This article was downloaded by: [Nipissing University]On: 06 October 2014, At: 19:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Irish Educational StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ries20

Bringing in Bourdieu's theory of socialcapital: renewing learning partnershipapproaches to social inclusionStephen O'Brien a & Mairtin Ó Fathaigh aa University College CorkPublished online: 15 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Stephen O'Brien & Mairtin Ó Fathaigh (2005) Bringing in Bourdieu's theoryof social capital: renewing learning partnership approaches to social inclusion, Irish EducationalStudies, 24:1, 65-76, DOI: 10.1080/03323310500184509

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03323310500184509

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Bringing in Bourdieu’s theory

of social capital: renewing learning

partnership approaches to social

inclusion

Stephen O’Brien* and Mairtin O FathaighUniversity College Cork

This paper is developed from a recently HEA-funded study that seeks to identify key aspects of

learning partnerships (LPs) and produce guidelines on best practice for educational providers

working with under-represented adult learning groups. The theory and practice of social capital is

highlighted as central to this task. In particular, the work of Pierre Bourdieu is seen as an invaluable

contribution to the search for more informed (and renewed) learning partnership approaches for

social inclusion. References to Bourdieu’s contribution in the literature and in partnership practices

are inadequate and this oversight, it is argued, presents greater obstacles to the social inclusion

ideal. The paper advocates a critical engagement with Bourdieu’s ideas in order to (re)examine

social inclusion challenges and develop appropriate learning partnership arrangements.

Introduction

This paper begins by outlining the theory of social capital. Bourdieu’s perspective, in

particular, is presented as the most useful approach in informing (and renewing)

learning partnerships for social inclusion. Notwithstanding the fact that learning

partnerships often vary in size, membership, geographical location, cultural ethos,

mission, and learning activities (see O’Brien & O Fathaigh, 2005), they are likely to

exhibit a common main purpose. With specific attention to learning partnerships for

social inclusion, we see such a common purpose as:

The will to support the development of a learning community that serves as an advocate

for local learning needs (specifically the needs of disadvantaged groups), while taking

into account the possibilities and constraints of national policy frameworks

Bourdieu’s theory proffers an invaluable conceptual lens through which social

inclusion in education may be investigated and advanced alongside this learning

partnership rationale. Despite this claim, an overview of contemporary literature

*Corresponding author. Education Department, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. Email:

s.obrien@ucc.ie

ISSN 0332-3315 (print)/ISSN 1747-4965 (online)/05/010065-12

# 2005 Educational Studies Association of Ireland

DOI: 10.1080/03323310500184509

Irish Educational StudiesVol. 24, No. 1, March 2005, pp. 65�/76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

22 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

research reveals that this theory is grossly under-utilised. The paper concludes by

highlighting how Bourdieu’s insights can be viewed principally as a critique of

existing theoretical and methodological approaches to our understandings of ‘social

capital’. Moreover, Bourdieu’s ideas are shown to inform more effective educational

measures for social inclusion.

The theory of social capital

‘Social capital’ theory can be sourced to the works of three main authors*/James

Coleman, Robert Putnam and Pierre Bourdieu. Coleman’s (1988, 1990, 1992)

interpretation of the concept is the most frequently cited in the educational literature.

For Coleman, social capital exists in the structure of relations between individuals

and is thus largely intangible. Its potency, however, is realised in its capacity (just like

physical and human capital) to facilitate productive activity. This is achieved through

the formation of social relationships built up over time which enables individuals to

achieve their interests over-and-above those that can only be attained independently.

Four important forms of social capital are identified: (a) obligations and expectations

(e.g. doing favours for and receiving favours from other people); (b) informational

potential (e.g. sharing useful information that may inform some future action); (c)

norms and effective sanctions (e.g. the establishment of community values and

shared standards of behaviour); and (d) authority relations (e.g. skilful leadership

that informs others’ actions). It is noted that social capital through these means can

benefit others who do not directly participate. Coleman (1990, p. 313) gives the

example here of the work of parent�teacher associations who set disciplinary

standards for the benefit of all in the school community. Some form of investment

in social capital (e.g. concerted group involvement) is deemed necessary, however,

for any such rewards to be amassed. While social capital can be created, conversely it

can also be destroyed. Here, Coleman cites a lack of relations between parents, as

well as a shared ideology (e.g. an ideology of self-sufficiency) as having potentially

negative social consequences (see Coleman, 1990, pp. 318�321). Social capital

theory, as used by Coleman, has strong structural�functionalist roots. For this

reason, his work is often cited in support of a particular kind of community*/‘one

characterised by strict, traditional values, rigorous discipline, and hierarchical order

and control’ (Dika & Singh, 2002, p. 34). Further, the social capital concept is

presented as a necessary precondition for promoting (via family norms, for example)

human capital development and educational achievement.

Putnam’s (1993, 1995) theory of social capital has functionalist roots also

(especially its focus on social integration), but it is furthermore influenced by

notions of pluralism and communitarianism. His central thesis is that a well

functioning regional economy together with a high level of political integration are

the result of that region’s capacity to successfully amass social capital (Siisiainen,

2000). Social capital here has three components: (a) moral obligations and norms;

(b) social values (particularly trust); and (c) social networks (especially the

66 Stephen O’Brien and Mairtin O Fathaigh

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

22 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

membership of voluntary associations). These forms of social capital are central to

the promotion of civil communities and civil society in general. According to

Putnam, the productive activity of social capital is manifest in its capacity to

‘facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit’ (Putnam, 1995, p. 2).

The threat to this productive capacity comes from changing social trends which

appear to indicate that such ‘coordination and cooperation’ is on the decline. To

illustrate, Putnam cites America’s falling participation numbers in union member-

ship, net religious involvement, parent�teacher organisations, and group associa-

tions. While there are some counter trends,1 the general conclusion is that social

capital is being eroded. Deleterious effects are noted in a loosening of bonds within

the family and a decline in social trust and relationships within communities.

Accordingly, Putnam makes a direct link between levels of civic engagement and a

community’s capacity to tackle social and economic problems such as unemploy-

ment, poverty, educational non-participation, and crime. Thus, much like Coleman,

Putnam claims that:

. . . networks of organised reciprocity and civic solidarity, far from being an epipheno-

menon of socio-economic modernisation [are] a precondition for it. (Putnam, 1995,

p. 2)

Taking Coleman’s and Putnam’s positions together, the general accord is that social

capital constitutes positive social control. It is the family’s and the community’s

responsibility to foster such characteristics as trust, shared information, and positive

norms of behaviour for everyone’s mutual benefit. A number of problems emerge

from this general perspective, however. In relation to Coleman’s approach, for

example, Dika and Singh (2002, p. 44) talk about a blurring of the distinction of

resources from the ability to obtain them in the social structure.2 In addition, the stress

on the family’s and the community’s role in mediating social capital serves to likewise

obscure the individual’s agency in accessing and utilising such resources. Also,

because resources are viewed as essential preconditions, those with insufficient

capital are in danger of being labelled powerless in their pursuit of the same desirable

outcomes enjoyed by their counterparts. Finally, it should be noted that the

connection between ownership of social capital and its activation remains unclear

and is largely untested in the research literature. Problems likewise emerge from

Putnam’s interpretation of social capital. Siisiainen (2000, p. 4), for example, points

to an inadequate coverage of the concept of ‘distrust’ and its singular association with

pathological forms of collective action. This treatise obscures the role of conflict in

activating alternative forms of social action.3 In addition, Putnam’s emphasis on

voluntary associations (which are usually of a specific type) precludes consideration

of those individuals who have conflicting interests or are simply disinterested in

engaging with such networks. Finally, it should be noted that ‘trust’ more typically

emerges from the struggle between competing interests.4

Given the above critical points, we turn to the work of Pierre Bourdieu to fill some

important methodological and conceptual gaps. Bourdieu’s (Bourdieu, 1977a,b,

1992; Bourdieu & Coleman, 1991; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Bourdieu &

Learning partnesships and social inclusion 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

22 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Passeron, 1997) main distinction is his belief that social capital operates as a tool of

cultural reproduction in explaining unequal educational achievement. This theory

has strong socio-cultural roots which locate the educational experiences of

individuals dialectically through their social and material history. Unlike the

structuralist approaches of Coleman and Putnam, this theory challenges deficit

thinking about underachievement and differentiates resources from their distribution

within the social structure. Further, unlike the other two ‘causal’ approaches,

Bourdieu’s perspective on social capital is designed to guide empirical work.5

Moreover, Bourdieu gives due regard to individuals and their mediated actions, as

well as to the concept of conflict as an expression of this subjectivity.6 These features,

in our opinion, render the Bourdieuian perspective on social capital the most

scrupulous and constructive approach in the study of disadvantaged learners.

Specifically, as a conceptual treatise, Bourdieu’s theory proffers socio-cultural

explanations for why under-represented groups remain excluded from the educa-

tional process. It achieves this by expanding upon an analysis of cultural barriers to

participation and relating subsequent investigations to actors’ own lived experiences.

Such a subject-centred enquiry is consistent with our own research approach (see

O’Brien & O Fathaigh, 2005) and is particularly useful in the search for effective

learning partnership characteristics that have a specific social inclusion focus.

Three key theoretical concepts need to be explained in relation to Bourdieu’s

perspective on social capital:

. habitus;

. capitals;

. fields.

Firstly, the concept of habitus is used to explain how objective structures and

subjective perceptions impact upon human action. The concept can be explained as

a set of regulatory schemes of thought and action, which are to some extent, a

product of prior experience. In Bourdieu’s (1977a, p. 72) own words, habitus

constitutes ‘a set of durable, transposable dispositions’ which regulates mental

activity to the point where individuals are often unconsciously aware of their

influence. In essence, the habitus concept is a way of explaining how social and

cultural messages (both actual and symbolic) shape individuals’ thoughts and

actions. It is not a static concept since it allows for individuals to mediate these

messages, even to the point of resisting embodied beliefs. The habitus is thus not

wholly structured, though it still remains strongly influenced by historical, social and

cultural contexts. To illustrate the importance of this concept, one might think of

how certain social groups are more capable of mobilising their own deeply held

beliefs on the value of education. Often such values are shaped by a general set of

outlooks in their immediate environment (e.g. parental/peer expectations, social

position) that afford them some advantage in utilising the formal education system.

These values need not be arrived at consciously either, but instead may be deeply

embodied within certain individuals’ cultural make-up. Social class factors are

68 Stephen O’Brien and Mairtin O Fathaigh

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

22 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

particularly strong in guiding mediated thought and action (Bourdieu calls this ‘class

habitus’). This is because social class powerfully affects consumption and lifestyle

patterns including, significantly, the exercise of educational choice. It follows, then,

that:

those in higher-class groupings are more likely to realise the value of schooling both in

the field of education and the occupational field, thus increasing the likelihood of

reproducing their position. (Rudd, 2003, p. 7)

The second important theme in illuminating Bourdieu’s theory is that of capitals.

This concept is subdivided into: economic , social , cultural , and symbolic categories.

Economic capital refers to income and other financial resources and assets. It is the

most liquid capital in that it may be more readily converted into other capitals

(Rudd, 2003). Its potency in the educational field, for example, is manifest in the

capacity of some individuals to purchase different types of educational services (e.g.

private education, additional grinds/tuitions, distance learning courses) and asso-

ciated resources (e.g. childcare, transport, books, ICT equipment, etc.). Economic

capital on its own, however, is not sufficient to buy ‘status’ or position*/rather, it

relies on the interaction with other forms of capital. One other such form is social

capital . This exists as a set of lasting social relations, networks and contacts. Like

Coleman and Putnam the notion of reciprocity is important here, though Bourdieu

emphasises individual (and not necessarily communal) gain that may be sought.

Investment in social capital, then, acts as a kind of strategy which (unconsciously or

otherwise) further serves as a mechanism to exchange other capitals. In educational

terms, one may think of significant ‘others’ in one’s life that are in a position to

enable material (and/or symbolic) access to new areas of expertise, resources and

support. Cultural capital comes in three forms*/objectified , embodied , and institutio-

nalised (Grenfell & James, 1998).7 Each form serves as ‘instruments for the

appropriation of symbolic wealth socially designated as worthy of being sought

and possessed’ (Bourdieu, 1977b, in Rudd, 2003, p. 54). The objectified form is

manifest in such items as books, qualifications, computers; the embodied form is

connected to the educated character of individuals, such as accent and learning

dispositions; and the institutionalised form represents the places of learning one may

attend (e.g. different types of schools, colleges, universities, or technology institu-

tions). The currency of such capital forms has more to do with their symbolic

appropriation than with their possession. Symbolic capital then is used by Bourdieu to

explain the ways in which capitals are perceived in the social structure e.g. the status

value attached to certain books, values, and/or places of learning. In relation to

capitals, it should be noted that all forms (economic , social , cultural , and symbolic

categories) are the key factors that define positions and possibilities for individuals

engaged in any field (in our case, education). Moreover, a ‘multiplier effect’

frequently emerges in relation to any form of capital accumulation i.e. one capital

often exchanges for another.

The third and final theme dealt with here is that of fields. In Bourdieuian language

this concept relates to a structured space of forces and struggles, consisting of an

Learning partnesships and social inclusion 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

22 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

ordered system and an identifiable network of relationships that impact upon the

habitus of individuals. Education is thus regarded as a field since it sets its own rules

that regulate behaviour within. Indeed, the struggle for possession of capital therein

indicates the uneven distribution of available resources and belies the universal image

often associated with education. Bourdieu claims that as certain individuals enter the

field, they (consciously or otherwise) are more aware of the rules of the game and/or

have greater capacity to manipulate these rules through their established capital

appropriation. Those individuals with prior qualifications or strong occupational and

social status are among those who may be categorised in this manner. Strategies

(actual and/or symbolic in form) are thus employed by individuals to distinguish

themselves from other groups and place them in advantageous positions via the

effective utilisation and exploitation of capital (Rudd, 2003). Such strategies can only

become meaningful if they exhibit symbolic relevance, i.e. if others, as well as the

actors themselves, consider such strategies to be of significant value. Symbolic power

is said to have its greatest expression in the general (albeit, erroneous) acceptance

that ‘the rules of the game are fair’ (i.e. in educational terms, ‘the meritocratic system

is even-handed’). ‘Misrecognition’ (a Bourdieuian phrase taken from Marx’s idea of

‘false consciousness’) thus occurs when those in more disadvantaged contexts ‘play

the game without questioning the rules’.8 This amounts to, what Bourdieu terms,

‘symbolic violence’.

References to social capital in the literature

We contend that any investigation of learning partnerships for social inclusion must

necessarily engage in a systematic socio-cultural analysis. An overview of contem-

porary research reveals that while social capital is often referred to and highlighted in

empirical results, such a socio-cultural treatise is generally absent. The final

discussion here impresses the need to locate social capital (and related concepts9)

in an adequate theoretical framework. Particular regard is given to Bourdieu’s

perspective and this is defended on a number of grounds. In relation to learning

partnership arrangements, for example, Bourdieu enhances our understanding of

power dynamics and the struggle therein for the ascendancy of individual interests.

Educational participation too, from a Bourdieuian perspective, is thought of as an

extension of participation in society at large and is thus contingent on wider political,

economic, social, and cultural factors. Accordingly, non-participation is challenged

not on individual/cultural deficit terms but in relation to the perceived need to effect

societal change. An analysis of social capital cannot therefore be separated from a

treatise on social exclusion. Contributory factors such as: low socio-economic status,

illiteracy, minimal levels of prior educational achievement, deprived geographic

regions, and inter-generational poverty are all highlighted as salient contextual

features. Moreover, moving away from structuralist claims, Bourdieu illustrates how

individuals themselves can effect change through their subjective appraisal of

‘objective realities’. As highlighted earlier, this judgment is primarily based on

70 Stephen O’Brien and Mairtin O Fathaigh

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

22 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

individuals’ capacity to mobilise capital(s). While the above points clearly illustrate

that Bourdieu is central to any debate on educational disadvantage, the critical fact

remains, however, that his theory is grossly under-utilised. Indeed, even when it is

‘referred to’-as discussions here indicate-it is often thought of and applied in an all-

too incoherent manner.

Social capital is a complex phenomenon. Unlike its common representation as a

linear model where ‘more social capital equals more [adult] learning’, Field (1999)

reminds that social capital can also inhibit participation in learning. Referring

specifically to Northern Ireland, he stresses that communality can actually appear

more supportive and rewarding than ‘going it alone’ in a formal institution (p. 509).

The predominantly positive image attached to social capital and its particular

association with effective forms of voluntarism (Powell & Guerin, 1997)10 should

thus be questioned. Specifically, there is a need to question how social capital is both

conceived and utilised. References to social capital in the research literature are often

couched in positive terms and are the result of an intuitive understanding that

emergent ‘findings’ are thought or felt to be ‘true’. Often these references appear as

dependable, common sense assertions, indicating a natural connectedness between

social capital and educational attainment. From a US perspective, Dika and Singh’s

(2002, pp. 36�40) research review of social capital illustrates this point well. They

note that during the period 1996�1998 the vast majority of studies consisted of

research designs in the Coleman tradition. Indicators of social capital (such as

traditional family structure, parent�child discussions, parent�school interactions,

etc.) were all shown to be positively related to conventional measures of educational

attainment. In the period 1999�2001 Coleman’s theoretical framework continued to

guide most of social capital research, this time from a more qualitative perspective.

Only a couple of studies adopted Putnam’s approach throughout both periods,

though outcomes were similar to the Coleman tradition, e.g. collective social capital

was shown as an important factor in promoting educational opportunity and health

(Morrow, 2001).

Significantly, only a few studies incorporated Bourdieu’s interpretation of social

capital (e.g. Valenzuela & Dornbusch, 1994; Lareau, 2000).11 To illustrate, with

respect to school choice at entry to second-level schooling in Britain, Reay and Ball

(1998) referred to parents as either ‘insiders’ or ‘outsiders’ within the educational

field. Such status was dependent on their relative capital accumulation. Also, in an

exploratory attempt to extend Bourdieu’s concept of capital, Diane Reay (2000)

attempted to operationalise the concept of ‘emotional capital’ to investigate the

affective role of mothers’ emotional involvement in their children’s education. Whilst

recognising that cultural capital is primarily transmitted through the family, Reay

noted the particular role of women and their direct influence on educational

achievement. Women’s (‘emotional capital’) qualities such as love and affection,

expenditure of time, attention, care and concern were shown to directly influence

dependents’ schooling success (see also Allat, 1993). A caveat is given here*/there is

no simple correlation between positive-type emotions (e.g. supportive advice) and

Learning partnesships and social inclusion 71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

22 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

emotional capital outcomes. Working class women, for example, often lack the right

conditions for promoting either emotional or cultural capital (Reay, 2000, p. 575).

In the vast majority of other (non-Bourdieuian influenced) research studies, the

correlation between social capital and educational attainment exhibits a (falsely)

assured rational appearance. Few would argue, certainly, that greater levels of

parent�teen or parent�school interaction and additional teacher/peer group support

networks would not enhance educational opportunity. Indeed, given that such

related factors make sense ‘on the ground’ and are often backed up by research data

(as indicated by the majority of studies above), they may well be indisputable. A

Bourdieuian critique of social capital outcomes recognises the import of such

research results, particularly in light of their capacity to underscore significant

features of educational disadvantage. However, noteworthy methodological and

theoretical objections prevail. Not least there is the criticism against much research

that Bourdieu’s theory is only being used as a theoretical ‘add-on’, i.e. it serves as a

type of post-commentary on results. In addition, there is little regard for using

Bourdieu’s theory as a means to provide coherent causal explanations for

manifestations of disadvantage. The main strength of Bourdieu’s theory (as we see

it) is that it proffers an important analytical framework (a ‘tool’) for understanding

how social capital outcomes are inter-related . To illustrate, his concept of ‘class

habitus’ is particularly useful in demonstrating that social class is not simply a

condition of being. Rather, it remains dependent upon practice arising from

dispositions and choices influenced by both subjective and objective relationships

within structures (Rudd, 2003). In other words, social class and other terms such as

gender and race are not attributes of individuals, but instead represent ‘generative

forces of action’ (Drudy & Lynch, 1993). Thus, taking socio-economic position or

the financial capacity to engage in education alone cannot capture disadvantaged

status. Unlike many studies that narrowly focus on social class in this way, Bourdieu

points to the connectedness of other forms of capital, including: the role of

qualifications as positional goods; the accorded value of education and its institutions

within a particular cultural milieu; internalised discourses about the possibilities and

impossibilities for individual action; and differential power relationships within

diverse fields. Likewise, social capital outcomes alone can only say so much about

disadvantage. Fostering positive community-institution or peer-group links, for

example, may be theoretically beneficial but there are still concerns (from a

Bourdieuian perspective) about (a) the nature and direction of such a relationship,

and (b) the relatedness of other forms of capital appropriated by different groups.

Conclusion

The challenges for effective learning partnerships for social inclusion are thus set out.

We need to avoid a simple definition of social capital that is aimed at promoting

certain characteristics attributed to the ‘educated individual’ or ‘learning commu-

nity’. This is because social capital is not something that can be simply translated

72 Stephen O’Brien and Mairtin O Fathaigh

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

22 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

from one group (usually those with appropriate capital levels) to another (usually

those lacking in resources). While an educational qualification is being increasingly

presented as a ‘universal paradigm for cultural development’ (Kade, 1988, p. 105),

the danger remains that the so-called ‘uneducated’ will also be labelled ‘culturally

deficient’. ‘The possession of successful competencies’ (such as educational

qualifications) reflects a wider social and cultural struggle for ascendancy (Jansen

& Wildemeersch, 1996, p. 33). From a Bourdieuian perspective, an educational

qualification is in itself a form of cultural capital that is used (consciously or

otherwise) as a means of vertical stratification. Thus, care should be exercised in

identifying and applying appropriate social capital outcomes from research. This

point often goes unheeded. There is still a general assumption, for example, that

lower-class parents should simply act more like white middle-class parents for the

benefit of their children. Alexander and Entwistle (1996, p. 284) are critical of this

position since it

. . .belies the complexity of the factors that contribute to parenting children in

disadvantaged circumstances as well as differences in values and belief systems that

reflect different socialising systems.

Weak studies that focus on positive social control factors, and specifically on singular

dimensions to social capital outcomes , must likewise be challenged. Typically, such

research makes grand claims. A recent project, for example, concluded that ‘children

of interested parents do 25% better in examinations’.12 Besides serious methodo-

logical and theoretical concerns, we may well ask how such research can proffer any

great insight into the integrative causes of educational disadvantage. Is it the case, for

example, that working-class parents are less interested in their children’s education?

Such a belief, we claim, is both unreliable and dangerous (Anderson & Niemi, 1970;

Irish Times, 2003).

Moving beyond a rights-based agenda (i.e. an equality agenda premised solely on

legislative frameworks), we contend that learning partnerships must strive to develop

the will to work with (not just for) disadvantaged groups. This proposal embraces a

strong ideological position on ‘disadvantage’ and ‘social exclusion’ (O’Brien & O

Fathaigh, 2005). Here, education is seen as more than the acquisition of

qualifications and social mobility. Instead, education is viewed as a significant

vehicle for cultural development aimed at developing legitimate democratic

representation and critical perspectives on the status quo. The challenge of such a

vision cannot be underestimated. The meritocratic ideology, so prevalent in Irish

education, is fairly well internalised in the minds of providers and learners/non-

learners alike (Lynch, 1999). Any developments towards a more inclusive education

system will thus require significant changes in cultural values and attitudes.

Principally, then, education needs to be acknowledged as a field of social processes

that produces loss of power, status, and self esteem. Learning partnerships in turn

must be prepared to act in the interests of others characterised as socio-culturally

distant. Crucially, this means a rejection of corrective strategies to ‘problems’ and a

willingness to engage with new theoretical tools (e.g. Bourdieu) that help explain

Learning partnesships and social inclusion 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

22 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

existing relationships and tensions therein. Such insights remain central to any

ambition for effective social inclusion.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the HEA in sponsoring a recent

research project wherein this paper is situated (see O’Brien & O Fathaigh, 2005).

Notes

1. For example, while group membership is declining (e.g. Boy Scouts figures are down by 26%

since 1970 and Red Cross membership has declined by 61% in the same period),

‘associational membership’ figures are up in some cases (e.g. national environmental

organisations like the Sierra Club and feminist groups such as the National Organisation for

Women). Furthermore, an increase in associational membership is manifest in the non-profit

organisations sector (e.g. Oxfam).

2. Coleman’s resources are measured (somewhat crudely) using High School and Beyond

(HSB) data which includes such information as: the presence of two parents in the home,

lower number of siblings, household size, church attendance, and higher parental

expectations. The danger here is that such information can actually obscure discussions

on ‘who gets to access such resources?’ and ‘how is access differentiated along race, class and

gender dimensions?’

3. Social action also engages those who critique the dominant political order of the day. Such

an anti-establishment stance need not be seen as pathological, however e.g. subgroups that

are formed to speak out against (what they see as) others’ perpetuation of injustice.

4. This point is highlighted in the main study’s discussions on partnership formation in Ireland

(see O’Brien & O Fathaigh, 2005). Here, it is noted that partnerships do not just simply

exist*/they come into being. Further, trust is something that is worked upon when common

and discordant interests are negotiated.

5. Bourdieu’s own professional background as an anthropologist no doubt informs this

position.

6. The key term here is ‘mediated’. Rudd (2003) argues that Bourdieu’s theory moves beyond

structure�agency debates to focus on the processes whereby individuals internalise the

relationships between themselves and objective, external structures. Moreover, the theory

also enables us to see how individuals’ subjective perceptions then structure their

externalised practice. See the concept of ‘habitus’ explained later in this section.

7. Although each category of cultural capital is distinct, it is possible that ownership of one

form may influence an individual’s relationship to, and possession of, another (Rudd, 2003).

8. Bourdieu states that, while disadvantaged groups often recognise their less favourable

positions, they are seldom aware of the processes through which such positions occur (Rudd,

2003).

9. Bourdieu (as highlighted) refers to other forms of capital*/social capital being only one of

four main types. Strictly speaking, then, the ‘social capital’ title is too narrow*/from a

Bourdieuian perspective, it means more than a broad construct of social relations. When we

refer to Bourdieu’s theory of ‘social capital’ we do so in relation to his integrated analysis of

all capital forms.

10. This is not to take away from the fact that voluntary organisations have the unique capacity

to engage individuals in important social networks and facilitate the distribution (and

redistribution) of important capitals (Courtney, 1992).

74 Stephen O’Brien and Mairtin O Fathaigh

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

22 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

11. See O’Brien and O Fathaigh (2004, Chapter 3) for a brief review of the research literature

coverage on social capital ‘outcomes’.

12. The research was conducted for the UK educational charity The Campaign for Learning (see

http://www.campaign-for-learning.org.uk/projects/projectsindex.htm for more details).

References

Alexander, K. L. & Entwistle, D. R. (1996) Schools and children at risk, in: A. Booth & J. F. Dunn

(Eds) Family�school links: how do they affect educational outcomes? (Chap. 5) (Mahwah, NJ,

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).

Allat, P. (1993) Becoming privileged: the role of family processes, in: I. Bates & G. Riseborough

(Eds) Youth and inequality (Buckingham, Open University Press).

Anderson, D. & Niemi, J. (1970) Adult education and the disadvantaged adult (New York, ERIC

Clearinghouse).

Bourdieu, P. (1977a) Outline of a theory of practice , transl. by Richard Nice (Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press).

Bourdieu, P. (1977b) Cultural reproduction and social reproduction, in: J. Karabel & A. Halsey

(Eds) Power and ideology in education (New York, Oxford University Press).

Bourdieu, P. (1992) in J. B. Thompson (Ed) Language and symbolic power , transl by G. Raymond &

M. Adamson (Cambridge, Polity Press).

Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. (1977) Reproduction in education, society and culture (Sheffield, Sheffield

Region Centre for Science and Technology).

Bourdieu, P. & Coleman, J. (Eds) (1991) Social theory for a changing society (Boulder, CO,

Westview Press).

Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. (1992) An invitation to reflexive sociology (Cambridge, Polity Press).

Coleman, J. S. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital, American Journal of Sociology,

94(supplement), 95�120.

Coleman, J. S. (1990) Foundations of social theory (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).

Coleman, J. S. (1992) Some points on choice in education, Sociology of Education, 65(4), 260�262.

Courtney, S. (1992) Why adults learn*/towards a theory of participation in adult education (London,

Routledge).

Dika, S. L. & Singh, K. (2002) Applications of social capital in educational literature: a critical

synthesis, Review of Educational Research Spring 2002, 72(1), 31�60.

Drudy, S. & Lynch, K. (1993) Schools and society in Ireland (Dublin, Gill & Macmillan).

Field, J. (1999) Schooling, networks and the labour market: explaining participation in lifelong

learning in Northern Ireland, British Educational Research Journal , 25(4), 501�516.

Grenfell, M. & James, D. (1998) Bourdieu and Education: acts of political theory (London, Falmer

Press).

Irish Times (2003) Coping with disadvantage, article with Brian Fleming, Principal of an inner city

school in Dublin, talking to Kathryn Holmquist, Education Correspondent , 7 October.

Jansen, T. & Wildemeersch, D. (1996) Adult education and critical identity development: from a

deficiency orientation towards a competency orientation, International Journal of Lifelong

Education, 15(5), 325�340.

Kade, J. (1988) Subjektwerdung und Gemeinschaftsbezuge*/die Qualifizierungsoffensive als

Herausforderung fur die Erwachsenenbildungstheoric (Zeitschrift fur Padagogik, 23, pp.

99�107).

Lareau, A. (2000) Home advantage: social class and parental intervention in elementary education

(Lanham, MD, Rowman and Littlefield).

Lynch, K. (1999) Equality in education (Dublin, Gill & Macmillan).

Learning partnesships and social inclusion 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

22 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Morrow, V. (2001) Using qualitative methods to elicit young people’s perspectives on their

environments: some ideas for community health initiatives, Health Education Research, 16(3),

255�268.

O’Brien, S. & O Fathaigh, M. (2005) Learning partnerships for social inclusion*/exploring lifelong

learning contexts, issues and approaches, forthcoming.

Powell, F. & Guerin, D. (1997) Civil society and social policy*/voluntarism in Ireland (Dublin, A &A

Farmar).

Putnam, R. D. (1993) Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy (Princeton, NJ,

Princeton University Press).

Putnam, R. D. (1995) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital, Journal of Democracy,

6(1), 65�78.

Reay, D. (2000) A useful extension of Bourdieu’s conceptual framework?: Emotional capital as a

way of understanding mothers’ involvement in their children’s education, The Sociological

Review, 2000, 568�585.

Reay, D. & Ball, S. (1998) Making their minds up: family dynamics of school choice, British

Educational Research Journal, 24(4), 431�448.

Rudd, T. (2003) ICT and the reproduction of inequalities: a Bourdieuian perspective. PhD thesis

(Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol).

Siisiainen, M. (2000) Two concepts of social capital. Paper presented at the ISTR Fourth

International Conference The Third Sector: For What and for Whom?, 5�8 July, Trinity

College, Dublin.

Valenzuela, A. & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994) Familism and social capital in the academic

achievement of Mexican origin and Anglo adolescents, Social Science Quarterly, 75(1),

18�36.

76 Stephen O’Brien and Mairtin O Fathaigh

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nip

issi

ng U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

22 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014