Structural-Functionalism:

Grand Theory or Methodology?

By Donald W. Harper

School of Management
University of Leicester
December 2011

2011 University of Leicester. All Rights Reserved

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures.................................................................................................................................... iii
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................1

1.0 Historical context..........................................................................................................................2

1.1 Structural-Functionalism defined ......................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Key concepts ........................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 The American approach......................................................................................................................................... 6

2.0 Merits & contributions .................................................................................................................8

3.0 Criticisms and limitations ............................................................................................................9

4.0 Organizational and Management research context .................................................................11

Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................14

Bibliography......................................................................................................................................16

ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1

Parsons' AGIL Framework

Figure 2

Porter's Five Forces

Figure 3

Porter's Value Chain

Figure 4

McKinsey 7S Framework

iii

STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM: GRAND THEORY OR METHODOLOGY?

INTRODUCTION
Structural-Functionalism appears to be getting a new lease on life. Despite the fact that, during
the 1960s and 1970s, social tensions exposed weaknesses in its foundational precepts, themes from
the Structural-Functionalist school of thought continue to underpin contemporary approaches to
organizational and societal challenges. What is more, I suggest that several modern sociological
theories could be considered spin-offs from the Structural Functionalism paradigm. I also contend that
Structural-Functionalist influences themes permeate modern sociological and organizational
approaches such as Neofunctionalism and Social Network Theory. Not to mention the global consulting
firms and leading scholars who have extracted financial benefits by touting elaborate managerial
frameworks, built upon functionalist principles. This latter group purports to facilitate corporate
strategic planning and expand executive decision making capabilities. In view of these developments,
it may be appropriate to explore the appeal of this theoretical approach.
Towards this effort, this paper is arranged in four sections. The first section provides a brief
review of the socio-economic and socio-political context within which the Structural-Functionalism
theory first emerged. In doing so, I plan to draw upon the works of four prominent contributors to the
Structural-Functionalist paradigm; Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons and Robert K.
Merton. Next, I explore some of the key insights offered by the theory's principles. In the third section,
I plan to highlight the major criticisms the doctrine encounters including limitations exposed
particularly surrounding issues of societal change and conflict. Finally, I will discuss the areas in
organization and management where I believe Structural-Functionalist themes are still prevalent. As I
unpack these issues, a central question I consider is whether Structural-Functionalism can serve as a
Grand Theory of society or is it simply a useful methodological framework for organizing and
analyzing complex structural elements? The paper concludes with some closing thoughts in this
regard.
1

1.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT

By the middle of the nineteenth century, vast improvements in manufacturing technology
spawned an unprecedented period of economic growth for several nations throughout Western
Europe. Buoyed by concepts such as Rationalization, Division of Labour, and encouraged by the
laissez-faire economic principle, businesses experienced an exponential increase in manufacturing
productivity (Hackett 1992). However, this era of industrialization1 was a double-edged sword.
Because while the coffers of nations and industrialists overflowed, the living and working conditions of
the average citizen reflected a somewhat bleaker picture. The promise of employment and improved
living standards prompted a flurry of migration as people abandoned small communities and flocked
to industrial centres and coastal towns. And, as government planners grappled with the new
challenges brought on by rapid urbanization and poor working conditions, citizens became
recalcitrant; frustrated with inadequate solutions to their growing concerns. A period dotted with
revolts soon followed and, in 1848, revolutions engulfed Europe's major centres. While the new social
issues consumed political and social agendas (Kagan, Ozment et al. 1979), philosophers would soon
join in the fray to bring their theories to bear in search of solutions.
1.1 STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONALISM DEFINED
Frenchman, Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825), proposed one of the earliest documented
attempts devoted to the study of society. However, it was his understudy, August Comte (1798-1857),
who offered a model on which an emerging field would develop. A positivist at heart, and harbouring a
scientific ethos, Comte proposed a theory2 positing that the sciences followed an evolutionary pattern;
one in which the highest order, and most complex of them, Social Sciences, emanates from biology. On
1

The period 1750-1850 is considered the era of the First Industrial Revolution. Deane also suggests that this period
demarcates the beginning of "modern economic growth" Deane, P. (1979). The first industrial revolution. Cambridge
Eng. ; New York, Cambridge University Press.
2

Comte's theory is known as the Hierarchy of Sciences.

2

this precept, Comte argues that the way an organism relates to its environment, the interrelatedness of
parts within its overall system, as well as how it goes about maintaining its overall system when
balance is disturbed could serve as a model for the study of society. (Comte and Lenzer 1975).
"...Biology confirms the testimony by showing, with regard to individual Man, that the mental
operations, regarded as vital phenomena, are subject, like all other human phenomena, to the
fundamental relation between the organism and its medium, the dualism of which constitutes life, in
every sense." (Comte and Martineau 1853)

Within Britain s philosophical circles, one theorist, Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), disagreed
with several of Comte's theoretical principles (Spencer 1864). Nevertheless, they did share one thing
in common; the structure and functioning of society could be mapped to a biological model (Urry
1999). In Spencer's view, human organs perform functions deemed critical to the body's survival and,
in this sense; society s institutions perform similar roles.
Not only does Spencer introduce the concept of how organic structures function to serve a
system's needs (Turner and Maryanski 1988), but he describes a society's growth as an evolutionary
process. This growth, Spencer contends, occurs at two levels; a "simple multiplication of units" and the
"joining (and continuous rejoining) of a union of groups" (Spencer 1863). Spencer further suggests
that, in order for a system to cope with this level of integration, a differentiation process and a
specialized reassignment of duties has to occur. It is this latter evolutionary mode and the subsequent
integration it entails that I find most complex. However, I plan to address this later.
French sociologist, Emile Durkheim (1858 1917), would expand on Spencer and Comte's
organic association with society. By the time he completed his doctoral thesis, Division of Labour
(1893), France was on the verge of becoming one of the world's powers, a fact largely attributable to
an expansion of industrialization (Dunham 1955). Accordingly, Durkheim observed that small
communities were disintegrating and that urbanization was beginning to have an effect on the
traditional way of living. Thus, he ruminated over the nature of an individual's integration into society
as well as how relationships and order were maintained.

"...How does it come about that the individual, whilst becoming more autonomous, depends ever more
closely upon society? How can he become at the same time more of an individual and yet more linked
to society?" (Durkheim and Halls 1984)

Durkheim attempts to explain the new relationship patterns he observed by theorizing the concept of
solidarity . In Division of Labour, Durkheim suggests that, smaller communities are linked by tradition
and personal relationships. However, as urbanization occurs, a society experiences a denser form of
integration and differentiation and, consequently, individuals must adopt more specialized roles in
order complement each other. Durkheim describes the former as mechanical solidarity while the
latter is considered as organic . Under these circumstances, the subsequent interaction causes another
social phenomenon to emerge; one that is distinct from individuals and has a life of its own. He
describes this phenomenon as 'social facts' or 'institutions' (for e.g., norms, beliefs, morals etc.).
According to Durkheim, social integration depends on the proper maintenance of this system of values
as well as the extent to which they are commonly shared by, what he refers to as, the 'collective
conscience' (Durkheim and Halls 1984).
Here I suggest that, given the dynamic nature of the socio-political context of this era, Spencer
and Durkheim developed an approach to the study of society with an orientation towards explanation
of order and stability. Further, advancement of the biological sciences provided a convenient, albeit
powerful, apparatus upon which they could embark on a search for solutions to the emerging
anomalistic conditions. Hence, the organicism perspective situated the doctrine upon the foundational
concepts such as purpose (need) and the critical role (function) of the inter-relationship of structures
in maintaining an equilibrium state relative to the conditions imposed by the surrounding
environment. In the following section, I explore the key concepts of Structural-Functionalism in more
detail.
1.2 KEY CONCEPTS
System Needs: Spencer contends that a society is similar to a human body. Moreover, a healthy body is
determined by how well the organs perform assigned function. Given that the body has organs that
4

function to meet a need; sustain life, Spencer argues that a society's existence rely upon tasks
performed by similar organ-type institutions. For example, in a modern community, access to clean
water, food, infrastructure, and healthcare may well be essential to survival of its citizens. Thus, we
could view institutions engaged in such activities as 'functional' organs serving a need.
Therefore, Spencer s argument would imply that a community, being a self-contained system,
has needs of its own; separate from the needs of individuals. In fact, Lehmann (1993) points out that
Durkheim even conceptualized two entities in modern society; the 'individual personality' and the
'collective personality' (Lehmann 1993).
I do struggle with this ontological argument. How is it possible that a system or a 'collective'
can have needs similar to an individual? Who determines this need? Moreover, how is it determined
that an institution, by virtue of its function, is essential to serve a defined need? But, I will elaborate on
this point later.

Structures and Inter-relationships: In Principles of Sociology, Spencer (1914) proposes that an

evolutionary process causes an increase in biological (or social) units that will ultimately lead to "the
creation of distinctive regulatory, operative, and distributive processes" (Spencer and Collins 1914).
Durkheim advances Spencer's theory when he identifies, what he considers, distinct traits that enable
harmony to be maintained within groups. The Structural-Functionalist argument suggests that, while
the overall system relies upon each function, it is the interdependency, and the ensuing interaction
among structures, that determines the extent to which a system meets its stated need. Of equal
importance is the contribution of this inter-dependency feature to maintaining the harmony of the
overall system.
This feature implies the presence of some form of pre-arranged relational agreement to ensure
this efficient functioning. Therefore, I envision an exchange process, or an implied reciprocity, as
groups, institutions, or departments within organizations perform their seemingly interrelated
functions. Here, Turner (1993) suggests that Durkheim's social facts are relevant. According to
5

Durkheim, social facts are comprised of a common set of norms, values, and/or cultural symbols that
serve as a mechanism to facilitate this relational exchange and further maintain these patterns (Turner
1993). Often tacitly implied, this phenomenon manages behaviour through a system of rewards
and/or sanctions. As Durkheim explains:

Durkheim further argues that members of a society adopt 'social facts' through a process he refers to
as 'socialization' thus achieving harmony. Given this explanation, one could consider the policies and
procedures of a University as the entity's 'social facts'. In this context, information provided during an
orientation session might serve as an example of a mechanism used to 'socialize' students about what
is appropriate behaviour.
1.3 THE AMERICAN APPROACH
In the 1950s and 1960s, the industrialized world entered into a Cold War Period. In the United
States, much of this period constituted the era of 'McCarthyism' whereby any outward reference to
communistic practices was likely to attract government investigation. It was under this purview that
Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) developed his sociological framework (see Figure 1.3) and, consequently,
any reference to Marx or Marxist thought was purposefully repressed. Nevertheless, Parsons believed
he had unearthed a Grand Theory that could explain any system. From his studies in biology, Parsons
readily supported the organismic analogy and he further expanded on the idea that adaptability to
environmental changes was indeed critical to survival.

(
Figure 1)

FIGURE 1. PARSONS AGIL FRAMEWORK

But, it was Parsons' student, Robert K. Merton (1910-2003), who contributed to the
modernization of sociological functionalism (Turner 2010) by challenging the foundational hypotheses
of Structural-Functionalism. Merton claims that, in a highly differentiated society not all functions may
be relevant to a system's needs. And, he further acknowledges that some functions could have positive
or negative effects on the overall system, referring to the latter as 'dysfunctional'. Merton also deviates
from Parsons' Grand Theory approach as he believed Sociology was still an emerging field and, as such,
was not yet prepared to offer a universal theory to explain social phenomena. He even suggests that a
system might have 'functional alternatives'; different functions, not originally envisioned, could serve
to fulfil a system's needs. By the same token, different systems may indeed require unique function(s)
to serve a specific need(s). Merton goes farther. Agreeing that the functionalist orientation to stability
is limiting, Merton however resists the temptation to acquiesce to critics and accommodate radicalism.
Instead, he argues that functionalism should be neutral. Of particular importance is Merton's insight
relative to the designation of functions. Acknowledging that a function may have a stated (or manifest)

intention, Merton argues that some functions might indeed serve an inadvertent or latent need
(Merton 1957).
Manifest functions are those objective consequences contributing to the adjustment or adaptation of
the system that are intended and recognized by the participants of the system; Latent functions,
correlatively, being those which are neither intended nor recognized (Merton 1957)

2.0 MERITS & CONTRIBUTIONS

In the aftermath of World War II, social tensions and anxiety prompted much sociological
analysis within social institutions and academia in an effort to address these issues. And, with its
orientation to harmony, structural-functionalism appeared well-suited to the task (Calhoun 2010).
With this in mind, here I consider some of the key insights contributed to sociology and organizational
behaviour.
Shared Values and Equilibrium: Durkheim's work on the role of norms, morals, beliefs, culture, etc., was
critical. These concepts remain fundamental to the notion of maintaining the proper functioning of
groups and, in the event of disruptive changes, to ensure restoration to stability. In this sense, the
Structural-Functionalism approach heightened the awareness to previously uncharted territory.
Within organizations in particular, efforts on understanding workplace behaviour and attention to
corporate culture benefitted from this insight.

Structures: In addition to employee management and day-to-day decision-making activities, modern

organization systems require a high degree of coordination to convert knowledge and workflow
processes into outputs. Equally important are prevailing work arrangements, marked by division of
work or segmented assignments (such as departments, regions, product lines, country, etc.); all of
which add various levels of complexity. Given the inexorable link with biological organisms, emphases
on how inter-related and complex structures function to serve the needs of systems constitute the core
elements of the Structural-Functionalist paradigm. In this regard, I suggest that the organismic model
facilitates analysis of a society's interrelated institutional functions or corporate departments. With its
8

focus on integration of structures, interdependencies and objectives, the structural-functionalist

methodology contains the promise of an effective analytical tool for high-level complex applications.
3.0 CRITICISMS AND LIMITATIONS
The late 1950's and early 1960's was a period of much social turmoil. Poverty and civil unrest
characterized the period and eventually, the issues would spill over into the workplace. It was
throughout this period that weaknesses to the structural functional approach became exposed. In this
section, I attempt to highlight some of these limitations.

Social Conflict/Change: The most unrelenting opposition centred on the theory s inadequate
explanation of forces such as poverty, economic inequality, or dissent that challenge normative
societal order. Additionally, it was suggested that societal positions depicted by race, class and gender
are given minimal treatment (Stolley 2005). The critics therefore charged that the doctrine is
conservative.
Although, conflict and change are not central to the functionalist philosophy, Spencer and
Durkheim attended to this issue, albeit limited. Moreover, Parsons considers the concept of change,
although he views it as an evolutionary process; not a radical one. Again, the environment in which
Parsons developed his approach must be considered. Nevertheless, Merton acknowledges that change
in a socio-cultural system was inevitable and indeed problematic. Therefore, I would argue that
Merton did expand on the early functionalist principle and attempted to integrate change in his
methodology.

Tautological/Teleological: First, the doctrine conveys the human-like attribute of need upon a social
construct. As mentioned earlier, this argument I find problematic indeed. While it can be argued that a
living organism is naturally endowed with inherent needs and capabilities, the doctrine appears to
suggest that natural characteristics can be bestowed upon man-made constructs. Here I argue that
9

stated needs such as corporate profit-making or, the role of organized crime in society, serve as
examples that could easily evolve into controversial debates. Furthermore, functionalists explicate the
existence of a function by suggesting that it contributes to the need of the overall system.
Correspondingly, since a structure serves a function, it exists for a reason. Thus, the notion of need is
posited to justify the existence of particular structures without adequate theoretical reasons or
empirical backing. In short, functionalism is guilty of circular reasoning. Coser (1977) does suggest
however, that Durkheim was wary of the teleological problem and issued a warning in this regard. In
fact, Durkheim did remark:

whenthe explanation of a social phenomenon is undertaken, we must seek separately

the efficient cause which produces it and the function it fulfils [cited in (Coser 1977)]

In contrast, Elster (1990) points out that Merton deals with this criticism and is unequivocal in stating
that discovery of the 'cause' was not the purpose of functional analysis. Merton avoids the argument by
suggesting that the discipline's focus is to explain how a particular action or pattern is sustained over
the long run.

Agency: A major criticism is that structural functionalism downplays the role of the individual and, as a
result, does not incorporate a sense of agency. For example, Spencer believes that the social
environment influenced the individual and Durkheim is generally preoccupied with his focus on
explaining social cohesion and the role of the collective . And, while Parsons does incorporate a
"decision-making process for individual actors" in his framework (Coser 1977), he believes
environmental and moral constraints guide decisions. Here I contend that, although Merton's typology
expands on Durkheim's 'Anomie' behaviour by introducing notions of Rebellion and Deviance (Merton
1957), it fell short in its effort to explain why a norm is adopted (or not) by an individual.

10

On balance, I suggest that the original structural-functionalist principles developed by Spencer

and Durkheim were a generalized set of approaches. I further argue that, while they were indeed
relevant and applicable to a stable system, the early principles lacked the depth necessary to
accommodate radical changes. Parsons and Merton expanded on traditional precepts to address
limitations encountered with the approach, but Turner observes that "...the logical difficulties are far
more severe than the imputed substantive ones" (Turner and Maryanski 1988). However, as far as the
critics were concerned, the modifications did not go far enough.
4.0 ORGANIZATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT RESEARCH CONTEXT
The sociological landscape is scattered with theories and approaches purporting to provide
insight to societal issues. Additionally, in business school curricula, several models comprise the basic
pedagogical framework of core marketing and strategic courses. Upon closer inspection of some of the
precepts underpinning these approaches, I argue that they build on classic structural-functionalist
principles.

Neofunctionalism: Here I draw attention to the 1980s work of US theorist, Jeffrey C. Alexander. In
Neofunctionalism and After, Alexander (1998) openly admits that the model is firmly rooted in
functionalist principles and has a particular bent to refining Parsons work. Although criticized by
Turner and Maryanski (1988) in their article,

"Is 'Neofunctionalism' Really Functional,

Neofunctonalism's association with the classic theory is never in dispute. In developing this theory,
they maintain the functionalist focus on stability, interrelationship of parts, as well as impact of
environmental forces. But, in what appears to be an effort to silence the critics, they modify Parsons'
action framework by incorporating the dynamics of conflict and change. Turner and Maryanski further
imply that, where Neofunctionalism deviates from the traditional theory by downplaying how needs of
systems are met, this shift could well be a deliberate attempt to evade the teleological debate.

11

Social Network Theory (or Network Analysis Theory): The social network theory posits that, common
relational links (nodes) such as friendship, kinship, financial exchange, and beliefs, can promote
interdependency. Thus, these links operate as binding elements for individuals and/or groups.
Organizational studies increasingly incorporate social network analysis to examine interaction among
organizations as well as at the employee level. For example, work conducted under the social network
might suggest that power is derived from an individual's relationships within an organization and may
have little to do with authority determined by a job title (Wasserman and Faust 1994).

Five Forces Analysis and Value Chain: Two prominent frameworks found in the curricula of business
schools were developed by Harvard Professor, Michael E. Porter; The Five Forces Analysis (see Figure
4.1) and The Value Chain Model (see Figure 4.2).

Five Forces Analysis: Created by Porter in 1979, this framework suggests that five
environmental forces determine industry attractiveness and affect a company's market
position. Therefore, strategy may have to be modified, or adjusted, to accommodate any change
detected in any one of the five forces (Porter 1979).

Figure 2)

FIGURE 2. PORTER'S FIVE FORCES

12

The Value Chain: Since its introduction in 1985, the value-chain has become a standard analytical and
planning tool within the business world (Porter 1985). This is a model built upon the principle of
interrelationships and, correspondingly, firms can utilize the model to identify and analyze key interconnected activities that supposedly drive value. Originally designed to focus on internal functions, the
value chain's use can be extended to include a firm's strategic partners thus facilitating a more
comprehensive approach.
Figure 3)

FIGURE 3. PORTER'S VALUE CHAIN

The McKinsey 7S Framework: Use of this framework (see Figure 4) is pervasive throughout business
schools as well as in merger and acquisition activities. The model was envisioned by business
consultants, Robert H. Waterman, Jr. and Tom Peters, while working with McKinsey & Company, a
leading global consulting firm. In their 1980 article Structure is not Organization, the creators imply
that the framework was designed under the basic premise that organizational effectiveness is
primarily driven by "multiplicity of factors and interconnectedness of variables" (Waterman, Peters et
al. 1980). They describe the 7Ss as: Structure, Strategy, Systems, Skills, Style, Staff and Shared Values (or
Super-ordinate goals). Traditional structural-functionalist elements such as structure, systems and
shared values are interwoven into this comprehensive model. Attention is also drawn to the
incorporation of 'style', which I suggest emphasizes the recognition of an individual's (manager s) role,
on outcomes and/or stability.
13

(Figure 4)

FIGURE 4. MCKINSEY 7S FRAMEWORK

CONCLUSION
The criticisms levelled against Structural-Functionalism revealed several limitations in the
early principles from which the theory emerged. And while Parsons attempted to incorporate change,
he was a victim of socio-political pressures and rendered a conservative framework. In contrast,
Merton recognized the doctrine s explanatory defects. He adopted the middle range approach,
challenged the concept of functional unity and, in so doing, tempered the critics. Nevertheless, as
Turner and Maryanski imply, the teleological and tautological arguments proved problematic to
defend (Turner and Maryanski 1988).
While I consider much of the nay-saying unfair or even trite at times, the advent of social
unrest in the 1950s and 1960s, and the subsequent failure to mount an adequate response to some of
the logical caused the doctrine to buckle under the weight of the criticisms. For, to serve duty as a
Grand Theory of Sociology is to suggest a universality of principles and an ability to explain the cause
of social phenomena: stability as well as change. In a comprehensive analysis of theoretical functions,
14

Szomptka (1974) proposes that a fundamental consideration to the notion of a theory is indeed its
"explanatory function".
Hence, although I hold the view that Structural-Functionalism is situated on some valid
principles, it is not endorsed here as a Grand Theory . Instead, I argue that it can be a useful (and
powerful) methodology to effectively address specific and well-targeted functional problems in society
in general, and organizations, in particular. The appearance of frameworks and contemporary
approaches that now carry a structural-functionalist mantle is salient. What is to be considered then is
the fact that concepts such as structure, system, interdependency and shared values may lend
themselves well to analysis of complex phenomena. And organizations, like organisms, are indeed
complex. But, maybe the similarities end there.

15

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Calhoun, C. J. (2010). Robert K. Merton : sociology of science and sociology as science. New York, Columbia University Press.
Comte, A. and G. Lenzer (1975). Auguste Comte and positivism : the essential writings. New York, Harper & Row.
Comte, A. and H. Martineau (1853). The positive philosophy of Auguste Comte. London,, J. Chapman.
Coser, L. A. (1977). Masters of sociological thought : ideas in historical and social context. New York, Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Deane, P. (1979). The first industrial revolution. Cambridge Eng. ; New York, Cambridge University Press.
Dunham, A. L. (1955). The industrial revolution in France, 1815-1848. New York, Exposition Press.
Durkheim, E. (1895). The Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press.
Durkheim, E. and W. D. Halls (1984). The division of labor in society. New York, Free Press.
Elster, J. (1990). Merton's Functionalism and the Unintended Consequences of Action. Robert Merton: Consensus and
Controversy. J. Clark, C. Modgil and S. Modgil. London, New York, Falmer Press: 129-135.
Hackett, L. (1992). Industrialization: The First Phase, History World International.
Lehmann, J. M. (1993). Deconstructing Durkheim : a post-post structuralist critique. London ; New York, NY, Routledge.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, Ill., Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1979). "How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy." Harvard Business Review.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage : creating and sustaining superior performance. New York
London, Free Press; Collier Macmillan.
Spencer, H. (1863). First principles. London,, Williams and Norgate.
Spencer, H. (1864). Reasons for Dissenting from the Philosophy of M. Comte. Berkeley, Glendessary Press.
Spencer, H. and F. H. Collins (1914). The principles of sociology. New York and London,, D. Appleton and company.
Stolley, K. S. (2005). The basics of sociology. Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press.
Sztompka, P. (1974). System and function: toward a theory of society. New York,, Academic.
Turner, J. H. (1993). A Macro-level Functional theoy of Societal Disintegration. International Journal of Sociology and Social
Policy: 5-36.
Turner, J. H. (2010). Theoretical principles of sociology. New York, Springer.
Turner, J. H. and A. R. Maryanski (1988). ""Is 'Neofunctionalism' Really Functional?"." Sociological Theory 6(1): 110-121.
Urry, J. (1999). Metaphors. Sociology beyond societies: mobilities for the twenty-first century, Routledge.
Wasserman, S. and K. Faust (1994). Social network analysis : methods and applications. Cambridge ; New York, Cambridge
University Press.
Waterman, R. H. J., T. J. Peters, et al. (1980). "Structure is not Organization." Business Horizons: 14-26.

16