Disadvantages:
- does not define the gravity of the incidents. From incident to conflict and
crisis, here is a range of possibilities equally assumed in the portfolio of this
technique; - since the method takes into account isolated incidents, no general conclusion
or recommendation can be formulated for other than the practitioner
involved; - each case must be brought to the ideological reference framework of the
people involved, most often of various or antagonistic natures. Not all that is
permitted and encouraged in a school of thinking will uniformly be taken up
by all its adepts, let alone by the members of other ideological blocks; - the practitioner’s habit to relate to the incident in a certain way (according to
training and “personal theory”) may not call upon itself the general
appreciation of the community of counsellors and, therefore, the counsellor in
question can be discredited or marginalized; - intervention in non-typical situations are strongly contextualised and the
transfer of solutions between people and situations is rarely possible; - there is no guarantee that there will be an answer to all the questions in the
critical incident protocol.
Bibliography
Corsini, Raymond, J.; Howard, Daniel, D. (1964). Critical Incidents in Teaching.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Ertelt, Bernd, J.; Schulz, William, E. (1997). Beratung in Bildung und Beruf: ein
anwendungsorientiertes Lehrbuch. Leonberg, Rosenberg Fachverlag.
Tripp, David (1993). Critical Incidents in Teaching. Developing Professional Judgement.
London, Routledge.
http://www.atss.info (Association of Traumatic Stress Specialists)
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/ems/cism.htm#history (King County Courthouse)