Dubnick, Melvin J., “The Ontological Challenge.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, edited by Mark Bovens, Robert E. Goodin, and Thomas Schillemans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014: 649-654.
Abstract: This commentary considers the ontological options facing those who engage in accountability studies and calls for shifting the focus of attention to account-giving relationships and behavior rather than accountability mechanisms.
AI-Generated Summary:
This document argues for developing a dedicated field of accountability studies, emphasizing its fundamental role in understanding governance and human relationships.
Main Argument
- Accountability is both a cultural keyword and a crucial aspect of governance.
- Its future depends on establishing an organized, systematic study of its role in governance.
- The field faces an ontological dilemma: two perspectives on what accountability entails.
Ontological Dilemma
- Option-I views accountability as institutional, embedded in structures and mechanisms.
- Option-R sees accountability as relational, rooted in human interactions independent of institutions.
- These views are not mutually exclusive but differ in focus: mechanisms versus relationships.
- Institutional forms often transform relational accountability into procedures, reports, or audits.
Current Literature and Approaches
- Governance studies often equate accountability with surrogate mechanisms like transparency and audits.
- Some acknowledge the relational aspect but focus on mechanisms, principal-agent models, or formal structures.
- Outside governance, sociologists, psychologists, philosophers, and computer scientists explore accountability as human behavior, moral obligation, and speech acts.
- Public administration research examines informal accountability in practice, such as in rural China or service networks.
Emerging Trends and Bridging Efforts
- Studies increasingly recognize the relational nature of accountability.
- Scholars like Bovens and Philp attempt to connect the two ontologies, enriching understanding.
- These efforts demonstrate that account-giving relations explain governance effectiveness and frustrations.
Proposed Shift Toward Option-R
- Dubnick advocates for a radical shift, prioritizing account-giving relationships as the foundation of governance.
- Empirically, this approach uses relational analysis over institutional mechanisms.
- Methodologically, it favors ethnography and descriptive studies over evaluative ones.
- Theoretically, it re-engages moral philosophy and relational social theory, moving away from neo-institutional models.
Implications
- Focusing on relational accountability offers deeper insights into governance.
- It emphasizes the importance of human interactions, moral obligations, and social dynamics.
- Moving forward, the field should prioritize understanding account-giving behaviors as central to governance processes.