Introduction

Like many scientific concepts, as the concept of recovery capital has gained popularity in both research and practice over the years, it has also generated critical questions. While there is growing recognition of the salience and value of recovery capital as a general concept to guide recovery research and practice, questions remain regarding the unique domains of recovery capital, its utility with specific populations, and the valence of the concept as solely positive and strengths-based, versus reflecting both assets and barriers to recovery (Best and Hennessy, 2022; Patton et al, 2022). In this chapter, we review the major conceptualizations of recovery capital, including how its various domains have been described and operationalized. We then address critical inquiries about the relative importance of different domains of recovery capital, the issue of negative recovery capital, and considerations regarding population-specific recovery capital and the importance of applying an intersectional lens. In addressing these issues, we point to important directions for future research and practice to advance understanding of recovery capital and ultimately improve recovery outcomes for the many diverse groups of people impacted by substance use disorders.

Major conceptualizations of recovery capital

Recovery capital has been conceptualized as a strengths-based construct that has several interrelated and ecologically nested domains. The domains are nested in a manner consistent with Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1977),