At a debate marking the 250th edition of the Journal of Vocational Education & Training (JVET), Stephanie Allais questions the value of the Capabilities Approach for VET research, highlighting its limitations in addressing education, labour markets, and wider social and economic structures.
Stephanie Allais Debates
the Capabilities Approach
in Vocational Education
the Capabilities Approach
in Vocational Education
What can the Capabilities Approach contribute to research in vocational education and training? This was the question at the heart of a debate featuring Stephanie Allais, Research Chair of Skills Development at the Centre for Researching Education and Labour at Wits University and one of the founders of the CERE Observatory.
The debate took place on 22 May 2026 as part of a celebration of the 250th edition of the Journal of Vocational Education & Training (JVET), organised by JVET and the LLAKES Institute at UCL. The event examined two theoretical traditions that have shaped VET research and asked what they can contribute to understanding the field. The event examined two theoretical traditions that have shaped VET research, asking what they can contribute to our understanding of the field. The first debate, chaired by Simon McGrath, focused on the Capabilities Approach, with contrasting perspectives presented by Stephanie Allais and Leesa Wheelahan.
Leesa Wheelahan, Professor Emerita and William G. Davis Chair in Community College Leadership at the University of Toronto, argued that the approach offers VET a normative framework centred on human flourishing rather than the instrumental logic of human capital. It can help address questions such as whose interests vocational education serves, whether it meets students’ interests, and what resources are needed to realise them.
However, Prof. Allais questioned whether the Capabilities Approach provides VET researchers with the analytical tools needed to answer these questions. While acknowledging its contribution to economic debates, particularly its challenge to measuring development through economic growth alone, she argued that its application to education risks shifting the focus to the attributes individuals should develop, rather than considering how societies, institutions, and labour markets should change. It also offers no theory of education itself, leaving unanswered questions about curriculum, teaching, and institutional design and support.
For Prof. Allais, this is more than a theoretical problem. VET systems are already expected to achieve a great deal: preparing people for employment, responding to labour-market needs, and increasingly contributing to broader forms of human flourishing. Adding more goals may place further burdens on already struggling systems and hold them accountable for outcomes they may not be able to shape — potentially shifting responsibility for structural problems onto individuals and educational institutions.
Instead, Prof. Allais argues that VET needs stronger theories of education and curriculum, a better understanding of labour markets and labour processes, and ways of analysing how political economies and employment relations can change. Therefore, the central question is not just what VET should enable people to achieve, but also what VET can actually do and what needs to change beyond education.
The debate took place on 22 May 2026 as part of a celebration of the 250th edition of the Journal of Vocational Education & Training (JVET), organised by JVET and the LLAKES Institute at UCL. The event examined two theoretical traditions that have shaped VET research and asked what they can contribute to understanding the field. The event examined two theoretical traditions that have shaped VET research, asking what they can contribute to our understanding of the field. The first debate, chaired by Simon McGrath, focused on the Capabilities Approach, with contrasting perspectives presented by Stephanie Allais and Leesa Wheelahan.
Leesa Wheelahan, Professor Emerita and William G. Davis Chair in Community College Leadership at the University of Toronto, argued that the approach offers VET a normative framework centred on human flourishing rather than the instrumental logic of human capital. It can help address questions such as whose interests vocational education serves, whether it meets students’ interests, and what resources are needed to realise them.
However, Prof. Allais questioned whether the Capabilities Approach provides VET researchers with the analytical tools needed to answer these questions. While acknowledging its contribution to economic debates, particularly its challenge to measuring development through economic growth alone, she argued that its application to education risks shifting the focus to the attributes individuals should develop, rather than considering how societies, institutions, and labour markets should change. It also offers no theory of education itself, leaving unanswered questions about curriculum, teaching, and institutional design and support.
For Prof. Allais, this is more than a theoretical problem. VET systems are already expected to achieve a great deal: preparing people for employment, responding to labour-market needs, and increasingly contributing to broader forms of human flourishing. Adding more goals may place further burdens on already struggling systems and hold them accountable for outcomes they may not be able to shape — potentially shifting responsibility for structural problems onto individuals and educational institutions.
Instead, Prof. Allais argues that VET needs stronger theories of education and curriculum, a better understanding of labour markets and labour processes, and ways of analysing how political economies and employment relations can change. Therefore, the central question is not just what VET should enable people to achieve, but also what VET can actually do and what needs to change beyond education.
9 October 2026
Watch the Debate