Habitus and stigma in classed HE transitions: a case study of working-class students undertaking a Foundation Year scheme at an elite university.

我提议的研究探讨了剑桥大学（University of Cambridge）早期预科课程的参与者所经历的社会化过程。预科课程为来自贫困家庭的学生提供一年免费的牛津大学本科学习准备，这些学生的成绩通常低于入学要求。运用一个新的理论框架，综合布迪厄关于惯习和戈夫曼关于污名化的研究，我的建议考虑惯习和污名化在形成和改造参与者在新社会环境中经历长期社会流动后话语建构的身份方面的相互作用。它还研究了在基础学年的具体情况下，非传统学生及其同龄人如何挑战、支持或改变有关社会流动性和扩大高等教育机会的制度共识和规范（“制度习惯”）。我将使用案例研究方法，采用半结构化访谈、参与性观察、步行和绘图方法来考虑这些互动对双方的对话效果。布迪厄的“习惯”概念指的是先天的、无意识的倾向，这些倾向是由早期的社会经验形成的，并在很大程度上决定了个人与社会世界互动和看待社会世界的方式。这个概念在教育社会学中被广泛用于分析（特别是）工人阶级学生与教育机构的互动。相反，戈夫曼关于耻辱的研究假设，社会规范是在意识层面上通过与他人的互动明确形成的；我们通过观察他人对特质或行为的反应来学习可接受和不可接受的规范。我建议综合这些方法，考虑习惯的已有概念如何与新发展的耻感相互作用，以确定耻感个体和耻感环境对彼此的反应。基础年提供了这样做的绝佳机会；参与者由于其社会出身和学习成绩的可见性而受到双重侮辱。他们被污名化的存在挑战了维持牛津制度习惯的“民主”或赢得的精英主义的霸权规范，因此为理解破坏性社会流动如何影响个人和制度习惯提供了丰富的数据。考虑到改善进入选择性机构的监管压力，这项工作尤其相关，并有助于更好地理解影响传统学生的社会化过程，这些学生受益于精英机构扩大的准入干预和他们所需的教牧关怀。此外，收集到的有关机构对基础年和学术要求的看法转变的数据，如果能支持固定学术能力概念的一些机构可塑性，将会引起政策制定者和高级招生人员的兴趣

My proposed research explores the processes of socialisation which participants on the University of Cambridge's incipient Foundation Year programme undergo. The Foundation Year provides a free, year-long preparation for undergraduate study at Oxford to students from less advantaged backgrounds, often with lower grades than would usually be required for entry.Using a new theoretical framework synthesising the work of Bourdieu on habitus and Goffman on stigma, my proposal considers the interplay of habitus and stigma in forming and reforming the discursivel constructed identities of participants in new social environments after undergoing long-range social mobility. It also examines how, in the specific case of the Foundation Year, non-traditional students and their peers challenge, support or shift the institutional consensus and norms (the 'institutional habitus') on social mobility and widening access to higher education. I will do this using a case-study approach, employing semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and walking and mapping methods to consider the dialogic effect which these interactions have on both parties.Bourdieu's concept of habitus refers to the innate, unconscious dispositions which are shaped by early social experiences and heavily inform the way individuals interact with and view their social world. The concept is used extensively in the sociology of education to analyse the interactions of (particularly) working-class students with educational establishments. Goffman's work on stigma, conversely, assumes that social norms are formed explicitly by interaction with others at a conscious level; we learn acceptable and unacceptable norms by observing how others react to traits or behaviours. I propose synthesising these approaches to consider how pre-existing notions of habitus interact with newly developing stigmas to determine the responses of stigmatised individuals, and stigmatising environments, to each other.The Foundation Year provides an excellent opportunity to do this; participants are doubly stigmatised through the visibility of both their social provenance and their academic record.Their stigmatised presence challenges the hegemonic norm of 'democratic' or earned elitism which sustains the Oxford institutional habitus, and as such provides rich data for understanding the ways in which disruptive social mobility can affect individual and institutional habitus.This work is particularly relevant given the regulatory pressure to improve access to selective institutions and contributes to greater understanding of the socialisation processes which affects traditional students who benefit from widening access interventions at elite institutions and the pastoral care they require. Furthermore, the data gathered on shifts to institutional views on Foundation Years and academic requirements will interest policymakers and senior admissions staff should it support some institutional malleability on conceptions of fixed academic ability