Discursive construction of accountability

Accountability is nebulous, changing with the context of discourse and constructed through discourse (Sinclair, Newman, Newman, Day and Klein). The context of discourse varies, which is important because it involves various and conflicting accountabilities.

Sinclair researched the context of discursive construction of accountability using interviews with 15 chief executives of Australian public sector organisation. Using content and discourse analysis she identified five forms of accountability that overlapped Day & Klein's but included professional and personal accountability, and these were expressed in discourse and two discourses of accountability: structural and personal.

Structural accountability is abstract, detached and rational. It is

“a technical property of a role or contract, structure or system” (Sinclair, 1995: 224).

Personal accountability is:

"Confidential and anecdotal… with the potential to be something that is feared"

So this is a more problematic accountability. It “functions to admit risks and failures, exposure and invasiveness with which accountability is experienced”. It also involves emotions of fear.

Sinclair’s forms of accountability are expressed with chameleon like changes between contexts.

A consequent issue is the difficulty for the observer to recognise accountability without knowing the context.