Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

egarding examinations, certificates, expenses claims or working conditions. He also
investigates whether and how intended policy is realized. Apart from these tasks he is
sometimes approached for advice or asked to mediate. To be able to do his job his
independence with regard to the board is vouched for by a covenant. By that he has
admission to all meetings and documents, and is free in giving advice. I had a second
discussion with someone who I characterize as an external coach for senior managers,
with amongst others the assignment of a jester (Baaren et al., 2007; Raad, 2008). For
already 25 years he counselled senior managers by discussing confidentially with them
their dilemma’s, suggesting some advice and by confronting them with other perspectives
or their blind spots. A third conversation I had with a colleague from another UAS
about the way he fulfilled his job. I had heard that he had presented himself as a kind
of sweeper or libero in his UAS. The conversation with him became reflexive because
he felt invited to reflect upon the way he acted and succeeded in doing things. Halfway
our conversation I expressed that I thought he was a bricoleur (Duymedjian and
Ruling, 2010), meant as someone who on the basis of his experience and expertise is
able to listen to and to connect other people and to produce effective results on often
touchy dossiers. To his own surprise he could identify with what I expressed.
These persons have different assignments than mine, work for a part in different
circumstances. But based on my conversations with them I assume that my experiences
and my acting resonate with them and will have some relevance in reflecting upon
their own jobs.
If I only read the news in the last few months I see a shooting up discussion about the
controversial character of the effects of performativity whether in healthcare or
education. Topics like ‘Dutch Monster’ (Oostrom, 2015), ‘Quick-fit’- healthcare (Effting,
2015), ‘tick-off-list’-treatment (Stoffelen, 2015) and ‘Carried too far rationalization’
(Sommer, 2015) passed in review. If only to understand how difficult meaningful discussions
about these topics are, my research has something to add to these discussions.
Ethical matters
I recapitulate briefly what I stated in chapter 2, where I clarified how I had taken
responsibility for ethical issues regarding my research. I like to emphasize again that
the only person to hold responsible for the analyses and reflections am I. The narratives
as such were read by the specific people involved, but not with the intention that
they had to agree on everything. I asked for correction of distortions in perception and
mistakes. I left out any remark regarding personal matters or personal relations in the
narratives. In the narratives the specific people have a pseudonym, based on the
initials of their function. My conclusion is that in terms of informed and process consent
I was careful regarding the interests of the specific people involved. None of the
involved objected to this research or objected to be published about, neither had some
second thoughts about being involved in it. Being embedded in a learning group and
writing about present-day situations prevention of scientific fraud is provided for. In a
7. <strong>Rumbling</strong> on performativity: a reflexive perspective on advisory work | 195