In the intricate world of higher education, the mentorship and guidance provided by doctoral supervisors are much more than academic exchanges; they represent a subtle and profound mechanism through which academic culture is transmitted and reproduced. Recent research grounded in the theoretical framework established by Pierre Bourdieu sheds new light on how doctoral students’ academic identities and cultural capital are cultivated within supervisory interactions. This study goes beyond conventional views by emphasizing the role of power dynamics, social structures, and deeply ingrained dispositions in shaping the academic trajectories of emerging scholars.
At the heart of this exploration lies Bourdieu’s theory of cultural reproduction, a critical lens through which the reproduction of social structures via education is understood. Bourdieu argued that educational institutions do not simply serve as neutral platforms for intellectual enhancement; rather, they act as agents of “symbolic violence.” This concept refers to the subtle imposition of the dominant class’s cultural norms and capital within educational fields, which results not in the breaking down but the reinforcement of existing social hierarchies. In higher education, this process manifests through the transmission of academic cultural capital—knowledge, credentials, networks—that doctoral supervisors impart to their students.
Fundamental to Bourdieu’s framework are the interrelated concepts of field, habitus, and capital. The “field” represents a structured social space—in this context, the realm of academic research and doctoral supervision—where individuals occupy positions defined by varying degrees of power and capital. Doctoral supervisors typically hold dominant positions in this field due to their accumulated academic capital, which permits them to set the rules, norms, and expectations that govern successful academic practice. Students, positioned lower in this hierarchy, navigate this field’s constraints as they acquire the necessary academic cultural capital.
Capital, as Bourdieu described, extends beyond mere economic wealth and encompasses cultural and social resources that carry value within a given field. This study effectively adapts the conventional notion of capital to the academic environment, differentiating between academic cultural capital and academic social capital. Academic cultural capital comprises not only formal credentials such as diplomas—which Bourdieu termed institutionalized cultural capital—but also the embodied dispositions like research skills, theoretical understanding, and scholarly habits, as well as the objectified cultural goods such as published works. Academic social capital involves networks and reputations that grant access to academic resources and communities.
The process of guidance in doctoral supervision, from this perspective, is the intergenerational transmission of these forms of capital. Supervisors, armed with extensive academic capital accumulated through years of scholarship and professional networking, act as gatekeepers and mentors who transmit this capital to their students. This transmission is neither neutral nor egalitarian. Instead, it can be conceptualized as a form of symbolic violence, wherein the supervisor’s values, academic style, and expectations shape the student’s habitus—the internalized dispositions, cognitive schemas, and practices that constitute their academic identity.
Habitus, a central Bourdieuian construct, captures the lasting psychological and behavioral tendencies formed through one’s social and educational context. Doctoral students’ habitus is influenced by their previous experiences and family background but is also profoundly reshaped during their academic socialization. The supervisor-student relationship acts as a crucible for this transformation as students navigate expectations and internalize the norms necessary for their integration into the academic community. This internalization is critical in the development of a doctoral candidate’s self-concept and their assumed role within the academic field.
The study nuances the negotiation process in supervisory interactions, highlighting the asymmetry inherent in power relationships. Supervisors, possessing superior academic capital and thus commanding greater influence within the field, often impose disciplinary norms and academic standards that students must adopt to succeed. This dynamic creates a tension between obedience and imitation on the one hand, and the student’s hope and attempts to shape their unique academic habitus on the other. Students may comply, adapt, or attempt to resist, but their behavior is profoundly shaped by the structural conditioning of the academic field.
Moreover, supervisory relationships are not purely shaped by objective academic capital but also by interpersonal and social dynamics that contribute to academic social capital. A student’s reputation, the quality of their academic network, and their connection to ongoing scholarly conversations are critical assets that supervisors help cultivate. These relationships extend beyond immediate research projects to include journal contacts, collaborative opportunities, and peer networks, which collectively enhance the student’s academic social standing and career prospects.
The interaction between habitus and capital in this academic field further reveals the intricacies of social reproduction within higher education. Doctoral supervisors are not merely educators but active agents in maintaining or challenging the established order of the academic field. Their role involves navigating the dual responsibility of transmitting established academic norms and fostering the individual growth of students as emerging scholars. This delicate balance often situates students in a challenging space—expected to internalize dominant habits while simultaneously carving a niche for their intellectual originality.
An essential insight from this research lies in the recognition that academic supervision is not only a pedagogical or intellectual exercise but also an inherently social and political process. The unequal distribution of academic capital implies that some doctoral students enter their programs at a structural disadvantage, given their family backgrounds or prior educational experiences. The field thus operates as a site of both opportunity and constraint, where success is mediated by the compatibility between the student’s habitus and the academic expectations imposed by supervisors and institutional culture.
This study’s interdisciplinary approach bridges sociology, education, and higher education studies, employing Bourdieu’s complex theories to unpack the subtle mechanisms of academic socialization. By focusing on the micro-level of supervisory interactions, it discloses the broad macrostructural processes that perpetuate academic hierarchies and social stratification. In doing so, it challenges the meritocratic myths that often surround higher education and doctoral training, revealing persistent inequalities embedded within academic cultures.
The implications for doctoral education are profound. If academic cultural and social capital is unequally distributed and reproduced through supervisory relationships, then efforts to democratize higher education and broaden participation must address these deep-rooted mechanisms. Interventions that merely focus on improving student skills without recognizing the structural forces of symbolic violence and social reproduction risk perpetuating existing inequalities. Enhancing awareness among supervisors and institutions of their role in this process can open pathways toward more equitable mentorship practices.
Furthermore, the notion of habitus as a mutable but lasting disposition suggests that transformative educational environments are possible, but they require intentional efforts to support doctoral students’ identity formation beyond rote compliance. Encouraging reflexivity and critical engagement with academic norms can empower students to shape their habitus in ways that align with their intellectual passions and social values, fostering genuine innovation and academic diversity.
This research also points to the need for expanding definitions of academic capital to acknowledge diverse forms of knowledge, cultural expressions, and social connections that might exist outside traditional academic canons. Recognizing the multifaceted nature of capital could help in valuing different scholarly voices and styles, contributing to a richer and less exclusionary academic culture.
In sum, the supervisory relationship emerges from this study not merely as a conduit for academic guidance but as an arena in which power, capital, and habitus intersect to reproduce or challenge the social order within academia. Through the lens of cultural reproduction theory, doctoral students’ journeys are spotlighted as profound processes of social and cultural negotiation that extend well beyond the confines of the dissertation itself.
By illuminating these complex dynamics, this research invites universities, policymakers, and academic communities to rethink doctoral education. Valuing equitable distribution of academic capital and fostering habitus transformation stand out as critical steps in nurturing diverse, empowered scholars capable of both participating in and reshaping the academic field.
Subject of Research: Supervisory interactions and the academic cultural (re)production of doctoral students through the lens of Bourdieu’s theory of cultural reproduction.
Article Title: Obeying, following, imitating, and hoping to shape the academic habitus: Supervisory interactions and doctoral students’ academic cultural (re)production.
Article References:
Li, J., Xue, E., He, Y. et al. Obeying, following, imitating, and hoping to shape the academic habitus: Supervisory interactions and doctoral students’ academic cultural (re)production. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1432 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05735-6
Image Credits: AI Generated
