Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

try to. Instead of excluding the values and beliefs of the researcher, it is a premise that
only by acknowledging the discriminations you make based on your values and beliefs,
a sensible conversation about a situation is possible (Dalal, 2012).
However, the conclusion that a radically reflexive complex responsive process-approach
is embedded in different, long standing but critical traditions regarding research
within OMS, still begs the question whether this kind of research can be assessed as
sound research. In a traditional sense sound research has to do with the question how
relevance and internal and external validity of the research is taken responsibility for. It
is this question which also should be answered by researchers working from a complex
responsive process perspective.
If I take two recent publications (Mowles, 2011; Stacey, 2012b) within the tradition of a
complex responsive process-approach as a touchstone, I wonder why there is no or
little discussion about the radically reflexive perspective in doing research. The reflexive
perspective is legitimized within the boundaries of the own tradition of a
complex responsive process-approach. Almost no discussions about the radically
reflexive point of departure for research with the broader methodological community
can be found. To me it appears to be obvious to reflect upon the taken for granted
assumptions of radically reflexivity.
This lack of discussions unintentionally suggests that a complex responsive processapproach
is unique and maybe even suffers from self-complacency. However, uniqueness
would contradict the existence of a complex responsive process-approach because
precisely from a complexity perspective we learn to see reality as an evolving
pattern. Self-complacency would contradict the importance which within a complex
responsive process-approach is assigned to the responsiveness of social interaction.
Given the assumptions within a complex responsive process-approach a connection
with broader methodological issues should be made (see for a first elaborated attempt
Homan, 2014), to learn and to understand what you are doing in doing research from a
radically reflexive perspective as evolving from a complex responsive process-approach.
Learning is a matter of interdependency (Stacey, 2003) and if a complex responsive
process-approach is to be taken seriously by the larger scientific community a
position within that community should be argued.
To develop arguments to position a complex responsive process-approach within a
larger scientific community once again I present a next excursion, this time to introduce
auto-ethnography as an expression of radically reflexive research. The soundness
of auto-ethnographic research is heavily debated, but this debate will help to clarify
some issues around a complex responsive process-approach. The debates around
auto-ethnography enable me to develop a set of criteria and questions which may be
used to discuss the quality of my research.
2. Research from a complex responsive process-approach | 39