Further Mitigating the Academic-Law Enforcement Research Divide

Abstract

Since the 1960s, there has been well-documented incidents of the scholar-practitioner tension within policing research. Though there has been maturation in the professional partnership over the years, hindrances persist. The current study aims to advance collaborative efforts between the academic and law enforcement communities. Data for the current study derived from written documents and interviews. Results indicate that one individual, who possesses the appreciative cultural and social capital, can successfully mobilize collaborative research agendas between academics and police officers. These forms of capital (i.e., cultural and social) offer a new outlook on negotiating the obstacles that inhibit successful research collaboration between both professions. For new policing scholars, who have minimal connections with law enforcement, findings in the current study may serve as a recipe of sorts to better understand the practitioners to identify in collaborative research endeavors.

Keywords

police research collaboration scholar-practitioner social capital cultural capital secondary data from reliable sources

Introduction

The collaborative efforts between the academic community and law enforcement can be fraught with distrust and egos (MacDonald 1987; Tillyer et al. 2014; Van Maanen 1978). Nonetheless, studies have indicated that there has been progress in scholar-practitioner relationships (Cordner and White 2010; Bradley and Nixon 2009; Engel and Whalen 2010; Fyfe and Wilson 2012; Goode and Lumsden 2018). The current study adds to the growing body of scholarship that proffers how collaborative research interests can prevail over occupational and organizational self-interests. Specifically, this research presents a new vista for cooperative relationships between academia and law enforcement, which advances Engel and Whalen’s (2010) proposal that police chiefs are key to these professional partnerships.

This new outlook on the continuance of research-practitioner revolves around an exploratory study of police decision-making in video-simulated officer involved shooting incidents (OIS). Though police decision-making, particularly OIS events, are sensitive issues for researchers to explore, it is argued here that a retired chief (hereafter known as “Chief Smith”) had the necessary cultural and social capital to successfully link academics and police officers for this delicate research agenda. Therefore, the research question that will guide this current study is: What are the appreciable cultural and social capital attributes that mitigate the academic and practitioner research divide?

What first follows is a summary of the OIS study that is at the backdrop of the present research.¹ Thereafter, reasons are offered for the prevailing collaboration concerns between academics and practitioners. Next, the methodological approaches for this research are presented. This is followed by a professional biography of Chief Smith, which will inform the subsequent section on defining cultural and social capital. The section on the forms of capital will illustrate how these symbolic attributes and elements of successes of Chief Smith, developed trust and cooperation between the researchers of the OIS study and the Western New York (WNY) law enforcement community. The current study concludes with discussing the advancement of Engel and Whalen’s (2010) work, and reflections on the future of collaborative efforts between academics and the law enforcement community.

Overview of the OIS Study

Recent scholarship has begun to explore police officers’ decision-making by examining their physiological responses during police-citizen encounters. For example, Andersen et al. (2016) compared differences in SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) officers’ heart rate when exposed to realistic training and classroom training scenarios. Results of the study indicated that the “stress responses” in the realistic training was aligned to what SWAT officers would encounter in the field, while the classroom training had minimal replication of occupational stressors (Andersen et al. 2016). Furthermore, Correll and his colleagues (2007) exposed respondents to randomly selected computer-generated pictures in “shoot—don’t shoot” decisions in order to measure fluctuations in the brain’s electrical activity. The OIS study aimed to further this burgeoning area of “hard science” approach to understanding police decision-making, by using EGG (electroencephalogram) to record brain activity in a video-simulator, similar to those at police training facilities.

The authors of the current research understood that a key advantage to using EEG is that participants’ “real-time feedback” (Johnson et al. 2014:2) will mediate the Hawthorne effect. That is, EEG will provide objective psychophysiological metrics that instantly reveals participants’ cognitive and emotional processes (Johnson et al. 2014). Similarly, the EEG data would illuminate how stress affects officers among a broad spectrum of attributes (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, experience, age). To move the research agenda from the speculative to actual, the authors proposed to Chief Smith the use of EEG to understand brain activity during “shoot—don’t shoot” scenarios in a video-simulator.² The study, as Chief Smith immediately recognized, had significant implications for enhancing police work and addressing the negative law enforcement perceptions in society (e.g., officers are “trigger happy”; use of force). Chief Smith was able to convince officers in WNY that the researchers were objectively approaching the OIS study, with the intent of assisting and advancing police work. At the end of the data collection process, there were 52 participants for the OIS, from all levels of law enforcement (i.e., local, state and Federal), which provided a robust outlook for the current study.

Prevailing Distrust between Law Enforcement and Researchers

The collaborative efforts between researchers and law enforcement practitioners took root in the 1960s. The social unrest of the Civil Rights movement prompted academics to aid in understanding and addressing the divisiveness between the police and the community (Bradley and Nixon 2009). These early studies on police work, as Bradley and Nixon (2009) reported, provided critical analysis on patrol behavior, oftentimes highlighting police discrimination and wrongdoing.

Though contemporary scholarship reports that there have been improvements with research collaborations, as referenced at the onset of this study, Wilkinson (2010:147) indicated that “there is sometimes a lingering cultural mistrust between police and academia” that is rooted in “actual bad experiences.” A source of friction between academics and law enforcement is poignantly observed in Van Maanen’s (1978) qualitative work on police officers, “The Asshole.” As the title alludes, Van Maanen (1978) conveyed the entrenched distrust officers had for outsiders, including academics. He observed that officers viewed academics, students and racial minorities, for example, with the same level of cynicism as gang members. As Engel and Whalen (2010:105) also cited when reflecting on Van Maanen’s qualitative work:

A rookie soon discovers (as a direct consequence of his initiation into a department) that Blacks, students, Mexicans, reporters, lawyers, welfare workers, researchers, prostitutes, and gang members are not to be trusted, are unpredictable, and are usually “out-to-get-the-police.” (Van Maanen 1978: 354)

Over forty-years after Van Maanen’s (1978) research, the question persists, why is the distrust between the academic and law enforcement communities still ever-present? Though there are a multitude of reasons why the distrust prevails between both professional communities, some scholars have distilled the answer, in part or in whole, to a phenomenon known as the “dialogue of the deaf” (Bradley and Nixon 2009; Engel and Whalen 2010; MacDonald 1987). “Dialogue of the deaf” is, as Bradley and Nixon (2009:423) stated, “[the] mutual misunderstanding that negatively impacts on the police-academic relationship.”

For law enforcement, the ongoing distrust can also be attributed to an “exaggerated” outlook and identity on police work (i.e., protecting the weak; policing is a “calling”) (Loftus 2010:1, 4). Though not unique to the law enforcement profession, esoteric outlooks on occupational responsibilities breeds isolation and secrecy, which may serve as a form of self and professional preservation (Paoline 2003). Situations will arise in police work that citizen will not always understand, nor be privy to (e.g., protocol for firearms use). Therefore, these occupational complexities within law enforcement, grounded in specific training and experiences, make the profession unique and often insulated (Loftus 2010; Paoline 2003).

For academics, they can be painted with the brush of “lone scholar” (Fleming 2012:375; Goode and Lumsden 2018:77), with snobbish personalities that have “intellectual superiority” complexes (Engel and Whalen 2010:108). Furthermore, scholars are “cynical” and “negative,” which is grounded in their academic training; however, it can be overbearing in collaborative studies with practitioners (Cordner and White 2010:90). These depictions of academics conjure images of isolation and detached interpersonal skills, which is the antithesis of the comradery that is central to the law enforcement profession. Comradery, and by extension collaboration, promotes collective qualities and shared goals that signal unselfishness. Therefore, the lack of comradery within academia or, as Goode and Lumsden (2018) indicated, is an important threshold to negotiate when building researcher-practitioner relationships. That is, the “right” individuals need to be intimately involved with fostering and bridging the two professional worlds (Goode and Lumsden 2018:78).

These key or “right” persons are important to understanding critical positions and needs from both sides; a translator of sorts to dispel misunderstandings and align both professions to a common and productive goal. Therefore, the agents for cooperative efforts will have a strong footing in both the academic and law enforcement worlds. Chief Smith was that one “right” individual that served as a conduit between the researchers of the OIS study and WNY law enforcement. The requisite attributes Chief Smith possessed are discussed in a subsequent section.

Methodological Approach

The genesis of the current research emerged after the authors contemplated the success of securing 52 officers, from all levels of law enforcement (i.e., local, state and Federal) for the OIS study, which took place in 2017, from mid-May to mid-August. The authors believed the sample size was remarkable, given the well-documented tension with collaborative research efforts among academia and law enforcement, coupled with controversial and sensitive topic of OIS. The authors knew that Chief Smith was instrumental to the data collection success, but it was not necessarily clear how and particularly why.

To initially investigate Chief Smith’s impact on recruitment for the OIS study, the first author provided a cursory review of personal field observations notes and email correspondences between the authors. The first author, who is the principal investigator (PI) for the OIS study, kept daily handwritten notes of observations and conversations of officers and researchers. Further, there were email correspondences between the authors, which consisted of a synopsis of each day’s occurrences. These email correspondences were debriefings on the study’s particulars (e.g., how many officers went through the simulator), conversations with officers and observations at the research site.³ This was a functional means of communication between the authors, as there were times when all three were not present at the research site for the OIS study. Though not its original intent, email correspondences served as a “double-check” to notes taken by the first author. The use of documents for analysis beyond their original intent is often the case as Bowen (2009:31) remarked, “Documents are produced for some purpose other than research; they are created independent of a research agenda.”

The initial review of the documents (i.e., handwritten notes and email correspondences) confirmed that without Chief Smith, the OIS study would have likely not occurred. To further detail the level of Chief Smith’s impact on the research agenda, the first author employed content analysis techniques to the handwritten notes and email correspondences. It should be noted here that to the authors’ knowledge, there are no published qualitative studies that utilized both cultural and social capital to explain police work. Therefore, there was no available studies to orientate categorization for content analysis needs for the current research. Subsequently, the authors utilized their understanding of key words and phrases that are synonymous to Bourdieu’s (1986) cultural and social capital, to discover patterns and develop categories in the authors’ documents. This approach to coding and theme recognition in documents is, as Hecker, Wicke, and Bonn (2019) illustrated in their research with content analysis of policy documents, a necessary tool when no others exist. The first author conducted several iterations of memo writing, which coded, connected and categorized the documents’ text into themes. With this inductive approach emerged attributes, such as “relationships” and “intelligent,” with subthemes, such as “dangerous experience,” “training,” and “formal education.” This reductive process revealed themes aligned to Bourdieu’s (1986) cultural and social capital, which are discussed in the subsequent section.

With the forms of capital identified in the documents, deductive reasoning was employed for the last data collection phase of the current study: formal interviews with Chief Smith. As Bowen (2009) suggested, an initial research approach, such as content analysis, can and should enhance subsequent data mining efforts. In his review of research of low-income minority women, Bowen (2009:30) reported how “document analysis helped generate new interview questions” to better understand the marginalized group. Formal interview questions with Chief Smith centered on his personal and professional qualities that aligned to cultural and social capital, such as “educational and personal background,” and “experience and relationships within law enforcement.”

What follows in this section is further context of field observations and interviews that addressed the central research question for the current study: What are the appreciable cultural and social capital attributes that mitigate the academic and practitioner research divide? This methods section concludes by discussing research limitations.

Field Observations

The field observation occurred in two locations: The Chiefs’ Association (pseudonym) meeting and the research site. The Chiefs’ Association is a routine assembly of the most senior-ranking officers across law enforcement agencies within the county. The Association discusses and reports on issues that impact individual departments or collective efforts. The research team was invited to the Chiefs Association’s meeting to provide detailed information about the OIS study and address concerns that attendees might have about their officers’ participation. The research team’s time at the Chiefs’ Association was approximately 45-minutes.

The second phase of the field observation was at the research location for the OIS study, which amounted to over 50-hours of interactions with participants. Many of the officers came to the OIS study with their on-duty partner. This shared experience often resulted in jokes and “selfies” (pictures) taken to further capture the experience of the day. Having wires attached to one’s head can make for an interesting moment of humor. Further, and more central to the present research, the interactions of Chief Smith and officers were observed, which often, in an organic way, became inclusive of everyone in the room. For example, if Chief Smith and an officer were speaking about police work (e.g., prior incidents, policies, law enforcement culture), the dynamics of the conversation would naturally allow others in the room to inquire about the subject matter or provide their own reflections. This open invitation into inclusive conversations is largely a product of Chief Smith’s disposition and social charm.

Interviews: Informal and Formal

Informal interviews occurred with officers at the research site, which was in the basement of a police station. This isolated location limited “foot-traffic,” which allowed for privacy for the OIS study. An advantage to data collection in a “cultural setting,” as Hammersley and Atkinson (2007:179) indicated, allows for richer understanding of individuals and their lived experiences. The authors of the study were at the research site for 52-hours.⁴ The informal questioning of officers largely took place during the fitting (attachment) of the EEG probes, which was about a 20-minute window of time. This 20-minute timeframe with the EEG set-up, allowed for the researchers, including Chief Smith, to address emerging questions the officers might have about the OIS study and to put them at ease, as being fitted with wires and an electronic device are not typical tools in policing research. Though with no clear scholarly intent or any other purpose outside of maintaining a friendly and “light” research atmosphere, the authors, with perhaps the instinctual foresight that is grounded in years of research experience, asked causation questions to participants. For example, “Why did you participate in this study?,” and “What is your relationship to the individuals in the study?”

The formal interviews, which was with Chief Smith, occurred within a year of the data collection for the OIS study. As noted above, these interviews emerged upon the reflection of Chief Smith’s ability to successfully secure officers for the OIS study. The first author conducted a two-phase interview process with Chief Smith: email and face-to-face. The email phase of interviews centered on detailed and specific questions on Chief Smith’s personal and professional experiences in law enforcement (e.g.: “Why did you get into law enforcement?”; “What kept you motivated in law enforcement?”). These biographical insights guided the questioning for the in-person, semi-structure interview on qualities and experiences that Chief Smith possessed that aided in the successful recruitment efforts for the OIS study. The in-person interview permitted the first author the opportunity to mine deeper into specific recruitment efforts. For example, “How has your experience as an academy instructor contributed to your reputation among the WNY law enforcement community?,” and “How were you able to get other chiefs onboard with the OIS study?.” The transcription of the in-person interview was produced within 24-hours of meeting with Chief Smith.

Limitations

Prior to discussing the current research’s limitations, it should be noted the WNY law enforcement community consists of approximately 25 departments, ranging from large-to-small, including city, township and villages. With regards to prior academic-policing scholarship collaboration, all three authors in the current study have conducted research on the WNY law enforcement community, largely with survey data. This background information provides context to the current research’s limitations, which is largely with data collection.

First, data collection from field observations was not at the forefront of the original OIS study. Therefore, there were likely observations and opportunities missed, which could bolster or refute the premise of the current research. Second, as is often the case with qualitative research, generalizability is a concern. Specifically, findings may not be necessarily replicable elsewhere. Waddington (1999), for example, noted that police cultures vary across America. This variance of police cultures throughout the United States suggests that the WNY law enforcement community could be unique, given the combined urban, suburban and rural environment. Similarly, if police culture across America are not uniformed, surely law enforcement across the globe will also be varied. Therefore, findings in the current study might not be replicable outside of the United States.

Though these methodical limitations are present, it is argued here that the present qualitative study advances the scholarship on academic and law enforcement partnership for research. Past research, which was addressed in the prior section, reports on the obstacles that are pervasive among joint scholarly efforts between both professions. The new vista illustrates how Chief Smith possessed the necessary cultural and social capital to successfully mobilized officers from multiple police agencies to participate in a sensitive OIS study.

Chief Smith’s Biography

Chief Smith’s 36-years of service as a police officer in WNY was inspired by his grandfather, who was an officer at a local department. Chief Smith recalls “Lots of fond memories” about his grandfather and the comradery that appeared to be ever-present. This fraternal connection to other officers was a key feature of the profession that kept Chief Smith motivated throughout his tenure in law enforcement. As Chief Smith once commented, “I loved being a cop. I enjoyed the comradery and everything that came with it.” This is exampled by Chief Smith’s ongoing personal commitment to visit officers who are hospitalized, based on job-related injuries. He obligates himself to visit officers for two reasons. First, Chief Smith has a personal connection to hospitalized officers, especially those that are involved in traumatic events, as he, too, suffered from a serious and life-threatening event.⁵ Second, Chief Smith exclaimed, medical attention can be, at times, “substandard or lacking”; he feels compelled to be officers’ “advocate during the medical processes.”

During Chief Smith’s decades in law enforcement, he served over 25-years in leadership positions within the department. His broad range of experience, including patrolman, narcotics detective, lieutenant, captain and chief, garnered respect from officers within and outside of his department. Beyond the experiential-knowledge that would be gained from the profession, Chief Smith understood early on in his career the importance of formal education and training. A few highlights of Chief Smith’s educational and training accomplishments are a master’s degree in criminal justice, a graduate of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Academy and New York State (NYS) certified instructor in defensive tactics. His formal educational opportunities afforded him insight, connections and relationships into understanding police work, which can be understood by Chief Smith’s reflections about his time as a defensive tactics instructor. Chief Smith stated, “I was in a unique position with officers from other departments, as I taught defensive tactics and other topics at the local [regional] police academy.” This practical training, he further noted, provided direct interactions with all local police officers during his 30 years at the police academy.

Additionally, these credentials, underscored by his master’s degree, have secured Chief Smith a long-standing adjunct position at two academic institutions. Though the colleges that employ Chief Smith benefit from his lived, educational and training knowledge, he noted that he continues to profit from the faculty appointments as well:

Teaching at the college-level allowed me to apply concepts and theories learned in various textbooks to [do] day-to-day operations of the police department. Kept me mentally active, alert and current in new police functions and ideas. Also, kept me in-touch with the thoughts and ideas of each new generation as they progressed through their college experience—valuable knowledge to ensure success as a leader.

Further, which is evident by the purpose of the present study, Chief Smith’s faculty appointment provided him direct exposure to academics who are actively engaged in policing research.

Cultural and Social Capital

Bourdieu (1986) defined cultural capital as one’s knowledge and other skillsets (e.g.: professional credentials; social and professional language proficiencies) that advances upward mobility, beyond one’s economic means. Social capital, however, is one’s linkages and relationships with other individuals or groups that, too, promotes upward mobility. As Desmond and Emirbayer’s (2010:323) accurately and colloquially stated, cultural capital is “what you know,” and “social capital refers to whom you know.” Chief Smith possessed both forms of capital, which allowed for the successful collaboration between researchers and participating law enforcement agencies. As noted in the prior section, to the authors’ knowledge, cultural and social capital have not been utilized in past research to explain police work, including the scholar-practitioner collaborative relationship. The following illustrates how each form of capital was on display with Chief Smith.

Cultural Capital

It is widely accepted that intelligence, professional credentials and strong skillsets can play an important role when networking and seeking resources to promote an agenda (Hilgartner and Bosk 1988). Chief Smith’s advanced formal education and faculty appointments reinforced the understanding that data-driven decisions is the direction the field has been gradually moving toward (Goode and Lumsden 2018). As scholars have noted, from Australia to North America, the academic-law enforcement relationship has garnered data-driven programs that have informed police work (Goode and Lumsden 2018). The OIS research that underlies the current study, as Chief Smith commented, “ . . . can be a game changer for cops.” Chief Smith was cognizant that there is a sizable body of research that focuses on an officer’s use of deadly force, particularly the circumstances of an officer’s use of their weapon. Most of the research, however, is limited as they depend on scholars’ social interpretations instead of physiological data. These social science approaches to explain police behavior have not aided in resolving the negative perception of law enforcement in certain (general public) communities. Anchoring the public’s discord for law enforcement are highly publicized OIS encounters (Pickett et al. 2015), such as the cases of Tamir Rice in Cleveland and Walter Scott in North Charleston, South Carolina (Weitzer 2015). These and other OIS incidents have clear ramifications for fostering the distrust citizenry has for law enforcement (Weitzer 2015). As noted by Walker, Spohn, and DeLeone (2012:167), assumptions of police misconduct have an especially negative “impact on minority communities.” With Chief Smith’s recruitment efforts with officers, he was able to frame the OIS study to potential participants as a tool to help the public understand the subconscious brain wave activity that can occur during stressful street-level interactions.

Chief Smith’s artful ability to frame the academic-police collaboration was principally demonstrated at a Chiefs’ Association meeting to which the researchers were invited. As reported earlier, the Chiefs’ Association is an ongoing assembly of senior law enforcement members within the county. When funding was secure for the OIS study, Chief Smith contacted the president of the Association, Chief Lock (pseudonym), about attending a meeting to discuss the study with members, with the hopes that departments would see the value in the collaborative research agenda and promote participation in the study with their officers. Chief Smith framed the OIS study to Chief Lock by highlighting that the use of EGG is a significant advancement to better understand and inform police work, including training. This conversation resonated with Chief Lock, as he served in the military and had first-hand experience with the technology enhancing soldiers’ training. Chief Smith’s conversation with Chief Lock was pivotal, as without the interaction between the two, the OIS research team would not have been extended an invitation to a subsequent Association meeting.

At the Association meeting, Chief Smith led the discussion by framing his relatable experience in law enforcement, in such a way that it had pedagogical undertones. Specifically, Chief Smith reported that current scholarship has not “moved the needle” of the public’s understanding of police use of force. The hope, Chief Smith posited to the police managers, is that neuroscience can inform how the brain reacts under stressful conditions. This supplemental narrative, Chief Smith noted, has several possibilities that can benefit the profession. For example, he indicated that EEG analysis might be able to inform what truly happens in the brain when making quick decisions - under stressful and dangerous conditions. The data, as Chief Smith further remarked, could help explain that certain actions are instinctual, not prejudicial. Upon completion of the presentation, Chief Smith and the academic attendees were met with a palpable level of caution and doubt from officers.

Arguably, the most skeptical outlook about the impact of the study came from a leading attorney in WNY.⁶ Specifically, concerns were raised “What about if the [EEG] data” does not help police causes and “makes matters worse” for officers. This thread of concern was echoed by other department leaders. Diplomatically, Chief Lock rehashed the conversation he had with Chief Smith about the OIS study. Chief Lock impressed upon the officials that his experience in the military benefited from the use of modern technology (e.g., virtual reality simulator) with training soldiers. This lived and professional experience Chief Lock had with using science and technology innovations, appeared to soften the palpable concerns that allowed Chief Smith to raise a probing question about the public’s distrust of police officers. Chief Smith inquired why the mistrust of officers prevail. This direct question prompted attendees to reflect beyond themselves to find an answer. The inquiry “planted a seed” that would grow in the soil of curiosity, for some. The responses were typical (e.g., “The media makes us look bad.”), yet there was a noticeable moment of silence that hovered over the meeting; presumably as the apparently simple question was littered with personal and professional complexities. The inquiry was likened to, “What’s the meaning of life?” It is easy to understand such philosophical contemplations, yet finding a precise answer is often relative and difficult. The audible reflections of the police leaders seemingly tempered the initial cautionary tone that filled the room at the onset of the OIS research team’s presentation. Upon fielding additional logistical questions about the OIS study, Chief Smith ended the research team’s presentation by reiterating the importance of the neuroscience research and how WNY law enforcement can be part of a progressive agenda for the profession.

Though the authors are unable to ascertain how many of the participants of the study were directly derived from the Chiefs’ Association meeting, the idle conversations with participating officers at the OIS research site indicated that at approximately half of the research subjects specified that their chief encouraged them to partake in the study.

Social Capital

During Chief Smith’s tenure in law enforcement, his leadership and training experience provided direct connections and facetime with officers within the county. As noted earlier, Chief Smith trained officers for 30 years in the regional police academy. This leadership connection to officers, early in their law enforcement career, yielded, as Chief Smith remarked, the opportunity “to build positive relationships with officers during their training that paid later with regards to inter-departmental cooperation.” The first author recorded at least 20 percent of the officers directly greeted Chief Smith when they arrived at the research location. When some of these officers were asked why they participated in the OIS study, they reflected on their personal connection with Chief Smith, including his leadership within the policing community (e.g., police academy), his direct interpersonal relationship with their supervisor and Chief Smith’s positive disposition and reputation. Chief Smith reported, “I worked hard throughout my career to build lasting relationships at all levels of the department and also [sic] with officers outside our [his] department. [Sic] Was also a privileged to work with some great people.” This direct linkage between officers and Chief Smith, as Bourdieu (1986) might claim, underscores how personal connections are essential to marshaling agendas within a culture that is often resistant to change.

In addition to relationships that the Chief Smith fostered, there is one incident that appears to solidify his positive reputation among several officers: his involvement and sustained injuries in a fatal shooting.⁷ Chief Smith and his partner were the responding officers to a bar shooting in his township. Before the officers arrived at the scene, the suspect had fled to a trailer park, where the gunfight ensued. The Chief and his partner were shot and injured. Chief Smith reported that his partner was partially paralyzed due to his injuries, and he (Chief Smith) suffered “some significant skeletal injuries.” When Chief Smith was asked by the first author about how officers perceived him after his “trailer park incident,” he stated “I think the perception was positive. Standing up to a gunman armed with an AK-47 rifle tend[s] to increase your status in the police world. Lot of great support from the law enforcement community . . . ” Chief Smith’s reflections were captured by a comment from one of the participants in the OIS study: “He’s got street cred.” These words by the research participant highlights, as scholars have reported, dangerous police work can have a galvanizing effect among officers (Gayadeen and Phillips 2016; Herbert 1998; Pogrebin and Poole 1991), and can increase the status of those involved. It should be noted here that the authors of the current study are not claiming that experience with lethal force is a requirement for the academic-policing collaboration for research. Exposure to a deadly force incident is extremely rare in law enforcement, as policing is fairly routine. The opportunity to engage in “real police work” (Van Maanen 1973), such as a deadly force incident, is an indicator of credibility that can help marshal resources.

Concluding Reflections and Further Considerations

The current research aimed to contribute to the methodological and practical problems that exist when studying policing. Engel and Whalen (2010) posited police chiefs can be instrumental to mediating the “dialogue of the deaf.” Principally, chiefs with a strong footing in both the academic and law enforcement worlds can be the linchpin for the promotion of change (Engel and Whalen 2010). The current study extended Engel and Whalen’s (2010) outlook by illustrating how one key individual, Chief Smith, with certain symbolic attributes and elements of success, in the form of cultural and social capital, bridged researchers and WNY law enforcement for a common cause. It is further suggested here that the person(s) who could be a conduit for change does not necessarily have to be a chief. Rather, the individual must possess the appreciative cultural and social capital among both fields.

The perspective that change can come from a person, not a rank, is centered on the idea that not all people of status are respected. Research is clear that rank-and-file officers do not always hold those in leadership positions in high esteem (Schafer 2009). Though this separation from management and other institutional actors is common, within law enforcement it can be a definitive obstacle when promoting departmental shifts in police work. As Engel and Whalen (2010) noted, chiefs can be the wisest of individuals, yet, if they are unable to meaningfully connect to street-level officers, buy-in for organizational change will be limited.

Moreover, as noted earlier in this study, policing culture is not monolithic. That is, there are various cultures across the policing profession (Cordner 2017), regardless of geographical proximity (Waddington 1999). Still, as the current study illustrated, one’s cultural and social capital can transcend departmental boundaries, given the “right” individual. Conti (2006) indicated in his work on socialization of police recruits, there is an evolution with aspirants that occurs in training academies that becomes integral to occupational socialization. As Chief Smith had substantive and direct interaction with police officers at the training academy, it stands to reason that he aided in their socialization to police work as their first teacher or early mentor along occupational standards, which it is argued, holds as a level of prominence in officers’ professional career. This is aligned to law enforcement scholarship, including recent research by Miles-Johnson’s (2019:1) on training of police recruits on diverse communities, who reported that “recruits are significantly influenced by superior officers,” which shapes their understanding of police work. This connectivity between a superior officer who is “well-trained and well-intended” and recruits, as Engel and Whalen (2010:115) might suggest, is “valuable,” when seeking organizational change.

Furthermore, as the policing profession moves toward requiring college degrees as part of their application process, more conduits for change will emerge, thereby bridging both professional worlds. With increased education, officers will possess the cultural capital to understand the importance and value of evidence-based research in their profession. That is, college educated officers will accept and advocate for research that have practical application to police work (e.g., body cameras). Similarly, college educated officers would have the social capital, in the form of direct access to faculty, to mobilize change. These officers would have linkages to former instructors for information, guidance and collaborative efforts on research possibilities and agendas to solve social problems (e.g., gun buy-back programs to assist with curbing crime rates). Engel and Whalen (2010) reported that policing is viewed mainly in the profession as “blue-collar,” hands-on experiences, with the potential for danger. Officers who are successful in the profession, as the authors further informed, recognize the “white collar” skillset and understandings that are innate to the profession (e.g., social worker, cultural sensitivity) (Engel and Whalen 2010). These “white collar” understandings of the profession are introduced and reinforced in colleges and universities.

Additionally, new policing scholars might see this study’s findings as a guide to understanding who in the law enforcement community would be an ally or gatekeeper to research agendas in their career. It is commonly known that when recent graduates secure a faculty appointment at a college or university, they utilize their dissertation to generate two or three publications toward tenure. For many higher education institutions, publications for tenure are north of six. Therefore, a tenure track policing scholar will likely need more data to progress toward their publication requirements. Being able to identify, establish and build relationships (social capital) with law enforcement personnel who understand (cultural capital) and value research would be beneficial to both parties, which could foster decades of collaborative and progressive scholarly interests.

Lastly, successful research agendas between the academic and law enforcement communities would be mindful of the “asshole” identity that can be easily applied to academics. Van Maanen’s (1978) work was a manifesto and warning of sorts that demarcated the “us versus them” mentality among police officers in his study. Scholars are clear that the relationship between academics and the law enforcement community is still tenuous. Nonetheless, as reported at the onset of the present study, there has been positive shifts over the years. Law enforcement is slowly connecting to the academic community, as there is a growing realization that the objective outlook from academia on police work can be positive and enriching. Engel and Whalen (2010:106) noted, “ . . . it is helpful to have some other external organization validate those [police] practices and procedures when questioned by the public.”

Footnotes

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.

Notes

Author Biographies

S. Marlon Gayadeen is an associate professor in the Criminal Justice Department at SUNY Buffalo State. His research interests include hazing, criminology, deviance, deviant behavior, humor in policing, and organizational sociology.

Scott W. Phillips is a professor in the Criminal Justice Department at SUNY Buffalo State. His research focuses on empirical examinations of police officer decision-making and organizational influences on officers’ behavior. His works have appeared in Journal of Criminal Justice, Crime and Delinquency, Police Research and Practice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, Policing: An International Journal, and Policing and Society. He has worked as the Futurist Scholar in Residence with the Behavioral Science Unit at the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Academy in Quantico, Virginia.

James J. Sobol is associate professor and chair in the Criminal Justice Department at SUNY Buffalo State. His research includes empirical assessments of police behavior and police attitudes. His recent research centers on policing with emphases on understanding how police organizations respond to contemporary challenges, police training and use of force. He has published articles in scholarly journals including Crime and Delinquency, Justice Quarterly, Journal of Criminal Justice and the International Journal of Police Science and Management.

References

Andersen

Judith P.

Pitel

Marian

Weerasinghe

Ashini

Papazoglou

Konstantinos

. 2016. “Highly Realistic Scenario-based Training Simulates the Psychophysiology of Real World Use of Force Encounters: Implications for Improved Police Officer Performance.” Journal of Law Enforcement 5(4):1–14.

Bourdieu

Pierre

. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” Pp. 241–258 in Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, edited by J. Richardson. New York: Greenwood.

Bowen

Glenn A.

2009. “Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method.” Qualitative Research Journal 9(2):27–40.

Bradley

David

Nixon

Christine

. 2009. “Ending the ‘Dialogue of the Deaf’: Evidence and Policing Policies and Practices. An Australian Case Study.” Police Practice and Research 10(5–6):423–35.

Conti

Norma

. 2006. “Role Call: Preprofessional Socialization into Police Culture.” Policing and Society 16(3):221–42.

Cordner

Gary

. 2017. “Police Culture: Individual and Organizational Differences in Police Officer Perspectives.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 40(1):11–25.

Cordner

Gary

White

Stephen

. 2010. “The Evolving Relationship between Police Research and Police Practice.” Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 11(2):90–94.

Correll

Joshua

Park

Bernadette

Judd

Charles M.

Wittenbrink

Bernd

Sadler

Melody S.

Keesee

Tracie

. 2007. “Across the Thin Blue Line: Police Officers and Racial Bias in the Decision to Shoot.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92(6):1006–23.

Desmond

Matthew

Emirbayer

Mustafa

. 2010. Racial Domination, Racial Progress: The Sociology of Race in America. New York: McGraw Hill.

10.

Engel

Robin S.

Whalen

James L.

2010. “Police-academic Partnerships: Ending the Dialogue of the Deaf, the Cincinnati experience.” Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 11(2):105–16.

11.

Fleming

Jenny

. 2012. “Changing the Way We Do Business: Reflecting on Collaborative Practice.” Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 13(4):375–88.

12.

Fyfe

Nicholas R.

Wilson

Peter

. 2012. “Knowledge Exchange and Police Practice: Broadening and Deepening the Debate around Researcher-practitioner Collaborations.” Police Practice and Research 13(4):306–14.

13.

Gayadeen

S. Marlon

Phillips

Scott W.

2016. “Donut Time: The Use of Humor Across the Police Work Environment.” Journal of Organizational Ethnography 5(1):44–59.

14.

Goode

Jackie

Lumsden

Karen

. 2018. “The McDonaldisation of Police–academic Partnerships: Organisational and Cultural Barriers Encountered in Moving from Research on Police to Research with Police.” Policing and Society 28(1):75–79.

15.

Hammersley

Martyn

Atkinson

Paul

. 2007. Ethnography: Principles in Practice. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.

16.

Hecker

Susanne

Wicke

Nina

Haklay

Muki

Bonn

Aletta

. 2019. “How Does Policy Conceptualise Citizen Science? A Qualitative Content Analysis of International Policy Documents.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 4(1):1–16.

17.

Herbert

Steve

. 1998. “Police Subculture Reconsidered.” Criminology 36(2):342–70.

18.

Hilgartner

Stephen

Bosk

Charles L.

1988. “The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model.” American Journal of Sociology 94(1):52–78.

19.

Johnson

Robin R.

Stone

Bradly T.

Miranda

Carrie M.

Vila

Bryan

James

Lois

James

Stephen M.

Rubio

Roberto F.

Berka

Chris

. 2014. “Identifying Psychophysiological Indices of Expert vs. Novice Performance in Deadly Force Judgment and Decision Making.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8:1–13.

20.

Loftus

Bethan

. 2010. “Police Occupational Culture: Classic Themes, Altered Times.” Policing and Society 20(1):1–20.

21.

MacDonald

Barry

. 1987. Research and Action in the Context of Policing. London, England: The Police Foundation.

22.

Miles-Johnson

Toby

. 2019. “Policing Diverse People: How Occupational Attitudes and Background Characteristics Shape Police Recruits’ Perceptions.” SAGE Open 9(3):1–13.

23.

Paoline

Eugene A

III.

2003. “Taking Stock: Toward a Richer Understanding of Police Culture.” Journal of Criminal Justice 31(3):199–214.

24.

Pickett

Justin T.

Mancini

Christina

Mears

Daniel P.

Gertz

Marc

. 2015. “Public (mis) Understanding of Crime Policy: The Effects of Criminal Justice Experience and Media Reliance.” Criminal Justice Policy Review 26(5):500–22.

25.

Pogrebin

Mark R.

Poole

Eric D.

1991. “Police and Tragic Events: The Management of Emotions.” Journal of Criminal Justice 19(4):395–403.

26.

Schafer

Joseph A.

2009. “Developing Effective Leadership in Policing: Perils, Pitfalls, and Paths Forward.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 21(2):238–60.

27.

Tillyer

Rob

Tillyer

Marie Skubak

McCluskey

John

Cancino

Jeffrey

Todaro

Joseph

McKinnon

Layla

. 2014. “Researcher–practitioner Partnerships and Crime Analysis: A Case Study in Action Research.” Police Practice and Research 15(5):404–18.

28.

Van Maanen

John

. 1973. “Observations on the Making of Policemen.” Human Organization 32(4):407–4018.

29.

Van Maanen

John

. 1978. “The Asshole.” Pp. 221–238 in Policing: A View from the Street, edited by P. K. Manning Van Maanen

Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing. Reprinted in V. E. Kappeler (Ed.). (1999) The Police and Society (2nd ed., pp. 346–367).

30.

Waddington

Peter A. J.

1999. “Police (canteen) Sub-culture: An Appreciation.” British Journal of Criminology 39(2):287–309.

31.

Walker

Samuel

Spohn

Cassia

DeLone

Miriam

. 2012. The Color of Justice: Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengagage Learning.

32.

Weitzer

Ronald

. 2015. “American Policing Under Fire: Misconduct and Reform.” Society 52(5)::475–80.

33.

Wilkinson

Sue

. 2010. “Research and Policing—Looking to the Future.” Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 4(3):146–48.