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

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– CRITICAL INCIDENT TECHNIQUE –––––––––– 57Methodological issuesGENERALIZABILITYA view may be taken that research which is not based on large quantitative sample surveys,is insufficiently generalizable to be of value in the creation of organizational knowledge foracademic or policy purposes. Qualitative researchers are challenging this view. Theheterogeneity of populations of organizations and of their owner-managers suggests thatsmaller samples tightly controlled for structural and other relevant dimensions are likely to havegreater explanatory power than could be revealed by a large scale survey, although of coursethe latter may be useful for other purposes. In organizational behaviour, understanding thedetail of the processes and behaviours is paramount and a technique such as CIT enables suchan objective to be accomplished.RELIABILITYThe CIT interview is not easy to conduct well. It requires a skilled and mature researcher whocan manage the respondent, directing the interview to achieve clarity of understanding andwho can handle the expression of emotion including distress. Of course not all respondentswill reveal negative incidents and here the interviewer must be able to probe sensitively andnot be carried away by the wave of success which the respondent may be putting across. Inother words the interviewer must under all circumstances try to establish a rapport of trust,honest and open exchange. In the above case study, the interviewer probed with relevantquestions, first to ensure her understanding, and secondly to ensure that the account did notbecome a monologue. Thus the interaction between interviewer and interviewee can helpcontrol the pace, add light relief and steer the interview so that it remains focused. Further,the interviewer should reflect upon their role as interviewer, the style adopted and the waythe interview was conducted.An added difficulty of conducting the interview well is attempting to ensure that all criticalincidents have been captured. Indeed as has been pointed out, some interviewees do notalways appear to be able to identify a single incident. Should this arise, the interviewer needsto deal with it skilfully and ethically. Clearly in an inductive situation, whether all incidentshave or have not been identified cannot be ‘proved’. Techniques such as the arrow diagramhelp assure this part of the process. However, critics evaluating this method might argue thatit is difficult to test for reliability (compare, Andersson and Nilsson, 1964). There are severalthings that can be done in order to improve reliability. For example, the possibility ofconducting more than one interview with the subject should always be considered. Time,budget and access considerations are likely constraints. The key issue is whether additionalinterviews are likely to improve reliability and should they be conducted under the samecircumstances? Would it be desirable were the same incidents to be discussed with a ‘relevantother’? Clearly the answer to this question is a matter of judgement. For example, it is likelyto be resisted by an employer in relation to an employee and spouses in relation to eachother. However, the point is that one is trying not to find a ‘single truth’ but to understandthe respondent’s perspectives and actions. The reliability therefore is largely built into aquality interview process in which there is coherence. It may still be thought desirable totriangulate the results with other sources of data, particularly where there may be tangibleevidence.