Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

the realization of the UAS as a learning organization (Simon and Ploeg, 2009)? And
what was exactly meant when we were busy with this change? Did we have or develop
some common purposes and vision in doing this or is our relatively success dependent
on not defining a common vision too strict? And how does this change correspond
with the planning and control approach dominant in many years and the success
the UAS has according to its ranking and the almost general high work satisfaction?
Or are we an organization which only muddles through with no common perspective
needed? Or are we cleverly adapting to whatever is the newspeak in the headlines of
the journals, of the governmental policy or gurus of organization development? What
are the stories within the UAS which explain what we are doing and how we succeed
and fail in accomplishing things? In general an interesting question is which narratives
were composed for which particular audience at which particular moment and on
what taken-for-granted-discourses and values in which particular culture did these
narratives draw (Kohler Riessman, 2008).
For this moment I conclude that UAS has not yet fulfilled its promises regarding cocreativity
it intended. The UAS seems to waver between a thrifty elaborated ideal of
co-creativity and bottom up thinking, and old habits of top down, hastiness, supposed
external pressure and blue print-approaches. There is no common frame of reference
to evaluate what and how the UAS is developing and implementing policy. A question
is whether a common frame is necessary and if so possible, or if the battle between
the co-creative and top down-discourses will go on forever?
I conclude that my experiences in management and the design of policy are susceptible
for different explanations. I started with a strong statement about my paradigm as
a reflection of what I have learned, but my statement suggests too much that it is a
coherent and well-founded way of thinking. I come to understand my paradigm is a
hybrid and loosely coupled compilation of different arguments, interpretations and
experiences. On a theoretical level my paradigm is not consistent and on a practical
level it is ambiguous. Therefore questions about policy development in which the
wisdom of the crowd should play a part, have a theoretical and practical relevance.
Doing research on the justifiability of my paradigm should indicate ways towards more
consistency and un-ambiguity.
The questions and my ideas about my research
At this moment I see the many questions as stated above and condensed in what I call
wavering between a bottom up and a top down approach of ‘doing policy’ as the
context to start my research. The questions point to my experiences and perceptions
of my work, and the way I problematize my work and it what direction I am looking
for solutions at this moment.
I see my research as motivated by a fourfold curiosity. First, I am curious about what is
happening before and during periods of profound change and what to learn from this
reality check. It is a curiosity about how a ‘real reality’ is constructed during the pro-
80