Conference Agenda

It is a qualitative study within the sociology of (educational and vocational) choice, focusing on university-level discipline selection and related career trajectories in Iceland. It examines how individuals’ life narratives shape their study choices, using two contrasting academic fields—philosophy and early childhood education and care (ECEC)—as case studies. Drawing on semi-structured biographical interviews and Bourdieu’s theoretical framework (habitus, capital, and field) we examine the life narratives that precede individuals’ study choices and education-related career paths. After having finished a study on the pathways of philosophers we now for the comparison focus is on second contrasting discipline at the University of Iceland: early childhood education and care (ECEC). Philosophy, a rather elitist field, attracting students from families with substantial cultural, social, and sufficient financial capital, who tend to choose the subject for its intellectual and cultural prestige rather than its practical career prospects. In contrast, ECEC occupies a lower position within the academic hierarchy, often perceived as a 'women’s subject' since it is associated with early childhood education. Students in this field typically come from backgrounds with less capital than their counterparts in philosophy. The aim of this comparative study is to contribute to both academic and public understanding of how social class influences educational and career choices. By shedding light on these dynamics, the study seeks to support efforts to mitigate class-based predispositions in study choice—similar to the progress made in reducing gender-bias in educational and vocational choices over recent decades.

In contrast to the research we have already done on the philosophy, ECEC is typically ranked lower in the academic hierarchy. Students in this field often come from families with less capital than those in philosophy. The discipline’s lower status is partly due to its association with the less prestigious early childhood education. This perception is also gendered: ECEC has long been considered a “women’s subject,” while philosophy was a “men’s subject” dominated by male thinkers, and notably, during the first 25 years of the University of Iceland’s philosophy department (established in 1972), no woman held a permanent academic position. The stark contrast between these two disciplines serves to sharpen the sociological analysis of educational and career choice, highlighting how social class and gender shape students’ decisions at the university level.

There is a substantial body of research examining the relationship between social class and individuals’ experiences in higher education, as well as their subsequent career outcomes (e.g. Crane 1969; Lipset & Ladd, 1979; Archer et al. 2005; Merenluoto 2009; Reay et al. 2009; Mullen, 2010; Boliver, 2011; El-Mafaalani, 2012; Börjesson et al. 2016; Reay, 2018; Scandone, 2018; Mishra, 2020; Nimer, 2021; Shields, 2023; Li, 2024). Virtanen et al. (2025) have examined the motivations behind career choices among Finnish teacher education students, while Wang et al. (2024) conducted a similar study in China. Weiss et al. (2018) and Rothe & Betz (2018) have explored the life-history experiences of early childhood educators. Holzmayer (2023) investigated the relationship between habitus and field among primary school teacher education students in Austria, and Heil (2025) focused on the social backgrounds of early childhood educators. Bischoff (2018) is among those who have studied the habitus of early childhood educators, particularly the influence of the dominant professional habitus on children's educational experiences. In contrast to Bischoff’s focus on the impact of educators’ habitus on children, our study primarily examines the social backgrounds of educators to understand how these backgrounds shape their own perceptions and decisions regarding educational and career opportunities.

In Sweden, collaborative research involving researchers, teachers, and school leaders on issues relevant to educational practices has been launched as practice-near research (PNR). This shift places new demands on academics, moving them from a role of external experts to collaborative partners. The policy rhetoric simplifies this shift from the perspective of policy makers who want a closer collaboration between schools and university to close the gap between theory and practice. School leaders hope for quick fixes when they get the help from academics, and teachers expect practical advice (Lendahls Rosendahl & Rönnerman, 2000). For the academics themselves the shift may imply thinking over their role depending on what research approaches they use. There are essential differences between, for example, evidence-based approaches and action research (Serder & Malmström, 2020). They can even be described as two different ideals. Action research, which involve teachers or school leaders as its address, who through reflection and participation are co-creators of a multifaceted knowledge about teaching and leading as well as the place of education in the surrounding society. This research can be context-bound and local but also have validity outside it and address important social issues. Here, academics usually see themselves as co-learners. Evidence-based research is also directed towards the classroom or leading practices, but its goal is to find the right methods. In this tradition, academics are the experts on the methods but still learn through the collaborative process. However, there might be a possible contradiction; the academics may see completely different goals and means for their learning by collaborative research. Furthermore, the demands for collaboration seems to blur the boundaries between different research traditions, which means that academics actually change their ways of collaborating and learning in PNR-projects.

Hence, a knowledge gap exists regarding what this shift implies for the academics’ own professional learning. This study aims to investigate different kinds of academics' professional learning as they engage in PNR and how their learning connects to their collaborative aims and ambitions.

To study academics’ learning in PNR, we draw on Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner’s (2020) theory of social learning spaces. Base on how academics talk about their engagement, the framework allows us to analyze how academics:

1. Care to make a difference (value creation throughout the collaborative process).
2. Engage their uncertainty together with practitioners.
3. Recognize and pay attention to others’ knowledge.

The European and international dimension is addressed by connecting the Swedish PNR context to broader Nordic and international trends in close-to-practice research (Wyse et. al., 2021) and research‐practice partnerships (McGeown & Sjölund, 2025), where the role of the academic is increasingly being redefined. We further explore how these social learning spaces are nurtured or constrained through the lens of practice architectures—problematizing how the sayings, doings, and relatings are embedded in, but not determined by, different arrangements that characterize the work (Kemmis, 2022). The study specifically focuses on how power, knowledge, and relations are formed and transformed and what it means for academics’ professional learning.