Tidying up a few misconceptions around evidence-based policing: Reply to Staller and Koerner (2021)

Jacek Koziarski, Laura Huey
{"title":"Tidying up a few misconceptions around evidence-based policing: Reply to Staller and Koerner (2021)","authors":"Jacek Koziarski, Laura Huey","doi":"10.1080/01924036.2021.1949620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this piece we reply to a commentary from Staller and Koerner on our work entitled, #Defund or #Re-Fund? Re-Examining Bayley’s Blueprint for Police Reform. In short, we agree on the necessity of reflexivity within policing research and the area of evidence-based policing more specifically, but also see this reply as an opportunity to clarify some misconceptions around evidence-based policing and what it means to be “evidence-based.” More specifically, we touch upon the flexibility of evidence-based policing to be implemented in tandem with other reform approaches, the value of experiential knowledge and qualitative methods within evidence-based policing, and the confounding of evidence and evidence-based. We conclude on the point of reflexivity and put out a call for follow-up studies that examine the implications of evaluated police practices.","PeriodicalId":45887,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01924036.2021.1949620","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2021.1949620","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT In this piece we reply to a commentary from Staller and Koerner on our work entitled, #Defund or #Re-Fund? Re-Examining Bayley’s Blueprint for Police Reform. In short, we agree on the necessity of reflexivity within policing research and the area of evidence-based policing more specifically, but also see this reply as an opportunity to clarify some misconceptions around evidence-based policing and what it means to be “evidence-based.” More specifically, we touch upon the flexibility of evidence-based policing to be implemented in tandem with other reform approaches, the value of experiential knowledge and qualitative methods within evidence-based policing, and the confounding of evidence and evidence-based. We conclude on the point of reflexivity and put out a call for follow-up studies that examine the implications of evaluated police practices.
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
整理关于循证警务的一些误解:回复斯塔勒和科纳(2021)
摘要在这篇文章中,我们回复了Staller和Koerner对我们的工作的评论,题为“#Defund还是#Re-Found?”?重新审视贝利的警察改革蓝图。简言之,我们同意警务研究和更具体地说,循证警务领域中反思性的必要性,但也认为这一回答是一个机会,可以澄清对循证警务的一些误解,以及“循证”意味着什么,我们谈到了循证警务与其他改革方法相结合的灵活性,循证警务中经验知识和定性方法的价值,以及证据和循证的混淆。我们在反思性这一点上得出结论,并呼吁进行后续研究,审查所评估的警察做法的影响。
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
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
“Spirit child” and concomitant paedicides in Africa: a systematic review of the empirical literature Exploring public cooperation with police: the role of police accountability, police effectiveness, and public trust Examining gang membership and victimisation as predictors of gun violence perpetration: testing for interactive effects A review of restorative justice programmes for First Nations Peoples in Queensland Citizens’ sex offence myths and perceived effectiveness of sex offender community notification in South Korea
×
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