Abstract
Reflection is an important component of professional practice in the field of policing. While reflection goes beyond a mere evaluation of officer behavior in police-citizen interaction based on legitimacy and functionality, deeper levels of reflections, where underlying assumptions are challenged do not automatically take place within the system of policing. In the current paper, we describe and reflect on a case example of teaching reflective practice to police students at a German University of Applied Sciences. We start by describing a structure of reflection on three levels, each of which is linked to different core questions. While on a low-threshold level reflection focuses on the question of correct action, reflection on a higher level revolves around uncovering one’s action-guiding assumptions that (in)consciously influence one’s actions, as well as the possibility of adopting other perspectives. Building on Brookfield’s work of critical reflective practice we designed a seminar series in a psychology course introducing the concept of reflective practice and four different lenses that aim at uncovering action-guiding assumptions of our learners. Our reflection shows that receptivity of the different lenses was different for perspectives from within the system of police to the perspective from outside the police.
Introduction
Reflection is the process that mediates between experience and knowledge. Reflection is therefore central to all experiential learning theories (Kolb, 2015; Schön, 1983) and is essential as a key attribute of continuous development of expertise for police officers (Wood and Williams, 2017). The concept of reflective practice is firmly established as a concept in professional learning and development settings in general (Ahmad et al., 2013; Atkins and Murphy, 1993; Cameron, 2021; Mezirow, 1998; Quinn, 2013; Schön, 1983). Concerning policing the "reflective practitioner" represents the guiding principle of good and professional practice for both police officers (Staller et al., 2021d; Wood and Williams, 2017) and their trainers (Körner and Staller, 2018, 2020; Staller et al., 2021b). For example, Christopher (2015) points out that it is critical, that “police profession personnel learn how to think critically, conceptually and creatively when confronted with situations needing analysis and when developing solutions to problems. They also need skills to learn from their experiences" (p. 328). Concerning the benefits, the concept of reflection has an intuitive appeal, especially when it is equated with the concept of "thinking" (Hébert, 2015; McLaughlin, 1999). However, the conceptualization of reflection as “thinking about” is one of several conceptualizations of this term; no consensual, single definition exists (Hébert, 2015). While many different terms are used to represent reflection as practice ("reflection," "reflective practice," "critical reflection," etc.), the meanings of the terms themselves also vary across texts. The only consensus seems to be that reflection on one’s actions involves learning from experiences made. For the police profession in Germany this results in the observation, that reflection is generally deemed necessary and important, but on a practical level there is uncertainty how enact it (Lorenz et al., 2021).
With the current article, we aim at shedding further light in the process of reflection for police officers. By reflecting on reflection in the context of policing, we describe different levels of reflections, how these relate to police practice and how deeper levels of reflection can be achieved. Next, we describe a Psychology seminar series at a German Police University that we designed and delivered based on the different levels of reflection. The seminar series focused—besides the content of the Psychology curriculum—on the development of reflective police practice. We conclude our article by reflecting on the delivery and the effects of our seminar providing insights intro systemic aspects of police education in Germany.
Being reflexive about reflection in policing
We started our project by being reflexive about reflection in policing. According to social systems theory, reflexivity consists of applying a specific process to processes of the same type (Luhmann, 1986): the process of learning to learning, the process of communication on the topic of communication and reflection on the topic of reflection. In modern social systems, reflexivity is a feature of advanced internal complexity and thus serves to increase systemic functionality. For instance, a system that has learned to learn is prepared for any unknown future. It is important to note, that reflexivity does not necessarily equal (critical) thinking and denotes a different concept than reflection (Hébert, 2015; McLaughlin, 1999). In reflection, reflexivity occurs as the reflection of reflection (second order of reflection). By reflecting about reflection, the system heightens its internal capacity for control, for example, by directing the focus on the very assumptions and prerequisites of the first order of reflection. With this reflexive approach we focused on how reflection is enacted within the police in Germany.
Operational procedures of police forces in Germany regularly acknowledge the component of reflection and demand it after operations and service-calls (Staller et al., 2021c). However, used reflection models focus on officer behavior and operational management under the question “What worked?” and “What did not work?” (Leitfaden 371, 2021; Lorenz et al., 2021). While these questions certainly are important, they do not shed light on the assumptions an evaluation of officer behavior is based upon. In the light of current debates around inappropriate use for force (Boxer et al., 2021), police officers may—implicitly and explicitly—judge situations differently depending on their underlying assumptions about what constitutes good practice in specific situations and social interactions. As such, there is a need for police officers to be reflexive about their reflection process and to uncover their action guiding assumptions.
Viewed from this reflexive stance, police debrief procedures may point towards a problem: The manifestation of underlying assumptions of police work given they are not challenged systematically in the debrief process (e.g., (Lorenz et al., 2021). While reflexivity is generally deemed as an important characteristic of public service servants (Cameron, 2021; Knassmüller and Meyer, 2013) and police officers specifically (Koerner and Staller, 2022; Staller and Koerner, 2021a), experiences from the German context show that the uncovering of action guiding assumptions is regularly neglected (Koerner and Staller, 2021b; Lorenz et al., 2021; Staller et al., 2021a; Staller and Koerner, 2021b). As such, it is likely that dysfunctional police interactional behavior will manifest itself when the framework such behavior is judged by is not regularly challenged. In order allow this to happen, it is important to be aware of the different levels of reflections and their different effects.
Different levels of reflections
On a basal level reflection takes place primarily based on the question "Am I doing things right?" (reflection level 1). In comparison, the question categories "Am I doing the right things?" (reflection level 2) and "How do I decide if I am doing the right things?" (Reflection level 3) exhibit a higher level of reflection. The question "Am I doing things right?" assumes that there are evaluation categories to answer this question. The reflecting person measures his action (or evaluation of a situation, etc.) against a template that allows evaluation in terms of right or wrong. We will refer to these evaluation categories as "action-guiding assumptions" (Brookfield, 2013). At the next higher level of reflection, these action-guiding assumptions are challenged. The reflective police officer asks themselves whether the previous evaluation category is the correct one. Answering the question of whether the right things are being done, however, itself presupposes an evaluation standard, that is, assumptions about the action-guiding assumptions. When these become the focus of reflection, the reflecting individual grapples with their assumptions, which influence their perspective, attitudes, body of knowledge, etc., which in turn influence the action-guiding assumptions for acting on or evaluating a situation in the field, for example, in the field or training. Figure 1 shows the structure of the levels of reflection concerning the possible options for action (or evaluation options). Levels of reflections concerning potential actions alternatives of the reflective police officer.
Findings concerning officer behavior and police training indicate that reflection often occurs at lower levels (reflection level 1) and thus lacks awareness of the assumptions underlying the action (Koerner and Staller, 2021b; Lorenz et al., 2021; Staller et al., 2021a; Staller and Koerner, 2021b). Concerning police-citizen interactions, the basic attitude toward one’s intervening behavior may remain unreflected (McLean et al., 2019; Stoughton, 2016). Being aware of the underlying assumptions of one’s actions is a necessary component for higher levels of learning (Argyris, 2003; Tosey et al., 2012). A "higher" level of learning in this context means incorporating new perspectives with a successively larger scope. As such one’s perspective becomes more comprehensive—but also more complex.
Uncovering one’s assumptions is of particular importance for reaching a higher level of reflection and thus also learning (Brookfield, 2013, 2017). While on the first level of reflection the object, that is, one’s action, is the focus and the question of "right or wrong" or different action alternatives is determined by one’s existing perspective, one’s attitude, one’s stock of knowledge, or one’s own cognitive biases, on higher levels of reflection it is precisely these assumptions (attitude, stock of knowledge, etc.) that move into the focus of attention. The uncovering and examination of the assumptions enable questioning of these assumptions and an examination of the question whether one’s actions are the right actions in a specific situation or whether there are alternative perspectives based on which one’s actions can be re-evaluated (with a different result in terms of right or wrong).
On the practical level, the depth of reflection has various effects: the reflecting practitioner (a) expands the self-perceived options for action, (b) can differentiate possible action alternatives from one another more deeply, and (c) can justify the choice of a course of action more deeply. With the increase of the scope of action and possible options for interpretation, however, a subjective uncertainty (especially at the beginning of the learning process) concerning the available action is likely to increase.
Current empirical findings in police operational behavior demonstrate the positive effect of reflection beyond the first level (Wolfe et al., 2020; Wood et al., 2020). For instance, at reflection level 1, possible options for action for a citizen who is behaving non-cooperatively consist of the threat of coercion and options for how this could be designed in the specific situation. In the perception of the acting police officer, the citizen does not want to cooperate, but in the perception of the officer, the person should. This underlying (and unquestioned) assumption leads to possible options being weighed under the umbrella of coercion. At reflection level 2, the police officer would question this underlying assumption. Perhaps there are other, just not immediately visible reasons for the citizen’s behavior. Possible reasons could be, for example, the behavior of the officer himself (Klukkert et al., 2008; Reuter, 2014) or other aspects (see (Staller and Körner, 2020) for an overview on the complexity of conflict situations). Wolfe et al. (2020) were able to show that reflecting on possible alternative reasons for citizen behavior reduced the use of force in police-citizen-interactions. At the same time, however, the study also indicated that police trainers played a key role in this process, with learning outcomes dependent on the performance of the trainers. This is interesting because new perspectives on citizen behavior can be taken mechanistically, but sustainable learning only occurs when one’s assumptions are reflected upon and processed, that is, reflection and learning taking place at a higher level.
Uncovering action-guiding assumptions
Uncovering action-guiding assumptions (at reflection levels 2 and 3) is of essential importance in reflective practice. These templates, which enable the individual to evaluate one’s own (or another’s) action, are based on experience and patterns of thinking (conscious and unconscious) laid down and appropriated in the structure of our thinking. For example, psychological research on cognitive biases shows that our thinking is far less rational than we may assume (Dror, 2020). A lack of rationality is not necessarily negative; rather, it depends on the context and the extent to which there is an awareness of one’s own underlying thought patterns and the assumptions that follow from them. What seems problematic at this point is that reaching a higher level of reflection and learning does not seem to be automatic (Rothman, 2014). Brookfield (2013) speaks of "chasing" assumptions in this context, as uncovering and becoming aware of one’s assumptions is not an easy undertaking. A person can reflect—and still not broaden one’s perspective (if reflection is done exclusively at level 1). A police officer can follow up and reflect on a conflict situation—without broadening one’s perspective and opening up alternative action options by questioning one’s assumptions; a police organization can be reflective and willing to learn—but just not at a higher level (Christopher, 2015; Koerner and Staller, 2021a). On the other hand, there is also the possibility that higher levels of reflection and learning will be sought out in contexts where level 1 reflection is more purposeful and more important in a specific context (Tosey et al., 2012). In this context, Tosey et al. (2012) caution against organizations that are always looking to improve and optimize at higher levels of learning, allowing low-level learning (Level 1 reflection) to take a back seat. An adherence to the assumption that higher levels of reflection is better is itself a basic assumption to be reflected upon (level 2 reflection). In summary, it is not a matter of whether or not reflection has been enacted—but how, why (or why not), and at what level. The example shows that basic assumptions can exist on different levels and influence our evaluations and subsequently our actions. Insofar as the identification of possible basic assumptions is the focus of reflection, it is helpful to know about the "hiding places" of these assumptions. In this regard, Brookfield (2013) identifies three assumptions that practitioners should be aware of and wary of: Paradigmatic, prescriptive, and causal assumptions.
Paradigmatic assumptions are the most difficult of all assumptions to uncover. They are the structuring assumptions with which we classify the world into basic categories. Usually, we do not even recognize them as assumptions, even after they have been pointed out to us. Instead, we insist that they are objectively valid representations of reality, of the facts as we know them to be true. Paradigmatic assumptions are critically examined only after great resistance, and it takes a considerable amount of counterevidence and disconfirming experience to change them. But when they are challenged and changed, the consequences for one’s life and practice are fundamental. For example, if a police officer believes that policing is primarily about fighting crime, they may focus heavily on repressive measures with a certain "punishment mentality." In conflicts, they are more likely to rely on authority. They may even feel that they are something "better." If the paradigmatic assumption is that policing is more about protecting society as a whole (with all people) and enabling participation for all people, police officers may enter conflict situations with a different attitude. They have an understanding of the underlying development of conflicts (also with the law) and always try to understand citizens. The officer perceives themself at eye level with the citizen. This is reflected in its interaction and communication with citizens.
Prescriptive assumptions are assumptions about what we think should happen in a given situation. They are the assumptions that surface when we examine how we think we or others should behave, what good incident management—and here especially conflict resolution—should look like, and what obligations citizens and police officers should have to each other. Inevitably, they are rooted in and extend our paradigmatic assumptions. For example, officers may have a prescriptive assumption that citizens can and should question executive action. This assumption leads to a more "relaxed" response when police actions are questioned compared to situations where the opposite assumption is present.
Causal assumptions are assumptions about how different parts of the world work and under what conditions they can be changed. Of all the assumptions we hold, causal assumptions are the easiest to uncover. Causal assumptions seem to be the most common assumptions in this regard (Brookfield, 2013). These are usually expressed predictively: for example, "if I do A, then B will happen." For example, police officers may be subject to the causal assumption that being authoritarian on their own will lead to a quick resolution of conflict situations. If this is the assumption, police officers will tend to behave in an authoritarian manner. The vast majority of causal assumptions revealed by reflective processes are not always right or always wrong in an absolute or universal sense. Most causal assumptions are more or less appropriate depending on the situation that exists at any given time. So, an important element of the reflection process is to do our best to understand the conditions that prevail when we decide which assumptions are more or less appropriate. We have a chance of making an informed judgment about the correctness of a particular assumption only if we have as complete information as possible about the conditions under which it is used. We often assume that an assumption we follow has a much wider range of accuracy than it is the case (Brookfield, 2013).
Different lenses for looking on action-guiding assumptions
Our action-guiding assumptions have a great influence on our actions. Depending on the degree of reflection, we are more or less aware of these influences. Therefore, when it comes to reflectively planning for the field, it is essential to examine one’s action-guiding assumptions (reflection levels 2 and 3). Brookfield (2013) suggests looking at and examining one’s behavior through different "lenses" to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying influencing factors and to gain further perspectives and interpretations on what we perceive as facts.
These four lenses are (1) the perspective of the addressee, (2) the lens of scientific knowledge, (3) perspectives from colleagues, and (4) experiences as addressees.
The perspective of the addressee of an intervention allows us to become more aware of the impact of our actions on the addressee (Inzunza, 2014; Inzunza et al., 2019; Klein et al., 2015). This helps us clarify our assumptions and provides clues as to when they make sense and when they would need to be changed or discarded. A common meta-assumption is that the meanings police officers* attribute to their actions are the same meanings that citizens extract from them (Brookfield, 2013). Empirical findings show how differently police behaviors are interpreted from different perspectives (Rojek et al., 2012).
With the lens of scientific knowledge, theories and scientific research can provide unexpected and illuminating interpretations of both familiar and new complex situations. This is true for the assessment of police-citizen interactions and conflict dynamics as well as for situations within police training. For police officers, insights into interaction dynamics in violent events (Reuter, 2014; Rojek et al., 2012) or procedural justice theory may provide new approaches to behavior in police-citizen interactions (Bradford, 2014; Kyprianides et al., 2021).
Feedback from colleagues is another source of information about our practice from a different perspective. The perception of colleagues on what we do and having critical conversations with them allows us to perceive aspects of our practice that otherwise remain hidden from us. Through the subjective readings of colleagues and the description of their reactions to situations we face, we gain new perspectives on our practice. Colleagues can suggest further perspectives that we may have overlooked and provide answers to situations and issues where we feel clueless.
Finally, experiences as an addressee provide important clues as to what kind of situations and interactions have a positive or negative effect on the addressee’s behavior. Our own experiences with police situations (as an addressee, not as a police officer) help us to understand which police behaviors under which circumstances lead to cooperative or renitent behavior.
In sum, the four lenses provide different ways of broadening the perspective for a police officer on what is perceived as being the right course of action in police-citizen interactions. To further shed light on the benefits and drawbacks of these four lenses in the context of police education, we now turn to our reflection on the seminar series that focused on teaching reflective practice under the described umbrella to police recruits.
Teaching reflective policing to police students
The seminar series was situated within police education in the state of North-Rhine Westfalia, Germany. Following the framework for public service officers, police officers of the upper career path have to complete a 3-year university course at an University of Applied Sciences finishing with a bachelor’s degree (Frevel, 2018). The course was delivered in a dual-study format comprising of academic studies at the University, practical training at the training centers, and field experience during practice in the field. The current reflections are based on a psychology seminar series that was delivered by the first author (MS) at the University of Applied Sciences for Police and Public Administration North Rhine-Westphalia from September 2020 till March 2021.
The concept of the seminar series
The seminar was delivered in four courses simultaneously with between 30 and 35 police students per course and consisted of 30 h (1.5 h per week). Besides the teaching content explicitly stated in the curriculum (Fachhochschule für öffentliche Verwaltung NRW, 2018), a specific focus on the continuous teaching of reflective policing was set throughout the seminar. The teaching concept entails spending the last 45 min of each seminar session uncovering action-guiding assumptions concerning policing. The structure of the seminar series was orientated on suggestions from Brookfield (2017) starting with introducing the concept, showing reflexivity as a teacher, discussing stories and perspectives of third parties before finally engaging in the uncovering of one’s assumptions. Therefore, the structure of the sessions were as follows: • Session 1–3: Introduction to the concept of reflection and reflexivity as described above. Police students were teamed up in eight groups and were informed about two tasks that have to be completed throughout the seminar: (a) Reading the German best-selling book “What white people need to know about racism” (Hasters, 2019) till session 9 (lens: perspective of addressee) and (b) preparing a showcase of reflective practice as a group and engaging the audience in reflective practice starting in session 10. • Session 4–6: Showcasing reflexivity by exemplifying the uncovering of the author’s (MS) action-guiding assumptions and subsequent change of these assumptions based on new perspective provided by the different lenses (lenses: experiences from colleagues and scientific knowledge). During these sessions, the first author (MS) describes his journey on his views on conflict resolution in the context of policing and the uncovering of the underlying assumptions, that were challenged once he came in contact with scientific knowledge from the social sciences (Staller et al., 2021b). • Session 7–9: Discussion of perspectives and underlying assumptions of third parties based on current events in Germany. Specifically, the ongoing discussion about structural racism in Germany, the reluctance of the government to initiate rigorous study concerning this issue (BMI—Presse, 2020) and events of racist police behavior (Abdul-Rahman et al., 2020). Session 9 was dedicated to the perspective of people of color in police-citizen encounters (lens: addressee, own experience). Therefore, the reading assignment of the students had to be completed till this session. • Session 10–17: Showcasing of the project groups (8 groups per seminar, thus 1 showcase per session). Police students autonomously chose a topic, which—in their view—warranted uncovering and maybe change of underlying assumptions. They presented it to the other students in a format they chose and engaged the audience in uncovering their assumptions about the topic (lens: colleagues). Following the presentation, the first author explained a fitting theory or concept (e.g., procedural justice theory; social identity theory; and social dominance theory) that related to the showcase (lens: scientific knowledge).
Reflections on the seminar series
During and after the sessions, the first author (MS) made field notes as they relate to the process of engaging in the reflexive journey concerning the police students’ assumptions. Also, any events that seemed subjectively noteworthy, were electronically written down. The session series was then reflected upon with the second author (SK), who acted as a “critical friend.” Furthermore, official evaluations that are regularly by the University to every student were analyzed. These evaluations consisted various questions on a 1-to-5-point Likert scale concerning the seminar. However, no questions specifically concerned the content of reflective practice. Also, students were able to comment on the course. An overall of N = 58 students responded, resulting in an overall rating of the seminar of M = 1.26 (SD = 0.40). One comment was added related to the enacted reflexivity stating “The self-reflection was great!.” Due to the scarcity of the data, our reflection mainly based on the field notes taken. These condensing around the engagement towards the described lenses that aimed at offering new perspectives for the students and helping them chase down their action-guiding assumptions.
Concerning the lens of the addressee, the assignment of reading a book about experiences racism in Germany from the perspective of a person of color was planned as a starting point to discover and discuss other perspectives on police-citizen interactions compared to white citizens (Cooley et al., 2020; Wright and Headley, 2020). However, an anonymous survey in session 9 about who has read the book revealed that less than 50% of the students (13–16 in each course) have read the book. Feedback from those who read the book described the perspective as an “important and transforming view on everyday interactional conduct.”
Scientific knowledge (theories, concepts, and empirical evidence) was regularly provided to the students when it seems fitting in a specific learning situation. For example, when a police student stated that the police profession is among the most dangerous ones, statistical data from Germany as well as a short description and the prevalence of the danger narrative within the police (Branch, 2021; Sierra-Arévalo, 2021) was provided to allow for a new perspective. This regularly sparked discussions within the course, prompting police students to come forward with their examples, where they have met biased assumptions within the police. However, the discussions and the engagement with students focused on approximately a third of the class, with the other two-thirds being relatively quiet throughout the discussion. However, we did not interpret this as a sign of non-engaging with the information and perspectives presented in the ongoing discussion. Yet in the discussion counterarguments regularly included the perspective of other police officers that were diametral to the scientific knowledge presented. Also, these perspectives were regularly valued higher than the scientific knowledge by various members of the actively engaging discussion group.
The perspective of other police officers was regularly seen as a piece of important information by the students. This could be seen in the group showcases and discussions when new perspectives were presented and when colleagues explained that their action-guiding assumptions have changed through a new lens of observation. This effect could be observed following the showcases related to racial police biases bases on the book, that not all students had read. If there was a group, where new perspectives were introduced by some of the members, who had read the book, the others who did not were interested in this new perspective. A lot of follow-up questions were regularly posed. However, if groups, consisted of learners who all did not read the book, critical assumptions (e.g., race and policing) were not problematized.
Own experiences were a valuable perspective through which police-citizen interactions with minority groups were analyzed leading to the uncovering of assumptions about police conduct. However, own experiences in the four courses were rare. One police student (out of 135 police students) was a person of color, limiting the insight into experiences of people of color beyond the reading assignment. Several other experiences with police-citizen interactions as addressees were told and used as a lens for reflection. However, those experiences were also rare.
Overall, the use of the four different lenses for reflection showed a distinct pattern concerning the system of policing: Generally, perspectives from inside the system—colleagues and own experiences—were engaged with more easily and adopted less critically than perspectives from outside the system. While this pattern has been regularly observed in the context of German policing (Frevel, 2018; Jasch, 2019; Koerner and Staller, 2021a), this proves to be problematic when information from outside the system (e.g., scientific knowledge, other perspectives) are crucial for implementing change within the system (Staller et al., 2021a). The closeness of the system of policing increases the likelihood of self-referential perspectives on actions and assumptions. On the one hand, these self-referential loops are highly functional, as they contribute to the "blind" stabilization of internal system structures and routines. At the same time, from the point of view of reflective police work, this is precisely the problem as research on the problematics of police culture in Germany regularly points out (Behr, 2020). As it is known for learning processes in general (Dewey, 1933) the phase of irritation is a key prerequisite for change at the individual and organizational level (Argyris and Schön, 1978). As such, perspectives from outside the system of policing are of particular importance for the reflective police officer.
Concerning the within-systems perspective (colleagues, own experiences) biases and fallacies that are hidden within the system are likely to be further stabilized (Staller et al., 2021e). Also, experiences made as an addressee are limited. Depending on their autobiographical background, police officers have a different pool of experienced police contacts. We attribute the observed lack of a broad set of experiences within the courses to a lack of diversity of the courses. As a result, this leads to a system-immanent lack of reflection opportunities. However, while we are not sure, if everyone in the course finally engaged in their uncovering of their assumptions, the set-up of the seminar series had the potential to do so. Introducing a broad set of different lenses to the learning setting and allowing for cascading effects from one police student, who engages with system-external information, to other students, who only engage with system-immanent information, has its benefits in circumventing system barriers. Future planning of the seminar series has to focus on this aspect more specifically.
Finally, we must acknowledge that it is unclear to what extend our seminar series leads to sustainable effects within field work of police officers. However, based on the given structure of the psychological curriculum within police education in North-Rhine-Westfalia, the current seminar provides a way that has the potential to influence reflection processes of young police officers at an early stage of their career path for the better.
Conclusion
Reflection is an essential prerequisite for professional practice within the police. Reflecting on the actions of others as well as on one’s actions guided by criteria, recognizing the assumptions underlying each action and from there, if necessary, developing possible alternatives in exchange with relevant sources of knowledge, forms the core of a reflective police practice at the individual and collective level. Especially when dealing with conflict situations, police officers—as well as the society they serve—benefit from an increased level of reflection. Given the fact of their importance for professional practice in the field of policing, reflection and reflexivity—as the reflection of reflection—have to be structurally anchored within the system of police education and training. The systematic procedure presented here and its application in the context of university teaching exemplify one possible avenue.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all police students for their engagement in the reflexive process of uncovering their assumptions. Also we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback on our manuscript.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
