Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

2.4 Research standards for a complex responsive
process-approach
From a realist-positivistic perspective on social scientific research auto-ethnographic
research is criticized for several reasons ( Alvesson, 2009; Chang, 2008; Denzin, 2014;
Douglas and Carless, 2013; Ellis et al., 2011; Parry and Boyle, 2009):
1 Narratives based on personal experiences are not supposed to be generalizable,
reliable and valid, implicating that the research is not ‘rigorous’. External and internal
validity and controllability would be at stake. The criticism postulates that
personal experience would be too self-absorbing and unavoidably biased. By that
narratives would become uncontrollable and credibility would depend too much on
the researcher;
2 Narratives based on personal experiences are qualified as too evocative, implying
that too much weight on emotional, aesthetic and therapeutic dimensions forestalls
an analytical approach;
3 Narratives based on personal experiences are supposed to endanger privacy and
may have political implications beyond the research. Turning this criticism around it
implicates that too much realism (sic!) should be avoided.
Apart from these criticisms one big advantage of auto-ethnography is recognized: this
kind of research would offer good research economy (Alvesson, 2003; Brinkmann,
2012), for instance in finding an organization to do your research. Although this advantage
is also contested because we as researchers “ ... are not paid generous salaries to
sit in our offices obsessing about ourselves.” (Delamont, 2007: 3). What may be clear is
that radically reflexive research can count on quite some resistance from scientists
who profess mainstream science.
Responding to the criticisms mentioned above, researchers adopted two strategies in
an attempt to develop standards for sound radically reflexive research. A first strategy
is – almost apologetically - to discuss the quality of auto-ethnographic research
within the frame of mainstream research by arguing that auto-ethnographic research
is valid, generalizable and reliable. A second strategy is to argue for a different set of
criteria to concur upon the value of auto-ethnographic research in its own class. This
second strategy argues for immanent criteria, depending on the basic knowledge
claims within an approach. In my view both strategies converge because by giving a
new meaning to concepts as for instance internal validity, researchers indicate that
they want to be evaluated by a set of immanent criteria. A logical claim if ontologically
one presumes that social reality is dynamic and messy.
Nonetheless, within reflexive science there seems to be a hesitation regarding developing
a set of immanent criteria. In responding to the criticisms one should be aware
not to adopt inadvertently the premises of the critics (Deetz, 1996), amongst others to
be avoided by blocking an ambition to develop an alternate set of universal criteria.
There are no meta-languages (Gingrich-Philbrook, 2013). If that would be the case this
2. Research from a complex responsive process-approach | 49