Receptivity to Research in Policing

• Author: Cynthia Lum,Cody W. Telep,Julie Grieco,Christopher S. Koper
• Published date: 01 June 2012
• DOI: 10.3818/JRP.14.1.2012.61
• Date: 01 June 2012
• Subject Matter: Special Issue on Evidence-Based Policy and Practice



*



Receptivitytoresearchinpolicing

Cynthia Lum

Cody W. Telep

Christopher S. Koper

Julie Grieco

Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy

Department of Criminology, Law and Society

George Mason University

* Abstract

Evidence-based policing—using research and scientif‌ic processes to inform police de-

cisions—is a complex approach to policing that involves various challenges. One pri-

mary diff‌iculty is how research can be translated into digestible and familiar forms for

practitioners. A central part of successful translation is the receptivity of decisionmak-

ers to research as well as how research is presented and packaged to increase receptiv-

ity. In this article we f‌irst discuss the complexity of evidence-based policing, highlight-

ing the much-lamented gap between research and practice. We review research from

other disciplines and also in policing about what contributes to research being better

received and used by practitioners. We then describe our own receptivity survey, offer-

ing preliminary f‌indings about the receptivity of off‌icers to research, researchers, and

tactics inf‌luenced by research. Finally, we conclude with examples of the types of efforts

practitioners and researchers can engage in that might improve receptivity to research.

Specif‌ically, we discuss the Evidence-Based Policing Matrix as a research translation

tool, as well as multiple demonstrations conducted by the authors that focus on insti-

tutionalizing the use of research into daily police activities.

The authors would like to thank the Sacramento Police Department, and especially Sgt.

Renee Mitchell, for their efforts in administering the research receptivity survey. Thanks also

to Julie Hibdon, the JRP editors and anonymous reviewers for their comments, and Jaspreet

Chahal and Julie Wan for their research and editorial assistance.

JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2012

© 2012 Justice Research and Statistics Association

Sp e c i a l iS S u e o n ev i d e n c e -Ba S e d po l i c y a n d pr a c t i c e

P



In his 1998 Ideas in American Policing lecture for the Police Foundation, Lawrence

Sherman stated that “police practices should be based on scientif‌ic evidence about

what works best” (Sherman, 1998, p. 2). Sherman described two dimensions of a

research orientation in policing: the use of information from evaluations of police

activities and the application of knowledge arising from an agency’s own internal

analysis. He emphasized that the police should use scientif‌ically rigorous evalua-

tions and research in a more direct and central way, arguing that research f‌indings

and data analysis should guide police decisions about tactics and strategies.

While this approach seems rational and straightforward, Sherman was not argu-

ing that the road to evidence-based policing is an easy one to follow. Evidence-based

policing, like many policing perspectives, involves complexity and nuance. Those

who support this approach are far from asserting that researchers, research, or sci-

entif‌ic processes can run a police department’s daily operations or resolve law en-

forcement’s concerns, as some have implied (e.g., Sparrow, 2011). Just as the SARA

model (scanning, analysis, response, and assessment) of problem-oriented policing

(Eck & Spelman, 1987) cannot be expected to be used for all of the activities in

which the police engage, and just as community policing is hampered by political

and resource constraints, evidence-based policing also has limitations. Why? Be-

cause evidence-based policing is a decisionmaking perspective, not a panacea. It is

grounded in the idea that policies and practices should be supported by scientif‌ically

rigorous evidence and analytics; that research is not ignored; and that research at

least becomes a part of the conversation about what to do about reducing crime,

increasing legitimacy, and addressing internal problems. These nuances provide f‌lex-

ibility in thinking about the role that research and science should play in policing.

Making research a part of the conversation on policing is complicated by the fact

that two entities (the scientist and the practitioner) with different expectations and

worldviews are attempting to foster and sustain exchanges with one another in order

to trade knowledge, skills, and products. These differences can result in divergent

interpretations of that knowledge and, more generally, different philosophies about

the role and meaning of science in policing. Scientists and practitioners may also

disagree on which outputs best measure police effectiveness (e.g., crime reduction

or crime detection), how evaluations should be carried out (e.g., experiments, quasi-

experiments, simulations, or before/after designs), or what “good policing” should

look like (Mastrofski, Willis, & Revier, 2011). The worlds of the practitioner and the

scientist operate on vastly different timelines, with police chiefs believing that they

need quick solutions, and academics believing that without adequate deliberation,

the quality of the science might be compromised. These many diff‌iculties can some-

times result in either the researcher or the practitioner conceding defeat or simply

avoiding the relationship, which then manifests itself as the proverbial gap between

research and practice (Lum, 2009; Sherman, 1998, 2011; Weisburd, 2008).

At the same time, some police and research personnel are committed to fos-

tering such conversation and see the value of public policy and social interven-

tions being informed by science rather than by hunches, best guesses, or even



“best

prac

tices” (Lum, 2009). This mutual belief is ref‌lected in a history of police-

research partnerships, as well as initiatives at the federal level to fund such partner-

ships (see the report on this topic by the International Association of Chiefs of Po-

lice [IACP], 2004). Recent examples of federal support for these partnerships are

the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Smart Policing Initiative (Medaris & Huntoon,

2009) and the National Institute of Justice’s Building and Enhancing Criminal

Justice Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships solicitation.1

This interest in reducing the barriers between research and practice is certainly

not a new pursuit in modern democratic societies. When Carol Weiss (with Mi-

chael Bucuvalas) wrote Social Science Research and Decision-Making in 1980, she

pointed out that numerous commissions and inquiries by the National Research

Council (NRC) and the National Science Foundation had already been undertaken

to examine the limited impact of research in the social sciences. And, she wrote, even

the most optimistic felt that the “potential of social science research for informing

the processes of government … has not been realized” (p. 9; see also Hirschkorn

& Geelan, 2008). In the evaluation discipline since, there has been much debate

and discussion over the utilization of research (for a review, see Shulha & Cousins,

1997). Twenty years after her study, Weiss (1998) addressed the American Evalua-

tion Association and again offered cautious optimism. In response to the question

posed by the title of her speech, Have We Learned Anything New About the Use of

Evaluation? she answers, “yes, we have learned some things, but the learnings have

come more from applying new constructs and perspectives than from research on

evaluation use” (p. 23). Nutley, Walter and Davies (2007) in their excellent work

Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services also emphasize the lack

of empirical evidence on the various models and conceptualizations of research use.

In policing, concern over the gap between research and practice also seems to

be a recurring lament. Bayley (1998) bluntly stated that “research may not have

made as signif‌icant, or at least as coherent, an impression on policing as schol-

ars like to think.... Nor has research led to widespread operational changes even

when it has been accepted as true” (pp. 4–5). Mastrofski (1999) emphasized that

the challenge was not only to generate more research about useful interventions

but also “to f‌igure out how to get police to do them more often” (p. 6). Weisburd

(2008) cited the continued reliance by police on random beat patrol as an example

of this gap, given the decades of research on directed patrol and problem solving at

hot spots. Lum (2009) continued by noting the lack of research in daily policing,

suggesting that better translation of research was needed in order for evidence-

based policing to be realized.

It is clear that both researchers and police innovators want research to be use-

ful and are sometimes frustrated by its lack of use. When the NRC’s Committee to

Review Research on Police Policy and Practices convened, it concluded that gaps

1

Grants.gov assignment number - NIJ-2012-3083; NIJ Solicitation number SL000978.

Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdff‌iles1/nij/sl000978.pdf.