01725pab a2200181 454500008004000000100002200040245009600062260000900158300001400167362001200181520114900193650001901342650001801361773003301379909001001412999001701422952010401439180718b2002   xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d  aRoberts, Nancy C.  aKeeping public officials accountable through dialogue: resolving the accountability paradox  c2002  ap.658-69.  aNov-Dec  aHow 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.  aAccountability  aCivil service  aPublic Administration Review  a55154  c55154d55154  00104070aIIPAbIIPAd2018-07-19hVolume no: 62, Issue no: 6pAR55599r2018-07-19w2018-07-19yAR