PAS: vínculos en sentido ascendente

One of the strengths of the capability approach is that it can be applied to a wide range of evaluative purposes (Sen 1993: 49). The capabilityapproach was considered relevant to this study because of its relationship to knowledge and skills acquisition through the

48 university education processes. It has been agreed that “education is central to the capability approach” (Walker and Unterhalter 2007:7). Moreover, education is one of the few crucial beings and doings that are very important to wellbeing; and, broadly, education is itself a basic capability that affects the development and expansion of other capabilities (Sen 1992:4). For example, higher education can promote reasoning abilities that enables an individual to “distinguish between virtues and vices and then to act accordingly” (Flores-Crespo 2004:3). Education provision at all levels can, therefore, be considered as a capability expansion process, but depending on what is taught and how. This is because, as Young (2009: 259) cautions, some learning (for example in situations of child labour) may be detrimental to the individual learner and, therefore, fail to improve the individual’s life.

Education is “abasic and fundamental capability, essential to the expansion of future capabilities, and upon which to outline elements of an entitlement in education” (Terzi 2004:9). Hence, Terzi concurs with Sen that education has an instrumental role of furthering other capabilities. She concludes:

Absence or lack of education would essentially harm or substantially disadvantage the individual. Education thus conceived responds to the basic need of the individual to be educated...since education plays a substantial role in the expansion of other capabilities as well as future ones, it can be considered fundamental and foundational to different capabilities (Terzi 2004:9).

Education is very important in the capability expansion process and education can also be seen as a form of functioning or individual wellbeing achievement (Unterhalter 2003: 6). A person who is not educated suffers many disadvantages in life. For example, such a person experiences language limitations and overall communicative functionings together with constraints in reasoning and learning functionings (Terzi 2004:9). Indeed, “education is good partly because it helps secure other ‘goods’, for example securing a job, contributing to increased income, protecting one’s own health or the health of a child, participating in decision-making” buteducationis also good in itself (Unterhalter 2003: 9). This makes education a fundamental capability for improving one’s wellbeing. Terzi (2004: 10), for example, underscores the significance of education in individual capability expansion when she explains:

49 The broadening of capabilities entailed by education extends to the advancements of complex capabilities, since while promoting reflection, understanding, information and awareness of one’s capabilities, education promotes at the same time the possibility to formulate exactly the valued beings and doings that the individual has reasons to value. On the other hand, the expansion of capabilities entailed by education extends to choices of occupations and certain levels of social and political participation.

Most people attend schools and colleges in order to improve on their knowledge and skills and at times to access employment opportunities. For education to enlarge capabilities, it must move from rote-learning to addressing the development needs and aspirations of the learners, their ability to think and reason, to build up self-respect and respect for others, to think ahead and to plan their future lives (Hoffmann 2006:2). Hence education needs to provide ‘life skills’ that enable individuals to obtain skills and abilities for adaptive and positive behaviour that enable individuals to deal effectively with the demands of everyday life that confront them (UNESCO quoted in Hoffmann 2006:2). In essence, education can enhance individual capabilities and through learning an individual can improve her life (Sen 1999a: 90-92). Sen further maintains that education contributes to the quality of life and the formation and expansion of human capabilities.

Specific abilities obtainable from education have been classified under three categories, namely “problem-solving skills, autonomy and a sense of purpose, and social ability, directly in line with characteristics and abilities identified as constituting resilience among young people” (Bernard quoted in Hoffmann 2006:3). In the context of the capability approach, however, three capabilities associated with education have been listed as follows: critical thinking; the ideal of the world citizen; and the development of the narrative imagination (Nussbaum quoted in Walker and Unterhalter 2007:7). All in all, education is central toimparting technical, social and life skills and these skills need to be well integrated into the university education processes.

In capability approach literature, education is commonly treated as ‘basic elementary education’ and mainly expressed in terms of levels of literacy (Sen quoted in Terzi 2004: 2), excluding advanced education, such as university education. Whereas it is generally

50 agreed by Sen (1992) and Terzi (2004; 2007) that education is a basic capability that constitutes a fundamental entitlement and its provision is a matter of social justice, it is not clear whether this assertion applies to university education too. The concentration of their (Sen’s and Terzi’s) analysis on basic elementary education and literacy levels indicates an omission of university education and warranted the need to test and apply the capability approach to university education processes and outcomes, which this study is interested in.

An education level, project or programme could be measured to establish its role in capability enlargement. The measure requires theestablishment of the capabilities or capability sets that are relevant to the level or programme in question. Terzi (2004:16-17; 2007:37) presents a “list of basic capabilities for educational functionings, at the ideal level” namely:

Literacy: being able to read and to write, to use language and discursive reasoning functionings.

Numeracy: being able to count, to measure, to solve mathematical questions and to use logical reasoning functionings.

Sociality and participation: being able to establish positive relationships with others and to participate without shame.

Learning dispositions: being able to concentrate, to pursue interest, to accomplish tasks, to inquire.

Physical activities: being able to exercise and being able to engage in sports activities.

Science and technology: being able to understand natural phenomena, being knowledgeable about technology and being able to use technological tools.

Practical reason: being able to relate means and ends and being able to critically reflect on one’s and others’ actions.

The justification that Terzi offers for this list of basic capabilities in education is that it complies with the principles of “exhaustion and non-reducibility” and the absence of these elements in an education programme would constitute a disadvantage. These principles suggest that the elements selected should be fairly comprehensive. In addition, the capabilities should be non-reducible in thesense that a capability listed is basic and does not imply additional basic components. The list of basic capabilities should also be presented at a certain level of generality, therefore permitting more lists to be drawn from it, depending on the context under consideration (Terzi 2004: 17).

51 Indeed, a list of capabilities in education can be developed because different capabilities differ in importanceand drawing up a list of capabilities is normal (Sen 1992: 45-46). Such a list allows analysis and contextualisation of a phenomenon.

Terzi’s list of capabilities covers a wide range of education levels, right from elementary (literacy or numeracy) up to the advanced levels (practical reason, learning disposition). In terms of subject matter, the list runs from sociality and participation to science and technology, thus complicating the applicability of these capabilities on a selected specific level of education, such as primary or secondary. Moreover, Terzi does not specify the levels where different capabilities are applicable, but instead mentions the ‘ideal level’, which is rather vague. However, she accepts that there is room for another scholar to establish capability sets or lists that are relevant to the level of education in question. In the current study, the researcher contributes two items to that list (see also 9.4).

In a different setup, Walker (2006:128-9) presentsa list of eight higher education capabilities, namely: practical reason; educational resilience; knowledge and imagination; learning disposition; social relations and social networks; respect, dignity and recognition; emotional integrity, emotions; and bodily integrity (see also Appendix D). Whereas Walker’s list of eight capabilities is for higher education, it is too broad to be used wholly in this study; only four capabilities are adopted because of their similarity with those of Terzi. Similarity is presumed to imply consensus on those capabilities as being relevant to education. The three capabilities that intersect are, therefore, adopted to guide this study; these are sociality and participation (social relations and social networks); learning disposition; and practical reason. These three capabilities are supplemented by a fourth one, mentioned only by Terzi (2007: 37), namely science and technology. Science and technology is included in the analytics of this study because of the researcher deemed important in university education regardless of theeducation programme one is involved in (see also Figure 4.1). Since it is permissible through certain methods to draw up capability lists that are context-relevant (Fukudar-Parr 2003: 306; Robeyns 2003:41-45; Alkire 2006: 7-8), the researcher opted to consider the above four as the most relevant for this study (see also 2.4.1, and Figure 4.1).

52