The Re-specification of Concepts in the Morphogenetic Approach for Property Market Research

Fatih Eren


The Morphogenetic Approach (MA) was developed to explain social structural change processes by sociologist Margaret Archer in 1995. MA became a remarkable and much-debated approach shortly in social sciences because of its unique consideration about structure and agency dualism. Although MA has been discussed intensively in the science world, its appropriateness to real world situations has slightly been questioned by scholars and it has been applied very few to social fields other than education. Starting from this gap, this study aims to introduce MA to property researchers and turn it into a practical methodological tool which may easily be used to explain any social change process in urban and property studies. The study attempts to test the suitability of this methodological tool for property market studies as an alternative social field and seeks the answer of this basic question: “Can we explain the change process of a property market with the help of concepts and methodological framework in MA?”. An in-depth and comparative literature review method has been used in this methodology-focused research. The research reveals that despite some of its weaknesses, MA is a useful methodological tool which may be used in explaining the change process of a local property market. The study also makes some important theoretical contributions to the structure and agency dualism.  


Institutional approach; morphogenetic approach; property market; social process; structural change

Full Text:



Akram, S. (2013). Fully Unconscious and Prone to Habit: The Characteristics of Agency in the Structure and Agency Dialectic. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 43, 45-65. doi:10.1111/jtsb.12002

Archer, M. (1995). Realist social theory: the morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Archer, M. (2000). For Structure: its reality, properties and powers: A reply to Anthony King. Sociological Review, 48, 464-472.

Archer, M. (2007). The Trajectory of the Morphogenetic Approach: An account in the first-person. Sociologia, 54, 35-47.

Archer, M. (2010). Morphogenesis versus structuration: on combining structure and action. British Journal of Sociology, 61, 225-252.

Carter, B. (2000). Realism and Racism: Concepts of Race in Sociological Research. London: London: Routledge.

Czerniewicz, L., Williams, K., & Brown, C. (2008). Students make a plan: understanding student agency in constraining conditions. Leeds,UK.

D’Arcy, E., & Keogh, G. (1998). Territorial competition and property market process: an exploratory analysis. Urban Studies, 35(8), 1215–1230.

Elder-Vass, D. (2007). For Emergence: Refining Archer’s Account of Social Structure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37(1).

Fleetwood, S. (2008). Structure, institution, agency, habit and reflexive deliberation. . Journal of Institutional Economics, 4(2), 183-203.

Guy, S., & Henneberry, J. (2000). Understanding urban development processes: integrating the economic and the social in property research. . Urban Studies, 37(14), 2399-2416.

Hay, C. (2002). Political Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Healey, P. (1992). An institutional model of the development process. Journal of Property Research, 9, 33-44.

Healey, P. (1995). The institutional challenge for sustainable urban regeneration. Cities, 12(4), 221-230.

Henneberry, J., & Roberts, C. (2008). Calculated Inequality? Portfolio Benchmarking and Regional Office Property Investment. Urban Studies, 45(5&6), 1217-1241.

Jessop, B. (2005). Critical realism and the strategic-relational approach. New Formations, 56(40).

Keogh, G., & D’Arcy, E. (1999). Property market efficiency: an institutional economics perspective. Urban Studies, 36(13), 2401-2414.

King, A. (1999). Against Structure: A Critique of Morphogenetic Social Theory. The Sociological Review, 47(2), 199-227.

Lockwood, D. (1964). Social Integration and System Integration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

M., M. M. (2011). Making urban real estate markets work for the poor: theory, policy and practice. Cities, 28(3), 238-244.

Magalhaes, C. (1998). Social agents, the provision of buildings and property booms: the case of Sao Paulo. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2005-2024.

McAnulla, S. D. (2002). Structure and Agency. In: Theory and methods in political science. Palgrave Macmillan.

Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage.

Priestley, M. (2007). The Social Practices of Curriculum Making, Stirling, Scotland: PhD Thesis - University of Stirling.

Quinn, L. (2006). A social realist account of the emergence of a formal academic staff development programme at a South African University. (Graduate), Rhodos University, Rhodos University.

Salgado, M., & Gilbert, N. (2013). Emergence and Communication in Computational Sociology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 43, 87-110 doi:10.1111/jtsb.12004

Stones, R. (2001). Refusing the Realism–Structuration Divide. European Journal of Social Theory, 177-197.

Swain, C. (2004). The property development process and the retail warehouse: challenging the orthodoxhy of property research with critical realism. (PhD), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Wong, Y. C. R., Chau, K. W., & Lai, L. W. C. (1996). Prices and Competition in Property Markets: Analysis and Policy Issues, Hong Kong: Hong Kong Centre for Economic Research. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.


Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2016 Fatih Eren

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

                                                                                     INDEXES & DATABASES:

                            ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning is an OAJ supported by Selcuk University, ©2019,