ABSTRACT
This paper presents an interpretation of some of the trends in the research that presents itself as field theoretical. For a former student of Bourdieu, current, mostly English language field analysis, construction, or ‘theory’ misses a lot of the original import of the structural constructivist approach. In the best cases field analysis becomes a tool of objectification, in the worst cases the object of formal conceptual substitution. However, it was intended to be, following its methodological positions, a tool used to reflexively demystify social reality by revealing the power dynamics behind it. Field analysis should be seen as part of a critical, historically, socially and conceptually embedded scholarly exploration of the social conditions of knowledge production. To counter an expanding isomorphic and ‘mainstreamed’ interpretation of field analysis, these dimensions need to be urgently reintroduced into the scholarly discussion. Increasing reflexivity is key to strengthening the autonomy of research and the capacity of the social sciences to defend themselves. This requires producing a more profound understanding of the social forces that shape research. I will first discuss the sociological craft, then the epistemic status of tools like ‘field’, and finish with a more critical reflection of structural constructivist principles.
