Typology of habitus in education: Findings from a review of qualitative studies

Abstract

Contextualized in the debate on the (mis)use of habitus in educational research, the present study addresses two research questions: (a) What are the different functions that habitus (i.e., the dispositions underpinning cultural capital that are accumulated through socialization and that guide individuals’ daily practices) serves in students’ educational experiences? and (b) What characterizes the pattern of continuity or discontinuity for habitus across different contexts? Results of the meta-ethnographic review synthesizing findings from 37 qualitative studies show that there was a typology of different functions associated with habitus (academic socialization, motivating learning, facilitating content learning, developing learners’ self-identity and aspirations). These functions transcended cognitive, affective, and social dimensions in students’ present and future learning. However, habitus could also serve as a coping or risk-mitigation mechanism. Furthermore, results show that habitus could be continuous or discontinuous across fields (student, familial, institutional) and sub-fields (educational levels, types of learning, subjects, programs, learners). These results suggest that the prolific use of habitus in research should not be simply dismissed as conceptual infidelity; rather, it enables researchers to clarify how habitus serves different functions in educational experiences of students varying in their learning needs at different stages of their learning and in different contexts. The study contributes to the development of a conceptual framework for habitus that can inform future research. Practical implications for improving disadvantaged students’ learning are discussed. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11218-022-09724-4.

Socioeconomic status and students' science self‐efficacy

“…The pattern of findings indicating that SES is related to students' science self‐efficacy should not be viewed from a deficit perspective. Specifically, students from lower‐SES families may have less positive self‐efficacy because the lower levels of expectations serve a coping or risk‐mitigation function (Tan & Liu, 2022). For example, Meo's (2011) study found that average‐performing students from middle‐SES families in Argentina perceived that it was sufficient to be ‘good enough’ academically by meeting (not exceeding) teacher expectations.…”

Work-integrated (adult) learning: Un-stigmatizing blue-collar adult learners in Singapore by embracing visibility

“…There is a growing differentiation and discrimination, and Bourdieu’s key concepts can be adopted as valuable thinking tools or useful theoretical framework in the analysis of social class and successes in a society. The key theoretical frameworks are adopted to understand how early exposure to education could affect the continuous social inequality and social exclusion, such as the promotion or reinforcement of dominant class of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1977; Formosa, 2006; Gilbert, 2019; Tan & Liu, 2022). Since an education system ‘is a class institution… as not everyone has the same educational chances’ (Baudrillard, 1998, p. 59), this paper adopts Bourdieusean concepts to delve deeper into adult learners’ habitus.…”

Students' Academic Habitus and Its Relation to Family Capital: A Latent Class Approach to Inequalities among Secondary School Students1

“…Qualitative researchers have taken a more direct approach by employing habitus to describe the biographical processes and practices involved in students' adaptation to the norms and cultures of educational institutions (e.g., Barrett and Martina 2012). In a comprehensive review of ethnographic literature, Tan and Liu (2022) synthesized the various roles that habitus plays throughout students' educational journeys, identifying recurring dimensions of habitus to which qualitative researchers frequently refer. These dimensions encompass habitus' role in motivating students' learning activities and forming the foundation of their aspirations.…”

“…This scarcity of quantitative measurement of habitus may stem from the challenges in achieving a consensus on its conceptualization. Some regard habitus as a “fuzzy concept” with, at best, meta‐theoretical potential (Kingston 2001), while others advocate for its underexplored explanatory power in educational research (Edgerton and Roberts 2014; Nash 1999; Tan and Liu 2022). A few scholars have measured habitus as a multifaceted construct, incorporating various dispositions and expectations related to teachers, school, and one's educational trajectory (e.g., Edgerton et al.…”

“…Over the past two decades, the concept of habitus has received renewed interest, both in theoretical reflections and empirical studies (e.g., Bodovski 2013; Dumais 2002; Edgerton, Peter, and Roberts 2014; Edgerton and Roberts 2014; Edgerton, Roberts, and Peter 2013; Ivemark and Ambrose 2021; Lee 2021; Lizardo 2004; Nash, 2002b; Stich and Crain 2023; Tan and Liu 2022). Analogous to cultural capital and field, the habitus concept aims at better understanding social stratification processes and the reproduction of societal inequalities in various fields, such as education.…”