2014Theory and Research in EducationRequires access

Cultural capital or habitus? Bourdieu and beyond in the explanation of enduring educational inequality

Jason D. Edgerton, Lance W. Roberts

Open publisher page 331 citations

Abstract

Evidence for Bourdieu’s social reproduction theory and its contributions to understanding educational inequality has been relatively mixed. Critics discount the usefulness of core concepts such as cultural capital and habitus and most studies invoking these concepts have focused only on one or the other, often conflating the two, to the detriment of both. We disentangle cultural capital and habitus, and argue that taken together – in conjunction with practice and field – they hold significant explanatory potential. Moreover, we argue that these concepts can be incorporated into a scientific realist ‘structure–disposition–practice’ explanatory framework that seeks to address the misalignment between Bourdieuian relational constructs and standard positivist quantitative research methods. This reframing can help generate practical, actionable knowledge of the mechanisms underlying persistent socioeconomic disparities in educational attainment.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Evidence for Bourdieu’s social reproduction theory and its contributions to understanding educational inequality has been relatively mixed. Critics discount the usefulness of core concepts such as cultural capital and habitus and most studies invoking these concepts have focused only on one or the other, often conflating the two, to the detriment of both. We disentangle cultural capital and habitus, and argue that taken together – in conjunction with practice and field – they hold significant explanatory potential. Moreover, we argue that these concepts can be incorporated into a scientific realist ‘structure–disposition–practice’ explanatory framework that seeks to address the misalignment between Bourdieuian relational constructs and standard positivist quantitative research methods. This reframing can help generate practical, actionable knowledge of the mechanisms underlying persistent socioeconomic disparities in educational attainment.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 331 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Evidence for Bourdieu’s social reproduction theory and its contributions to understanding educational inequality has been relatively mixed. Critics discount the usefulness of core concepts such as cultural capital and habitus and most studies invoking these concepts have focused only on one or the other, often conflating the two, to the detriment of both. We disentangle cultural capital and habitus, and argue that taken together – in conjunction with practice and field – they hold significant explanatory potential. Moreover, we argue that these concepts can be incorporated into a scientific realist ‘structure–disposition–practice’ explanatory framework that seeks to address the misalignment between Bourdieuian relational constructs and standard positivist quantitative research methods. This reframing can help generate practical, actionable knowledge of the mechanisms underlying persistent socioeconomic disparities in educational attainment.

Key concepts: Habitus, Cultural capital, Sociology, Cognitive reframing, Educational inequality, Cultural reproduction, Practice theory, Epistemology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Cultural capital or habitus? Bourdieu and beyond in the explanation of enduring educational inequality — Research Paper | ScholarLens