Fragile alliances: culture, funding and sustainability in police–academic partnerships

Abstract

Background: Police–academic partnerships have developed significantly over the past decade or so, spurred on by the expansion of the evidence-based policing movement, the increasing value attached to impactful research in the academy, the ascendance of the professionalisation agenda in the police, and the growing necessity of cross-sectoral collaborations under conditions of post-financial crisis austerity. This trend has given rise to a burgeoning literature in the discipline of criminology which is concerned with charting the progress of these partnerships and setting out the ideal conditions for their future expansion.<br />Aims and objectives: we advance a sympathetic critique of this literature, adding a note of caution to its largely optimistic outlook.<br />Methods: we do this by combining a narrative review of the literature on police–academic partnerships with insights from elsewhere in the social sciences and observations from our experience of running the International Strand of the N8 Policing Research Partnership.<br />Findings and discussion: while we recognise that police–academic partnerships have certainly come a long way, and have the capacity to make important contributions to police work, we argue that they remain ‘fragile’ alliances, beset with fractious occupational cultures, unreliable funding streams and unsustainable inter-institutional relationships. We also reason that the structures underpinning this ‘fragility’ do not represent problems to be overcome, for they help to protect the integrity of the two professions.<br />Conclusion: we conclude by offering pragmatic measures for sustaining police–academic partnerships during those difficult periods characterised by cultural dissonance, a paucity of funding and the turnover of key personnel.<br /><br />Key messages<br /><ol><li>Over the past decade, police–academic partnerships have developed considerably in scope and size.</li><br /><li>This process has been spurred on by shifting attitudes towards research in the police and academy.</li><br /><li>However, these partnerships are largely confined to a select few countries in the Global North.</li><br /><li>They are also rendered ‘fragile’ by issues relating to culture, funding and sustainability.</li></ol>

The first national subject benchmark statement for UK higher education in policing: the importance of effective partnership and collaboration

“…What further eased the co-production process was the fact that group members professional expertise was acknowledged by each other, trust being implicit. There is a good deal of evidence (Macvean and Cox, 2012;Goode and Lumsden, 2016) of the cultural differences between academics and practitioners in police work and how distrust arises in large part from the legacy of research on the police (Bacon, Shapland et al 2021). For the SBS advisory group, professional trust was the key ingredient to successful partnership working and co-creation.…”

A New Generation of Police Officers: Experiences of Student Officers Undertaking the Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship in One UK Police Force

“…Previous research has highlighted that policing does not consider academia to be able to understand policing problems (Kalyal, 2019) encouraging policing to disconnect. Bacon et al (2020) outline the following key barriers for police-academic partnerships; culture, funding and sustainability.…”

New evidence and policy research, well-established themes

“…• clarifying the role of key actors, such as by categorising different 'epistemic communities' and identifying the multiple types of required knowledge brokerage to help those communities interact (Waring et al, 2021); • making sure that knowledge brokers maintain close and frequent contact with research producers and users, such as by being 'embedded' in practice, which allows them to tailor evidence to context and influence practitioner receptiveness to research (Norton et al, 2021); • providing a realistic assessment of academic-practitioner partnerships, identifying not only their value but also the factors that cause their 'fragility' (Bacon et al, 2021); • using general insights from 'systems thinking' and specific models (such as 'collaborative conceptual modelling') to help 'translate' insights between participants (Neely et al, 2021).…”

“…Although we can identify some good practice and success, there is a major lack of a supportive structure for routine knowledge brokering (Norton et al, 2021). Partnerships between academics and practitioners are possible, but different cultures and uncertainty about funding always cause them to be fragile (Bacon et al, 2021). Indeed, it may even be difficult to secure the participation of practitioners in the workshops and training necessary for 'translation' exercises (Neely et al, 2021).…”

“…• how knowledge brokers can help facilitate the use of knowledge in policy and practice (Waring et al, 2021); • how knowledge brokers operate in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), in a context where global north countries tend to dominate evidence, theories and frameworks (Norton et al, 2021); • how academic-practitioner partnerships can be maintained and expanded (Bacon et al, 2021); • how to solve the 'transdisciplinary problems' that arise when researchers and practitioners collaborate to address 'wicked' policy problems (Neely et al, 2021).…”