Recovery capital as a transformative concept

The injection of a compelling, actionable, and timely new idea can overturn prevailing principles and practices within well-established fields of endeavour. Such is the case with Granfield and Cloud's introduction of the concept of recovery capital into the alcohol and other drug (AOD) problems arena. Since the publication of their original 1994 paper, the term ‘recovery capital’ has appeared in the titles of more than 90 peer-reviewed scientific and medical articles and exerted a profound influence at policy, service practice, and personal recovery levels.

The AOD problems field, and more specifically the specialized addiction treatment industry, has historically featured a distinct pathology focus. This is exemplified by its preoccupation with drug psychopharmacology, medical and social harms of drug use, its alarmist portrayal of drug use trends, problem-focused studies of the aetiology/patterns/course of substance use disorders (SUDs), elegant schemes of clinical classification, methods of brief clinical intervention, and a fear-infused fixation on post-treatment relapse risk. The introduction of recovery capital into the field's discourse was part of the larger shift toward a recovery paradigm. This shift extended the field's vision and focus toward the successful, long-term resolution of AOD problems at personal, family, community, and cultural levels. Recovery capital writ large expanded the field's understanding of the prevalence, pathways/styles, stages, processes, and personal and social contributions related to AOD problem resolution.