Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

one's own job security. Here again there can be no general ethical rule, only the contingent
negotiation of how to proceed in particular situations so that the research
work does not create undue risks for the researcher.” (Stacey and Griffin, 2005: 26).
I agree with Stacey and Griffin that what actually will happen is contingent upon the
situation as it evolves. However, to state twice that what a researcher does is contingent
upon the situation and that there is no general rule in regard of ethical issues,
seems to me a matter of an overdone wish for consistency in regard of their own
propositions about the localness of what happens. I have three arguments to criticize
this rather ‘situationistic’ stance.
First of all within science there are strict guidelines about what and how to research. It
is good to remind that every research is framed within general ethical imperatives
regarding research (Creswell, 2007). Furthermore these imperatives have to do with
respect for the right of self-determination of participants and are not only there to
protect the researcher. The imperatives are about being honest in analysing data,
avoiding plagiarism and to organize controllability of your research. Moreover, an
ethical awareness is advisable because of liability for unintended suffering due to
research (e.g. APA, 2002). Cautiousness is needed. Ethical considerations are demanded
before the actual research.
My second argument is methodological. If for good reasons ontology and epistemology
are not separated within a complex responsive process-approach, if the boundaries
of what and how to research are blurred, an ethical reflection is indicated. The
blurred boundaries between ontology and epistemology implicate that values and
norms are omnipresent, embedded in what you do and in what you are doing to know.
Not only ontology and epistemology cannot be differentiated, but neither can axiology.
There is power in truth (Foucault, 1980). Thus values and norms are a powerful
matter of facts in research from a complex responsive process perspective. Therefore
ethical considerations should play an important role in a radically reflexive approach
before and during the research.
Thirdly, the stance taken by Stacey and Griffin suggests a kind of loose appreciation of
the historicity of human ethical behaviour. In an elaborated analysis of human history
Stuurman (2009) exemplifies how ethical convictions have a history of more than
2800 years. It took a long time for human beings to understand themselves as being
part of humankind and to develop ethical ideas about mutual relating. Given the
longstanding effort in human history to build up some sort of ethical awareness there
is no arbitrary un-ethical situation or participant. Ethics are present in any situation.
Therefore again, I think that a researcher has explicit and strong obligations regarding
ethical dimensions of research. Especially in regard with radically reflexive research
there are obligations because the researcher initiates a special situation within an
intimate situation. The fact that the researcher takes the initiative of doing research
and is writing about other people, and is taking the risk of hostile responses, empha-
54