a. What is the context of the gallery you have selected – i.e. contest, “best of,” etc. – and how might that shape
your expectations and interpretations?
b. What is the media source or organization providing the gallery and how is that relevant to your
c. Who is the photographer(s) and is any information provided about them?
d. What is the area(s) of science being represented in the photographs and how might that shape your
expectations as a viewer?
e. Briefly, how are the images titled and captioned? How does that shape your expectations?
2. Select a single image from your gallery and analyze it according to Gillian Rose’s framework. Make
appropriate use of other course materials in the analysis (Expected length: approx. 4-6 paragraphs).
3. Consider your gallery of images as a whole. What analytic observations can you make about their
cumulative or collective impact/effect? In other words, what work are these images doing as a group?
efers to “the authorities themselves who are being held accountable by their citizens” rather than “sovereigns holding their subjects to account” (Bovens, 2006: 6). The conceptual shift from financial accounting to “public accountability” was aligned with the rise of the accountability movement away from the traditional public administration model to the NPM model. As a result, the actual shift was from a notion of financial accounting to a broader notion of “management accountability,” but the new concept was narrow in scope as it referred primarily to inspection, audit, evaluation, and assessment (Tilbury, 2006). This change brought about two major problems. First, “public accountability” was used interchangeably with “management accountability.” Consequently, accountability in NPM agendas was often misused as “both an instrument and a goal” (Bovens, 2006: 7). Even though the concept of management accountability was more likely to mean instruments effective at addressing the problems of public governance, it has, over time, been used to represent a norm of good governance. While the focus of NPM was mainly on accountability “mechanisms” as policy instruments and tools, its accountability was often mistakenly seen as a “virtue.” Second, the concept of “public accountability” has often been overlooked and has rarely garnered attention. In addition, as much attention was paid to managerial accountability at the concrete level, the abstract role of the account-giving mechanism carried out by the actor was also discussed to infrequently (Dubnick and Frederickson, 2011). 2-2. From accountability to financial accountability The concept of accountability is relatively straightforward in the financial sphere because it shares some common ground with its linguistic origin—accounting. Behn (2001: 7) stated that “it is not surprising that the most obvious form of accountability focuses on financial accounting—on how the books are kept and how the money is spent.” Governments that have embraced NPM ideas have sought to improve financial accounting standards and reporting forms, an act broadly regarded as an attempt to enhance accountability. However, since the interpretation of accountability was more straightforward and definite on the financial side, discussion of its definition was often dismissed or ignored. As a result, the literature concerning financial accountability lacks a widely accepted definition in which scholars suggest various definitions that fit in their own spec