Fostering EfS Connections for Community Wellbeing …
443
learning on students’ perceptions of pre-owned products is perhaps best highlighted
by one school’s commitment to undertaking their own regular swap meet activity at
school.
Kids teaching kids: The philosophy for this event was underpinned by a belief that
a participatory, student-led approach is the most effective and meaningful way for
young people to learn about environmental sustainability (De Sousa Santos 2007;
De Vreede et al. 2014; Jensen and Schnack 1997). As such, it was a key priority
of the event to enable and encourage students to take responsibility for educating
their peers about ways that they can adopt a more sustainable approach to their lives.
One of the SRs worked closely with a local primary school to support a class of
students to prepare a number of short hands-on activities addressing environmental
sustainability in their schools. These activities included rubbish and recycling sorting
and designing a plastic-free lunch box. These activities not only gave those students
who delivered the activities a sense of agency over their learning and leadership in
environmental sustainability but enabled their audience of peers to envision ways in
which they too can live a more sustainable life.
6 Discussion: Through the Lens of Cultural Capital
In this section, we consider the living laboratory possibilities of SRs through the case
studies detailed above. We think with Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital as one
way of exploring how SRs have valuable contributions to make to broader objectives
for sustainable development in local communities. Through this, we hope to draw
attention to the potentiality of SRs as agents of change in their communities through
their research projects and skill sets. This is a different view to discourses of SRs as
needy novice and/or neophyte researchers which are views conveyed in discourses of
postgraduate research (Natalier 2011). It offers a more powerful and agentic view of
SRs as active in the shaping of their communities. Before moving into the discussion,
we offer a brief description of cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986).
6.1 Cultural Capital—What Is It?
Cultural capital consists of social assets that are held or embodied in people. Bourdieu
(1986) distinguishes between three forms of cultural capital: embodied in people in
the form of knowledge or skills; the objectified state, such as cultural goods, e.g.,
books, art pieces; and in the institutionalised state such as educational qualifications.
Embodied cultural capital requires an investment in time by the person and refers to
people’s values, skills, knowledge and tastes. Similarly, objectified cultural capital
requires access to the embodied cultural capital to use particular objects for their
specific purpose, e.g., such as owning a bicycle (objectified capital) but requiring the
embodied cultural capital to ride it. Bourdieu’s concept of institutionalised cultural
443
learning on students’ perceptions of pre-owned products is perhaps best highlighted
by one school’s commitment to undertaking their own regular swap meet activity at
school.
Kids teaching kids: The philosophy for this event was underpinned by a belief that
a participatory, student-led approach is the most effective and meaningful way for
young people to learn about environmental sustainability (De Sousa Santos 2007;
De Vreede et al. 2014; Jensen and Schnack 1997). As such, it was a key priority
of the event to enable and encourage students to take responsibility for educating
their peers about ways that they can adopt a more sustainable approach to their lives.
One of the SRs worked closely with a local primary school to support a class of
students to prepare a number of short hands-on activities addressing environmental
sustainability in their schools. These activities included rubbish and recycling sorting
and designing a plastic-free lunch box. These activities not only gave those students
who delivered the activities a sense of agency over their learning and leadership in
environmental sustainability but enabled their audience of peers to envision ways in
which they too can live a more sustainable life.
6 Discussion: Through the Lens of Cultural Capital
In this section, we consider the living laboratory possibilities of SRs through the case
studies detailed above. We think with Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital as one
way of exploring how SRs have valuable contributions to make to broader objectives
for sustainable development in local communities. Through this, we hope to draw
attention to the potentiality of SRs as agents of change in their communities through
their research projects and skill sets. This is a different view to discourses of SRs as
needy novice and/or neophyte researchers which are views conveyed in discourses of
postgraduate research (Natalier 2011). It offers a more powerful and agentic view of
SRs as active in the shaping of their communities. Before moving into the discussion,
we offer a brief description of cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986).
6.1 Cultural Capital—What Is It?
Cultural capital consists of social assets that are held or embodied in people. Bourdieu
(1986) distinguishes between three forms of cultural capital: embodied in people in
the form of knowledge or skills; the objectified state, such as cultural goods, e.g.,
books, art pieces; and in the institutionalised state such as educational qualifications.
Embodied cultural capital requires an investment in time by the person and refers to
people’s values, skills, knowledge and tastes. Similarly, objectified cultural capital
requires access to the embodied cultural capital to use particular objects for their
specific purpose, e.g., such as owning a bicycle (objectified capital) but requiring the
embodied cultural capital to ride it. Bourdieu’s concept of institutionalised cultural