It is a qualitative study within the sociology of (educational and vocational) choice, focusing on university-level discipline selection and related career trajectories in Iceland. It examines how individuals’ life narratives shape their study choices, using two contrasting academic fields—philosophy and early childhood education and care (ECEC)—as case studies. Drawing on semi-structured biographical interviews and Bourdieu’s theoretical framework (habitus, capital, and field) we examine the life narratives that precede individuals’ study choices and education-related career paths. After having finished a study on the pathways of philosophers we now for the comparison focus is on second contrasting discipline at the University of Iceland: early childhood education and care (ECEC). Philosophy, a rather elitist field, attracting students from families with substantial cultural, social, and sufficient financial capital, who tend to choose the subject for its intellectual and cultural prestige rather than its practical career prospects. In contrast, ECEC occupies a lower position within the academic hierarchy, often perceived as a 'women’s subject' since it is associated with early childhood education. Students in this field typically come from backgrounds with less capital than their counterparts in philosophy. The aim of this comparative study is to contribute to both academic and public understanding of how social class influences educational and career choices. By shedding light on these dynamics, the study seeks to support efforts to mitigate class-based predispositions in study choice—similar to the progress made in reducing gender-bias in educational and vocational choices over recent decades.

In contrast to the research we have already done on the philosophy, ECEC is typically ranked lower in the academic hierarchy. Students in this field often come from families with less capital than those in philosophy. The discipline’s lower status is partly due to its association with the less prestigious early childhood education. This perception is also gendered: ECEC has long been considered a “women’s subject,” while philosophy was a “men’s subject” dominated by male thinkers, and notably, during the first 25 years of the University of Iceland’s philosophy department (established in 1972), no woman held a permanent academic position. The stark contrast between these two disciplines serves to sharpen the sociological analysis of educational and career choice, highlighting how social class and gender shape students’ decisions at the university level.

There is a substantial body of research examining the relationship between social class and individuals’ experiences in higher education, as well as their subsequent career outcomes (e.g. Crane 1969; Lipset & Ladd, 1979; Archer et al. 2005; Merenluoto 2009; Reay et al. 2009; Mullen, 2010; Boliver, 2011; El-Mafaalani, 2012; Börjesson et al. 2016; Reay, 2018; Scandone, 2018; Mishra, 2020; Nimer, 2021; Shields, 2023; Li, 2024). Virtanen et al. (2025) have examined the motivations behind career choices among Finnish teacher education students, while Wang et al. (2024) conducted a similar study in China. Weiss et al. (2018) and Rothe & Betz (2018) have explored the life-history experiences of early childhood educators. Holzmayer (2023) investigated the relationship between habitus and field among primary school teacher education students in Austria, and Heil (2025) focused on the social backgrounds of early childhood educators. Bischoff (2018) is among those who have studied the habitus of early childhood educators, particularly the influence of the dominant professional habitus on children's educational experiences. In contrast to Bischoff’s focus on the impact of educators’ habitus on children, our study primarily examines the social backgrounds of educators to understand how these backgrounds shape their own perceptions and decisions regarding educational and career opportunities.

The research is based on semi-structured, one-hour interviews with key participants from both disciplines. The data is analysed using qualitative content analysis. In the case of philosophy, interviews were conducted in early 2025 with four professors at the University of Iceland, each representing a distinct social background: 1) rural blue-collar, self-employed working class, 2) established (intellectual) middle-class, 3) female second generation (intellectual) middle-class, 4) a rural white-collar, professional-managerial class. The interviews with ECEC’s planed for spring 2026 will follow a similar structure. The interview questions and subsequent analysis are grounded in Bourdieu’s theoretical framework. According to Bourdieu, social agents possess a habitus which reflects their lived social class as a set of practices, values, and the distribution and enactment of various forms of capital. We apply Bourdieu’s concepts to analyse how the composition of the interviewees’ capital and habitus influences their study choices and professional outcomes. Furthermore, we explore how their habitus aligns with—or adapts to—the institutional field of ECEC, identifying moments of fit, disjuncture, and transformation. We also investigate how gender and different forms of capital affect their chances of success within these fields. Additionally, we consider how their capital and habitus shape their thematic and social positioning within the discipline—asking to what extent harmony between an individual’s habitus and that of key gatekeepers functions as a determinant of career advancement. In addition to the interviews, we analyse statistical data from the University of Iceland to assess whether there are signs of increased social class and gender mobility within the discipline ECEC over recent decades. A aim for the future is to compare the results concerning Iceland with our own research on both disciplines in the German speaking world.

Preliminary findings in philosophy suggested that while gender equality has improved significantly—evidenced by the rise in female representation since the first female professor was appointed in 1997—there is limited evidence of increased class diversity among academic staff. This trend suggests that while the symbolic value of gender capital (Huppatz, 2012) may have declined, allowing for greater gender inclusion, the influence of inherited cultural capital remains largely unchanged. This raised the question: is gender diversification more attainable than diversification by social background in academic philosophy? The findings called for further investigation into the distinct roles of habitus and gender in shaping educational and career choices in higher education. In the current part of the investigation, we ask similar questions concerning the path of individuals within ECEC.

Archer L., Hutchings M., Ross A. (2005). Higher education and social class: Issues of exclusion and inclusion. Routledge. Bischoff, S. (2020). Soziale Standorte frühpädagogischer Fachkräfte – Eine vernachlässigte Dimension der Professionalisierungsdebatte?. In: Skorsetz, N., Bonanati, M., Kucharz, D. (eds) Diversität und soziale Ungleichheit. Jahrbuch Grundschulforschung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27529-7_52 Boliver, V. (2011). ‘Expansion, differentiation and the persistence of social class inequalities in British higher education’, Higher Education 61, 229-242. Börjesson et al. (2016). Cultural capital in the elite subfield of Swedish higher education. Poetics (Amsterdam), 56, 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.02.004 Crane, Diana. (1969). “Social Class Origin and Academic Success: The Influence of Two Stratification Systems on Academic Careers.” Sociology of Education, 42(1), 1–17. l-Mafaalani, Aladin. (2012). BildungsaufsteigerInnen aus benachteiligten Milieus. Habitustransformation und soziale Mobilität bei Einheimischen und Türkeistämmigen. Springer VS. 10.1007/978-3-531-19320-5. Heil, Kerstin. (2025). Durchschreiten, Durchkämpfen, Durchwurschteln oder Durchleiden? Soziale Milieus im Grundschullehramt: Eine qualitative Untersuchung von Studierenden einer Pädagogischen Hochschule. 10.3262/978-3-7799-9143-4. Huppatz, Kate. (2012). Gender Capital at Work: Intersections of Femininity, Masculinity, Class and Occupation. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Mishra, S. (2020). Social networks, social capital, social support and academic success in higher education: A systematic review with a special focus on ‘underrepresented’students. Educ. Res. Rev. 29, 100–307. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100307 Mullen, Ann L. (2010). Degrees of Inequality: Culture, Class, and Gender in American Higher Education. Johns Hopkins University Press,. Nimer, M. (2021). Beyond Social Mobility: Biographies, Habitus and Responses to Changing ‘Conditions of Existence’ among University Scholarship Students. Sociological Research Online, 26(1), 92–107. Virtanen, Päivi, Helen M.G. Watt, Paul W. Richardson, Niina Linnanmäki, Ville Mankki, Riitta-Leena Metsäpelto, Kirsi Wallinheimo. (2025). Finnish teacher students’ career choice motivations: A mixed methods study, Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2025.105068. Reay, D. (2018). From the Theory of Practice to the Practice of Theory: Working with Bourdieu in research in higher education choice. In E. Silva, and A. Warde (Eds.), Cultural analysis and Bourdieu’s legacy: settling accounts and developing alternatives. New York. Rothe, A., & Betz, T. (2018). Biografische Erfahrungen und die Professionalität frühpädagogischer Fachkräfte. Theoretische und empirische Perspektiven auf ein ungeklärtes Verhältnis. Zeitschrift für Grundschulforschung, 11(2), 285–300. Scandone, B. (2018). Re-thinking aspirations through habitus and capital: The experiences of British-born Bangladeshi women in higher education. Ethnicities, 18(4), 518–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796818777541 Shields, S. (2023). Curiosity and careers: Female working-class students’ experiences of university. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 32(4), 992–1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2021.1959378