Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

A title at the front page of a thesis suggests that the subject of the thesis is clear from
the onset and that the reader has to read the thesis with the main subject in the back
of his mind. As indicated in chapter 1 the title is the outcome of my research process
and ideally should have emerged to the reader in his reading, more or less the same
way as it did for me during my research. However, empty front pages do not attract
readers. To attract readers titles on the front page do have a habit of revealing the
climax of the research, unintentionally suggesting that the research aimed at this
climax. As if there is no research process to go through before concluding what the
research has brought, as if there were no surprises.
In this chapter I will reflect upon my research, its process and its findings. Amongst
others I will clarify why the chosen title offers a binding perspective on what I did.
Moreover, this chapter has apart from its reviewing purpose, the purpose of synthetizing
and gaining a more in-depth reflection on all the findings, the analyses and
reflections regarding the major subjects which emerged during the research process.
In a general sense I will bring the four narratives (including the one about my taken for
granted assumptions), the analyses and reflections in the different chapters reflexively
together into a final plot. A plot about what is at stake in my narratives and what I
fancy with my findings. I will try to provide answer to questions like how did rumbling
on indicated by ‘time for interruption’ emerge from my research? What has ‘time for
interruption’ to do with me, with the work I did and am doing? And in what kind of
context am I doing that? What about advisory work and rumbling on performativity?
Furthermore, there are questions about my responsibility as a researcher when I write
about my colleagues, and reveal things from behind the scenes. How do I take responsibility
for the potential consequences of my research? And of course there are also
things to say about the chosen method. Is research from a ‘personal’ or from a complex
responsive process-perspective sound research? What are its specific contributions
towards the field of OMS? Are they useful? Are the findings different from other
research?
To clarify the title of this thesis and to offer an in-depth reflection I have to answer the
many questions which are relevant with regard to my research. More specific I will
retake the three questions posed at the end of chapter 2 with regard to my movement
of thought, the potential resonance of my findings and my ethical responsibilities as a
researcher. For the answers to these questions I will depart amongst others from the
set of criteria for rigorous radically reflexive research which I proposed in chapter 2.
The three questions will be completed with questions regarding conclusions which can
be made with regard to my advisory work, with regard to the contribution of my
research to the field of OMS and with regard to doing research from a complex responsive
process-approach.
174