essential-guide-to-qualitative-in-organizational-research

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– CRITICAL INCIDENT TECHNIQUE –––––––––– 47incidents on the developmental history of the business. They show that entrepreneurs oftenface prolonged and traumatic critical periods or episodes that are emotionally laden. Further,they demonstrate that the incidents result in higher level learning, and conclude thatentrepreneurs need support to interpret critical incidents as learning experiences. The casediscussed in the ensuing pages has many of these features, and is derived from the study withSusan Baines and Jane Wheelock outlined above.COMPARISON WITH OTHER QUALITATIVE METHODS ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––CIT may be used in case study research but is more often used in multi-site studies. Thequestion arises as to whether other methods, for example participant observation andunstructured or semi-structured interviews, might not be more effective as research tools.The CIT has in common with participant observation and the unstructured interview thefact that they are all examples of qualitative techniques used to ‘get closer to the subject’(Bryman, 1989). However, participant observation has a number of disadvantages. Covertparticipant observation raises ethical issues (for example of deception), it focuses upon the‘here and now’ and it presents difficulties of recording observations. CIT is overt in that thesubject is aware of being interviewed. Once assurances have been given of confidentiality andanonymity, the interviewee usually relaxes and is able to recount his or her story. Onedisadvantage is that the accounts are always retrospective; however, the fact that the incidentsare ‘critical’ means that subjects usually have good recall. Moreover, unlike the unstructuredinterview, there is a focus, which enables the researcher to probe aptly, and the intervieweeto ‘hook’ their accounts. As is the case with participant observation, CIT is context-rich,but unlike participant observation the context is developed entirely from the subject’sperspective. Some things can be checked. It is therefore usual to use documentary sourcesto check factual statements, and if possible to interview at least one other significant person.Further where the CIT is used across multiple sites the researcher can look for evidence ofcommonalties in themes, that is, ‘incidents’ that increase generalizability 1 . A furtheradvantage of the CIT is that the analysis enables the researcher to relate context, strategy andoutcomes, to look for repetition of patterns, and thus to build up a picture of tactics forhandling difficult situations. This gives first hand evidence of the relationship betweencontext and outcome. 2DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THE METHOD ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The method, as developed by the author, assumes a phenomenological approach. It isintended through the process of a largely unstructured interview to capture the thoughtprocesses, the frame of reference and the feelings about an incident or set of incidents, whichhave meaning for the respondent. In the interview the respondent is required to give anaccount of what those incidents meant for them, their life situation and their presentcircumstances, attitudes and orientation.This same approach may be used with the in-depth case study, as well as the multi-siteinvestigation. Thus, this method assumes an alternative definition to that of Flanagan.