Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

A recent example of rumbling on performativity within the UAS is the drawing up of a
vision on education for the whole UAS. Primarily this was not organized as an opportunity
to discuss why and how we are doing things, but organized in such a way that
we could get our institutional accreditation. Its content hardly counts. Just having one
is important.
However, based on my narratives, my analyses and reflections I notice that the perseverance
by which performativity apparently is introduced can also count on some
perseverance to resist it. Social reality appeared to be far more complicated in its
‘realness’ than the blueprint of performativity presupposes.
Performativity debated: a brief retrospect on the narratives
What I described as a wavering university as a context for my research (chapter 3) I
can now specify as a context where managers (including me) among themselves were
discussing the best way to stimulate developments – as defined or prescribed in our
policy - within the UAS. Reflecting on my narratives I become aware of the fact that
everybody also was (and is) keeping on appropriating the management-roles as dictated
by NPM, and at the same time is feeling uncomfortable with what and how we are
doing things.
As may be clear from the narratives, the appropriation of performativity is not oneway-traffic.
The invasion of a NPM-orientedness in its different expressions is still
debated. For instance as policy is experienced as technocratic and an identity-management
programme as perverse. It is obvious that NPM is not something unilaterally
decreed and wholeheartedly internalized by senior management. Even within
senior management perspectives are different, alternating and inconsistent/situational.
Specifically the 3rd narrative expresses a longing for something else.
Identity-management
Although an identity-management programme typically fits in NPM-oriented management,
it becomes clear in narrative two (chapter 4) that what in practice is concluded
and accepted is a mixture of different arguments, positions, interests, stubbornness,
contradictions, tactical behaviour and ideals. The conclusions are not a
straight forward, linear, logical and rational result. In the end the conclusions regarding
the evaluation report have become an attainable compromise of many things. To
illustrate this more specifically with regard to performativity, it can be noticed how
during the discussions in the coordination team of the identity management programme,
any talk about an internalization approach for values is skilfully excluded. Moreover,
an interpretation of the evaluation in which is assumed that there are effective
and causal relations between the identity management programme and the appropriation
of the values, is downplayed. To state this otherwise: a suggestion that with
more purposeful efforts the effectiveness of the programme could be increased has
been eclipsed. The conclusions illustrate that performativity is a contested cult value.
186