Escaping transparent, asymmetrical and agentive accountability? Entrepreneurial accounts and researchers' countertransference

Abstract

Purpose

This article of exploratory research provides a critical perspective on accountability, focusing on three characteristics: transparency, asymmetry and individual agency. An experimental method is developed, calling for an ethics of accountability.

Design/methodology/approach

Four entrepreneurs have given accounts of themselves and their projects in life cycle interviews. This article applies Devereux's approach (1967), which allows for opacity (the “unconscious”) to oneself and to others with symmetry between analysts and analysed, and a lack of demarcation between the observer and the observed.

Findings

A tragic entrepreneurial accountability trap of continuous self-justification was discovered, which pertains both to the entrepreneurs and the researchers. Nonetheless, the researchers as inspired by Devereux's method were able to realize a form of accounterability.

Social implications

This article shows that the demands for transparent, asymmetrical and agentive accountability call for ethical reflection. The request for accounts, as resulting in the accounts given and the research conducted into accountability, are all sources of constraints. Differing the accountability situation may lessen the constraints.

Originality/value

This study introduces Devereux's method as an investigative tool in accountability research, opening up new perspectives on communication and analysis. This article shows the researcher as situated both inside and outside of the accountability mechanisms. This article explores a singular form of accountability; that of entrepreneurs who seemingly only account for the future, thereby disconnecting them from others.

Citation

Besson, M., Jacquinot, P., Jardat, R. and Moriceau, J.-L. (2023), "Escaping transparent, asymmetrical and agentive accountability? Entrepreneurial accounts and researchers' countertransference", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 36 No. 7/8, pp. 1790-1813. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2022-5641