Data and Obstacle: Police (Non)Visibility in Research on Protest Policing

IF 1.6 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Surveillance & Society Pub Date : 2019-09-07 DOI:10.24908/ss.v17i3/4.8517
P. Ullrich
{"title":"Data and Obstacle: Police (Non)Visibility in Research on Protest Policing","authors":"P. Ullrich","doi":"10.24908/ss.v17i3/4.8517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The police, in particular the riot police, can be a rather inaccessible object of investigation, whose reservations towards research are analysed with reference to five barriers: 1) police control of access to the field, 2) the doubly asymmetric research relationship, 3) attempts by the police to steer the process, 4) the sceptical attitude of (potential) interviewees, and 5) the restrained discussion behaviour. However, what appears as a hurdle from a researcher’s perspective allows structures of the object itself to be reconstructed. These include a prevalence of narratives of police “innocence” and “powerlessness” with which resistance against external aspirations for control is buttressed. The police view themselves as constantly being under public scrutiny and being unjustly publicly criticised. In this manner the predominant attitude towards research is reserved if not hostile. The police definitional power in its fields of action is thus partially transferred to research on the police. However, police interference has its limits, and counterstrategies will be set forth. Most data used are from a grounded theory methodology (GTM) project on video surveillance and countersurveillance of demonstrations, based primarily on group discussions and expert interviews with riot police.","PeriodicalId":47078,"journal":{"name":"Surveillance & Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surveillance & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v17i3/4.8517","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The police, in particular the riot police, can be a rather inaccessible object of investigation, whose reservations towards research are analysed with reference to five barriers: 1) police control of access to the field, 2) the doubly asymmetric research relationship, 3) attempts by the police to steer the process, 4) the sceptical attitude of (potential) interviewees, and 5) the restrained discussion behaviour. However, what appears as a hurdle from a researcher’s perspective allows structures of the object itself to be reconstructed. These include a prevalence of narratives of police “innocence” and “powerlessness” with which resistance against external aspirations for control is buttressed. The police view themselves as constantly being under public scrutiny and being unjustly publicly criticised. In this manner the predominant attitude towards research is reserved if not hostile. The police definitional power in its fields of action is thus partially transferred to research on the police. However, police interference has its limits, and counterstrategies will be set forth. Most data used are from a grounded theory methodology (GTM) project on video surveillance and countersurveillance of demonstrations, based primarily on group discussions and expert interviews with riot police.
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
数据与障碍:抗议警务研究中的警察(非)可见性
警察,特别是防暴警察,可能是一个相当难以接近的调查对象,他们对研究的保留意见根据五个障碍进行了分析:1)警察对进入现场的控制,2)双重不对称的研究关系,3)警察试图引导调查过程,4)(潜在)受访者的怀疑态度,以及5)克制的讨论行为。然而,从研究人员的角度来看,这似乎是一个障碍,可以重建物体本身的结构。其中包括普遍存在的警察“无辜”和“无能为力”的叙事,这些叙事支持了对外部控制愿望的抵制。警方认为自己经常受到公众的监督,并受到不公正的公开批评。通过这种方式,对研究的主要态度即使不是敌对的,也是保留的。因此,警察在其行动领域的定义权部分转移到了对警察的研究上。然而,警方的干预有其局限性,将制定反策略。使用的大多数数据来自一个关于示威视频监控和反调查的基础理论方法论项目,主要基于与防暴警察的小组讨论和专家访谈。
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
Surveillance & Society
Surveillance & Society SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
20.00%
发文量
42
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
Flock of Rogue Drones Surveillance Stories: Imagining Surveillance Futures Ten-Four Asian Embodiment as Victim and Survivor: Surveillance, Racism, and Race during COVID 2020
×
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