对社交媒体公司“危害”的解释:公开听证会上的对话问责和话语争论

IF 4.6 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Kolawole Yusuff, Andrea Whittle, Frank Mueller
{"title":"对社交媒体公司“危害”的解释:公开听证会上的对话问责和话语争论","authors":"Kolawole Yusuff, Andrea Whittle, Frank Mueller","doi":"10.1108/aaaj-11-2022-6165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose Existing 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/approach The 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. Findings Two 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/value The 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.","PeriodicalId":48311,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal","volume":"97 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accounting for the “harms” of social media firms: dialogic accountability and discursive contestation in public hearings\",\"authors\":\"Kolawole Yusuff, Andrea Whittle, Frank Mueller\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/aaaj-11-2022-6165\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose Existing 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/approach The 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. Findings Two 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/value The 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48311,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal\",\"volume\":\"97 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-11-2022-6165\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-11-2022-6165","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现有文献已经开始确定正在发展的问责制的竞争和有争议的方面。在确定问责制“赤字”的变革时期,即认为现有的问责制不足和需要修订时,这些“竞争”尤其重要。本文的目的是探讨大型科技和社交媒体公司的一组竞赛:所谓的“大科技”。作者特别关注“大型科技公司”,因为社会越来越关注与它们的产品、服务和商业行为相关的危害。作者分析了四次美国国会听证会,在这些听证会上,Facebook的首席执行官被要求对该公司所谓的违规行为和危害负责。作者对四次听证会口头证词中账户给予者(马克·扎克伯格)与账户持有人(国会议员)之间的对话进行了话语分析。发现在账户给予者和账户持有人之间的对话中存在两个争议领域。“认知竞赛”涉及对有关该公司据称造成的损害的“事实”的争论。“责任竞赛”涉及到谁(或什么)应该对这些伤害负责以及根据什么标准或标准的争论。原创性/价值本研究通过确定问责制变革期间的两个争议领域,推进了关键的对话问责制文献。在这样做的过程中,他们通过将变化过程概念化,将其作为话语竞争的基础,在这种竞争中,多个参与者用现有的问责制构建和竞争“问题”。作者认为,这些竞赛的结果意义重大,因为它们为管理大型科技公司和其他经历类似争论和变革时期的行业的问责制改革的发展提供了信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accounting for the “harms” of social media firms: dialogic accountability and discursive contestation in public hearings
Purpose Existing 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/approach The 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. Findings Two 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/value The 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Dedicated to the advancement of accounting knowledge, the Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal publishes high quality manuscripts concerning the interaction between accounting/auditing and their socio-economic and political environments, encouraging critical analysis of policy and practice in these areas. The journal also seeks to encourage debate about the philosophies and traditions which underpin the accounting profession, the implications of new policy alternatives and the impact of accountancy on the socio-economic and political environment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信