The project aimed to further our understanding of the ways in which the ordinary objects of science and technology are increasingly central to systems of accountability and governance. The research had five principle objectives:
a) Further our understanding of mundane technologies through rigorous empirical research
b) Examine social science notions of governance in examples of practice
c) Develop a model of accountability relations in networks of governance
d) Foster relationships with user constituencies
e) Provide a combination of practical and academic outputs, demonstrating the utility value of social science
The research included three areas of governance and accountability in action.
Case Study One – Recycling and waste management
Research was carried out jointly with a local authority, including meetings with recycling managers, participant observation of recycling crews, the collection and analysis of publicity materials and a survey of 10,000 households’ recycling activities. We also interviewed householders, discussed their own recycling practices and their views on local authority initiatives. Key findings:
1. Households experience an ever increasing complexity of categories, rules, measures and means of accounting for the ways in which they manage and present their waste. Simultaneously, ever greater responsibility for waste management is shifted from councils to households.
2. This complexity has generated a significant distance between the aspirations behind local authority recycling systems and householders’ own ideas about how they think they should manage their waste.
3. The complexities of the rules and operation of waste management lead some residents to worry about possible fines, to view recycling as simply too time-consuming or simply to continue with the routines of waste management with which they are familiar. As a result, the range of materials which households actually recycle is reduced.
Case Study Two – Speed cameras and traffic management
We studied eight safety-camera partnerships, selected according to geographical location, local road conditions and size of partnership. This included lengthy interviews with members of the partnerships, tours of their facilities and analysis and discussion of relevant policy documents. We interviewed the management consultancy which helped establish the national partnership initiative, undertook participant observation of driver retraining courses and conducted in-car video recording of drivers while driving. Key findings:
1. Although advocates of speed cameras often assume that the system is straightforward, nationally uniform and that those who drive too fast, and only those, are caught, our research reveals a much more complex and messy picture.
2. We need to revisit key questions: Should the priority for speed camera partnerships be revenue or re-education of offenders? Should speed be controlled by central authorities or should it be an individual responsibility? Is there evidence to show that personal responsibility could work more effectively than state control?
3. The current debate needs to be broadened beyond the simple opposition between road-safety and revenue-raising. Assessments of different policy options need to recognise the uncertainties, contingencies and imperfections endemic to all attempts at road governance.
Case Study Three – Airport passenger movement and biometric identity
Research was carried out jointly with the UK’s leading airport operator at a major London airport. This involved survey interviews with 400 airport passengers; longer semi-structured interviews with a smaller group of 20 passengers; and interviews and discussion with airport managers. A team of ethnographers each recorded their experiences of moving through an airport and catching a plane. We took part in the government’s consultation on biometrics, one member of the research team had his biometrics recorded and tested, and we engaged with the communities of pro- and anti- ID card campaigners. Key findings:
1. Claims about the necessity and utility of biometric ID cards depend heavily on the unproven assumption that the technological systems will operate dependably and straightforwardly.
2. Agencies and organisations such as the airport managers are themselves cautious about the development of these future security systems.
3. Airport passengers generally support biometrics, despite the fact that biometric recording and recall is both inconvenient and only partially successful to date. However, this level of support drops dramatically if it is suggested that biometrics will not significantly reduce the risk of terror attacks.
A Model of Accountability Relations
These three case-studies led to the development of a model of accountability relations in networks of governance. Stated briefly, this model comprises three modes of accountability, each of which implies different audiences.
Accountability in public describes mutually accessible forms of interaction. This approach treats accountability as a pervasive phenomenon, constitutive of everyday forms of interaction. Accountability of public focuses more narrowly on those occasions where groups of people are held to account through, for example, surveillance systems (airport security, speed cameras and so on). Accountability for public refers to those actions understood as carried out, usually by a particular organisation, on behalf of a larger audience. This includes company accounts made available for the public good, calls for organisations to be transparent, the democratisation of decision-making and demonstrations of value for money, responsibility and ethical standards.
Our research concludes that mundane objects and technologies are central to governance and accountability relations. By contrast with the high profile media attention paid to some technological developments, more pervasive mundane objects and technologies tend to be overlooked, even though they can affect millions of people on an everyday basis. Two distinct but related senses of “mundane” are important. First, mundane denotes ordinary, dull, routine and everyday, suggesting pervasiveness: objects and technologies are mundane in virtue of their being everywhere. But, second, objects and technologies are also mundane in the sense that they are, literally and etymologically, of the world. This led us to examine the processes whereby ordinary objects acquire a particular ontological status. We argue for a new understanding of governance and accountability based on an “ontological politics” - the practices whereby ordinary objects and technologies come to be treated as objective, and whereby their identities give rise to relations of governance and accountability. The key to a new understanding of governance is to focus on political constitution at the level of ontology rather than just on the traditional politics of organisation and structure.