01609pab a2200169 454500 180718b2002 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d Roberts, Nancy C. Keeping public officials accountable through dialogue: resolving the accountability paradox 2002 p.658-69. Nov-Dec How can public officials be held accountable, and yet avoid the paradaxes and pathologies of the current mechanisms of accountability? The answer, claims Harmon (1995), is dialogue. But what exactly is dialogue, and how is it created? More importantly, how can dialogue ensure accountability. To address these questions, I begin with a brief description of dialogue and its basic features, distinguishing it from other forms of communication. An example illustrates how dialogue occurs in actual practice. Not only does dialogue demonstrate the intelligent management of contradictory motives and forces, it also supports Harmon's claim that it can resolve the accountability paradox and avoid the atrophy of personalresponsibility and political authority. I suggest that dialogue's advantage outweights its cost as a mechanism of accountability under a particular set of conditions: when public officials confront "wicked problems" that defy definition and solution, and when traditional problem-solving methods have failed, thus preventing any one group from imposing its definition of the problem or its solutions on others. - Reproduced. Accountability Civil service Public Administration Review 55154 55154 55154 0 0 0 0 IIPA IIPA 2018-07-19 Volume no: 62, Issue no: 6 AR55599 2018-07-19 2018-07-19 AR