At ECER 2009 and 2010 we presented papers concerned with developing a theoretical frame for researching the engagement of educational workers, mainly teachers, with doctoral study. In 2009 we developed a theoretical model, influenced by Bourdieu’s relational analytical approach, to identify the structural relations within the educational professional fields in England and Denmark. This work was an early stage attempt at operationalising Bourdieu’s observations regarding the structure and dynamics of field. This was followed by the design of a pilot study, presented at ECER 2010, to be undertaken in England and focused on the exploration of individual educational trajectories and influenced by the concept of habitus. The paper proposed for ECER 2011 reports on some of the findings of this pilot study, which is still ongoing.

Bourdieu uses the concept of habitus to support his argument that there is a logic of practice which is distinct from the formal  logic of academic thinking. This logic of practice incorporates both conscious rational thinking with 'pre-linguistic' strategies that cannot be reduced to rational calculation. Essentially Bourdieu is saying that in our everyday practice our strategies are structured by dispositions to perceive only the possibilities that are 'realistic' and to discard those courses of action that are perceived as 'not for me'. Bourdieu also talks about a 'scholastic disposition' (e.g.2000: 49 et seq), that of the academic-researcher, that somehow places the researcher 'above' the levels of consciousness implied by the concept of habitus. He emphasizes time and again that academics-researchers are engaged in practices which are taken for granted and that reflexive awareness of the practice of research is essential. If the logic of one's own practice and the 'content' of one's habitus are conceptualised as not necessarily open to one's own reflexive explanations, this raises some questions as to how to go about researching practice at a 'phenomenological' level. To put it crudely, how do you research your own habitus if habitus by definition has aspects which are hidden and 'misrecognised'?

Our study is an attempt to work through some of the issues raised by Bourdieu in a practical way by linking strategies that are more closely linked to phenomenological thinking such as narrative, analytic autoethnography (Anderson 2006, Holman Jones 2005)  and  life history approaches (Goodson and Sikes 2001, Goodson and Walker 1991)  with Bourdieu's discussions of habitus (1990, 2001).  We have done this by engaging in the research ourselves as participants, as well as having the other participants (doctoral students) engage as researchers. This has raised a number of interesting issues regarding roles. For example, the two 'principal investigators' are working on three levels at once: those of participants; researchers of each other; and 'meta-analysts'. The other participants (there are four other dyads, making ten people in total) are currently cast in the first two roles, but need this remain as the research progresses? Will they want to take on the overarching, meta-analytical tasks as well? To what extent can the power differentials between principal investigators and other participants be reduced?

Anderson, L., (2006) ‘Analytic Autoethnography’, in Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4): 373-395 Bourdieu, P., (1990) The Logic of Practice, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge: Polity Bourdieu, P., (2000) Pascalian Meditations, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge: Polity Bourdieu, P. (2001) Practical Reason, Cambridge: Polity Goodson, I.F. and Sikes, P., (2001) Life History Research in Educational Settings, Buckingham, Open University Press Goodson, I. F. and Walker, R. (1991) Biography, Identity and Schooling: Episodes in Educational Research, Falmer Holman Jones, S., ‘Autoethnography; making the personal political’ in Denzin, N. K. And Lincoln, Y.S. (2005) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd edition, Thousand Oaks: Sage