Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

persons and organizations are retraceable. Moreover, given the generally societal
prestige of science ethical awareness is adamant.
However, from what I read in auto-ethnographic articles (Alexander, 2014; Boylorn,
2013, 2014; Hao, 2014; Johnson, 2014; Mingé, 2013; Mingé and Sterner, 2014; Morella-
Pozzi, 2014; Pathak, 2013; Yomtoo, 2014) I notice that ethical accounts of involving
other persons are missing despite the articulated guidelines (Tullis, 2013) and the
criticism on this point (Tolich, 2010). Frentz (2008) is a rare exception by stating that
he used pseudonyms. Whether the involved participants are informed and in which
way the researcher has taken care of the consequences of the publication remains
unknown in almost all publications. As far as I am familiar with auto-ethnographic
research sometimes the proclaimed ethical awareness sounds a bit hypocrite.
Even if the ethical accounts are missing in auto-ethnographic publications I still see no
reason to abstain from them in my own research.
About my narratives: informed and process consent
Talking with one of my colleagues about my research the colleague assumed that my
thesis after being finished would be a bestseller within the UAS. At once his response
again faced me up to the fact that an ethical account for my research is important.
Unintentionally I can harm people within or interests of the UAS. At the same time I
realize that from my experience things are as they are. I cannot undo things; the only
thing I can do is to take responsibility for the way I took care of informed and process
consent, and the way I write about it.
A basic consideration is to make a very strict distinction between the narratives and
the analyses and reflections upon the narratives. The analyses and reflections are
mine, meaning that they are on account of me as a researcher participating in the
learning group. They are sometimes read by some of the people involved, just to
inform. The only person to be held responsible for the analyses and reflections am I.
In a general sense my research was authorized by the President of the Board. With
him I discussed beforehand what kind of research this would be – as far as I understood
this at the beginning of my research – to get his approval. During the research
he read my narratives and reflections, not to correct them, but to read what I was writing
about the UAS. In principle he had the possibility to prevent to publish about
some issues. It never occurred.
The narratives as such are read by the specific people involved. Before starting to
write about them I informed them about my research, I asked their approval of being
written about and promised that they would be able to read and to comment on the
narratives. In discussing the narratives - sometimes in person, sometimes by e-mail - I
emphasised that the narratives were my perception of the situation and in the event
of disagreement I would correct the narratives as far as the disagreement was about
2. Research from a complex responsive process-approach | 57