Examining Bourdieu’s Concepts of Capital, Habitus, and Field in Women’s Health Research in Nigeria: A Feminist Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global health’s persistent focus on women’s health-seeking behaviour necessitates a philosophical understanding of the meaning behind women’s health decision-making. In studying health-seeking behaviour, researchers use philosophical paradigms to explicate and understand complex social concepts that continue to maintain health inequities and injustices. A commonly used theory is Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice. This paper examines the scholastic application of Bourdieu’s theory of practice to theorize women’s health-seeking behaviour in qualitative research to understand the rationale behind using health services. The theory of practice consists of four concepts: practice, habitus, field, and capital. Each concept conceptualizes the theory to find a logical meaning for social practices. The theory uses a relational approach between agency and structure to account for social life. The goal is to develop a theoretical framework from a feminist perspective to understand how women seek care with contextual factors that can inhibit or outrightly limit their agency. Researchers limit cultural capital’s role in linking health-seeking behaviour to economic capital in health disparities. Additionally, in formulating women’s health policies without adequate consideration of women’s experiences and preferences, such policies become patriarchal, where men assume an expert knowledge of women’s health, failing to recognize the diversity of experiences. In our quest to develop new theories as feminist researchers, we must acknowledge these taken-for-granted assumptions and address them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".