Review of:
The (Mis)uses of Pierre Bourdieu’s Practical Epistemology in AccountingRelated Social Research
The object of this paper ‘is to present a discussion about Bourdieu’s practical theory
with a focus on his epistemology in order to inform accounting researchers’
understanding or utilization of his theoretical approach in their own research’ (p. 1).
The authors acknowledge that the paper by Malsch et al (2011) already provides an
extensive analysis of Bourdieu’s influence on the accounting literature and how his
works have been translated in that domain.
To achieve their aim the authors draw on Bourdieu’s works, together with works on
Bourdieu and his contribution, and a dozen articles which review his epistemology.
The paper is well structured and serves as a useful starting point for researchers
contemplating deploying Bourdieu. The study begins with a brief biographical section
on Bourdieu (complete with photographic portrait). This is followed by insights to
Bourdieu’s conception of social research and its emphasis on studying the symbolic
and the relational, with social class being identified as a case in point. Contrasts are
drawn with Marxian concepts of class. The notion of doxa is explained as the
ideologies which dominate the field, and the means suggested for its exploration are
articulated. There is then a focus on the theory of practice. Here the authors explain
the significance of habitus, the ‘spinal concept which shapes Bourdieu’s world view
as well as his practice in his social research’ (p. 4). The theory of practice is identified
as a universal, meta-theory, to be applied to the study of diverse fields and sub fields.
The authors establish that the theory of practice is enacted through the three concepts
of capital, habitus and field. Each of these core concepts is described in turn. The
three forms of capital (economic, cultural and social) are also discussed. Habitus is
more accessibly defined at this juncture as ‘an actor’s cultural dispositions’ (p. 7). The
concept of field as a site of struggle between forms of capital and habitus is
emphasized. In the discussion of the three core concepts contrasts and similarities
with other authorities (Marx, Weber, Goffman) are noted and the relationship between
capital, habitus and field as ‘practice’ is stressed. Importantly for their later argument,
the authors stress the point that ‘practice has to be studied’ to expose the habitus (p.
10).
The authors then proceed to a theme central to achieving their objective: how to apply
Bourdieu’s theory of practice in research. Three approaches suggested by Bourdieu
are articulated. The authors emphasize that the enactment of the theory of practice in
social research requires the application of ethnographic methods and reflexivity. The
problem of investigating the doxa is given particular attention because Bourdieu had
little to say on the subject, and here the authors provide helpful insights based on
inferences drawn from Bourdieu’s writings. The relationship between social research
and theory is then discussed together with a reassertion of the importance of a
rigorous approach to conducting research if the relationship between capital, habitus
and doxa in the field are to be properly understood.
The authors illustrate their arguments by reviewing how Bourdieu has been used in
one area of accounting research - accounting professionalization. This is where they
1
focus most on their more critical message about the way Bourdieu has been applied
by accounting researchers to date, that is, the ‘Mis(use)’ referred to in the title.
Drawing on Malsch et al (2011) they refer to the way in which Bourdieu has tended to
be used piecemeal. Authors have failed to utilize all three concepts of capital, habitus
and field in a holistic, integrated manner. As a result, accounting researchers have not
been ‘rewarded with a full harvest of the benefits that may be brought about with his
[Bourdieu’s] theory of practice’ (p. 13). The limitations of research which has not
deployed the full triad of concepts (and the tendency to focus heavily on capital, in
particular) is discussed by reference to particular studies. A paper by Ikin et al (2012)
on women in accounting in Australia during World War Two, published in
Accounting History, comes in for a good deal of criticism in this respect. The authors
note, however, that there are laudable exceptions to the piecemeal application of
Bourdieu in the realm of studies on the accounting profession. One such study is
Jacobs (2003). This paper on class-based recruitment is described as ‘impressive,
quintessential’ (p. 13). Another is Haynes’ (2008) paper on the body and professional
identity. These exemplars aside, the authors observe that none of the studies they
reviewed used the theory of practice in a truly holistic way and were therefore less
than completely satisfactory. Therefore, the related findings of Malsch et al (2011) are
deemed to be of continuing relevance.
There are other studies that might have featured explicitly in the authors’ survey of
the use of Bourdieu in studies of accounting professionalism. Carter and Spence have
recently embarked on a major investigation of the accounting profession from a
Bourdieusian perspective. Their work on the professional habitus in Big 4 firms has
just been published (Work, Employment and Society). They have also produced
‘Being a successful professional: A Bourdieusian exploration of who makes partner in
the Big Four’ for Contemporary Accounting Research and this offering has been
receiving a good deal of attention in the UK. Carlos Ramirez (AOS, 2001) utilized the
concepts of field and capital to help explain the failure of French accountants to
institutionalize during the interwar period. Edwards and Walker (AOS, 2010) used
Distinction in their study of cultural differentiation in the Victorian accountancy
profession. More broadly, McPhail et al (CPA, 2010) used habitus, field and capital to
explore the link between social deprivation and accounting education, and its
implications for the profession and practice. As the authors recognize, there is
potential to apply Bourdieu in studies of gender and the profession. While they refer
to Haynes’ (2008) paper the more recent study in Gender, Work and Organization in
2012, which drew on Bourdieu’s concepts of capital to explore the construction of the
professional body image, appears to have escaped their attention. Andon et al (AOS,
2014) recently used Bourdieu to examine how auditors compete for legitimacy (a
symbolic resource) in new audit spaces. Jacobs and Evans (AAAJ, 2012) also use
Bourdieu to explore the cultural construction of the accountant.
More broadly, with the exception of the papers by Ikin (2012) and Spence and Brivot
(2011), which appeared in accounting history journals, the authors do not seem to
have extended the search for outputs in accounting which have been informed by
Bourdieu beyond the literature examined by Malsch et al in 2011. (Incidentally, the
paper by Spence and Brivot (2011) appeared in Accounting History Review as
opposed to Accounting, Business & Financial History.) Several papers have recently
been published where the authors deploy Bourdieu in various ways in diverse
empirical contexts. For example: Hamilton et al (CPA, 2009), Alawattage (CPA,
2
2011), Cooper et al (CPA, 2011), Gracia and Oats (AOS, 2012); Jayasinghe et al
(CPA, 2011), Jacobs (CPA, 2011), Farjaudon (CPA 2013), Lodhia and Jacobs (AAAJ,
2013), and Neu et al (AOS, 2013). The authors might emphasize the distinctive
contribution of their paper by reviewing the application of Bourdieu in accounting
research post-Malsch et al 2011.
The paper is a useful introduction for those contemplating the application of
Bourdieusian insights to their research. There is merit in pursuing this aim given, as
the authors concede, Bourdieu represents ‘a difficult theoretical framework’ (p. 16).
At times the paper offers some commentary on core themes which will prove helpful
to new researchers attempting to find their way through the difficult terrain. However,
there is a rather heavy reliance on quotations from the original works and the paper is
short on explanation and elaboration. An example is the definition of habitus from
Outline of a Theory of Practice (p. 53) which is quoted as: ‘systems of durable,
transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring
structures, that is, as principles which generate and organize practices and
representations that can be objectively adapted to their outcomes without
presupposing a conscious aiming at ends’. In the absence of enlightening commentary
in this ‘primer’ the current author’s instinct would be to revert to the original text.
Another criticism of the paper is the limited attempt to engage with a specifically
accounting audience. With the exception of the focus on the accounting profession,
the paper concerns social research generically, of which accounting is assumed to be a
part. The authors helpfully identify four approaches which a new researcher
deploying Bourdieu might adopt but some signaling of their application to
investigations in accounting subject areas would generate a more potent piece. Malsch
et al (2011) conclude their paper by offering some insights to specific research
opportunities, for example in relation to CSR and the financial crisis. The paper being
reviewed here does not really take the opportunity to do likewise.
Having asserted Bourdieu’s exhortation to conduct research in a rigorous way it might
be argued that the authors do not heed the message themselves. In addition to the
work on the accounting profession referred to above, they seem unaware of Free and
Macintosh’s (2009, SSRN) working paper on ‘Bourdieu’s Logic of Practice Theory:
Possibilities for Research on Management and Control’ which seeks to extend the use
of Bourdieu in those areas. Free and Macintosh present similar criticisms (as
expressed in organizational theory) as the authors about the way in which accounting
researchers have used Bourdieu selectively, and (like the authors) they also refer to
Swartz on the limited extent to which the three master concepts are deployed
holistically with a consequent loss of explanatory power. Usefully, Free and
Macintosh (2009) analyze a case (Enron) to demonstrate how the ‘full’ theory of
practice can be mobilized in accounting research.
Given the existence of Malsch et al (2011) and the limited specific signposting
offered to accounting researchers about how they might utilize Bourdieu’s theory of
practice, the authors might need to further develop their study if they are to identify a
distinctive contribution and advance the paper towards publication.
Stephen Walker
University of Edinburgh
3