Engaging with Pierre Bourdieu’s conceptual resources in educational research and practice

Xuan Minh Ngo

Friday 30 May 2025

For many postgraduate students and early-career researchers, Pierre Bourdieu’s writings can feel fascinating, yet intimidating. His concepts, such as ‘habitus’, ‘capital’, and ‘field’, offer powerful analytical tools for understanding social structures and inequalities, but they also come with dense theoretical language that can be difficult to unpack. Dr Maksud Ali (University of Dundee, UK) is someone who has successfully navigated this challenge. His research focuses on social class, widening participation, and educational inequalities, with a particular interest in how Bourdieu’s sociology helps us understand who gets access to education and becomes ‘winners’ and what is misrecognised and thereby who becomes ‘losers’.

First encounters with Bourdieu

Minh: Thank you for joining Sociocultural Chat, Dr Ali. Could you start by sharing a bit about your academic journey? What led you to engage with Bourdieu’s theoretical framework in your research?

Maksud: Thank you for having me. Please call me Maksud. My higher education journey began with an undergraduate degree in English Language and Literature in Bangladesh and then a Master’s in TESOL at the University of Essex in the UK. After that, I returned to Bangladesh and started teaching at a university. While teaching, I began thinking seriously about pursuing a PhD. I had always been drawn to social issues, which also brought me to the sociology of education, and later to Bourdieu. My initial work focused on high-stakes tests, which play a significant role in shaping people’s life opportunities. These tests often determine whether someone gets a chance to study at a prestigious university or not. I have written about the ritualisation of testing and how high-stakes tests create ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in society and reinforce broader social inequalities. The research was published in Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education and the Laboratory of International Assessment Studies. My research interest in sociology of education strongly resonated with Bourdieu’s works. I started exploring his works when I wrote my PhD proposal. I fully engaged with his works during my PhD, and I’ve continued this engagement since then.

Minh: Bourdieu’s concepts are widely used in social sciences, but they can also be quite dense. What was your first encounter with his work like, and how did you navigate its complexities?

Maksud: Like many others, I found Bourdieu’s work quite challenging at first. I think it’s not just because of the language Bourdieu used, but more because of his unconventional thinking, which also manifested through his language. To navigate the challenges, I tried to find some simplified readers and engage with people who understood Bourdieu well. During my PhD, I attended many events and seminars focused on  Bourdieu’s work. One event that stood out was organised by Dr Michael Mu, who was based at QUT at the time. That event was part of the AARE conference, and my supervisor and mentor, Associate Professor Ian Hardy, took me to the event. It was amazing to connect with a whole network of scholars in Brisbane and across Australia who were actively engaging with Bourdieu’s concepts. Seeing how they applied his concepts in different contexts was very motivating.

I was also lucky to be surrounded by mentors who really knew Bourdieu’s works well. My principal advisor, Associate Professor Obaid Hamid, used Bourdieu in his own PhD and later works. My second supervisor, Associate Professor Ian Hardy, also drew heavily on Bourdieu and offered great insights; his support with Bourdieu’s ‘relational methodology’ was critical during my PhD. I was very fortunate to have Professor Bob Lingard on my PhD panel, who was incredibly supportive of me and who had a very deep understanding of Bourdieu’s sociology. I am very grateful to Professor Lingard for introducing me to recent works, including those expanded by Bourdieu’s colleague Loic Wacquant and scholars from Asia and the Pacific. My relationship with these three people has gone beyond PhD, and I consider them as my life-long mentors.   

Applying Bourdieu’s ‘Thinking Tools’ in Educational Research

Minh: Your research has applied Bourdieu’s concepts to various areas, including widening participation and social class in education. Could you discuss how his theory has shaped your analysis in your own publications?

Maksud: I have used Bourdieu’s concepts in almost all my recent articles and book chapters. My ontological positionality has been influenced by my understanding of Bourdieu. When I talk about positionality, I see reality both from the structuralist as well as constructivist perspectives. I don’t take either a purely structuralist perspective or just the constructivist perspective, but I try to put them together, reflecting Bourdieu’s emphasis on the dialectical relationships between the subjective and the objective reality.

Minh: Can you give us some examples of how you have applied his concepts, like ‘field’, ‘capital’, ‘habitus’, in your own publications?

Maksud: I used his concept of field in one of the articles that was published in TESOL Quarterly entitled Datafication, Teachers’ Dispositions and English Language Teaching in Bangladesh: A Bourdieuian Analysis. I conceptualised policy as a field and then schooling as a distinct field, because I wanted to understand the relationship between the two. Specifically, I tried to understand the logics that characterised each field, and how these logics were aligned or different. In that sense, I tried to understand the relationship between theory and practice.

Regarding ‘capital’, Bourdieu conceptualised capital in three forms: economic, cultural, and social. Bourdieu’s concept of capital, particularly the concept of cultural capital, was helpful to conceptualise language skills as human capital and understand how language may be convertible into economic and social capital. Again, this relationship is possible if we take Bourdieu’s relational ontology. I’m using the word ‘relational’ again and again because that’s the key to understanding and applying Bourdieu from a methodological perspective.

I also employed his concept of ‘habitus’ in a recent article published in Applied Linguistics. I drew on the concept of habitus, including primary habitus – what students brought from their home and secondary habitus – what was emphasised by the textbooks and the schools, and I tried to demonstrate tensions in the pedagogical space based on the idea of social class and class-based habitus. Overall, I have applied his concepts to both policy analysis and understanding pedagogical practices.

Guidance for Early-Career Researchers

Minh: For someone new to Bourdieu’s work, which texts would you recommend starting with, and why?

Maksud: I think it’s hard to say because Bourdieu’s works are deeply relational. But in my own case, I started with his chapter called The Forms of Capital published in 1986. It’s where he conceptualises different forms of capital. Then I also read his Outline of a Theory of Practice, published in 1977. That helped me understand how he conceptualises these forms of capital and how they are applied, particularly in relation to concepts like field and habitus. In that book, Bourdieu outlined the theory of practice. These two readings could be good starting points, although I should say, for someone new to Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice may not be that easy: It’s quite dense and complex in its language. That’s why it can be useful to start with some simplified guides or readers, such as blog posts. Also, there’s a really useful resource book called Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts, edited by Michael Grenfell, which explains Bourdieu’s key concepts of ‘field’, ‘capital’, and ‘habitus’ in a lucid, accessible language.

Minh: Bourdieu’s concepts have been described as “thinking tools” rather than rigid theories. How would you advise early-career researchers to approach Bourdieu’s work in a way that avoids misinterpretation or oversimplification?

Maksud: That’s a good question! I’ve seen people not just misinterpreting Bourdieu but using his work in ways that he himself wouldn’t have approved of. I’ve even seen people referring to field, capital, and habitus as “notions”, but these are concepts, not notions. You’re absolutely right to say that Bourdieu’s concepts are better described as ‘thinking tools’, not rigid theories. Bourdieu himself would not want anyone to treat his concepts as something fixed that can be directly applied to any context. That would go against his entire ontology and epistemology. He was a structuralist-constructivist, not a strict structuralist. We have written about this ontological aspect in a recent book chapter called “Researching Global Policy Trends through English Language Education in a Global South Context Using Bourdieu’s ‘Thinking Tools’”. Hence, if you just use his concepts to evaluate data without critically interrogating them, that’s not in line with his philosophical position. Using Bourdieu’s concepts would require bringing theory and data in a recursive relationship, each interrogating the other.

‘Thinking tools’ mean these concepts are provisional; Bourdieu and Chinese Education: Inequality, Competition, and Change, edited by Michael Mu, Karen Dooley, and Allan Luke, provides a methodological illustration of this provisional aspect. If you’re using Bourdieu’s concepts to understand your own context, you need to treat them provisionally. You bring the concepts into conversation with your empirical data. It’s not about evaluating the data using theory, or vice versa. You put them together in a meaningful dialogue where theory interrogates the data, and the data interrogates the theory. That process can lead to new theoretical insights that are grounded in your specific reality. That’s how we avoid falling into the trap of rigid theoreticism or becoming purely empiricist.

Minh: Can you give us a specific example of how to do that? How did you bring one of Bourdieu’s concepts into conversation with the data? It would be great if you could draw on your own research.

Maksud: Sure, I can give an example from my PhD research. In one school, I observed two teachers who were working in the same context, yet they demonstrated very different forms of habitus. One of them said, “These students are unteachable”. The other teacher had a very different approach. He said: “This is my job, my responsibility to help them succeed.” In other words, one teacher saw it as an impossible mission to educate students in a rural school, while the other saw it as a challenge they had to take on. I used this moment to reflect on why two teachers in a single school setting demonstrate very different natures of habitus and take different theories of practice. This did not reflect Bourdieu’s theorising of ‘position-taking’ as he argued that agents operating within a similar field and under similar conditions would have similar dispositions towards practice. That’s what I mean by taking the theory provisionally and letting the data speak back to it. We must be open to acknowledging when a concept can’t fully explain the data; that might be a moment of theory development.

Minh: Some scholars argue that Bourdieu’s ideas are Eurocentric and less applicable in certain contexts. Have you encountered any limitations or challenges in using his theory, and how have you addressed them?

Maksud: Yes, that’s a valid concern. There are definitely tensions when you try to apply Bourdieu’s ‘thinking tools’ across different contexts, especially between what people might call Eastern and Western settings. But even within those broad categories, the differences are significant. For instance, China and India may both be considered Eastern, but they are very different. The same could be true with France and Greece in the West. That said, Bourdieu developed his sociology primarily in the context of French society. Hence, it makes sense that postcolonial scholars would raise questions about how applicable his concepts are in postcolonial contexts. I find it really important not to avoid these questions, especially if you’re working in a non-European context. In fact, engaging with those critiques is necessary. This again ties back to the idea of ‘thinking tools’ and taking Bourdieu provisionally. If we use Bourdieu’s concepts provisionally, bringing them into conversation with our own empirical realities, we can see how meaningful they are in our context. By allowing theory and data to interrogate each other, we can respond to those postcolonial critiques, avoid the trap of theoreticism, and see the limits and the possibilities of Bourdieu’s sociology in diverse settings.

Expanding Bourdieusian Research

Minh: Looking at the current educational landscape, what are some emerging research areas where Bourdieu’s theory could offer valuable insights?

Maksud: Bourdieu has always been popular among scholars, especially those working around social issues. His works are still relevant to most domains, including language and education. This is especially true if you’re working in areas like language and political economy, the economisation of language, economisation of education, pedagogical practices, social class, and social inequality, or more broadly, the sociology of education. However, we need to avoid that trap of theoreticism, applying his concepts in a rigid or mechanical way without critically engaging with the context.

Minh: Your work has engaged with both theoretical and empirical applications of Bourdieu. Do you think his framework still holds explanatory power in today’s increasingly marketised and digital education systems?

Maksud: I can’t talk much about the digital education system because that hasn’t really been my focus so far, but I can speak about the marketised education system. Bourdieu’s concepts have indeed become more relevant now in relation to the market logics that are dominating everything, including education, language, and society more broadly. When we consider our current globalised political economic context shaped by neoliberal forces, these powerful market logics have led to widespread inequality and marginalisation in societies, including within education. Bourdieu’s works are incredibly useful in unpacking those market logics and critiquing them, showing us how they’re shaping people’s lives, including their educational experiences and their broader social consequences. Bourdieu’s concept of misrecognition can provide a powerful analytical tool to unpack those social ramifications.

Practical Application for Teachers and Researchers

Minh: Teachers and practitioners may struggle to see how Bourdieu’s theory applies to their everyday work. Can you share some practical ways educators can use his ideas to reflect on their teaching practices?

Maksud: Basically, I think we need to engage with teacher education programmes more critically. The time has come to interrogate these programmes, because they’re often based on domain-specific perspectives and the thinking that if we train students in certain techniques or areas, they’ll master pedagogical practices and teach successfully. However, that’s not the case. Even the idea of implementation is becoming increasingly problematic because the contexts of implementation are diverse. This is where Bourdieu’s theory of practice becomes meaningful. We can also think about Kumaravadivelu’s macrostrategic framework, where he emphasises the contextualisation of teacher education reflecting a modular model. The idea is to help teachers develop their own theory of practice or to become aware of how their practices are shaped by and situated within broader social and institutional contexts. In other words, the aim isn’t to train teachers in a fixed pedagogy, but to help them reflect critically and develop their own theory of practice using Bourdieu’s ideas. We often talk about “teaching practices” or “learning practices”, but what do we actually mean by “practice”? This is where Bourdieu is so useful, though unfortunately, it’s an area that hasn’t received enough attention in relation to pedagogy.

Minh: Would you recommend teaching Bourdieu’s ideas in every teacher education programme? For example, I have a Master’s in TESOL programme with courses focused on language teaching methods, assessment, material design, which are very practical topics. Where could Bourdieu fit in, especially when there seems to be little room for theoretical engagement?

Maksud: I think my own works mentioned above provide examples of how this can be done. The TESOL Quarterly piece, for example, could be used to develop TESOL student-teachers’ understanding of the relationships between curriculum, policy, and pedagogy. That’s highly relevant if you’re teaching a module on TESOL methodology or TESOL curriculum. So, the question is: How do you develop that understanding in teachers or educational leaders? In my work, I used Bourdieu’s concept of field to help answer that.

In another article published last year in Applied Linguistics, I used habitus to explore how pedagogical practices were disrupted or unsuccessful despite being promoted by policymakers and textbook authors. I found that the failures were because those policies didn’t take social class differences into account.

If you have a module on TESOL materials design, this is directly relevant. From a Bourdieusian perspective, teachers need to be aware of the social factors that shape how materials are used and received. In other words, Bourdieu’s works are not just an abstract theory but could be used as tools to understand classroom dynamics. Likewise, Bourdieu can also be useful in assessment. If we only take a bureaucratic and uncritical approach to assessment, we miss a lot. Bourdieu helps us ask: Who benefits from assessment systems and who’s being left out? Test scores are forms of capital which can create ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in society. As I mentioned before, I explored these social dimensions of high-stakes testing in my article, “Ritualisation of testing: problematising high-stakes English-language testing in Bangladesh”.

Minh: Finally, do you have any advice for postgraduate students or early-career researchers who want to use Bourdieu’s theory but feel overwhelmed by its complexity?

Maksud: I think resilience is the key. A lot of people start reading Bourdieu and say, “I can’t do this.” But you can. You just need to stay with it. Keep reading, keep thinking, keep engaging and try to find mentors who can guide you. Once you start to understand Bourdieu’s work, it becomes enjoyable and rewarding. But it takes time. Once you do get a handle on Bourdieu, it opens doors to understanding other social theorists as well. For example, now I’m also engaging with Foucault, whose ideas complement Bourdieu’s in many ways. So, my advice to early-career researchers and PhD students is: Develop that resilience. Keep going. When you use Bourdieu, remember the relational approach and do not apply his ideas in a structuralist way. Don’t treat his work as if it’s just about ticking boxes. This approach wouldn’t align with his sociological perspective. It’s true that Bourdieu’s concepts are not easy, but if you commit to them, they will be rewarding in many ways.

Minh: Thank you for sharing your insights and experiences with us, Maksud. We really appreciate your time and look forward to seeing how your research continues to develop.

Maksud: Thank you again for having me. I wish you all the best with your mission to promote knowledge.

Note on contributors

Featured expert

Dr Maksud Ali is a Lecturer (Teaching & Research) in TESOL Education within the Division of Education and Society, School of Humanities, Social Sciences and Law, University of Dundee. Prior to joining the University of Dundee, he worked in the School of Education, the University of Queensland, Australia. His research focuses on policy and practice of TESOL and how these relate to people and their well-being in society. He is particularly interested in the intersectionality between language policy/education and political economy in the context of individual and social development. Dr Ali taught applied linguistics and TESOL education across three universities and in different countries, including Australia, Bangladesh, and the UK. Dr Ali is a Fellow of Advance HE (FHEA), and he is on the Editorial Board of Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (Springer Nature).

Interviewer and editor

Dr Xuan Minh Ngo is an Associate Lecturer in International Education and TESOL at the University of St Andrews, UK. Minh’s PhD thesis on the development of teacher language assessment literacy (LAL) from a sociocultural perspective won UQ (University of Queensland, Australia) Dean’s Award for Outstanding HDR Theses in 2023 Round and DuoLingo Doctoral Research Award in 2021. His research interests lie in the intersection of language assessment, language policy, teacher education, and educational technology. His works have been published in System, Language Teaching Research, English Today, Asian Englishes, The Qualitative Report, Asian EFL Journal, Journal of World Languages, and recent Routledge, Springer, and Cambridge edited collections. Minh also serves on the Editorial Board of the journal of AsiaTEFL.

Views: 244