Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

dimensions should be ordinary elements of the narratives used for the research.
Conflict, dissensus, irony and playfulness go along with deep emotions and intuitions
and as such are of consequence for how human beings construe their reality. Not
writing about emotions, uncertainty or anxiety would suggest that human beings are
only or are predominantly rational beings. This writing would disrespect or even
obscure common human life. Instead ‘irrationality’ is common and productive as is
underlined by years of psychological (Kahneman, 2011) and neurobiological research
(Damasio, 1999). ‘Irrationality’ is real, ‘irrational’ persons are real.
It must be clear now that research from an auto-ethnographic and a complex responsive
process-approach is disclosing much about the acting of real persons in the
organization of the researcher. If a reader is familiar with this organization it will be
possible to relate what is narrated about to specific persons in the organization.
Narratives have a habit of being realistic in a sense of showing what happens.
This realism is acknowledged as research from behind the front-stage is often assessed
as well-done (Alvesson, 2003). On the other hand realism is criticised because
apparently there is anxiety for washing one’s dirty linen in public (Sonnaville, 2005).
However, reflexive research should help to understand dilemma’s in practical situations
instead of disregarding them (Holman Jones et al., 2013b).
In radically reflexive research - as research from an auto-ethnographic and complex
responsive process-perspective implies – evocative and realistic writing is acknowledging
the genuineness of human social life. I would say that evocative and realistic
writing are evident conditions in support of transferability of the research. Transferability
does justice to real persons.
Responsibility for the reader
Transferability as a measure for the usefulness of radically reflexive research implies
responsibility for the reader. First of all I would expect quite some respect for the
shown vulnerability of the involved people. Secondly I would like the reader to be
interested to learn what happened and to be aware of the interdependency among
people for what they are doing. Basically a good question would be if the reader could
and would have acted similarly or differently in a comparable situation. This is a question
which not only underlines an ethical responsibility of the reader, but also would
underline the dialogical usefulness of the research.
However, without prejudice to the responsibility of the reader the responsibility of the
researcher is different and large. After all, the researcher is the one who decides what
to write about him and about other persons. This responsibility of the researcher is of
an ethical kind and is an important subject to consider and forms a source for the
research standards for radically reflexive research.
52