Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

Analysis, reflexivity, researcher’s bias, movement of thought
The research is structured by working in a learning group and by making use of narratives
witch are evaluated in terms of authenticity and relevance, and analytical and
reflexive potential. My narratives give evidence of these evaluations. However, for now
to me it seems that the portrayal of my taken for granted assumptions is slightly
overdone. In their detail it appeared almost impossible to relate them very specifically
to how I acted as described in the narratives. There is still something to work out
regarding radically reflexive research. Taken as a portrayal of my original interests in
doing research in my organization, a comparison of the narrative about my taken for
granted assumptions with the final conclusions of the research exemplify and underpin
my movement of thought, alongside some kind of my tenacity which of course
influences - but not dictates! - the course of events. From the wisdom of the crowd to
a corporate jester to a bricoleur with an ironic touch in times of performativity is quite
a winding road. Moreover, I belief I came to understand what a complex responsive
process-approach implies.
Being a full member of the community
A discussion about me being a member of the different and temporary communities
within the larger community of the UAS is obsolete. My research is done as an observant
and participant of which the other members of the community were aware.
Every time I communicated in advance about the fact that my work would be the
subject of research I was undertaking.
Good narratives
For me it is hard to evaluate if my narratives offer a clear, challenging, careful and
enriching perspective on the situations, social interactions and/or activities as experienced
by me. As far as I am concerned the narratives suffice these criteria, but at this
point I leave an evaluation to the reader. The different members of staff who are
involved in and read the narratives at least affirmed that the narratives where real and
imaginable from my point of view.
The research should be transferable
Transferability should imply the analysis, reflections and conclusion of the researcher
must resonate, be recognised and understandable by people who are working in more
or less the same circumstances. As far as people of the UAS have read the work I see
that it resonates and for instance someone starts to tell that he is a bit embarrassed
how things are going (chapter 5) or tells that the discussions changed his way of acting
(chapter 6). As far as external people are involved it is hard to evaluate at this moment.
A slight indication may be given.
During the discussions about dissent I had a conversations with three different people
outside the UAS. I approached them, having heard that they were perceived as more
or less as a jester. A first conversation I had with a colleague of another UAS who is
formally appointed as Head Corporate Control. Part of his work is to prevent fraud
194