Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

pens with the results of the research. For both N/n-types of research the researcher
should pay attention to the way these criteria are to be met.
According to Verschuren internal and external validity are demanded for any kind of
research. Internal validity refers to the question whether what is researched is really
the matter for the persons or the subject which are researched. External validity refers
to the question whether the findings of the research, which are based on research in a
sample, are generalizable to a larger population. Even for reflective research, which
according to Verschuren is a research by using logical argumentation, thought-experiments,
introspection or empathy (“Verstehen”), internal and external validity are
demanded. Within Verschuren’s approach it is adamant that a researcher should
protect him or herself against errors. Errors regarding internal validity concern errors
in design of the research, in perception and in the processing of data. Errors regarding
external validity concern errors regarding sampling or the artificiality of the research
environment.
That any kind of research should be internally and externally valid points to the basic
propositions of Verschuren. In Verschuren’s approach it is basic that through research
objectivity is to be discovered. Verschuren (2009: 59) states that “ … errors … lead to
producing research materials which do not correspond with the ontological reality”.
His methodological relativism does not go that far that he includes research in which
basically the claim on an ontological objectivity is left behind. Therefore according to
Verschuren every kind of research should, apart from being valid and controllable, add
something to the body of knowledge, should make a cumulative contribution. Although
he acknowledges the possibility of insider research (n-type) the position of the
inside researcher still would be endangered by a lack of objectivity. The inside researcher
can “… become involved in coalitions, by which his impartiality becomes a hard
case.” (Verschuren, 2009: 251). In fact Verschuren advocates the researcher as an
independent or impartial spectator.
Concluding it may be clear that Verschuren on the one side accepts many ways of
doing research for which different criteria for soundness of the research apply. On the
other side Verschuren frames these criteria by holding on to an impartial researcher in
search for some objectivity. That is why Verschuren departs from the idea that for any
kind of research, demands from inside science like internal and external validity, must
be accounted for. It is interesting to learn if Verschuren from his methodological
relativistic point of view accepts approaches in which impartiality and objectivity are
disclaimed.
A critical evaluation of Verschuren’s approach
Verschuren departs from an impartial researcher looking for some objective knowledge.
However, to my idea he misreads a critical and emancipatory approach of
research, even in his own presentation of this approach. Although, by misreading this
approach he confirms in a paradoxical - and probably unintended - way the need for a
46