences with vulnerability while remembering the importance of the human arc for resilience and connection (Turkle, 2026).
When thinking about human agency, the machine agency structure should also be considered (Endacott, 2024). Individuals have been found continuing to give their power of decision-making away to technology (Endacott, 2024). While AI technologies can now act on their own with intentionality and autonomy, they do not have agency (Endacott, 2024). However, there is the machine agency structure that allows for humans to give control and power to technology for decision-making (Endacott, 2024). Machines then are given authoritative power, and choices are followed by humans (Endacott, 2024). Martin et al. (2024) argued that for humans to be able to act, individuals must be able to understand their actions cognitively, yet AI communication technologies (AICTs) have been allowed to make decisions related to communication procedures autonomously (Endacott, 2024). Individuals are giving up their agency, allowing AI’s autonomous proficiencies to perform AI -generated decisions (Endacott, 2024). Because of this, AI is assigned power to make decisions without human user input (Endacott, 2024). Humans are at risk of losing themselves as they allow agentic artificial intelligence to navigate for them, making choices and completing tasks (Turkle, 2026).
At a more personal level, parents must learn to enact their agency instead of letting emerging technology structures and systems sweep their children away with its seductiveness, distracting properties, and addictive characteristics (Turkle, 2026). In a growing disconnected world, both children and adults are searching for structures that provide them with companionship, comfort, and safety (Turkle, 2026). In this process, it has been found that structures such as ChatGPT are now seen by some parents as being a digital companion with simulated thinking and feeling with parents giving away their intuitive role of teaching reading to a machine that can voice bedtime stories and ask questions (Turkle, 2026). The implications of the research has practical application to not just organizations and society, but also to parents since kids are not differentiating whether they are talking to a human or chatbot, and they are turning to chatbots addictively for friendships, tutoring, and a safe place (Turkle, 2026). Children have been found to be ready for emotional attachment to SMART toys powered by generative AI, not realizing how it will affect their human-human communication skills (Turkle, 2026). Agency then must be reconsidered at a more personal level, and protection for the integrity of the human individual must be preserved (Turkle, 2026).
The Promise and Friction of Creativity
With the illusion or marriage of agency also comes the promise and friction of creativity in consideration of structuration theory. Human endeavors have often been pursued with an exploration of ideas and solutions (Martin et al., 2024). Turkle (2026) argued that most of life is being able to navigate friction. There is real tension in building real human relationships, creatively solving problems, and taking risks which is necessary for humans in building resilience (Turkle, 2026). The greatest inventors even failed multiple times before they found success, so it is critical that humans learn to navigate failure within changing structures (Perreault et al., 2025). For instance, journalists must be able to navigate audience input even with critique and disappointment (Perreault et al., 2025). With the concept that creativity has meant divine inspiration, genius, artistic traits, or inventive qualities, innovation has been chased with problem-solving by humans (Martin et al., 2024). Now, humans should not offload their cognitive abilities to failing media and social structures while losing their desire to struggle for creativity (Turkle, 2026).
The science of innovation can happen with scientists studying creativity within various structures (Limb, 2011). Language and creativity have been studied in the medial prefrontal cortex of the human brain (Limb, 2011). In an fMRI study, Dr. Limb discovered how the jazz musician’s brain process increases with brain flow in a neural shift due to improvisation, allowing for flow with new ideas. In this creative improvisation process, flow happened with no rules or script (Limb, 2011). With the language area of the brain lighting up, creativity increases because of improv whether it is applied to music, dancing, or acting (Limb, 2011). Being then in an improv state of mind is beneficial to the arts related to creativity (Limb, 2011). Understanding how human creativity can increase more with the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex decreasing in activity may prove to be valuable in consideration of structuration theory, so that future processes can be built off the biological implications of creativity (Limb, 2011).
Martin et al. (2024) advised organizations to provide a creative environment that allows risk taking, mistakes, and security where AI does repetitive tasks and humans can gain more time for creativity. However, it has been discovered that AI can give a false promise for a friction free life for humans, and humans are at risk of replacing themselves (Turkle, 2026). Creative progress though is still seen by some organizations as agentic artificial intelligence working on one’s behalf (Turkle, 2026). However, creativity is meant to have friction and even failure, and it is in times of difficulty that humans have turned to art and creativity to build resilience (Magsamen & Ross, 2023; Turkle, 2026). While AI may be seen as helping humans with creative processes, artificial intelligence is not always the best foundation for creative processes as Martin et al. (2024) proposed. It was argued by Martin et al. (2024) that there is minimal effort in creating ideas, so humans and AI should benefit from creative collaboration. Martin et al. (2024) claimed that AI can help soften the pressures of working life adding value to organizations; however, the creative process and performance of humans is not always benefited from with the use of AI (Turkle, 2026). Martin et al. (2024) did acknowledge that AI was unable to provide context or emotional insight, and AI programs can now simulate pretend care and empathy (Turkle, 2026).
Despite this, there is still a need for creative actions (Martin et al., 2024). While individuals desire to be creative, human-machine communication has been preferred by some individuals over human-human communication since it is less stressful (Turkle, 2026). The structure of talking to machines is changing how individuals see themselves, and chatbots are training humans instead of the other way around (Turkle, 2026). The designers are creating chatbots to comfort people and tell them what they want to hear, so they keep on coming back (Turkle, 2026). Turkle (2026) ultimately argued that humans must not be diminished since individuals need to grow their capacity for reciprocity and empathy instead of looking to machines as a mirror.
Media structures need to be reassessed since structures and actions can be seen as interdependent (Kerrigan et al., 2023). Because machines do not have real authentic experience or intuition to draw from, humans need to rethink their relationship to it (Turkle, 2026). Unfortunately, humans are learning to see themselves through machines, growing more attached to machines that carry advanced knowledge and mimic human emotion (Turkle, 2026). Turkle (2026) discovered individuals looking for comfort in machines when navigating life’s difficulties and even expecting less from humans. Turkle (2026) also observed individuals preferring to have edited comfortable conversations (Turkle, 2026). Structuration theory can then be applied to the digital space with an understanding of structure and agency with its constraints and negative reinforcements (Painter et al., 2026).
Organizations can take another look at how claims or practices can change since innovation can be unsettling and disorderly (Perreault et al., 2025). It was discovered that shrinking the problem space with a structured approach can be valuable (Epstein, 2026). For instance, creative podcasting practices were explored using practitioner-based enquiry in consideration of structuration theory (Kerrigan et al., 2023). Kerrigan et al. (2023) discovered that podcast producers have limited freedom with the constraints of radio. Humans were found as being constrabled, or being able to make decisions with structures that both encourage and constrain creativity (Kerrigan et al., 2023). This means that the agent’s structures being used can help to encourage them and hold them back (Kerrigan et al., 2023). Creative production can then be constrabled by rules and resources where the combination of traditions and innovations or opportunities and constraints can be combined (Kerrigan et al., 2023). Sustaining innovations should be pursued instead of disruptive ones with the freedom to fail forward (Perreault et al., 2025).
The False Promise of Artificial Intelligence
With structural changes that allow human processes to be copied by computer systems, it has been expressed how artificial intelligence has made a promise to strengthen creativity (Martin et al., 2024). However, humans have been fooled by machines that they think care about them (Turkle, 2026). Humans are being navigated into a lonelier world without human-human relationships (Turkle, 2026). Mind habits are keeping some individuals feeling trapped (Magsamen & Ross, 2023). Creative industries are being transformed by the promise of artificial intelligence with long-term impact, but humans need to be aware of the detrimental factors influencing identity and decision-making (Markham et al., 2019; Martin et al., 2024; Turkle, 2026). Structural changes are ongoing, and algorithmically influenced identities have already been discovered (Markham et al., 2019; Martin et al., 2024).
Humans are being navigated to interact passively with programs which act like humans (Turkle, 2026). Just like any relationship, false promises can be made, and AI systems may not function with transparency without ethical guidelines (Martin et al., 2024). Considering structuration theory’s concept of the duality of structure, Martin et al. (2024) argued that AI can improve innovation and enhance content while shaping the creative process. In the creative industry, Martin et al. (2024) claimed that not only will organizational structure be changed, but creativity will be redefined due to human interaction with AI (Martin et al., 2024). Even with the individual’s priority to be proactive with their use of technology, Turkle (2026) foresaw the dangers of human-AI interactions with its impact on human relationships. With the false promise that a chatbot can offer companionship and artificial intimacy, humans are vulnerable to chatbots that claim to have empathy (Turkle, 2026). While Martin et al. (2024) discovered that respondents wanted AI to make their work easier, Turkle (2026) explored how humans are turning to machines to meet their emotional needs. As neural networks try to copy the human brain’s structure in deep learning technology, humans must be able to interact and avoid black box systems while seeking responsible AI use (Martin et al., 2024).
With algorithms controlling the creative process and humans coming up with parameters, AI can also limit human abilities in addition to helping due to structuration’s theoretical framework (Martin et al., 2024). Machine agency can become a structure that allows autonomous decision-making that can help or hinder human creative work, making false promises as well (Endacott, 2024). Endacott (2024) examined how people allow machine agency with AI communication technologies since organizations have intense workloads, and individuals desire to increase their efficiency. Endacott’s (2024) study discovered that human users felt ultimately constrained by AICT’s autonomous capabilities. Markham et al. (2019) discerned how human media users are often stuck in default settings, without realizing how something is holding and maintaining their attention. Research shows how individuals eventually adapt to a system’s defaults since they do not easily detect how to opt-out (Markham et al., 2019). With algorithms and default settings steering a person’s experiences, how much human control there can be is still questionable when algorithms become the main actor (Markham et al., 2019).
Programs may want human feedback, and they may speak with a caring voice providing supportive comments; however, even messy human communication is not meant to be replaced by empathic machine communication (Turkle, 2026). McLuhan (1944) understood how spoken communication can become a flower of evil, without fostering community and connection in a welcoming and engaging way. Including human senses and allowing for reaction, the spoken word medium was seen as greatly impacting society with oral traditions and storytelling shaping human’s values and memories (McLuhan, 1944). Spoken communication was seen as being able to transform society by conveying emotions that can get lost in the written word (McLuhan, 1944). Now, humans are losing their skills to engage with human disappointment and negotiation in communication (Turkle, 2026). With real life being too stressful, people are choosing to escape to their screens, missing out on ordinary experiences (Turkle, 2026). With the idea of leaving the real world behind and that chatbots can be sold as friends, Meta is breaking down community by keeping people isolated on their screens with polarization (Turkle, 2026). It can also be seen how this same flower of spoken communication is now wilting and becoming uninviting through hateful speech, misinformation, and conflict (McLuhan, 1944). The spoken word must be mindful and constructive (McLuhan, 1944). While machine communication can be very elegant, closely mimicking advanced human communication, the human experience needs a social life and not just interactivity with generative AI across their human life cycle (Turkle, 2026).
The Human Need for Purpose and Creativity
Humans have a need to be part of something sacred that is much bigger than themselves (Magsamen & Ross, 2023). With the belief that art has the transformative power to restore mental health, build wellness, and bring healing, Magsamen and Ross (2023) claimed that when the story is changed, one’s life is also changed. With the desire to make life into art within constraints and walls, there is an understanding for the need for boundaries; however, it is acknowledged that these same protective boundaries are holding people back from their potential (Magsamen & Ross, 2023). IN-Q (2021) related individuals to a goldfish needing an environment for growth since space is seen as changing the way it grows. Individuals are portrayed as not have an awareness that they can “grow beyond the bowl” without boundaries (IN-Q, 2021). IN-Q (2021) expressed how goals are suppressed by uncontrollable environments where individuals feel the need to shrink and identity is forgotten. Overcoming prior knowledge can prove to be important in moving forward into creativity since the brain needs to be allowed to go off online and wander (Magsamen & Ross, 2023).
Empirical studies have shown how having a greater purpose in life alters the brain, contributing to flourishing and increasing resilience (Magsamen & Ross, 2023). Cultivating curiosity, creativity, wonder, and surprise through the processes and structures of art are also included in the science of flourishing (Magsamen & Ross, 2023). Lasting human fulfillment can come from curiosity with paying attention since it brings dopamine, happiness, and empathy (Magsamen & Ross, 2023). It is an individual’s perception of beauty connected to the arts that triggers wonder (Magsamen & Ross, 2023). As a life-giving process, active artmaking can become a meaningful conversation process with the self, building both agency and creativity, stimulating neurochemicals, and inspiring creative problem solving (Magsamen & Ross, 2023). Creatives and artists can come together with scientists to create transforming structures, processes, and systems that have unexpected positive surprises while making humans feel more human (Magsamen & Ross, 2023). Digital AI powered immersive art experiences can engage the human senses, allowing structures to bring healing processes to an individual’s well-being (Magsamen & Ross, 2023). Here, machine algorithms can be used with human agency to help the mental health of individuals instead of pushing forth bias and prejudice (Magsamen & Ross, 2023). In this way, imaginative human artistic exploration can include healing processes that benefit individuals and increase creativity, changing humanity’s course into a more positive direction (Magsamen & Ross, 2023).
There is delight that can be found in creativity within the human experience (Miller, 2023). Groth argues how art can be created in a more alive way as a portal, but to the real everyday world (Miller, 2023) Artists are then encouraged to have their own personal experience with wonder with sensory experiences (Miller, 2023). It then becomes about the unexpected where uncertainty is welcomed (Miller, 2023) Roth argues that the brain is rewired with nature where making something out of nothing can be a powerful process filled with wonder (Miller, 2023). Barbara Groth founded the Nomadic School of Wonder where she aimed to have a mindset of creativity and presence with real-life adventures rooted in community, nature, and play (Miller, 2023). Through Groth’s unique learning process, creative artists are seen as wonder makers, turning back to connecting their mind with their hearts and hands and focusing on their human senses and intuition (Miller, 2023). Instead of working within strict guidelines and parameters, individuals are free to create unedited and imperfectly through imaginative child-like play (Miller, 2023). Collaboration is then encouraged with creativity since creatives are better together (Miller, 2023). With a focus on creative natural flow, expression can be more authentic (Miller, 2023).
Critical Analysis
Park and Ahmed (2025) appreciated how structuration theory can be a theoretical lens. Being able to examine both structures and agency as dual forces can provide deeper insights (Park and Ahmed, 2025). The theory has strength in examining both social constraints and individual agency (Park and Ahmed, 2025). Even though individuals, groups, and organizations may feel constrained by structures, they still have the capability to make changes with structure (Park and Ahmed, 2025). Based off of these ideas, structuration theory’s epistemological foundation, power dynamics, scope, limits, bias, purpose, and goals will be discussed.
Epistemological Foundation
Structuration theory’s epistemological foundation is rooted in a realist perspective of the duality of structure (Gidden, 1984). Giddens (1984) considered the accordion effect of action and asserted that humans lose their agency when they cannot make a difference. Humans do things unintentionally, but they are also capable of reflexivity with intentionality (Gidden, 1984). Giddens (1984) created the stratification model of the agent to show reflective monitoring based on the concept of practical consciousness. Because of ongoing reflective monitoring with rationalization, active human agency allows individuals to consciously adjust their behaviors and apply self-reflexivity to their situations (Perreault et al., 2025). Gidden (1984) defined agency not as a person’s intentions, but as a person’s capability in doing something since humans often do things they do not intend to do.
Functionalism and structuralism embrace a naturalistic perspective with objectivism as part of the structuration theory (Giddens, 1984). Rules become transformational guiding values or systems that function as a formula for action (Park and Ahmed, 2025). With agency, individuals require knowledgeability, rationality, and reflective monitoring whether it is done intentionally or habitually (Park and Ahmed, 2025). There is a foundational belief that agency is intertwined with structure and framed by rules with resources helping or hindering (Drefs, 2022). The theory assumes that it has social practices which are being redesigned through structure and agency (Drefs, 2022).With the notion that agents hold knowledgeability with nonconscious and conscious knowledge, there is rationalization with reflective monitoring (Drefs, 2022). Socio-cultural rules or codes of conduct are then needed to help with knowledgeability, and human agents should be capable of influencing change using resources (Drefs, 2022).
Power Dynamics
Various power dynamics can be addressed in structuration theory’s framework in relation to agency and structural resources (Giddens, 1984). In the past, people were limited to one environment and didn’t learn to interact with other public opinions, but now there needs to be realistic pictures by experts and the right exercise of power (Lippmann, 2010). There is duality of structure in structuration theory, and human agents may not know of the actual consequences of what they engage in (Gidden, 1984). Giddens (1984) believed that there are two faces of power with the person’s capability to make decisions and bias. Power is exercised through media resources, and power in social systems possesses independence and dependence (Gidden, 1984). Resources are believed to be the center of power imbalances, and authoritative resources can be used by agents to have greater impact (Drefs, 2022).
Schultze (2000) argued that labels generate misunderstanding and even conflict and that humans have the capability of becoming like the media they consume. If people only seek out information from people who think like them, this power unbalance is dangerous, especially due to broken communication (Schultze, 2000). If humans do not want to listen and like to agree, this can cause problems as well (Schultze, 2000). In addition, Epstein (2026) claimed that too much creative freedom with too much money can be dangerous, so deciding what not to do can be even more important. Epstein (2026) shared how individuals did not want managers, project boundaries, or constraints when the phone and the internet were being designed. This can also be seen now with how some structures and systems not wanting regulation or constraints within generative artificial intelligence (Turkle, 2026).
Encouraging human control in emerging technologies should be considered (Endacott, 2024). Endacott (2024) observed how users try to gain more control by changing the machine agency structure. Endacott (2024) argued that the machine agency structure takes the control and power when humans assign decision making to AI’s autonomous capabilities. With AICT being able to communicate for a person and even make decisions, these behaviors show human reliance and dependence on agentic AI (Endacott, 2024). In addition, examining how people are not following algorithmic management or changing AI decisions can also be further examined using structuration theory since it can analyze the power in relationships and the authoritative control given to various structures (Endacott, 2024). The theory can continue to analyze how generative AI is being allowed to become a powerful authoritative resource that is changing the rules between humans and machines (Endacott, 2024). It can also evaluate how organizations and individuals are being reshaped due to its integration of AI into its daily tasks and priorities (Endacott, 2024). Decision-making can then be closely examined with how humans are allowing AI to lead, making choices for them (Endacott, 2024).
Scope and Limits
Structuration theory can be an ontological guide, carrying the ability to predict and analyze ways of understanding public relations, technology, organizations, policymaking, and regulation (Lull, 2026). Deeper understandings of agency within media development or other topics can be pursued with structuration theory (Drefs, 2022). Because of the theory’s complexity, it can provide practical insights for organizational transformation related to enhanced structures, procedures, rules, and systems (Lull, 2026). It can also be used to explore racial bias on social media structures (Painter et al., 2026). Because cancel culture works in a structuration process, the theory can encourage algorithmic transparency and creation of new policies to address racial bias (Painter et al., 2026). The theory can then be used to help move policy changes and education programs forward with fairness and inclusion (Painter et al., 2026).
While the theory is criticized for applying to empirical studies or being too limiting with its emphasis on the duality of structure, it can provide rich understandings and applications to various contexts such as healthy policy, digital technology, and social organizations (Martin et al., 2024). Giddens also advises researchers to use the theory to explore agency (Drefs, 2022). Above all, the complexity of the theoretical framework can relate to artificial intelligence, possessing a longer lasting foundational influence on social systems (Martin et al., 2024). The deeper impact of AI systems with machine learning can be explored connecting to its role as both a structure and actor (Martin et al., 2024). Thinking more about the relationship between human behavior and structure can be pursued (Martin et al., 2024). However, it should be remembered when thinking has more of a western democratic agenda (Drefs, 2022). For example, Drefs (2022) discovered that actors held democratic values and were aware of bureaucratic conditions while desiring to influence projects. Because of this, human agents should be seen as possessing great knowledgeability and capability while considering their mindset (Drefs, 2022).
The theory can also help bring nuanced understandings and interpretation to migrant and refugee issues related to cultural structures, ethnic identities, and organizational structures (Park and Ahmed, 2025). Being able to examine how immigrants can apply their agency is significant as they navigate how their structures either enable or constrain them (Park and Ahmed, 2025). With its recursive process, the theory can include a variety of cultures and religions as it helps to bring the role of agency to intercultural society with global matters (Park and Ahmed, 2025). Being able to examine the dual nature of structures is important since structural forces can also help individuals practice agency (Park and Ahmed, 2025).
Overall, structuration theory can see both sides of the story. Since the human brain does not naturally participate in effortful thinking and humans with complete freedom default to simple solutions, creative breakthrough can happen when a creator is forced to enter creative experimentation constraints (Epstein, 2026). The theory then can analyze those constraints and parameters, providing insight into creativity for the arts (Magsamen & Ross, 2023). For instance, Drefs (2022) used structuration theory as an analytical lens to media development to examine how actors enact agency for strategies with consideration for conscious and unconscious rules. Strengthening onsite actor’s agency with an understanding for media development power relations can be pursued (Drefs, 2022).
Bias
In the theory, it is presumed that an individual or group’s experience is being shaped by the complexity of systems and institutions (Park and Ahmed, 2025). Participants are observed as looking for strategies to navigate life difficulties while being influenced by structures (Park and Ahmed, 2025). Objects are sometimes seen as social actors (Turkle, 2026). The theory also accepts the idea that humans will act with agentic behavior when responding to structural forces (Park and Ahmed, 2025). However, it does not always account for when humans do not push back as in Turkle’s (2026) claim that humans are being seductively and unconsciously pulled into pretend chatbot companionship (Turkle, 2026). Structuration theory is able though to discern structures that people search for that they find authoritative and trustworthy (Lippmann, 2010).
While the theory can help bring more nuanced understandings into the risks and dangers of structures, researchers need to provide communities with ways to move forward despite faulty structures. For example, Turkle (2026) claimed that communities that desire AI to move forward do not always see the risks and consequences of being intimate with machines and that people need to thoughtfully rethink through the dangers of generative AI (Turkle, 2026). Also, Painter et al. (2026) explored social media structures using structuration theory to address racial bias and saw how the algorithm’s filtering properties are moving individuals into echo chambers and creating intolerance. With algorithms making decisions for humans, its structure has been trained on biased databases (Painter et al., 2026). This means that humans are creating technologies, products, and databases with structural properties that contain human biases (Painter et al., 2026). Painter et al.’s (2026) valuable research discovered that social media allows for biases to continue while reinforcing previous racial biases in divided digital environments. The theory then can be used to understand these biased structural properties further (Painter et al., 2026).
It is recommended when creating innovations that humans need to subtract and act slowly, so clear boundaries are not ignored (Epstein, 2026). Epstein (2026) shared how humans tend to add when creating innovations instead of subtracting, so this natural human instinct can become a bias. However, the theory can encourage authentic change in structures as both the medium and outcome, transforming intercultural realities (Park and Ahmed, 2025). With changing guidelines and ongoing uncertainty during crises, human agency can be active, empowering individuals from all cultures to have conscious reflexivity without vulnerability (Park and Ahmed, 2025). Structuration theory then understands the constraints that people face while acknowledging how there can be overcoming and change through human agency as reflected in Park and Ahmed’s (2025) study related to Korean immigrants.
Purpose and Goal
Structuration theory can discover practical applications to real-world issues facing vulnerable groups during conflict (Park and Ahmed, 2025). It can be used to analyze the structures, agency, and constructions that are creating bias on social media (Painter et al., 2026). It can also be used to evaluate structures at a micro and macro level with structural barriers (Park and Ahmed, 2025). Studying the theory can help communication researchers discover the inequalities, gaps, and limitations of various structures and guidelines (Park and Ahmed, 2025). Examining declining human trust in structures can be pursued (Park and Ahmed, 2025). Human agency can be explored further with how humans behave considering passive or active decision-making (Park and Ahmed, 2025). Marginalized groups can be better supported with resources when policymakers and program creators can better meet their unique needs based off solid research findings (Park and Ahmed, 2025). Instead of focusing on marginalized groups as victims of various structures, structuration theory can refocus its attention on evaluating and finding resources and creative solutions to problems within various structures (Park and Ahmed, 2025).
In application of emerging technologies, structuration theory can analyze how society desperately needs safety, restrictions, rules, and guidelines with generative AI while allowing human connection and creativity to still survive (Turkle, 2026). Related to ethical understandings coming from structuration theory, Messer’s (2021) emphasis on God’s revelation with the Bible and eschatological hope can be reconsidered as foundational to analyzing universal penultimate matters. The human mind is creative with an ability to visualize and have clear thinking along with intuition, so each future generation must be taught to be able to think and form their own identity amid an everchanging world with changing structures and systems (Lippmann, 2010).
Analysis and Discussion
In today’s communication world, media is still greatly influencing society, shaping how the message is understood (McLuhan, 1944). If mediums have the power to shape and control humans, altering a person’s perceptions, it can also have power in shaping reality and changing how people interact and perceive information (McLuhan, 1944). Structuration theory allows understanding with insight into how structures are the medium and the result of human activity (Endacott, 2024). The results of the analysis show repeated themes related to human agency and creativity in the midst of an ever-changing communication landscape faced with autonomous technologies and artificial intelligence (Endacott, 2024; Turkle 2026). It is observed that there are overlapping research ideas related to the need to slow down, renegotiating human control and agency. Opposing viewpoints are visible with human-machine relationships and what structures need modified. Research sources encourage human agency and equity while sharing the theme of welcoming uncertainty and overcoming creatively within constraints.
Slowing Down & Renegotiating Human Control and Agency
Every navigator needs backup when something fails; likewise, every individual and organization requires backup plans when its structures, systems, and rules are no longer steering people toward their purpose with agency (Turkle, 2026). Structuration theory can be used to help provide a detailed map in navigating human agency vs. machine agency structure (Endacott, 2024). Epstein (2026) encouraged scientists, engineers, and innovators to slow down with a step-by-step procedure with clear boundaries since less is often more. Being able to take multiple creative ideas and then refine them ensures that the right creative ideas are launched (Epstein, 2026). Since creative artists can overfocus on small details while neglecting major creative work, there is a need for structure, boundaries, and constraints (Epstein, 2026). Too many resources can lead to messy work (Epstein, 2026). Likewise, too many emerging technology structures and systems can lead to a lack of oversight and regulation (Turkle, 2026). Seeing machine agency structure through the lens of structuration theory can allow researchers to discover how humans can retake their authority in giving resources while changing it or renegotiating control (Endacott, 2024). Humans can have agency in how they want to use AI and how they want AI technologies to function, but it must be realized (Endacott, 2024).
Modifying Structures & Detaching from Machine Relationships
When navigating a treacherous sea filled with weather shifts, the skilled navigator must have situational awareness with the ability to monitor their surroundings. Like a skilled navigator tries to be proactive in their response to changing weather patterns, there is a serious need for individuals at the personal level and organizations at the business level to adjust and modify how they interact with emerging structures and systems that encourage human-machine relationships, intolerance, cognitive offloading, and bias (Painter et al. 2026; Turkle, 2026). Endacott (2024) shared how when people’s situations, motivations, or knowledge changes, structure modification can be applied. Humans then can change how they use machine agency and enact their own human agency within structures and systems (Endacott, 2024; Turkle, 2026). It is obvious that social media structures and AI systems must be redesigned carefully, heeding Turkle’s (2026) warnings.
Through the research, it was found that collaboration is critically needed in today’s organizations with being able to share resources and hold shared values and mission (Perreault et al., 2025). People value authenticity with organizations which can build conversations with engagement (Perreault et al., 2025). Groups such as journalists are seeking processes that align with their values (Perreault et al., 2025). Being able to receive communication and then adjust or adapt to it in real-time is not just important to journalists as Perreault et al. (2025) observed, but this skill of negotiation with flexibility and creativity is also critical for all communicators (Turkle, 2026). Being able to take other ideas into perspective with listening, real empathy, and intuitive discernment cannot be taught within the structure and system of human-machine conversations (Turkle, 2026). If improving communication is a priority, organizations need to reevaluate what systems and procedures they are using while emphasizing collaborative teamwork and reexploring how they want to experience technology’s structures within their set of values (Perreault et al., 2025). Disruption is needed with adaptability and foresight for reexamining various processes since there is danger in immediate answers and standardizing procedures (Perreault et al., 2025; Turkle, 2026).
Welcoming Uncertainty and Navigating Creatively Within Constraints
Even as a skilled conscious navigator, uncertainty can be expected as they manage risk and danger. Sometimes waiting to act can be more dangerous. Various researchers across different fields are sounding a similar warning on the dangers of faulty and biased structures, systems, and procedures. Zuckerberg’s vision may be one with superintelligence where humans are self-centered with machine agents, removing awe and real human-experience with short-term dopamine and false realities (Turkle, 2026). However, there is a much different vision of flourishing visualized by creatives and scientists where humans are not distracted but paying attention to awe with empathy and empowerment (Magsamen & Ross, 2023).
Based off of the given literature review, uncertainty can be welcomed by both the sciences and the arts, inviting creativity and meaningful human experiences into each field; however, educational organizations do not need to passively allow biased and flawed systems or structures to negatively influence the growing brain (Magsamen & Ross, 2023; Turkle, 2026). All humans need to be given structures, systems, and procedures for building a strong foundation of skills related to critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving while wrestling with friction and building resilience (Turkle, 2026).
Conclusion
After considering the conference theme Navigate—Finding Inspiration in Uncharted Terrain, the significance of human agency and creativity is discovered considering today’s emerging technologies that incorporate artificial intelligence. Structuration theory’s promise to use communication in a creative and supportive way for society is learned with its scope and limitations. Real-world applications are provided so individuals and organizations can find solutions for navigating creatively within constraints.
There are still more questions that need to be answered regarding structuration theory in consideration with what moral compass is being assigned to structures, rules, and processes. When examining structures and processes surrounding individuals, organizations, and society, Lee et al’s (2021) ideas related to measuring wellbeing should be reconsidered. Structures that can embrace the concept of flourishing into its parameters and guidelines can be examined by scholars in connection to supporting an authentic life with mindfulness, creativity, gratefulness, and a moral compass. Future research possibilities can seek to find practical solutions for creating and recreating new structures, processes, and systems that allow for creativity, a moral compass, human agency, and human connection.
Note: All written content, images, and original ideas published on Getting Creative with Carolyn are the property of Carolyn G. Mills unless otherwise noted. You may share brief excerpts or link back to my post as long as full and clear credit is given to Carolyn G. Mills with a direct link to the original content. Full-article republishing without explicit written permission is prohibited. When referencing data, studies, or quotes from other authors, every effort is made to link back to the original source with proper attribution in a given Reference page at the end. Photography not by the author is also cited in the Reference page.
References
Drefs, I. (2022). Onsite actors’ agency within international media development. Global Media Journal: German Edition, 12(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.22032/dbt.55516
Epstein, D. (2026). Inside the box: How constraints make us better. Riverhead Books.
Endacott, C. G. (2024). Enacting machine agency when AI makes one’s day: Understanding how users relate to AI communication technologies for scheduling. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 29(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmae011
Filip. (2021, March 21). Person holding black sony digital device [Photograph]. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/person-holding-black-sony-digital-device-5LhSaUDgtZ8
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Polity Press.
IN-Q. (2021, February 2). Gold fish [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3QySTCWXkw
Kerrigan, S., Criticos, H., Kerrigan, V., & Ritchie, S. (2023). Podcasting as a Creative Practice and the Spirit of Radio: Local Histories of Maitland. Journal of Radio & Audio Media, 30(2), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/19376529.2021.1897986
Lee, M. T., Kubzansky, L. D., & VanderWeele, T. J. (Eds.). (2021). Measuring well-being: Interdisciplinary perspectives from the social sciences and the humanities. Oxford University Press.
Limb, C. (2011, January). Your brain on improv [Video]. TED Conferences.
https://www.ted.com/talks/charles_limb_your_brain_on_improv
Lippmann, W. (2010). Public Opinion. Wilder Publications, Inc.
Littlejohn, S.W., Foss, K.A., & Oetzel, J.G. (2025). Theories of Human Communication (13th ed.). Waveland Press.
Lull, J. (2026). Evolution, structuration theory, and new research on free will. Communication Theory (1050-3293), 36(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaf014
Markham, A., Stavrova, S., & Schluter, € M. (2019). Netflix, imagined affordances, and the illusion of control. In T. Plothe and AM Buck (Eds.), Netflix at the nexus. Content, practice, and production in the age of streaming television (pp 29–46). Peter Lang.
Magsamen, S., & Ross, I. (2023). Your brain on art: How the arts transform us. Random House. Martin, E., Wiestner, D., Spiller, R., Bouchedoub, A., & Hasan, M. (2024). The Use of Ai in German Design- and Advertising Agencies – the Influence on the Organizational Structure and the Actions of Individual Actors. Media, Culture & Public Relations, 15(1), 53–66.
Messer, N. G. (2021). Human flourishing: A Christian theological perspective. In M. T. Lee, L. Kubzansky, & T. J. VanderWeele (Eds.), Measuring well-being: Interdisciplinary perspectives from the social sciences and the humanities (pp. 305–326). Oxford University Press.
Miller, N. (Host). (2023, June 28). Barbara Groth – The Nomadic School of Wonder (No. 88) [Audio podcast episode]. In The Art2Life Podcast. Art2Life. https://www.art2life.com/2023/06/28/the-nomadic-school-of-wonder-barbara-groth-ep-88/
McLuhan, M. (1944). Understanding media: The extensions of man (Critical edition (2003), Gordon W. T. (ed.)). Corte Madera, CA: Gingko Press.
Painter, D. L., Bown, F., & Vielot, K. (2026). The real cancel culture: Racial bias and injustice on social media. Howard Journal of Communications, 37(2), 522–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2025.2492114
Park, S., & Ahmed, R. (2025). “I learned myself”: Using structuration theory to uncover Korean immigrants’ health literacy development in the U.S. as an agentic behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Communication, 40(1), 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2024.2335425
Perreault, G. P., Bélair-Gagnon, V., & Henrichsen, J. R. (2025). Disruptions in normalization: Reflexive monitoring in journalism adaptation and audience collaboration. Journalism Studies, 26(6), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2025.2462548
Quach, S., Thaichon, P., Martin, K. D., Weaven, S., & Palmatier, R. W. (2022). Digital technologies: Tensions in privacy and data. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(6), 1299–1323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00845-y
Schultze, Q. J. (2000). Communicating for Life: Christian Stewardship in community and Media. Baker Academic.
Turkle, S. (2026). Artificial intimacy: Who we become when we talk to machines. Little, Brown and Company.