In ending his important new review, "Accountability Keywords", Jonathan Fox writes (p98):
"To sum up, this review points to at least three very distinct ways of thinking about accountability. First, it refers to tangible processes dedicated to public answerability for authorities, with clear sets of rules involving public forums, reporting, oversight, checks and balances—and consequences. Second, accountability is also grounded in relationships that are less tangible, such as invisible power, countervailing power, and the capacity to push back. A third way to think about accountability goes beyond specific processes and offers a way of seeing power relationships. After all, who is supposed to be accountable to whom is still widely debate" (my bolding)
To view this paper see: https://accountabilityresearch.org/accountability-keywords/
As I've suggested in my doctoral thesis, longstanding multidimensional theories of power offer fresh insight into categorising and understanding forms of accountability which are contested, such as social accountability.
Using such theory, the first of Fox's 3 ways of thinking about accountability above can be summarised as follows:
4D or institutional power refers to the power of formal and informal rules to make accountability as answerability powerful because it is public (and, I would add, therefore also more widely accepted as legitimate as institutional authorities become more answerable). Such 4D power is effective because it assumes and subsumes within it 'knowledge power' (3D power), 'structuring power' (2D power) and 1D power (agency or or 'doing' power, such as collective action).
However, as I suggested in my thesis, at least one more dimension of power is needed to embody power relations (who is in fact accountable to whom, and how), which I have called 5D power (e.g. collaborative social accountability). As Fox says, this is because accountability must be grounded in the invisible collective power required by citizenries to 'push back', and thus enforce public accountability. It seems to me that 4D power points to and entails 5D power because answerability is intrinsically, instrumentally and generatively relational. Under the right conditions, (which Paulo Freire, for example, elaborates on) people emancipate each other. These conditions are achievable. Accepting 5D power led me to accept relationships as necessary to define accountability, and to (re)define social accountability accordingly .
As I was working on my thesis, another dimension of power emerged as crucial: one which is empirical, and thus necessarily embedded in space and time. Such a dimension enables us, as Fox indicates above in his third way of thinking about accountability, to see (and thus to name) invisible, countervailing power relations, in the varied cultural/linguistic contexts he has so ably elucidated in this report. As power relations are named, according to their diverse contexts (viz using different languages, with all their associated subtleties of meaning), they can be collectively unmasked and engaged with.
I would call this further dimension of power '6D power'. While I did not name it as such in my thesis, I studied 6D space-time power in Chapter 7 by using nested longitudinal case studies.
Of course, using such dimensions of power does not get us far enough in accountability praxis, unless we can name what 'joins up' and integrates these dimensions, and show the processes which connect them: what and who emancipates marginalised and oppressed groups and communities, which is what I seek to do in my thesis (see concluding Chapter, Ch 9).
In most types of organizations, formal authority is located at the top as part of an exchange against fairly explicit expectations. How do Fox's three takes on accountability (i.e., tangible processes, relationships, ways of seeing) treat informal authority, which typically rests on admiration, credibility, respect, and trust (without overt organizational endorsement) and grows on a par with the rise of networked organizations?
Hi Oliver,
Thanks for your question.
It's a good one, as informal authority often gets overlooked.
I'm not sure what Jonathan Fox would say.
My own take on this is that admiration, credibility, respect and trust seem to be intrinsically relational (what I call 5D power). When such informal 5D power drives the common good, it also gives rise to and emerges from healthy, networked organisations (with 'networking' being a form of structuring or 2D power). (the analogy with 'dimensions', by the way, is that something, whether it is physical or more complex - like power- is whole and healthy when every dimension is bound up and integrated with, the others)
Conversely, when trust, respect etc are replaced by their absence or by mistrust, disrespect etc, one would expect organisations to be unhealthy and poorly networked, and thus more dysfunctional.
Bill
What is the purpose of accountability? To prohibit misuse, violence, corruption etc.?
Hi Maarit,
The answer to your question depends on the circumstances in which it is asked, such as who is supposed to be accountable to whom and what kind of accountability is in question..
The is part of what I think Fox's paper is saying. He shows that are many nuances to what 'accountability' or similar words mean in different languages.
One purpose of accountability may be to promote democracy for example. Another may be to foster accountable relationships between employers and employees. I suggest you read his paper to find answers relevant to your own interests and context.
Bill
Hi Bill,
This Fox's paper was of interest as there is a war going on in Europe at the moment. Despite, I have been an accountant for a while. There are many interesting African studies about the accountability as you follow the link.
I think we should not come to the same values and opinions in every country around the world. Let the differences prosper. We should all live in peace with other nations and keep our national specialties. If you trust your neighbor you can live safe and happy. All documents and contracts are needed if you are accountable for somebody for something. There are national and international rules to help in orienting.
Hi Maarit,
On the purpose of accountability, I think this is best stated positively and relationally: it involves seeking right relationships, at the very least with each other, and with the earth, including animals. Right relationships tend toward increased accountability and better collective outcomes. This much - the 'why' of accountability, in general - seems universal to me. And yes that seems applicable, for example, to addressing corruption, reducing and overcoming abuse, and much, much more: for example, how we understand how to improve collective action on ecological accountability seems relatively underexplored to me.
The circumstances of seeking right relationships - depend on context: for instance which specific relationships are in question; who is accountable to whom and to what and for what, and who decides and who should decide, and also (as Fox highlights) what language they use to describe the 'how' and the 'what' and the 'for whose benefit?' etc.. Language is where motivation to act comes in (eg lampooning those who act with impunity). It's meaningful to speak about the power of language to increase, or stifle accountability. Fox has some good examples of these in his report.
To be meaningful, I find it hard to see how accountable processes can be anything but dialogical and involving collective action, and using local language (which Brazilian educator Paulo Freire calls dialogical action). Being about collective action means it's also inevitably about power, including power relations, and who get to learn and how, or not. If so it's also about dynamic, collectively actionable knowledge, and the formal and informal rules by which knowledge is increased and acted on.
This is where I find multidimensional theories of power so helpful: they offer bridges to help us think about and understand the nexus between the shared knowing, rules and relationships, and collective action (including the language used to describe these, and what is learnt and stored as memory) which further the local and wider purpose of accountability, in any given local or wider context.
Hi Bill,
There is much talk about ecological accountability but too little actions. I wonder is it the catastrophes around the world that makes people think the nature doesn't matter. I think the nature gives us the living and it is our responsibility to treat it well. Language barriers should be overcome with right technology in the future.
I agree there's too littie action, Maarit, but think that we lack a shared understanding of what ecological accountability is, or what we are up against.
Our human tendency is "put all persons into the service of things, and ultimately to bring about the exploitation of all of creation." (Andy Crouch)
To address this problem, I think we need something more than responsibility - we need ecological accountability, to each other and to the creation to start with, that fits the context.
In the form of different languages, language is a resource for naming the reality of our context and bridging the gaps between exploitation and ecological justice. Harry Boyte refers, rightly in my view, to the public work of bridging such gaps. And public work requires collective action to stop such exploitation and collective action which replaces it with ecologically accountable mastery.
Bill, I think power is dangerous in wrong hands. There is to some extent exploitation of work force at certain low-income branches. The salary or wages are too small to compensate the time you give away from your spare time. Human beings can be very cruel to animals and harmful in inventions that use raw materials. Green Care is a good start in right direction. Plastics and chemicals need to be examined more carefully before taken into a use on large scale.
There is much insight here concerning the purpose and dimensions of accountability. So, whether the context be formal or informal, whether we speak about the financial, administrative, political, social and ecological dimensions, the matter of right relationships is core.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking