This study explores the relationship between institutional habitus and the identity formation process of students through observing their everyday life practices at one of the secondary schools in a peripheral city in Turkey.  Through an ethnographic account, this study also reveals the role of family life and relations in a school setting. In understanding the role of family, the study also considers the emerging central recognition discourses and practices in the field to trace various forms of (in)formal pedagogical networks and how they are produced, reproduced and maintained in a school.

Theoretical Framework: Habitus

While grounding the study in a specific framework, the concept of habitus as a mediator between structure and practice (Bourdieu, 1990) provided a valuable tool for unfolding the relations between family life and school community. The concept of habitus, in the social sciences, is best known with the works of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Broadly speaking, habitus means social structures' regulation of the individual's social and cultural orientations and "transformation of the structured structures into structuring structures” (Bourdieu, 1990, p.53). In this respect, Bourdieu remarks that:

The habitus is a product of history, produces individual and collective practices in accordance with the schemes generated by history. It ensured the active presence of past experiences, which, deposited in each organism in the form of schemes of perception, thought, and action, tend to guarantee the ‘correctness' of practices and their constancy over time, more reliably than all formal rules and explicit norms (1990, p.54).

     In this study, the workings of habitus allocate a pivotal space to a set of micro-practices of identity   formation which require certain forms of relational ties of intimate family life. Therefore, along with Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, it is essential to address the linkages between institutional habitus (school setting) and family habitus, since they are the central structures to explain the identity formation process in this study. 

Institutional Habitus and Family Habitus

Studies conducted by Patricia McDonough (1997), Diane Reay (1998) and more recently Nicola Ingram (2009) have let development of the new conceptualization of the habitus on institutional and familial basis. Reay (1998) conceptualizes the institutional habitus as a complex mix of curriculum offer, teaching practices and what children bring with them to the classroom, but also the teachers’ expectations, prejudices and biases. With this concept, Reay (1998) examined the impact of school’s institutional habitus not only on students’ own habitus and choice but also on those of their parents too.

      Another important concept in this study is family habitus. It is defined by Raey (1998) as ‘the deeply ingrained system of perspectives, experiences and predispositions family members share’ (Reay, 1998b, p. 527) on education. According to Reay, once a student with a certain set of dispositions, a schema of perception, and a sense of ‘people like us’ enters the education system, student in a multiplicity of manners depending on degree of match between family habitus and institutional habitus. It generates a whole array of emotions as well. (Reay,1998).

 The study at hand:

1)      examines the identity formation practices at the school by conceptualizing these practices as institutional habitus.

2)      analyzes the relationship between institutional habitus and family habitus.

3)      involves a discussion of the significance of recognition in identity formation claiming that identity formation practices are intertwined with recognition politics and surrounding concepts. 

4)      scrutinizes the type of the roles taken on, pedagogical approaches implemented, and administrative practices presented by the teachers and the school administrators while dealing with the relationalities within the school environment in which identity formation practices took place.

Methodology Since the research question requires in-depth understanding of the macro and micro structures and the practices which maintain the reproduction of certain identities and the recognition policies which are implemented within the school’s institutional habitus, the study is structured as an ethnography employing Extended Case Method (ECM). ECM explores the relationship between the data and the theory emphasizing the variations in the case through time and space in order to delineate the forces shaping a particular society (Burawoy, 1991). As an integral part of the extended case method, the theoretical orientation of the research relies on a prominent French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus in general, and institutional habitus in particular. ECM is considered as an appropriate method in this ethnographic research to capture a clear picture of the everyday life practices of the students and the community members; to analyze the identity formation process and the existing recognition discourses and practices to reach various forms of (in)formal pedagogical networks along the fieldwork. All these discussions are built upon a theoretical frame that, on the one hand, unfolds the micro dynamics of the practices and dispositions observed in the field, on the other hand collaborates with the field to be extended. In ECM, the position of the researcher in the field is a participant observer throughout the data collection process. According to Hammersley and Atkinson (2007), data gathered from a range of sources, but participant observation and relatively informal conversations are usually the main ones. Therefore, the researcher involved in the fieldwork as a participant observer (Burawoy, 1991). The research setting is a village public secondary school in a peripheral city of central Anatolia region of Turkey. During the fieldwork, a diary is organized by the researcher and semi-structured interviews are conducted as a part of data collection procedure. The research, so far, consisted of 20 semi-structured interviews with administrators, teachers, students and field notes are written after each home visit. Field notes include the descriptions of family life at home and school environments where the students spent most of their times, ‘interesting events’ (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007) related to daily lives of the students and teacher’s own interpretations. Interview questions in a large extend emerged during the research process and include questions which lead to uncover the multiple forms of relations within the institution and everyday life practices of the participants.

Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The research is still in progress.

REFERENCES Atkinson, W. (2011). From sociological fictions to social fictions: Some Bourdieusian reflections on the concepts of ‘institutional habitus’ and ‘family habitus’. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 32(3), 331-347. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford university press. Burawoy, M., Burton, A., Ferguson, A. A., & Fox, K. J. (1991). Ethnography unbound: Power and resistance in the modern metropolis. Univ of California Press. Burawoy, M. (1998). The extended case method. Sociological theory, 16(1), 4-33. Ingram, N. (2009). Working‐class boys, educational success and the misrecognition of working‐class culture. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(4), 421-434. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Principles in practice. London: Tavistock. Hammersley Ethnography: Principles in Practice1983. McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Suny Press. Reay, D., David, M., & Ball, S. (2001). Making a difference?: Institutional habituses and higher education choice. Sociological Research Online, 5(4), 1-12. Reay, D. (1998). ’Always knowing’ and ‘never being sure’: familial and institutional habituses and higher educa