Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 69–80 | Cite as

Technology, capabilities and critical perspectives: what can critical theory contribute to Sen’s capability approach?

  • Yingqin ZhengEmail author
  • Bernd Carsten Stahl
Original Paper


This paper explores what insights can be drawn from critical theory to enrich and strengthen Sen’s capability approach in relation to technology and human development. The two theories share some important commonalities: both are concerned with the pursuit of “a good life”; both are normative theories rooted in ethics and meant to make a difference, and both are interested in democracy. The paper provides a brief overview of both schools of thought and their applications to technology and human development. Three areas are identified where critical theory can make a contribution to the capability approach: conceptually, by providing a critical account of individual agency and enriching the concept of technology beyond the simplistic notion of commodities; methodologically, by sensitising towards reification and hegemony of scientific tools, and, finally, by emphasising reflexivity of researchers.


Sen’s capability approach Critical theory Capabilities Technology 


  1. Alkire, S. (2002). Valuing freedom: Sen’s capability approach and poverty reduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anand, P., Santos, C., & Smith, R. (2007). The measurement of capabilities (No. 67). Open Discussion Papers in Economics. Open University.Google Scholar
  3. Bailur, S. (2007).The challenges of community participation in rural information systems projects. Paper presented at the IFIP 9.4 Working Group on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries: Taking Stock of E-development, Sao Paulo.Google Scholar
  4. Basden, A. (2002). The critical theory of Herman Dooyeweerd? Journal of Information Technology, 17, 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brey, P. (2000). Disclosive computer ethics: Exposure and evaluation of embedded normativity in computer technology. In CEPE2000 computer ethics: Philosophical enquiry. Presented at the CEPE2000 Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiry, Dartmouth College.Google Scholar
  6. Brey, P. (2008). The technological construction of social power. Social Epistemology, 22(1), 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooke, C. (2002). What does it mean to be ‘critical’ in IS research? Journal of Information Technology, 17, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooke, C. (Ed.). (2009). Critical management perspectives on information systems (1st ed.). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.Google Scholar
  9. Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2005). Basic assumptions of the critical research perspectives in information systems. In D. Howcroft & E. M. Trauth (Eds.), Handbook of critical information systems research: Theory and application (pp. 19–46). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, D. A. (2006). Capability approach. In D. A. Clark (Ed.), The Elgar companion to development studies (pp. 32–45). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  11. Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  12. Corbridge, S. (2002). Development as freedom: The spaces of Amartya Sen. Progress in Development Studies, 2(3), 183–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crocker, D. A. (2008). Ethics of global development: Agency, capability, and deliberative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cukier, W., Ngwenyama, O., Bauer, R., & Middleton, C. (2009). A critical analysis of media discourse on information technology: Preliminary results of a proposed method for critical discourse analysis. Information Systems Journal, 19(2), 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deneulin, S. (2006). “Necessary thickening”: Ricoeur’s ethic of justice as a complement to Sen’s capability approach. In S. Deneulin, M. Nebel, & N. Sagovsky (Eds.), Transforming unjust structures: The capability approach. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deneulin, S., Nebel, M., & Sagovsky, N. (Eds.). (2006). Transforming unjust structures: The capability approach. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Devereux, S. (2001). Sen’s entitlement approach: Critiques and counter-critiques. Oxford Development Studies, 29(3), 245–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doolin, B., & McLeod, L. (2005). Towards critical interpretivism in IS research. In D. Howcroft & E. Trauth (Eds.), Handbook of critical information systems research: Theory and application (pp. 244–271). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  19. Evans, P. (2002). Collective capabilities, culture, and Amartya Sen’s development as freedom. Studies in Comparative International Development, 37(2), 54–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Falconer, D. (2008). A demographic and content survey of critical research in information systems for the period 2001–2005. Communications of AIS, 2008(22), 547–568.Google Scholar
  21. Feenberg, A. (1993). Critical theory of technology (New ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology (1st ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Feenberg, A. (2004). Looking backward, looking forward. In D. Tabachnick & T. Koivukoski (Eds.), Globalisation, technology, and philosophy (pp. 93–105). New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  24. Feenberg, A. (2008a). From critical theory of technology to the rational critique of rationality. Social Epistemology, 22(1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Feenberg, A. (2008b). Comments. Social Epistemology, 22(1), 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Feldman, S. (2010). Social development, capabilities, and the contradictions of (capitalist) development. In S. L. Esquith & F. Gifford (Eds.), Capabilities, power, and institutions: Toward a more critical development ethics. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  28. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings (1972–1977). In C. Gordon (Ed.), London: Harvester.Google Scholar
  29. Freeden, M. (2003). Ideology: A very short introduction. Very short introductions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Garai, A., & Shadrach, B. (2006). Taking ICT to every Indian village: Opportunities and challenges. One World South Asia.Google Scholar
  31. Gasper, D. (2007). What is the capability approach? Its core, rationale, partners and dangers. The Journal of Social Economics, 36, 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gigler, B. (2004). Including the excluded: Can ICTs empower poor communities? Towards an alternative evaluation framework based on the capacity approach. In 4th International conference on the capability approach, September 57, 2004. Pavia, Italy: University of Pavia.Google Scholar
  33. Gouldner, A. W. (1976). The dialectic of ideology and technology: The origins, grammar and future of ideology. Critical social studies. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Greenhill, A., & Wilson, M. (2006). Haven or hell? Telework, flexibility and family in the e-society: A Marxist analysis. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(4), 379–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harvey, L. (1990). Critical social research. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  36. Hawkes, D. (2003). Ideology. The new critical idiom (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Howcroft, D., & Trauth, E. (2005). Handbook of critical information systems research: Theory and application. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  38. Howcroft, D., & Trauth, E. M. (2008). The implications of a critical agenda in gender and IS research. Information Systems Journal, 18(2), 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Introna, L. D. (2005). Disclosive ethics and information technology: Disclosing facial recognition systems. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jackson, P., Gharavi, H., & Klobas, J. (2006). Technologies of the self: Virtual work and the inner panopticon. Information Technology and People, 19(3), 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnstone, J. (2007). Technology as empowerment: A capability approach to computer ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 9, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2005). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 305–342). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Klein, H. K. (2009). Critical social IS research today: A reflection of past accomplishments and current challenges. In C. Brooke (Ed.), Critical management perspectives on information systems (pp. 249–272). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.Google Scholar
  44. Kleine, D. (2009). ICT4 what?—using the choice framework to operationalise the capability approach to development. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on information and communication technologies and development (Doha, Qatar, April 1719, 2009) (pp. 108–117). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kothari, U. (2001). Power, knowledge and social control in participatory development. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp. 139–152). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  46. Kvasny, L., & Richardson, H. (2006). Critical research in information systems: Looking forward, looking back. Information Technology and People, 19(3), 196–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Madon, S. (2004). Evaluating the developmental impact of E-governance initiatives: An exploratory framework. Electronic Journal of Information System in Developing Countries, 20(5), 1–13.Google Scholar
  48. Marcuse, H. (2002). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society (1st ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Mayasandra, R., Pan, S. L., & Myers, M. D. (2006). Viewing information technology outsourcing organisations through a postcolonial lens. In E. Trauth, D. Howcroft, T. Butler, B. Fitzgerald, & J. DeGross (Eds.), Social inclusion, societal and organisational implications for information systems (pp. 381–396). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McAulay, L., Doherty, N., & Keval, N. (2002). The stakeholder dimension in information systems evaluation. Journal of Information Technology, 17(4), 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McGrath, K. (2005). Doing critical research in information systems: A case of theory and practice not informing each other. Information Systems Journal, 15(2), 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McLellan, D. (1995). Ideology. Concepts in the social sciences (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Navarro, V. (2000). Development and quality of life: A critique of Amartya Sen’s development as freedom. International Journal of Health Services, 30(4), 661–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organisations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Radder, H. (2008). Critical philosophy of technology: The basic issues. Social Epistemology, 22(1), 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Richardson, H., & Robinson, B. (2007). The mysterious case of the missing paradigm: A review of critical information systems research 1991–2001. Information Systems Journal, 17(3), 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Robeyns, I. (2002). Gender inequality: A capability perspective. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cambridge University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  59. Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Robeyns, I. (2006). The capability approach in practice. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 4(3), 351–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Robeyns, I. (2008). Sen’s capability approach and feminist concerns. In The capability approach: Concepts, measures and applications (pp. 82–104). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Saravanamuthu, K. (2002). Information technology and ideology. Journal of Information Technology, 17, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1996). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2–3), 251–268.Google Scholar
  64. Sen, A. (Ed.). (1980). Equality of what? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Sen, A. (1982). Choice, welfare and measurement. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  66. Sen, A. (1984). Resources, values and development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  67. Sen, A. (1985a). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  68. Sen, A. (1985b). Well-being, agency and freedom. The Journal of Philosophy, LXXXII(4), 169–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sen, A. (1987). The standard of living. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sen, A. (1990a). Gender and cooperative conflict. In I. Tinker (Ed.), Persistent inequalities (pp. 123–149). New York and Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Sen, A. (1990b). Justice: Means versus freedoms. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 19(2), 111–121.Google Scholar
  72. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  74. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  75. Sen, A. (2006). Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  76. Stahl, B. C. (2006). Emancipation in cross-cultural IS research: The fine line between relativism and dictatorship of the intellectual. Ethics and Information Technology, 8(3), 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stahl, B. (2008a). Information systems: Critical perspectives (Routledge studies in organisation and systems). Routledge.Google Scholar
  78. Stahl, B. C. (2008b). The ethical nature of critical research in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 18(2), 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Stewart, K. J., & Gosain, S. (2006). The impact of ideology on effectiveness in open source software development teams. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 291–314.Google Scholar
  80. Thrift, N. J. (2005). Knowing capitalism. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  81. van den Hoven, J. (2008). Moral methodology and information technology. In K. Himma & H. Tavani (Eds.), The handbook of information and computer ethics (pp. 49–68). Chichester: WileyBlackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Walsham, G. (2001). Making a world of difference: IT in a global context. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  83. Wastell, D. G. (1996). The fetish of technique: Methodology as a social defence. Information Systems Journal, 6(1), 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wresch, W. (2009). Progress on the global digital divide: An ethical perspective based on Amartya Sen’s capabilities model. Ethics and Information Technology, 11(4), 255–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zheng, Y. (2009). Different spaces for e-development: What can we learn from the capability approach. Information Technology for Development, 15(2), 66–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zheng, Y., & Walsham, G. (2008). Inequality of what? Social exclusion in the e-society as capability deprivation. Information Technology and People, 21(3), 222–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of Computing and Social Responsibility, Department of Informatics, Faculty of TechnologyDe Montfort UniversityLeceisterUK

Personalised recommendations