Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

control, someone deludes you to think to control and what you really control. Nevertheless,
the responsibility to produce something before the 5th of May was large for all
of us so it came down to organize the right actions.
It was crystal clear that the way we would draw up definitions would have quite some
consequences. We expected that a very hot issue would be the definition and the
status quo of the amount of contact hours for students. A stern definition could mean
that quite some departments did not fulfil the requirements; a light definition would
mean the opposite. Moreover, we found out that it was very hard to gather the information
about the status quo of the amount of the contact hours, despite a former
assessment on behalf of the Inspectorate of Higher Education. At that time I think we
all wavered a bit among different definitions because of the uncertainties in data, the
difficulty in estimating the consequences and our ambition to be at the top of the
ranking.
From the 5th we were guided by the published framework of the review commission.
E-mail traffic, a lot of walking in and out offices and meetings moulded the process.
My work-agenda came to be dominated by formulating the performance agreements,
not by managing a process of involvement.
What also did not help to reduce uncertainty about definitions and data was an ongoing
discussion between the State Secretary and the Netherlands Association of
UAS’s. There was a tug about definitions of the quality of Higher Education, about
impairing the autonomy of the UAS’s and about the birth of a bureaucratic system
(Science Guide, 2012, 2012a). Should we interpret the performance criteria as a superimposed
prescription or an obligation to do our best? The 6th the General Secretary
to the Board sent an e-mail to all the managers that for the time being for the members
of the board the procedures of the review commission were unacceptable, but
that it would be wise to go on with the preparations. Later on a meeting of the presidents
of the boards of the UAS with the members of the review commission (16th)
helped to reduce tensions regarding the framework. At the end all the UAS’s complied
with the State Secretary, although with quite some legal restrictions.
Despite this uncertain context Fiona and I continued the work and prepared a document
for a meeting of the members of the board with our senior management. Being
aware that quite some information still had to be gathered and final decisions still had
to be made, going on appeared more sensible than to wait. Spring was in the air,
although hesitantly. The 27th I received an internal evaluation report in which quite a
lot detailed information was to be found. To my displeasure two processes of gathering
information had not been connected.
April: capricious circumstances
Unfortunately Paul Broersen fell sick and as turned out only from the 27th he would be
back. Frans Custers and Ella Rietkerk became responsible for the establishment of the
122