8-10 July 2013 The Law Faculty Building on the Sidgwick Site

1. TARGETING, TESTING AND TRACKING:The Triple-T of Evidence-Based Policing6th International Conference on Evidence Based PolicingInstitute of Criminology, University of CambridgeIn Association with the Society for Evidence Based Policing 8-10 July 2013 The Law Faculty Building on the Sidgwick Site

2. "What are police organizations? Towards a systematic comparative taxonomy of police forms" Sebastian Roché CNRS (National Center for Scientific Research) Sciences Po, University of Grenoble

3. Translating the lessons of research into practice? • How challenges of translation would play out in different countries? • Executives thinking about their different context in a systematic way? • Leadership strategy to adopt to be able to introduce and sustain an initiative

4. Double question, Double approach. Science OF the police What are police force/ how change? Science FOR the police HOW to do it BEST?

5. Systematic comparisons in police science: FOR vs OF

6. How to pose the problem? • What is the problem? • Term “police” • Police can “speak” (“we are police”, “we are the police”). • 1=> police (extension and intension), • 2=> Same term, many meanings • 3=> Same term, distinct realities

7. Police force • No single function, job, • No single employer or affiliation, • No intl shared definition, • Most often, no national definition (≠ legal definition of what police competences); obvious with privatization trends, • Lots of variations across countries, history.

8. Starting point • Asked to do a “gap analysis” in a EU program • Immediately faced with: • - problem of definition of “police”, structure, a function, a power? • - problem of elusiveness of notions (professionalism, oversight…), • - “the traveling problem”: absence of definitions valid for comparing (centralization, military police…).

9. Methodology • 1=> Absence of taxonomy of police forms • 2=> Absence of taxonomy of interaction of police forms with their environment • What are the available methodologies? • (how do other sciences or other fields than “police science”?)

10. 1 - In need of taxonomic hierarchy • Putting things where they belong • Supermarket: cereals with cereals, meat with meat etc… • Some order to things • No order, scientist cannot talk to one another (and police cannot either), • No order, cannot understand the relationships that the social organisms have

11. Marine life forms

12. What are police?

13. Taxonomical treatment: Sartori and comparative politics • “A taxonomic unfolding represents a requisite condition for comparability” (G.S 1970: 1036). • “taxonomical exercise ‘unpacks’ concepts”, it “decomposes mental compounds into orderly and manageable sets of component units” (1038).

14. Classification • Most inclusive (biggest group)= Domain • To the smallest group = Species

15. Linneaus’ssytem of classification(Mountain lion) • Domain: Eukarya (not bacteria) • Kingdom: Animal • Phylum: Chordata (have a backbone) • Class: Mammalia (fur, milk) • Order: Carnivora • Family: Felidae • Genus: Puma • Species: Concolor

16. Implication… • Police with adjectives

17. 2-Back to Police: problems with an undefined term? • Police measured without conceptualization (ex. Gendarmerie, centralization etc…). • Police: a universal category? Or a universal name? (police can speak their name): • => an undefined, undelimited notion? or • => example of of “conceptual stretching”

18. Tool #1: Extension / Intension

19. The ladder of abstraction

20. Same term across the whole ladder

21. Categories with universal applicability • Men with arms (patrolling the street) = highest level of universal applicability • Professional in arms • A professional force in arms set up by a political authority • A professional force in arms composed of civil servants set up by a political authority • Police = lowest level of universal applicability • Etc…

22. 3 - Classification building for “police”: how to do it? • => description of police as a “form” with a structure • => taxonomical unfolding

23. Obstacle 1: purposive approach • Question: What are police? Turned into => What are police for? • Functional (purposive) vocabulary: judicial police, public order police, etc… • Structural (descriptive vocabulary): ???? • => structures are not adequately described • => functional categories are enumerated without a taxonomical unfolding

24. Obstacle 2: legal definition • The notion of police form ≠ legally defined notion of police force or policing agency or police service. • An illustration from France. • The police of Paris do not exist legally as a force since there are only two national forces. • However, based on our criteria, Paris police are a force.

25. Organisms are classified by their: • * physical structure (how they look)
* evolutionary relationships
* embryonic similarities (embryos)
* genetic similarities (DNA)
* biochemical similarities • => determining connotation (the properties) for police

26. Conceptualization of “police” • => “dichotomous categorizations serve precisely the purpose of establishing (…) the uni-dimensionality of each continuum” (G.S :1039) • => there a very large number of organizational traits in police forms, • => what classification keys? • => However each “police property” seems to be multi dimensional, … • EXAMPLES

27. Main features of a form(whatunitsshallbeincluded?) • Attachment point (hook to political system), • Command and control lines (backbone), • Mandate given, • Operational powers, • Status of force, • Size, • Composition / Professionalization: illiteracy, conscripts (importance of training of agents specifically for police duties),

28. Classification keys in biology • Cell type • Cell structures (cell walls or no cell walls) • Number of cells (unicellular, multi) • Mode of nutrition (self feeding versus eat from other forms) • Reproduction

29. Classification KEYS for police

30. Police traits or « properties » • => each trait is multi dimensional (ex. Militaryvs civilian status of forces) • => comparing police forms (and systems) = those traits and build an “index” or scale for each of them (ex. Militarization score)

31. Degree of militarization Personnel Full militarystatus Gardia Civil Italy (MoD) military Civilian Ministerial. org. affiliation Personnel Full Civilianstatus

32. Centralization • Forms affiliatedto central political authorities, • Large forces operating from the centre (India, central offices in France), • Central forces operating locally, • Local forces operating locally under authority of chief appointed centrally, • Jurisdiction of central forces operating locally (ex; Turkey versus France)

33. 4 - Recapitulation • 1 – Conceptualizing “police” and produce taxonomies based on qualitative dichotomies, • 2 – Conceptualize the relations between a form and its environment

34. Police & environment • Bayley: force which is set by an authority, legal or not, democratic or not etc… (if self established ≠), manifestation of governmental authority

35. Focus: Police form & its environment

36. Studying forms: structures • Amenable to empirical testing • => focus on “structure” • Structures bear a closer relation to observables, permit empirical testing: • Structural principles (according to which the component parts of polities are related to each other)* • Organizational patterns (relations, differentiation, specialization), • Specific organizational structures (how an organization is constituted)

37. Forms and their environment € Reproduction

38. Hook to “political institutions” • “Hooks” of “police forms” to political forms: are observables, permit empirical testing, • “Insulation” mechanisms for chiefs from politics • “Insulation” mechanisms for chiefs from civil society / clients / customers, • “Counter measures”

39. What to look at?

40. Conclusions • Need for comparative research: police architecture/ organization “properties” and … • => police protection of life, • => police effectiveness, • => police openness to 3T, • => need to change what is external to police in order to change police,