To read this content please select one of the options below:

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

Kolawole Yusuff (Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK)
Andrea Whittle (Business School, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK)
Frank Mueller (Department of Accounting, Durham University Business School, Durham, UK)

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

ISSN: 0951-3574

Article publication date: 24 October 2023

209

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.

Keywords

Acknowledgements

Kolawole Yusuff is grateful to University of Reading Henley Business School and Professor Kleio Akrivou for the support he recieved during his PhD when he began the research that produced this paper.

Citation

Yusuff, K., Whittle, A. and Mueller, F. (2023), "Accounting for the “harms” of social media firms: dialogic accountability and discursive contestation in public hearings", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-11-2022-6165

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles