Accounting for the “harms” of social media firms: dialogic accountability and discursive contestation in public hearings

Author:

Yusuff KolawoleORCID,Whittle AndreaORCID,Mueller FrankORCID

Abstract

PurposeExisting literature has begun to identify the agonistic and contested aspects of the ongoing development of accountability systems. These “contests” are particularly important during periods of change when an accountability “deficit” has been identified, that is, when existing accountability systems are deemed inadequate and requiring revision. The purpose of this paper is to explore one such set of contests in the case of large technology and social media firms: the so-called “big tech”. The authors focus specifically on “big tech” because of increasing societal concerns about the harms associated with their products, services and business practices.Design/methodology/approachThe authors analysed four US Congressional hearings, in which the CEO of Facebook was held to account for the company's alleged breaches and harms. The authors conducted a discourse analysis of the dialogue between the account giver (Mark Zuckerberg) and account holders (Members of Congress) in the oral testimony at the four hearings.FindingsTwo areas of contestation in the dialogue between the account giver and account holders are identified. “Epistemic contests” involved contestation about the “facts” concerning the harms the company had allegedly caused. “Responsibility contests” involved contestation about who (or what) should be held responsible for these harms and according to what standards or criteria.Originality/valueThe study advances critical dialogical accountability literature by identifying two areas of contestation during periods of change in accountability systems. In so doing, they advanced the theory by conceptualising the process of change as underpinned by discursive contests in which multiple actors construct and contest the “problem” with existing accountability systems. The outcomes of these contests are significant, the authors suggest, because they inform the development of reforms to the accountability system governing big tech firms and other industries undergoing similar periods of contestation and change.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous),Accounting

Reference75 articles.

1. Participatory budgeting as a form of dialogic accounting in Russia: actors' institutional work and reflexivity trap;Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,2018

2. Data breaches in the age of surveillance capitalism: do disclosures have a new role to play?;Critical Perspectives on Accounting,2023

3. Water sector reform in Italy and in The Netherlands: ambitious change with an uncertain outcome versus consensus-seeking moderate change;International Review of Administrative Sciences,2010

4. Accounting, accountability, social media and big data: revolution or hype?;Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,2017

5. Bakhtin, M.M. (1981), “The dialogical imagination”, in Holquist, M. (Ed.), Trans. By C. Emerson and M. Holquist, University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3