| Accountability is a very important concept in public service these days. I do not know how or why it became such an issue; what the mischief was that it was introduced to address. Nor do I know how long it has been a driver for policy. But I do know that it is one of the things which sound good, but in fact cause more problems than they solve. I am not sure that is inevitable: but in practice that is what happens. So I thought it would be interesting to explore what it means: in theory and in practice.
I am making a number of assumptions which may or may not be tenable, at the outset. This is because the term has a number of meanings. It is my view that words with multiple meanings are relatively easy to subvert: we can trade on the ambiguity, and this helps to dress up an agenda in unobjectionable terms, if that is what you want to do.
To me the proper sense of the word contains the sense of responsibility. I think that is best seen in the professions, as they were in the past. A professional was someone who had certain specific knowledge that took a long time to learn; and which was validated by a body of people who also shared that knowledge. It was accepted that outsiders could not judge the practice of the profession, because they did not have the skills and knowledge required. So even today we see that doctors who are accused of malpractice or incompetence are judged against a set of professional standards which are set by doctors: and it is doctors who judge whether those standards have been breached. This is also the case for the other professions.
From that it follows that a professional cannot be forced to do anything which breaches his or her professional ethic and/or responsibility. What that means is that there is a power base which is independent, and which serves as a counter to other forms of power and pressure. Thus there is a limit to how far "he who pays the piper" can in fact "call the tune". That rests on the "closed shop", because the cost to the individual of breaching that ethic has to outweigh any feasible reward for doing so: and it has to outweigh any threat which might force such a breach as well. That cannot be perfectly achieved (if someone is going to chop your head off if you do not poison their granny it is not likely that many will resist): but in normal circumstances the loss of the right to practice your profession is a big cost, and it is a real and enforceable sanction when a profession is properly constituted.
In those circumstances accountability is personal: one must practice within the standards set, and that is the responsibility of the professional himself. So how he practices is actually quite free and quite flexible: so long as he adheres to the fundamental standards expected and required by his peers.
In the 1960's and 1970's there was a social shift in the direction of more egalitarianism, for want of a better word. One consequence was a rejection of elitism, and that included an attack on the desirability of "professionalism", as I have just described it. That is very understandable, because there is truth in the proposition that "all professions are a conspiracy against the lay person". Good things followed: for example doctors became more open with patients, and there was a greater degree of discussion about treatment options etc. And the same process was seen in all of the professions. To me that was a good thing: but only insofar as those changes did not undermine the whole concept of a profession per se. Unfortunately that limit was not maintained, and there were many reasons for that, I think. They would form an interesting discussion in themselves, and I hope that we can touch on some of them later in this thread.
But for now I wish to look at what this has meant for the concept of accountability. As I see it, there has been a shift from the idea of accountabilty as a form of personal responsibilty. For the term can also mean "blameworthiness" and that is really quite a different thing. What seems to have happened is that we have moved from the original position of respect for the knowledge or professionals: through a stage when that was still accepted; but mitigated by the removal of some of the authoritarian elements which were not actually justified: to a point where that expertise is largely denied. And that is pretty much a disaster. As an example of that we see parents who appear to think that they know as much or more about teaching as teachers do: and so teachers have lost a great deal of status. The same is true of many other groups of workers: and the attack is currently touching even the strongest of the professions, amongst which the most obvious are doctors and lawyers. Those very strong professions have been better able to resist: partly because the process had to be quite advanced before it was wise to even try: and partly because they have a stronger understanding of the nature of the profession because it has been developed over a long time and more consciously, perhaps. But they are not immune, even so.
One consequence of that shift has been to allow the professions to be brought under the control of others to a far greater extent than was true in the past. And that is justified in the name of accountability. In many fields we see this same process. But the fact is that it is true that those outside the professions do not have the knowledge or skills to judge them. And so we get absurdity. The "regulatory bodies" make blueprints for how the job is to be done, and they do not work. They demand that the workers record all that they do, and "accountability" has come to mean proving that you followed all the steps prescribed. It does not actually matter whether the outcome is good or bad: if you have followed all the rules you are safe: and if you have not you are under threat. And all of this takes an enormous amount of time. In my own job I spend more time writing about doing my job than I do in doing it. There is a climate of fear which precludes creative risk taking: yet enormous risks are taken because the blueprints lead to that outcome.
In the wider sense what this has done is centralise power. As outlined above, the original structure of professions enabled personal autonomy and supported that through an alternative power structure which served as a check on the demands of government and business. The change I am describing reflects a change in our relationship with the professions which may well have started as a move to more egalitarian individual dealings with those we rely on for their knowledge and skill. But as an unintended consequence (probably) we have taken the power of those bodies away. And we have ceded it to business and to government who are now far less constrained than they once were.
Edited by FionaK - 18/5/2011, 03:08
|
