Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

alternate set of criteria could turn out as a habitual ceremonial legitimization, this
time in a reflexive context (Alvesson et al., 2008) and on their turn these new conventions
would silence cultural criticism (Denzin, 2014). It could become a ‘criteriological’
pitfall (Koch and Harrington, 1998). I will come back to this hesitation when presenting
the standards to assess my research.
On transferability as a form of generalizability, reliability and validity
If basically is postulated that knowledge is contingent upon perspective, place and
time, the meaning and usefulness of the concepts reliability, validity and generalizability
are altered within an auto-ethnographic perspective (Ellis et al., 2011). Reliability, as
a condition for internal validity, is translated into the question whether the narrator
really could have had these experiences; from an ethnographic perspective if the
narrator has been there (O'Reilly, 2005). The research should be authentic, credible or
plausible; social interactions and events should be imaginable by those involved and by
readers. External validity is translated into the question whether the research seeks
verisimilitude: is it lifelike, believable and possible in the eye of the readers? At least the
research “ ... must make sense to others, resonate with the experience of others and
be persuasive to them.” (Stacey and Griffin, 2005: 27). Generalizability is translated in
the question whether the research connects to the experiences of the reader, if the
research makes sense with the audience’s own sense making (Cunliffe and Coupland,
2012) . Writing about her experiences as an Indian immigrant to the USA Pathak (2013)
endorses that her story should be accountable in relation with the stories of other
immigrants, contextual in relation with the societal surrounding, truthful concerning
the openness about the experiences and connected to others who participate in the
same community.
Generalizability, reliability and validity thus are translated in transferability, implying
that the results of the research will not point to a shared ontological social reality, but
to a recognition of and maybe identification with conceivable experiences. I would say,
even conceivable for non-members of the community wherein the research is undertaken.
From the standpoint of Verschuren (2009) transferability would be an expression
of the understandability, acceptance and legitimacy of the research. One might
speak of ecological validity, being “… the degree to which the behaviors observed and
recorded in a study reflect the behaviors that actually occur in natural settings.” (Agar,
2013: 37).
I will use transferability as one of the standards to assess my research. For a thorough
understanding of this transferability it is essential to emphasize that within a complex
responsive process-approach the individual is never interpreted in an atomistic, individualistic
or autonomous way. Within a complex responsive process-approach the self
is only a self because it is born within a particular society, constantly arising in interactions
with others (Mowles, 2011). If the individual is individual only as far as the individual
can be understood as a social being, then individual experiences by definition
reflect shared - but not identical - experiences. Verisimilitude therefore only is to be
50