Shifting from the Status Quo: A Conceptual Framework to Enhance the Field of Sport for Development Integrating the Capabilities Approach and Critical Pedagogy

Abstract

Scholars have called for a better understanding of how sport might contribute to development efforts. Theoretical efforts that can support a critical examination of Sport for Development (SfD) practice have been scarce. In this article, the authors propose a new framework integrating the capabilities approach with critical pedagogy. The authors argue that the capabilities approach provides a framework for how people can be provided experiences through SfD activities. Integrating the principles of critical pedagogy supports SfD programs in celebrating local community strengths and incorporating existing assets into program design and delivery. The authors also provide a diagrammatic model that can support future inquiry into research and practice within SfD.

1. Introduction

The potential power of sport as a tool for individual and community development has been recognized by the United Nations Special Advisor to the Secretary-General as an important driver of the 2030 sustainable development goals (Darnell & Dao, 2017). One growing structure of sport and community engagement on a global scale is known as Sport for Development (SfD), which Webb and Orr (2024) highlighted as being strategically prioritized through investments made by the United Nations, Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), and other non-governmental organizations. Given the evolving scope of the field and for the purposes of this paper, SfD is defined as the “use of sport to exert a positive influence on public health, the socialization of children, youths and adults, the social inclusion of disadvantaged groups, the economic development of regions and states, and to foster intercultural exchange” (Lyras & Welty Peachey, 2011, p. 311).

A systematic review conducted by Whitley et al. (2019) noted that there has been a steady increase in scholarly work connecting SfD programs to social and educational outcomes. Research has suggested that SfD programs can support the development of life skills such as leadership, communication, problem-solving, teamwork, and relationship-building among participants (Bruening et al., 2015; Kwauk, 2022; Moustakas, 2020; Ofori, 2020), impact community development (Welty Peachey et al., 2014), support refugee integration (Michelini et al., 2018; Spaaij, 2015), and build social capital (Darcy et al., 2014). Fuller et al. (2013) outlined that SfD programs can support an individual’s transition into adulthood, with a focus on healthy lifestyles, emotional development, and maturation through adolescence. Furthermore, SfD programs have been credited with creating opportunities for young people to build relationships with others and become active participants in their local community (Perkins & Noam, 2007). Capitalizing on the allure of sports, SfD organizations and programs possess the potential to carry out developmental programming within a wide range of racial, socioeconomic, religious, historical, and political contexts (Spaaij et al., 2018).

However, while SfD programs often claim positive impacts on people and communities, scholars have criticized the lack of empirical evidence accompanying many SfD organizations’ intended and promoted outcomes (Coalter, 2010; Kidd, 2011; Levermore, 2008). Moreover, Coalter (2007) has argued that there is not enough research to identify the appropriate conditions where sports can be an effective tool to achieve positive outcomes. Coakley (2011), Coalter (2010), and Welty Peachey et al. (2018) alluded to people associated with SfD programs espousing an evangelical rhetoric about the power of sport as innately positive (i.e., those who believe that any participation in sport is automatically beneficial). Further identifying the at-risk nature of SfD programs’ perpetuation of a neoliberal approach to both sport and development, Hayhurst (2011) highlighted how SfD organizations consider program participants as ‘able’ neoliberal subjects who need to rapidly develop to meet dominant societal perspectives. Swanson et al. (2023) expressed concern for a neoliberal approach in SfD programs that frequently promotes perspectives and values of relatively privileged SfD stakeholders over SfD participants’ individual agency, existing strengths, and many local communal assets.

Scholars have highlighted how SfD programs can reproduce dominant and social structures rather than empowering individual and communal successes (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Welty Peachey et al., 2018, 2020). Kay (2013) and Hodge et al. (2017) suggested that SfD programs may end up creating unequal power dynamics between various stakeholders (e.g., participants, practitioners, funders, policymakers, etc.). Studies conducted in the United States (Cabrera & Leyendecker, 2017) and internationally (Petersen et al., 2024) that have investigated the structure of sport and youth development organizations identified a trend lacking respect and collaboration alongside individual participants and local environmental contexts. Whitley et al. (2015) argued that existing assets within local communities could be marginalized in an SfD organization as the program’s objectives, and therefore, the dynamics of their staffing, program curriculum, and overall priorities may be driven by the agendas of their funders. Many scholars have explicitly named SfD programs as having the potential to, intentionally or unintentionally, become agents who perpetuate hegemonic relationships of social dominance (Darnell, 2018), such as sexism (Chawansky & Hayhurst, 2015) and racism (Darnell, 2007). Schulenkorf and Spaaij (2015), Welty Peachey and Cohen (2016), and Raw et al. (2022) identified a scarcity of SfD-focused research utilizing critical frameworks. Additionally, Coakley (2011), Svensson and Levine (2017), and Oxford and Spaaij (2019) have called for more theoretical frameworks to actively examine the hegemonic structures associated with how SfD operates with community collaboration and program implementation. Furthermore, Darnell et al. (2022) outlined that it is imperative for SfD research to possess a critical theoretical underpinning that avoids participant marginalization and idealistic assumptions (Darnell et al., 2016; Schulenkorf & Sherry, 2021).

In this paper, we offer a conceptual model as one small symbol of support for the larger and necessary shift to a more critical, celebratory, and collaborative approach across the industry, scholarship, and field of SfD (Klein et al., 2023; Svensson & Hambrick, 2016) in an effort to combat evangelical rhetoric and move beyond neoliberal values and practices by SfD organizations (including NGO’s, for-profit entities, universities, and more). Thus, we are proposing a model integrating Nussbaum’s (2011) conceptualization of the capabilities approach in association with Freire’s (1978) critical pedagogy to serve as a framework for enhancing SfD staff training, as well as curricula design and delivery. Our main argument is based on the rationale that SfD participants and local communities possess imperative knowledge and experiences, which must be celebrated and integrated within the process of staff training, curricular design, and program delivery (Meir, 2024; Sherry et al., 2017; Spaaij et al., 2018).

Whereas Nussbaum’s (2011) capabilities approach can serve as a practical guide for SfD organizations and staff to provide more opportunities that support individual well-being, we are suggesting a need to also integrate Freire’s (1978) critical pedagogy framework. In doing so, the combination of the capabilities approach and critical pedagogy frameworks will be able to support SfD organizations in building the capacity to critically examine current values and practices while integrating existing assets (e.g., knowledge, values, experiences, culture, rituals, and so much more) of individuals and local communities.

2. Capabilities Approach

In the nineteenth century, Amartya Sen wrote a series of papers and monographs on economics that gave birth to the capabilities approach (Sen, 1979, 1985, 1987, 1992, 1999). The basic purpose of the capabilities approach is to present a set of conditions that provide a valuable framework for the assessment of personal well-being (Sen, 1985). Sen’s work is related to initial works put forward by Smith’s (1776/1937) ‘necessities’ framework and Karl Marx’s (1844/1959) concerns around human freedom and emancipation (Schulenkorf & Spaaij, 2015). Sen noted that Rawls’ theory of justice (Rawls, 1971) and the emphasis laid on respecting oneself and having equal access to primary goods has had a deep influence on the capabilities approach (Sen, 2009). However, the conceptual foundations of Sen’s work lie in the critiques of traditional theories of development, which focus on factors such as command of commodities, desire fulfillment, or false happiness derived from the attainment of possessions (Sugden, 2013).

Sen (1985) outlined two key concepts of the capabilities approach: functionings and capabilities. Functionings are achievements that people can manage to do (e.g., being well-nourished, healthy, taking part in social life, etc.). Capabilities (e.g., because of being well-nourished and healthy, a person can take part in communal sport and become an active member of society) are the various freedoms and opportunities provided to a person that support them in achieving various functionings. The coupling of functionings and capabilities supports a person in making choices to accomplish their goals, thereby promoting a more productive and happier life (Alkire, 2005). From a capability approach perspective, the well-being of a community should be evaluated based on the opportunities people are provided through political and social systems.

Sen (1999) went on to further assert that a reconstruction of the development praxis is required based on one where people can enjoy the freedom to pursue and achieve what they have reason to value. Oppressive political regimes and cultural structures that persecute certain people are examples of obstacles that prevent an individual from enjoying their freedom. The more freedoms people are exposed to (e.g., social, economic, political), the more opportunities they have to experience well-being. Under the capabilities approach, if provided with the necessary conditions, a person can pursue their freedoms to a life they value (Robeyns, 2005).

To provide the necessary conditions, the onus is placed on institutional actors to remove barriers to freedom of choice. The capabilities approach is based on the understanding that meaningful freedoms for people need to be facilitated by increasing one’s access to choices and agency to pursue various life goals. As Clark (2005) identifies, the capabilities approach necessitates institutions to provide opportunities based on unique daily realities rather than focusing on a one-size-fits-all approach. Sen’s arguments in conceptualizing the capabilities approach are based on the idea that institutions should emphasize people’s freedoms and opportunities rather than rely on traditional economic measurements (e.g., GDP) to evaluate well-being.

Even though there is an acknowledgement from Sen for institutional actors to consider local societal and cultural contexts (Robeyns, 2005), the lack of explicitly defining what a meaningful life means for individuals makes Sen’s capabilities approach difficult to operationalize. Although Sen advocated for a holistic approach to the development process (Fukuda-Parr, 2011), his ideology of functionings and capabilities has been criticized for not including the challenges people face to freely express their capabilities (Jacobson, 2016). For example, individuals in historically marginalized communities may require additional supports that enable them to critically deconstruct how society is organized in its present form to fully express their capabilities.

Extending the ideas of Sen, Nussbaum (2000, 2006, 2011) conceptualizes the capabilities approach as a framework that can support understanding the well-being of individuals with what is equitable within a specific context (Darnell & Dao, 2017). The foundations of Nussbaum’s capabilities approach are also built on the idea, which was put forward by Sen, that a productive environment can be created if societies are able to provide opportunities for people to make choices. Like Sen’s ideology, Nussbaum placed emphasis on the responsibility of institutions to provide people with choices and freedoms. Whereas Sen and Nussbaum had similarities in terms of the micro and macro context within which the capabilities approach functions, what makes Nussbaum’s conceptualization of the capabilities approach more operationalizable is a definite list of ten central capabilities which Nussbaum referred to as “central capabilities” (

Table 1. Tenets of the Capabilities Approach Framework.

Tenet	Description
Life	The ability to live to the end of a natural human life
Bodily Health	The ability to have good health, such as adequate nourishment
Bodily Integrity	The ability to move freely and be secure against all forms of violence
Senses, Imagination, and Thought	The ability to use the senses to do things that are truly human and to have pleasurable experiences
Emotions	The ability to have attachment to people and things outside us and to not have one’s emotions stunted
Practical Reasons	The ability to critically engage and be thoughtful of one’s situations
Affiliation	The ability to live with others, engage in various social actions, and have self-respect and non-humiliation
Other Species	The ability to live and have concern for other animals, plants, and nature
Play	The ability to laugh, play, and enjoy recreational activities
Control Over One’s Environment	The ability to participate in political decisions and the ability to own property and have rights

).

Nussbaum (2011, p. 20) defines central capabilities as “freedom or opportunities” created when integrating personal abilities with the political, social, and economic environment. The central capabilities provide a framework to support an individual in making their choices and freedoms based on their personal, political, social, and economic conditions. The ten central capabilities are distinct, and people need to be afforded opportunities by society to achieve a certain threshold of each. Moreover, Nussbaum (2011) states that people should be given the choice to prioritize experiencing the tenets of the capabilities approach based on the opportunities provided to them. Arguably, the central capabilities can have the most impact if they are institutionalized either at national or local levels because, if viewed independently, each central capability is important in any human life (Nussbaum, 2011). Nussbaum (2011) envisions the central capabilities being integrated into a system of social and/or public policy through institutional processes that can support the provision of more socially equitable opportunities.

The list of capabilities proposed by Nussbaum (2000) has been criticized for not considering why societies are not afforded equal opportunities to experience the central capabilities (Robeyns, 2005). The capabilities approach functions from a vantage point where inequalities exist without real engagement with why the inequalities exist. Thus, the capabilities approach fails to provide people with a critical analysis of why inequalities exist, such as unequal access to participating in recreational activities, which is why play as a central capability is important to be secured for all citizens. Moreover, the capabilities approach works solely from an operational lens on how to alleviate inequalities while not considering social structures that impact peoples’ understanding of the central capabilities (Clark, 2005). Based on a person’s socialization, the meaning of each of the central capabilities might look different. The lack of flexibility within the central capabilities has been criticized in development studies for not being able to further a social justice agenda. These limitations have led scholars such as McReynolds (2002) to claim it is best to interpret Nussbaum’s capabilities framework as a hypothetical approach. Even though Nussbaum’s (2000) capabilities framework has had its fair share of criticism, Darnell and Dao (2017) and Svensson and Levine (2017) have made theoretical recommendations considering the criticisms on how the utilization of the capabilities approach proposed by Nussbaum (2011) can contribute to the field of SfD and inform both research and practice.

First, the tenets outlined by the capabilities approach are inherently evident within SfD. The capability of play has the most direct connection. However, advocates of SfD should be careful in associating only participation in sports with experiencing the central capabilities. Rather, the intentional design of SfD programs can support providing participants with an opportunity to experience the central capabilities. For example, M. Dao and Smith (2022), through an empirical study, showed how intentionally providing opportunities for participants to experience the central capabilities in an SfD program resulted in participants sharing that they experienced further capabilities such as bodily health, senses, imagination and thought, and emotional development.

Second, the capabilities approach within SfD can support the delineation of how sport is organized for competitive and elite levels versus sport for development purposes. Javier (2014) challenged that sport within SfD programs associates itself closely with modern competitive sporting structures. However, if SfD programs emphasize experiencing of central capabilities as the primary purpose, principles that govern competitive sport may not find a way into how SfD programs are organized. For example, the competitive nature of sports can lead to the marginalization of participants within a sports setting. The capabilities approach within SfD aims to eliminate competition that arises from sport and provide meaningful experiences to the participants of SfD through sport, which can support them in their personal development.

Third, the capabilities approach can support practitioners and scholars to balance the needs of participants with the values of sport in SfD. The capabilities approach can bring forward an understanding of the social, political, and economic contexts within which each community exists and how experiencing capabilities within those contexts can be supported through an SfD program. The design of SfD programs will have to be adaptive and incorporate more local community context to support experiencing the central capabilities at an individual level. Supporting participants in experiencing capabilities, such as practical reasons, affiliation, and control over one’s environment, requires policymakers and practitioners to connect with local contexts and ensure community needs are at the forefront of SfD programs. Thus, the capabilities approach in SfD can shift SfD towards a moral and ethical framework where sport plays a role in supporting the experiencing of human capabilities.

Following on from the above theoretical recommendations, empirical insights within SfD using the capabilities approach have been pursued. Even before the above-stated theoretical recommendations were formulated, the theorization of the capabilities approach within SfD research followed Hartmann and Kwauk’s (2011) contention that SfD research needs to apply theories that do not simply reproduce the world through sport-based development programs. Empirical studies utilizing the capabilities approach have endeavored to position SfD as rooted in attempts to support the transformative success of individuals. Moreover, research (Levine, 2018; Suzuki, 2018) has pointed out that engaging in sport to expand one’s capabilities can support providing an individual with meaningful opportunities. Thus, the capabilities approach in sport presents itself as a means of creating opportunities that are meaningful and valuable.

3. Capabilities Approach Within Sport for Development

The capabilities approach, when applied to SfD, concerns itself with the idea of how people are provided choices and opportunities (Darnell & Dao, 2020). This allows SfD to be an important experience rather than being the end goal for development. For example, as SfD programs function in social and communal spaces, they provide individuals with an opportunity to engage with others and build their capability of affiliation, which is one of the capabilities outlined by Nussbaum (2000). Moreover, Darnell and Dao (2020) and M. S. Dao and Darnell (2022) argue that the capabilities approach is compatible with the every day goals and activities of SfD programs. Furthermore, M. S. Dao and Darnell (2022), in their examination of an SfD program in Vietnam through the capabilities approach, found that capabilities such as play, bodily health, and affiliation are present in SfD programming in different forms.

In line with M. S. Dao and Darnell’s (2022) findings, Svensson and Levine (2017) contend that SfD practices draw on principles of the capabilities approach, such as expanding the functionings, freedoms, and capabilities. Svensson and Levine (2017) further claimed that participants in an SfD program can develop multiple capabilities simultaneously, which ultimately can support the pursuit of a worthwhile life. Suzuki (2018) and Darnell and Dao (2020) supported this by noting that moving away from demands of evaluation placed on SfD programs by funders and emphasizing individual well-being to support the needs of the participants can position SfD as a space that presents people with the opportunity to experience life and/or the freedom to choose or participate in an inclusive environment.

It is imperative that individual well-being through capabilities achieved through SfD should be considered as an ongoing process rather than an achievement (M. Dao & Smith, 2022; Darnell & Dao, 2020). For example, Açıkgöz et al. (2019) stated that small opportunities to engage in sport while simultaneously interacting with peers acted as catalysts for SfD participants to experience capabilities in under-resourced areas of Turkey. However, Açıkgöz et al. (2019) highlighted that even though opportunities for social inclusion were provided for the participants, practitioners designed the social inclusion opportunities with the expectation that participation in football would support participants in experiencing positive outcomes. Açıkgöz et al. (2019) utilized hegemony theory as complementary to the capabilities approach to delineate between practitioners sharing the popular rhetoric associated with participating in sport leading to positive outcomes (Coakley, 2011) and participants experiencing social benefits from the SfD program. The use of hegemony theory enabled Açıkgöz et al. (2019) to analyze how some participants in the SfD program connected participating in the football-based SfD program to the positive experiences of the participants. Moreover, through observations, Açıkgöz et al. (2019) found that not all participants in the SfD program were equally invested in the program activities. The capabilities approach enabled Açıkgöz et al. (2019) to articulate the positive experiences shared by the participants as central capabilities and how experiencing the central capabilities can support the personal development of the participants.

The capabilities approach in SfD can provide a framework for a process-driven examination by being more concerned with how people should be provided choices and opportunities as opposed to whether they conform to outcomes. Javier (2014) suggested that sport and the capabilities approach can come together if the design of SfD programs is intentionally geared to providing choices that can support an individual’s well-being. Zipp et al. (2019), while examining a female-centered SfD program in Saint Lucia, noted that creating intentional spaces for social networks contributed to developing the participants’ capabilities of affinity. In fact, Zipp et al. (2019) support the application of the capabilities approach, in conjunction with critical feminist theory, to SfD practice by claiming that the capabilities approach places an emphasis on broader community influences, which challenges SfD programs to move beyond restrictive gender roles that subjugate female participants. The use of critical feminist theory enabled Zipp et al. (2019) to highlight how girls’ and womens’ lived experiences are overlooked in SfD settings. Specifically, Zipp et al. (2019) emphasized that topics related to menstruation health education and menstruation hygiene management are absent from SfD curriculum even though the topics concern the lives of all female participants in the SfD program. Zipp et al. (2019) goes onto analyze how the capabilities approach provides an important outlet to integrate individual female participant’s needs into the SfD program.

With the exceptions of the above three, the discussion of applying the capabilities approach to SfD has primarily been theoretical (M. S. Dao & Darnell, 2022). The need for empirical investigation has been outlined by scholars such as M. S. Dao and Darnell (2022), Javier (2014), and Svensson and Levine (2017). The capabilities approach as a conceptual framework, as outlined by Nussbaum (2011), can provide an appropriate structure to examine the approach to programming undertaken by SfD practitioners (M. S. Dao & Darnell, 2022; M. Dao & Smith, 2022; Suzuki, 2018; Svensson & Levine, 2017; Zipp et al., 2019). Nussbaum’s (2011) capabilities approach provides a framework that simultaneously supports the idea of appreciating universal human needs while celebrating cultural diversity.

Whereas the application of the capabilities approach has its advantages in examining the field of SfD, it is important to highlight the potential limitations of the framework. The capabilities approach and its tenets promote a top-down approach within SfD which leaves room for the social reproduction of the practitioners’ own domination (Svensson & Levine, 2017). The power to determine the relevant capabilities for a specific population is in the hands of a select few individuals. Furthermore, utilizing a specific set of capabilities to design an SfD program may result in stakeholders external to the community dictating how one should lead one’s life through mediums such as prescriptive curriculums, rigid funder expectations, disconnected evaluation expectations, and more. Zipp et al. (2019) outlined that neoliberal assumptions and biases can be perpetuated by practitioners while engaging with the capabilities approach in SfD. Thus, there remains a need for collaborative working relationships that bring diverse voices and redistribute power in more equitable ways as part of the decision-making process that involves stakeholders internal and external to the given community.

4. Critical Pedagogy

The capabilities approach has been criticized for not giving enough consideration to constraining social structures (Frediani, 2010). Scholars (Darnell & Dao, 2020; Svensson & Levine, 2017; Zipp et al., 2019) have called for the application of critical theories to the capabilities approach. Critical pedagogy, which has its roots in critical theory, can prove to be a valuable addition to the capabilities approach. In the early 1920s, a contemporary movement called the Frankfurt School or Critical Theory was formed in Germany. Critical theorists such as Grunberg, Horkheimer, and Habermas, among others who emerged from the Frankfurt School, focused their thinking on people who were living in poverty, being exploited and excluded due to religion, race, and language (Ibsen, 2022). Critical theory challenges historical and social beliefs through criticism and questioning (Giroux, 2023). Critical theory is aimed at creating a new epistemological lens to challenge relations of power, exploitation, and domination that have organized society (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2011; e.g., how cultural instruments such as radio and cinema provide legitimacy and continuity to dominant ideologies).

Freire’s (1978) critical pedagogy is rooted in providing people with an education to critically approach their own reality. Education should include both an understanding of social critique and strengthen collective efforts for democratic change. Freire (1978) criticized traditional education systems for perpetuating existing power relations. Additionally, he noted that traditional education systems are rooted in hegemonic knowledge production by engaging in ‘banking education’, which reproduces dominant perspectives in society. Freire (1978) describes teachers engaging in ‘banking’ education as depositing information with the belief that the ‘more knowledgeable’ need to pass knowledge to the ‘less knowledgeable’. Teachers engaging in ‘banking education’ do not provide students with the ability to think critically and engage in regulating human action by conforming to the apparently ‘natural’ discourses of society because they believe the students cannot engage with critical thinking. Freire suggests that education systems should reform themselves by placing more emphasis on concepts such as dialogue, critical consciousness, and praxis in pedagogy (Vaughan, 2011).

The three interconnected concepts support students in challenging existing social norms and considering how their ‘reality’ may be transformed. Engaging in dialogue provides learners with the ability to articulate the problems faced within their social context, create shared knowledge, and ideate on how to take transformative action. Fundamental to the idea of dialogue are horizontal reciprocal relationships between ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ as opposed to the vertical relationship often seen in ‘banking education’ practices. Whereas power imbalances between ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ can only be minimized rather than eliminated, horizontal relationships encourage dialogue that ensures that the learner is empowered to create ideas in a co-learning environment. Freire (1978) asserted that dialogue cannot be an act of one person ‘depositing’ ideas to be consumed by another; it is an act of creation in which people must engage together to develop critical consciousness.

While dialogue enables the process of posing problems, critical consciousness is a co-learning approach that generates an understanding of power in society and how power shapes the structural conditions of people’s lives. Problem-posing through dialogue followed by a critical co-investigation in knowledge creation enables people to co-construct a new reality that people can act upon (Vaughan, 2011). Moreover, coupling dialogue with critical consciousness supports participants in engaging with critical reflective practices on their lived experiences. For Freire, linking critical reflection with transformative action is termed praxis.

Freire (1978) describes praxis as the process of reflecting and acting upon one’s world to transform it. Teachers engaging with critical pedagogy need to collaborate with people in a dialectical process of praxis, which can support people in critically reflecting on their social surroundings with a view to transformation. In critically reflecting, people can understand dominant discourses that are oppressive and marginalizing while adopting a social justice lens with an intention to engage in transformative action. For example, teachers need to engage in praxis with people by critically reflecting on how race has been used as a tool to marginalize certain sections of society. The critical engagement with the discussion will enable people to take a social justice lens and engage with future transformative action working toward racial equity. Importantly, to have a transformational effect, dialogue, reflection, and action need to happen simultaneously, which highlights the interconnectedness of the concepts that make up the critical pedagogy framework. Scholars (Nols et al., 2019; Oxford & Spaaij, 2019) have pointed toward the principles of critical pedagogy developed originally by Freire (1978) as a worthwhile framework to implement co-created SfD spaces that support personal growth in historically marginalized communities. Specifically, Spaaij and Jeanes (2013) provide direction to practitioners of SfD programs on how to apply Freire’s principles by (a) leveraging participant voices to understand the conditions of their lives and (b) adopting methods that increase awareness of social issues and develop a sense of agency among participants. However, H. Morgan et al. (2021) noted that the complexities associated with utilizing sport in historically marginalized communities need to be carefully considered by practitioners of SfD programs. The concerns around utilizing sport in historically marginalized communities arise from the critical perspective of the evangelical status attributed to sport by practitioners of SfD programs as a means to address social issues (Darnell, 2018; Svensson & Levine, 2017). To counter the evangelical status attributed to sport, recent research in diverse SfD contexts has demonstrated the value of applying Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy in providing positive outcomes for SfD participants (e.g., Hoekman et al., 2019—Vietnam; Kwauk, 2016—Samoa; Nols et al., 2019—Belgium; Oxford & Spaaij, 2019—Colombia; Sherry & Schulenkorf, 2016—Papua New Guinea; Spaaij et al., 2016—Kenya and Cameroon; Wright et al., 2016—Belize). Hoekman et al. (2019) highlighted how applying the principles of critical pedagogy supported practitioners of an SfD program who were previously participants in the same SfD program to uniquely gauge and best respond to the needs of the program participants. Moreover, according to Nols et al. (2019), by engaging with critical pedagogy principles, participants of an SfD program experienced the SfD space as one where they could be themselves, gain respect, and learn to reflect and form their own opinions. Furthermore, Sherry and Schulenkorf (2016) outline increased stakeholder engagement in an SfD program which was achieved by applying critical pedagogy principles for the co-creation of program aims.

5. Critical Pedagogy Within Sport for Development

Within much of Freire’s theorizing of critical pedagogy, the relationship between ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ plays a central role. SfD programs have been criticized for the imbalance in relationships between practitioners as teachers and participants as learners (Welty Peachey et al., 2018). The application of the broad principles of critical pedagogy can support in (re)positioning pedagogical practice in SfD settings aimed at transformative actions. Spaaij and Jeanes (2013) outline specifics on how critical pedagogy concepts can be translated to inform pedagogy within SfD.

Freire’s conceptualization of transformative education which is rooted in dialogue and problem-posing, needs to be constructed around themes and conditions of the lives of participants in the SfD program. By utilizing a problem-posing approach, practitioners need to create an environment where participants engage in dialogue related to their daily challenges. Consequently, practitioners and participants can collaboratively establish the needs of the individuals who make up the community. This can result in the scaffolding for a co-created curriculum tailored toward individual needs and goals.

After the relationship between the practitioner and participants has been reshaped to work collaboratively, practitioners can then employ teaching methods that support participants in developing a sense of agency. The role of the practitioner is to provide a space based on reciprocity where shared problems faced by the participants can be critically questioned. Critical pedagogy makes it fundamental for practitioners to engage in methods that are sensitive and responsive to the needs of the participants (Spaaij & Jeanes, 2013). Practitioners within SfD programs can achieve this by moving away from traditional prescribed pedagogies that may be disempowering and lead to disengagement amongst the participants. In fact, as H. J. Morgan and Bush (2016) note, disengagement amongst participants in SfD programs is often attributed to the pedagogical methods employed by practitioners. For example, Sandford et al. (2006) and Halas (2002) argue that teaching pedagogies that use sport can create an environment that is conducive to the alienation of young people by not being reflexive and considering the social climate. More specifically, Mitchell (2016) and O’Sullivan et al. (2010), while investigating the perspectives of female pupils in sport programs, outlined how traditional pedagogies based on authoritarian relationships between teacher and student resulted in barriers to engagement for participants. Furthermore, Oliver et al. (2009) identified participants being exposed to stereotypes such as being a ‘girly girl’ (p. 99) in a sport curriculum resulted in disengagement amongst participants.

Meir (2022) points out how the lack of analysis of pedagogical practices in SfD is problematic, but recent research has shown value in applying critical pedagogy as a framework within SfD research. For example, Nols et al. (2019) exemplified how spaces can be created within SfD using critical pedagogy. In an SfD program based in Belgium, the practice of a ‘sharing circle’ where practitioners and participants reflect and converse was implemented. The ‘sharing circle’ became a space where horizontal relationships were formed between practitioners and participants. Participants in the SfD program shared how the two-way relational approach supported them in learning the importance of respect and equality. Nols et al. (2019) conclude by stating that nourishing a culture that promotes critical thinking in a collaborative environment stimulates participants to become active agents in transformative action.

Like Nols et al. (2019), Knijnik et al. (2019) suggested that applying core considerations outlined by Freire can result in a more dialogical and critical organization of SfD programs. This design of SfD programs results in an increased level of collaboration among practitioners and participants, which was also outlined by Kwauk (2016). Moreover, Oxford and Spaaij (2019) explored social change through an SfD program in Colombia and summarized how engaging in critical pedagogy principles supported participants in exploring their own norms and values and becoming socially engaged. Rather than focusing on participation for the sake of participation, the facilitation of reflective learning that is rooted in local community contexts provided the opportunity for participants to engage in self-governance and decision-making (Oxford & Spaaij, 2019).

The reconceptualization of SfD with principles of critical pedagogy can begin with incorporating local cultural philosophies in spaces of critical reflection. As Mwaanga and Prince (2016) and Wright et al. (2016) expressed, transformational learning spaces within SfD can be achieved by keeping participant voices at the forefront. An inclusive process that includes participants in decision-making for the curriculum enhances the participant’s personal and collective agency. The highlighted studies collectively outline how a shift away from traditional didactic methods within SfD to a dialogical and critical alternative, as outlined by Freire (1978), can support incorporating local knowledge through participation. Envisioning SfD pedagogy through a process of dialogue, critical consciousness, and transformative learning challenge dominant approaches and empower participant voices.

While there are strengths associated with applying principles of critical pedagogy to SfD programs, Spaaij et al. (2016) encapsulate the challenges practitioners from two SfD programs (one in Kenya and one in Cameroon) faced while engaging with critical pedagogy. Practitioners in Spaaij et al. (2016) discuss the need for the SfD organization to support practitioners in implementing concepts of critical pedagogy in the program. Without adequate training and support, practitioners’ attempts to engage with critical pedagogy may result in practitioners feeling deficient and resorting back to traditional teaching methods. Moreover, professional development opportunities provided to practitioners should incorporate issues surrounding cultural understanding, social inequalities, and effective practices when engaging in dialogue and collaboration.

The findings from Wright et al. (2016) also point toward a dearth of adequate professional development opportunities provided to the practitioners in a SfD program in Belize. Whereas Wright et al. (2016) argue for the creation of spaces where participant voices are brought to the forefront and aligned with principles of critical pedagogy, the authors acknowledge the need to re-frame a practitioner’s role and provide them with the necessary tools to engage in building collective agency among participants. Furthermore, Oxford and Spaaij (2019) highlight how, in an SfD program in Colombia, the need to meet funder agendas resulted in power imbalances between the organization’s leadership and practitioners, which limited the practitioners’ role to implementing a prescribed curriculum. The lack of voice and input practitioners had on their own training resulted in them not developing the hard and soft skills to speak about the participants’ everyday challenges. Practitioners resorted to engaging in traditional teaching methods to meet funder requirements while not giving enough attention to the local community context.

SfD organizations are often faced with socioeconomic challenges when addressing the training needs of a diverse practitioner workforce (Meir, 2022). The challenges faced by SfD organizations, along with time constraints, make it a difficult task to adopt principles of critical pedagogy within the SfD curriculum. Training practitioners to incorporate dialogue and critical consciousness in the SfD curriculum requires practitioners to potentially reflect and deconstruct their own beliefs and values. If practitioners can successfully engage with the (re)learning process, then mutual learning with participants and challenging existing power structures within society can be enacted through SfD programs (Enright et al., 2017).

Critically shifting the pedagogy within SfD programs to engage with social justice through dialogue and a participant-centered approach (McKelvey, 2022) requires rethinking how knowledge is constructed within SfD. Spaaij and Jeanes (2013) emphasize that for the critical shift to occur, practitioners need to build pedagogies that develop a sense of agency among participants built around themes of their daily conditions. Moreover, emphasis needs to be placed on incorporating more dialogue and critical consciousness within participants of SfD programs. Dialogue and critical consciousness support participants in forming their own opinions and becoming socially engaged. Reflective learning within SfD, which is rooted in challenges informed by local contexts, can potentially shift SfD to incorporating the core principles outlined by the critical pedagogy framework.

6. An Integrated Framework: Capabilities Approach and Critical Pedagogy in Sport for Development

The capabilities approach offers itself as a potential framework for SfD (Darnell & Dao, 2020). The basic tenets, as outlined by Nussbaum (2011), are present within the intended outcomes of SfD programs (M. Dao & Smith, 2022). Participants in SfD programs experience the basic capabilities, which is highlighted by M. S. Dao and Darnell (2022), Açıkgöz et al. (2019), and Zipp et al. (2019). The basic tenets of the capabilities approach within SfD present themselves as opportunities that people must experience to lead a just and dignified life. However, the capabilities approach has been criticized for not providing a space for people to consider why inequalities in society exist (Robeyns, 2005). The capabilities approach functions from a place where inequalities exist and experiencing the capabilities will support people in alleviating these inequalities. Supplementing the capabilities approach with Freire’s (1978) conceptualization of problem-posing through dialogue within critical pedagogy can provide a space in SfD settings to critically analyze why inequalities exist in society. Creating a space for dialogue as outlined by Freire, then a critical analysis of the daily challenges faced by the participants of the SfD program can be undertaken.

Freire (1976, p. 19) states that the core of critical pedagogy is a process called conscientization, which “represents the development of the awakening of critical awareness”. As can be seen in Figure 1, Freire proposes using a pedagogy that starts from students’ realities and common understandings and provides a clear explanation of how to overcome constraining social structures. Freire encourages educators to engage in critical dialogue with students to challenge the root causes of oppression. By applying Freire’s core principles, SfD practitioners serving as educators can better understand the social conditions of the participants. Critical pedagogy can support practitioners in creating spaces for critical reflection, which can build agency and capacity to transform the participants’ own environments (Spaaij & Jeanes, 2013). As Freire (1998, p. 43) stated, the practice of critical teaching revolves around “a dynamic and dialectical movement between ‘doing’ and ‘reflecting on doing’”. A Freirean perspective argues for education to be a process of examining the root causes of oppression while building conscientization to challenge those root causes. Moving away from traditional didactic teaching methods and engaging with critical pedagogy principles can support building individual agency (Mwaanga & Prince, 2016; Wright et al., 2016). Therefore, complementing principles of critical pedagogy with providing opportunities to experience capabilities can provide a framework to design and implement SfD programs that meet the needs of the participants.

The integrated framework in Figure 1 follows Nussbaum’s (2000) claim that if institutional actors cannot provide the necessary conditions to remove people’s barriers to freedom of choice, then social opportunities, such as SfD programs, can support program participants in experiencing capabilities of their choice (see “Social Opportunities” at the bottom of Figure 1). Oppressive practices such as ‘banking education’ (Freire, 1978) lead to an environment that limits critical thinking, specifically among historically marginalized populations, resulting in individuals’ lack of agency (top right of Figure 1). Along with a lack of agency, traditional oppressive practices fail to provide space for people to consider why inequalities in society exist (Freire, 1978). Specifically, Freire (1978) notes that oppressive education practices reinforce inequalities that result from constraining social structures (top left of Figure 1). Freire’s criticism of oppressive educational practices aligns with Hartmann and Kwauk’s (2011) claim that the educational objectives of SfD programs have the potential to perpetuate inequalities currently seen in society. Furthermore, as Whitley et al. (2023) outlined, SfD programs, intentionally or unintentionally, may become sites that reproduce societal inequalities that limit a person’s ability to experience the capabilities outlined by Nussbaum (2011; center of Figure 1).

Freire (1976, p. 19) states that the core of critical pedagogy is a process called conscientization, which “represents the development of the awakening of critical awareness” (center of Figure 1). Freire (1976) recommends using a pedagogy that starts from students’ realities and provides a clear explanation of how to overcome constraining social structures while increasing individual agency (bottom right of Figure 1). By utilizing Freire’s (1978) critical pedagogy principles of critical dialogue, building critical consciousness, and praxis constructed around the realities of participants’ lives, SfD programs can engage in transformative education practices. Engaging with critical pedagogy principles can support SfD practitioners in creating an environment that supports the development of program participants’ capabilities aligned with their respective realities. Practitioners can incorporate local community strengths into the program design and collaboratively tailor activities to support individuals’ goals. If SfD programs and/or practitioners de-value and fail to incorporate local knowledge (i.e., not using critical pedagogy principles), it can result in reinforcing the constraining social structures and decreasing individual agency even further (Meir, 2024; bottom left of Figure 1). Notably, within this integrated framework between the capabilities approach and critical pedagogy in SfD, program participants experience capabilities differently. By utilizing critical pedagogy principles, practitioners can support participants in experiencing capabilities that increase their individual agency and challenge constraining social structures.

One of the key advantages of applying the capabilities approach to SfD is that it supports practitioners in moving away from the popular rhetoric that sport participation in itself provides positive outcomes (Coakley, 2011; Darnell, 2012). Darnell and Dao (2020) argued that applying the capabilities approach to SfD delineates between sport participation and sport as an important experience that may lead to personal development. Complementing the capabilities approach with critical pedagogy principles will give voice to participants in exploring their own norms and values with sport and how they would like sport to be organized in the SfD program. As Oxford and Spaaij (2019) outlined, critical pedagogy can move the focus away from participation in sport for the sake of participation to providing opportunities to enjoy sport within the local community context. Thus, the capabilities approach in association with critical pedagogy can support how sport exists within SfD and reject the false positivity that practitioners engage in by imbibing the universal language of sport being good.

As seen above in Açıkgöz et al. (2019) and Zipp et al. (2019), the application of the capabilities approach within SfD programs needs to be critically analyzed by supplementing with a critical theory. Açıkgöz et al. (2019) claim that it is important to understand how opportunities within SfD programs to experience capabilities are difficult to decouple with dominant hegemonic norms associated with sport. While there were opportunities to experience certain capabilities during the SfD program, exclusionary mechanisms based on gender and ability still existed. Zipp et al. (2019) made a similar claim, which stated that the capabilities approach did not provide a holistic understanding of how gender stereotypes presented themselves when experiencing capabilities in an SfD program. However, Zipp et al. (2019) argued that the capabilities approach provides a framework that can be complemented with a variety of contextually appropriate theories to develop a comprehensive understanding of experiences. In fact, both Açıkgöz et al. (2019) and Zipp et al. (2019) support the need for researchers to use a critical capabilities analysis by supplementing with other theories.

7. Conclusions

In this paper, we have discussed the importance of repositioning SfD programs with a critical approach. More specifically, we call for SfD organizations and the multitude of stakeholders involved to shift away from decision-making in policies and practices that are disconnected from the local communities (Meir, 2024). As previously mentioned by Darnell and Dao (2017) and Zipp et al. (2019), the capabilities approach provides a framework that supports the call from Hartmann and Kwauk (2011) for a transformative shift in the practice of SfD. The capabilities approach can support positioning sport within development efforts as an important experience for individuals, moving away from the rhetoric around sport being intrinsically good, thus leading to developmental outcomes. As Zipp et al. (2019) state, the capabilities approach is an attempt to provide experiences to people within their own social contexts.

Critical pedagogy, in conjunction with the capabilities approach, can support a much-needed shift in SfD practice toward becoming context-specific. Darnell and Hayhurst (2011) and Kay (2009) called for understanding and prioritizing local knowledge in a bid to reimagine SfD. Welty Peachey and Cohen (2016) argue that the best path forward with SfD is for organizations to be focused on meeting the needs of the community. Kang and Svensson (2019) emphasized the need to increase SfD participant engagement by valuing participant knowledge and experience. Further, Meir (2024) notes that to create an informed and contextual understanding of SfD, it is crucial to recognize local participants’ knowledge as valid and encourage participants to make meaningful contributions toward program design. However, Forde et al. (2023) note that developing SfD programs that enable participants to have a sense of ownership significantly challenges the normative design of SfD programs. Placing emphasis on creating SfD programs in a collaborative manner supports SfD participants in being experts in their own experiences (Meir, 2024). Incorporating SfD participant experiences and needs into the SfD program gives control to the SfD participants on how their experiences should be interpreted (LeCrom et al., 2019). The framework proposed supports celebrating the local communities and positioning participants as valued contributors within the SfD program (Middleton et al., 2022; Mwaanga & Adeosun, 2020; Nicholls et al., 2011).

In practice, as many SfD organizations may be able to relate, an external funder might suggest that a predetermined curriculum be used to educate participants when covering a specific focus area. For example, many SfD programs focus on nutrition education (Schulenkorf & Siefken, 2019), which may support a participant in experiencing bodily health (the ability to have good health, including adequate nourishment) as a central capability as outlined by Nussbaum (2011). As is the case with many SfD organizations’ reliance on financial support to maintain operations (Harris & Adams, 2016), a predetermined curriculum may emphasize learning objectives and curricula that are not reflective of an individual’s culture or environmental reality (Greene et al., 2023). More specifically, an SfD organization operating only with a predetermined nutrition education curriculum will be at risk of perpetuating structural and historical inequalities present within food systems (Greene et al., 2023). A curriculum lacking relevance will fail to see the strengths and celebrate the culture of the involved participants while also failing to recognize everyday barriers that may exist (e.g., affordability, accessibility, and more).

Instead, when an SfD organization is able to prioritize collaboration between participants and practitioners in specific ways (e.g., working relationships that emphasize shared learning instead of staff/client role assignment, informal and formal evaluations that consistently seek and produce critical reflection, and feedback from program participants) that balance power dynamics, it allows for continuous dialogue that can more readily surface disconnected or harmful practices. By engaging in critical dialogue (Freire, 1978) practitioners and participants together can start to understand how unequal food practices have come to exist. Furthermore, in collaboration with community members, practitioners can build collective critical consciousness by hearing multiple different voices. Lastly, by engaging in praxis, which keeps community realities at the forefront, and by incorporating local knowledge, practitioners can create a curriculum that supports participants in experiencing bodily health at their own agency and challenge the constraining food systems seen in society. Through a more accurate understanding of likes and dislikes, as well as strengths and challenges, the sharing of voices and expertise can better inform understanding and needed adjustments across involved stakeholders, program curriculum, and associated activities.

The framework proposed in this paper cannot address all limitations seen within SfD organizations. Whereas we position coupling the capabilities approach with critical pedagogy as a framework to critically analyze how SfD organizations can effectively collaborate with community partners, the framework does not provide a basis for the limitations SfD organizations often face when it comes to personnel. The high turnover of staff who work within SfD organizations (Clutterbuck & Doherty, 2019), potential restrictions on hiring based on funding sources or others (Coalter, 2010), and the time constraints associated with developing and implementing training materials (Lindsey, 2017) represent examples of limitations which we acknowledge this integrated framework does not address. While the recommendations we provide cannot be seen in isolation from the above limitations that exist within SfD organizations, the proposed framework in this paper can support celebrating the various strengths that are present within local communities. SfD is shaped by the lived experiences of the participants and communities where the program activities are interwoven with the many different cultures and personalities. The framework provided through this article can support in integration of various existing assets present in the local communities within the processes of SfD training, design, and implementation.