Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

facts (for instance what did someone exactly say, or time and place) or if my interpretation
of what happened would produce a too distorted picture of the one involved.
In total this generated three changes in my narratives, other than about facts. In the
narrative on the project on identity-management I added some nuances in my perception
of the intentions of two of the persons involved. In the narrative on consent I
did not come to terms with one of the persons involved about the interpretation of
what was said and I left out the passage about that specific moment.
In the narratives the specific people have a pseudonym, based on the initials of their
function. For outsiders these pseudonyms give some protection against potential
indiscretions or violations of privacy. Of course insiders know who are involved. So
there starts the responsibility for the reader to deal carefully with what is read.
To provide in carefulness from my side in the narratives I left out any remark regarding
personal matters or personal relations. If in the heat of the discussion undiplomatic
language was used, I left that out. Unavoidably this leads to an impression that discussions
are more civilized than in reality.
I conclude that in terms of informed and process consent I was careful regarding the
interests of the specific people involved. None of the involved objected to this research
or about the publication. No one had some second thoughts about being involved in it.
Still a lot of other people are involved, sometimes because they appear in the narratives,
although rather anonymously. A lot of other people are always involved, because
I am writing about their organization. The best I can hope for is that they will recognize
what I am writing about.
Still there is the ethics of consequence. What will happen when outsiders read about
the micro-politics within the UAS? I will return to that issue in the final chapter, although
of course I cannot predict what will happen.
To prevent Stapelism: fraud and controllability of radically reflexive research
In recent years the worldwide scientific community was stirred up by the Stapel- affair.
Stapel is a world famous scientist who appeared to have committed fraud on a
large scale with his data. Due to this affair, which came to light in 2011, recommendations
were made to prevent fraud (Commissie Levelt et al., 2012). Basically trust in the
intentions of scientists must be upheld. However, it is suggested to create learning and
research environments which embed scientists in a professional culture where fraud is
excluded. Specifically it is recommended to arrange strict management and control of
research data, thereby amongst others enabling replication of the research.
58