A participatory action research training initiative to improve police effectiveness

Introduction

The origins of the modern police force lie in the attempt to establish a ‘moral ordering of urban spaces and populations’ (Helms, 2007, p. 291). These origins are linked to the need to institute normative scripts of good citizenship and inscribe dominant moralities on public spaces (Imrie & Raco, 2003). Police workers perform the role of disciplining and punishing transgressions of these dominant moralities, and act as agents of social control and regulation (Foucault, 1979). While performing the role of ensuring security of life and property and enforcing justice, police workers face many practical problems and conflicting situations. It is, therefore, interesting to examine the dilemmas faced by police workers while performing their work.

This study draws from the researcher’s experience as a police officer in the Indian State of Gujarat to reflect on the training initiatives that could enhance the decision-making and problem-solving skills of police workers. Training initiatives can draw from the techniques of Freire (1972) who calls for a critical pedagogy where the ability of human beings to reflect on the contradictions and problems facing them is respected. Such training initiatives can lead to a problem-solving praxis where dilemmas in all their complexity are considered and creative solutions are found.

Policing context and training needs

The Gujarat Police is governed by the Indian Police Act 1861, inherited from the colonial legacy of India. The British legislated this Act with a limited purpose of perpetuating British rule in India (Joshi, 1999). The political system changed after independence in 1947 but the police system largely remained unaltered; this archaic Act continues to govern it; courts continue to distrust it; politicians and bureaucrats continue to exercise control over it; the managerial philosophy, value system and ethos has largely remained what it was; it continues to remain unaccountable to the public; and its organizational structure has largely remained unchanged (Joshi, 1999). In fact, the need for broader police reforms has existed since colonial times when the police force was regarded as being oppressive and inefficient (Alexander, 2006).

The job of the police is inherently conflictual and risky even while performing basic functions such as prevention, detection of crime and maintenance of law and order (Lal, 1999). Of late, police workers have been exposed to intense social and psychological pressures as they often have to engage with issues of violence and deviance, and take decisions from a range of choices such as pressing charges in court or issuing warnings or counselling the delinquents or resolving issues by holding meetings with the parties concerned. Increasingly, they also have to engage with issues relating to terrorism, insurgency, resistance and subversion undermining the authority of the State and threatening the sanctity of constitutional and political institutions (Lal, 1999). While rules exist to guide police workers, everyday action is embedded in a context where multiple stakeholders articulate plural voices. In the sense of enacted action, the structures of police work are held in tension between multiple social voices. Police work assumes particular significance as the meanings and metaphors of the State can powerfully emerge through the instrumentalities of the police. Thus, police work is becoming increasingly complex, challenging, demanding, and ill-structured, which calls for better decision-making and problem-solving skills in police workers.

The study of crime patterns and trends makes evident that the advancement in technology and communication has led to emergence of newer crimes, for example, cyber-crimes, environmental crime, etc. These newer forms of crime have increased the complexity of police job manifold, which calls for a corresponding response. But, the paradox in the current state of police training is that most of the training curricula do not address the needs of modern-day policing. The training programmes are mostly designed around such standard topics as criminal law and investigative procedure, firearms training, crowd control and proper use of force, traffic enforcement, etc. There is a need for training curricula which enhances the decision-making and problem-solving skills of police workers, and helps them to work in concert with communities (Birzer, 1999).

The training system in the Gujarat Police has existed for around 50 years in one form or another, and it caters to the need of more than 68,000 police workers, who join the police force at different levels. In addition to the basic training imparted at the entry level, the police workers are given in-service and specialized training in different phases. The sheer scale and diverse needs, for which the police workers are trained, makes the exercise structurally complex (Remington & Pollack, 2007).

At present the training of the Gujarat Police is looked after by ADGP (Training), a staff officer of the Director General of Police. Currently, there are four training facilities located in i) Junagadh, ii) Chowky (Sorath), iii) Vadodara and iv) Karai, Gandhinagar. The four distinct primary tasks that enable exploration into why various training facilities were set-up, and how its purposes are translated into action, are shown in Figure 1. OPEN IN VIEWER

Although various training delivery techniques such as seminar, case-based learning, simulation, discussions, etc., are employed in the Gujarat Police; the training methodology is predominantly structured on the concepts of conventional pedagogical learning theory, that is, through lecture method. ‘Pedagogy literally means the art and science of teaching children’ (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1998, p. 61). This mode of instruction constructs training as a dissemination exercise where an expert instructor delivers knowledge to participants (Knowles et al., 1998). While it may be useful in a learning phase where participants have very little knowledge of the subject matter, it restricts dialogues and deep engagements with participants who are familiar with the subject matter through their experiences (Knowles et al., 1998).

Critical pedagogy and learning

Freire’s (1972) Pedagogy of the oppressed opened up understandings of how human beings must not be understood as empty receptacles that can be filled with the enlightening agency of education. Human beings are moral, aesthetic agents whose deliberations with each other enable them to form judgements of right and wrong (Monchinski, 2008). Education in this sense can be compared to the processes of exposing, proposing and politicizing (Marcuse, 2009). Politicization here refers to problematizing everyday issues, and discerning the conflicts that underlie everyday phenomena (Monchinski, 2008). In the context of police work, it represents an understanding of the underlying dilemmas of work, and various social, ethical and professional choices that need to be made during the course of discharging one’s duty.

In training initiatives, democratization as an ideal can be pursued by understanding the significance of uncertainty, dialogue and struggle as processes which help human beings to critically reflect on phenomena and their roles in them (Roberts, 2005). Training processes can facilitate the construction of historically situated narratives, and encourage an explicit sense of concern for cultural others (Arnett, 2002). Training initiatives can reinforce a culture of respect by uncovering the choices available to human beings through the processes of history (McLaren, 1999).

Research approach

Action research (AR) links theory and practice through positive social changes and reflections on theory. Boog, Keune, and Tromp, (2003) defined AR ‘as scientific social research which is participatory and practice-oriented, which aims to find solutions to social problems and to emancipate individuals and groups confronted with such problems’ (p. 419).

Participative action research (PAR), the method chosen in this study, refers to the process through which the researchers and the stakeholders (those who potentially benefit from research results) work together in the designing and conducting of all phases of the research process, which includes formulation of questions, design, data collection and analysis, dissemination, utilization (McTaggart, 1991; Whyte, 1991). PAR finally aims to achieve the goal of taking action to resolve the problem that is at the root of the research context (Graves, 1991; McTaggart, 1991; Whitney-Thomas, 1997).

The participatory nature of action research allowed the field-level police workers and the training staff to participate in the identification of in-service training issues, especially regarding problem-solving and decision-making, and this hermeneutic or interpretative research approach actively involved both the researcher and the participants (Boog et al., 2003). The action researcher’s responsibility includes a contribution to research in terms of the substantiation or improvement of existing theories and a contribution to practice by offering practical improvements in the problem situation explored (Checkland, 1981; Elden & Chisholm, 1993). Such interventions may generate controversies, which could threaten the status quo in the organization (Eden & Huxham, 1996), and reflections on this context offer another rich source of data.

McNiff (1988) explained that the method of AR ‘involves a self-reflective spiral of planning, acting, observing, reflecting and re-planning’ (p. 7). The research process consists of four stages: i) planning; ii) action; iii) observation; and iv) reflection (Davison, 2001). In the planning stage, the researcher first examines the situation and plans activities to address identified problems (Davison, 2001). In the action (or intervention) stage, the researcher endeavours to solve the problem or manage the change process (Davison, 2001). In the observation stage, data pertaining to the situation or phenomenon are gathered (Davison, 2001). Finally, the reflection stage involves interpreting the data and the consequences of action (Davison, 2001). This feeds forward into the next planning stage and initiates the next cycle in the methodological process (Figure 2). The reflective stage is considered by some to be the most critical part of the cycle (e.g. Lau, 1997, cited in Baskerville, 1999). Additional cycles of activities continue till a desired end-state is accomplished (Zuber-Skerrit, 1991). OPEN IN VIEWER

This study involved several cycles of Stringer’s (1999) ‘look, think, act routine’; the first involving interaction with the staff in management positions, the second with the staff in training positions and a third with members on the front line.

Data and process analysis

In this section, the functioning of the Gujarat Police Academy (GPA), protocols used, case environment, stakeholder characteristics and scenarios employed are discussed. After the initial two cycles of PAR, groupware software (Group Support Systems [GSS], windows based software) was used to support a series of problem-solving cases with the police workers in GPA. One composite ‘cycle’ of activities is presented to indicate how planning, executing, observing and reflecting on events occurred in the case.

A composite cycle: Planning, acting, observations and reflections

Prior to the third session, the other training instructor did not make any additional efforts towards planning. He did not show any interest in technology supported learning or PAR, and expected that the researcher would give the required technical assistance and facilitate the sessions. He preferred an ad hoc approach to management of sessions. He felt that this process best reflected real-life situations through which groups worked to find solutions. Besides, as the groups worked through the scenarios assigned to them, he used to introduce additional comments through the GSS which added to task uncertainty. For example, in the Pakistan nationals visa scenario, he informed the participants that the Gujarat Government had decided to repatriate the Pakistan nationals through the sea route. Similarly, in the illicit liquor scenario, it was announced that the government was contemplating bringing in new legislation awarding punishment for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Likewise, in the spurious drug scenario, the participants were informed that the government had decided to establish a multi-task agency to handle this problem.

Third session (14 December 2010 – first session under the GSS-enabled environment)

The training instructor and the researcher had no preconceived notion of how the discussions would proceed. Therefore, it was thought that a flexible facilitation style was most appropriate to enable collaborative learning. The groups spent time anonymously discussing the case scenario in the GSS. The participants then generated a list of possible action plan components and voted on their relative importance. Finally, they listed the most important points towards the solution.

The GSS-enabled environment improved basic group processes such as communication, idea generation and evaluation, decision-making, planning and record-keeping. Participants who were passive in previous sessions were able to actively participate in the group process this time. Also some of the participants made unique contributions which had not come up in the previous sessions. A positive interdependence emerged among the group members. They shared common goals and assumed complementary roles. The groups, however, could not complete the task and write the plan of action.

Fourth session (16 December 2010) and fifth sessions (18 December 2010)

After the third session, the training instructor was transferred from the academy and was replaced by another training instructor. The new training instructor was extremely enthusiastic about using GSS, but played a much less involved role, attending only the fourth session, presuming that the researcher would take the leading role in facilitating the content and processes of the sessions.

Though the first training instructor’s ad hoc style of control had worked quite well, we noticed that participants generated a large amount of quite superficial and unfocused contributions, which obstructed discussion and accomplishment of the action plan. The instrument data also revealed that the efficiency of the sessions was poor. Therefore, we planned for fourth and fifth sessions more systematically, and introduced a semi-structured agenda (see Table 1) to structure the sequence of activities of the participants during the session. While a semi-structured agenda existed, the exercise recognized that learning is not a neutral process but is informed by ‘power, politics, history and context’ (McLaren & Giroux, 1995, p. 45). In order to give participants voice in the process, the various activities and the time allotted for them were discussed with them. In discussion with the participants, it was also decided that the processes and the time allocated for them could be dynamically updated depending upon the progress of the sessions.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Activities in the informal agenda

Activity #	Activity	Duration (min)
1	Introductory brainstorming/discussion	40–60
2	Focus on action plan components	15–30
3	Voting on the importance action plan components	10
4	Group authoring of the action plan	30–40
5	Completion of the debriefing questionnaire	10

The analysis of the data collected through an online instrument from participants at the end of sessions revealed some significant findings: while the communication was perceived to be effective and quality of discussion to be generally high, the third session was not rated as very efficient. This was most likely because of the ad hoc approach of the training instructor. However, in the subsequent sessions this improved considerably. Generally, with increase in the comfort level of the participants with the GSS technology the satisfaction level of the participants with the session process enhanced gradually.

The participants observed that as the GSS environment enabled them to discuss many topics and ideas simultaneously it made the communications and discussions more thought-provoking and interesting. However, it was generally believed that while the GSS environment might be beneficial for initial deliberations and brainstorming direct face-to-face interactions at a later stage was necessary. Some participants, particularly those who did not regularly use computers at work, complained about the lack of familiarity with the GSS interface design. A few participants also disapproved the use of GSS as it depersonalized their interactions. As regards the use of such systems by themselves in the future, one participant observed that ‘GSS is a good tool for meeting/deliberations/discussions, especially with those people with whom we may like to avoid head on confrontations.’

Reflections on the techniques and methods

While the adverse consequences of personal criticism were avoided, in the spirit of collaborative learning, ideas were still put through a process of critical analysis. The quality of work, complexity of considerations improved and cultural barriers to communication were overcome. A non-threatening environment facilitated a free exchange of ideas. Moreover, the researcher was also constantly involved in an action learning experience. This meant that in consultation with participants, the researcher was constantly reflecting on how the training process could be improved to achieve better learning outcomes.

In the planning stage, the training instructor did not wish to pay much attention to detailed planning at all. The first session was held on the principles of conventional pedagogy in which the training instructor delivered lectures and at the end inviting responses of the participants. Since an encouraging response was not received from the participants, the second session was held in a seminar-cum-discussion mode without the GSS-enabled environment. But in this session as well, the participants did not actively participate in the discussions. Thereafter, it was decided to hold the sessions in a GSS-enabled environment. In the first session of the GSS-enabled environment, the training instructor believed that an ad hoc style of session management with the participants making spontaneous decisions would be the most effective process. It is interesting to consider his behaviour in the context of the tendency of individuals to plan ahead in order to avoid uncertainty in future events. The first training instructor seemed to promote uncertainty, requiring the participants to be responsible for their own problem-solving and by injecting his own comments into their discussion, constantly changing the data and context of the scenario. He argued that such shifting circumstances are common for police officers, and scenarios needed to be made realistic by incorporating such changes.

In subsequent sessions, though some components of uncertainty by introducing comments during the deliberations were retained, a semi-formal agenda was used to aid the participants to structure their deliberations and discussions. This approach worked well in subsequent sessions but gave a new insight in respect of orthodox ‘problem-discussion-solution’ scenarios. The persistence of the first training instructor on his ad hoc session management style highlighted the tensions in PAR planning and the fact that formal, rigid plans may not always be effective.

In the execution stage, familiarity with GSS and the typing skills of participants were important challenges. Another barrier was that the participants did not view the AR investigator as a researcher but as a senior police officer of the department. The initial barriers were however overcome with researcher explaining the purposes of the study to the participants.

In the observation stage, data was collected from the participants in two ways: i) by conversation with them, and ii) through the online instrument administered at the end of each session (third, fourth and fifth sessions). These data confirmed that the ad hoc style of session management which was followed during the earlier sessions might adversely affect the quality of learning of the participants and proper utilization of time. This supported the decision to introduce a semi-formal agenda in the subsequent sessions.

In the reflection stage, rich perspectives were drawn in two ways: i) from the participants through the online instrument administered at the end of each session, and ii) from the conversations with the two training instructors, and Assistant Director (Indoor). The observations of the researcher and reflections on conversations with others formed the basis of interpretations. In order to ensure that the researcher’s views did not dominate other views and his subjectivity adversely affects the generalizability of the findings, the interpretations of the researcher were discussed with the participants throughout the research process.

Rigor and relevance in participatory action research

PAR is generally criticized for lack of thoroughness. Along with rigour, relevance is an important aspect of research (Senn, 1988). In this study, relevance was emphasized through recognition of the processes that help in the improvement of problem-solving skills of police workers.

PAR by its nature and process cannot be completely planned and requires constant adaptation (Checkland, 1981). In this case, the researcher therefore went along with the conventional pedagogy design of the training team, so that comparative evidence pertaining to different approaches could be obtained. The flexible facilitation method helped the researcher to be reflective and modify facilitation style in later sessions, thereby helping in collaborative learning.

Through a composite cycle of planning, acting, observations and reflections, PAR can aid an action researcher to draw detailed, context-rich descriptions and help in positive interventions. Continuous reflections and discussions with participants in this case helped in arriving at the realistic and implementable solution of GSS-based training through a semi-structured agenda. In order to increase the rigor of this action research exercise, data were drawn from multiple sources (Jick, 1979) such as the Assistant Director (Indoor), other training instructors and the participants in the training program, and using different techniques such as conversations and structured instruments. This study became more rigorous when inputs of participants were used to restructure the training program, for instance, the movement from an ad hoc style to a semi structured process in the GSS environment. Thus, deep dialogues with participants created the basis for change (Argyris, 1993).

Conclusion

A PAR methodology was used to do this study. Each session was subjected to rigorous cycles of planning, executing, observing and reflecting, which eventually helped in improving the problem-based learning process for the participants as well as the researcher. While certain challenges to the PAR approach were encountered, these experiences afforded a new learning environment, wherein the techniques and methodology being used could be re-evaluated.

This study shows how reflective learning models in a non-threatening environment enabled by GSS technology could be effectively used to enhance problem-solving and decision-making skills of field-level police workers. The study showed that GSS technology can be effectively used in giving voice and agency to learners, especially in police organization as it helps in creating a non-threatening environment. Additionally, technology supported learning, as a dialogic approach to reflective learning, should be revived by this study, which extends the domain of its application out of the traditional education sector.

The success of the study is, however, limited to the study itself as even though the officers, including the ADGP (Training); Joint Director, GPA; Assistant Director (Indoor); training instructors and the participants, largely perceived the GSS environment to have contributed positively to the learning experience of the participants, it is not clear whether the Gujarat Police will implement it on an operational and regular basis. When the findings of the research were discussed with ADGP (Training) and Joint Director, GPA, shortly after the last session about how GSS could be made a permanent feature as one of the training aids in the academy, they reacted positively appreciating its utility, but commented that the feedback of the training instructors was that the system was incompatible with their existing systems, and that they had little time for testing and implementing a new system. The training instructors saw GSS technology as a threat to the status quo: they would not only need to understand the principles of problem-based collaborative learning approach, but also learn new skills for handling GSS technology. Olesen and Myers (1999) have explained that implementing a new system that threatens the status quo is quite difficult, particularly when the gatekeepers or key users of computer systems exercise significant powers of veto.

This study significantly contributes to the training practices in the Indian police; a PAR approach in this field has been made for the first time. It opens up several possibilities of how training initiatives could create a conscientious, creative police force that is committed to the ideals of justice. Training interventions which give voice and agency to police workers could go a long way in enabling them to confidently and actively participate in effective decision-making to address issues of justice.

The study also gave insights for further research in two key areas. First, a detailed study on the role of facilitator role in problem-based collaborative learning approach is warranted. Areas for future research should include: i) the influence of technical expertise in facilitating problem-solving groups; ii) procedural guidance during group problem-solving; and iii) the impact of facilitator training on trainers with varying levels of technical expertise. Second, additional research focusing on the influence of computer technology and groupware software on group problem-solving activities needs to be conducted.