A capabilities-friendly conceptualisation of flourishing in and through education

Abstract

This article explores what it means to flourish in and through education and why we should position such flourishing as an issue of morality. We draw on the capabilities approach (CA) advanced by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum and locate the argument in the practical context of higher education (HE) in unequal societies. We use qualitative data from year one of a three-year longitudinal study exploring student agency and well-being at a South African university to consider flourishing in and through education. Using the CA concepts of well-being, agency, practical reason and affiliation, we argue that the CA provides a philosophical grounding that takes account of both personal and relational flourishing and morality. Flourishing in education requires consideration of the well-being and agency of students. Flourishing through education draws attention to the role of education in promoting well-being and flourishing beyond its walls by fostering a social and moral consciousness among students.

Propiedades psicométricas y dimensionalidad de “The Flourishing Scale” en población hispanohablante

“…Likewise, it has been associated with positive emotion perception, which facilitates and promotes a broader and more creative thought (Fredrickson, Lastly, it can be considered that students having this ability are happy, prosper in their social relations, attain their goals with confidence and competence, and make valuable contributions to everyone else (Norrish, Williams, O´Connor & Robinson, 2013). Thus, Flourishing has been linked with the expression of social and moral conscience among the students (Wilson-Strydom & Walker, 2015).…”

Access, participation and capabilities: theorising the contribution of university bursaries to students’ well-being, flourishing and success

“…Because of the initial focus of the capabilities approach in the 'developing world', this has rarely been extended to HE thus far. The exception is South Africa, where Sen and Nussbaum's work has been used to critique unequal patterns of HE access and participation (Walker, 2003;Walker & Unterhalter, 2007;Wilson-Strydom & Walker, 2015;Wilson-Strydom, 2015a). While social inequalities in England are considerably less stark, it is argued here that the same principles can be usefully applied (Wisker and Masika, 2017); indeed, Sen and Nussbaum's work is increasingly being used to examine inequalities in the 'developed world' (Nussbaum, 2011).…”

Happiness in Higher Education

“…2–3), left behind the ‘heart and soul of a liberal arts education that focuses on the whole person, the whole student, the whole faculty and staff’ and are no longer ‘fulfilling the mission of helping students to flourish’. Wilson‐Strydom and Walker (, p. 317) describe flourishing as about more than just happiness or satisfaction, but instead encapsulating the opportunities, competence and confidence ‘needed to be able to participate equally in higher education’: flourishing requires consideration of the well‐being and agency of students. In other words, flourishing represents a form of self or personal development undertaken on the part of students, but facilitated by universities.…”

“…Gibbs and Dean (, p. 429) make the point that this is not a zero‐sum game: the two outcomes are both achievable for higher education institutions: ‘consumer satisfaction can be made tangible and it is worth measuring and competing upon’, alongside universities’ role in allowing students to ‘grasp their potential and their happiness’. Equally, Wilson‐Strydom and Walker (, p. 314) argued for ‘an education which is instrumental in enabling wider economic opportunities but also intrinsic in valuing learning for its own sake’ and indeed students themselves are not simply ‘in the business of purchasing a degree’ according to Watson (, p. 33). As Keyes (, p. 3) noted, it is only students who are more able to contribute to the world than when they arrived at university who can be said to be flourishing.…”