A Bourdieusian perspective

Some of the elements in Figure 2 (above) relate to practice, some to the scope determined by policy and expectations, and some to the perceived freedom enjoyed by self-labelled experts. These relate to how Bourdieu organises and categorises social/professional knowledge. Overwhelmingly, the literature review suggests that – for a variety of reasons – school teachers transferring to the role of teacher educators in a university setting often attempt to transfer their way of working, including their pedagogical practices, to the new environment. This transition from teacher to teacher educator could also be explored from a Bourdieusian perspective, in terms of field (social structure – in this case, university-based ITE7), habitus (knowledge, understanding, values and dispositions, which generate practices), and cultural capital (credentials that symbolise competence and authority). Webb et al (2002) suggest that

[Bourdieu’s] concepts of habitus, field and capital…constitute what is arguably the most significant and successful attempt to make sense of the relationship between objective social structures (institutions, discourses, fields, ideologies) and everyday practices (what people do, and why they do it). (p1)

It is possible to use these concepts to explore how both individual and institutional habitus influence the way in which ITE pedagogy is enacted by the teacher educators.

In their previous field, as experienced and – typically – successful school teachers, those making the transition are likely to have enjoyed ‘a feel for the game’ (see, for example, Nash 1999, Webb et al 2002), and a sense of being “like a fish in water” (Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992, quoted in Reay 2004:436). Their professional identity would have been “based on an assumption of standing in the field”(Grenfell 2007:127) (italics in original). As such, they will bring rich cultural capital, as well as

7

Both university-based ITE and school could also be viewed as sub-fields (Fenge 2011, Hart 2013) existing within the larger field of education. This would highlight the close relationship between them. However, they can be pe ei ed as fields i thei o ight, as Tho so suggests i his efe e e to t he field of power, the field of higher education, the discipline as a field, the university as a field and the department or school as a field p .

“deeply rooted dispositions and assumptions” (Green 2012:396), or habitus, linked to the field of the school. The latter would include their pedagogical practice, which could be seen as the ‘taken-for- granted’ in Reay’s (1995) following observation:

Habitus is a way of looking at data which renders the ‘taken-for-granted’ problematic. It suggests a whole range of questions not necessarily addressed in empirical research; How well adapted is the individual to the context they find themselves in? How does personal history shape their reponses (sic) to the contemporary setting? What subjective vocations do they bring to the present and how are they manifested? (p369)

Whilst new teacher educators may expect to be able to transfer their pedagogical and other skills and knowledge directly from school, “disjunctures between habitus and field” may occur as they enter the world of HE; these are most likely “when individuals with a well-developed habitus find themselves in different fields or different parts of the same social field” (Reay 2004:438). Whilst this may ultimately generate transformation, the more immediate resulting destabilising effects could cause them to fall back on the cultural capital gained as school pedagogical practitioners. This may not be a conscious choice, as habitus is defined as “the partly unconscious ‘taking in’ of rules, values and dispositions” (Webb et al 2002:36), operating “below the level of calculation and consciousness” (Hart 2013:50), and also implying “habit, or unthinking-ness in actions” (Grenfell & James 1998:14). It operates at a conscious level only when an individual is placed in situations which create self- questioning, and subsequently “develops new facets of the self” (Reay 2004:438). For this reason, habitus can be seen to be “in a process of ongoing change throughout our lives” (Fenge 2011:381). Nash (1999) suggests that “while being the product of early experience, it is subject to the transformations brought about by subsequent experiences” (p176). One of the “conditions of existence” (Hart 2013) which influence its formation would include the field in which one works. As the new field becomes more familiar, the teacher educator may seek ways of establishing credibility and “cultural validation” (Green 2012:396) – through the acquisition of cultural capital. As Mahar et al (1990) note,

The field is…a partially autonomous field of forces, but also a field of struggle for positions within it… Positions are determined by the allocation of specific capital to actors who are thus located in the field. (p8)

As their position within the field changes, “the dispositions which constitute the habitus” (Mahar et al 1990:11) also change. So too, as a teacher educator’s repertoire of pedagogical practices expands, the practices could be expected to change. Both the habitus and the field are always in a state of flux, and each impacts upon the other: Grenfell & James (1998) comment that

the field structures the habitus, which is the product of the embodiment of immanent necessity of a field (or of a hierarchically intersecting sets of fields)...[and] habitus

contributes to constituting the field as a meaningful world, a world endowed with sense and with value, in which it is worth investing one’s practice. (p16)

Within the field, “certain discourses and activities” are produced and authorised (Webb et al 2002:44), as “dominant and subordinate groups struggle for control over resources” (Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992, cited by Fenge 2011:378). Cultural capital in university-based ITE may thus be acquired through self-confidence and professional profile. This is not to say that all teacher educators will arrive at the same point, as habitus is affected by a multitude of other forces. Most importantly, the body of teacher educators need to have confidence in and be respected for an established and accepted body of knowledge, some of which needs to be flexible, as it will be personally constructed.

One explicit aim of this research is to identify where a number of teacher educators are situated in terms of developing their meta-pedagogical practice from the replication of a habitus which appeared successful to them in their former field, to a new way of working, appropriate to the new field in which they work, and which can warrant them cultural capital. Habitus can be used as “a tool for exploring the assumptions and dispositions that influenced, regulated and informed the participation of the actor in an alternate cultural setting” (Green 2012:399). An examination of professional practice is complex in itself. The researcher experiences an holistic impression, where complex elements interact in a social setting. Bourdieu’s concepts enable the close and analytical examination of the elements, without treating them in isolation of each other. My research will enable me to identify pedagogical practices (habitus) that teacher educators fall back on and also develop.

To uncover these practices, it is possible to use these Bourdieusian principles as the basis for analysing the data and evidence. ‘Habitus’ can be seen to include the participants’ meta-pedagogical practice and what underpins it; ‘field’ would include the policy and discourse of university-based ITE; and ‘cultural capital’ reflects the confidence with which approaches are justified and explained. The model could be to:

1. Ascertain whether the habitus of teacher educators of differing levels of experience ‘fits’ the new field in which they work

2. Identify the extent to which the teacher educators recognise the habitus of the new field of work

3. Explore how individuals’ habitus expands to fit this new field

4. Consider whether expansion of habitus into the new field leads to increased cultural capital, both as individuals, and for the body of teacher educators as a whole.

So, Bourdieu provides a way to study the issues, and of developing the conceptual framework for analysis of evidence and data collected through observation and deconstruction of practice.