Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

interested in the research. In these different communities different sets for the quality
of research are used, accordingly the use of findings from a complex responsive process-perspective
will be assessed from difference viewpoints. Briefly I explore some
possibilities.
A positivistic community
For the mainstream, on positivism oriented scientific community my findings could be
used in an explorative fashion as data from a radically reflexive perspective which can
generate new hypotheses and new themes for further research.
It could be interesting to take up further research into the presence and impact of
corporate jesters or bricoleurs within organizations with regard to the development
and attainability of policy. Apparently in practice a bricoleur with a touch of irony is
needed to bridge the many differences. The characteristics of this ‘mechanic for
montage’ (in line with Denzin and Lincoln, 1994) is to be explored along the call for a
corporate jester (Firth and Leigh, 1998; Kets de Vries, 1993; Raad, 2008; Riveness,
2006), the need for a mediating link (Christakis and Fowler, 2010; Csermely, 2009) and
of a bricoleur (Duymedjian and Ruling, 2010; Fuglsang and Sørensen, 2011; Gabriel,
2002; Weick, 2001). It may even be that what in hindsight at the beginning of my
PhD-research I characterized as my fuzzy mixture of different perspectives on life,
work or management, is a precondition for being a bricoleur with a touch of irony.
The community of advisers and managers
The community of readers – in my case members of my organization and advisers in
other organizations or managers – would be interested in the practical value of this
research. Positioning my research as practice-based of an n-type (Verschuren, 2009;
see 2.3), I assume that my research could help to be more susceptible to dissenting
opinions in order to prevent derailments, which might be evolving or lying in ambush.
Is this perspective the pragmatic value of my research might also be worthwhile for
other organizations. When neither policy-development nor policy-implementation
appears to a linear and rational process and inevitably involves the participation -
whether constructive, indifferent or destructive from whatever point of view - of
many, then exclusion or suppression of opinions could be hazardous. The research
underlines that managers suffer from tensions and ambiguity in coping with the
introduction of NPM-oriented policy (Christopher and Leung, 2015; Vakkuri, 2010), and
supposedly will be still doing that for a long time (Lapsley, 2008). In reality there may
be (created) far more opportunities to discuss the whereabouts of policy.
Critical self-reflection for professionals
For a performative quality of the research - performative in a pedagogical interpretation
- it is interesting to ask whether the research triggers critical reflection about the
reader’s life and work situation. Is the research sensitizing the reader to its own political
behaviour? If my findings resonate they could have impact on colleagues who read
my thesis and start reflecting about their interactions within the UAS. As mentioned
7. <strong>Rumbling</strong> on performativity: a reflexive perspective on advisory work | 197