Universities, professional capabilities and contributions to the public good in South Africa

Abstract

The generation of a public-good, capabilities-based approach to professional education in South African universities is outlined and proposed as a contribution to wider social transformation. The relevance and importance of understanding what Amartya Sen describes as ‘capability failure' in the lives of people living in poverty is explored and, following from this, how professionals ought to contribute by virtue of their university education, and hence privilege, to making people's lives go better. The key criterion in developing and evaluating professional education is then how professionals are educated to expand the scope of effective freedoms each person has to lead a life she has reason to value, underpinned at all times with respect for human dignity. The process by which a Professional Capabilities Index (PCI) was generated theoretically and empirically is explained and the argument advanced for the PCI as a practical tool for professional education oriented to improving public services for the poor and, hence, the public good.

Keywords:

• poverty reduction
• professional education
• capabilities

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by ESRC/DfID Award No RES- 67-25-0302. My thanks to members of the research project team and to the two anonymous referees whose thorough comments assisted greatly in revising the paper.

Notes

1. It also needs to be said that this should not prescribe lines of inquiry universities may wish to pursue in producing and disseminating knowledge, or to expect compliance with policy objectives, or for universities to follow market-led models of development and management, or to limit activities only to those with practical outcomes so that training is privileged over education. However, professional education is both theoretical, applied and vocational and sits rather more directly at the nexus of universities and their host societies – we might then expect attention both to intellectual discovery and development but also to the social responsibility that comes with being educated for ‘human understanding’ rather than only trained.

2. Nussbaum’s (see 2000, 78–80, for their elaboration) central universal capabilities are: (1) Life, (2) Bodily health, (3) Bodily integrity, (4) Senses, imagination and thought, (5) Emotions, (6) Affiliation, (7) Practical reason, (8) Other species, (9) Play and (10) Control over one’s environment.

3. Nussbaum in particular has been criticised for the relevance of her list to all contexts (Robeyns 2003). This issue of list is now fairly well-trodden territory and is not addressed here but see Walker and Unterhalter (2007). Moreover the PCI is neither canonical, universal nor fixed.

4. From Wolff and De-Shalit we added: Doing good to others, Living in a law abiding fashion and Understanding the law. In interviews with professional bodies and NGOs there was broad agreement that all the capabilities were important.

5. The universities were given pseudonyms. Although they may be recognizable to anyone familiar with South African higher education, this is not the same ethically as identifying each university.

6. The research team was led by Melanie Walker and included Monica McLean, Arona Dison and Rosie Vaughan, with additional fieldwork support from Pippa Segall and administrative support from Martina Daykin.

7. For a detailed account of all the case studies see Walker et al. (2010).

8. Seven capabilities emerged: Knowledge, imagination and practical skills, Informed vision, Integrity and ethical awareness, Commitment to global citizenship, Orientation to social and collective action, Skills to communicate with people from all walks of life, Resilience, emotional awareness and Assurance and confidence.