Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

This chapter is a methodological chapter in which he different aspects of doing research
from a complex responsive process-perspective are specified and accounted
for. First of all I will go into the basic notions of a complex responsive process-approach,
among others by highlighting the different components of its label. The concepts
‘complexity’, ‘responsiveness’ and ‘process’ will pass in review to be explained (see 2.1).
The three concepts point to a radically reflexive way of doing research. I will elaborate
on what reflexive research implies regarding a complex responsive process-approach
(see 2.2). By offering brief excursions to some philosophical and methodological discussions
about science I hope to legitimize a complex responsive process-approach in
a broader perspective. Building on that I will pay attention to the way relevance and
external and internal validity as standards for thorough research, are to be accounted
for (see 2.3). For that I will appreciatively make use of discussions which have evolved
with regard to auto-ethnography. Auto-ethnography is an approach within the realm
of insider research, which on different aspects is comparable with a complex responsive
process-approach. A brief excursion to auto-ethnography will underpin the
similarities. An assessment of auto-ethnography with regard to a complex responsive
process-approach will help me to substantiate for my research (see 2.4). Moreover,
auto-ethnography will be of help to deepen ethical issues, which inevitably entail my
research due to its radically reflexive character (see 2.5). I will end with a set of criteria
and questions which may be used to discuss the quality of my (kind of) research
(see 2.6).
2.1 Basic notions of a complex responsive process-approach
I start with emphasizing that a complex responsive process-approach and its key
aspects are not a theoretical frame which I adopted preceding my research. At the
start I had some affinity with social constructionist and narratively based research and
as mentioned, I had doubts about the relevance of management theory related to the
planned development, implementation and realization of institutional policy. In the
beginning I had to familiarise myself with the way of working within a complex responsive
process-approach and its methods for my PhD-research. Narrating, analysing,
discussing and reflecting upon my experiences helped me to advance my understanding
of what I was doing in the activities and projects in my work. The development of
my understanding of a complex responsive process-approach was not a separate
activity, detached from my (or someone else’s) work. I learned from being involved in
the activities in my work and narrating, analysing and reflecting upon them. And I
learned that this way of doing research leads to some surprising insights regarding the
organizational reality I work in, regarding my position as an adviser to the board and
regarding other perspectives upon organizational life within OMS.
To state what I came to understand in a rather abstract way: in due course I understood
that in my kind of research ontology and epistemology are indistinguishable.
This means that a complex responsive process-approach implies a way of understan-
26