Tidying up a few misconceptions around evidence-based policing

Reply to Staller and Koerner (2021)

Bibliographic Data

ID7818477
AuthorsJacek Koziarski (0000-0002-1954-3991, Department of Sociology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, corresponding author), Laura Huey (0000-0003-2508-9542, Department of Sociology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada)
Year2021
Volume45
Issue4
Pages427-430
Publication date2021-10-02
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0192-4036 • E-ISSN: 2157-6475
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/01924036.2021.1949620
OpenAlexW3177535412
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited15

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

Criminology · Epistemology · Political science · Sociology · Crime Patterns and Interventions · Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis · Philosophy · Policing Practices and Perceptions · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOI