Accounterability

Kamuf, Peggy

doi:10.1080/09502360701264428

Cited by 90 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Without identifying this as the -problems of accountability‖, Kamuf (2007) explored the possibilities of account-er-ability, as a form of resistance making the giving of an account a meaningful day-to-day practice restored as a condition for morals and individual -3 / 40 -responsibility.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

AbstractThis paper seeks to contribute to the emerging stream of literature on the problematics of accountability (Messner, 2009;Roberts, 2009;McKernan, 2011) and the possibilities of accounterability (Kamuf, 2007) by questioning whether and how accounterability can appear as a response to the problematics of accountability"s operationalisation. To answer this question, this research considers the problematics of accountability found in the limits inherent to the giving of an account (Messner, 2009), in the ambiguous relationship between accountability and transparency (Roberts, 2009), and in the as yet unresolved contradictions of accountability (McKernan, 2011).

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accounterability and the problematics of accountability

Joannidès

2012

Critical Perspectives on Accounting

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper seeks to contribute to the emerging stream of literature on the problematics of accountability (Messner, 2009;Roberts, 2009;McKernan, 2011) and the possibilities of accounterability (Kamuf, 2007) by questioning whether and how accounterability can appear as a response to the problematics of accountability"s operationalisation. To answer this question, this research considers the problematics of accountability found in the limits inherent to the giving of an account (Messner, 2009), in the ambiguous relationship between accountability and transparency (Roberts, 2009), and in the as yet unresolved contradictions of accountability (McKernan, 2011). Accounterability is seen as a practice of resisting accountability demands whilst giving an account. Alternative practices arising out of such resistance are inductively identified through an ethnographic study of the day-to-day practices of the Salvation Army used as an extreme case. This case shows how an ideal form of accountability raises more questions than it answers in practice, thereby leading individuals to develop their own counter-abilities. Because accountability to a Higher-Stakeholder appears to be an unreachable ideal, identifying to whom one should give an account of oneself becomes problematic. A working response to the problematics of accountability, accounterability emerges as the mechanism whereby the limits and contradictions of account giving are transformed into the conditions of its realisation: unreachable accountability is transformed into tangible day-to-day practices that may differ slightly from expected ideal conduct. It transpires from this study that the main strength of accountability lies in its ability to absorb and to override its limits and contradictions, transforming them into conditions of its possibility. As such, accounterability emerges as the ultimate manifestation of this strength.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounterability and the problematics of accountability

Joannidès

2012

Critical Perspectives on Accounting

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The narrative, then, as a driver of the exercise of control, necessarily shares and defines the discharge of a board's responsibilities to its stakeholders (Parker, 2008). This resonates with interpretations that calculative forms of accountability cannot replace responsibilities of judgment and opinion which remain dependent on, and should find expressions in, narrative systems of accountability (Hoskin, 1996;Kamuf, 2007). By adopting elements of a paradigmatic approach to good corporate governance in terms of an overall focus on appropriate internal control and risk management (see Gwilliam and Marnet, 2010), boards of quasipublic sector organizations (Collier, 2005) face traps and pitfalls in implementation not dissimilar to those experienced by listed companies (FRC, 2011).…”

Section: Context Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining governance failure: accountability spaces in-between and bias

Marnet

2014

IJCA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper is based on a two-year participant observer study of the governance failures in a UK housing association that experienced significant adverse performance resulting in its near collapse. Concerned with the accountability of boards of directors, the study extends research by Roberts (1991Roberts ( , 1996Roberts ( , 2001) who distinguishes between formal and informal forms of accountability, and Collier (2005) who identifies accountability spaces in-between where governance may be lost. The present research builds on this discussion by introducing socio-psychological factors underlying a reluctance of boards to adequately explore governance issues hidden in these spaces. As informal reporting systems are increasingly important drivers of the control role of boards (Parker, 2008), the paper emphasizes the need for boards to adopt procedures aimed at mitigating the effects of bias on the quality of board decision-making.Keywords: Quasi-public sector; governance; accountability; boardroom decisionmaking; bias mitigation; new public management;. 2 IntroductionThe paper explores limitations of formal, accounting-based systems of accountability and inadequacies of informal, sense-making narrative systems (Roberts, 1991(Roberts, , 1996(Roberts, , 2001Collier, 2005). The sense-making narrative terminology builds on the contrast made by Roberts (1991) between a formal, hierarchical system of accountability based on calculative accounting, and an informal, socialising form, which in boardroom discussions increasingly replaces the focus on the technical and rulebased (Parker, 2008). Hidden between the two systems, Collier (2005) identifies accountability spaces in-between where neither the formal nor the informal ensures that issues important to the organization are sufficiently explored and where governance can be neglected and lost. The present research inquires into sociopsychological causes for the reluctance of boards to investigate these spaces. The paper suggests that cognitive bias in judgment frequently inhibits an adequate articulation and exploration of issues critical to the governance of organizations, thereby undermining the value of the narrative form of accountability (Langevoort, 2001a,b;Prentice, 2003;Bazerman and Malhotra, 2006;Forbes and Watson, 2010;FRC, 2011; APB, 2012).With the rise of New Public Management (NPM) and the subsequent increase in the use of performance measurement in the quasi-public sector (Collier, 2005;Bogt and Scapens, 2012), a discussion on bias in the boardroom provides useful insights on potential problems and dysfunctional consequences of the adoption of this model in the public sector (see, e.g., Hood, 2007;McLean et al., 2007;Broadbent and Guthrie, 2008;Lapsley, 2008). New Public Management, although changing over time and from country to country, stresses the use of explicit quantitative performance 3 measures and external audits, output controls, and private sector management methods to advance public sector performance and accountability (Hood, 1995(Hood, ,...

show abstract

“…Resistance, by public-sector managers and members of the caring professions, to neo-liberal reforms has been identified by others (Broadbent and Laughlin 2013;Kamuf 2007;Laughlin 1996). This is a resistance that adapts to the imposition of increased managerial accountability through buffering techniques or accepting colonization (Broadbent and Laughlin 2013).…”

Section: Resistancementioning

confidence: 99%

Public accountability: reforms and resistance in social housing

Smyth

2016

Public Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper illustrates and discusses the changing nature of public accountability relations in public services that are transferred to a mutual organization. The paper contributes to the literature that studies resistance to the neo-liberal restructuring process, highlighting civil society campaigns as important actors. A social housing case study in Britain is developed, combining a critical realist and dialogical influenced analysis. The case study identifies the role of private finance, illustrating tensions between democratic-styled and NGO-styled public accountability relations. A conclusion that housing mutuals are in danger of being apologia for private capitalism is established.

show abstract

Accounterability

Cited by 90 publications

References 0 publications

Accounterability and the problematics of accountability

Accounterability and the problematics of accountability

Explaining governance failure: accountability spaces in-between and bias

Public accountability: reforms and resistance in social housing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About