In ethics and governance, accountability is answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and the expectation of account-giving. As an aspect of governance, it has been central to discussions related to problems in the public sector, nonprofit and private (corporate) and individual contexts. In leadership roles, accountability is the acknowledgment and assumption of responsibility for actions, products, decisions, and policies including the administration, governance, and implementation within the scope of the role or employment position and encompassing the obligation to report, explain and be answerable for resulting consequences.
In governance, accountability has expanded beyond the basic definition of “being called to account for one’s actions”. It is frequently described as ..
an account-giving relationship between individuals, e.g. “A is accountable to B when A is obliged to inform B about A’s (past or future) actions and decisions, to justify them, and to suffer punishment in the case of eventual misconduct”. Accountability cannot exist without proper accounting practices; in other words, an absence of accounting means an absence of accountability.
Accountability is an element of a RACI to indicate who (or group) is ultimately answerable for the correct and thorough completion of the deliverable or task, and the one who delegates the work to those responsible.
There are various reasons (legitimate or excuses) why accountability fails
“Accountability” stems from late Latin accomptare (to account), a prefixed form of computare (to calculate), which in turn derived from putare (to reckon). While the word itself does not appear in English until its use in 13th century Norman England, the concept of account-giving has ancient roots in record keeping activities related to governance and money-lending systems that first developed in Ancient Egypt, Israel, Babylon, Greece, and later,Rome.
adding page this moment (via George):
A critical need. Make algorithms accountable: nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opi…
accountable..? or irrelevant.. to accounting ness..disengage from accountable ness
ℳąhą Bąℓi مها بالي (@Bali_Maha) tweeted at 8:46 AM – 16 Apr 2017 :
Who gets to choose what is acceptable discrimination? Who gets to choose what values+trade-offs are given priority?
Every decision matters, including the decision to make data open and the decision to collect *certain types of data and not others.
When it comes to questions of choice, what is often not discussed is *how public good and individual desire often conflict.
so let’s change *that.. let’s just go there.. we can.. ie: deep enough
A huge part of the underlying problem stems from the *limits of the data that are being used
*exactly.. but it’s because we assume man-mades.. ie: schools, jobs, jails
They don’t know who is not in the system and violating the law; they’re only making decisions based on who is there.
This is what happens *when we simply focus on the available data and limit our purview to that narrow scope. We think we’re doing good by making data available, but what we’re doing is making available data that will **continue structural divisions. Is that our goal?
The problem with contemporary data analytics is that we’re often categorizing people without providing human readable descriptors.
Norms and standards of today will seem quaint tomorrow. *We need to prepare for that
*by letting go of accountability ness
I am excited about the possibility and future of using data to make responsible decisions. But today hype dominates public rhetoric about the use of data. We shouldn’t be doing data work just to do data work. We have a responsibility to try to combat inequities and prejudice—with our eyes open to the assumptions and limitations of our work, *and accountability as a goal.
oy.. accountability.. not a goal.. if we’re seek equity: everyone getting a go everyday