- links in a chain (Day and Klein),
- a chameleon (Sinclair),
- a chimera (Lindsay & O’Byrne) [1]
- consisting of many hands (Bovens, Sullivan) and
- many eyes (Bovens).
Day and Klein [ii] refer to accountability being a social and political process, a point that is taken up by others (Sinclair, x) in discussion of forms of accountability. Day and Klein point out that accountability existed in the simplest of ancient societies, but would be embodied in institutions in the more complex societies, which implies a social framework and shared expectations.
“Our starting point is that accountability is all about the construction of an agreed language or currency of discourse about conduct and performance, and the criteria that should be used to assess them.” (p.2)
They asked how members of different kinds of committees & authorities defined accountability and accordingly researched accountability in five public services, interviewing members of boards and also collecting and analysing agendas and minutes and attending meetings. They found that accountability depends on an agreed framework of meaning, brought about by a shared dialogue and also that board members saw a dimension of accountability in the general sense of being answerable for the individual actions of service providers, an interpretation that “revolves round the ability to call service providers retrospectively to account for their actions.” (p. 236). However, there are still difficulties of collective competence in getting objectives met.[i] Lindsay, A., O'Byrne, G., Accountability of Tertiary Education at the National Level: A Chimera?
[ii] Day, P. and R. Klein (1987). Accountabilities: 5 public services, Tavistock.
