This paper critically examines how Anthony Giddens's theory of structuratio
n has been utilized within criminological studies, It suggests that rather
than resolving many traditional dilemmas within sociology, structuration th
eory effaces them by compacting together structure and agency. Adverting to
the critical literature on structuration theory, it points out the consequ
ences of binding structure and agency together so tightly, The distinctive
properties of each are collapsed into social practices which entail that st
ructure is defined virtually-in terms of rules and resources-so that it doe
s not have an objective existence. This confers a spurious malleability upo
n social structures, yet structuration theory is unable to specify when tra
nsformation will occur, and also fails to explain why there should be chang
e since agents are overwhelmingly concerned with the preservation of securi
ty through the adherence to routines. These and other deleterious consequen
ces are drawn out through an examination of three studies that incorporate
structuration theory and they are traced to an unwillingness to conceive of
social reality as being multidimensional, with each level possessing its o
wn distinctive properties.