Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

The Stapel-affair evolved amidst of my research and I realized that radically reflexive
research is vulnerable for accusations of fraud because of the “personal” basis of the
research.
However, the way of doing research within a complex responsive process-approach by
working intensively in a learning group has created beforehand an environment in
which fraud is prevented. From the beginning as a researcher I was confronted with
strict demands in regard of narrating, analysing and reflecting. Demands which in
principle make it impossible to fake.
Faking still might possible by inventing stories behind your computer screen. The
ethical obligation to have the narratives read by the people involved prevents this kind
of fraud.
Although measures for prevention of fraud were not taken at the beginning of my
research I consider myself fortunate to have retained most of the written comments
of the people involved and of the members of the learning group. Moreover, I kept a
notebook, in which I articulated reflections during the whole PhD-project. If needed
my movement of thought can be controlled by external supervisors. Due to the discussions
about scientific fraud for my last project I even arranged that the involved
people in the project signed my reports about the sessions we had. I did not ask them
to sign for agreement, but to sign for having seen the report, with some space for
remarks.
It would be wise that in the near future some rules about the controllability of radically
reflexive research are formulated. Rules which must be seen as an obligation the
researcher has to pay attention to, given his specific responsibility as a researcher.
2.6 Sound research from the perspective of a complex
responsive process-approach
With the reflections in this chapter in mind and based on the used literature, I propose
a set of criteria which I find useful to evaluate my research. Because I am warned not
to develop an alternate set of criteria which starts to function as a universal set of
criteria within a reflexive context (Alvesson et al., 2008; Deetz, 1996; Denzin, 2014;
Koch and Harrington, 1998) I am not pretending that these criteria are to be used for
any kind of reflexive research. The criteria are developed for my research, although
they may inspire other researchers. Within the realm of a complex responsive processapproach
these criteria can be seen as enabling and constraining research at the same
time. The criteria will be constraining if they are contaminated with the suggestion of
universalism. The criteria will be enabling as an invitation to reflect on what you are
doing as a researcher. The criteria might be adapted to and supplemented in regard of
someone’s other case.
2. Research from a complex responsive process-approach | 59