DATOS RECOLECTADOS

As Burt (2002, p.149) has remarked social capital is “a metaphor about advantage” and “the contextual complement to human capital”. While human capital explains inequality in terms of individual ability (the highly able perform better at work, are more skilled), the advantage of social capital concerns relationships between these highly able individuals with further benefits (ibid). Social capital has been used extensively in a plethora of studies across various social sciences without a widely agreed definition of social capital (McClenaghan, 2000). This study draws from the approach of Bourdieu (1986)

17 on social capital as useful concept in understanding the potential effect of socio-economic origin linked often to educational choices and the influence of networks in doctoral education and subsequent employment.

Bourdieu (1986) introduced different forms of capital, such as economic, cultural and social capital. While economic capital is referring to fortune, property and income, cultural capital is distinguished by the embodied, the objectified, and the institutionalised state. The embodied state of cultural capital concerns the dispositions of the individual and the knowledge acquired over time, including the transmission of knowledge and capital from the family.

The objectified state of cultural capital is explained by the exposure to the extended cultural environment of the individual including books, paintings, music, etc. The latter state is exemplified through academic qualifications as a form of capital that entails benefits for their holders. Bourdieu (ibid, p.251) highlighted how economic capital can be converted into this type of cultural capital through an academic qualification that becomes a distinguishing factor, an advantage for the holder of the qualification in relation to other:

He also underlined how the value of academic credentials is not stable and might yield fewer benefits than expected especially under conditions of academic qualifications’ inflation.

Cultural capital has been also pertinent to social class in Bourdieu’s approach. From a sociological perspective, investment in education is a common way of achieving social upward mobility. While the reproduction of social strata is

18 facilitated through education, those in high socio economic class can afford more educational investments in their offspring. So, although education can contribute to social mobility, according to Bourdieu, individuals from high social class tend to possess and retain more cultural and social capital, which tends to lead to a reproduction of class inequality and dominance of the high social class (Brown, 2003). As Bourdieu (1974, p.32) has remarked, education contributes to the maintenance of social inequality:

[Education] “is in fact one of the most effective means of perpetuating the

existing social pattern, as it both provides an apparent justification for social inequalities and gives recognition to the cultural heritage, that is, to a social gift treated as a natural one”.

While doctoral education represents the highest qualification acquired, the status of the PhD varies across different disciplinary, employment and national contexts (Triventi, 2011; Rudd and Hatch, 1968). Although previous studies have confirmed the effect of social origin and parental education on higher education access and selection of prestigious institutions (Deer, 2005; Boliver, 2006; Duru-Bellat et al., 2008), a limited influence of social background has been found on pursuing postgraduate education (Wakeling, 2009). Enders (2002, p.515) in a large scale survey of PhD graduates, found that educational and socioeconomic background of parents influenced access to the doctorate, but had ‘little or no additional impact’ on the career paths. Nevertheless, belonging to a high social class with important social networks facilitates the accumulation of social capital through which advantages and privileges for the individual can be derived. According to Bourdieu (1986, p.248) social capital is defined as:

19

“the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to the possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition”.

His approach is focused on the individual and has been characterised as ‘egocentric’ (Wall et al., 1998), since the importance of social capital is dependent on the number of resources available to the individual or the magnitude of network contacts that can utilise with the view to gain individual benefits. Thus, a PhD graduate can yield benefits from a range of networks developed within the academic environment (supervisor, other professors, peers) or the wider scholarly community (in his/her subject area).

Bourdieu also introduced the concept of habitus, which can be used to denote the cultural differences between the different scientific fields. The habitus concept is defined as:

“a web of perceptions about opportunities and the possible and appropriate responses in any situation” (Walpole, 2003, p.49).

This reflects perceptions, attitudes and dispositions of individuals that are developed continuously through the family and the surrounding environment. Although the habitus of Bourdieu has been primarily linked to the habitus of the elite social class (which shares common behaviours with the view to maintain its dominant position), demonstrations of habitus are evident in accessing networks under institutional forms such as a membership in an educational institution or a disciplinary group (Delamont et al., 1997a). Previous research has used the concept of habitus to reflect the norms and perceptions of different disciplinary cultures (ibid; Becher, 1981). Natural sciences and engineering – which is the disciplinary focus of this study – have shown

20 different cultural characteristics in comparison to humanities and social

sciences including the social organisation in terms of supervision and doctoral training. Science doctoral education is traditionally arranged in research teams and groups (Leonard et al., 2006; Becher et al., 1994) where

“responsibility for supervision is delegated and shared between the generations of researchers”1 _{(Delamont et al.,1997b, p.538).}

They have found that this ‘social organisation’ in sciences facilitates the transmission of dispositions and common perceptions to newly members of groups which constitutes the habitus of the discipline. Therefore, PhD students in these disciplines often assimilate the respective habitus. This involves not only peer support, knowledge and skills transfer from more experienced researchers that are critical for the PhD completion, but also can contribute to the understanding of the ‘disciplinary labour market’ and facilitate their

transition into employment opportunities.

Bourdieu has been criticised for his lack of clarity, comprehensiveness and operationalisation of concepts, such as the cultural capital and its link to educational attainment and habitus (Tzanakis, 2011; Sullivan, 2001; Nash, 1999). In addition, the dimension of gender and non-elite individuals are overlooked in this approach (Schuller et al., 2000; Schuller, 2007).

Bourdieu has focused on the benefits of belonging in specific networks and groups while negative implications can be also inferred from social capital

1

The authors based on a comparative study of socialization of PhD candidates emphasized the importance of postdoctoral researchers and senior researchers as a source of support for daily problems of PhD candidates in the lab sharing responsibility with the research director who is usually the formal supervisor utilised mainly for research direction by the PhDs.

21 when individuals are not part of these beneficial relationships. As Portes and Landolt (1996) have theorised:

“Social capital is a resource available through networks, then some individual and group claims will come at the expense of others”.

Lack of social capital can, thus, lead to exclusion and isolation to those that cannot access the structures, relations and groups (Szreter, 2000), while it can also hinder individual choices (Wall et al., 1998) that confer privileges

otherwise.

From a doctoral perspective, the PhD qualification can be considered as a form of cultural capital recognised by the institution of doctoral education conferring a competitive advantage to its holder. It can be argued that the prestige of the doctoral education institution might further enhance this advantage, which is likely to be translated into higher status or elite

employment and future career prospects in relation to PhD graduates from less reputable universities or non-PhD holders. In addition, Bourdieu (1986) has raised the importance of individual ‘dispositions’ and the importance of self- acquired knowledge – apart from the parents’ influence – in the embodied state of cultural capital, which can mirror personal traits, such as ability, skills, personality, values, preferences or motivation. Such individual dispositions and characteristics are investigated in this study to identify their influence on

22 The cultural capital of Bourdieu also reflects the socioeconomic status of

parents, which will be re-examined in this study2 to understand the decision making processes of research. In turn, this is related to the choice of

educational institution for doctoral studies and the type of doctoral funding, which are both examined in terms of their influence on the career trajectories of the participants beyond the PhD. The social capital embedded in social networks and relationships is also investigated as a determinant of

employment choices since study participants are members of the PhD

graduates’ community, but also belong to various groups in terms of discipline, country of doctoral education and employment. Therefore, different forms of membership will be considered as to what extent they entail career benefits or drawbacks for the participants of this study. In doctoral education sphere, social capital benefits can be a transmission of doctoral knowledge and skills, career advice, employment opportunities through access to an extensive academic and professional network facilitated by the supervisor(s) and academic colleagues during the doctoral process.

Since this study is focused on careers, the individual – as highlighted in the human capital and social capital approach – but also the interaction of the individual with other people and the surrounding environment (networks, etc.) is a significant variable in career choices. Therefore, the next section outlines a coherent career framework that not only includes individual characteristics, but also social and environmental features and the interface between them.

2

While the parental occupational background is provided in the survey, participants have also reported on the role of their family in pursuing a doctorate and deciding on their careers during the interviews.

23