Sen’s approach to evaluation takes

Sen’s approach to evaluation takes that challenge seriously. That is why he retains ambiguity both within the capability approach (concerning which capabilities are valuable, and the relation between functionings and capability) and without (such as the relevance of procedural aspects like fairness and liberty). Making definitive decisions about such matters would limit the conceptual resources available to the evaluation of complex and opaque ideas like poverty and well-being. Avoiding such difficult decisions is seen as evasive by some of Sen’s critics, but it actually seems a requirement for the kind of critical evaluation with which Sen considers himself concerned. (Indeed, from Sen’s perspective it is those demanding complete theories who are evading the requirements of the discipline of evaluation.)
Of course, any application of the capability approach, whether for inter-personal comparison of advantage in some dimensions or evaluating the nature of poverty in a rich country, will seek a determinate judgement, and will therefore employ specific concepts and related criteria. However, the flexibility of the underlying framework means that this selection is the responsibility of the researcher rather than the theory itself. As Sen puts it,

[A]ny description involves discrimination and selection, and the real question is the relevance of the selection process to the objectives of description. (Sen 1980, 361)

Thus, those using Sen’s capability approach are supposed to engage in judgement in the full sense (both reflective and determinate aspects).

Results (Indonesian) 1:

Sen’s approach to evaluation takes that challenge seriously. That is why he retains ambiguity both within the capability approach (concerning which capabilities are valuable, and the relation between functionings and capability) and without (such as the relevance of procedural aspects like fairness and liberty). Making definitive decisions about such matters would limit the conceptual resources available to the evaluation of complex and opaque ideas like poverty and well-being. Avoiding such difficult decisions is seen as evasive by some of Sen’s critics, but it actually seems a requirement for the kind of critical evaluation with which Sen considers himself concerned. (Indeed, from Sen’s perspective it is those demanding complete theories who are evading the requirements of the discipline of evaluation.) Of course, any application of the capability approach, whether for inter-personal comparison of advantage in some dimensions or evaluating the nature of poverty in a rich country, will seek a determinate judgement, and will therefore employ specific concepts and related criteria. However, the flexibility of the underlying framework means that this selection is the responsibility of the researcher rather than the theory itself. As Sen puts it, [A]ny description involves discrimination and selection, and the real question is the relevance of the selection process to the objectives of description. (Sen 1980, 361) Dengan demikian, mereka yang menggunakan pendekatan kemampuan Sen seharusnya terlibat dalam penilaian dalam pengertian penuh (reflektif dan menentukan aspek).

Results (Indonesian) 2:

Pendekatan Sen untuk evaluasi mengambil tantangan yang serius. Itulah sebabnya ia mempertahankan ambiguitas baik di dalam pendekatan kemampuan (tentang yang kemampuan berharga, dan hubungan antara fungsi-fungsi dan kemampuan) dan tanpa (seperti relevansi aspek prosedural seperti keadilan dan kebebasan). Membuat keputusan definitif tentang hal-hal tersebut akan membatasi sumber-sumber konseptual yang tersedia untuk evaluasi ide yang kompleks dan buram seperti kemiskinan dan kesejahteraan. Menghindari keputusan yang sulit seperti ini dipandang sebagai mengelak oleh beberapa kritikus Sen, tapi itu benar-benar tampaknya persyaratan untuk jenis evaluasi kritis dengan yang Sen menganggap dirinya prihatin. (Memang, dari perspektif Sen itu adalah orang-orang menuntut teori lengkap yang menghindari persyaratan disiplin evaluasi.)
Tentu saja, setiap aplikasi dari pendekatan kemampuan, baik untuk perbandingan antar-pribadi keuntungan dalam beberapa dimensi atau mengevaluasi sifat kemiskinan di negara yang kaya, akan mencari penghakiman determinate, dan karena itu akan menggunakan konsep-konsep tertentu dan kriteria yang terkait. Namun, fleksibilitas kerangka yang mendasari berarti bahwa seleksi ini adalah tanggung jawab peneliti daripada teori itu sendiri. Sebagai Sen katakan,

[A] ny deskripsi melibatkan diskriminasi dan seleksi, dan pertanyaan sesungguhnya adalah relevansi dari proses seleksi untuk tujuan deskripsi. (Sen 1980, 361)

Dengan demikian, mereka yang menggunakan pendekatan kemampuan Sen seharusnya terlibat dalam penilaian dalam arti penuh (baik reflektif dan aspek tentu).