Education and research for 21st century policing: Collaboration, competition and collusion

In many countries around the world, there is a drive to develop formal educational qualifications for the police in support of a policing profession and identity based on an explicit body of knowledge, as well as tacit craft. This shift also includes a greater emphasis on continuing professional development and capability enhancement for existing officers and staff. This paper analyses the establishment and growth of a national, inter-organizational learning network across the nations of the UK, taking account of the different policy contexts and based on a close collaboration and co-design of education between academics and practitioners. It includes a variety of geographical, demographic and organisational circumstances in policing. The paper provides a first hand, but critical and reflective account of the planning, funding and resourcing of a policing collaboration between police and academics working with a national UK university. It examines the academic and practitioner considerations that education providers and police forces throughout Europe and globally need to be mindful of when undertaking such ventures. It proposes a model of collaboration that avoids either the police or the academics taking over the venture (competition) or alternatively failing to challenge each other’s ideas (collusion). Given the complex and dynamic context for law enforcement throughout Europe, this model, it is argued, deserves further examination and testing in other contexts.

[1]  Evidence Cafés and Practitioner Cafés supported by online resources: A route to innovative training in practice based approaches , 2017 .

[2]  S. Vangen,et al.  Developing Practice‐Oriented Theory on Collaboration: A Paradox Lens , 2017 .

[3]  ممدوح عبد المطلب نحو نموذج جديد للعلوم الشرطية = Police Science : Towards a New Paradigm , 2016 .

[4]  Elizabeth A. Stanko,et al.  Police Use of Research Evidence , 2016 .

[5]  Jack R. Greene New Directions in Policing: Balancing Prediction and Meaning in Police Research , 2014 .

[6]  N. Fyfe,et al.  Knowledge exchange and police practice: broadening and deepening the debate around researcher–practitioner collaborations , 2012 .

[7]  Jacob Torfing,et al.  Enhancing Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector , 2011 .

[8]  Denise M. Rousseau,et al.  Evidence-Based Management: Concept Cleanup Time? , 2009 .

[9]  C. Ansell,et al.  Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice , 2007 .

[10]  F. Baum,et al.  Participatory action research , 2006, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[11]  J. Hartley,et al.  Copy and Paste, or Graft and Transplant? Knowledge Sharing Through Inter-Organizational Networks , 2006 .

[12]  K. Grint Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of ‘leadership’ , 2005 .

[13]  Chris Huxham,et al.  Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage , 2005 .

[14]  Jean Hartley,et al.  Co-research: A new methodology for new times , 2000 .

[15]  Robert I. Sutton,et al.  The knowing-doing gap , 2000 .

[16]  Kim S. Cameron,et al.  Developing management skills. , 1998, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[17]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Conflict and Strategic Choice: How Top Management Teams Disagree , 1997 .

[18]  J. Bartunek,et al.  Insider/outsider team research , 1996 .

[19]  D. C. Gash,et al.  Cultures of culture: Academics, practitioners and the pragmatics of normative control , 1988 .

[20]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .