Using the concept of habitus

The concept of habitus comes from a long history of philosophical thinking (Nash, 1999; Wacquant, 2016). Bourdieu (2005) defines habitus as:

a system of dispositions, that is of permanent manners of being, seeing, acting and thinking, or a system of long-lasting (rather than permanent) schemes or schemata or structures of perception, conception and action. (p.43)

Maton (2014) explains that:

one’s practice results from relations between one’s dispositions (habitus) and one’s position in the field (capital), within the current state of play of that social arena (field). (p. 50)

and presents the relational nature of the concepts, in a formulation previously developed by Bourdieu:

[(habitus) (capital) + field] = practice

Habitus is defined as “a property of actors (whether individuals, groups or

institutions) that comprises a structured and structuring structure” (Maton, 2014, p. 49) or “a set of acquired characteristics which are the product of social

condition” (Bourdieu, 2005, p. 45). These dispositions may include

predispositions, tendencies, or inclinations that lead to particular perceptions, beliefs, conceptions and practices. It is a sort of “conditioning” or internalisation. Habitus is described as “a deep, interior, epicentre containing many matrices” (Reay, 1995, p. 354); it is embodied as ways of “standing, speaking, walking, and thereby of feeling and thinking” (Bourdieu, 1990 in Reay, 1995, p. 354). What is structured is a system of dispositions that encompasses previous and on-going experiences (historical and biographical) of the agent in the social environment (e.g. education, family background, previous jobs and employers), and these dispositions are structuring because they shape within the agent, present and futures views, perceptions, and practices of situation and of the world (Maton, 2014). Jones et al. (2011) describe habitus as:

an acquired way of seeing the social world and is dependent on one’s position and upbringing in that world…habitus is something that belongs to the individual or resides in the self, but which also reflects shared and common understandings about the social world. (p. 150)

The responses of an agent to different situations may seem unrelated, but there is something systematic, “not a logical systematicity; it is a practical

systematicity” (Bourdieu, 2005, p. 44) in their generation and, to the

sociologist’s eye, these responses may appear interrelated (Hillier & Rooksby, 2005). Habitus is also described as: “more than accumulated experience; it is a complex social process in which individual and collective ever-structuring dispositions develop in practice to justify individuals’ perspectives, values, actions and social positions.” (Costa & Murphy, 2015, p. 4). Habitus represents the incorporation of all these experiences, and their integration in shaping and influencing perception, actions, ways of thinking about self and the social world. Agents function within particular structures in relation to their habitus. Habitus represent a storage of knowledge, memories, perceptions, and imprint on the agent on how to behave, how to act, how to view things. Agents are not continuously aware of how their habitus is shaping their actions and

perceptions. Criticisms of Bourdieu’s concept of habitus imply determinism and prediction (Jenkins, 1982, 2002), although Bourdieu does not see the habitus as deterministic (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992); agents actions are not rigidly determined by their habitus, in other words, habitus is not something immutable (Jones et al., 2011). Our habitus is shaped by our experiences and our

experiences are shaping our habitus. Although habitus is difficult to change, it has the potential to be transformed by new experiences, training and

awareness-raising. Finally, because the “habitus is primarily a method for analysing the dominance of dominant groups in society and the domination of subordinate groups” (Reay, 2004b, p. 436), it has the potential to deepen an analysis aimed at meaning-making of researcher development in the field of postdoctoral research.

From the initial focus on social class in the exploration of habitus by Bourdieu, some authors have expanded the boundaries towards considering the role of gender and race in shaping individuals’ habitus (Reay, 2004a, 2004b). An extensive corpus of studies, using the concept of habitus, exist across disciplinary interests (e.g. Costa & Murphy, 2015; Hillier & Rooksby, 2005). Bourdieusian scholars warn of focusing on single concepts from his toolbox, and advise maintaining the broad scope of his epistemology (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008; Grenfell, 2014), which is the intention in this study.

4.4 Summary

In this chapter, I have described my engagement in theoretical considerations, which have helped construct my object of study: researcher development.

Using Bourdieusian concepts, I construct this study on researcher development as an exploration of practices within the field of postdoctoral research, that contribute to the position of agents in the field. Understanding researcher development pertains to:

• establishing what is at stake in the field of postdoctoral research, what the forms of capital are, or, more precisely, “the various species of power that are efficient in this universe” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 67). • exploring the habitus of agents through the experiences of postdoctoral

researchers and principal investigators, to identify systems of dispositions that agents have acquired, their “feel for the game” (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 63).

The introduction of new policies concerned with researcher development may attempt to challenge the rules of the games in postdoctoral research, but, since “educational institutions ensure the profitability of the dominant class” (Stahl, 2015, p. 22), Bourdieu’s concepts were congruent in exploring such context. Passionate accounts in favour or against Bourdieu’s concepts abound. The conceptualization of habitus in particular has received many criticisms and re- evaluations. These critical analyses appear to result from a resistance to accepting fluidity in concepts’ definitions, considering these variations as inconsistencies (Lau, 2004), instead of focusing on the use of the concepts themselves as tools for empirical data analysis. Among the critics, Mouzelis (2007) argues that Bourdieu’s attempt to “transcend the objectivist-subjectivist divide” (p.1) is not satisfactory in accounting for individuals’ ongoing conscious strategizing, reflexivity and the “interactive dimension of social games”(p. 2); on this basis, Mouzelis (2007) identifies the concept of habitus as problematic. For Bourdieu, reflexivity may surface primarily at times of crisis between habitus and field; its scope remains within limits: “individuals make choices, as

long as we do not forget that they do not choose the principle of these choices” (Wacquant, 1989 in Decoteau, 2016). Sweetman (2003) in contrast, argues that in the context of contemporary modernity, a flexible and reflexive habitus is becoming widespread particularly in professional lives. Sweetman (2003) further suggests that a reflexive habitus could contribute to how individuals navigate occupational shifts; this has implications for our consideration of researcher development and the habitus of researchers and academics. Furthermore, Adams, M. (2006) in an attempt to pull together multiple stands around habitus, voluntarism, determinism, agency, identity and reflexivity proposes the concept of a reflexive/ habitus hybrid. In this case, reflexive agents are still faced with post-reflexive choices, but outcomes remain dependent on their habitus and position within the field. Reflexivity does not necessarily pull agents out from the drift of social reproduction. Other scholars such as Elder-Vass (2007) and Decoteau (2016) have continued to extend the reconciliation between Archer “reflexive deliberations” and Bourdieu’s habitus. Only the intimate use of these concepts in the particular context of an empirical study could permit an appraisal of their usefulness. The “ensemble of

Bourdieu’s thinking” with “all three of Bourdieu’s master concepts – habitus, capital, and field” (Swartz, 2008, p. 45) are put to work in the analysis undertaken.

Chapter 5

Research methodology,