Habitus and Graduate Employment: A Re/Structured Structure and the Role of Biographical Research

Abstract

For Thomas Kuhn, sociology cannot be a science; there are too many sub-groups and competing perspectives to form a sociological paradigm. While this ‘infighting’ precludes our inclusion into this particular notion of science, it can be argued that it is exactly what gives the social sciences their strength. The fact that researchers will constantly refine, contradict, refute and occasionally even agree, all in the pursuit of greater understanding and representation, points to a dynamic science unafraid to ask questions of itself and of each other. A good example of our dynamism is Pierre Bourdieu, one of the most celebrated and applied social thinkers of the latter half of the 20th century. Bourdieuian social theory is still a niche — albeit a popular niche — and, as such, I am constantly presented with questions from colleagues and students asking why I subscribe to social theory and to this particular theoretical heritage. My answer varies in length depending on the audience and intent of their cross-examination. Social theory, as Stephen Ball once put it, is the language of ‘rigour’ (1995, p. 266); it is what directs empirical inquiry and helps us to make sense of it. Social theory is one of the most important items in the toolbox and should not be avoided. That is the ‘easy’ half of the question; turning to why I choose Bourdieu becomes more complicated, as is his theory and the subsequent application.