Topic: Critical Incident Technique

Presenter: Asma Zia

History
Critical Incident Technique (CIT) was developed in
the nineteen forties by John Flanagan, an American
researcher in the field of occupational psychology
(Flanagan, 1954). Its original emphasis on human
behaviour reflects the prevailing positivist research
paradigm. Flanagan devised it as a means to gather
and analyse objective, reliable information about
specific activities. He intended that the findings
would underpin practical problem solving in areas
such as employee appraisal and performance
enhancement.
-continued-
Flanagan's work was carried out as part of the
Aviation Psychology Program of the United
States Army Air Forces during World War II,
where Flanagan conducted a series of studies
focused on differentiating effective and
ineffective work behaviors.
Flanagan went on to found American Institutes
for Research  continuing to use the Critical
Incident Technique in a variety of research.
-continued-
Flanagan defined the Critical Incident Technique
as:
A set of procedures for collecting direct
observations of human behavior in such a way as to
facilitate their potential usefulness in solving
practical problems and developing broad
psychological principles. The critical incident
technique outlines procedures for collecting
observed incidents having special significance and
meeting systematically defined criteria (Flanagan
1954, p. 327).
-continued-
Over the fifty years since its inception CIT has
proved responsive to changing research
approaches. Researchers have modified CIT in
various ways, extending beyond ‘scientific’
behavioral analysis to more holistic investigation
of aspects of human experience and meaning that
people attach to activities. Researchers are tending
away from previous concerns about objectivity and
generalization towards individual perspectives and
significance (Chell,1998; Kain, 2004).
Definition of critical incident
According to Flanagan (1954, p. 338) ‘an
incident is critical if it makes a
‘significant’ contribution, either positively
or negatively to the general aim of the
activity’ and it should be capable of being
critiqued or analysed’.
Process of CIT
Five Stage Process
Stage 1: Establish aims
Stage 2: Specify plans and conditions
Stage 3:Collecting critical incidents
Stage 4:Analyzing the data
Stage 5:Interpreting and reporting the
findings
Stage 1: Establish Aims
In the first stage, the researcher defines
the aims of the activity. This step lays the
groundwork for determining what
constitutes a critical incident. In general,
an incident consists of an account, either
from the direct experience or the
observations of the participant, that relates
closely to the aim of the activity.
-continued-
The aim should be encapsulated in a brief,
clear statement – a ‘functional description’
that indicates the objective of the activity
and what someone engaging in the activity
is expected to accomplish. Flanagan
recommended that researchers consult
experts in the field to ensure that the aim is
relevant and widely acceptable to other
researchers and practitioners
 Stage 2: Specify Plans and
Conditions
The second stage in the process involves clearly
specifying the conditions that address the general aim
and the plans for collecting incidents. The researcher
defines the situation to be observed, who is being
observed, and who will make the observation.
Flanagan suggested that these details should be
carefully documented to ensure consistency and
objectivity in data collection, especially in large-scale
studies involving more than one researcher
4 considerations:
1. situation -The researcher specifies the
location, conditions, research participants
and the activity.
2. relevance - the researcher specifies both
the types of critical incidents and the nature
of critical behaviors that are relevant to the
study and therefore worthy of being
recorded.
3. extent - the researcher specifies criteria for
collecting critical incidents based on their
significance, in terms of the extent of their
positive or negative effect on the general aim..
4. observers - the researcher ensures that all
data collectors are familiar with the activity
being studied and receive thorough
instructions and training in the data collection
process.
Stage 3: collecting the data
This step involves collecting critical
incidents that relate to the activity being
studied. Flanagan provided detailed
instructions concerning the means of
collection, required sample size and
composition of the questions. Preferred
means for data collection are individual
interviews or direct observations. Group
interviews are acceptable where participant
numbers are large.
-continued-
Written responses or questionnaires may also
be used, although they might be less effective
since they tend to lack the immediacy of
observations and interviews.
To enable full and accurate responses
participants are requested to focus on incidents
that they have recently taken part in or
observed first-hand. They may describe one or
several incidents that represent positive and/or
negative aspects of the activity being studied.
 -continued-

CIT seeks contextualized examples of the

activity and its significance and questions
typically follows a binary positive/negative
pattern. For example:
• think of a time that a colleague presented an
effective/ineffective IL session… • describe the
circumstances and nature of this incident •
explain why you consider this incident to be
significant • what did this person do that was
effective/ineffective? • why was it
effective/ineffective?
-continued-
Flanagan stated that there are no firm rules about
appropriate ‘sample size’ for CIT. The
determining factors relate to the complexity of
the activity and variety and quality of the critical
incidents, rather than the number of participants.
He also suggested that data collection and
analysis should be carried out concurrently.
Incidents should continue to be collected until
redundancy occurs – that is, when no new critical
behaviors appear.
Stage 4: Analyzing the Data

Data analysis occurs in conjunction with

collecting incidents (because the final count
of incidents is affected by the emerging
analysis). Researchers create categories of
behavior that are relevant to the purpose of
the study or the way the data will be used.
 -continued-
A different aim would require a different
frame of reference for the analysis. Given
this general frame of reference, analysis
then moves to the formation of categories
and sub-categories of similar behaviors, a
step that Flanagan acknowledged as
subjective. Coding (categorizing) of data
is an inductive process of comparing
statements and grouping by patterns.
 -continued-
To construct the categories:
• Sort a relatively small sample of critical incidents
into broad (main) categories
• Create tentative names and brief definitions for
the main categories
Sort the remaining incidents into the main
categories - create additional main categories and
definitions, or modify existing ones, as necessary
• Divide main categories into sub-categories as
finer similarities and differences become apparent
Stage 5: Interpreting and Reporting Findings

CIT does not require a specific report format,

but the results often include a set of critical
behaviors that define the activity studied. In
order to establish the credibility of the
findings Flanagan emphasized a need to
carefully explain and justify how the four
preceding steps had been carried out and to
specify precisely the circumstances in which
the findings could be said to apply.
-continued-
In the final stage, the researcher interprets
and reports findings. Again, much of this
report depends on the targeted use of the
study. The report should clearly indicate the
aim that has been studied, particularly if
competing aims are present. Reports
commonly include both the weight of the
categories (i.e., percentage of comments)
and the language used by respondents.
 Conclusion
Critical incident technique is a robust research method
that has proved effective in numerous studies in a
wide range of social science disciplines, including
library and information science. Its well defined set of
principles and procedures ensure that it is a relatively
simple method to master and apply. CIT is best suited
to exploratory research that seeks understanding of
specific human activities or an information base for
further research. In the context of information literacy
CIT has potential for research that aims to support
practical problem solving, performance enhancement
and learning.
References:

Anderson, L., & Wilson, S. (1997). Critical incident technique. In D.

L. Whetzel & G. R. Wheaton (Eds.), Applied measurement methods in
industrial psychology (pp. 89-112). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Andersson, B., & Nilsson, S. (1964). Studies in the reliability and
validity of the critical incident technique. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 48(6), 398-403.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological
Bulletin, 51(4), 327-358.
Kain, D. L. (2004). Owning significance: The critical incident
technique in research. In K. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.),
Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the
social sciences (pp. 69-85). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Woolsey, L. K. (1986). The critical incident technique: An innovative
qualitative method of research. Canadian Journal of Counselling,
20(1), 242-254.
-continued-
Ellinger, A. D. & Watkins, K.E. (1998). Updating the critical incident technique
after forty-four years. Advances in qualitative research. In Academy of Human
Resource Development Conference Proceedings. ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED428234. Retrieved October 11, 2002, from
http://www.edrs.com/logon.cfm
Fisher, S. & Oulton, T. (1999). The critical incident technique in library and
information management research. Education for information, 17(2), 113-125,
June.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. The Psychological
Bulletin, 51(4), 327-358.
 Hughes, H. (2006). Responses and influences: a model of online information
use for learning. Information Research 12(1), paper 279. Retrieved June 18,
2007, from http://InformationR.net/ir/12-1/paper279.htm
 Kain, D. (2004). Owning significance: The critical incident technique in
research. In K. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for research:
Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 69-85). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thank you

??????????