Search

Pressure for police reform over the last century has come in many guises. The latest attempt is police science or evidence-based policing, and in this article, we consider how this approach can engage with the craft of policing to improve police science and the prospects that it will be used well. We suggest police science needs to do a better job of making itself relevant to the operational concerns of rank-and-file officers in their encounters with the public and of attending to the best that police craft has to offer. By studying craft carefully and showing a willingness to listen and learn from those who do the work, police science will demonstrate the kind of respect necessary for increasing the likelihood of a productive alliance between these two partners for the purpose of police reform. Though none but a fool or a madman will ever pretend to dispute the authority of experience, or to reject that great guide of human life –David Hume (2007/1748, p. 26) Our purpose, in this article, is to consider how the science and craft of policing can engage to improve police science and increase the likelihood that it will be used well. Our subject of inquiry is policing in USA, although we take occasion to refer to policing in other liberal democracies. Moreover, our attention is on the police patrol function and not criminal investigations. The largest resource in almost any police department is its patrol officers, and while there are studies exploring the culture of detectives (see Ericson, 1993), most discussion of the police craft has focussed on the culture of street-level patrol officers (O’Neill et al., 2007; Paoline, 2014). Similar to other occupations, such as medicine, to which police scholars often draw an analogy (Thacher, 2008, p. 50), craft and science are but two of many forces vying to influence what police do and how they do it. Political entities work hard to shape police practice, operating through legal institutions or by other means. Inside the organization, police administrators have their agendas, and many elements of the police occupational subculture pursue theirs. Police reformers in USA, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and elsewhere have long tried to influence police culture either through the implementation of management systems such as Compstat or New Public Management (Neyroud, 2011), the adoption of new technologies (Chan, 2001), bureaucratic changes (Ericson and Haggerty, 1997), or modifications to training and education standards (Mastrofski, 2007), but the Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason University Fairfax, Virginia, USA. E-mail: jwillis4@gmu.edu Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason University Fairfax, Virginia, USA. 321 Policing, Volume 8, Number 4, pp. 321–329 doi:10.1093/police/pau049 The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com craft has demonstrated an impressive resistance to these influences. And while there are assuredly examples of these efforts influencing police decision-making at the ‘coal-face’, to what degree these changes are revolutionizing police work requires additional systematic research. What is clear is that many researchers have concluded that recent reform efforts have fallen far short of transforming patrol officers’ commitment to the craft aspects of the work they do (Manning, 2003; Willis et al., 2007; Loftus, 2009; Manning, 2011; Koper et al., 2014). As for science as a harbinger for change, we think it is fair to say that it is currently a relatively weak player in the police organization, at least at the street level, where the work gets done and the discretion is the greatest (Sherman’s (2013) review of scientifically based knowledge of policing led him to conclude that while scientific knowledge has grown quite impressively since 1975, actual use of that knowledge has lagged far behind). Science is undoubtedly growing in popularity with administrators (whatever its prospects for improving police performance, it enhances their professional status and career chances), but the vast majority of the rank and file who actually do the work find it of limited utility at best. For example, a recent National Police Research Platform survey showed that 60% of a nationally representative sample of 95 US police chiefs and sheriffs in agencies of 100– 3,000 sworn indicated that they had promoted evidence-based policing ‘a great deal’ or ‘made it a top priority’ (Mastrofski, 2014) (As a basis for comparison, 90% of the local law enforcement CEOs indicated the same for community policing). Yet the few studies of the rank and file available indicate heavy reliance on police experience and reluctance to forego the implications of scientific findings when they conflict with traditional ways of doing things (Lum et al., 2012; Mastrofski et al., 2011). In rapidly increasing numbers, police leaders may see the benefits of the evidence-based approach, but most of their subordinates do not yet have a strong faith in the benefits of science (Our study of a professional, progressive suburban police agency of approximately 100 officers showed that knowledge of scientific evidence ranked at the bottom of 13 areas of skill and knowledge required for good police performance. Only 7% felt that knowledge of scientific evidence on what works is very important; 95% said that knowledge of laws and regulations was very important; 47% said that knowledge of people, places, and customs where the officer is assigned are very important (Mastrofski et al., 2011). Skill in verbal coercion and negotiation was also ranked as very important by a substantial number of respondents (about 40%)). One solution is to replace the current batch of street-level officers who have little faith or skill in science with a new batch who do. This approach, of course, is infeasible. Civil service protections and collective bargaining units make it hard to fire officers, even for cause, much less not being proscience, and it would take far too long to replace retiring officers with converts willing to embrace science fully. More importantly, even more science-prone officers, once on the job, may find that science does not solve ‘their’ most pressing problems. Hence, they will continue to rely on experience, not science, to direct their practices. Another strategy is to indoctrinate the existing street-level officers through training and supervision so that they appreciate and accept that evidence-based policing should be the driving force in their decisionmaking. Police officers have shown a remarkable resistance to such indoctrination for a host of reasons: training that is not meaningful to the audience, training built on weak science, and training that lacks specificity regarding what to do under what circumstances (Bayley and Bittner, 1984; Buerger, 1998; Lum et al., 2012). They tend to see science as something for the ‘brass’, not terribly relevant, and sometimes even harmful to the sorts of work choices they must make on a daily basis (Thacher, 2008). In an environment where so many in police organizations are estranged from the modus operandi of science, as well as being sceptical of their top leadership, it seems to us that a useful strategy to advance the acceptance and adoption of scientific methods is 322 Policing Article J. J. Willis and S. D. Mastrofski

Those in positions of authority have a special duty to exercise their prerogatives in a neutral and unbiased manner. To do otherwise is to abuse one's position and the trust inherent in it. As teachers and scholars we exercise a fair amount of authority and recognize an endless array of potential biases that we are charged with attempting to avoid. How good are we at doing so? One of the ways we combat bias in our profession is with open interaction. We discuss issues, analytical tools, methods, sources of information, and the problem of bias itself. International Studies Perspectives would like to facilitate this discussion. A rather serious charge of bias was leveled publicly against a recently published work. The issue has been discussed at some length in the Chronicle of Higher Education and Lingua Franca. In the pieces that follow the charge is fully rendered and a defense is mounted. We take no position on merits of the charge or the defense. Our desire instead is to highlight the problem of bias and bring it to the profession in an open manner. Both authors speak to the problem. We invite you to do so as well with two kinds of responses. First, we welcome comments on the specifics of this case. We will review and publish those that deal primarily with this interaction as an issue of bias and as it implicates the profession. Second, we would especially welcome articles about other forms or instances of bias. As we see it, bias can infect us as teachers, colleagues, and public intellectuals. We briefly outline our concerns below, and invite you to submit articles that speak to any or all of the issues. In the classroom we must present to our students, both undergraduate and graduate, as neutral a set of facts and analytical tools as is possible. Our undergraduates depend upon us for information with which they might successfully confront the world. If we provide them with information that skews the nature of the debate, we practice indoctrination and not education. Our graduate students depend upon us for professional training and socialization. We do them no favors by providing faulty tools in either regard. This is not to suggest that we have the unflagging ability to be bias-free. We do not. But failure to be impossibly bias-free does not relieve us of the charge to be honest about the bias that we fear may be inherent in our methods or our sources. Our colleagues demand an honest appraisal of our research. In “science” the ability to replicate findings is important. Though rarely do we threaten or pursue replication, we are inherently held to the same standard. Our colleagues should be able to receive sound responses if they inquire as to our assumptions, our pursuit of certain kinds of questions or arguments, our sources of evidence, and our choice of methods. We fail as professionals when we fail to recognize our methodological biases, our disciplinary blinders, our over-fascination with certain times or places, with the status quo (or with change), with dominant powers (or their challengers), and with the provision of an overly favorable orientation toward any of a number of possible groups—professional, racial, ethnic, religious, gender, or national. When we forward conclusions for all to read we also become vulnerable. Might public arguments or further research or even policies based on the conclusions we present be considered sound? Or are we misleading? Do we mislead knowingly or unknowingly? Might that fault be traced to good-faith assumptions or to personal political or pecuniary interests? How have we sought to guard against this? The problem of bias is difficult to contend with and perhaps inherent in what we do. But it ought not be ignored just because we know it is pernicious. Indeed that is all the more reason to pursue open discussion, and to pursue that discussion on the pages of our own journals. Responses by: Robert A. Denemark, Social Science as Propaganda? International Relationsand the Question of Political Bias, p.417 Robert S. Synder, Farewell to “Old Thinking”: A Reply to Gibbs, p.427

The Air Force Nurse Intern Program is a 5-month-long introduction to Air Force nursing for BSN-prepared graduate nurses. The program is designed to facilitate the transition from civilian nursing student to practicing Air Force Nurse Corps Officer. After attending Military Indoctrination for Medical Service Officers, newly commissioned nurses attend the program at one of 10 Air Force medical centers before going to their permanent duty stations. Preceptors guide and instruct the interns at each of four clinical rotation sites. The author, a former nurse intern, describes some of the many opportunities available to nurse interns.

SYNOPSIS. Exuberance over insights gained in the infant field of genetics early this centuryled scientists to extrapolate beyond their data to heredity of behavioral traits in people. Oneof the direct consequences was the incarceration of Americans and Canadians of Japanese ancestry during World War II as enemy aliens. Drawing on this personal experience of the misapplication of science, I describe the process of scientific indoctrination and blindness to the limitations of this way of knowing. This led to my attempt to demystify science through the electronic media. Only recently have I come to understand that two assumptions that impelled me to use television in the first place are wrong. The first was that with access to more information about science, the general public would be in a position of making better informed decisions on issues involving science and technology. The problem is that we are overwhelmed with information and most people lack the ability to distinguish meaningful “signal” ( i.e. , credible information) from background “noise” ( i.e. , garbage). We believe in phantoms created by the acceptance of anything because it exists as print or television programs. My second assumption had been that we need a mechanism to do an in-depth “cost/benefit” analysis of new technologies before they are actually made available. But history reveals that the benefits of new technologies are immediate and obvious while the costs are usually hidden and completely unpredictable. But in the rush to exploit new scientific insights we ignore the fact that science must lookat nature in isolated bits and pieces. Knowledge gained in fragments does not yield an understanding of the greater context from which the pieces are taken. With each new discovery, we itch to apply it, forgetting how much we have yet to learn. Our attempts to manipulate nature are often illusions of control created by our ability to overpower nature by brute strength. In the area of genetic engineering, this could be truly disastrous.

the Mid-western Branch of the N. A. B. I. made this pertinent comment: "More and more I am feeling the need for an increasing emphasis on motivating for religious living that is personally satisfying, intellectually sound, ethically valid and socially constructive. I do not mean one should try evangelistic appeals or seek for overt decisions. However, I believe one should help the student see what decisions are significant and why they should be made." This statement was followed by a "Note: As teachers should we not have a proper concern for the loyalties, commitments and judgments of our students? The successful use of the principle of indoctrination by the fascists, nazis, and soviets makes it increasingly difficult for us to maintain and defend a purely doctrinaire and academic attitude toward our teaching opportunities and responsibilities." I have saved for the last a quotation which seems to me to be very helpful in thinking through the problem of combining knowledge and appreciation in the classroom presentation of religion. "It is difficult," this member wrote, "but I think by no means impossible to combine (the) intellectual attitude with devotional fervor, and to make the combination is exactly the aim and the problem of the teacher of religion." I should like to read the very able exposition of this thesis. "For the intellectual presentation of the subject, I feel that the teacher of religion in her classroom should be as objective and scientific in her presentation of the facts concerning the history of the religious heritage as is the teacher of secular history, and that for the metaphysical aspects and implications of these facts she should strive for the same kind of consistency and orderliness that the teacher of philosophy employs." "With regard to the religious realities themselves. . . . I believe that the teacher of religion in a college such as ours has about the same sort of problem that the teacher of art has, i. e., she wishes to give her students the setting for an understanding of beauty and a personal contact with it, so far as that can be made possible by the analysis of the subject and the personal enthusiasmn and appreciative attitude of the instructor herself. That is precisely the same sort of problem that the teacher of religion has in her field. She wishes to give her students an appreciation and understanding of religion, and hopes by these means to lead her to experience it; but in my opinion the instructor in religion in a Liberal Arts College has to communicate this appreciation through her own attitude and analysis, not by a directly propagandist or evangelistic approach."

marized in this manner. Plant management encouraged a mild form of accommodation by a humanitarian and a patriotic appeal to white employees. Although initial employment of Negroes caused a number of white employees to terminate, such terminations decreased rapidly and steadily. Relationships among the two racial groups eventually became highly accommodative. There were white employees who merely tolerated employment along with Negroes. Negro employees in most instances accommodated to these employees by anticipating their negative attitudes and avoiding them. When they failed to do so, accommodation was supplanted by conflict. The majority of the relationships among Negro and white employees developed into conciliation. Frequently Negro and white employees became friends in spite of racial factors. Throughout the plant Negro and white employees worked together harmoniously. Favorable contacts enabled white employees with intense racial antipathies to recognize the fallacy of many of their racial beliefs. Such employees often became indignant that they had been misled as a result of racial indoctrination and developed more liberal attitudes toward Negro employees than many who were less prejudiced in the beginning. The impact of plant contacts resulted in a re-evaluation of their racial beliefs by white employees and favorable changes in their racial attitudes. The high degree of accommodation which existed between Negro and white employees indicated that acceptance of Negro employees as integral elements of the plant personnel is possible. Supervisors agreed that the work performance of Negro employees was equivalent to that of white employees. They agreed further that the employment of Negroes in the plant along with whites had proved successful. They concluded that in their ability to work harmoniously with white employees and in the quality of their work performance lay no reason for non-employment of Negroes after the termination of the war. Nevertheless statistics revealed that potential integration of Negro employees was greater than their actual plant integration. Employment of Negroes remained highly responsive to emergency factors. During the two year period they were persistently concentrated among the four low wage occupations in the plant. There was a gradual penetration of more desirable positions but there were never more than twenty Negro employees earning as much as $1.00 an hour. Management accommodated to integration of Negro employees less readily than non-supervisory employees, who evidenced a high degree of accommodation.

All public bureaucracies must resolve two fundamental problems. First, they must specify individual tasks in a way that is consistent with each official's information-processing capabilities, and, second, they must motivate officials to carry out their duties conscientiously. It is pointless for low-level officials to know what they ought to do if they are not motivated to do it and equally futile to design a sophisticated motivational system that is ineffective because bureaucrats lack crucial information. Therefore, an organizational designer must find the mixture of behavioral rules and discretion which assures that officials will be both competent and motivated (see Bardach and Kagan; Mitnick and Backoff; Simon). At one extreme, the public agency can rely on officials' professionalism to resolve both the information-processing and motivational issues. Under this model, bureaucrats are trained in professions which emphasize not only technical competence but also conscientious devotion to duty. Given professional indoctrination, agency rules need not be rigid and clearcut. They can, instead, basically exhort officials to perform well and act to further the goals of the agency. In bureaucratic situations where there is considerable uncertainty about the best type of behavior, professional training can encourage officials to share their problems and successes and work toward a fuller, mutual under