Factores de Riesgo

The discussions on Bourdieu’s Field Theory provide a useful framework to understand teaching and learning interactions within a social practice setting, which eases making sense of the link between theory and practice (Grenfell, 2014). However, Bourdieu’s ideas may not always be applicable as he conceived them, particularly in a graduate management education setting.

Bourdieu’s concept of field is contentious and can be easily subject to academic abuse. This is particularly so when making sense of field boundaries. Bourdieu describes a field as having three dimensions, namely, the power relations, the struggle for positions, and the implicit rules and norms, and these dimensions determine what is inside and outside these boundaries (Bourdieu, 1993; Grenfell* & James, 2004; Pouliot & Mérand, 2013). He adds to this confusion by sometimes likening social space to geographic space and even drawing reference from field theory in physics. While his use of spatial metaphors to explain his theory are useful to a point, they also tend to be abstract and can be confused with their “equivalents in ordinary language” (Silber, 1995, pp. 326-336). The use of spatial metaphors may also be misconstrued as an attempt at “genre stretching” (Brown, 1990, p. 57). Bourdieu also posits that the number of theoretically possible fields is infinite, and fields overlap and have influence over each other; these ideas further blur the notion of boundaries and the relationships between fields (Pouliot & Mérand, 2013). It can therefore be difficult to decide on the actual constitution of a field. For instance, are graduate management education and the workplace two different fields that meld into a sub-field referred to

as teaching and learning interactions? Does that sub-field actually exist or is more likely just a temporary marketplace where knowledge is traded and exchanged? Hence, it is not clear whether a field is a bounded reality or something that merely exists in the minds of the agents.

Bourdieu also seems to paint the field as a seemingly antagonistic space where “every field is a site of overt struggle” (Bourdieu, 1985, p. 734). However, competition in a field may not always necessarily be the norm. In teaching and learning interactions, practitioner-tutors and students cannot be considered as homogenous agents, as would be the case where two players meet in a competition field. Although practitioner-tutors and students are distinctly different in their teaching and learning interaction roles, and do share commonalities as industry practitioners, they are also both necessary components in that interaction field. This is a scenario where it is more likely that collaboration, rather than competition, as Bourdieu suggests, will allow their respective goals in the ‘game’ to be achieved (Martin, 2003; Thomson, 2008). As an extension of this thought, it could also be argued that students’ and practitioner- tutors’ conceptions of teaching and learning interactions are not different but actually different dimensions of the same teaching and learning interaction field (Morgan, 2006). This idea of co-construction supports the belief that neither the practitioner- tutor nor the practitioner student retains monopoly of knowledge in graduate management education (Ashwin, 2012; Fernández-Río, 2016).

It is also not uncommon for peers within graduate management education to leverage on one another to access information and experience (Coleman, 1988; Gopee &

Deane, 2013; Parker, Hall, & Kram, 2008; Portes, 2000). A great deal of peer interaction occurs within and outside the teaching and learning interaction field, such as discussion of group assignments that taps on each other’s experience and understanding of theory and practice, and how that might be applied in context (Martin, 2003; Stigmar, 2016a). This phenomenon leverages on what both Coleman (1988) and Bourdieu (2011) term as social capital. However, the commonality of terms is where the similarity stops. While Bourdieu views social capital as a lever for agents to strengthen their position or influence in a field, Coleman views social capital as more enabling through norms, obligations and expectations that are exercised for the good of all agents operating within a field (Dika & Singh, 2002). This supports the notion of collaboration rather than competition as Bourdieu suggests. Social capital is based on mutual cognition and recognition, and this is how it acquires a symbolic character and is transformed into symbolic capital (Siisiainen, 2003). However, I would argue that collaboration within the higher education field could actually be a means to accumulating capital in order to compete in the field of the workplace.

Bourdieu (2011) also seems to suggest that the power relationship between the teacher and student is absolute. Teachers possess pedagogical authority, which is the capital that gives them the power to shape outcomes and even behaviour in the teaching and learning interaction field (Vaara & Faÿ, 2011b). The symbolism of this capital is also exercised through the power they wield in assessment. However, when practitioner students possessing domain knowledge from various fields enter teaching and learning interactions they may actually possess greater symbolic capital than the teacher. Students bring to teaching and learning interactions specific expertise and

knowledge that adds value to collective learning and in some instances may be the subject matter expert. Therefore, the practitioner-tutor quite effectively, though temporarily, ends up being the student. This brings us back to the argument of co- construction of knowledge, which then debunks the absolute nature of the teacher’s power. To put things in perspective, it must also be acknowledged that Bourdieu’s ideas were based on a different time and place where social reproduction favoured the privileged, hence his conclusions regarding the absolute nature of power. Nevertheless, this is an area of interest which does not seem to have been discussed in literature on graduate management education.

Finally, Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic capital is difficult to quantify. In reality, the value of the symbolism varies between agents within a certain social context or field, and may not hold the same degree of symbolism or power in another social context (Desan, 2013). Recent changes to academic funding and the associated influx of non- traditional students, and faculty, has also changed the nature of the higher education field, and the relationship of its agents, namely the students and the teachers. Traditional notions of the constitution and possession of capital, as well as the ‘rules of the game’ are constantly being challenged as students and teachers discover their place in this new teaching and learning interaction field (Grenfell* & James, 2004; Hardy, 2008). Hence, another area for investigation in this thesis.

Bourdieu’s theory provides a useful framework to guide thinking on students’ conceptions of effective teaching and learning interactions within the context of graduate management education. However, this research is also cognisant of the

variations and limitations of the theory, such as the clarity of field boundaries, and notions of absolute teacher power, and the ‘fuzziness’ of capital, and how they might influence such conceptions in the real world. Nevertheless, applying Bourdieu’s theory of practice allows the research to unlock complexities that might be obscured by the decontextualised nature of knowledge arising from phenomenographic research. Here, it is useful to recognise that the role of habitus and how it determines response to teaching and learning interactions, as an added layer of understanding, and this is where Bourdieu’s conceptual thinking tools are useful for investigating the conceptions that arise in this research. The specific contexts of student and Local Counsellor as practitioners, and the flexible interpretations of graduate management education, provide rich data to explore Bourdieu’s concepts in practice. The next Chapter will discuss how research design and conduct has been shaped by literature, particularly that on phenomenography and Bourdieu’s theory of practice.