Costa, C., Burke, C. and Murphy, M. (2019) Capturing habitus: theory, method and
reflexivity. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 42(1), pp.
19-32. (doi:10.1080/1743727X.2017.1420771)
There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are
advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it.
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/154274/
Deposited on: 21 December 2017
Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk
Costa, Burke and Murphy
Submitted to
International Journal of Research & Method in Education
Accepted manuscript. Accepted 29/10/2017
1
Capturing habitus: theory, method and reflexivity
Cristina Costa
a1
, Ciaran Burke
b
and Mark Murphy
c
a
School of Education, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
1
Contact Author: email: cristina.costa@strath.ac.uk
b
, University of Derby, UK
c
Robert Owen Centre for Educational Change, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
Bourdieu’s career long endeavour was to devise both theoretical and methodological
tools that could apprehend and explain the social world and its mechanisms of cultural
(re)production and related forms of domination. Amongst the several key concepts
developed by Bourdieu, habitus has gained prominence as both a research lens and a
research instrument useful to enter individuals’ trajectories and ‘histories’ of practices.
While much attention has been paid to the theoretical significance of habitus, less
emphasis has been placed on its methodological implications. This paper explores the
application of the concept of habitus as both theory and method across two sub-fields
of educational research: graduate employment and digital scholarship practices. The
findings of this reflexive testing of habitus suggest that bridging the theory-method
comes with its own set of challenges for the researcher; challenges which reveal the
importance of taking the work of application seriously in research settings.
Keywords: Application, Bourdieu, habitus, reflexivity, theory-method
Costa, Burke and Murphy
Submitted to
International Journal of Research & Method in Education
Accepted manuscript. Accepted 29/10/2017
2
Introduction
According to Smith (2012), one of the key functions of social theory is to provide a framework
for undertaking empirical social research. It does this by ‘equipping the researcher with a
vocabulary for describing social phenomena, together with a related set of assumptions about
how to go about explaining them’ (p. 87). Smith was writing about theory and method in
relation to the work of Axel Honneth, who, while gaining prominence in applied fields, has not
been as influential as Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu’s work has provided something of a template
for social theory as a conceptual vocabulary in applied research settings, with forms of capital
acquiring visibility both in research literature and popular press. On a par with Bourdieu’s
treatment of capitals, habitus has now acquired currency in the Anglophone world and further
afield, as it has been applied to different research areas, a range that continues to broaden at
pace.
Habitus, alongside other Bourdieuian tools, offers an explanatory framework and
theoretical vocabulary for processes of social reproduction and transformation. Following
Bourdieu’s legacy, the conceptualisation and application of habitus in different settings
comprises attempts to overcome the dichotomy between structure and agency whilst
acknowledging the external and historical factors that condition, constrain and/or promote
change. Many researchers are attracted to habitus as a framework because it offers an
alternative to overly-agentic or structural accounts of social phenomena. It also speaks to the
lived experiences of researchers who are eager to examine the everyday relational modes of
being that offer insights into the often invisible workings of power and privilege.
The growing popularity of habitus as a conceptual tool has generated much debate, the
focus of which has centred on its relationship to change. Whether or not habitus is deterministic
Costa, Burke and Murphy
Submitted to
International Journal of Research & Method in Education
Accepted manuscript. Accepted 29/10/2017
3
or transformative has created a division of opinion and approach between proponents of either
conceptualization (see Jenkins, 1982, and Yang, 2014 for examples). These discussions
however have been mainly focused on the theoretical worth of Bourdieuian concepts, thus
leaving less space for considerations regarding its application in field work via research
methods. Yet, these concepts were not meant to be used solely as theory, but rather as theory-
method as a form of preparing the research for field work.
In this regard, Bourdieu’s key concepts, as for example habitus, have been discussed
more often in relation to theorisations of research findings than to methodological choices and
fieldwork applications, thus making the discussions around Bourdieu’s contribution to method
far less pronounced. This is most likely because such debates are scarcer in the literature.
Nonetheless, they were an ever-present concern in Bourdieu’s work (see, for example,
Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). This imbalance regarding the use of Bourdieuian concepts as
theory separated from method is something of a concern, given that Bourdieu’s conceptual
apparatus was an attempt to reconcile practice and theory through method, with his key
concepts working in the background to unearth and understand the essence of contextualised
practices (Costa & Murphy, 2015). In short, putting Bourdieu’s theoretical concepts to work
as part of methodological decisions and development of data collection instruments is still
regarded by many – especially those new to research – as a ‘black-box’ of social inquiry. This
is something we aim to (re)explore in this paper, using the application of habitus as an example
of theory-method dialectics.
The purpose of this paper is thus to help rectify this imbalance between theory and
method by bringing together research studies on habitus in two educational related contexts –
graduate employment and digital scholarship practices – and examining in detail the ways in
which the research in question has endeavoured to ‘capture’ habitus in those two settings. In
Costa, Burke and Murphy
Submitted to
International Journal of Research & Method in Education
Accepted manuscript. Accepted 29/10/2017
4
particular, the paper indicates that capturing habitus is not a straightforward enterprise, given
that it is as much influenced by the context within which the capturing occurs as it is by the
way the theoretical apparatus is framed. It also suggests that the actual process of application
itself should be paid more attention to in discussions over theory and method, the bridging
mechanism too often sidelined as a secondary feature of social research.
This take on application is important, not just for studies of habitus but also for the wide
range of studies that endeavour to apply social theory in empirical work. These share a common
concern, regardless of concept, when it comes to bridging a not-insubstantial gap between
theory and method. What emerges from this endeavour – by bringing theory to life through
the process of application, while also unpacking the mechanisms via which theory and method
converge – is a set of challenges for researchers who wish to bridge the theory-method gap via
the socio-theoretical vocabulary of concepts such as habitus. In other words, this paper explores
the use of Bourdieu’s key concept of habitus from a methodological perspective which makes
it a rather distinctive and relevant project.
Habitus: Theory and method
For Bourdieu, habitus is more than theory; it is an essential instrument for tracing social
practices:
The notion of habitus has several virtues. … agents have a history and are the product
of an individual history and an education associated with a milieu, and … also a product
of a collective history ... (Bourdieu & Chartier, 2015, p.52)