Research in police education: current trends

Police Practice and Research An International Journal ISSN: 1561-4263 (Print) 1477-271X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gppr20 Research in police education: current trends Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron To cite this article: Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron (2019) Research in police education: current trends, Police Practice and Research, 20:3, 220-224, DOI: 10.1080/15614263.2019.1598064 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2019.1598064 Published online: 12 May 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 5099 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gppr20 POLICE PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 2019, VOL. 20, NO. 3, 220–224 https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2019.1598064 GUEST EDITORIAL Research in police education: current trends Police education was a hotly debated topic 30 to 40 years ago. At that time, academic literature was rife with controversy and critical questioning by prominent scholars about the directions police education should take and what purpose police education should serve. Since then, issues related to police education (such as what to teach police, how, by whom, and within which conceptual or disciplinary framework) still surface from time to time, but with less prominence and certainly less ‘fire’ (see Cordner & Shain, 2011; Kratcoski, 2004; Haberfeld, 2002; Sherman, 1978). This does not mean that the value of police tertiary education has been successfully articulated and fully embedded into policing. Arguably, however, some issues have had time to settle over the decades and the study of police education has helped both policing scholarship and professional development in undeniable ways. Today police education is again at a crossroads, and police education is resurfacing as a ‘hotspot’ in contemporary policing, with a number of jurisdictions across the world wanting to address the topic head-on. This is partly due to the convergence of several movements in the development of standards in police education and police professionalization. Events portraying police brutality and use of force, condemned across many political platforms as well as mainstream and social-media outlets, have also contributed to relaunching the discussion about police education and training. This special issue features articles covering recent developments in police education in Australia, Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In Australia, police education has seemingly progressed at a steady pace, particularly in the states of New South Wales, Tasmania, and Victoria. Several organisational partnerships between police and universities oversee the delivery of police education at undergraduate and postgraduate levels within overarching strategies and standards – due for review in 2018 – governing the professionalisation of police across Australian states and territories (Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency, 2012). On the other side of the world, the College of Policing (UK) is in the process of conceptualising and deploying a Police Education Qualification Framework (PEQF) which has the aim of ‘supporting the development of policing as a profession through the provision of a coherent national approach to recognising and raising educational standards in policing’ (College of Policing, 2015). In the United States, cases of police use of force and the subsequent inquiry into policing initiated by the Obama administration have relaunched debates about what police officers should know and should be taught before going into the field. Under the pressure to acknowledge the expanding role of the police and that the ‘skills and knowledge required to effectively deal with [wicked] issues require a higher level of education as well as extensive and ongoing training in specific disciplines’, the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing dedicated a large section of its final report to education and training, in which several recommendations and action items focus on higher education for police (President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 2015, pp. 51–55). Contributors to this special issue address the global reinvigoration of the police education debate. We answer, through both qualitative and quantitative exploratory studies, some new questions about who should deliver police education to recruits and serving officers, how education should be delivered and at which level (operations, leadership, recruits, management, etc.), and the impact that such education has on police officers. These answers are © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group POLICE PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 221 presented against the backdrop of a digital revolution in learning, an increased appreciation that policing is a complex activity requiring creativity and innovation, and traditional work patterns (e.g., 35 years of service) potentially being upended by modern approaches to work and career. In addition to discussing some of these contemporary considerations, authors in this special issue argue that some emerging issues, previously sparse if not absent from policing curricula, are now deemed crucial in the personal development of an officer’s career, experience, and problem-solving capacities. Accordingly, these themes are approached in this issue through different exploratory and analytical lenses that include the development of organisational capacity, curriculum design, ethical conduct and training, and even classroom teaching dynamics. The first article, by Gary Cordner (Kutztown University, US), provides an overview of developments of police education in the United States. Professor Cordner’s step-by-step approach to the analysis of the historical development of police education curricula is done against the backdrop of what has traditionally been an insistence on criminal justice. Cordner delves into the contradictory observation that some of the skills needed of a police officer are less rooted in law than in the socioeconomic understandings of communities served by police officers. He also makes some astute observations in analysing the inadequacy of criminal justice training in the problem solving of fundamentally socio-structural issues, and he revives questions about the kind of training officers should receive for their work at the line and/or command level, and, therefore, the type of knowledge development that should be central to policing today. The specific information contained in this article, never consolidated before, provides a clear understanding about what policing students can study, either in-service or as conventional tertiary study pathways. This article is invaluable in that it gives readers an ata-glance grasp of the big picture concerning criminal justice curricula across a range of agencies, including policing. Victoria Herrington (Australian Institute of Police Management) and Joseph Schafer (Southern Illinois University, USA) provide a multi-pronged comparison of how the United States, The United Kingdom, and Australia approach leadership development in policing. Although demands on police leaders are somewhat similar across countries and span a range of capabilities such as fairness, equity, and decisiveness, the structures to develop leaders in each country stand in stark contrast to each other. Using empirical data gathered from policing leaders across all three countries and across various ranks of the hierarchy, the authors build on a succession of recommendations for developing leadership as organisational capacity. They avoid falling into the easy trap of developing a ‘leadership-building template’, since all frameworks, however flexible we want them to be, remain steeped in unyielding conceptual paradigms or delivery methods. In a wise move to steer clear from what they refer to as a call to action, and, in consideration of the peculiarities of each jurisdiction, Herrington and Schafer encourage police organisations to engage in various exercises to foster a coherent understanding of leadership, recognise talent, and acknowledge the diverse pathways that exist to develop leadership capacity. Following this cross-jurisdictional analysis, Jennifer Norman, Emma Williams (Canterbury Christchurch University, UK), and Michael Rowe (Northumbria University, UK) reflect on the question of what the PEQF is trying to achieve. In doing so, they bring into the fold the perspectives of police officers about how a seemingly standardised curriculum can be seen as a new governance mechanism over officer behaviour. Reform in police training and education is pervasive. However, for reform to be efficient and to achieve the goals it sets out to achieve, the local contexts and organisational environments in which it will take place need serious consideration. With insight, the authors make the point that there are many forms of knowledge, and many forms of evidence, all of which need to be taken into account in light of the growing demand for police professionalisation. Such matters have significant 222 EDITORIAL implications for the creation of curricula for policing and the ways in which a syllabus is delivered by tertiary and partner institutions. Another European contribution to this special issue addresses modern developments in Polish police education, which is slowly, but undeniably, starting to open its door to western partnerships and scholarly discussions. Monika Baylis (University of Huddersfield, UK) and Anna Maczak (Collegium Civitas, Poland) address these promising developments by providing a thorough historical overview of police education in Poland and analysing how these developments, which stem from international discussions about police training, education, and the emerging evidence-based policing movement, have had an impact on the contemporary police professionalization agenda in Poland. Their document analysis helps provide a comprehensive breakdown of the police education decentralisation process and provides a strong foundation for further empirical studies in Polish police education, including the evaluation of programs in a budding police education environment. I am honoured to have contributed some thoughts to a paper developed by an early-career researcher and policing scholar, Brianna O’Shea, from the University of Tasmania. The Tasmania Police – University of Tasmania partnership is now entering its 25th year. In the midst of generally negative literature about police–academic partnerships, the Tasmanian police education framework stands out as being effective and in a constant state of development and innovation. Since the Tasmania Police – University of Tasmania partnership is expanding police education delivery and research into new domains (with new topics, jurisdictions, and research), now is an opportune time to turn our attention to a number of components that make this initiative a success. In this article, and as part of a broader research and evaluation agenda on police education at the Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies, we ask what, in terms of teaching dynamics, has made the teaching partnership a success so far, and we have sought the answers from all stakeholders involved in the delivery of the curriculum at the Tasmania Police Academy. This special issue concludes with some important considerations concerning teaching of police ethics to police recruits. The reflective piece provided by Anna Corbo Crehan (Charles Sturt University, Australia), an ethicist and philosopher teaching in New South Wales (the largest police jurisdiction in Australia), is timely. Recent international events focussing on misconduct, corruption, and police use of force toward vulnerable people demand that we ask what and how police officers are taught about professional conduct and about the intricacies of working in an environment subject to high integrity and media scrutiny. A subject historically left to theoretical philosophers, the teaching of ethics is now, depending on jurisdictions, left in the hands of police officers with field experience (from a system deemed more focused on the profession itself), academics (from a system that allows comprehensive conceptualisation of ethical tensions and rationales), or academics and officers co-teaching in the same classroom. Dr Corbo Crehan takes a procedural approach to analysing this broad range of teaching frameworks, taking into consideration the real-world conditions in which ethical decisions need to be made, often at a fast pace. It is apparent from this special issue that these are exciting times for police education. Just as much as we concede to some hesitation about how to achieve a full professionalisation agenda for police, there exist shared visions for this agenda across many jurisdictions. Although negative attitudes remain about higher education for police, barriers are being relentlessly broken by way of extensive engagement between professions by academics, police management, and co-designed curricula, research and evaluations. The management of such organisational change is important, and it is paramount that those involved in police education research and curriculum design take into account the specifics and idiosyncrasies of jurisdictions. The context in which changes to police education happen is an important component of how we analyse the unfolding of the professionalisation agenda and the impact that tertiary education of police has on officers. On this latter point, researchers are now POLICE PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 223 slowly refocusing their research agenda on ways to measure such impact. Both qualitative (particularly ethnographic) and quantitative research offer exciting opportunities to engage with the professions. The authors in this volume make a significant contribution to the advancement of knowledge and critical thought in police education. In thanking the authors who have contributed to this volume, and in offering my sincere gratitude to anonymous peer reviewers, and to the editorial staff of Police Practice and Research for making this special issue possible, I commend their work to you. In memoriam The 21st of September was a day of mourning for criminology and policing scholars. On that day, Professor Sophie Body-Gendrot from the University of La Sorbonne in Paris, passed away after a long, yet brave and optimistic battle with cancer. Professor Body-Gendrot’s work focussed on the dynamics of police interaction with the public during riots, with a specific focus on urban disorder in France, the UK and the US. She was the director of the Centre d’Etudes Urbaines dans le Monde Anglophone, in La Sorbonne-Paris IV and a principal researcher at the Groupe Européen de Recherches sur les Normativités and the Centre d’Etude sur le Droit et les Institutions Pénales. She was also the president of the European Society of Criminology between 2009 and 2010 and served on its boards for several years. She authored more than 20 books, the most notable being Ville et Violence (PUF, 1993), Les villes face à l’insécurité (Bayard, 1998), The Social Control of Cities (Wiley-Blackwell, 2000), Les villes: La fin de la violence? (Presses de Sciences Po, 2001), La peur détruira-t-elle la ville? (Bourin, 2008), and Globalization, Fear and Insecurity: The Challenges for Cities North and South (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012). She co-edited the Routledge Handbook of European Criminology (2013). She sat on many scientific journal boards and authored hundreds of articles, most of which focused on urban riots and public policy. She will be sorely missed. As we pay our respects to her, her family, and her research students across the world (whom she considered her extended family, of which I am honoured to be a part), we dedicate this special issue to her academic legacy. Notes on contributor Dr Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron is a senior lecturer and senior researcher in the Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies (TILES), School of Social Sciences, at the University of Tasmania. As the head of police recruit training for the University and the Tasmania Police Academy, she specialises in policing interactions with vulnerable people, police education and the nexus between law enforcement and public health. She is the recipient of several research and teaching awards, all focused on police education, police education scholarship and police education research. She is a member of several policing research governance bodies, including the Tasmanian Sentencing Advisory Council, and is the executive member of Australian Crime Prevention Council for Tasmania. References Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency. (2012). Australia New Zealand police professionalisation strategy. Retrieved from http://www.anzpaa.org.au/about/general-publications/australia-new-zealand-policeprofessionalisation-strategy College of Policing. (2015). An education qualification framework for policing. Retrieved from http://www.college. police.uk/What-we-do/Learning/Policing-Education-Qualifications-Framework/Pages/Policing-EducationQualifications-Framework.aspx Cordner, G., & Shain, C., (Eds). (2011). Police education and training [Special issue]. Police Practice and Research, 4 (2). Haberfeld, M. R. (2002). Critical issues in police training. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kratcoski, P. C., (Ed.). (2004). Police education and training in a global society [Special issue]. Police Practice and Research, 5(2), 103–105. 224 EDITORIAL President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Sherman, L. W. (1978). The quality of police education. National Advisory Commission on Higher Education for Police Officers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, [email protected] http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0169-9071