Introduction

Follow-up and research studies show that students’ social backgrounds impact their success in upper secondary and higher education STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) subjects. Parental educational level, social networks, and past school experiences (known as r science capital (Archer et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2021) influence whether students choose STEM subjects in high school (Moote et al., 2020; Swedish National Agency for Education, 2020), identify themselves with STEM (Archer et al., 2020), and their ambitions in high school, especially in mathematics (Black et al., 2010; Brown et al., 2008; Kleanthous & Williams, 2010). Students’ science capital also affects their choice of higher education (The Swedish Higher Education Authority et al., 2020) and success (Engström, 2018). Several studies focus on students in STEM higher education and their ambitions and attitudes in an engineering and mathematics course (Godwin et al., 2016; Marra et al., 2009; Min et al., 2011).

The concept of science capital has gained acceptance and will be measured in the upcoming PISA assessment in 2025, which will focus on science (PISA, 2023). Furthermore, various initiatives have been implemented to improve science education and involve more students, particularly those with limited science capital. Teachers are being supported in finding increased meaning and relevance in their teaching through the Science Capital Teaching Approach (The Science Capital Teaching Approach, 2023). Another project, Youth Equity + STEM, seeks to provide opportunities for youth from underrepresented backgrounds to feel included in STEM fields (YESTEM, 2023). The Equity Compass, a tool included in the project, can be useful for teachers to create more inclusive learning environments by engaging in critical reflection (Archer, 2022a).

This study focuses on technical science capital and – specifically – its potential connection to student success in an engineering course setting. The aim is to determine whether technical science capital has an impact on student success throughout the educational system, as well as to identify possible obstacles to success in higher technical education. The study was conducted in Sweden and deals with the Swedish educational context, but similar patterns are followed in school systems in many other countries. A relationship between students’ social background, science capital, and interest and success in STEM subjects has been studied inter alia in the UK (Moote et al., 2020) and in the US (Betancur et al., 2018; Puccia et al., 2021; Plasman et al., 2021). Studies have also highlighted challenges faced by various student groups, particularly in higher technical education. Female students, for example, may struggle to identify with the engineering culture (Salas-Morera et al., 2021) or feel discriminated against (Danielsson et al., 2019). It is widely acknowledged that the engineering education culture are described as masculine (Wajcman, 1991; Ayalon, 2003; Wang & Degol, 2017) and that this prevailing norm of masculinity influence students’ educational choices, success factors, and sense of belonging (Connell, 1989; Norlander, 1994; Parson & Ozaki, 2017). However, we also know that the engineering field is gender segregated, with men being the majority and women the minority (Wajcman, 1991; Ayalon, 2003; Wang & Degol, 2017). The various programs in technology education are characterised by specific norms and values that students become aware of early on and that affect how they may identify themselves (Möller Gregersen et al., 2021). Working-class students or those from ethnic minority groups, for example, often find it challenging to feel at home in engineering courses (Reay et al., 2010; Campbell-Montalvo et al., 2021; Johnsson, 2019; Verdin & Godwin, 2018).

Just as projects have been created to develop more inclusive science education, there are also discussions on how engineering education can attract more students from underrepresented groups. For example, Godwin and Kirn (2020) suggest that educators support the development of an individual’s engineering identity by providing authentic engineering tasks, supporting the exploration of interests in engineering, and recognise students as engineers (Godwin et al., 2016, 2018). Authentic teaching, as shown by Singer et al. (2020) focuses on authentic learning that can help students develop their STEM identity. This can preferably occur when students encounter wicked problems (Peters & Tarpey, 2019; Lönngren, 2021) and develop a more pluralistic approach. Teaching where the positions of different interest groups are made visible and treated equally for democratic purposes (Sass et al., 2020).

Though this current study examines what brings success, its focus is on the challenges for students once they have successfully made it through the education system to the end of high school and are finally accepted on engineering courses at university level. We choose to study students who take the direct path and those who take a detour. By this, we do not mean that it is better or “the right way” to take the direct path; there can be many reasons for taking a detour, as the results also indicate. There are advantages and disadvantages to both paths. However, in educational institutions, throughput is often measured with the assumption that students should follow the direct path, and it is presented in quality work as a successful strategy.

Background

The concept of technical science capital

The concept of technical science capital is based on educational sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s theories of capital and habitus (Bourdieu, 1986). He describes the concept of capital and narrows it down to three fundamental types: economic capital (money, property, etc.), cultural capital (knowledge, skills, and educational qualifications), and social capital (connections and membership of groups). Broady (1998) explains how Bourdieu expands the concept of capital. He describes how capital consists of symbolic and material assets, and how, in addition to cultural capital, social capital and economic capital, Bourdieu also described more specific types of capital, such as educational capital and science capital. Bourdieu’s theories and studies show that students from families with high social or cultural capital become winners in the school system, regardless of ethnic background. Unlike low-performing students, these students bring with them the resources required to succeed in school practice (Abrahams, 2017; Carlhed Ydhag, 2017; Månsson, Carlhed Ydhag & Osman, 2021; Osman et al., 2020).

However, technical science capital itself was not a concept originally introduced by Bourdieu, although he touch on science and technology in his writings on science capital (Bourdieu, 2004). Nonetheless, Louise Archer has expanded on the concept and defined science capital in a way that is connected to Bourdieu’s theories. In the UCL IOE - Faculty of Education and Society homepage Archer et al. (ASPIRES) state:

“Science capital is a concept that can help us understand patterns in science participation - why some people engage with science and others do not. In particular, it helps shed light on why particular social groups remain underrepresented in post-16 science, and why many young people do not see science careers as being ‘for me’, nor see themselves as a ‘science person’.

The concept of science capital can be imagined like a bag, containing all the science-related knowledge, attitudes, experiences and resources that you acquire through life. It includes what science you know, how you think about science (your attitudes and dispositions), who you know (for example, if your parents are very interested in science) and what sort of everyday engagement you have with science”. (Archer et al, 2022;, 2020)

Technical science capital in this current study is defined, based on Archer’s et al. (2022) description of science capital (Archer, 2022), as follows: (1) knowledge, attitudes, experiences, and resources related to technical science, (2) technical science knowledge and the attitude to such knowledge, (3) friends, relatives, family with an interest in technical science, (4) activities in the life of technical science that engage.

The concept of habitus

According to Broady (1998), Bourdieu describes habitus as:

”systems of dispositions that allow people to act, think and orient themselves in the social world. A person’s habitus is founded through the habits he or she incorporates into the family and school and then functions as a tenacious and often unconscious pattern of action. Habitus can be considered as embodied capital” (translation by the authors).

Due to lifestyle, individuals can perceive, experience, and live everyday life differently or share similarities in habitus (Charlesworth, 2000). Theoretically, habitus can be understood as a compass that structures our actions. It is a product of the past and the influence of the present. The habitus, according to Bourdieu (1984), generates meaning-giving standpoints. Bourdieu (1989) explains how dispositions tend to be adjusted to standpoints, where an individual perceives the world as natural and accepts it. As a result, habitus shapes strategies to cope with social situations. Strategies can be described as the relationship between an individual’s habitus and the structures of the social world. In practice, strategies make it possible for individuals to deal with situations. The choices may appear to be objective, but they are determined by habitus. Consequently, the strategies/choices tend to reproduce the structures from which they result (Bourdieu, 2005).

Habitus in a social practice

Individuals, such as students, occupy a position and navigate within a social practice, such as higher technical education. Habitus and capital are related to a social practice (Bourdieu, 1984). Individuals have resources, or capital, that have different symbolic values depending on specific social practices. For instance, what is considered valuable and necessary within the social practice of higher technical education might not be as valuable in social science (Bourdieu, 1984).

Bourdieu has developed and described a praxeology, which can be seen as a theory of social practices (Petersen, 1995). Education at a university may be said to constitute a teaching practice. Every student who enters an institution of higher education and starts their studies has also positioned themselves within the university in relation to the position-takings that the individual brings with them.

The student’s actions within the social practice of the engineering course setting are based on their habitus, which can be observed through the choice of strategies they employ. Bourdieu (2004) suggest that when studying a social practice, it is necessary to analyse which activity and position-takings are highly valued, as well as the strategies individuals choose. By utilising the concept of habitus, Bourdieu (2005) explains the mechanisms behind people’s actions. By reconstructing habitus, one can understand why and how people act, as well as what they carry with them as “baggage”.

As previously mentioned, Bourdieu explains how habitus forms serve as the foundation for an individual’s strategies to effectively navigate social context. Strategies can be described as the interplay between the individual’s habitus and the structures of the social world. Bourdieu characterises strategies as being driven and bound by rules and necessary for achieving specific goals. He asserts that strategies are “collectively orchestrated”. When an individual is engaged in a practice, such as a teaching practice, their strategies are shaped by their habitus (Bourdieu, 2005; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).

Challenges linked to technical science capital within the Swedish school system

Within the Swedish school system, there are opportunities for children, students, and young people to develop knowledge and attitudes and to obtain resources related to technical science within the framework of formal technical education. In Sweden, technology is taught as a subject from preschool through to the end of high school. It is a compulsory subject in preschool and has its own syllabus in primary school until the student is 16, after which it continues as an elective subject in a specific technology program during high school. However, there are challenges in the Swedish education system. Some parts of the curriculum do not enjoy a sufficiently high profile in preschool, including mathematics, science, and technology (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2020). There are significant differences in how well students from different backgrounds succeed in school, with the students’ backgrounds playing an increasingly important role in their results. Students from homes without academic background and immigrants who have come to Sweden during their schooling generally fare worse in school (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2020). When students choose to attend high school, it is mostly male students (82%) who opt for the technology program. The program is not as popular among students with a foreign background (22%), although it is relatively popular among students with highly educated parents (70%). The same number of female and male students opt for the natural science program in high school, with a relatively high proportion of these having a foreign background (35%) and many having highly educated parents (75%). In Sweden, direct access to higher technical education is based on completing either of these two high school programs. Technology is a popular choice for young people who plan to go on to university after high school. However, there is a clear gender difference in the choice of different university programs, and the difference is greatest in the subject of technology. 21% of men applying for higher education in Sweden have indicated that they want to study technology, compared to 4% of women. Follow-up studies indicate that students’ social background and parental level of education are significant factors in determining their study interests (The Swedish Higher Education Authority, The Swedish Board of Student Finance, and The Swedish Council for Higher Education, 2020).

Opting for higher education in technology

Previous research indicates that students tend to choose higher education programs that align with their personal interests and overall life goals (Engström, 2018; Tolstrup Holmegaard, Ulriksen, L. M., & Möller, 2014), Their choice must appear unique, authentic, individual, and valid within their social network. Educational choices also run in the family, for example, it is common for former university students to encourage their children to choose their alma mater (Broady & Börjesson, 2008; Lidegran, 2009). Painter, Snyder, and Ralston (2017) summarise the reasons why young people choose engineering programs: ‘expressing an interest in the subject matter, being influenced by family, and prior experience with engineering related activities.

Wint (2023) demonstrates that young people’s choices in higher education are complex. The young person’s efforts and contextual factors influence their learning experiences, self-efficacy, and outcomes, as well as their expectations. However, Wint also shows that family members play a significant role in the decision to pursue an engineering career or not. Likewise, female students are more likely to mention the role of work experience (either their own or someone else’s), field trips, and summer schools as factors influencing their decisions. One of the key findings in Wint’s study is that many high school students and those seeking engineering degrees appear to have an idealized view of engineering. This view is heavily influenced by media, well-known personalities, and technological advances, and poses a risk to both student recruitment and retention. Additionally, it was noted that students pursuing engineering degrees had limited awareness of the negative effects that engineering can have, as well as the social aspects of sustainability, both of which may also jeopardize the effectiveness of future technology solutions.

Success or not in higher technical education

In Sweden, the application pressure and intake to engineering programs are high (UKÄ, 2021). However, one in four students drop out of their education one year after starting (UKÄ, 2018). Previous research examining dropouts from STEM fields suggests that individual factors such as performance, motivation, or study-related behaviour cannot provide a sufficient explanation as to why some students choose to continue and others drop out (Seymour, 2002). Instead, the academic experience and culture of the discipline contribute much more significantly to how students navigate their educational program (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). Feeling a sense of belonging and inclusion is important for success but has proven to be more difficult for minority groups (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Malone & Barabino, 2009; Parson & Ozaki, 2017). Factors such as the pedagogical approach, study environment, and learning experiences are major issues that make students lose interest in the educational programs. In addition, the competitive atmosphere, individualism, and division of subjects are connected to the engineering culture (Rasmussen & Håpnes, 1991; Göransson, 1995; Berg, 1999). The pedagogical culture in engineering education makes female students less prone to speak, ask or reply to questions to avoid being perceived as stupid by their peers or professors. Female students also seem to be feeling like they are failing more often, which can lead to them cancelling courses or dropping out of the program entirely (Parson & Ozaki, 2017). An “ideal” STEM student is characterised as someone ambitious, persistent, motivated, and individualistic, who not only demonstrates the capacity for rational and abstract problem solving but who also is not afraid to ask questions or fail, puts their education first, and has an adequate academic background (Parson & Ozaki, 2017). The likelihood of remaining in the program increases if a student can identify with the engineering role, which is made possible through their background, role models, or experiences from primary and secondary education. Even if a student experience setback, these can be overcome through support from peers, parents, and others who have insights into engineering education (Engström, 2018). Hence, students’ social networks are important when it comes to choosing and succeeding in higher education. The meeting the university becomes crucial for well-being, a sense of belonging, and success. Despite this, research focusing on institutional culture, higher technical education, and students is scarce (Parson & Ozaki, 2017; Ulriksen et al., 2010).

Regarding female students who achieve success in higher technical education in Sweden, they are often the daughters of well-educated parents who have a natural sciences, mathematics, or technology background. For them, the choice of subject is a natural one because of their mathematical ability. They are well-acquainted with engineering professions and higher education and thrive on “traditional” forms of teaching. They usually choose biotechnology, industrial economics, or chemistry. They thrive and feel at home in the “culture”, they “fit in”. A major source of inspiration and guidance seems to be their home circumstances rather than their previous time at school. Nevertheless, their previous time at school reinforces the capital that results in success (Engström, 2018).

Technical science capital that emerges in higher technical education

In Engström (2018), technical science capital is interpreted as a factor that contributes to success in higher technical education. Students are often inspired to pursue technical subjects based on their home circumstances. They receive guidance on how to study at the university level and what it means to be an engineer. They are also informed about available professions and specialisations within the technical field, helping them realise that there may be a career path for them in engineering. Moreover, students are exposed to how natural sciences and mathematics are applied in various ways in technology, and they have the opportunity to develop study approaches and insight into higher technical education, including mathematics. These different forms of technical science capital are often intertwined with inherited educational capital, as described by Bourdieu and Passeron (1979), which includes factors such as social background, parents’ professions and education, family’s educational resources, embodiment of identity experiences, structural factors, specific abilities, and place of residence as noted by Lidegran (2009). Other researchers, such as Doyle Kent et al. (2019), have found similar results, highlighting how positive role models, family members working as engineers, and interest in problem-solving, mathematics, and science are factors that influence students’ choice of engineer program. As a result, specific form of educational capital emerges among engineering students, which may include factors such as academic success in previous years, completion of a science program in high school, smooth transition to high school, effective study approaches, insights into the importance of mathematics, and a balance between social life and studies (Engström, 2018).

Research question

This study aims to contribute to research on institutional culture, STEM education, and students’ educational strategies by examining patterns of how students navigate through a university’s engineering program. Specifically, the study will investigate two groups of students: those who follow the program’s intended linear progression (referred to as “linear progression”), and those who take a deviational educational strategy (referred to as “taking a detour”). Additionally, the study will explore how social practices emerge as a reproductive context and identify the type of technical science capital that is significant for students who take a detour.

The research questions that this study seeks to answer are:

  1. 1.

    What are the reasons that students choose to progress in a linear fashion or take a detour?

  2. 2.

    How do these reasons connect to technical science capital?

Methods

Participants

The data were collected at a single university during the years 2018 to 2019. The participants were students who had started a 5-year engineering program in 2015 and progressed in a linear fashion, being registered for their fourth year in autumn 2018. Additionally, students who had started a 5-year engineering program or a 3-year engineering program but had “taken a detour” were also included. A survey (E1) was sent to students who had embarked upon their fourth year in autumn 2018 (master engineers), while a second survey (E2) was sent to students who had started in 2015 but had not yet embarked upon their final course component in spring 2018 (bachelor engineers) or who had not embarked upon their fourth year in autumn 2018 (master engineers), i.e. to students who had chosen not to progress in linear fashion or who had dropped out. E1 was sent to a total of 971 students, and E2 to 1,451 students via their student email. However, it should be noted that the survey was sent via student email to the students which was not registered in autumn 2018, which may have resulted in a large proportion of the survey not reaching their intended recipients. The students were informed in accordance with ethical guidelines (VR, 2017) and gave their consent by completing the survey. The students completed the survey anonymously, and their responses were processed according to current ethical and data storage guidelines. The students participating in this study are those who have responded to either of the two surveys E1 or E2.

The survey – the free text responses as empirical base

Survey 1 (E1) comprised 440 questions, of which 44 included free text responses, while Survey 2 (E2) had 400 questions, with 29 free text responses. The survey questions were formulated based on Bourdieu’s theories of capital and habitus (Bourdieu, 1984). They were designed to reconstruct the habitus of the respondents and interpret the capital relevant to each individual. The survey questions covered various aspects, including the student’s social background, experiences from previous school years, influences on their choice of studies, views on and knowledge of the engineering profession, interests, leisure activities, living conditions, self-confidence in mathematics, and more. The questionnaire has thus been created based on questions from Bourdieu (1984, pages 512–517). According to Bourdieu (1984), this allows for the study of the strategies and lifestyles that families and individuals consciously or unconsciously employ to preserve or increase their previously acquired forms of capital and holdings. This is done with the aim of improving their positions in relation to and within the structures that prevail. In this current study, we are investigating which strategies and lifestyles offer the opportunity to succeed in the specific social context.

A total of 144 responses were received for Survey 1, resulting in a response rate of 15%, while 113 responses were received for Survey 2, with a response rate of 8%. Due to the low response rates, quantitative analyses for achieving generalisable results were not possible. Instead, free text responses and other survey responses were used for a qualitative analysis. This included a total of 257 survey responses, which comprised numerous free text responses, written comments, as well as responses to questions involving assigning values, ranking statements, or multiple-choice outcomes. These survey responses can be seen as anonymous written accounts shared by students who chose to participate. The request to participate was sent out to 2,422 email addresses, and it is not known how many individuals the request actually reached. However, 257 individuals chose to respond, and their views, expressed experiences and opinions constitute the data material for this study.

The theoretical basis of the analysis

The set of strategies influenced by habitus, which is created by structures in the social world, is very complex. Engineering students encounter structures within the program setting, which they relate to by understanding them through their habitus. Therefore, the individual’s strategies to master the situation in the teaching practice have been created through the student’s habitus and are therefore characterised by what shaped that habitus in the past. Habitus becomes a tool for analysis, and by constructing a habitus, one can understand the student’s strategies. This type of analysis gives a complex picture, far more complex than, for example, an analysis in the form of mapping (categorisation of empirical base) can show (Bourdieu, 2005). Bourdieu emphasises that analysis patterns such as categories, structures, and patterns in studies provide poor descriptions of why people do what they do. According to Bourdieu, a practice cannot be fully described unless the underlying structures that determine the social conditions of habitus production and how habitus is put into action are also examined. This is because habitus produces the practice, partly through reproduction (as an individual’s strategies tend to reproduce the structures from which they result, as they are filtered through the individual’s habitus (Bourdieu, 2005; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992), and partly by habitus adapting to the requirements of the situation to which habitus relates directly (Petersen, 1995). The students who enrol in engineering courses bring with them their life patterns and use their habitus to filter the structures of the practice, contributing to it. Therefore, when examining a social practice, it cannot be considered unaffected by objective conditions or not potentially influenced by conditions that have produced the principles of its own emergence (Bourdieu, 2005). In the analysis of a social practice, Bourdieu (2004) distinguishes between opus operatum and modus operandi. The former refers to the way of acting as a student, while the latter enables one to become a student. When exploring social practices such as the engineering course setting at a university, in order to understand students’ strategies, we need to move from opus operatum to modus operandi - from what we observe in the course setting to the underlying principles that drive it. By doing so, we can create a theory of the social practice we are investigating (Bourdieu, 2005; Petersen, 1995) that explains what enables students to act within the educational setting.

The analysis

The analysis is based on Bourdieu’s theories of habitus and capital, and involves interpreting the students’ capital and reconstructing their habitus. The study focuses on two groups: (1) engineering students (master students) who started in 2015, progressed in linear fashion, and were registered in the fourth year 2018; and (2) engineering students who started in 2015 but who took a detour. In analysing the data material from group (1), the main interest is to find reasons for why the linear progression and explore the factors linked to technical science capital. In analysing the data l from group (2), the main interest is to find reasons for taking a detour and how these reasons can be linked to technical science capital. The analysis began by compiling the responses to all questions, including the free text responses, into a text document for each individual. These documents can be seen as a profile description that includes information about each individual’s background, experiences, position-takings, lifestyle, and so on. Each individual is considered to possess capital that is embodied in a habitus, which determines how they fit in, values things, and navigate their environment, such as the engineering course setting at the university. All this has been summarised in the profile of each individual, allowing for the reconstruction of their individual habitus. It is important to note that habitus is not a description of an individual’s characteristics, but rather a reconstruction based on the data. The analysis continued by reconstructing a group habitus linked to specific strategies. Firstly, a habitus was reconstructed for the group of all students who had applied to and begun higher technical education at a university in 2015. The next step involved grouping the students based on their choice (their strategy) of either continuing in linear fashion or opting for a different approach. The students within the different groups were analysed in more detail regarding the capital they possess and how they described their life situation through their responses. This allowed for further group habitus to be reconstructed. t is important to note that habitus reconstructions indeed are reconstructions; although they are generated from things that characterise real individuals, they are not descriptions of individuals. Instead, it is the experiences, position-takings, ways of life, etc. of an individual or a group of individuals that are transformed into a habitus.

The university, with its teaching, teachers, and environments, constitutes the practice that the students encounter. The social practice is generated by students, teachers, the university, and the environment, together and emerges in different ways in the different groups depending on the habitus. It was possible to interpret the characteristics of the social practice through the habitus reconstructions.

Limitations of the study

The study has some limitations, the fact that it focused on only one university, and the qualitative data was collected from a relatively small number of students who chose to respond to the survey. Due to the low number of respondents and the resulting limited number of narratives, we cannot draw overly general conclusions from the material. However, we can identify patterns and capture indications of more general experiences. The students who chose to share their experiences do exist, and previous research indicates similar experiences. We have chosen to focus on the experiences that have been expressed, and we have created habitus reconstructions based on them, which we can see manifest in the university world.

Technical science competence can encompass a broad knowledge and skill base, which is why one might argue that a survey like the one in the study does not provide a sufficient basis for drawing relevant conclusions related to the question of what may determine whether students succeed or not in higher technical education. However, in this study, we start from a specific definition of technical science capital that we then seek in the descriptions that students provide, the strategies and lifestyles they express. We draw inspiration from Bourdieu (1984) and many subsequent studies where habitus reconstructions are generated. What we can thus comment on is how specific forms of capital become important and how they are embodied in individuals, what can happen when individuals enter higher technical education, contexts with clear symbolic capital. Our goal is to understand the paths students take in higher technical education and relate them to different habitus and forms of capital. It is a way to analyse a social context, which higher engineering education is, and a way to understand how different students navigate it. This does not mean that we claim to have the only truth. However, we argue that by using Bourdieu’s theories as a theoretical framework, we can observe certain interesting patterns. We can also imagine that the approach itself, with Bourdieu-inspired survey questions, adds a certain degree of innovation to the results.

Critics may argue that the data material is limited and that the results only concern one institution. However, we would like to argue that the fundamental issue of the inherent patterns of segregating strategies in higher education, which are reproduced, is widespread (Börjesson, 2005).

Results and discussion

Different group habitus reconstructions

A general engineering student habitus

We can start with a habitus reconstruction based on all students’ accounts. Such a habitus is characterised by having chosen to apply for and start a university education, in this case, an engineering program in the autumn of 2015. There are experiences, position-takings, (i.e., capital), and other things that characterise student habitus generated from students in both group 1 and 2. The position-takings, characteristics, and experiences are similar for all students, both those who have chosen to progress in a linear fashion and those who have taken a detour.

From these, an engineering student’s habitus is reconstructed as having one or both parent(s) in possession of a higher degree and who in some way may work within technology and/or science. The habitus is characterised by starting university at a young age (19 or 20) and in most cases speaking a Western language at home. Having a talent for mathematics, a great interest in technology, and natural sciences and a feeling of confidence when starting the program are typical. Further habitus features are feeling that engineering was a natural choice, as well as believing that this specific university has a good reputation and interesting course-subjects. The typical dream reconstructed in this habitus seems to be related to obtaining high employability, broad knowledge and opportunities, having a job within the Swedish private engineering sector, positively influencing the public good and the environment, and earning a considerable amount of money. The general engineering student habitus is also characterised by the belief that the student activities of the program are necessary. An active lifestyle, reading books, discussing politics, enjoying the nightlife, and hanging out with friends are also distinguished within the habitus.

The linear progression habitus

The habitus reconstructed from individuals in group 1, i.e., those who have chosen the path of linear progression, is characterised by their ability to quickly assimilate complex content and handle rigorous learning. They feel secure in their natural inclination for mathematics and soon finding other like-minded course participants with whom to socialise and study. Although they might have experienced loneliness occasionally, generally course-colleagues talk and share problems with each other. Involvement in student clubs and associations is also characteristic of this habitus reconstruction. Furthermore, frequent foreign travel and visiting museums regularly are also features in this habitus. A common pattern in the reconstruction is that the academic aspect is described as demanding but manageable, with a natural talent for mathematics and the ability to manage exams are typical. Additionally, this habitus is characterised by the position-takings towards students who took a detour from the program, viewing them as lazy and lacking in ability, preparation, and study techniques, and unable to cope with the pressures of study. Another distinctive feature is the description of the program culture as non-competitive, helpful, conflict-free, inclusive and warm.

Different strategies and related ‘taken a detour’ habitus

In the analyses, four ‘taken a detour’ categories were identified, and within these, eleven group habitus were reconstructed. Thus, four different navigation strategies within higher education are presented, along with a few experiences/statements from respectively habitus reconstructions.

Category 1, strategy: stays within the program (73 individuals of 113)

Habitus 1.1 – too many missed exams

The habitus is described as a female or male student who struggles with feelings of loneliness and isolation. Shortly after joining the program, they feel it is difficult to manage their studies, especially exams, which leads to a decline in self-confidence and the feeling of not learning during lectures. This habitus is used to receiving support in the teaching situation, from high school, but at the university, there is no support. The experience of poor teaching becomes strong when there is no interaction. The habitus is characterised by knowing the importance of finding study friends early on and working hard bit being unable to do so. Instead, being grouped with “outsiders” or other students who have fallen behind is a feature of this habitus. The program culture is described as rough, with the pressure to be smart, good-looking, fit, and popular.

Habitus 1.2 – need to work alongside their studies

This habitus is described as a female or male student, often with parents who have obtained an engineering education outside of Sweden. They recognize the importance of finding study friends early on but struggle to do so due to having to work alongside their studies. This results in feelings of loneliness, exclusion from activities, and a sense of segregation due to lacking the right social network. They describe the program culture as having a great focus on high performance. The experience of poor teaching grows stronger when there is no interaction, and they may struggle with self-confidence.

These two habitus (1.1 and 1.2) are both characterised by failing several exams, finding the teaching poor, and a loss of self-confidence.

Habitus 1.3 – studied abroad

This habitus is described as a female or male student who has studied abroad for a period of time. They do not find the studies more difficult than expected, and they perceive the program culture as competitive. Early on, they realise the importance of being social, and hardworking, and finding study friends.

These three habitus (1.1–1.3) are all characterised by a similar experience of exam anxiety, inadequate teaching, and an interesting yet high-paced technology curriculum. They also share a feeling of competition and a great focus on high performance.

Habitus 1.4 – taken a free-year

This habitus is described as a female or male student who takes a free year for various reasons, such as pursuing elite sports activities, travelling, or engaging in local student activities. The habitus is characterised by feelings of loneliness and difficulties in establishing new friendships within already established social groups. Additionally, this habitus is associated with not failing exams.

Category 2, strategy: still an engineering student at the same university but within another programme (10 of 113)

Habitus 2.1 – a female student with no-western native language

This habitus describes a female student with a great interest in natural science who, after the second or third semester, switched to a natural science programme within the same university. The new program had more natural science and less focus on technology. The habitus is characterised by a feeling of lost confidence, academic problems, disliking the program atmosphere, experiencing racism and sexism, and perceiving teachers as treating different student group differently. Total segregation between social life and the university is also typical.

Habitus 2.2 – male student with a changing technology interest

Tis habitus describes a male student with Swedish as their native language who, after the first or fourth semester, switched to another program within the same university. The habitus is characterised by a change of career goals and a feeling of having made the wrong choice initially. The student struggled with some subjects and found non-technology courses more interesting.

Category 3, strategy – still an engineering student but now studies at another technical university (6 of 113)

Habitus 3.1 – wanted to change university

This habitus described a male student with a strong interest in natural science and technology, who after completing the second or third semester, switched to a different program at another technical university. The habitus is characterised by an interest in technology but lacking self-confidence, and struggle with courses. The experience of the program culture is typified as segregated with a demeaning working-class attitude. Furthermore, socialising in specific small groups but often feeling isolated from other students is a habitus feature.

Category 4, strategy – not an engineering student anymore (24 of 113)

Habitus 4.1 – three years are enough!

This habitus is described as a female or male student who, after three years, ended the five-year engineering program and got a job. They emphasise that a three-year candidate from the five-year program is good enough. The habitus is characterised by experiencing some courses as too high-paced and difficult - the programme was much more challenging than anticipated. The programme culture is expressed as competitive, and feelings of exclusion from friendship groups are typified. The importance of well-being and avoiding hunting for high grades are also habitus features.

Habitus 4.2 – wanted to take the medical programme

This habitus is described as a female or male student who changed to a medical program after the second semester. It is characterised by self-confidence and a feeling of being smart; the courses were interesting but not too difficult. Furthermore, performing well in the class and feeling a strong friendship within a specific group is typical. Now, it is clear that non-technology education is more interesting.

Habitus 4.3 – an engineer, no thanks!

This habitus is described as a female or male student who, after the first semester, changed to another mathematics, natural or social science program at another university. It is characterised by feeling smart but struggling with some courses – the program was much more difficult than expected and the courses became uninteresting. They were partly inspired to pursue engineering by descriptions in brochures and narratives about a fun party culture at the technical university. However, a change of career goals and an attitude that non-engineering education is more interesting is typical.

Habitus 4.4 – would rather work!

This habitus is described as a female or male student who chose to drop out and start working after the second semester. It is characterised by a feeling of loneliness during lectures and student activities, as well as struggling with courses – the program was more difficult and faster-paced than anticipated. The program culture is typified as competitive and filled with conflicts. Furthermore, a change of career goals and dropping out of engineering due to the belief that, non-engineering education could be more interesting is a habitus feature.

The social practice

As stated previously, the social practice is generated by students, teachers, the university, environments, etc. together and emerges in different ways in the different groups depending on the habitus. It is therefore possible to interpret the characteristics of the social practice through habitus reconstructions. Treating the higher technical university as a social practice, the results suggest that involvement with local student cultures, such as attending or planning parties, involvement in student associations, and specific program politics or projects, are encouraged. At the same time, being able to keep up a rapid pace of study, not failing exams, being prepared, having knowledge and competency in each subject are rewarded and expected. Furthermore, conducting research is viewed within the university as the primary objective, whereas the teaching aspects are secondary. Consequently, teachers are perceived as distant and not engaged with students or courses. The teaching consists of lectures, there is no teacher support, and exams are simply exams. The social practice is characterised by the importance of quickly finding groupings to belong to, both for study and for socialising. In addition, the social practice is characterised by mainly a homogenous student group, a strong group-structure, and an atmosphere of competition but also helpfulness as well.

Concluding discussion

In this study, we have utilized Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, capital, social practice, and strategies to answer the following questions. (1) Why do some students progress in linear fashion, while others “take a detour”? (2) How are the reasons linked to technical science capital?

We have explored and described the educational strategies of students by identifying g patterns of how they navigate within the higher technical educational setting of a particular university. Statistical data from the university reveals that around half of the student cohort follows the program’s intended linear progression, while the other half “take a detour” due to some kind of diverging educational strategy. The findings of this study are consistent with previous research, indicating that academic experience and the culture of the academic program influence a student’s progression.

The results suggest that a linear progression habitus makes it easier to manage within this specific social practice/space. Such a habitus is characterised by having no problems quickly finding friends and being included in strong groups. It can also n operate within a competitive atmosphere and be prepared to keep up with the rapid pace of study. Additionally, it is typified being active and involved with local student culture. This habitus is suitable e for the symbolic capital, both technical science capital and social capital and provides strategies that are appropriate for this specific social practice. Earlier research has also highlighted the importance of symbolic capital, such as science capital (Moote et al., 2019, 2020) and cultural capital (Walden et al., 2018), in managing higher technical education. Recommendations for engineering education have also been suggested (Walden et al., 2018; Engström, 2018; Parson & Ozaki, 2017), further emphasising the significance of habitus, capital, and social practice in a student’s educational strategies.

To answer the other part of the question regarding what makes a student “take a detour”, we refer to the various “detour” habitus that have been reconstructed and how these descriptions are related to the social space with expressed high value and successful structures. In summary, there seem to be clear patterns in the “detour” habitus and some of the explored strategies (or common characteristics for those habitus reconstructions that do not follow the intended path) and their relationship to this technical university.

Firstly, it is notable that many “detour” students have continued to study within the intended program, switched engineering program or moved to another technical university. These students, who a switched to medical programs or another program, would not typically be regarded as having dropped out. However, in this particular study, they will be classified as such. A “detour” habitus seems to be characterised by a strong interest in technology or science and a family background featuring technology and often higher education. However, this habitus seems to be characterised by some anxiety concerning o the attitudes within the engineering program. Nearly all of the habitus’ reconstructions seem to find the strong group structures in the programs and the attitudes surrounding the notion of high-level performance problematic. They express an understanding of t how important it is to have friends and belong to a strong group, both socially and for studying (as noted in earlier research, cited in Walden et al., 2018). However, many of these habitus’ reconstructions experience loneliness and isolation. They lack the strategies and motivation to join successful groups, which is a key factor in achieving success according to Walden et al. (2018). This is especially true when the habitus is also characterised by uncertainty regarding exams and courses, as well as unpreparedness about the course tempo and what is required. For many of these habitus, the meeting with higher technical education became a disappointment and they lost their self-confidence.

They did not seem to have strategies or awareness to easily navigate this specific university culture, this social practice. Additionally, some of the habitus expressed disappointment with the teaching. These habitus were characterised by an unpreparedness for the specific educational culture, which contrasted sharply with the upper secondary school culture where they excelled in mathematics and in natural science. Some of the habitus also experienced a feeling of exclusion due to race or ethnicity and social class, which is consistent with earlier research (highlighted in Walden et al., 2018; and Reay et al., 2010; Campbell-Montalvo et al., 2021; Johnsson, 2019; Verdin & Godwin, 2018). This feeling of exclusion, especially due to race or ethnicity, was also noted by Ong et al. (2020), which presented recommendations for a more inclusive engineering education.

Conclusions

In conclusion, having an interest in technology, a positive attitude towards engineering, self-confidence from upper secondary school, and a talent for mathematics are not sufficient for success in higher technical education. Even having parents with higher education in technology does not guarantee success. Technical science capital educational capital are not always enough to make a person feel comfortable in higher technical education due to cultural and structural barriers within the social practice.

Being prepared and having a disposition for the specific structures and traditions within a technical university seems to be different from having a interest and skills in technology. Therefore, there is a need for more inclusive and supportive environments both socially and in the teaching, that are based on the habitus and needs of students, at both secondary school level and university level. This includes how subjects are presented, how teaching is organised, and how power structures are challenged within the university.

Concrete actions within engineering education could be described in two tracks, which concern the way university teachers perceive and interact with students, as well as the actual teaching content. University teachers need to be challenged in their views and assumptions and encouraged to create a more inclusive practice. The equity compass (Archer et al., 2022) for example, could be a tool that can help teachers engage in critical reflection. Through the tool, teachers can develop new knowledge and understanding of issues of justice and social equity, which contribute to the development of critical reflection and justice practice. They can use the reflective questions in the Equity Compass to gain insight into their position and ask new questions about their own and others’ perspectives. This process can lead to advocating for change (e.g., more participatory learning) in their organization. By deepening their understanding of different dimensions of justice, teachers can critically evaluate and identify limitations in their practice and develop more participatory and inclusive practice forms of teaching (Archer et al., 2022b).

As for the actual teaching content within engineering education, one viable approach could be teaching for authentic learning, where examples are taken from real-life situations and collaborations occur with different actors with varying attitudes and interests that students can identify with. Allowing students to encounter and discuss so-called wicked problems and thereby realize that most situations and problems are complex, that it is important to understand different interest group. Moreover, it can help students recognize that there are no one-sided truths as answers to these problems, which can help them feel more involved and identify with the ways in which engineers solve problems. This approach may also be relevant for high school education. Students may need insight into the many facets of engineering work, and different specialisations, and that the engineering role is not the stereotypical role often portrayed in the media (Wint, 2023).