Gathering data within the Critical Incident technique

Gathering data within the Critical Incident Technique

Rahilly and Saroyan (1997), claim that the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) “shows people’s meaningful experiences up and this (. . .) allows to collect quantitative and qualitative data” (as cited in Pintos, 2008, p. 8). These records might be valuable in designing new strategies for future actions. According to these experts, CIT was shaped in 1954 by Flanagan.
Flanagan (1954) acknowledges the critical incident technique as a process of gathering data on the basis of observation upon human performance. The aim of this procedure is to gain major facts so as to improve the behaviour of those involved is the study.
Nevertheless, not every human action can be considered a critical incident. Thus, only evident and relevant deed, which takes place in a particular situation, can be measured as critical, especially if it accomplishes the aims of the study being carried out.
For the technique to be effective, significant and valid, the reports obtained from the collection of data should not be influenced by personal opinions or beliefs but rather by objectivity. Thus, if different observers are carrying out the investigation, the results should be similar in their contents. Hence, the focus would be on the facts and not on the individuals’ bias.
As mentioned before, CIT is based on observation done in particular settings and following certain human practices. These practices are specific experiences which are constantly modified by the context. Therefore, Flanagan (1954), states that CIT is a flexible set of techniques influenced by the situation under study.
Critical technique effectiveness depends on the clarity and validity of the general statement of objective. If the observer does not know what to pursue, the report will be unreliable. Nonetheless, there are no correct or accurate general aims. However, it is important that the settled objectives be precise and appropriate to the specific situation and context. Concerning the people in charge of developing and selecting those objectives, it is suggested that experts in the field, or individual with background experience, participate in the drawing of such prerequisites.
Flanagan (1954) points out that while deciding and organizing the general objectives, and before collecting data, certain aspects need revising. Firstly, there is a need of information about the place and the working condition where the investigation is going to be developed as well as characteristic about the people involved. Then, the experts need to analyze the different behaviours and decide whether they are acceptable or not depending on the aims. Besides, they also need to focus on the usefulness of the data. Another relevant factor is the selection and training of the observers. If all the above aspects are fully considered, then data will be noteworthy.
Four different procedures to collect data are suggested. The research can be done via interviews, group interviews, questionnaires or written records. Considering the educational field, group interview procedure can facilitate the recollection of meaningful data, especially because of the opportunity of sharing experiences in small groups. Though, if we consider divergent working timetables and the different teaching modalities, written reports can also be suitable to measure success.
Concluding, it is essential to underscore that the outcome of data analysis is to focus on effectiveness by discovering flaws in human endeavours. This data is based on different areas, which aim at improving efficacy and proficiency. The results obtained would guide teachers, for example, to reflect upon their practices and to incorporate new operations, suitable not only for personal and professional growth but also to promote an efficient and affective learning environment.




Reference
Flanagan, J. (1954). Psychological Bulletin: The critical Incident Technique. University of Pittsburgh. Retrieve August 2009, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2962
Pintos, V. (2008) Unit 2: Personal narratives in teaching. Universidad CAECE: Buenos Aires, Argentina.