1 Introduction

In the integrated framework of the theory of practice, Bourdieu (1977) tried to understand the practical logics of everyday life, social actions, and power relations by using key conceptual tools of habitus, field, and capital to reconstruct the dialectic and overcome dichotomies pitting structure against agency and objectivism against subjectivism. This dialectical relation is represented in the interrelated key conceptual tools of habitus, field, and capital. Habitus is the internalized dispositions of agents that guide their actions and decisions. Capital comprises the resources, tools, and skills in diverse forms that enable agents to engage in social interactions. Field refers to the surrounding environment where social practices occur. In educational research, the theory of practice with its associated conceptual tools of habitus, field, and capital is key to investigating effects of social origins on students’ educational experiences. However, these conceptual tools have received varying amount of attention in research. In particular, fewer scholars have examined habitus as compared to other constructs (e.g., cultural capital) possibly because of the perceived ‘elusiveness’ of habitus (Reay, 2004; Silva, 2016a; Wacquant, 2016).

To elaborate, some researchers who investigate habitus lament that the construct is multifaceted and that it operates differently across fields and in response to social changes. For example, Silva (2016a) documented how our understanding of habitus evolves from it being a unitary construct in Bourdieu’s early works to a fragmented construct in contemporary relationality and social change. Wacquant (2016) highlighted that habitus comprises a ‘dynamic, multi-scalar, and multilayered set of schemata subject to “permanent revision” in practice’, that it can be incoherent at times, and that it interacts with a ‘system of positions’ (e.g., fields) to generate action (p. 64). Adams (2006) doubted that via habitus, individual agency is a bounded process, ‘compromised and attenuated by social structure and unconsciousness’ in Bourdieu’s deterministic writing (p. 515). Reay (2004) asserted that habitus comprises an eclectic collection of individual and collective trajectories and that it connects the past with the present to influence students’ educational experiences. The conceptual confusion surrounding habitus is arguably a result of Bourdieu’s (1990) encouragement for researchers to be flexible in the use of habitus and other analytical tools to explain the experiences of social agents and their interactions with objective structures.

The conceptual confusion with habitus means that we do not fully understand how students’ internalized dispositions (i.e., habitus) inform their actions and decisions in their educational experiences. Without this knowledge, families and schools cannot identify areas for intervention to support students in their learning, especially in situations where perspectives of learning differ between fields (e.g., families versus schools). The present study aims to elucidate a comprehensive understanding of the different functions that habitus serves in students’ educational experiences across a variety of contexts by systematically reviewing qualitative studies examining habitus. Each qualitative study provides insights on a specific function of habitus in shaping students’ educational experience in a particular context, so a review of these studies has the potential to elucidate different functions that habitus serves in students’ educational experiences and provide insights on how habitus can exhibit continuity or discontinuity across different contexts. There are two specific research questions in the present study. First, what are the different functions that habitus serve in influencing students’ educational experiences? Second, what does characterize the pattern of continuity or discontinuity for habitus across contexts?

1.1 Habitus in educational research and the present study

In Bourdieu’s own writings, habitus is conceptualized in different ways including being ‘structured but also structuring structure’, ‘the embodiment of history’, ‘product of embodiment’, and ‘genetic principle of distinct and distinguishing practices’ (Bourdieu, 2000a, pp. 21, 158; Bourdieu, 2006, p. 88). In The State Nobility, for example, Bourdieu depicted how business schools’ daily discourse cooperated with cultural and social asserts and preferences of French elites that facilitated their social reproduction in the schooling system (Bourdieu, 1996). Unexpectedly, this conceptual diversity causes confusion, and sometimes even misunderstanding, when researchers apply the concept in their research (Reay, 2004). Bourdieu adopted a theoretical position of ‘constructed genetic structuralism’ (Corcuff, 2007, p. 22) in his conceptualization of habitus, thereby allowing him to avoid determinism and maintain dialectical relationships of objectivism and subjectivism, structure and agency, and the past and present. Habitus is meaningful at two levels: (a) habitus as a system of continuous and transferable individuals’ dispositions accumulated through socialization and (b) these dispositions guiding individuals’ daily practices (Bourdieu & Chartier, 2010; Bourdieu, 2000a, 2006).

Bourdieu’s habitus has contributed to a considerable body of literature that accounts for socially differentiated educational experiences in the sociology of education. The value of habitus is recognized in social contexts (e.g., fields) where cultural resources are converted to capital to benefit students’ educational experiences (Krarup & Munk, 2016; Tan, 2020). It is socially embodied, where individual history, experience, intellect, feelings, and assessments are connected to social surroundings and hence embodiment of social structure. In Colley and colleagues’ analysis (2003), students’ habitus in vocational training courses combined learning culture and their working-class dispositions (related to family backgrounds, gender, and specific locations) and reinforced their development of capacity as emotional labors. Habitus is also latent and operates as a matrix of perceptions, appreciations, and actions that result in a particular lifestyle. Liu (2021) depicted how Chinese middle-class students in elite universities maintain their middle-class network, ways of interaction, and activation of resources, and how such middle-class practice benefited their job search.

Existing reviews of habitus, where education is examined as a cultural practice, largely discuss habitus as a pluralistic concept reconciling tensions and dichotomies (Reay, 2004; Silva, 2016a, 2016b; Wacquant, 2016; Yang, 2014) or embed habitus in general discussions of Bourdieu’s theory of practice (Davies & Rizk, 2018; Tan, 2017; van de Werfhorst, 2010). Some scholars compare habitus with other conceptual tools (Collet, 2009) or discuss methodological issues involving habitus in research (Mu, 2020). Others limit their review of habitus to specific fields (e.g., institutional habitus; Byrd, 2019), sub-fields (e.g., digital learning; Ignatow & Robinson, 2017), or outcomes (e.g., educational choices; Spiliopoulou et al., 2018).

These reviews point to two knowledge gaps. First, many scholars argue that, compared to that for lower-SES families, higher-SES families’ habitus is more aligned to school expectations and hence beneficial for students’ learning experiences (Reay, 2004; Silva, 2016a; Wacquant, 2016), but they do not investigate the different functions that habitus serves. Second, most reviews examine habitus in specific contexts, so they do not comprehensively map out the different patterns of continuity or discontinuity of habitus across a range of contexts. For example, Reay’s (2004) review alluded to student and familial habitus while Byrd (2019) synthesized the literature on institutional habitus in higher education. The present study addresses these knowledge gaps by using meta-ethnographic review to synthesize findings from qualitative studies and obtain insights on the functions of habitus in students’ educational experiences.

2 Method

The analysis employed meta-ethnographic review (Noblit & Hare, 1988) to elucidate the conceptual meaning of habitus in students’ educational experiences. Meta-ethnographic review is an ‘inductive and interpretive form of knowledge synthesis’ (p. 16) that can generate insights on new questions that differ from those originally asked in the qualitative studies (Noblit & Hare, 1988). It differs from other methodological reviews in that it enables researchers to ‘(a) reimagine original data within existing studies and (b) privilege participant voices’ (Neal-Jackson, 2018, p. 511). Meta-ethnographic reviews enable researchers to interpretively synthesize themes from qualitative studies. They enable critical examinations of multiple accounts spanning different events and situations, and comparisons to gather cross-case conclusions (Noblit & Hare, 1988). The present study follows Noblit and Hare’s (1988) seven phases of meta-ethnographic review.

2.1 Phases 1–3

Phase 1 (Getting started) involved identifying a clear research focus for the meta-ethnographic review. In the present study, we sought to compare different functions of habitus in students’ educational experiences in the social space (in different fields and sub-fields) and examine continuity/discontinuity of habitus across contexts.

In phase 2 (Deciding what was relevant), we searched for studies investigating habitus in students’ educational experiences (from all grade levels) using five computer databases (Academic Search Complete, British Education Index, ERIC, Family & Society Studies Worldwide, OpenDissertations) during July-December 2020. The first three databases were selected because we wanted to identify studies of habitus in educational research. Family & Society Studies was selected because we also wanted to locate studies conceptualized from a familial or parental perspective. This group of studies was important because habitus was traditionally conceptualized in Bourdieu’s theory as emanating from familial socialization although later studies expanded the construct to examine habitus beyond the family at the institutional level. Lastly, OpenDissertations was included to enable us to identify doctoral dissertations that could be included alongside published works. Search terms in titles and abstracts included combinations of relevant keywords, namely habitus AND (achievement OR performance OR results OR attainment OR course grade OR test OR school OR learning). This search was complemented by manual searches of studies (a) published in four journals that publish qualitative studies on habitus in educational research (Sociology of Education, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Critical Studies in Education, Discourse); and (b) listed in reviews on Bourdieu’s theory of practice (e.g., Choi et al, 2019; Spiliopoulou et al, 2018; Tan, 2017). These searches returned 1,439 potential studies for analysis.

In phase 3 (Reading the studies), the first author and another member of the research team independently reviewed the abstracts of the studies identified. Discussions then informed decisions on whether studies identified should be included in the meta-ethnographic review based on a set of clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. Differences in opinions were consensually resolved. Studies were included if they.

  • Examined relations between habitus and students’ educational experiences;

  • Employed qualitative methodologyFootnote 1;

  • Were dated 2000-July 2020Footnote 2; and

  • Were written in English.

Studies were excluded if.

  • They employed non-qualitative methodology (e.g., conceptual, quantitative, policy, methodological, review, commentary studies);

  • They examined non-student populations (e.g., teachers, nurses); or

  • The analytical focus was not related to socioeconomic status or SES (e.g., gender, culture, religion, or non-mainstream subject matter such as music).

These criteria resulted in 69 potential studies being retained for further screening. The full text of the remaining 69 studies were then reviewed for their eligibility to be included in the meta-ethnographic review. This process excluded another 32 studies using the same set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Therefore, a final pool of 37 studies were included in the present study (Supplementary Material 1 and 2).

Next, the research team independently read each study and then jointly developed a coding scheme comprising six categories to summarize findings from the studies:

  • Study identification (author(s), publication year, title of study)

  • Research questions

  • Participants’ profile

  • Functions of habitus

  • Fields of habitus (student, familial, institutional)

  • Sub-fields where habitus was operating

We also created matrixes to record direct quotes and summaries of findings reported in the studies. The coding continued until we reached a level of saturation where no new codes could be developed within categories.

3 Results

3.1 Phases 4–6

After the coding scheme was developed, the research team identified broader themes across studies to translate the ‘interpretations of one study into the interpretations of another’ (Noblit & Hare, 1988, p. 26) in phases 4 (Determining how the studies were related) and 5 (Translating the studies into one another). Noblit and Hare’s (1988) line-of-argument synthesis was adopted to make general inference from the themes. In the process, we searched and researched the data iteratively to identify confirming and disconfirming cases (Erickson, 1986). Participants’ accounts from each study were used as analogies for the overall analysis while preserving concepts implied in each account in translation. Synthesis of these analogies eventuated in two broad themes in phase 6 (Synthesizing translations):

  • There is a typology of habitus with different functions in students’ educational experiences

  • Habitus can exhibit continuity or discontinuity across contexts (i.e., social space)

These themes are discussed in the following sections.

3.2 Typology of habitus with different functions

The first theme indicated that there was a typology of habitus with six functions in students’ educational experiences. Five of these functions contributed to student learning: socializing individuals into academic learning, motivating learning, facilitating content learning, developing learners’ self-identity, and developing students’ academic aspirations. These functions transcended cognitive (e.g., facilitating content learning), affective (e.g., motivating learning), and social (e.g., developing self-identity) dimensions. They were relevant for present (e.g., socializing learners) and future learning (developing academic aspirations). These five functions are elaborated in the following sections.

3.2.1 Academic socialization

The first function of habitus was facilitating learners’ socialization into academic discourse and learning (Brooker, 2000; Chamberlin, 2010; Gillen, 2003; Loh & Sun, 2020; Podesta, 2014; Weng, 2020). Academic socialization enables students to ‘gain the necessary dispositions and learn to perform meaningful actions in institutionally and socio-culturally valued ways as they participate in their disciplinary communities’ (Kobayashi et al., 2017, p. 240). This socialization can occur at different junctures of students’ academic learning, including socializing preschoolers in preparation for formal schooling (Brooker, 2000), secondary school students for develop reading dispositions (Loh & Sun, 2020), and doctoral students for academic participation (Gillen, 2003; Weng, 2020).

To illustrate, Brooker (2000) reported how 4-year-old children who started school in a working-class neighborhood in England developed their ‘system of dispositions toward learning’ (p. 12) via regulative and instructional discourses and adapted to school learning. In another study, Loh and Sun (2020) unraveled how parents in Singapore used intensive immersion strategies to orient their secondary school students toward books so that reading ‘becomes natural and is perceived as a habit, a disposition, a preference’ (p. 241). These strategies included active (e.g., parents teaching reading) and passive (role-modelling reading) approaches. Weng (2020) contrasted the academic socialization trajectories of two Chinese international doctoral students. One student learned about expectations for academic participation (i.e., habitus) from his supervisor and other senior faculty whereas the other student was not given guidance and ended up feeling unprepared academically. Lastly, Gillen (2003) reported how Doctor of Education students used bulletin board postings to appropriate, demonstrate, and develop their professional habitus in exchanges and thereby be socialized into academic discourses within their community of practice.

3.2.2 Motivating students

The second function of habitus was motivating students in their learning (Atkin, 2000; Diamond et al., 2004; Horvat & Davis, 2011; Makoe, 2006; Zevenbergen, 2005). Motivated students are more likely to spend effort in mastery learning, persevere in their learning despite challenges, see a larger purpose in learning, and feel confident of their own ability. Two studies illustrate how habitus can motivate students for personal (Makoe, 2006) or communal reasons (Atkin, 2000). Specifically, Makoe’s (2006) research found that Black South African first-generation distance-learning undergraduates from disadvantaged families were motivated because they understood education (i.e., appreciation of the value of education indicative of their habitus) as a means for empowering their community. Atkin (2000) documented how Lincolnshire rural workers’ recognition of the instrumental value of continuing education (i.e., habitus) motivated their learning. The workers were interested in work-based training to enhance their current employability (‘it is about employment skills’; p. 260).

Three studies show how teachers and principals (Diamond et al., 2004) and the teaching and learning process (Horvat & Davis, 2011; Zevenbergen, 2005) motivate student learning. Specifically, Diamond et al. (2004) analyzed how five urban, elementary schools serving low-income, African American students motivated their students to learn. In four of the schools (Lewis, Harris, Davis, Erickson), teachers addressed student challenges ‘directly and creatively’ (p. 86) and felt responsible for providing learning opportunities to students. In contrast, in the fifth school (Adams), teachers focused on student challenges but school leaders developed an institutional habitus requiring teachers to emphasize high academic expectations, and this habitus then fostered a collective sense of responsibility among teachers. Tellingly, one teacher from Adams said, ‘She [the principal] says that, “Yes this is an inner city school and the kids do live in poverty,” but she doesn’t let you feel sorry for yourself. She gives you a kick in the pants and sometimes you need that’ (p. 91). In another study, Zevenbergen (2005) demonstrated how, compared to lower-stream peers, upper-stream secondary students in Australia were motivated to study mathematics in future because of their positive perceptions (indicative of their habitus) of curricular and instructional practices (‘best teachers’ in terms of ‘status within the school’, ‘knowledge background’, ‘control’, ‘facilitation of learning’, and care; p. 615). Lastly, Horvat and Davis’s (2011) study showed how an experiential program, YouthBuild, successfully shaped the habitus of its participants (high school dropouts) by enhancing their self-esteem (‘I Do Count’, p. 158), self-efficacy (‘Oh, I Did It!’, p. 161), and capacity to contribute to others’ well-being (‘Now I’m Helping People’, p. 163), thereby motivating participants in their learning.

3.2.3 Facilitating student learning

The third function of habitus was facilitating students’ content learning, including learning that used technology (Czerniewicz & Brown, 2013; Hollingworth et al., 2011) or learning esoteric subjects (e.g., architecture) (Payne, 2015). For example, Czerniewicz and Brown’s (2013) research demonstrated how South African undergraduates’ (digital strangers) habitus enabled these students to cope with their learning requiring technology. Specifically, students recognized the value of technology (needed for learning) and its transformative potential (enabling them to succeed, improving their lives), improvised in challenging circumstances (e.g., using cell phones when they could not access computers for learning), and were strategic yet realistic users (comparing utility versus cost of computers). In another study, Hollingworth and colleagues (2011) characterized the habitus of middle-class parents in relation to student learning using technology. These parents appreciated the potential (‘taste for the necessary’, p. 352) of technology-enabled learning while navigating the associated risks, celebrated their children’s relative technological proficiency, and framed technology-enabled learning as ‘learning experiences, or an opportunity for family bonding and capitalize on them for their children’ (p. 357). Lastly, Payne’s (2015) interviews revealed that architecture faculty members perceived architecture to have an ‘elitist air’, so students needed to acquire a habitus where they were ‘open to everything’, able to appreciate architecture as an ‘abstract endeavor’, and able to exercise initiative (p. 20).

Two studies illuminate how habitus facilitates student learning at the classroom (Christ & Wang, 2008) or school level (Tarabini et al., 2017). Specifically, Christ and Wang’s (2008) research illuminated how first-graders from low-SES families acquired a habitus that enabled them to negotiate procedures in student-led classroom literacy activities. These procedures involved students making decisions to accept or reject procedural practices, scaffolding other group members’ use of procedural practices, and merging different classroom values to co-construct new procedural practices. Tarabini and colleagues (2017) reported the institutional habitus of a high-performing urban public secondary school in Barcelona as being characterized by ‘action and inclusion’ (p. 1180). The school had a positive educational status (‘preferred and popular school’; p. 1180); it implemented practices valuing student diversity; and it adopted a ‘collective identity and teaching responsibility’ (p. 1182) for academic excellence and social inclusion. Not surprisingly, most students from the school obtained the certificate of compulsory education and worked toward the baccalaureate.

3.2.4 Developing self-identity

The fourth function of habitus was helping students to develop a self-identity that legitimized and incentivized their learning. The self-identity can be developed reactively to overcome challenges (Becker, 2010; Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017; Fenge, 2010; James et al., 2015; Shin, 2014) or proactively to secure occupational advantages (Colley et al., 2003; Waters, 2007).

In terms of developing a self-identity as an adaptive response to challenges encountered, Becker’s (2010) research found that immigrant learners who were socially conditioned (habitus) and who studied non-credit English as a Second Language (cultural capital) were able to leverage support services and used their English learning to adopt a new self-identity and adjust to a new cultural milieu in California. James and colleagues’ (2015) study demonstrated how students in further education colleges in England constructed their learner identity to overcome their lack of confidence (perceiving themselves as ‘imposter’ students; p. 13). The students perceived themselves as ‘instrumental learners’ (these perceptions indicative of their habitus) who had a second chance to acquire capital. Shin’s (2014) research showed how Korean middle-class high school students in Toronto overcame the cultural-linguistic disadvantage they faced by constructing a new identity (i.e., habitus) for themselves as ‘new transnational subjects … who are wealthy, modern, and cosmopolitan’ (p. 101) and as ‘“better” speakers of English than Koreans remaining in Korea’ (p. 101), thereby differentiating themselves from other long-term Korean diaspora in Canada. For example, they lived in upscale homes, followed Korean fashion trends, socialized at Korean restaurants, enjoyed K-pop, and used Korean slang in their texting. Bitzer and Matimbo (2017) documented how a Tanzanian doctoral student developed his identity of ‘doctorateness’ (i.e., habitus; p. 541) when he progressed from merely conforming to his supervisor’s expectations to ‘exploring and meeting new criteria and standards of scholarship, fueled by his readings on doctorateness …, discussions with doctoral peers and learning … on personal and research skills’ (p. 547). Fenge (2010) provided a retrospective reflexive narrative of how he, as a professional doctorate student, considered a ‘Chair of Learner’ identity (i.e., habitus) to manage the ‘ambiguity and uncertainty of multiple identities’ (being a student, researcher, and practitioner) and reconcile these identities (p. 645).

In the case of individuals developing a self-identity to proactively secure occupational advantages, Colley and colleagues (2003) reported how vocational students in England developed a ‘vocational habitus’ (p. 14) that was aligned to workplace requirements. This habitus comprised ‘a “sense” of how to be’ and ‘sensibility’ pertaining to ‘requisite feelings and morals, and the capacity for emotional labour’ (p. 10). It must be a ‘“choosable” identity’ in the learners’ ‘horizons for action’ (p. 14). In another study, Waters (2007) investigated how HongKongers educated overseas in Canada acquired a cosmopolitan habitus (with ‘“charismatic” qualities’) that privileged their career development. The overseas experience equipped participants with the ‘necessary credentials, contacts and networks’ (p. 486) and prepared them for ‘future transnational mobility’ (p. 489).

3.2.5 Developing academic aspirations

The fifth function of habitus was helping students to develop academic aspirations (Archer et al., 2012; Morrison, 2009). For example, Archer and colleagues (2012) found that middle-class elementary school students whose families possessed a ‘pro-science’ habitus, in addition to possession of science capital and engagement in ‘concerted cultivation’, (a) experienced science in their daily lives; (b) leveraged ‘opportunities, resources, and support… to develop a practical “feel” and sense of mastery in science’; and (c) perceived ‘science as desirable’ (p. 891). Consequently, these students perceived science as a ‘natural choice’ in future education and occupational aspirations (p. 903). Additionally, Morrison’s (2009) study of ethnically diverse, working-class young people attending a college vocational course in travel and tourism in England identified two aspects of institutional habitus that contributed to students having aspirations of higher education in the same college after their vocational training: (a) positive teacher-student relations (‘lecturers’ informal and helpful attitudes’; p. 220), ‘students’ perceptions of a warm, supportive learning environment’ (p. 221), thereby alluding to students’ sense of ‘pragmatism and instrumentality’ (p. 222); and (b) educational status of the college (‘reputation and the specialist nature of its curriculum offering’; p. 223).

The aspirational habitus developed in students can then facilitate students’ transitions from one grade level to another (Davey, 2009), application to universities (Barrett & Martina, 2012; Oliver & Kettley, 2010), or completion of university studies (Baker & Brown, 2008; Thomas, 2002). For example, Davey’s (2009) study illustrated how habitus can help to facilitate students’ transitions from one grade level to another. It reported how three students acquired a new habitus when they transited from a state secondary school to study for their A levels at an English independent school. First, they discarded perceptions of their old selves (e.g., ‘an academically-failing student’) to blend in with new classmates perceived as being ‘hardworking and intelligent’ (p. 279). Next, they stopped perceiving their new classmates as ‘snobs’ and started befriending the latter (not ‘feeling any different from them’; p. 280). Third, they embraced change by using cultural capital (‘ability to negotiate with teachers and to engage in classroom banter’; p. 281), thereby ‘throwing’ themselves ‘into the life of the school’ (p. 281). Lastly, they embraced cultural capital valued in the school (e.g., competitive sports, music).

In terms of habitus facilitating students’ application to universities, Barrett and Martina (2012) identified how the institutional habitus helped students from two high-poverty, urban schools in the US graduate from the International Baccalaureate and get accepted into university degree programs. The institutional habitus comprised the ‘tight-knit bond’ (p. 257) characterized by trust and reciprocity (p. 257) among students, a ‘mindset change’ (p. 257) where students believed in working hard (‘not taking “the easy way out’”; p. 256), and perceptions of learning from overcoming challenges. In another study, Oliver and Kettley (2010) identified two types of teachers’ politico-ethical dispositions characterizing institutional habitus influencing whether students from state schools applied to Oxbridge. The first type of dispositions was held by ‘gatekeeper’ teachers who perceived Oxbridge as being ‘socially exclusive’ and overly marketized and who believed that students might not be happy if they joined these institutions. The second type of dispositions was held by ‘facilitator’ teachers who encouraged students to join Oxbridge to overcome the ‘putative privileging of private school students’, challenge ‘stereotypes’, and overcome ‘peer-group antipathy towards Oxbridge’ (p. 746).

In terms of habitus facilitating students’ completion of university studies, Baker and Brown (2008) reported how their Welsh participants from disadvantaged backgrounds derived strength from their culture to develop an ‘aspirational habitus’ (p. 58) that propelled them to complete their university studies (first-generation university graduates). These participants emulated religious role-models who needed formal education (e.g., ministers). They also perceived their duty to attend university ‘in proxy for others’ (p. 64) who were denied education because of financial constraints. Many were motivated to attend university to enjoy better employment opportunities. In another study, Thomas’ (2002) case study highlighted how the institutional habitus, comprising academic and social experiences, of a university in England improved the retention of its students from state schools and lower social classes. In terms of academic experience, students benefited from the high status accorded to teaching-and-learning, respectful and interested teachers, and assessment perceived as attainable and unbiased. As for social experience, students benefited from ‘good friendships and social networks that provided support to overcome difficulties’ (p. 435), living arrangements that identified ‘common ground with peers (i.e., those with a similar habitus’; p. 436), ‘smaller social venues where students can more readily feel comfortable, and be more certain that they will meet people they know’ (p. 437), and induction processes.

3.2.6 Habitus as coping mechanism and for risk-mitigation

In contrast to the five functions discussed above, some studies reported habitus that impeded student learning by lowering students’ expectations and precluding them from learning (Hollingworth et al., 2011; Lehmann, 2007; Meo, 2011; Smyth & Banks, 2012; Tarabini et al., 2017). However, this habitus should not be viewed from a deficit perspective because it serves a coping or risk-mitigation function. For example, Meo’s (2011) study found that average-performing middle-class students (so-called ‘loser’; p. 349) in Argentina adopted a specific type of habitus called ‘zafar’: that it was sufficient to be ‘good enough’ academically by meeting (not exceeding) teacher expectations. Through zafar, students coped with uninteresting or ‘irrelevant’ subjects and teachers whom they disliked. In another study, Hollingworth and colleagues’ (2011) study compared the different habitus associated with parents of different SES groups in relation to student learning using technology. They found that working-class parents were more averse to learning with technology, emphasizing its limitations as compared to face-to-face learning, expressing ‘discomfort, alienation and sometimes shame’ (p. 356) in using technology, and worrying that technological incompetence would hold their children back. These parents controlled and minimized their children’s learning using technology to protect the latter from any perceived harm. Lastly, Tarabini and colleagues (2017) characterized the institutional habitus of an urban public secondary school in Barcelona as ‘reaction and expulsion’ (p. 1177) premised on ‘logic of survival’ (p. 1186). The school’s organizational practices demonstrated ‘fatigue, division and ability grouping’ (p. 1184) and included separation of faculty between the academic and vocational tracks, principal’s focus on management (vis-à-vis student), a balkanized school culture, tracking, using expulsion/filtration/referral to manage student diversity, and eschewing responsibility by referring students to resources beyond the school. The school’s expressive order of ‘logic of survival’ was exemplified by a fatalistic vision, attribution of students’ learning difficulties to family and student health deficits, and poor perceptions of teachers’ efficacy. Not surprisingly, the proportion of students in the school passing examinations was lower than the average for all schools. However, the school adopted its institutional habitus because it was struggling to minimize the effects of student heterogeneity on classroom teaching.

3.3 Habitus could be continuous or discontinuous in social space

The second theme from the meta-ethnographic review is that habitus could be continuous or discontinuous in the social space. This reflects the fact that contextual conditions of the social space structure the habitus, so individuals need different habitus to maintain their competitive positions. The diversity in habitus also suggests that actors construct their habitus to give meaning to the social space where they are operating in (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Social space refers to the ‘set of all possible positions that are available for occupation at any given time or place’ (Hardy, 2012, p. 229). These positions are defined relative to each other (Bourdieu, 1984). They are generated by forms and amounts of capital recognized in society and by relative values associated with different combinations and volumes of these capitals (Hardy, 2012). A social space differs from a specific field in that the former refers to the universal set of all possible social positions whereas a field is a subset of these positions characterized by shared interests, activities, and dispositions of participants in the field.

Our analysis showed that habitus occurred in the social space comprising different fields and sub-fields. The three different fields pertained to students, families, and institutions. With regards to students, habitus could influence the learning trajectory of learners from different grade levels, including secondary and high school students (Davey, 2009), vocational students (Colley et al., 2003), undergraduates (Baker & Brown, 2008; Czerniewicz & Brown, 2013; Makoe, 2006; Payne, 2015), doctoral students (Bitzer & Matimbo, 2017; Fenge, 2010; Gillen, 2003; Weng, 2020), students in further education and adult workers (Atkin, 2000; James et al., 2015), and learners with overseas experiences such as high school students studying abroad (Shin, 2014), individuals who completed an overseas university education (Waters, 2007), and asylum seekers and refugees (Glastra & Vedder, 2010). With respect to families, habitus was related to how parents employed intensive immersion strategies to orient their children toward reading (Loh & Sun, 2020), supported children’s learning with technology (Hollingworth et al., 2011), and nurtured children’s science aspirations (Archer et al., 2012). Lastly, institutional habitus was related to teachers and principals’ influence (Diamond et al., 2004) on students’ academic and social experiences (Rodriguez, 2014; Thomas, 2002). It included perceived educational status, expressive order (Morrison, 2009; Tarabini et al., 2017), organizational practices (Tarabini et al., 2017; Zevenbergen, 2005), and teachers’ politico-ethical dispositions (Oliver & Kettley, 2010). Institutional habitus could also happen at the classroom (Christ & Wang, 2008) or program level (Horvat & Davis, 2011).

The reviewed studies also showed that there were different sub-fields within these fields related to students, families, and institutions. These sub-fields were related to different educational levels such as early childhood learning (Podesta, 2014), elementary schools (Darmody, 2012; Diamond et al., 2004), secondary schools (Meo, 2011; Rodriguez, 2014; Tarabini et al., 2017), and transitions to higher education (Atkin, 2000; Davey, 2009; Smyth & Banks, 2012). They also pertained to different types of learning such as vocational learning (Colley et al., 2003), further/higher non-university (James et al., 2015; Morrison, 2009) and university education (Baker & Brown, 2008; Czerniewicz & Brown, 2013; Lehmann, 2007), distance learning (Makoe, 2006), overseas education (Waters, 2007), and lifelong learning (Atkin, 2000). Some studies examined habitus in student learning of specific subject matter such as mathematics (Zevenbergen 2005), reading (Loh & Sun, 2020), science (Archer et al., 2012), or learning in specific modalities as exemplified by students learning English abroad (Shin, 2014), learning using technology (Hollingworth et al., 2011), classroom group literacy learning (Christ & Wang, 2008), and participation in a non-credit English as a Second Language program (Becker, 2010). Another group of studies analyzed the function of habitus in specific programs such as the International Baccalaureate in high-poverty schools (Barrett & Martina, 2012), YouthBuild (a multisite educational program serving high school dropouts; Horvat & Davis, 2011), a university architectural program (Chamberlin, 2010; Payne, 2015), TESOL doctoral program (Weng, 2020), and professional doctorate program (Fenge, 2010; Gillen, 2003). There was one study that examined the learning experiences of asylum-seekers living in a foreign land (Glastra & Vedder, 2010).

3.3.1 Continuity in social space

There were a few studies depicting continuity in habitus in the social space. For example, Podesta’s (2014) ethnographic study of mothers with preschool children living in disadvantaged neighborhoods provided a snapshot of how low-SES mothers’ habitus influenced how they managed their children’s transition to school. This habitus was characterized by a desire to balance the child’s happiness with learning, aspiration for their child to surpass their academic achievements, belief that education should occur in schools (not at home), passivity in pursuing educational activities for their children, emphasis on basic learning for the child, and belief that parenting was instinctive and developmental. In another study, Atkin (2002) analysis of life stories found that young adults in rural Lincolnshire who were imbued with a family habitus predisposed to continuing education and pedagogic authority were more likely to participate in formal education beyond the age of 16 years. Lastly, Glastra and Vedder (2010) identified a general continuity in the ‘educational habitus’ (p. 98) evident in learning strategies (e.g., choice of academic subjects) and goals of highly educated asylum seekers in The Netherlands (participants’ home and refuge countries representing different fields). Different factors contributed to the stability of the educational habitus, including a sense of ‘obligations towards those left behind’ (p. 98), ‘combined impact of forced inertia and isolation of the reception camp and the memories of traumatic events’ (p. 99) that compelled participants to rely on their past habits, refugees’ uncertainty about their future, and a strong professional identity.

3.3.2 Discontinuity in social space

Discontinuity in habitus in the social space was reported in some studies reviewed. A divided habitus can arise when individuals’ social origins contradict with their acquired distinctive positions in the field (Bourdieu, 2004). Sometimes, this misalignment represents a ‘structural lag between opportunities and the dispositions to grasp them’ (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 83). Lehmann (2007) exemplified a case of discontinuity in habitus between two different fields (family, school). The study illuminated how some first-generation undergraduates dropped out of university in Ontario not because of financial reasons or unsatisfactory academic performance but because of discontinuities between their own habitus and that of the institution. These students did not have a sense of ‘fitting in’ or ‘feeling university’ and complained of not being able to ‘relate to these people’ at their university (p. 105).

3.3.3 Discontinuity between or within institutions

Discontinuity in habitus could also occur between institutions (Darmody, 2012) or different sections in the same institution (Morrison, 2009). Darmody’s (2012) research on students’ transition from primary to secondary schools (representing two different sub-fields) in Ireland and Estonia found that differences in institutional habitus between school levels impacted students’ experiences. These differences were related to organizational characteristics such as ‘having different classrooms’, ‘different teachers’, and ‘restrictions and discipline students were not used to’ (p. 541); aspects of teaching and learning (e.g., ‘more difficult curriculum’, ‘increased amount of homework’; p. 542); and a more impersonal school climate (e.g., lack of student–teacher trust) in secondary schools. Therefore, students had to adapt by having better time management and working harder. In another study, Morrison’s (2009) study of ethnically diverse, working-class young people attending a vocational course in a Further and Higher Education college in England unraveled two different habitus characterizing the same institution. The institutional habitus of the further education section (representing one sub-field) was characterized by positive teacher-student relations and supportive teachers that culminated in students deciding to enroll for higher education in the same college. In contrast, teachers from the higher education section (representing another sub-field) were disappointed with the decisions of these vocational students, arguing that the latter should eschew the notion of a ‘safety blanket’ (p. 224) consistent with ‘localism’ and ‘pragmatic rationality’ in the literature (Hodkinson & Sparkes, 1997).

Smyth and Banks (2012) provided contrasting accounts of continuity and discontinuity traversing two fields of habitus (family, school) in two schools. Parents and peers of Fig Lane (a fee-paying middle-class school) students had high levels of expectations (habitus) that students would attend college. Furthermore, Fig Lane had an effective educational guidance program that mediated the institutional habitus; it clarified ‘expectations about suitable destinations for its students’ (p. 270). The confluence of family and institutional habitus supporting college-going resulted in Fig Lane students making informed decisions about which university to attend and what courses to study. In contrast, students from Barrack Street (a working-class school) had little ‘knowledge about college entry and courses’ (p. 272). They relied on college guidance counsellors but the latter were not confident or supportive of the students attending college (e.g., some counsellors convinced ‘students that they should not apply to college’; p. 274). Consequently, students felt ‘frustrated by the lack of adequate guidance’ (p. 272). The lack of a college-going habitus at home and in school resulted in Barrack Street students having little agency in the decision-making process of attending college.

3.4 Phase 7 (expressing the synthesis)

The meta-ethnographic review contributes to the literature by elucidating a typology of habitus with different functions influencing students’ educational experiences in the social space. The study also explicates how habitus can serve as a coping or risk-mitigation mechanism. It also identifies cases whereby habitus can be continuous or discontinuous across fields and sub-fields in social space. Collectively, these insights (summarized in Fig. 1) enhance our conceptual understanding of habitus as serving varied functions in students’ educational experiences across different stages of their learning and contexts.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Conceptual framework of topology of habitus in social space

Full size image

4 Discussion

4.1 Elucidating a typology of habitus with different functions

The present study focuses on habitus in Bourdieu’s theory of practice. Some scholars have argued for a more pluralistic, nuanced conceptualization of habitus. For example, Wacquant (2016) asserted that ‘habitus is never the replica of a single social structure but a dynamic, multi-scalar, and multi-layered set of schemata…’ (p. 64). Reay (2004) highlighted the paradox that habitus is the most contestable and elusive concept in Bourdieu’s theory despite its potential to illuminate social reproduction processes when used with other conceptual heuristics such as cultural capital and field. She attributed this to a series of tensions characterizing habitus: embodiment versus cognitive attitudes and perceptions, habitus inertia versus agency, individual versus collective trajectories, and interplay between the past and present. Silva (2016b) characterized a multidimensional habitus as comprising a hexis (corporal), ethos (moral), eidos (cognitive), and aesthetics (e.g., linguistic) aspects. There are also methodological suggestions on how quantitative researchers can unravel the conceptual complexity of habitus (Tan, 2017).

However, these commentaries and critiques of habitus (Reay, 2004; Silva, 2016b; Tan, 2017; Wacquant, 2016) have not been informed by a systematic review of empirical studies examining habitus. The present study advances the field by providing evidence from a meta-ethnographic review of qualitative studies to elucidate a typology of habitus with different functions in students’ educational experiences across contexts. Results show that habitus influences students’ educational experiences in different ways, including socializing, motivating, and facilitating learners, and developing learners’ self-identity and academic aspirations. These functions reflect the different requirements needed for academic success at different stages of learning. For example, academic socialization helps students to initiate their learning process, motivation and facilitation of learning and developing a learner’s self-identity are necessary to sustain existing learners, and academic aspirations enable students to envision the future and continue their learning. In other words, habitus can benefit learners in their learning across the lifespan. Therefore, rather than dismissing the different ways that habitus has been invoked in empirical studies as symptomatic of conceptual convolution, results from the present study suggest that habitus can serve different functions at different stages of student learning. Indeed, the present study leverages the methodological capacity of meta-ethnographic review to synthesize findings from different studies, each focusing on specific aspects of habitus in a particular context, and illuminate the different functions that habitus serves in students’ educational experience across different stages and contexts of learning.

4.2 Habitus must be examined in context

The present study shows that habitus can vary across contexts (i.e., fields and sub-fields in the social space). Results allude to the transferability of the construct to different conditions of practice (Bourdieu, 1984; Wacquant, 2016) and underscore the importance of examining habitus in context. Researchers, therefore, need to understand diverse fields that actors are operating in and the developing habitus that they carry to their social fields (Maton, 2012). Indeed, Wacquant (2016) explained that habitus interacts with the mapping of field positions that ‘excite, suppress, or redirect the socially constituted capacities and inclinations of the agent’ (p. 64). Additionally, the notion of hysteresis effect underscores the importance of compatibility between habitus and evolving field conditions. For example, when students lack dispositions to grasp learning opportunities in the field, there will be a structural lag (Bourdieu, 1977). Yang (2014) argued that the greater the distance between an individual’s habitus and that dictated by the field, the longer it needs to ‘fight against the resistance’ (p. 1532).

Notwithstanding the importance of field conditions, the scholarship on institutional habitus is less developed than that on student or familial habitus. On the one hand, scholars such as Atkinson (2011) argued that institutional habitus is an unnecessary extension of Bourdieu’s original conceptualization of habitus. On the other hand, Byrd (2019) argued that some studies have conflated institutional with individual habitus and ignored the impact of institutions’ own social status which is influenced by their possession of valued capitals. Institutional social status affects assumptions about institutional capacities and challenges and perceptions of students. It also engenders opportunities and restrictions within schools’ hierarchically organized spaces. Podesta’s (2014), Atkin’s (2002), and Lehmann’s (2007) studies demonstrate the importance of connecting the social (e.g., institutional habitus) with individual (e.g., personal or family habitus) aspects of habitus for learners of different age groups (preschoolers, post-secondary students, and undergraduates respectively) to understand continuities or discontinuities in habitus. This inextricable relationship underscores habitus as a ‘socialized subjectivity’ and as ‘social embodied’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, pp. 127–128).

4.3 Achieving congruence in habitus across fields

Results from the meta-ethnographic review show that while habitus contributes toward student learning in various ways, there are instances where it can impede student learning (e.g., average-performing students’ ‘zafar’ attitudes (Meo, 2011), working-class parents’ aversion toward student learning with technology (Hollingworth et al., 2011), institutional habitus of ‘reaction and expulsion’ and ‘logic of survival’ (Tarabini et al., 2017)). Given that students have to navigate different fields (including families, schools) in their learning, this finding suggests that it is naïve to assume that students who has a pro-learning habitus (e.g., motivated students) will succeed academically. There needs to be congruence between the habitus of students and those of their parents, teachers, and schools. It is, therefore, challenging for students from lower-SES families who have academic aspirations but who may receive little encouragement and support from their parents, classmates, and teachers to perform academically; these students are confronted with a ‘divided’ habitus (Bourdieu, 2007). Even if parents or teachers were to adapt their dispositions to support student learning, Bourdieu (2000b) cautioned that the revision is ‘never radical, because it works on the basis of the premises established in the previous state’ (p. 161). Wacquant (2016) argued that this ‘built-in inertia’ (p. 67) in habitus reproduces practices similar to the social structures where they emanate, so there may be a lag or even a hiatus between past and present determinations.

4.4 Benefiting from explicit pedagogy and institutional habitus

The present study shows that akin to student or familial habitus, institutional habitus can benefit student learning in various ways. For example, students benefit from an institutional habitus where teachers assume collective responsibility for student performance (Diamond et al., 2004; Tarabini et al., 2017), develop close relationships with students (Barrett & Martina, 2012; Morrison, 2009), set high expectations about educational destinations, and provide guidance programs for students (Smyth & Banks, 2012). Students also benefit from schools offering quality curriculum offerings and a good reputation (Morrison, 2009), facilitating students’ mindset change (Barrett & Martina, 2012), adopting a philosophy of action and inclusion (Tarabini et al., 2017), facilitating student application to elite universities (Oliver & Kettley, 2010), and promoting student retention in higher education (Thomas, 2002). Therefore, students from lower-SES families without a pro-learning habitus from their families can benefit from the ‘methodical inculcation’ of learning dispositions in ‘explicit pedagogy’ at school (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977, p. 47). Explicit pedagogy is often contrasted with implicit pedagogy which involves unconscious inculcation of habitus from the family. According to Yang (2014), explicit pedagogy entails strategic calculation. Specifically, the student has to be aware of what needs to be inculcated and the process of acquiring a specific habitus. He or she also needs to employ different means of inculcation integrating scholastic inculcation with day-to-day familiarization of the desired habitus.

Byrd (2019) framed the debate of whether students can benefit from a positive institutional habitus in terms of structure and agency. Specifically, Byrd (2019) argued that students do not automatically benefit from the existence of a pro-learning institutional habitus (structural determinism; Palardy, 2015; Sheridan, 2011); rather, they need to receive and respond to that habitus in their interactions with teachers (agency; Cipollone & Stich, 2017; Cornbleth, 2010). Indeed, the present study shows that students, especially those from low-SES backgrounds, can succeed academically if they identify the mismatch between their existing habitus and the field, shape their habitus via explicit pedagogy in schools, and strategically leverage opportunities in an open system (Yang, 2014). As Maton (2012) has argued, actors in a competitive field do not enter the field with full knowledge but they come to acquire a sense of the tempo, rhythms, and unwritten rules, or ‘a feel for the game’. Therefore, schools with a positive institutional habitus have the capacity to enable low-SES students to achieve ‘practical mastery’ in their educational experiences.

4.5 Can discontinuity in habitus benefit students’ learning?

Scholars have examined habitus in different fields and sub-fields. However, it is naïve to assume that the different types of habitus are aligned with each other to benefit student learning. Indeed, habitus may exhibit different degrees of integration and tension (Wacquant, 2016) and discontinuity may happen in response to new experiences (Silva, 2016a). Our analysis clearly identifies examples of continuity in learning strategies and goals of asylum seekers in a foreign land (Glastra & Vedder, 2010) and in low-SES mothers’ strategies in managing their children’s transition to preschool (Podesta, 2014). The studies reviewed also provide examples of discontinuity in habitus (Darmody, 2012; Lehmann, 2007; Morrison, 2009).

The question to ask then is whether the discontinuity can be beneficial to students’ educational experiences. Our analysis indicates that discontinuity in student and institutional habitus can benefit educational experiences of first-generation distance-learning undergraduates (Makoe, 2006), high school students adapted to studying in a foreign land (Shin, 2014), students in further education colleges (James et al., 2015), students transiting from state to independent schools (Davey, 2009), and adult learners from disadvantaged backgrounds (Baker & Brown, 2008). Relatedly, disadvantaged students can benefit from many aspects of institutional habitus. These aspects are related to students negotiating classroom procedures (Christ & Wang, 2008), teachers addressing student challenges and providing learning opportunities and principals emphasizing high expectations (Diamond et al., 2004), educational programs providing participants with authentic learning experience (Horvat & Davis, 2011), and close student relations and positive perceptions of the usefulness of learning (Barrett & Martina, 2012). This body of evidence provides support for the social mobility (vis-à-vis reproduction) hypothesis (Tan, 2017). It indicates that low-SES students can either learn cultural codes that are valued by educational gatekeepers, thereby accumulating the so-called ‘otherized’ cultural capital (DiMaggio, 1982; Winkle-Wagner, 2010) or benefit by attending schools with an institutional habitus that privileges learning for all students.

5 Conclusions

The key theoretical contribution of the present study is the elucidation of a typology of habitus with different functions (academic socialization, motivating learning, facilitating content learning, developing learners’ self-identity and aspirations, coping mechanism/risk-mitigation) in students’ educational experiences across contexts. The typology provides another perspective to address the claim by some researchers that there is a lack of fidelity in the use of habitus in the literature. We argue that it may be simplistic to infer from different studies that habitus has been conveniently (mis)used to represent whatever researchers intend the construct to be; rather, the meta-ethnographic evidence suggests that habitus has different functions to play in addressing the varied needs that students have according to the stages of their learning and in different fields and sub-fields.

Results from the present study have practical implications to help students succeed academically. First, at the familial level, parents can apply concerted cultivation strategies (Lareau, 2003), including, for example, orienting their children towards learning, motivating their children to learn, facilitating their students’ learning (including via leveraging technology), developing in their children a pro-learning self-identity, and helping their children to develop academic aspirations. Students can also adapt their habitus to meet institutional demands, thereby empowering themselves in their learning (Byrd, 2019). At the institutional level, given that explicit pedagogy (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977) may be beneficial for student learning, schools can design inclusive educational programs addressing students’ learning needs (Morrison, 2009). Teaching staff can be trained to be familiar with the social environment, cultural norms, and challenges confronting different students to imbue in the latter a culturally sensitive and socialization-oriented mindset (Tarabini et al., 2017). At the societal level, measures can be introduced to help families acquire cognitive and learning skills (Makoe, 2006). In addition, communities can function as informal educational suppliers (e.g., via distance-learning, life-long learning programs) to supplement formal learning provisions (Atkin, 2000).

Results from the present study have to be read with some limitations in mind. First, the meta-ethnographic review synthesizes results from qualitative studies but quantitative studies may also yield insights on the functions of habitus. Second, the results reported are more related to contemporary than historical socio-educational developments since the studies analyzed are dated 2000 or later. However, the study does not include studies published after 2020. This means that it does not encapsulate how habitus may have been transformed when teaching and learning is impacted by recent events (e.g., during COVID-19,Gu & Huang, 2022). Lastly, the analysis is limited to studies in English but there may be other non-English studies that are accessible to researchers conversant in other languages.

The present study points the way for future research in five ways. First, the present study has affirmed that habitus can be used to derive insights on learning experiences of different groups of students with respect to educational levels, types of learning, learning programs, and subject areas. Future research can examine how habitus may evolve when students progress from one educational level to another, from one type or program of learning to another, and from learning different subjects at various stages of their education. Second, researchers can employ meta-analysis to synthesize findings on habitus from quantitative studies to complement our results from qualitative studies. Third, future research can extend our work to investigate how the different types of habitus work with cultural capital to benefit students’ educational experiences. Fourth, researchers can unravel how habitus varies across other stratification variables such as students’ social class, gender, ethnicity, or religion in intersectionality studies. Lastly, research can examine how the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced the role of habitus in students’ educational experiences since late 2019.