Pierre Bourdieu: theorizing the digital

Abstract

is known for his research in the areas of education and cultural stratification that led to a number of theoretical contributions informing the social sciences. Bourdieu's interrelated concepts of field, capital, and habitus have become central in many approaches to inequality and stratification across the social sciences. In addition, we argue that Bourdieu's ideas also feature in what is increasingly known as 'digital sociology.' To underscore this claim, we explore the ways in which Bourdieu's ideas continue to have a major impact on social science research both on and with digital and Internetbased technologies. To do so, we offer a review of both Bourdieusian theorizing of the digital vis-à-vis both research on the social impacts of digital communication technologies and the application of digital technologies to social science research methods. We contend that three interconnected features of Bourdieu's sociology have allowed his approach to flourish in the digital age: (1) his theories' inseparability from the practice of empirical research; (2) his ontological stance combining realism and social constructionism; and (3) his familiarity with concepts developed in other disciplines and participation in interdisciplinary collaborative projects. We not only reason that these three factors go some way in accounting for Bourdieu's influence in many sociological subfields, but we also suggest that they have been especially successful in positioning Bourdieusian sociology to take advantage of opportunities associated with digital communication technologies.

Emancipation through digital entrepreneurship? A critical realist analysis

“…Yet this resonates with the argument that contrary to popular expectation, the digital context does not necessarily ameliorate or help to overcome structural disadvantage (Ignatow & Robinson 2017 We now discuss the findings. Through an intersectional feminist lens supported by a critical realist framework of structure, culture and agency (Martinez Dy et al 2014), what emerges is a complex array of core and countervailing agential powers, and structural and cultural mechanisms, resulting in comparatively weaker or stronger positions as digital entrepreneurs.…”

“…Actors have agency, or the ability to choose amongst various courses of action, and do so while embedded in systems of thought, belief and ideology -cultures -that profoundly shape their internal conversations and concerns (Archer 2007); entrepreneurial agency, then, is tied to the cultures and structures of particular communities (Vincent et al 2014). Furthermore, digital inequality mirrors offline resource inequality (Ignatow & Robinson 2017), and social positionality affects the realm of digital entrepreneurs: for example, high-tech digital entrepreneurs originate from the highest echelons of the paid earnings distribution, offering numerous advantages, including greater access to financial resources and powerful social networks (Braguinsky et al 2012;Dashti 2010). Broadening our analysis to include structure and culture thus illustrates that digital enterprise pursuits are not purely agential, and that their outcomes and emancipatory potential will be subject to external constraint and enablement.…”

“…But in a realist conception of the social world, this is impossible, as structures exist prior to the development of agency, constraining and/or enabling actors who then contribute to their reproduction or transformation (Archer 2007;Porpora 1998 (Porpora 1998) with that of Bourdieusian sociologists (Anthias 2001;Ignatow & Robinson 2017) 1 who attend to the effect of such dynamic, yet durable, positionality on life chances, resource access and accrual. These are essential to both entrepreneurial processes (Anderson & Miller 2003;Jayawarna et al 2014) and digital skills development (Ignatow & Robinson 2017). Actors have agency, or the ability to choose amongst various courses of action, and do so while embedded in systems of thought, belief and ideology -cultures -that profoundly shape their internal conversations and concerns (Archer 2007); entrepreneurial agency, then, is tied to the cultures and structures of particular communities (Vincent et al 2014).…”

“…Contrary to assumptions that the Internet is a neutral space open to all, it is diverse and unequal (Terranova 2004). Simple access is not enough -successful use is subject to varying conditions (Ignatow & Robinson 2017); this has implications for those who seek to create digital ventures. Whereas the trend within entrepreneurship studies is to neglect structure in favour of agency (Blundel 2007), a CR approach considers both in depth.…”

Conceptualising technology practice in education using Bourdieu's sociology

“…Research in the field of educational technology would benefit from a sociological framing that pays attention to the understandings of learners and considers the social and cultural milieu of technology practice (Erstad 2012;Selwyn 2012). However, despite application in sociology, science and technology disciplines to frame technologies as social (Ignatow and Robinson 2017), sociological studies are relatively rare in the field of educational technology (Oliver 2013;Selwyn 2012). The promise of sociological research in various disciplines, including education more generally, and the small, yet growing movement in educational technology drawing on the work of Cuban (2001), Latour (2005) and Fenwick (2015), has motivated calls for a more critical approach to the investigation of technologies for learning that extends beyond immediate practicalities (Bennett and Oliver 2011;Kerr 1996;Selwyn 2010).…”