Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Acknowledging that we mostly talk about the reticence in being critical towards the board, it is decided that everybody tries to start a conversation in his surroundings about reticence in being critical or dissenting to explore what is implied. Moreover, it is considered to have a conversation with the board about the lack of dissenting voices, preferably on one topic like the feel good presentation of the UAS in our corporate magazine. For the next meeting we put the technical preparation of such conversations on our agenda. Paul Broersen reacted affirmative: the board will enjoy such a conversation, because they see it as an important subject and want to reflect upon it with others. Session 3 The main topic was to prepare the discussion with the board (due to her workload Fiona withdrew herself from this think-tank). Together we formulated some starting points, which I would discuss with the board. The proposed starting points are: 1 We want to avoid a ‘we versus them’ discussion, as we recognize that lack of dissent is a common phenomenon. Strikingly underpinned by Olivia who as our ombudsman hears us talking about our bosses the same way members of staff talk about their deans or directors. 2 In regard of point one it will be important to avoid talking in hierarchical levels, as if there would be some inequality in the importance of experiences. 3 We agree to discuss different but concrete topics. Concreteness makes them discussable. Mentioned are: the opening ceremony of the academic year, our corporate magazine, out yearly network day, formalisation of work relations by the introduction of a consignment sheet. 4 Concreteness also should implicate to discuss topics in connection with one’s own experiences. Not about ‘them’ or in general terms about ‘the faculty’, but about your own experience regarding the topic. 5 The discussion should be explorative instead of reproaching or judging. We find that the aim of the discussion should not be to find solutions for the topics which are brought up, but to have a meaningful conversation of why we all together are more or less unable to discuss difference of opinions regarding some topics and what consequences this inability might have regarding the content and quality of our work. Board session In January 2014 I finally have my long waited for discussion about dissent - not about the agenda for a meeting with the think-tank - with the members of the board, being Paul Broersen, Frans Custers (portfolio: finance and control) and Ella Rietkerk (portfolio: education and research). In due time they all have made attempts and experiences with trying to look out for dissenting opinions. To their experience it is hard to differentiate between sincere concerns or political games of people they discuss with. Sometimes they are lucky that a really sincere conversation evolves, despite the 152
always hierarchical relationship or habitual distrust regarding management. And sometimes the ascribed responsibility for everything to them is too easily taken for granted by people. They realize that to keep staying in touch with different opinions an ongoing attention is needed. What’s more, dissent is also experienced as being at odds with demands of performativity, as results are wanted. A question asked was how can we discuss with each other without evaluating each other or assuming that we are being evaluated? The members of the board acknowledge that dissent is a tough subject which should not be institutionalized. Surprise should be accommodated. It has to do with openness, with the acknowledgement of differences and the preparedness to learn from each other. Agenda For the meeting of the think-tank and the members of the board an agenda is mutually settled: 1 We will start with an exploration on how to discuss with each other. It will be important to explore a topic and not to prove your point, to stay close to one’s own experiences and to avoid reproaches. 2 We will discuss topics like the ceremony for the opening of the academic year, the UAS magazine, the amount of hours of contact for our students and our yearly networking day for companies. 3 We want to draw some conclusions about stimulating dissent/openness. The main question will be that apparently it is impossible to discuss about some issues with sufficient openness and what can be done about this situation. A follow-up meeting will be planned to reflect and to discuss opportunities. April – May: the winding up In the meeting, animated, rather safe and comfortable discussions a lot of topics passed in review. Dissent or openness was associated with a lack of broad discussion or critical reflection, negating or masking early warnings, working around instead of discussing subjects, and having or giving opportunities to discuss. In the discussion the generally experienced lack of openness was connected to a host of variables: hierarchy, increased instrumentality, speed and volume in policy, peer pressure and loyalty, resignation, individual priorities, lack of ownership, cautiousness, existing non-feedback habits, lack of quality of input, complexity of some subjects, no evaluative traditions, language games, maintaining myths, external pressures, bad planning and the lack of social interaction with meaninglessness as a consequence. What surfaced was captured and summarized by me in the word: interruption. Meaning: interrupting what you are doing is needed, to create a chance to dwell upon subjects and after that then - maybe otherwise - carry on. Practical implications could be more time to reflect about what we are doing, for instance by reflective conversations, asking more often questions about the practicality of plans, less detailed planning or putting fake subjects on an agenda to surprise everyone with extra reflection time. 6. A case of consent about dissent | 153
Page 1:
Rumbling on perfor
Page 4 and 5:
ISBN 978 909028 855 / NUR code 801
Page 6 and 7:
Promotores Prof. dr. T.H. Homan, Op
Page 8 and 9:
Preface When you are working on a P
Page 10 and 11:
4 Sense making in and of the intern
Page 12 and 13:
10 1
Page 14 and 15:
As the reader will notice it has no
Page 16 and 17:
agreements are connected to conditi
Page 18 and 19:
that in my job now, I have to manag
Page 20 and 21:
Insider research can be seen as phe
Page 22 and 23:
In a formal way a narrative is to d
Page 24 and 25:
within the UAS. This search was fue
Page 26 and 27:
24 2
Page 28 and 29:
This chapter is a methodological ch
Page 30 and 31:
interactions and their constructive
Page 32 and 33:
process of the constitution of nati
Page 34 and 35:
varying from social constructionism
Page 36 and 37:
To contribute to emancipatory trans
Page 38 and 39:
organizational life is trying to un
Page 40 and 41:
Ontologically reflexive research is
Page 42 and 43:
Auto-ethnography Auto-ethnography i
Page 44 and 45:
In its diversity auto-ethnography a
Page 46 and 47:
has to respond to questions regardi
Page 48 and 49:
pens with the results of the resear
Page 50 and 51:
From a radically reflexive stance i
Page 52 and 53:
alternate set of criteria could tur
Page 54 and 55:
dimensions should be ordinary eleme
Page 56 and 57:
one's own job security. Here again
Page 58 and 59:
2 Consult your institutional review
Page 60 and 61:
facts (for instance what did someon
Page 62 and 63:
The criteria will apply to the narr
Page 64 and 65:
This chapter is a prelude on four c
Page 66 and 67:
64 3
Page 68 and 69:
The narrative which is presented in
Page 70 and 71:
As a logical consequence of my para
Page 72 and 73:
3.3 Defaults-genesis part II: a you
Page 74 and 75:
y connecting concepts of the cognit
Page 76 and 77:
This sandwich position became tangi
Page 78 and 79:
connected with an engineering profe
Page 80 and 81:
However, I realize that the broad s
Page 82 and 83:
the realization of the UAS as a lea
Page 84 and 85:
just to proceed the way they always
Page 86 and 87:
Pursuing my research? On a conceptu
Page 88 and 89:
86 4
Page 90 and 91:
This narrative is about what happen
Page 92 and 93:
evaluation reports, that they can u
Page 94 and 95:
publish these findings in this way,
Page 96 and 97:
focussing at the outcome and specul
Page 98 and 99:
4.3 Emerging themes of reflection T
Page 100 and 101:
Varying ways of pushing through a d
Page 102 and 103:
Thus one of the results of our deli
Page 104 and 105: Reflecting upon what the work Elias
Page 106 and 107: interpretation contagion underlines
Page 108 and 109: From a political perspective framin
Page 110 and 111: whether a conclusion would be reali
Page 112 and 113: Self-knowing At the end “all know
Page 114 and 115: mental with generic implications an
Page 116 and 117: Looking back on my rather cognitivi
Page 118 and 119: 116 5
Page 120 and 121: In 2012 as any UAS the UAS had to d
Page 122 and 123: with our management information sys
Page 124 and 125: control, someone deludes you to thi
Page 126 and 127: discussions as the deadline came ne
Page 128 and 129: start for me in the midst of Februa
Page 130 and 131: usyness and glamour of the ambition
Page 132 and 133: Theories of change have built up ma
Page 134 and 135: 5.4 Reflections from a complex resp
Page 136 and 137: ences are more important than other
Page 138 and 139: should be the motto for spontaneous
Page 140 and 141: they still may be dealing with the
Page 142 and 143: possibility of involving a lot of p
Page 144 and 145: ight way this time. These strategy
Page 146 and 147: 144 6
Page 148 and 149: In recent years journalists reporte
Page 150 and 151: actual situation. A discussion whic
Page 152 and 153: you act and its implications. I exp
Page 156 and 157: A next meeting will be planned to r
Page 158 and 159: Table 2: Different discourses regar
Page 160 and 161: ecome ‘glass cages’ (Gabriel (2
Page 162 and 163: However, as mentioned before, the q
Page 164 and 165: esilient. Amongst others they sugge
Page 166 and 167: it is common sense that we are huma
Page 168 and 169: gen, 1999) Mead exemplifies that ou
Page 170 and 171: ject, partly because I had set out
Page 172 and 173: less detailed planning or putting f
Page 174 and 175: 172 7
Page 176 and 177: A title at the front page of a thes
Page 178 and 179: Before returning to them I recapitu
Page 180 and 181: led a discussion about an internali
Page 182 and 183: First encounter with the joker In p
Page 184 and 185: panoptical psychological pressure,
Page 186 and 187: address to when things go not as be
Page 188 and 189: A recent example of rumbling on per
Page 190 and 191: ons. As a subject as such performat
Page 192 and 193: Apparently an ironic or mocking sta
Page 194 and 195: dissent to develop opportunities to
Page 196 and 197: Analysis, reflexivity, researcher
Page 198 and 199: general sense my research was autho
Page 200 and 201: in the chapter 6 this already happe
Page 202 and 203: 3 councils for teachers / lecturers
Page 204 and 205:
7.8 Concluding remarks: a reconstru
Page 206 and 207:
204 References
Page 208 and 209:
Ankersmit, F. (2008). De plaag van
Page 210 and 211:
Commissie onderzoek financiële pro
Page 212 and 213:
Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world i
Page 214 and 215:
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (200
Page 216 and 217:
Mingers, J. (1992). Technical, prac
Page 218 and 219:
Science Guide. (2012b). Prestatiebe
Page 220 and 221:
Tedlock, B. (2013). Section three i
Page 222 and 223:
Wit, B. d. (2013). Spiegelpaleis on
Page 224 and 225:
Nederlandse samenvatting 222
Page 226 and 227:
Radicaal reflexief onderzoek: theor
Page 228 and 229:
Met de onderscheiden theoretische o
Page 230 and 231:
Ook de vraag naar de aard en inhoud
Page 232 and 233:
entiteit is, maar dat de diverse be
Page 234 and 235:
232 Summary
Page 236 and 237:
perspective it comes down to the pr
Page 238 and 239:
ger always kept a bit of an ambival
Page 240 and 241:
king became visible, a way of decis
Page 242:
240
show all

Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?