Political accountability in practice: A conversation analytic study of ministerial accountability towards the Scottish parliamentary committees Ileana Alexandra Ispas Submitted for the degree of Ph.D. The University of Edinburgh 2010 Declaration I, Ileana Alexandra Ispas, declare that this thesis has been composed by me and that this is my own work, except as specified. I also declare that this work has not been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification. Date: Signature: 2 Abstract This study examines political accountability within the context of ministerial accountability towards the Scottish parliamentary committees. A review of the existing literature on accountability identified striking discrepancies between different disciplinary perspectives. In particular, political science research (e.g. Mayer, 1999) focuses on describing the structural mechanisms available for constraining the behaviour of those being made accountable. This literature includes research on ministerial accountability (e.g. Flinders, 1991), although largely focusing on accountability towards the parliamentary Chamber rather than the committees. By contrast, the psychological literature does not focus on accountability, but rather on developing a classification of accounts (e.g. Scott and Lyman, 1968) doing the kind of work that is examined in political science under ‘accountability’ (i.e. providing excuses and justifications to explain problematic behaviours), and testing these accounts using experimental designs (e.g. Weiner et al ., 1987). However, given its focus on classification and experimental designs, the psychological literature on accounts treats language as reified and abstract. A third (discourse and conversation analytic) research tradition uses recordings of real-life verbal interactions to examine the turn-by-turn unfolding of interactions (e.g. Atkinson and Drew, 1979), but few studies focus on accountability, and none specifically investigate political accountability. My study is the first to bridge the gap between these three disciplinary perspectives by examining the practice of political accountability through the turn-by-turn unfolding of interactions between ministers and members of Scottish parliamentary committees. The thesis aims to contribute to an understanding of democracy in action by providing an insight into the practical ways in which accountability is accomplished within this specific real-life setting. The corpus of data was compiled from 27 hours of video recordings of interactions between ministers and members of four Scottish parliamentary committees. I analysed the data using conversation analysis (CA). Use of CA led me to identify indirectness as a pervading characteristic of the ways in which challenges are formulated and attended to in the interactions between committee members and ministers, as well as a number of ways in which committee members and ministers 3 attended to matters of stake and interest in relation to such challenges. In addition, CA has allowed an insight into the limits of accountability by showing how ministers can avoid answering particular questions. These findings stand in stark contrast to the political science literature, which emphasises the adversarial nature of interactions within parliamentary settings and the availability of mechanisms for holding ministers to account (e.g. parliamentary committees) without investigating the way in which these mechanisms are used in practice. Furthermore, these findings contribute to the psychological literature on accounts by investigating their use within a real-life setting, and to the discourse and conversation analytic literature by showing the way in which well-known conversational devices (e.g. footing) are adapted to suit the specific context of parliamentary committee meetings with ministers. 4 Acknowledgements To begin with, I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr. Sue Widdicombe and Prof. John MacInnes, for putting an impressive amount of time and effort in reviewing my work. Sue, thank you for the rigour in the analysis, John for the constant encouragement. I would also like to thank Dr. Bregje de Kok for help with the initial stages of the analysis and to Dr. Peter Lamont for monitoring my progress during Sue’s maternity leave. I would like to thank my parents for their generous financial and moral support. I would also like to thank my friends for not forgetting me despite my lack of communication and obsession with my work. Furthermore, I owe thanks to the organisations that have funded my research: the Sir Richard Stapley Educational Trust and the Newby Trust. Thank you to the team at Stirling IT Ltd. for allowing me to use their office space during the write-up period and for all the banter and emotional support. In particular, I would like to thank my partner Stuart Mains (Managing Director of Stirling IT Ltd.) for supporting me throughout this period. 5 Table of Contents Declaration 2 Abstract 3 Acknowledgements 5 Table of Contents 6 Chapter 1. Introduction 9 1.1 Ministerial accountability towards parliamentary committees 10 1.2 Features of the Scottish parliamentary committee context 11 1.3 Overview of the thesis 14 Chapter 2. Literature review 17 2.1 Research on political settings 18 2.1.1 Political science research on parliamentary committees 18 2.1.1.1 Structural aspects of parliamentary committees 18 2.1.1.2 Factors influencing the behaviour of committee members 19 2.1.2 Accountability within political settings 20 2.1.2.1 Mechanisms of accountability 21 2.1.2.2 Accountability as a source of adversariality 23 2.1.3 Conclusions 25 2.2 Social psychological research 26 2.2.1 Social psychological work on committees 26 2.2.2 Social psychological work on accounts 27 2.2.2.1 Classificatory and experimental work on accounts 28 2.2.2.2 Discourse and conversation analytic approach to accounts 31 2.2.3 Conclusions 46 2.3 Conclusions and expositions of lacunae in the literature 47 6 Chapter 3. Methodology 51 3.1 Data collection 51 3.1.1 Corpus of data 51 3.1.2 Data collection 52 3.1.3 Ethics 52 3.2 Data analysis: Conversation Analysis (CA) 53 3.2.1 Utterances as situated social action 53 3.2.2 Focus on the organisation of talk-in-interaction 55 3.2.3 The normative nature of talk-in-interaction 57 3.2.4 Alternative approaches to the analysis of language 59 3.3 Data analysis 61 3.3.1 Analytic principles 61 3.3.2 Stages of analysis 62 3.4 Methodological issues 64 3.4.1 Focusing on audio elements 64 3.4.2 Sequential CA vs. MCA 65 3.4.3 Taking a broad definition of what constitutes a question 66 3.6 Conclusions 67 Chapter 4. Accomplishing accountability through questions 68 4.1 Accomplishing accountability through indirect questions 72 4.2 Accomplishing accountability using ministers’ statements 75 4.3 Accomplishing accountability through representing others 85 4.4 Summary and discussion 90 Chapter 5. Formulating and countering challenges 93 5.1 Posing a challenge by using what the minister said 97 5.2 Posing a challenge through question design 106 5.3 Posing a challenge by making complaints 117 5.4 Summary and discussion 126 7 Chapter 6. Accounting for inaction 129 6.1 Emphasising continued commitment to taking action 131 6.2 Downplaying accountability for taking action 135 6.3 Constructing taking action as inappropriate 143 6.4 Summary and discussion 152 Chapter 7. Accounting for not answering questions 154 7.1 Answering questions: initial observations 156 7.2 Accounting for not answering 158 7.2.1 Constructing the question as unfair 158 7.2.2 Involving the convenor 164 7.2.3 Indicating that an answer will be provided at a later date 170 7.3 Not answering while being pursued for an answer 175 7.3.1 Accounting for pursuing an answer 179 7.3.2 Accounting for not answering 185 7.4 Summary and discussion 195 Chapter 8. Discussion and conclusions 197 8.1 Relating the findings to the research questions 198 8.2 Summary of the main analytic findings 199 8.2.1 Attending to accountability in formulating questions 199 8.2.2 Attending to (counter) challenges as problematic 200 8.2.3 The limits of accountability in practice 201 8.3 Evaluation of the analysis 202 8.4 Issues of generalisability and validity 204 8.5 Theoretical and methodological contributions 205 8.6 Practical contributions 207 8.7 Conclusion 208 References 209 Appendix 224 8 Chapter 1. Introduction In this thesis I examine the practice of ministerial accountability towards parliamentary committees from a social psychological perspective. To do so, I use the context of the Scottish Parliament. Ministerial accountability towards parliamentary committees is central to the system of ‘checks and balances’ (the separation of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the Government) and to democracy in general (Behn, 2001; Flinders, 2001; Philp, 2009). The process of ministerial accountability prevents ministers from abusing their power by making them accountable towards Parliament through its committees (Flinders, 2001). Gaining an understanding of the practical aspects of ministerial accountability is therefore crucial to sustaining and improving the democratic system, and the Scottish Parliament provides an excellent case study for this. In order to examine the practical aspects of ministerial accountability, I adopt a social psychological perspective and focus on the verbal interactions between committee members and ministers. Verbal interactions appear to be the prime site for the elicitation and formulation of accounts across a variety of contexts (e.g. Atkinson and Drew, 1979; Clayman and Heritage, 2002; Drew, 1984). I have mainly focused on accounts relating to interactionally problematic issues (e.g. not taking action, not answering questions), as this focus allowed me to gain a better understanding of the way in which accounts are attended to throughout interactions between committee members and ministers. In examining these accounts, I have focused both on the verbal strategies used by committee members to hold ministers accountable, as well as on the ways in which ministers attempt to undermine the challenging aspects of such attempts.