Okay, here is a beginning at least for a general introductory piece on CA. I am looking for whoever it interested to add some stuff at the end.
Study of human development often focuses on attributes and abilities of individuals. We tend, at least in the United States, to understand humans as they are, as individuals, in comparison to other individuals. There is often a push and pull between those who look to emphasize context more ( ) and those who believe in a more intrinsic development ( ). There are developmental perspectives more concerned with the human in interaction with their own genetic structures ( ), with the environment ( ), with other humans ( ), with interconnected systems of activity ( ), but more often than not the critical analysis comes down to what the human is able to do at a given point in time - Are they able to decode symbols? Are they able understand and codify the space around them? Are they able to understand what another is thinking? Are they able to overcome barriers? Are they able to succeed at a given task based on age, and/or social context, and/or individual history, and/or social history? In this paper we offer a different perspective on human development - perhaps the equivalent of taking a painting we have known and appreciated our entire lives and turning it upside down (or perhaps right side up). We introduce the Capability Approach (CA) of Amartya Sen as a qualitatively different way of looking at human development. Sen initiated CA initially as a way of understanding developmental economics. His ideas suggest that in understanding human development it would be better to focus on the different capabilities provided by and through the proximal social system. It is these capabilities that allow humans to flourish and fully function, rather than on single, measurable attributes that can be used for purposes of comparison. The idea of a person being capable to flourish in the context of particular needs and life circumstances, and that this capability is based on a basket of "goods" or "commodities" is central to Sen's approach. This basket of goods mixes utilitarian needs with substantive values, but always comes back to any human being to find and follow their own trajectory, their own pattern of development.
We attempt to take some of Sen's core ideas, and those of some of his closest collaborators, and apply them to the way we study and understand human development in everyday life. Some of the concepts we look to bring to the forefront are the importance of individual comparison as opposed to aggregate comparisons. The roles that life context and situation play in understanding individual capability and its relationship to human functioning. The interconnected nature of capabilities and the ways in which attempts to establish or enhance single abilities can actually be detrimental to capabilities. The inter relationship between freedom and development.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"In this paper we offer a different perspective on human development - perhaps the equivalent of taking a painting we have known and appreciated our entire lives and turning it upside down (or perhaps right side up). We introduce the Capability Approach (CA) of Amartya Sen as a qualitatively different way of looking at human development."
ReplyDelete- bloody brilliant, I think these sentences provide the 'thesis statement' of the paper
"Some of the concepts we look to bring to the forefront are the importance of individual comparison as opposed to aggregate comparisons."
- How do we talk about this? What is the focus? Are we thinking 'micro' such as Research Methodology - so then trying to eliminate aggregates by examining those who make up the lower end of the ratio and then applying Sen's CA to understand why the lower end of the agg exists? If we did that would it be a deficit approach, and how do we avoid doing that in the first place? If I am not thinking parallel to where our thoughts were heading, what is it that we will be moving towards by bringing up our emphasis of aggregate measurement?
"The roles that life context and situation play in understanding individual capability and its relationship to human functioning."
- Social context in the field of human development has been greatly indebted to the work of Urie Bronfenbrenner (everyone cites 1976, lol). The Ecological systems framework his model provides enables a greater perspective than those that focus on the individual, or even those regarding the nuclear family system. The emphasis on multiple levels of 'impact' on the individuals development illustrates the complexity of addressing issues of human development. Sen's CA approach could enhance Ecolgoical systems theory by providing an understanding of each individual as not only acted upon by multiple networks but also as an agent who acts and creates within these networks and has an impact upon them...go from there?
"The interconnected nature of capabilities and the ways in which attempts to establish or enhance single abilities can actually be detrimental to capabilities."
- who? what? this statement is apparently over my head. What direction are we headed with this? Looking at the schools emphasis of producing certain types of workers - and the resulting failure of those who do not have the proper social or genetic (yikes, i know) capabilities to succeed at the endeavors the school creates?
"The inter relationship between freedom and development." again I see Bronfenbrenner being applicable with a 'macro lens' but on the micro level are we thinking of discussing reading, math, availability of health food in communities, etc?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIntro:
ReplyDeleteCA as a new way of looking at human development
Body of paper:
• Nussbaum & the Pillars of Justice
• Critiquing the Deficit Model (Focus on freedom and development)
• Systems Theory – (interconnected systems of activity)
• Individual comparison vs aggregate measure
• Expanding on Action Research (a means to connect to the field?)
A beginning: Research approaches that can inform policy and practice have recently been utilized in the form of action research, empowerment research, and participatory research (Small, 1995). These forms of research have attempted to eliminate the ‘top-down’ structure of most research designs, in so doing expanding the work of Lewin (1946) and Friere (1970) who created and acted on the idea that research and education are to be used as a vehicle for social transformation. The methodology and focus of these research designs may change during the research process itself. Action Research demonstrates a strong complement to the Capability Approach. By engaging in dialogue with the subjects as co-researchers a democratic environment is fostered which demonstrates a Capability Approach model for research. This process enables individuals who were previously isolated or marginalized to have a voice and participate from a model that does not begin with a deficit approach. In addition, Action Research has distanced itself from the current positivist social science paradigm. By recognizing that researcher is not to be the sole gatekeeper of knowledge, action researchers have accidently been forerunner’s in promoting a strong pillar of Sen’s Capability Approach.
Closing:
• Future Directions, i.e. provide an example (such as engaging a community in focus groups [ala Daria] working less from ‘fix them’ and more from what we have established from CA approach.)
btw, I ran with Action Research because I accidentally stumbled on it in Natasha's CFT Methods class. It would seem that researchers have unknowingly been working towards Sen's approach for twenty years or so. Thoughts on including it? How about the general outline for the paper? I deleted the previous post because I didn't like the format once I saw it...