Accountability and rural development partnerships: a study of Objective 5b EAGGF funding in South West England

Whittaker, Julie M.; Warren, Martyn; Turner, Martin; Hutchcroft, Ian

doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2003.08.001

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reactive logic of accountability, by attending only to the justification of past decisions, takes no account of the deliberation and reflection that accompanies the continuous process of decision-making (see also Whittaker et al, 2004). In contrast, active responsibility is informed by an anticipatory logic, and thereby provides the reflective, forward-looking complement to accountability.…”

Section: Responsibility: Theorising State/civil Society Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making democracy matter: Responsibility and effective environmental governance in regional Australia

Wallington

Lawrence

2008

Journal of Rural Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Responsibility: Theorising State/civil Society Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making democracy matter: Responsibility and effective environmental governance in regional Australia

Wallington

Lawrence

2008

Journal of Rural Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The individualising form of accountability considers the individual reporter as an object of use, focusing on “purposive rational action” to fulfil standards set by the principal (superordinate) (Jacobs and Walker, 2004, p. 363). Whittaker et al (2004) note that in this individualizing form of accountability, there is an asymmetry of power between the principal and the agent, which hinders frank communication, stretches distance between the participants, impedes dialogue and trust, and thus encourages contractual arrangements, where tightly defined information requirements and projected outcomes are generated by the superordinate:Individualizing effects, which are associated with the operation of market mechanisms and formal hierarchical accountability, involve the production and reproduction of a sense of self as singular and solitary within only an external and instrumental relationship to others (Roberts, 2001b, p. 1547).…”

Section: Reporting Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here the reporter goes beyond the merely instrumental value, to develop an understanding of themselves, as distinct but interrelated with others. Whittaker et al (2004) note that the socialising form of accountability fits, for example, the values associated with a partnership approach to rural development because it encourages debate on the purposes of a development, and prompts a process based on co‐operation. Roberts (1991a, p. 365) explains that the socialising forms of accountability are heightened in conditions where there is open dialogue and equality of power because these conditions encourage growth of understanding and trust between the principal and agent, and thus expectations over conduct and information are less structured and defined than in the individualizing form of accountability.…”

Section: Reporting Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The milieu of reporting of Nacamaki and Nabuna villages of Koro Island

Brown

2009

Pacific Accounting Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper seeks to examine the milieu of reporting in two villages operating on Koro Island, Republic of Fiji Islands. It aims to analyse how both western‐narrow and traditional reporting offers rural villages extensive opportunities to discharge responsibilities of stewardship, accountability and accounts of the activities of farmers and stores in an agrarian setting, whether the activities are subsistence‐ or cash‐based.Design/methodology/approachFieldwork was conducted in two villages of Koro Island, Nacamaki and Nabuna, to ascertain the milieu of reporting, and open‐ended interviews were conducted with villagers from both villages. The “view from the centre” is adopted here, rather than the “view from the periphery”.FindingsThe study shows that people of both Nacamaki and Nabuna villages have adapted their specific reporting styles according to the circumstances facing them. Despite being only 5 km apart, two sharply contrasting village reporting milieux emerge. One relies greatly on the use of both Traditional oral and Western‐narrow hand‐written reports to fulfil accounts of entities (co‐operative and individual farmers) operating in the village. The other prefers oral communication to any form of written communication to raise accounts of villagers' collectivist and independently charged, agrarian‐based activities.Research limitations/implicationsThe study raises three sets of policy issues that are central to the development of reporting in Eastern Fijian villages. Numerous resources are unnecessary in presenting a western‐narrow account of transactions when the accounts are supplemented by a traditional reporting mien. Western‐narrow reporting appears to be well received by co‐operative members and individually oriented farmers. In the absence of Western‐narrow reporting, Traditional reporting seems to serve the needs of both communally oriented and individualistically inclined villagers. The results of the study underlie both the complexity of village life in determining systems of reporting and the fragility of written reporting in Eastern Fijian outer island villages.Practical implicationsThe study shows the way in which Eastern Fijian villages resolve subsistence and cash exchanges at the social level, taking into account local conventions, customs, laws, rituals and values.Originality/valueThe originality of the paper rests in considering villagers' own reporting through internal points of reference, providing space for interrelations between traditional Fijian values, the island landscape and the cultural geography.

show abstract

“…There is no doubting the importance of funding to rural development processes (Whittaker et al 2004; Midgley et al 2005). The significance of funding to rural development is illustrated by the process of gaining access to institutions and community organisations in Great Village, where territorial tactics threatened to prevent access to the research field.…”

Section: Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Researcher and Employee: Reflections on Reflective Practice in Rural Development Research

McAreavey

2008

Sociologia Ruralis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1Researcher and employee. Reflections on practising reflective practice in rural development research. AbstractThis article describes an ethnographic study that was used to critically assess the links between rural development policy and practice. It does so from the novel perspective of the researcher as an employee within the organisation from where the ethnography study was conducted. The article argues that this distinctive position gives rise to specific methodological issues. Particular attention is paid in the analysis to marginalized issues within reflexive practice literature, namely the structural context. In so doing this research places centre-stage the importance of reflexivity to the field of rural sociology, an area in which to date it has limited acceptance. KeywordsEthnography, reflexivity, professional knowledge, role conflict, structural context, power, phronesis 2 Researcher and employee. Reflections on practising reflective practice in rural development research.

show abstract

Accountability and rural development partnerships: a study of Objective 5b EAGGF funding in South West England

Cited by 11 publications

References 20 publications

Making democracy matter: Responsibility and effective environmental governance in regional Australia

Making democracy matter: Responsibility and effective environmental governance in regional Australia

The milieu of reporting of Nacamaki and Nabuna villages of Koro Island

Researcher and Employee: Reflections on Reflective Practice in Rural Development Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About