Search results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The study aims to highlight and reflect on resistance to Brazil's illiberal accelerationist politics highlighting alternative possibilities based on affects and forms of relatedness.

Drawing on the case of public universities and the arts in today's Brazil, the authors point out a tragedy of resistance (when opposing change fuels its acceleration) and explore a strategy of lines of flight and becomings in the light of Deleuze and Guattari's perspective on acceleration.

Alongside an oppositional and reactive resistance, that is caught in a tragedy of resistance, the authors explore an alternative strategy that protects a plurality of life forms and forces and their becoming. This strategy differs from most critiques of accelerationism.

This strategy of resistance seems more faithful to Deleuze than the accelerationist strategies that claim to be inspired by him. The authors suggest another reading of the often quoted passage by Deleuze and Guattari. While Deleuze and Guattari favor continuous deterritorializations of the flows of desire, accelerationism reterritorializes these flows towards a (often) undesirable future.