Responsibility and accountability without direct control?: Local education authorities and the seeking of influence in the UK schools sector
AbstractPurpose – This paper seeks to extend understanding of how being responsible and accountable for performance impacts on control processes between organisations. Design/methodology/approach – The paper analyses empirical findings gathered from officers of two local education authorities about their control relationships with schools. It provides a Habermasian theoretically informed analysis of these control relationships. Control is studied as the steering processes that occur between organisations in response to regulation from government. Findings – The LEA officers employ the language of influence to conceal ongoing direct forms of control over schools. As the officers attempt to demonstrate their accountability to the Department of Education and Skills, they use communication and information strategically to steer schools towards their ways of thinking. Research limitations/implications – The paper focuses only on the views of LEA officers. Further research is required to ascertain the views of schools and other stakeholders in local education. Practical implications – Where regulatory bodies demand performance accountability from organisations, appropriate control mechanisms are necessary to ensure that organisations work in transparent ways towards regulatory objectives. Originality/value – Steering, responsibility, accountability and control are discussed in an educational context.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Emerald Group Publishing in its journal Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.
Volume (Year): 22 (2009)
Issue (Month): 5 (July)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.emeraldinsight.com
Postal: Emerald Group Publishing, Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley, BD16 1WA, UK
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Olov Olson & Christopher Humphrey & James Guthrie, 2001. "Caught in an evaluatory trap: a dilemma for public services under NPFM," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 505-522.
- Ahrens, Thomas & Chapman, Christopher S., 2006. "Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 819-841, November.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Louise Lister).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.