The significance of ontogeny and habitus in constructing theories of learning1

Tragically, Martin Bloomer died of brain cancer in November 2002. Billett and Hodkinson completed this paper after his death, partly as a memorial to his work.

Abstract

Much recent theorizing about learning has focused on its socio‐cultural nature, including the significance of history and the ontogeny of learners. This paper explores the relevance of such an approach to our understanding of the reasons why academics associate themselves with particular theoretical approaches to learning. The authors each present an autoethnographic account of the origins of their own theoretical orientations. This reveals the significance of ontogeny and habitus, which enable and constrain our academic work. The paper concludes by arguing that we need to understand academic research and theorizing as partly personalized social practice, in ways that poses challenges for those who view research as an inherently rational and logical process.

Notes

* Corresponding author: School of Continuing Education, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. Email: [email protected]

Tragically, Martin Bloomer died of brain cancer in November 2002. Billett and Hodkinson completed this paper after his death, partly as a memorial to his work.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Phil Hodkinson *

* Corresponding author: School of Continuing Education, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. Email: [email protected]