Content uploaded by Erik Jansen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Erik Jansen on May 02, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Jansen & Verharen Operationalizing the CA for Social Work
1
Operationalizing the Capability Approach
for social work practice and research
Erik Jansen & Lisbeth Verharen
Research Center for Social Support and Community Care
HAN University of Applied Sciences
Nijmegen, The Netherlands
mailto:erik.jansen@han.nl
Paper presented at the 2017 European Conference for Social Work Research, April 19-21, Aalborg Denmark.
Keywords: Capability Approach; Operationalization;
Integral Quality of Life; Evaluation of social arrangements.
Abstract
In this paper we briefly introduce the Capability Approach
(CA) and focus on its opportunities for social work practice
and research. As the CA is purposively underspecified, we
provide theoretical handles for operationalization by pointing
to four topics particularly relevant to social work theory: 1)
conversion factors; 2) clustering of capabilities and/or
functionings; 3) adaptive preferences; 4) negation of human
diversity. In order to spark practical dialogue between the
multifarious perspectives on social arrangements we propose
a conceptual framework for evaluating interventions and
arrangements. This framework aids to construct an integral
account of direct and indirect versus intended and unintended
consequences of the intervention or arrangement. As such it
provides promising first steps towards a practical
operationalization of capability theory in social work and
social work research.
1. INTRODUCTION
The Capability Approach (CA) as developed by
Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum is a promising
theoretical and political framework for social work
research and social work practice. In a symposium
during the ECSWR-2016 in Lisbon the potential of the
CA for social work was explored identifying several
advantages of the CA over traditional functioning-
focused approaches to quality of life.
The purpose of the current paper is to
operationalize the CA for social work research by (a)
distinguishing four topics within capability theory in
which limitations in the positive freedom of
individuals require the attention of social workers and
social work researchers, and (b) providing a practical
method for the dialogical evaluation of social
arrangements through the lens of the CA.
2. THE CAPABILITY APPROACH: A BRIEF
OVERVIEW
The CA offers a normative-scientific perspective on
persons in their personal, environmental and social
contexts, while acknowledging human diversity and
plurality in the lives people have reason to value. As
such it combines an account of individual development
and flourishing with a view on the mechanisms by
which contextual factors affect the individual. Thus,
the CA enables an integral perspective on the lives
people actually live.
Central to the CA is the acknowledgement of
diversity and plurality in human lives. Moreover, the
CA places emphasis on social justice in such a way
that respect for people entails acknowledging the right
to a dignified life for all. What is dignified, can only
be determined by the person herself, therefore a key
statement is that wellbeing is constituted by the degree
to which a person is able to be who she wants to be
and to do what she wants to do, thus to lead a life she
has reason to value (Sen, 1999). Thus, it is assumed
that the positive freedom to pursue the life one wants
to live is essential to wellbeing.
In the CA the core concept is the distinction
between capabilities, realistic opportunities, on the
one hand, and functionings, well-being achievements,
on the other (Sen, 2009, 1999; Nussbaum, 2011). Each
individual is confronted with the task of converting
resources situationally available to her into valued
opportunities (capabilities) and consequently into the
functioning of her choosing. This process is referred to
as the conversion process and is affected by
situationally determined personal, environmental and
social factors that may limit or enhance the actual
opportunities (Robeyns, 2005), the so-called
Jansen & Verharen Operationalizing the CA for Social Work
2
conversion factors. As freedom of choice is considered
of primary importance, the essential space for
measuring equality is the level of capabilities.
Capabilities represent final ends, rather than either
resources, which are mere means uninformative on
what people can do with them, or functionings, which
provide insufficient information on the freedom
experienced by the individual. The conversion process
is depicted in Figure 1.
3. CONNECTING THE CA AND SOCIAL
WORK
In this section we will focus on four theoretical areas
of interest within capability theory that deserve special
attention of social work and social work research,
because they represent threats to the positive freedom
of individuals. Therefore, exploring these topics
provides particular opportunities for furthering insight
in and enhancing social work practice. These topics
are, respectively, (1) the conversion factors, (2) the
clustering of capabilities and/or functionings, (3)
adaptive preferences, and (4) negation of human
diversity. We will explain these briefly below.
3.1. Conversion factors
The first topic limiting people's positive freedom
concerns the conversion factors that influence the
degree to which a person is able to convert her realistic
options (capabilities) into functionings. Among others,
these conversion factors can be personal such as
disabilities or special talents, or social such as bonding
social capital or institutional structures. More
specifically, many conversion factors represent
variables and mechanisms causing or worsening
inequality, and they may explain why some
individuals are less able to benefit from an opportunity
or life chance than others.
Taking into account the complex effects of
these diverse factors in people's lives is a core focus of
social workers. Individual differences in the realistic
opportunities at people's disposal arise from the
interaction between personal and contexual factors and
a thorough understanding of this supports social
counteraction.
3.2. Clustering of capabilities or functionings
The second topic is the clustering or interaction of
capabilities and/or functionings, e.g. when a
deprivation on the capability for social relations leads
to disadvantages on capabilities such as education or
building up social capital. These may have corrosive
effects: its negative consequences cascade over
various domains (Wolff & De-Shalit, 2007). On the
other hand, a well-developed functioning such as
enjoying education may be fertile in developing
practical reasoning and critical reflection which are
Figure 1. The conversion model (adapted from Robeyns, 2005). From left to right: resources at the disposal of
person, are converted into capabilities (realistic opportunities) from which a person chooses the functioning that
suits his or her valued life best. This process is influenced (and the capabilities are limited by) personal,
environmental and social conversion factors.
Jansen & Verharen Operationalizing the CA for Social Work
3
conditional to a whole range of other capabilities. In
all cases, these interdependencies only become
apparent if quality of life is assessed in an integral
way.
Because social workers generally employ such
an integral perspective on people's lives, they are well-
placed to detect the complex clusterings in capabilities
and/or functionings that emerge in those lives.
3.3. Adaptive preferences
Third, social work (research)
should be critical with regard
to processes leading to or
perpetuating deeply
entrenched inequalities based
on mechanisms of
stigmatization and adaptive
preferences. This may, for
instance, be the case with
people with disabilities who
are engaged by others in a
demeaning way but also tend
to regard themselves as less
able and therefore less
entitled to full participation.
For social work this
aspect relates closely to the
arguments provided for the
previous topic: being able to
detect the complex and latent
effects of adaptive
preferences requires a firm integral perspective on the
lives people live and have reason to value. Moreover,
it requires a normative stance on professional action
and what constitutes quality of life. This is particularly
well-suited to the practice and theory of social work.
3.4. Negation of human diversity
The fourth and last topic concerns the need to be
aware of tendencies to absolutize dominant social
norms thereby decreasing tolerance and denying
human diversity, e.g. in the marginalization of
minority groups by downplaying their social and
cultural norms. It is at the basis of a democratic society
that pluralism in values and backgrounds is fostered
and protected.
This aspect is in line with the notion that
social work as a profession is aimed towards
enhancing processes of street-level democracy (Spierts
& Oostrik, 2014). As such social workers' professional
ethics lean heavily on values such as human diversity
and equality. Among others this is visible in the
international definition of social work (IFSW, 2014).
In the next section we will provide a
conceptual framework that allows researchers or
practitioners to assess these four attentive topics
critically in a situated case.
4. USING THE CA FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The above topics are often implicit and hidden in
everyday social practices and therefore require
thorough critical scrutiny. We propose a framework
that allows for a systematic evaluation of social
arrangements or interventions in which special
attention is given to the four attentive topics.. To this
purpose with a given social arrangement or
intervention the indirect versus direct effects and
intended versus unintended effects on people's
capabilities are plotted in a factorial frame. The frame
is shown in Figure 2.
Direct and intended effects generally represent
the focus of the active element of an intervention.
Indirect and intended effects refer to secondary
consequences that may count as "added bonus" or
objectives that cannot be reached easily in a more
direct way. Intended effects will generally be
beneficial for people's wellbeing. Direct but
Figure 2. Capability effects dialogue frame. Factorial design ordering direct versus
indirect effects per intended versus unintended effects of an intervention or
arrangement on capabilities of persons involved.
Jansen & Verharen Operationalizing the CA for Social Work
4
unintended effects present side-effects or often
unexpected (dis)advantages of the intervention. They
manifest in a direct way and may be either beneficial
or detrimental, and will often become apparent
quickly. Finally, indirect and unintended effects
represent an interesting category in which
consequences are often unexpected and not clearly
discernable. Therefore, this category may often
contain unforeseen and implicit detrimental
consequences, and reveal the blind-spots in less formal
or systematic evaluations.
For each of these categories a number of
dialogue questions can be helpful. First, the
capabilities at play are identified. Second, attention
should be paid to potential effects from conversion
factors, capability or functiong interactions, adaptive
preferences or negation of diversity, respectively.
An example, but simplified, case of an
evaluation of the wellbeing effects of web-based
support and on-line interventions runs as follows. As a
direct and intended effect support for previously hard
to reach target groups may be more accessible, for
instance with socially shameful issues. As an indirect
but intended effect this may increase individuals'
overall agency and feelings of autonomy apart from
the initial support question. A direct but unintended
effect, however, may be that the relation between
client and professional is less steady and therefore
easily terminated. An indirect and unintended
consequence may be that financing of such
interventions becomes problematic if beneficiaries are
anonymous.
Thus, an analysis of effects in this frame
provides an integral account of the (wellbeing)
consequences an arrangement or intervention evokes.
Integral assessment then involves the balancing of
these different classes of effects. More detail can be
added if consequences are specified as capabilities or
capability domains. Such an integral perspective is
particularly well-placed to guide the discussion on
complex interventions - as social arrangements are
nearly always complex social practices - including
diverse vantage points and multiple interests. It is
meant as a means to produce dialogue and public
deliberation for the purpose of stimulating collective
responsibility for social support and community care.
5. CONCLUSION
Starting from the four topics in capability theory we
identified as potentially productive for social work
(research) we presented an evaluation frame for social
arrangements or interventions. This frame allows for
the integral assessment of consequences of an
intervention or social arrangement. The primary
purpose of the frame is to stimulate dialogue among
local stakeholders to exchange perspectives. However,
practical application of the frame requires advanced
analytic skills warranting further operationalization. In
spite of the latter, we believe that our framework
enables social work(ers) (researchers) to adequately
recognize and acknowledge the above-mentioned
attentive topics and thus forms a promising direction
for operationalizing the CA in social work.
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human
development approach. Cambridge, MA: The
Belknap Press.
IFSW (2014). International Definition of Social Work.
Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human
development approach. Cambridge, MA: The
Belknap Press.
Robeyns, I. (2005). The capabilities approach: a
theoretical survey. Journal of Human
Development(6), 93-117.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: The
Belknap Press.
Spierts, M., & Oostrik, H. (2014). Democratische
wortels: Over de professionele logica van het
sociaal werk [Democratic roots: on the
professional logic of social work]. Maatwerk,
15(6), 21-23.
Wolff, J., & De-Shalit, A. (2007). Disadvantage. Oxford:
University Press.
Biography
Both authors work at the Research Center for Social Support
and Community Care at HAN University of Applied
Sciences. Erik Jansen (PhD) works on social learning
processes in social innovation, the application of the CA for
social work practice and the use of network analysis in
community oriented social work. Lisbeth Verharen (PhD)
focuses on empowerment of vulnerable groups, the
collaboration between formal and informal networks and
between social work and healthcare.
