Speaking of reform: Experimental insights into influencing police executives' perspectives on civilian oversight

IF 3.5 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Criminology & Public Policy Pub Date : 2024-06-05 DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12674
Scott M. Mourtgos, Ian T. Adams, Joshua McCrain, Kaylyn Jackson Schiff, Daniel S. Schiff
{"title":"Speaking of reform: Experimental insights into influencing police executives' perspectives on civilian oversight","authors":"Scott M. Mourtgos,&nbsp;Ian T. Adams,&nbsp;Joshua McCrain,&nbsp;Kaylyn Jackson Schiff,&nbsp;Daniel S. Schiff","doi":"10.1111/1745-9133.12674","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Research summary</h3>\n \n <p>This study investigates how information about public opinion and peer practices influences police executives' views on civilian review boards. We applied structural topic modeling in an experimental paradigm, a novel approach diverging from traditional experimental survey methods, to the open-ended responses of 1331 police executives collected in an original survey experiment. This technique enables the capture of subtle shifts in belief directly from the executives' own words. The experiment systematically varied the information provided to police executives, including state-level public opinion data from a representative sample of 16,840 U.S. residents, and peer practices in major city police agencies. Our findings reveal that police executives, although generally aligned in their views, demonstrate a readiness to update their beliefs when presented with cohesive local public opinion and information about peer practices in policing.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Policy implications</h3>\n \n <p>In a democratic society, the core policy beliefs of police executives critically shape the existence and efficacy of civilian oversight mechanisms. Our findings demonstrate the adaptability of police executives in updating their policy positions, reflecting their commitment to informed decision making in response to the dynamic nature of police governance. We find that police executives are willing to update their beliefs related to the public's ability to oversee policing in an unbiased and qualified manner when presented with information about reforms adopted by peer agencies. In contrast, information about public demand for more aggressive forms of oversight can lead to a backlash, increasing the likelihood of police executives to favor existing oversight mechanisms and to doubt the public's qualification. For executives, reformers, and scholars, these findings highlight the limitations of public opinion and benefits of peer influence as mechanisms for policy learning in policing.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47902,"journal":{"name":"Criminology & Public Policy","volume":"23 3","pages":"689-720"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1745-9133.12674","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminology & Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12674","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research summary

This study investigates how information about public opinion and peer practices influences police executives' views on civilian review boards. We applied structural topic modeling in an experimental paradigm, a novel approach diverging from traditional experimental survey methods, to the open-ended responses of 1331 police executives collected in an original survey experiment. This technique enables the capture of subtle shifts in belief directly from the executives' own words. The experiment systematically varied the information provided to police executives, including state-level public opinion data from a representative sample of 16,840 U.S. residents, and peer practices in major city police agencies. Our findings reveal that police executives, although generally aligned in their views, demonstrate a readiness to update their beliefs when presented with cohesive local public opinion and information about peer practices in policing.

Policy implications

In a democratic society, the core policy beliefs of police executives critically shape the existence and efficacy of civilian oversight mechanisms. Our findings demonstrate the adaptability of police executives in updating their policy positions, reflecting their commitment to informed decision making in response to the dynamic nature of police governance. We find that police executives are willing to update their beliefs related to the public's ability to oversee policing in an unbiased and qualified manner when presented with information about reforms adopted by peer agencies. In contrast, information about public demand for more aggressive forms of oversight can lead to a backlash, increasing the likelihood of police executives to favor existing oversight mechanisms and to doubt the public's qualification. For executives, reformers, and scholars, these findings highlight the limitations of public opinion and benefits of peer influence as mechanisms for policy learning in policing.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谈到改革:通过实验了解如何影响警察管理人员对文职监督的看法
本研究调查了有关公众舆论和同行做法的信息如何影响警察管理人员对文职审查委员会的看法。我们将实验范式中的结构主题建模(一种有别于传统实验调查方法的新方法)应用于在原始调查实验中收集到的 1331 名警察高管的开放式回答。这种技术能够直接从高管的话语中捕捉到信念的微妙变化。实验系统地改变了提供给警察主管的信息,包括来自 16840 个美国居民代表性样本的州一级民意数据,以及主要城市警察机构的同行做法。我们的研究结果表明,尽管警察行政人员的观点总体上是一致的,但当他们看到当地具有凝聚力的公众舆论和有关同行警务实践的信息时,就会表现出更新其信念的意愿。在民主社会中,警察行政人员的核心政策信念对公民监督机制的存在和效力起着至关重要的作用。我们的研究结果表明,警务人员在更新其政策立场时具有很强的适应性,这反映出他们致力于根据警务管理的动态性质做出明智决策。我们发现,当获得有关同行机构所采取的改革措施的信息时,警察行政人员愿意更新他们对公众是否有能力以公正、合格的方式监督警务工作的看法。与此相反,有关公众要求更积极的监督形式的信息则会导致反弹,使警察行政人员更倾向于现有的监督机制,并怀疑公众的监督资格。对于行政人员、改革者和学者来说,这些研究结果凸显了公众舆论的局限性和同行影响作为警务政策学习机制的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Criminology & Public Policy
Criminology & Public Policy CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
6.50%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Criminology & Public Policy is interdisciplinary in nature, devoted to policy discussions of criminology research findings. Focusing on the study of criminal justice policy and practice, the central objective of the journal is to strengthen the role of research findings in the formulation of crime and justice policy by publishing empirically based, policy focused articles.
期刊最新文献
Responding to nonemergency calls for service via video: A randomized controlled trial Issue Information Bail reform and pretrial release: Examining the implementation of In re Humphrey Do foster youth face harsher juvenile justice outcomes? Reinvestigating child welfare bias in juvenile justice processing Short-term evaluation of Cure Violence St. Louis: Challenges, triumphs, and lessons learned
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1