Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

Together the elements of the mixture suggest an explanation for the ongoing ambivalence
about how I was acting in my work at the start of my research. Basically I was
inspired by the wish to involve people as much as possible, practically charged with a
lot of responsibilities and reflexively observing that things turned out differently.
However, I also notice that I was focussed on social interactions, communication and
on stimulating cooperation. I was interested in what people do when accomplishing
something together.
At the start what I would be doing for my research was explored and still wide and
open. I entered my research with the idea of doing research into co-creativity related
to using the wisdom of the crowd. At that time it was meant to flow into an idea how
institutional strategy could be developed in a participative way based on among
others recent insights in neurological sciences. However, getting acquainted with a
complex responsive process-perspective, almost instantly I started to sense that
co-creativity and wisdom of the crowds is always there, but in quite another fashion
than I assumed. In the way I came to learn that ‘wisdom’ emerges in social interaction,
also my research themes and questions started to change and other themes emerged.
In what follows it will become clear that my reflection upon and the confrontation of a
complex responsive process-approach with my existing co-creative orientations -
which of course were entangled with my former beliefs and experiences - have led me
towards other and new orientations on what is happening in the UAS, what my job is
and what might (not) be done. To anticipate: the more or less utopian - or maybe
patronizing - assumptions within a co-creative approach or within a concept like the
wisdom of the crowds will be traded in for concepts like unpredictability, uncertainty,
modesty and being reticent about the possibilities of planned reform of education.
The way I got acquainted with a complex responsive process-approach is to be noticed
in this first narrative. Predominantly I use ideas of Mead and Stacey to connect them
to my way of thinking in a rather analytical and book smart way. Mostly I used the
work of Mead and Stacey to support what I was thinking, and not the other way
around. I came to experience that my book smartness - endless I was called - proofed
to be quite an obstacle to grasp the value of a complex responsive process-approach. I
came to learn quite some lessons.
In my description of my taken for granted assumptions I also recognize what within
auto-ethnography is labelled as the importance of epiphanies (Denzin, 2014). I realize
that I reconstructed my history with the help of meaningful biographical events. In my
case for instance with the help of the hypocrite priest or the manager who decided
about my future with the speed of light.
Being more aware of my taken for granted assumptions I started to narrate on some
of my experiences in my work. The first and next narrative is about a project regarding
identity-management.
3. My taken for granted assumptions as a researcher | 85