“Scholars use the capability approach for different types of analysis, with different epistemological goals, relying on different methodologies, with different corresponding roles for functionings and capabilities” (Robeyns, 2005b: 193). Table 3.1 demonstrates the variety of uses of the capability approach.
Table 3.1: Modes of capability approach analysis
Epistemological goal Methodology Role of functioning and capabilities Welfare/ quality of life measurement Quantitative Social indicators
Normative theories Philosophical Part of philosophical foundations
Thick descriptions / Descriptive analysis Qualitative Elements of a narrative
Source: (Robeyns, 2005b: 193)
An example of a quantitative measurement influenced by capability approach is the Human Development Index that was developed in 1990 by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 1990). The United Nations Development Programme emphasises the development of human choices and returns to the centrality of people and it is reflected in measuring development not as the expansion of commodities and wealth but as the widening of human choices. In terms of philosophical methodologies, Nussbaum (2000; 2003) has used the capability approach to theorise what is fundamental for human flourishing. She has compiled a list that isolates those human capabilities that can be convincingly argued to be of central importance in any human life, whatever else the person pursues or chooses (Nussbaum, 2000). As a qualitatively descriptive tool, the capability approach can explain “behaviour that might appear irrational according to traditional economic analysis, or revealing layers of complexities that a quantitative analysis can rarely capture” (Robeyns 2005b: 194). This is of significance especially when analysing specific situations as it allows for deeper levels of understanding of conversion factors, which help to explain circumstances such as those that can affect teachers‟ ability to achieve valued functionings related to the teaching and learning of biodiversity (Sen, 1999). By acknowledging conversion factors, the capability approach takes into account the broader social and environmental contexts that can affect teachers‟ capability sets, which can assist in providing thick descriptions and in-depth analyses (Robeyns, 2005a) as I will do in this study.
Sen views education as an overarching capability that should expand other human capabilities (Walker & Unterhalter, 2007). This may include gaining skills and opportunities that these skills
Morgan, 2010). These are valid connections. However, it has been argued that Sen‟s conflation of education with freedom or capabilities overlooks particular educational aims, content and processes that could potentially be the cause of capability deprivation (Unterhalter, 2003). One of the reasons why I chose the capability approach for this study is because of its belief that social arrangements such as PLCs should aim to expand capabilities – their freedom to promote or achieve „functionings‟ which are important to them (Unterhalter et al., 2007). As mentioned earlier, the focus on capabilities would require us to evaluate not merely satisfaction with teachers‟ learning outcomes, but to question the range of real continuing professional development opportunities available to teachers and whether they had the genuine capability to achieve the valued educational functionings (Walker & Unterhalter, 2007).
The concept of capabilities is often confused with the concept of capacities. Cundill et al. (2014), working with the capabilities approach in climate change adaptation research, argued that the distinction between the two is that capacities refer to knowledge, skills and alternative options. They however highlighted that achieving aspirations involves converting resources (i.e. money, natural resources, and social relationships) into actions that contribute towards the overarching capability of the individual. Appadurai (2004) argued that we need to understand whether teacher‟s educational aspirations (what they hoped for now and in the future) had become adapted to their circumstances, and whether the teachers have a range of valued learning opportunities to choose from. Cundill et al. (2014) talked about aspirations in a context of „uncertain futures‟. What this means is that teachers‟ existing valued beings and doings or aspirations might not be appropriate for the changing biodiversity context, thus the need to think about alternatives, for example, if a teacher‟s value is in line with anticipated risks related to biodiversity loss and teaching methods that can prepare learners for the anticipated problems and risks associated with biodiversity loss. Teachers need to develop new knowledge and new skills that can expand their current practices and knowledge (Cundill et al., 2014). Their argument implies that Life Sciences teachers in the PLCs need to be reviewing their aspirations and valued beings and doings. This argument is of significance in this study, as Wiek, Wathycombe & Redman (2011) argued for anticipatory competencies for ESD, and one can argue that it is possible to develop such competence in PLCs. The arguments above demonstrate that education has the potential to expand learning and valued choices (Lambert & Morgan, 2010). The capability approach opens spaces in which we can be critical of continuing professional development processes within a normative framework (Boni & Walker, 2013). Sen‟s capability approach does not explicitly claim that formal education may not always operate as an unqualified good (Radja, Hoffmann & Bakhshi, 2003). But a bad education experience can cause long term negative implications (Tao, 2013a). It is therefore important to
consider that teachers‟ capabilities can be diminished and/or enhanced through continuing professional development processes. The capability approach calls for a focus on how social contexts such as PLCs set the conditions for teachers‟ freedoms. So in the case of education, we need to aim at equalising people‟s capabilities both in and through education (Unterhalter et al., 2007). In this way, the capability approach provides a framework which is sensitive to diverse social settings and groups (Radja et al., 2003).
The arguments above related to the capability approach, show that the exploring of Life Sciences teachers capabilities and functionings in the PLCs is not straightforward. Social structures and cultural norms can influence what Life Sciences teachers‟ value and their choices to participate in PLCs (Robeyns, 2005a). Sen (1992) proposed that social conditioning can make a person lack the courage to choose the capabilities that they are denied. Thus in exploring the Life Sciences teachers‟ functionings in PLCs related to the teaching and learning of biodiversity there is a need to distinguish explicitly between what these teachers “really prefer and what they are made to prefer” (Teschl & Comin, 2005:236). This points to the structure agency debate, where there is tension between the determinants (teachers) of value and behaviour: are values a product of an agent‟s authentic preference, deliberations and choices, or are they constituted by the norms, cultures and social institutions that tacitly shape agents‟ thoughts, motives and decisions? (Sewell, 1992).