Advertisement

Interactional Accountability

  • Jocelyn A. HollanderEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

Abstract

Interactional accountability, a concept derived from ethnomethodology, is the foundation of the doing gender perspective. Although often overlooked or misunderstood, it provides the motivation for doing gender, a mechanism for social control, and the link between interaction and social structure. This chapter provides an overview of how accountability has been used in sociology and in scholarship on gender. Accountability involves ongoing orientation to the expectations associated with sex category membership, assessment of behavior, (i.e., the production of accounts that compare behavior to expectations), and enforcement or the interactional consequences of the match between expectations and behavior. Schwalbe’s notion of “nets of accountability” further extends the concept of accountability, illuminating how the embeddedness of interaction in social networks functions to reproduce inequality across time and social context. Although resistance to expectations is always possible, the individual consequences may be substantial. Nonetheless, resistance does occur, and points the way to how gender can change. Further development of work on accountability requires attention to the ongoing, back-and-forth nature of interactional processes.

Keywords

Accountability Doing gender Interaction Account 

Notes

Acknowledgements

My thanks to Lauren Charles Stewart for her contributions to the early stages of this chapter.

References

  1. Accountable. (2017). Online etymology dictionary. Douglas Harper, historian. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/accountable. Accessed January 6, 2017.
  2. Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and arguing: The social organization of accounts. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology, 100(3), 652–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christopher, K. (2012). Extensive mothering: Employed mothers’ constructions of the good mother. Gender & Society, 26, 73–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, P. H., Maldonado, L. A., Takagi, D. Y., Thorne, B., Weber, L., & Winant, H. (1995). Symposium: On West and Fenstermaker’s ‘Doing difference’. Gender & Society, 9, 491–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Connell, C. (2010). Doing, undoing, or redoing gender? Gender & Society, 24, 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook, K. J. (2006). Doing difference and accountability in restorative justice conferences. Theoretical Criminology, 10, 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cottingham, M. D., Johnson, A. H., & Taylor, T. (2016). Heteronormative labor: Conflicting accountability structures among men in nursing. Gender, Work & Organization, 23, 535–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deutsch, F. (2007). Undoing gender. Gender & Society, 21, 106–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Enfield, N. J. (2016). Series editor’s preface. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fenstermaker, S., & Budesa, J. (2015). Doing gender. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  14. Heritage, J. (1983). Accounts in action. In G. Nigel Gilbert & P. Abell (Eds.), Accounts and action (pp. 117–31). Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Gower.Google Scholar
  15. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Heritage, J. (1990). Interactional accountability: A conversation analytic perspective. Réseaux, 1, 23–49 (Hors Série 8, No. 1. Les Formes de la Conversation).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hollander, J. A. (2002). Resisting vulnerability: The social reconstruction of gender in interaction. Social Problems, 49, 474–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hollander, J. A. (2013). ‘I demand more of people’: Accountability, interaction, and gender change. Gender & Society, 27, 5–29.Google Scholar
  19. Hollander, J. A., & S. Fenstermaker. (2018). Gender Theme and Variation: Gender Ideals and Gender Expectations in Interaction. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  20. Jenness, V., & Fenstermaker, S. (2014). Agnes goes to prison: Gender authenticity, transgender inmates in prisons for men, and pursuit of ‘the real deal’. Gender & Society, 28, 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson, J. A., (2010). Using gender: The personal, interpersonal, and emotional strategies of domestic labor. Sociological Spectrum, 30, 695–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones, N. (2010). Between good and ghetto: African American girls and inner-city violence. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lucal, B. (1999). What it means to be gendered me: Life on the boundaries of a dichotomous gender system. Gender & Society, 13, 781–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martin, P. Y. (2003). ‘Said and done’ versus ‘saying and doing’: Gendering practices, practicing gender at work. Gender & Society, 17, 342–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Messerschmidt, J. (2004). Flesh and blood: Adolescent gender diversity and violence. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  26. Mills, C. W. (1940). Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. American Sociological Review, 5, 904–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. Robinson, J. D. (2016a). Accountability in social interaction. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 1–44). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robinson, J. D. (2016b). Accountability in social interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwalbe, M. (2000). The elements of inequality. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 775–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schwalbe, M. (2005). Identity stakes, manhood acts, and the dynamics of accountability. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 28, 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schwalbe, M. (2016). Overcoming aprocessual bias in the study of inequality: Parsing the capitalist interaction order. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 46, 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwalbe, M., Godwin, S., Holden, D., Schrock, D., Thompson, S., & Wolkomir, M. (2000). Generic processes in the reproduction of inequality: An interactionist analysis. Social Forces, 79, 419–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schwalbe, M., & Shay, H. (2014). Dramaturgy and dominance. In J. D. McLeod, E. J. Lawler, & M. Schwalbe (Eds.), Handbook of the social psychology of inequality (pp. 155–180). The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stabile, C. (2013). ‘I will own you’: Accountability in massively multiplayer online games. Television & New Media, 15, 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sullivan, L. E. (n.d.). Accountability. The SAGE glossary of the social and behavioral sciences. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412972024.n17.
  38. Walzer, S. (1998). Thinking about the baby: Gender and transitions into parenthood. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Walzer, S. (2008). Redoing gender through divorce. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995a). Doing difference. Gender & Society, 9, 8–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995b). Reply. Gender & Society, 9, 506–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (2002). Accountability in action: The accomplishment of gender, race, and class in a meeting of the University of California Board of Regents. Discourse & Society, 13, 537–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wickes, R., & Emmison, M. (2007). They are all ‘doing gender’ but are they all passing? A case study of the appropriation of a sociological concept. The Sociological Review, 55, 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilkins, A. C., Mollborn, S., & Bó, Boróka. (2014). Constructing difference. In J. D. McLeod, E. J. Lawler, & M. Schwalbe (Eds.), Handbook of the social psychology of inequality (pp. 125–154). The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations