Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

2 Consult your institutional review board. Translated in more general terms this
implicates that your research should suffice the prescriptions regarding morally
justified research. Consulting should not be done in an administrative way but by
actively engaging others in a discussion about your research.
3 Get informed consent. Be sure that involved or participants consent with your
research as early as possible, consent which should be based on respect for autonomy,
voluntariness and being informed.
4 Practice process consent and explore the ethics of consequence. Consent at the
beginning of the research should be followed up by keeping on discussing about
what is happening during the research and what may be potential findings. Participants
must be able to reflect upon their participation during the whole research
process.
5 Do a member check. Afford those who appear in the research opportunities to
comment and correct interpretations and observations and even to rescind.
6 Do not present publicly or publish anything you would not show the persons mentioned
in the text. Even if persons never will have access to what is published about
them, this guideline reflects a thoughtful honesty.
7 Do not underestimate the afterlife of a published narrative. Consider what might be
the consequences for participants and yourself as researcher after the publication.
Different audiences might read different things in your narrative.
The guidelines provide a good starting point for doing radically reflexive research.
However, Etherington (2004) and Tolich (2010) emphasize power issues surrounding
research. For participants it will not be easy to rescind given their initial consent. A
researcher has professional power and of course professional interests in the output of
his research. From an ethnographic perspective O’Reilly (2005) states that guidelines
are helpful that they do not offer a solution in all cases. Especially if research is innovative,
guidelines can be too restrictive. Ethical considerations should keep the researcher
reflexive and critical. An auto-ethnographic account of the researcher could help
to balance the power between the researched and researcher by revealing the insecurities
and powerlessness in academia (O'Reilly, 2005). So once more it comes down to
situational craftsmanship of the researcher to account for what he or she is doing.
Taken the seven ethical commandments as point of departure I conclude that privacy
and political implications can be taken care of. Taken care in the sense that potential
hazards are recognized, and that informed consent in advance and during the research
process must be guaranteed. Against being accused of spying (Brannick and Coghlan,
2007) there is no general remedy, except to be as clear as possible about the purpose
of the research and the measures taken to ensure privacy. Writing under a pseudonym
or pseudonyms for participants might help a bit.
To conclude it is obvious that within an auto-ethnographic tradition ethical awareness
has captured attention. Given the often lifelike, personal and recognizable narratives
which are written, this awareness should be indisputable for any research where
56