The capability approach in social work research: A scoping review of research addressing practical social work

Abstract

This study reports the findings from a scoping review of the use of the capability approach in social work research. We identified 17 peer-reviewed journal articles which actively used the capability approach and addressed social work practice. The purpose was to examine how the use of the capability approach was linked to policies, practices and social justice approaches in social work research. The merits and challenges of the capability approach in social work research are discussed. Four main applications of the capability approach were found: as a tool for social workers in practice, to explore the subjective sense of well-being, to address social inequalities on a structural level, and as a way of evaluating social practices. The capability approach was framed as congruent with the aims of social work, and as a call for action for social workers to promote social justice, human dignity and well-being. Another finding was that empowerment, mostly viewed as a tool for social workers to promote strength in individuals, was closely connected to using a capability approach. The contradictory use of empowerment in social work may carry some lessons for future development of a capability approach in social work. The review indicates that the capability approach is used in a range of different ways and acknowledged as a valuable tool for research in social work.

Keywords

Empowerment quality of life review social justice social work socioeconomic factors

Introduction

Social work is a global, practice-based profession and an academic discipline concerned with a large range of social problems. The causes and consequences of poverty constitute a primary subject of research, and the social deprivation associated with it is of great concern for social workers across the world, as is the promotion of social justice and human rights (Healy, 2011; International Federation of Social Workers [IFSW] and International Association of Schools of Social Work [IASSW], 2014). In social work research, different theories are used, for example, as a heuristic or as a framework for analysis, and the capability approach developed by Amartya Sen (1993, 1999) is one such theory. Sen (2009) defines the capability approach as ‘an intellectual discipline that gives a central role to the evaluation of a person’s achievements and freedoms in terms of her actual ability to do the different things a person has reason to value doing or being’ (p. 16). The capability approach can be a useful tool in social work research for exploring individuals’ expectations and their possibilities to realize those expectations in general. Sen (1993, 1999) argues that what people can positively achieve is influenced by economic opportunities, social powers, political liberties and the enabling conditions of good health, basic education, encouragement and cultivation of initiatives. Researchers comment on the potential of the capability approach as an alternative conceptual framework for social work which can challenge the dominance of neo-liberal ideology and promote human rights and social justice (Banerjee and Canda, 2012; Gupta, 2017; Reisch and Jani, 2012; Stoesz and Karger, 2012; Tanner et al., 2018). In this sense, the capability approach provides tools for a multidimensional poverty analysis with a broad perspective on different constraints that can limit people’s lives. It has been suggested that the main concepts of the capability approach are easily connected to the core of social work, and that it provides directions for almost every basic social work strategy (Den Braber, 2013). In addition, the capability approach frames social justice, human rights and freedom from oppression within a global context, particularly considering the increased impact of globalization on the social work profession (Carlson et al., 2016). Although there are obvious connections between the capability approach and social work, questions of whether or not it is sufficiently critical of social power and oppression have also been raised (Dean, 2009), and the approach is still said to be relatively unknown and undeveloped in social work (Babic et al., 2010).

The purpose of this article is to investigate and describe how the capability approach is used in social work research, and how it is linked to policies, practices and social justice in social work through conducting a scoping review of a number of international peer-reviewed articles. We explore to what extent the capability approach is acknowledged (or not) as valuable for social work research and with what kind of arguments. We also consider specific themes of the theory which are focused.

Main concepts in the capability approach

Three of the main concepts introduced by Sen (1993, 1999) are resources, capabilities and functionings. Resources are understood in a broad sense as incomes from labour in both formal and informal markets, transfers (e.g. child allowances, social insurances, pensions), profits, and so on. These are means to generate capabilities – to be the person one wants to be and to do things one values (Robeyns, 2017). The distinction between capabilities (the extent to which a person is free to lead a life he or she has reason to value) and functionings (what a person actually is or does) is crucial. Capabilities are those things which are realized, and functionings are those which are possible to achieve (Robeyns, 2017). Moreover, the distinction between resources and capabilities is important; for instance, resources can be defined in terms of income as well as access to different services and goods free of charge. If resources are defined as access to a higher educational system, this does not necessarily mean equal access. A person’s capability to enter higher education is influenced by personal, economic and social characteristics as well as by environmental factors such as family traditions and gender norms, infrastructure and policies (Robeyns, 2005). A capabilitarian analysis of access to higher education may show what kind of different obstacles individuals have to overcome to be able to gain entry into higher education. Robeyns (2017) points out that a core requirement is that capabilities and functionings are conceptualized in a value-neutral way. Not all capabilities and functionings are always good or valuable, and in some contexts it may be difficult to know the value at all.

Other important concepts used by Sen are freedom and agency. For individuals to practice their rights and to live the life they value, they need to have the freedom to use their capabilities to do the things they value. Sen (1999) describes two different kinds of freedom: substantive and instrumental. The former allows individuals to participate in a democratic community, and the latter concerns individual freedom to live the life one chooses. Agency is closely related to freedom and well-being. Individual agency is a person’s ability to pursue goals one has reason to value (Deneulin, 2008; Sen, 1999). An agent may exercise agency in seeking his or her well-being, but agency may also be pursued collectively or to reach altruistic goals. Robeyns (2017) states that all versions of the capability approach need not endorse an account of agency, although for social workers the acting agent is a crucial part in achieving goals in human life (Den Braber, 2013). Factors that influence individuals’ freedom to achieve functioning are called conversion factors which are closely related to resources as they denote the ability a person has to convert resources into functionings, and they operate on both a personal and an environmental level.

Sen’s ideas have been further developed in a number of sources (Alkire, 2002; Clark, 2008; Nussbaum, 2011; Robeyns, 2005, 2006, 2016, 2017; Sen, 1999). Ingrid Robeyns (2017) differentiates between a general capability approach as an overarching framework and a range of capability theories. The capability approach is not a single theory that can explain poverty, inequality or well-being, but rather ‘a normative framework for the evaluation and assessment of individual wellbeing and social arrangements, the design of policies, and proposals about societal change’ (Robeyns, 2006: 352). As Robeyns (2006) argues, the capability approach provides insights into other approaches, but it does not replace other theories. Theorizing justice is just one purpose and an optional choice for a capability theory (2017). Sen’s purpose has mainly concerned quality-of-life assessment in a development perspective, whereas Nussbaum’s purpose is to construct a theory of basic social justice, adding notions of human dignity, political liberalism and a threshold level; that is, employing a specific list of capabilities. Nussbaum (2011) states that the task of government is to secure a level of dignified life for its citizens, and her list includes 10 central capabilities.¹ Robeyns (2017) argues that Nussbaum has developed a capability theory of justice (not a capability approach); however, not all capability theories adhere to Nussbaum’s view.

In accordance with Robeyns (2017), we distinguish between a general capability approach and different uses of it which can vary in diverse contexts, as for example theorizing social justice or application of policies. Therefore, there are different modes of capability analysis and capability accounts. Nussbaum (2011) identifies two modes: comparative quality-of-life assessment, and as a theory of justice. Robeyns (2017: 31–35) outlines five main modes of capacity analyses: normative theories used in philosophy; normative applied analysis, for example policy design; welfare and quality of life measurements in quantitative social sciences; descriptive analysis in qualitative social sciences; and as understanding the nature of ideas, practices and notions in conceptual analysis. However, Robeyns also concludes that the five modes do not constitute an exhaustive list, and she presents a modular view (a cartwheel model) clarifying elements that capability theories must share, and which are optional, pointing out the different choices that have to be considered in using capability theories, analysis and accounts. The most important features of all capabilitarian theories are the core concepts – functionings and capabilities – and they play different roles in various types of analysis, for example as social indicators reflecting a person’s quality-of-life (in quality-of-life measurement). In thick descriptions or descriptive analysis, the core concepts form part of the narrative. In understanding ideas and notions, functionings and capabilities are used as part of the conceptualization of a certain phenomenon. These different analyses are often mixed in one study. Although there may be some differences in the usage of the core concepts, that does not affect the essence of them according to Robeyns (2017: 38).

Arguments for a capability approach in social work

The focus of the capability framework overlaps with much of the interest in social work research, as well as in social work practice: the focus on evaluating individual levels of well-being and social institutions, policy formation and social change towards social justice. In social work, social justice is strived for, and it is defined in the Code of Ethics for Social Workers (National Association of Social Workers [NASW], 2017) as well as in the Global Definition of Social Work (IFSW and IASSW, 2014). Discussions within social work have been pointing towards the need for social work to develop its own theoretical basis for social justice, and that the capability approach, as developed by Sen and Nussbaum, can provide a philosophical frame of justice for teaching and researching social work (Banerjee, 2016; Carlson et al., 2016). However, critical voices have also stressed that the capability approach does not sufficiently address social power, oppression and global injustices (Dean, 2009; Deneulin, 2008). There are also competitive approaches in social work research, for example different emancipatory forms of social work, also closely connected to the endorsement of social justice and human rights, such as empowerment (Adams, 2008), and anti-oppressive practice (Dominelli, 2002). Empowerment has been defined as ‘the capacity of individuals, groups and/or communities to take control of their circumstances’ (Adams, 2008: xvi) in order to maximize the quality of their lives. In correspondence with the capability approach, empowerment is also contested with differing perspectives and usage (Tew, 2006); it can be used as individuals’ ability to take control of their own lives, as mutual support and collective action undertaken by marginalized groups, but it can also be defined for powerless people by politicians and professionals. However, despite the similarities in rhetoric between certain forms of emancipatory social work and the capability approach, there are also differences. In anti-oppressive research, power relations that influence research projects have been scrutinized, encouraging critical reflexivity on the processes of power in social work research (Rogers, 2012; Strier, 2006). Collective action for equality is emphasized, as is the social workers’ explicit roles of exposing the links between social structures and individual behaviour (Dominelli, 2002). Neither power relations nor anti-oppressive strategies for researching marginalized groups are particularly pronounced in the capability approach.

Method

Research directed to social work professionals and from researchers in social work is found in many scientific journals and different disciplines. There is no comprehensive review of how the capability approach is used in social work. In this study, we conducted a scoping review according to the framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and used the PRISMA checklist and flow chart for scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018).

A scoping review has some resemblance to systematic reviews, that is, the use of rigorous and transparent methods to identify and analyse relevant literature regarding a well-defined topic. Scoping reviews are used when the topic has not yet been extensively reviewed and where a potentially large body of literature is at hand, which includes different study designs and methodologies (Pham et al., 2014). In contrast, systematic reviews often synthesize evidence from randomized controlled trials, summing up the best available research. We are not critically evaluating the research for best practice. Instead, we are interested in the ways in which the capability approach is used in social work research, which includes research with a range of different methods.

Search strategy

We started by using one search engine, Proquest Social Sciences, which includes several databases (most relevant for our subject: Social Science Database, Social Services Abstract, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts), which generated 106 hits. Thereafter, the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) (47 hits) and Scopus (7 hits) were searched. We used the same search terms: ‘capabilit* approach’ AND ‘social work’ in different ways (as keywords, anywhere except full text), and the most relevant use of these search terms turned out to be ‘capabilit* approach’ (in the abstract) AND ‘social work’ (anywhere). In the SSCI and Scopus, both search terms were used as ‘topic’. The search was also limited to peer-reviewed, scholarly articles in English, with a time frame from 1993 to November 2018. The first article appeared in 2001.

Eligibility criteria

Articles were included if (1) the capability approach in any way was a main part of the research process, (2) they contained empirical research and (3) social work theory or practice was explicitly addressed. The exclusion criteria were (1) capabilities not being connected to the capability approach as outlined by Sen or Nussbaum, (2) no empirical material; for example, some of the articles contained theoretical discussions and no identified research population or method; and (3) not addressing social work research and practice. The last exclusion criterion was the most difficult to carry out as many areas are important to social work. However, in order to avoid our own prejudice for what is important in social work, we included only those articles where ‘social work’ was explicitly stated in the text. The initial screening of 100 relevant hits after removing duplicates (Figure 1) included reading titles and abstracts, and was conducted by the first author of this article. This screening clarified whether the capability approach was used, whether the area was social work, and sometimes (depending on the abstract) whether empirical material was included. After the initial screening, 30 titles remained and 70 were excluded. The second screening included reading the article, looking for the nature of the empirical material and the relevance of the research in social work, as this was not always clear from the abstract. This part was conducted by both authors. Initially we read 15 articles each, and both of us read a few of them (approximately 12 articles) and discussed whether they should be included or not. After the second screening, 17 articles remained and were included in the study.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow chart of study selection process.

Data analysis

In accordance with the aims of a scoping review, our interest was not to evaluate or validate the results of the studies. When analysing the articles, we identified methods used and their findings, specifying the use of the capability approach, and to what extent this approach was put forth as valuable to social work. In the analysis we read the articles carefully, and then discussed what each article said about the capability approach and how this was framed in the analysis and results. We differentiated three of Robeyns’ five modes of capacity analysis in the studies: quality-of-life measurements, descriptive analysis and as conceptual understanding of the nature of ideas, practices and phenomena. As most studies contained more than one of these modes, we found it useful to elaborate our analysis more in line with the specific use for social workers and social work manifested in the studies. We delineated four main categories of usage for social work: to explore the subjective sense of well-being on an individual level, to address social inequalities on a structural level, as a tool for social workers in practice, and to evaluate social work practices.

Findings

General description of the articles

The studies were conducted in 10 countries: Afghanistan, Belgium, the United Kingdom, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Scotland, South Africa and the United States. One study used data from 16 different countries (Algeria, Colombia, England, Estonia, Ethiopia, Germany, Israel, Malta, Nepal, Norway, Poland, Romania, South Africa, South Korea, Spain and Turkey). Table 1 shows an overview of the articles.

Table 1.

Description of reviewed research articles by author(s), publication year, researched group, country, empirical material and objective of the studies.

Author	Year	Researched group	Country	Empirical material	Objective of the study
Tanner et al.	2018	Older people (age 70–92) self-funding social care	England	Eight individual semi-structured interviews	To advance understanding of the experiences of older people living in the community who are self-funding their own social care by applying the Capability Approach (CA) to these experiences.
Van Raemdonck and Seedat-Khan	2018	Case study of NGOs working with male street children; five different social work programmes	South Africa	Interviews: 10 NGO workers, 5 former street children	This article reviews a continuity of five fundamental social work practices for working with street children: (a) outreach work, (b) child–family and child–community mediation, (c) transitory care centres and programmes, (d) brokerage and (e) mentorship and follow-ups. The study analyses how these practices contribute to the capability and agency expansion of the street children and outlines challenges that service providers and former street children experience.
Slabbert	2018	Social work students	South Africa	50 students of social work	To explore how third-year social work students could apply the CA in social work education when assessing the well-being of their clients.
Vandekinderen et al.	2018	Young people (aged 15–25)	Belgium	40 interviews (also with practitioners)	To contribute to process-oriented knowledge about how educational and social welfare actors can support socially vulnerable young people.
Steckermeier	2018	Children (8 years old)	16 countries	Children’s Worlds study, self-reported overall satisfaction	To examine the relationship between safety perception, children’s agency and how agency and safety interact in influencing sense of well-being.
Gupta	2017	Families in poverty	England	Three narratives	To develop knowledge about critical social work practice within families living in poverty who are involved in child protection.
Hendriks and van Ewijk	2017	Immigrant social workers	The Netherlands	40 interviews (resp. co-researchers)	To understand newly started social workers’ process of choice in the construction of their identities.
Levy et al.	2017	Young (age unknown) musicians with disabilities	Scotland	Focus group tutors (7), questionnaire parents (11) commentaries, wall graffiti, observations young musicians (8)	To explore inclusive music classes for children with disabilities in Scotland.
Ohls	2017	Unemployed people in activation programme (aged 30–50)	Norway	20 interviews with unemployed people	To explore reasons for ill-being and well-being among participants in a Norwegian labour activation programme for unemployed.
Banerjee	2016	Income-poor people	India	Focus groups with 566 respondents (125 were service providers), 92 interviews	To explore income-poor people’s experiences with financial capability.
Van Raemdonck et al.	2016	Survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV)	South Africa	20 interviews with staff working in a programme for IPV	To evaluate community networks for survivors of intimate partner violence.
Yeung and Breheny	2016	People aged 50–87	New Zealand	NZ longitude study of ageing (N = 2793)	To explore the determinants of subjective well-being among older people.
Horrell et al.	2015	Informal caregivers for older people	New Zealand	Online forum, 60 caregivers	To create a capability list specific to the values and health needs of those providing informal eldercare.
Trani et al.	2013	Children (8–14 years old)	Afghanistan	Survey (N = 1184 children), structured questionnaire, interviews	To examine multidimensional poverty among children in Afghanistan.
Pyles and Banerjee	2012	Low-income women survivors of gender-based violence	USA	9 interviews with women	To assess the merit of the CA for women survivors of violence.
Bozalek	2010	Social work students	South Africa	Written assignments	To interrogate institutional racism as having affected students’ and their families’ ability to flourish or thrive as human beings.
Carolissen et al.	2010	Psychology and social work students	South Africa	Workshops, virtual assignments	To offer alternative ways in thinking about teaching community psychology by incorporating social justice approaches to pedagogy.

As seen in Table 1, the respondents were different groups of people: children, low-income and unemployed people, older people, women, informal caregivers, non-governmental organization (NGO) workers, social workers and students. Of the 17 articles, 14 used qualitative methods such as interviews, focus groups and narratives. The material was gathered both as face-to-face interviews and through auto-ethnographic accounts (Gupta, 2017) and online forums (Horrell et al., 2015). Students of social work and psychology were the respondents in three studies, where workshops and written assignments were used in combination with interviews (Bozalek, 2010; Carolissen et al., 2010; Slabbert, 2018). In one study (Levy et al., 2017), several different groups of respondents participated, and commentaries, wall graffiti and observations were carried through with the respondents (young musicians).

Quantitative methods with data from surveys were found in three articles. Steckermeier (2018) used the Children’s Worlds study, which had been designed for purposes other than measuring well-being from a capability approach. Two studies (Trani et al., 2013; Yeung and Breheny, 2016) used large surveys where measurement or questionnaires were grounded in the capability approach. The New Zealand longitudinal study of ageing was used by Yeung and Breheny (2016) and included a measure of living standards for older people based on Sen’s capability approach, which was developed and included in the survey. The third study used data from a survey carried out by an organization, Handicap International, and the questionnaire was based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as well as the capability approach (Trani et al., 2013).

Concepts, models and theories in combination

The core concepts – functionings and capability – were explained according to Sen in all articles, and in most of them Nussbaum’s conceptualization was also enunciated. Other concepts often used were freedom, agency and conversion factors. Nussbaum’s list of core capabilities was used in six of the articles; in four of them her list guided the study questions or was put forward as a general framework (Carolissen et al., 2010; Horrell et al., 2015; Pyles and Banerjee, 2012; Slabbert, 2018).

In two studies, other theories were used in combination with the capability approach: the social model of disability and personalization was used to ‘make sense’ (Levy et al., 2017) of open spaces for disabled children, and Nancy Fraser’s work on social justice was contended to add understanding of how injustices were perpetuated (Gupta, 2017). A specific model referred to as Welch Saleeby’s model of the capability approach was used in one article (Yeung and Breheny, 2016).

As for analysis strategies, ‘the capability for education’ was used as a sensitizing concept in one study, which in this context referred to what young people had reason to value in education (Vandekinderen et al., 2018). Nussbaum’s list was explicitly used in the analysis of data in two studies (Bozalek, 2010; Ohls, 2017).

Different uses of the capability approach

When analysing the articles, we categorized the uses of the capability approach into four main categories (see Table 2): exploring the subjective sense of well-being, addressing social inequalities on a structural level, as a tool for social workers in practice and to evaluate social work practices. The first two categories concern the level on which the empirical material was analysed. Most articles were exploring the subjective sense of well-being, and the capability approach was addressing subjective experiences on an individual level. Although many articles concerned well-being on an individual level, it was also claimed that it was not enough to be engaged with individuals and families. Critical social work needed to be developed through engaging with the suffering of individuals, in the context of political processes at the societal level. The second category included articles mostly exploring social structures, and their influence on different groups of people. The two remaining categories were geared at the practical use of the capability approach; the third category dealt with the specific use of the capability approach for social workers when working with people in need of support. Finally, in the fourth category two articles with an evaluative aim were included where the capability approach was used as a measurement of quality of life.

Table 2.

Different uses of capability approach in reviewed research articles.

Exploring subjective sense of well-being (6 articles)	Addressing social inequalities on a structural level (5 articles)	Tool for social workers in practice (4 articles)	Evaluating social work practice (2 articles)
Steckermeier (2018), Yeung and Breheny (2016), Horrell et al. (2015), Ohls (2017), Pyles and Banerjee 2012) and Bozalek (2010).	Tanner et al. (2018), Levy et al. (2017), Hendriks and Van Ewijk (2017), Trani et al. (2013) and Banerjee (2016).	Gupta (2017), Vandekinderen et al. (2018), Slabbert (2018) and Carolissen et al. (2010).	Van Raemdonck and Seedat-Khan (2018) and Van Raemdonck et al. (2016).

Exploring subjective sense of well-being

Six studies focused on a perceived feeling of well-being, and the capability approach was used to investigate how subjective well-being can strengthen individual agency. The subjective well-being was explored in interviews, and through surveys based on both Sen’s and Nussbaum’s application of the capability approach. Data from the Children’s Worlds study were investigated to explicitly consider 8-year-old children’s subjective sense of well-being in two aspects: perceptions of safety and agency (Steckermeier, 2018). The main purposes of this study were to discuss and show the importance of taking children’s perceptions of agency into consideration when discussing discrimination and safety in different life domains. The children’s perceived safety at home, in their neighbourhood and at school correlated with their perceived feeling of agency. The more satisfied children were with their agency, the fewer feelings of unsafety they had about their neighbourhood. They felt least safe in their neighbourhood (compared to school and home), although feeling unsafe at school was most detrimental to their well-being. In this study, agency was linked with functional achievement of safety to understand how children with the same feeling of unsafety may experience different levels of well-being.

Another study using quantitative methods examined the determinants of subjective well-being among community-dwelling older people (Yeung and Breheny, 2016). A sample from the New Zealand Longitudinal Study of Ageing was used to examine the relationships between commodities, environmental factors and the capabilities of older people to achieve well-being. The characteristics of commodities were distinguished as a reflection of a person’s life situation, which included environmental and personal factors as well as physical functioning. The study aimed at explaining the relationships between measured functionings, and the results showed that real opportunities increased well-being. One more study from New Zealand (Horrell et al., 2015) examined the capabilities important to the health of informal caregivers for older people in New Zealand. The capability approach informed the qualitative inquiry, and the thematic analysis was based on Nussbaum’s list of core capabilities. The caregivers’ freedom to choose how they lived their lives was strongly influenced by their emotional attachment to those they cared for. To care for loved ones was regarded as a capability. The capability to experience emotions was important across all capabilities. Different capabilities were described as interconnected; for example, giving care to loved ones required giving up employment, leading to financial difficulties. In a study by Ohls (2017), reasons for ill-being and well-being were explored among 20 participants in a Norwegian labour activation programme for unemployed people. The participants suffered from financial, physical and psychological problems such as shame, and when experiencing individual agency their well-being also was enhanced. However, there was a mismatch between the intended and actual directions of the activation programme, and the respondents’ past experiences blocked them from fully taking advantage of the programme’s opportunities. Another study (Pyles and Banerjee, 2012) from the United States explored the subjective well-being of low-income women survivors of gender-based violence, focusing on their work histories, resource-generating strategies and the impact of gender-based violence on their work lives. By using Nussbaum’s list, questions were asked about which capabilities influenced the women’s lives and work experiences. Two of Nussbaum’s capabilities, practical reasons and affiliations, played a central role in the women’s experiences. Finally, Bozalek (2010) used capabilities as a tool for social work research when analysing social work students’ accounts of institutional racism in South Africa, and how it affected them and their families.

There was a range of different methods used when exploring the sense of individual well-being. Most studies acknowledged that well-being was enhanced when individual agency was perceived as increasing. Most importantly, the inclusion of voices of disadvantaged groups was emphasized as a particular and much valued feature of the capability approach for social work. It was regarded as a particular task for social workers to listen to, and included voices of disadvantaged groups, when speaking for social rights and social change.

Addressing social inequalities on a structural level

Many studies were concerned with individual agency, but five studies addressed social inequalities on a collective level, where social structures were considered as impeding or enhancing capabilities. Tanner et al. (2018) analysed older people’s experiences of self-funding in social care in the United Kingdom. The authors discuss both the capability approach and personalization, arguing that these are individualized and not collective ways to conceive functionings and well-being. The authors criticize these approaches for reflecting neo-liberal values, which do not sufficiently consider the influence of social structure on capabilities. By using a relational–political interpretation of the capability approach, they seek to remedy the criticism of an individual agenda, and instead embrace structural factors that restrict or enhance capabilities and relationships that impact on well-being. The result highlights networks of care, and through viewing capabilities and functionings in relational terms, older people’s well-being was seen as depending on relationships with others and not on individual purchasing power and consumer choice. Personalization, together with the capability approach, was also used by Levy et al. (2017) when exploring music classes for children with disabilities in Scotland. Insight into community arts practice was given by capturing the voices of disabled children, their parents, and music tutors. A participatory approach was used in the study. The result points to the need for new, inclusive and accessible spaces for disabled children, which could give them the freedom to make choices and lead lives of their own. The capability approach was employed to direct attention to inequalities and social injustices in society’s response to the process of ‘othering’ and power relations.

Another study from the Netherlands recognized institutional racism as a social structure, restricting students’ formation of a social worker’s identity (Hendriks and Van Ewijk, 2017). The study concentrated on professionals’ process of choice in the construction of their identities. The authors conclude that the dominance of Western beliefs and values was challenged when working with migrants and refugees in social work practice and education, which also influenced different dimensions of choice. For the young, female professionals taking part in the study, the social work professional context was where they could realize their ideals and desires. They experienced that they could be both ‘good’ professionals and ‘good’ Muslims at the same time. They tried to gain recognition and to create room for agency without compromising their faith. Thus, the study focused on social structures impeding individuals’ capabilities and functionings. Poverty was the focus of two studies, and the capability approach was used, and talked about, in terms of lack of financial capabilities, which was depicted on a structural level. Trani et al. (2013) investigated the multidimensionality of child poverty in Afghanistan, focusing on child poverty understood as a lack of freedom to do and to be what children themselves valued and had reason to value. In Afghanistan, a majority of the population is affected by deprivation; however, this study concluded that younger children living in rural areas, disabled children and girls were the most deprived. The improvement of measurement for child poverty was also suggested, where the selection of considered dimensions was informed by participatory processes with the children. Financial capability in terms of opportunities and abilities was investigated by Banerjee (2016), who stated that poverty is clearly linked to access to, or exclusion from, any financial services. Income-poor people in India were the respondents in focus groups and interviews. Help with budgeting and basic information about financial planning had a great impact on poor people’s agency.

In these studies focusing on social inequalities, the critique towards the capability approach for not being critical enough towards structural factors that create social inequalities were raised and discussed (Hendriks and Van Ewijk, 2017; Tanner et al., 2018). A relational–political interpretation of the capability approach was advocated (Tanner et al., 2018).

A tool for social workers in practice

Social workers were encouraged to use their conceptualization and understanding of well-being, capabilities and functionings to support vulnerable young persons and enhance individual service users’ capabilities. If social workers realized people’s capabilities, they could support them in understanding their own opportunities and abilities to make changes in their lives. In this way, the capability approach was explained as a tool for social workers to use when meeting clients. This represented social workers’ understanding and knowledge about how to view people’s agency in relation to their functionings. This application of the capability approach was used in four studies.

Through an auto-ethnographic approach and three narratives, Gupta (2017) discusses what a capability framework could offer families with experiences of the family court system. The contributions she suggests are a multidimensional assessment, including psychological functioning. The impact of material deprivation and how such functionings could be addressed in care plans without judging parents, before scrutinizing their capabilities, and analysing factors denying capabilities to care for children. Vandekinderen et al. (2018) focus on social exclusion in relation to education in Flanders. In this case, the capability approach was said to contribute to process-oriented knowledge about the ways in which educational and social welfare actors can support socially vulnerable young people in realizing their capability for education, rather than focusing on human capital. Discussions concerned how to transform education into a collective process where learning is regarded as a collective, pedagogical and political project for societies, and not as an individual project. However, this article advocates the political and social justice aspects on development, as understood in the capability approach. Nevertheless, it was social workers’ actual use of the concepts from the capability approach that we found to be most strongly argued. Slabbert (2018) gives explicit examples of social workers’ use of capabilities when assessing client systems in various social work settings at the individual, group and community levels. This study had a partly evaluative aim. However, the experience and practice of how social workers could use conceptualization from the capability approach in their everyday encounters with clients was most vivid. The capability approach was said to be suitable as pedagogy for teaching (community psychology) to students in social work and psychology (Carolissen et al., 2010).

In conclusion, the opportunity for social workers to promote strength and support different client groups to realize their capabilities was a strong argument for using the capability approach as a tool in social work practice.

Evaluating social practices

The capability approach is a framework with evaluative aims for individual well-being and social practice. In the examined studies, two of them fell within this category. How NGOs and community networks managed to support clients was evaluated in terms of capabilities, agency, aspirations and dignity – concepts derived from the capability approach. NGOs working with street children in South Africa were reviewed in relation to how they managed to enhance the children’s decision-making processes (Van Raemdonck and Seedat-Khan, 2018). The result showed that it was challenging for the children to leave the street and that the service providers’ focus on the children’s capabilities, agency, aspirations and dignity would help them to understand how to best support the children. Another study from South Africa evaluated community networks’ support programme for survivors of intimate partner violence (Van Raemdonck et al., 2016). The strengths with community networks were their ability to mobilize both the survivors of violence and the people around them. In addition, agency freedom improved for the survivors of violence.

When evaluating social work practices, concepts from the capability approach were used as measurements, and structural processes of poverty and power relationship were also discussed. The focus on capabilities and ‘freedom of choice’ was claimed to facilitate capturing inequalities and help social workers to better serve the interests of the service users.

Conclusion

Promoting social justice and human rights in a global context are core values in the social work profession, and correspond with the basic principles in the capability approach. This scoping review of the use of the capability approach in social work research included 17 studies from different countries. We delineated four main applications of the capability approach: (1) to explore the sense of subjective well-being, where the inclusion of voices of disadvantaged groups was highlighted; ( 2) to address social inequalities such as consumer choice in caregiving, institutional racism and poverty on a structural level; (3) as a tool for social workers in practice, for example to promote strength and support individuals and disadvantaged groups to realize their capabilities; (4) to evaluate social practices – how community networks and NGOs could help expand the capabilities and agency of, for example, street children and survivors of intimate partner violence.

It has been argued that there is great potential in the capability approach concerning social work strategies, professional work and research (Babic et al., 2010; Den Braber, 2013). From our analysis, almost all the studies we examined framed the capability approach as congruent with the aim of social work to strive for social justice, human dignity and well-being, which also were the main arguments for using the capability approach. A specific theme that emerged as closely connected to using a capability approach was empowerment, mostly viewed as a tool for social workers to promote strength in individuals. Similar to claims of empowerment was the call for action. Social workers and organizations such as NGOs could promote social justice and human rights in general terms. The engagement of social workers to change society to a more just and equal society was much stressed, and the capability approach could be used by them to help change policies and programme strategies. The contradictory use of empowerment in social work may carry some lessons for future development of a capability approach in social work. Tew (2006) summarizes the different uses (and misuses) of empowerment in social work. He argues that it is not uncommon that the definition of empowerment is in line with a neo-liberal discourse of everybody’s responsibility for their own actions, with a call for dismantling welfare policies. For example, every person is not equally able to make choices. A similar criticism applies to anti-oppressive practice (e.g. Wilson and Beresford, 2000) and is also raised towards the capability approach (Dean, 2009). However, as Robeyns (2006) states, the social influence on individual choice needs complementary theories in order to be analysed. Complementary theories in the studies analysed here included Nancy Fraser’s theory of social justice and the social model of disability (and personalization). The capability approach is not a theory that can explain poverty or inequality. There may be a risk of overstating the social justice aspect of a capability approach because it corresponds with core principles in social work, just as empowerment attracts social work with its emphasis on participatory power. Furthermore, there is still an urgent need for underrepresented populations to participate in collaborative ways in the research process in pursuit of social justice. However, the reviewed articles showed a potential for social workers using concepts from the capability approach in helping individual service users and disadvantaged groups, as well as addressing social inequalities on a structural level.

Limitations of the study

The literature search can be criticized for not finding all studies relevant for social work. Many empirical studies we found concerned capabilities, poverty and disadvantaged groups, but ‘social work’ was not explicitly addressed in many studies, and therefore not included in this article. These studies may very well be of much interest for social work research and practice. Despite these limitations, the capability approach seems to be used in a growing body of social work research, and it has obviously found some attraction for social workers.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: The study received funding support from The Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare (AGECAP 2013-2300).

ORCID iDs

Inger Kjellberg

Birgitta Jansson

Notes

Author biographies

Inger Kjellberg is a researcher and lecturer at the Department of Social Work, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

Birgitta Jansson is a researcher and lecturer at the Department of Social Work, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

References

Adams

(2008) Empowerment, Participation and Social Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Alkire

(2002) Valuing Freedoms: Sen’s Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Arksey

O’Malley

(2005) ‘Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1): 19–32.

Babic

Graf

Germes Castro

(2010) ‘The Capability Approach as a Framework for the Evaluation of Child and Youth Care’, European Journal of Social Work 13(3): 409–13.

*Banerjee

(2016) ‘“We Routinely Borrow to Survive”: Exploring the Financial Capability of Income-Poor People in India’, Social Work 61(4): 349–58.

Banerjee

Canda

(2012) ‘Comparing Rawlsian Justice and the Capabilities Approach to Justice from a Spiritually Sensitive Social Work Perspective’, Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought 31(1–2): 9–31.

*Bozalek

(2010) ‘The Effect of Institutional Racism on Student Family Circumstances: A Human Capabilities Perspective’, South African Journal of Psychology 40(4): 487–94.

Carlson

Nguyen

Reinardy

(2016) ‘Social Justice and the Capabilities Approach: Seeking a Global Blueprint for the EPAS’, Journal of Social Work Education 52(3): 269–82.

*Carolissen

Rohleder

Bozalek

Swartz

Leibowitz

(2010) ‘“Community Psychology Is for Poor, Black People”: Pedagogy and Teaching of Community Psychology in South Africa’, Equity and Excellence in Education 43(4): 495–510.

10.

Clark

D.A.

(2008) ‘The Capability Approach: Its Development, Critiques and Recent Advances’, in Ghosh

Gupta

K.R.

Maiti

(eds) Development Studies, vol. II, pp. 105–27. New Delhi: Atlantic Books and Distributors.

11.

Dean

(2009) ‘Critiquing Capabilities: The Distractions of a Beguiling Concept’, Critical Social Policy 29(2): 261–78.

12.

Den Braber

. (2013) ‘The Introduction of the Capability Approach in Social Work across a Neoliberal Europe’, Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and Practice 22(4): 61–77.

13.

Deneulin

(2008) ‘Beyond Individual Agency and Freedom: Structures of Living Together in the Capability Approach’, in Alkire

Qizilbash

Comim

(eds) The Capability Approach: Concepts, Measures and Applications, pp. 105–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Dominelli

(2002) Anti-Oppressive Social Work Theory and Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

15.

*Gupta

(2017) ‘Learning from Others: An Autoethnographic Exploration of Children and Families Social Work, Poverty and the Capability Approach’, Qualitative Social Work 16(4): 449–64.

16.

Healy

(2011) ‘Defining International Social Work’. in Healy

L.M.

Link

R.J.

(eds) Handbook of International Social Work: Human Rights, Development, and the Global Profession, pp. 1–12. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.

17.

*Hendriks

Van Ewijk

(2017) ‘To Have Voice and Choice: Turkish and Moroccan Dutch Professionals in Social Work’, International Social Work 60(3): 720–32.

18.

*Horrell

Stephens

Breheny

Kazak

A.E.

Gough

Deatrick

J.A.

(2015) ‘Capability to Care: Supporting the Health of Informal Caregivers for Older People’, Health Psychology 34(4): 339–48.

19.

International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) and International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) (2014) ‘ The Global Definition of Social Work’. Available online at: http://ifsw.org/get-involved/global-definition-of-social-work

20.

*Levy

Robb

Jindal-Snape

(2017) ‘Disability, Personalisation and Community Arts: Exploring the Spatial Dynamics of Children with Disabilities Participating in Inclusive Music Classes’, Disability and Society 32(2): 254–68.

21.

National Association of Social Workers (NASW) (2017) Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Washington, DC: NASW.

22.

Nussbaum

(2011) Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press.

23.

*Ohls

(2017) ‘A Qualitative Study Exploring Matters of Ill-Being and Well-Being in Norwegian Activation Policy’, Social Policy and Society 16(4): 593–606.

24.

Pham

Rajić

Greig

Sargeant

Papadopoulos

McEwen

(2014) ‘A Scoping Review of Scoping Reviews: Advancing the Approach and Enhancing the Consistency’, Research Synthesis Methods 5(4): 371–85.

25.

*Pyles

Banerjee

(2010) ‘Work Experiences of Women Survivors: Insights from the Capabilities Approach’, Affilia 25(1): 43–55.

26.

Reisch

Jani

(2012) ‘The New Politics of Social Work Practice: Understanding Context to Promote Change’, British Journal of Social Work 42(6): 1132–50.

27.

Robeyns

(2005) ‘The Capability Approach: A Theoretical Survey’, Journal of Human Development 6(1): 93–117.

28.

Robeyns

(2006) ‘The Capability Approach in Practice’, Journal of Political Philosophy 14(3): 351–76.

29.

Robeyns

(2016) ‘Capabilitarianism’, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 17(3): 397–494.

30.

Robeyns

(2017) Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Justice: The Capability Approach Re-Examined. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.

31.

Rogers

(2012) ‘Anti-Oppressive Social Work Research: Reflections on Power in the Creation of Knowledge’, Social Work Education 31(7): 866–79.

32.

Sen

(1993) ‘Capability and Well-Being’, in Nussbaum

Sen

(eds) The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

33.

Sen

(1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

34.

Sen

(2009) ‘Capability: Reach and Limit’, in Martinetti

E.C.

(ed.) Debating Global Society: Reach and Limits of the Capability Approach, pp. 15–28. Milan: Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli.

35.

*Slabbert

(2018) ‘Applying the Capability Approach in Social Work Education’, Social Work Education 37(7): 867–81.

36.

*Steckermeier

(2018) ‘Better Safe than Sorry: Does Agency Moderate the Relevance of Safety Perceptions for the Subjective Well-Being of Young Children?’, Child Indicators Research 12(1): 29–48.

37.

Stoesz

Karger

(2012) ‘Social Work Education’, in Gray

Midgley

Webb

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Work, pp. 646–9. London: SAGE.

38.

Strier

(2006) ‘Anti-Oppressive Research in Social Work: A Preliminary Definition’, British Journal of Social Work 37(5): 857–71.

39.

*Tanner

Ward

Ray

(2018) ‘“Paying Our Own Way”: Application of the Capability Approach to Explore Older People’s Experiences of Self-Funding Social Care’, Critical Social Policy 38(2): 262–82.

40.

Tew

(2006) ‘Understanding Power and Powerlessness’, Journal of Social Work 6(1): 33–51.

41.

*Trani

Biggeri

Mauro

(2013) ‘The Multidimensionality of Child Poverty: Evidence from Afghanistan’, Social Indicators Research 112(2): 391–416.

42.

Tricco

A.C.

Lillie

Zarin

O’Brien

K.K.

Colquhoun

Levac

Moher

Peters

M.D.J.

Horsley

Weeks

Hempel

Akl

E.A.

Chang

McGowan

Stewart

Hartling

Aldcroft

Wilson

M.G.

Garritty

Lewin

Godfrey

C.M.

Macdonald

M.T.

Langlois

E.V.

Soares-Weiser

Moriarty

Clifford

Tunçalp

Ö.

Straus

S.E.

(2018) ‘PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation’, Annals of Internal Medicine 169: 467–73.

43.

*Van Raemdonck

Seedat-Khan

(2018) ‘A Case Study on a Generalist Service Delivery Model for Street Children in Durban, South Africa: Insights from the Capability Approach’, Child and Family Social Work 23(2): 297–306.

44.

*Van Raemdonck

Seedat

Raeymaeckers

(2016) ‘Assessing the Capability Approach as an Evaluation Tool for Community Networks on Intimate Partner Violence in Seven Durban Townships in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa’, Revista de Asistenta Sociala 3: 5–17.

45.

*Vandekinderen

Roets

Van Keer

Roose

(2018) ‘Tackling Social Inequality and Exclusion in Education: From Human Capital to Capabilities’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 22(1): 1–20.

46.

Wilson

Beresford

(2000) ‘“Anti-Oppressive Practice”: Emancipation or Appropriation?’, British Journal of Social Work 30(5): 553–73.

47.

*Yeung

Breheny

(2016) ‘Using the Capability Approach to Understand the Determinants of Subjective Well-Being among Community-Dwelling Older People in New Zealand’, Age and Ageing 45(2): 292–8.