Translational Criminology in Policing

The George Mason Police Research Group with David Weisburd

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2022
• eBook ISBN: 9781000578492
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

With contributions from international policing experts, this book is the first of its kind to bring together a broad range of scholarship on translational criminology and policing. Translational criminology aims to understand the obstacles and facilitators to implementing research by decisionmakers to improve effectiveness, fairness, and efficiency in the criminal justice system. Although the emergence of the translation of knowledge from research to policy and practice has gained momentum in policing in recent years, it is imperative to understand the specific mechanisms required to create collaborative structures to produce and disseminate information. This progressive and cutting-edge collection of articles addresses the growing interest in creating and advancing evidence-based policing through translational mechanisms. It describes a varied, dynamic, and iterative decision-making process in which researchers and practitioners work simultaneously to generate and implement evidence-based research. Not only does this book incorporate a process for translating criminological information, it offers varying perspectives on researcher-practitioner partnerships around the world.

Translational Criminology in Policing provides practical principles to help research, practitioner, and policymaker audiences facilitate evidence translation and research-practitioner partnerships. It is essential reading for policing scholars and policymakers, and may serve as a reference and textbook for courses and further research in translational criminology in policing.

PART IAn Introduction to Translational Criminology in Policing

1Translational Criminology in Policing

Jordan Kenyon, Sean Wire, Kevin Petersen, Kiseong Kuen and Muneeba Azam

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY, LAW AND SOCIETY, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, FAIRFAX, VA, USA

DOI: 10.4324/9781003153009-2

Introduction

Bridging the gap between research and practice represents a fundamental challenge and an opportunity. Research is a powerful instrument for increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of society's most important institutions, but it cannot stand alone. Without translation into policy and practice, research tells us the benefits we might expect from an intervention without conferring those benefits. In medicine, enacting empirical findings through responsive policies has been responsible for many of the cutting-edge advancements we enjoy today (Fontanarosa & DeAngelis, 2002). Leveraging research findings regarding prevention and treatment of illness and injury, evidence-based policies and practices take action. Protocols to prevent or treat injuries and illnesses are based on research, but do not represent research on their own. Rather, they require an additional step whereby empirical knowledge is processed through organizational and occupational contexts to develop reliable, replicable methods of delivering interventions research has found effective in addressing outcomes of interest.

For a variety of reasons, researchers’ efforts to integrate empirical knowledge into policing practices continue to encounter resistance in the field (Lum & Koper, 2017; Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011). The standard model of policing values direct experience, the application of rules and procedures, and the production of “justice” (Sherman, 1984; Sherman, 1998). On their face, these values can appear to run counter to those advanced by proponents of evidence-based policing. Yet, evidence-based policing does not present itself as an alternative to standard policing values such as discretion or professional experience. Instead, it argues that research should “have a seat at the table” (Lum & Koper, 2017, p. 3) to inform policy and practice decisions when it is well-positioned to do so. Evidence-based policing does not propose that science replace experience or dictate practice, if for no other reason than its inability to attain the level of exhaustive knowledge that would be necessary to do so.

As the evidence-based movement in policing has gained momentum, police leaders’ and organizations’ receptivity to scientific research appears to have increased in tandem (Alpert et al., 2013; Rojek et al., 2012a; Sherman, 2013). However, acknowledging the value of scientific evidence in policing is only part of the equation. Receptivity to and awareness of research cannot engender evidence-based policing without effective processes and procedures to convert scientific insights into action. The National Research Council's (2014) conclusion that scientific research exerted little impact on public policy, despite the significant funding stakeholders have allocated to do so, illustrates this difficulty. These observations signify the need to look beyond the empirical identification of “what works” in policing to focus on the process of research utilization itself. In other words, what mechanisms may prevent the use of research in practice? What can be done to help facilitate this exchange? What roles and responsibilities do researchers and academics play in this process? How can researchers and practitioners work together to coproduce knowledge regarding policing policy?

Translational criminology is concerned with precisely these questions. Coined by John Laub (2012) during his time as director of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), translational criminology seeks to address the gap between research and practice by evaluating the “processes by which scientific evidence is converted to politics and by forming interactive relationships between policymakers and criminologists” (Laub & Frisch, 2016, p. 52). This process involves linking scientific theory and evidence with practice, to inform systematic solutions embedded in policy and other regulatory mandates. In doing so, translational criminology extends program evaluation's traditional focus on program implementation to formulate effective approaches to convert research into policy and, thereby, practice. Thus, building on the foundation of data-driven decision-making models such as evidence-based policymaking, diffusion of innovations, and policy analysis (see Lum & Koper, 2017), translational criminology specifically focuses on obstacles to and facilitators of evidence development, dissemination, and utilization.

This edited volume assembles a broad range of scholarship on translational criminology in policing. It is imperative to understand the specific mechanisms required to create collaborative structures to produce and disseminate information. This progressive collection of articles addresses the growing interest in nurturing evidence-based policing by bringing the full weight of translational mechanisms to bear on the pressing challenges the field of policing faces today. It describes a varied, dynamic, and iterative decision-making process, in which researchers and practitioners work simultaneously to generate and implement evidence-based research. In addition to outlining a process for translating criminological information, this book offers varying perspectives on researcher-practitioner partnerships through both a domestic and international lens. We first begin by identifying and describing the major components of translational criminology in policing with examples of successful strategies for each component. The chapters that follow provide in-depth examples of the translational process and researcher-practitioner partnerships from a variety of different perspectives.

Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships

Researcher-practitioner partnerships are at the core of translational criminology's premise: dynamic processes through which researchers and practitioners coproduce knowledge regarding the effects of criminal justice interventions to improve research utilization. Successful partnerships aim to identify potential research or practitioner partners and make the case for a mutually beneficial collaboration. These partnerships allow independent institutions to combine their resources, skills, and knowledge in a way that empowers police agencies to achieve better results through data-driven decision-making. In step with these organization-specific benefits, these partnerships provide researchers with access to police personnel and data, generating opportunities for researchers to pursue unique ideas that contribute to research agendas that are responsive to the field's needs.

Despite their potential benefits, researcher-practitioner partnerships are not yet widespread in policing. Alpert and colleagues (2013) found that less than one-third of the 871 police agencies that responded to their survey partnered with a researcher during the five years preceding data collection. Challenges related to resources, staffing, and trust impose barriers to successful partnerships (see Alpert et al., 2013; Pesta et al., 2019; Rojek et al., 2012b). Successful partnerships require significant effort and planning from both researchers and practitioners. Collaboration strategies must start by recognizing that each partner has unique motivations that must be considered in formulating productive and sustainable partnerships.

Research Partners

There are a variety of motivations for police agencies to work with research partners. Researchers typically enhance practitioners’ teams by providing specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities that increase an agency's operational capacity (see Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2017; Nichols et al., 2019). Research partners also typically enhance teams by introducing unique perspectives that can improve studies’ objectivity and credibility with external stakeholders (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2017). When effectively institutionalized, research partnerships can improve an agency's ability to address public safety issues and strengthen relationships with the communities they serve. It is important to note here that the term “research partners” encompasses a variety of disciplines that can add value to police agencies. Police agencies can find valuable partnerships in a variety of fields, including criminology, sociology, public policy, organizational psychology, economics, urban planning, and more.

Police agencies do not have to begin their search for a research partner alone and should consider whether they have any existing relationships that can assist them on their journey. This may include personal relationships that agency personnel may have with individual researchers or research institutions, like universities or think tanks. Agencies may also consider whether they have access to industry networking channels that could expand the aperture of their search for a research partner. These could include professional association memberships (e.g., International Association of Chiefs of Police, Police Executive Research Forum), conference networks (e.g., the American Society of Criminology lists its members by state on its website), or industry networking tools (e.g., George Mason University's eConsortium for University Centers and Researchers for Partnership with Justice Practitioners; Justice Research and Statistics Association's network of state Statistical Analysis Center directors). Lastly, agencies may increase their chances of successfully creating research partnerships by attempting to increase buy-in within the agency itself and prepare staff to view themselves as field researchers and partners in the research that will follow.

Police agencies may also benefit from making clear determinations regarding who will take the leadership role in communication with research partners. That is, who will review the agency's existing data resources and research capacity? Who will communicate that capacity to potential research partners and be responsible for managing resulting collaborations? It is also important to take stock of the resources that the agency has and is willing to devote to research efforts, the skills that the agency possesses, and the gaps that researchers might be able to fill. Researchers also vary widely along key dimensions, including subject matter expertise and capacity for complex research projects. To increase the likelihood of identifying the best research partner, agencies may wish to examine more than one potential partner and work with key decision-makers within their agency to develop a list of questions that can be used to determine which researcher might be the best partner based on the agency's needs and expectations.

Practitioner Partners

While researcher-practitioner partnerships can be effectively initiated by either side, Rojek and colleagues’ (2012b) study suggests that practitioners may expect researchers to take the lead on initiating partnerships. For example, when asked why they were not participating in a research partnership, the second most prevalent response was that the agency had not been approached by a research partner (27%). However, Weisburd and Neyroud (2011) argue that police practitioners need to take ownership of science for evidence-based policing to be fully integrated into policing. These partnerships can yield impressive returns on investment for those who proactively and intentionally initiate and nurture them. Active partnerships provide researchers with access to both agency personnel and data, infuse unique ideas that inspire research agendas responsive to the field's needs, and may confer opportunities to shape what and how data is collected within the agency.

Much like research partners, practitioner partners can be identified by examining agencies that are close in proximity to the research institution, or agencies that others from the research institution have collaborated with in the past. Additionally, researchers should consider the needs of potential agencies and try to increase buy-in for research that fits those needs. Defining and assigning leadership roles is equally important f...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half-Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Contributors
• Preface
• Part I An Introduction to Translational Criminology in Policing
• Part II The Process for Translating Evidence
• Part III Researcher Practitioner Partnership
• Part IV International Perspectives on Translational Criminology in Policing
• Index