Social sciences in India are known for systemic lacunae. As this is in sharp contrast
with the mainstream debates in knowledge society, the present article takes a
retrospective look to analyze the premises and promises of capability approach in higher
education. The central argument deconstructs the developmental complexities of social
science scholarship in the neoliberal democracy.
AlvaresC. (2011). A critique of Eurocentric
social science and the question of alternatives. Economic &
Political Weekly, 46(22),
72–81.
2.
BagchiA.K. (1996). Contextual social science: Or
crossing boundaries. Economic & Political Weekly,
31(43),
2875–2882.
3.
BalakrishnanP. (2008). Social science research in
India: Concerns and proposals. Economic & Political
Weekly, 43(5),
28–33.
4.
BeckerG.S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and
empirical analysis, with special reference to education.
USA: Columbia University
Press.
5.
BeteilleA. (2005). Universities as public
institutions. Economic & Political Weekly,
40(31),
3377–3381.
6.
BhambhriC.P. (1998). Globalisation and social
science. Economic & Political Weekly,
33(1/2),
17–19.
7.
ChalamK. S. (2002a). Rethinking social
sciences. Economic and Political Weekly,
37(10),
921–922.
8.
ChalamK. S. (2002b). Social science research: The
social context. Economic & Political Weekly,
37(39), 4080.
9.
DeneulinS., & McGregorJ.A. (2010). The capability approach and
the politics of a social conception of wellbeing. European
Journal of Social Theory, 13(4),
501–519.
10.
DrezeJ. (2002). On research and
action. Economic & Political Weekly,
37(9),
817–819.
11.
DrezeJ., & SenA. (2002). India: Development and
participation. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
12.
Fukuda-ParrS., & ShivaKumar A.K. (2003). Readings in human development:
Concepts, measures and policies for a development paradigm. New
Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
13.
GasperD. (2002). Is Sen’s capability approach
an adequate basis for considering human development?Review of Political Economy, 14(4),
435–461.
14.
GasperD. (2007). What is the capability
approach? Its core, rationale, partners and dangers. The Journal
of Socio-Economics, 36,
335–359.
15.
GhoshN. (2008). Research in engaged social
sciences: A few concerns. Economic & Political
Weekly, 43(4),
77–79.
16.
GhoshP.S. (2001). ICSSR and social science
research. Economic & Political Weekly,
36(7),
528–529.
17.
Government of India (GoI).
(1993). Learning without burden: Report of the National Advisory
Committee. New Delhi: Ministry
of Human Resource Development.
18.
GovindaR. (Ed.). (2011). Who goes to school? Exploring
exclusion in Indian education. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
19.
GuruG. (2002). How egalitarian are the
social sciences in India?Economic & Political Weekly, 37(50),
5003–5009.
20.
JacksonW.A. (2005). Capabilities, culture and
social structure. Review of Social Economy,
63(1),
101–124.
21.
KapurD., & MehtaP.B. (2007). Mortgaging the future? Indian higher
education. Brookings-NCAER India Policy
Forum.
22.
MendelsohnO. & ViczianyM. (1998). The untouchables: Subordination,
poverty and the state in modern India. UK:
Cambridge University Press.
23.
NussbaumM. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs
the humanities. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
24.
PandianM.S.S. (2002). Social sciences in South
India: A survey. Economic and Political Weekly,
37(35),
3613–3627.
25.
RobeynsI. (2005). The capability approach: A
theoretical survey,Journal of Human Development. 6(1),
93–114.
26.
SenA. (1999). Development as freedom.
New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
27.
StreetenP. (1971). Basic human
needs. Millennium: Journal of International Studies,
1(1),
29–46.
28.
TilakJ.B.G. (1992). Student loans in financing
higher education in India. Higher Education,
23(4),
389–404.
29.
TilakJ.B.G. (1993). Financing higher education in
India: Principles, practice, and policy issues. Higher
Education, 26(1),
43–67.
30.
TilakJ.B.G. (1996). How free is free primary
education in India?Economic & Political Weekly, 31(6),
355–366.
31.
TilakJ.B.G. (1997). The dilemma of reforms in
financing higher education in India. Higher Education
Policy, 10(1),
7–21.
32.
TilakJ.B.G. (2004). Absence of policy and
perspective in Indian higher education. Economic & Political
Weekly, 39(21),
2159–2164.
33.
TooleyJ. (2004). Private education and
‘education for all’. Economic Affairs,
24(4),
4–7.
34.
UNESCO, & Elsevier.
(1999). World social science report 1999.
Paris:
WSSR.
35.
UNESCO and International Social Science
Council. (2010). World social science report: Knowledge
divides 2010. Paris:
WSSR.
36.
UnterhalterE. (2003a). Education, capabilities and
social justice. Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring
Report 2003/4Gender and Education for All: The Leap to Equality.
37.
UnterhalterE. (2003b). Crossing disciplinary
boundaries: The potential of Sen’s capability approach for sociologists of
education. British Journal of Sociology of Education,
24(5),
665–669.
38.
VaidyanathanA. (2001). Social science research in
India: Some emerging issues. Economic & Political
Weekly, 36(2),
112–114.
39.
VasaviA.R. (2009). New imperatives for
elementary education. Indian Journal of Human
Development, 3(1),
133–142.
40.
VenkataramanL.N. (2011). False
consciousness. Economic & Political Weekly,
46(22), 4.
41.
VenkataramanL.N. (2013). Caste, class and education: The
social construction of capabilities in a Tamil village.
Germany: Universität
Bielefeld.
42.
VenkataramanL.N. (2014). Caste, class and education:
The intersectional implications of capabilities formation in a South Indian
village. In Otto and Schäfer (Eds), New
approaches towards the good life: Applications and transformations of the capability
approach (pp. 107–121).
Germany: Barbara Budrich
Publishers.
43.
WalkerM. (2007). Widening participation in
higher education: Lifelong learning as capability. In AspinD.N. (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives of lifelong
learning (pp. 131–147). The
Netherlands: Springer.
44.
WalkerM., & UnterhalterE. (Eds). (2007). Amartya Sen’s capability
approach and social justice in education. New
York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
45.
WatkinsK. (2004). Private education and
‘education for all’—Or how not to construct an evidence-based argument: A reply to
Tooley. Economic Affairs,
24(4),
8–11.
46.
WallersteinI., JumaC., Fox KellerE.KockaJ., LecourtD., MudimbeV.Y., MushakojiK., PrigogineI., TaylorP.J., & TrouillotM.R. (1996). Open the social sciences: Report of
the Gulbenkian Commission on the restructuring of the social sciences.
California: Stanford University
Press.
