POLICING AND SOCIETY

Transcription

1 CARLETON UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY SOCI 4850A CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS IN SOCIOLOGY SUMMER 2018 POLICING AND SOCIETY Instructor: Gregory R. (Greg) Brown Office: Loeb A708 Office Hours: Tuesdays 2:30PM to 4:00PM or by appointment This is the best way to contact me and I am typically diligent in responding, but please appreciate it may sometimes take 24 hours. For s requiring considerable elaboration, I will often request that you see me during office hours. Phone Number: (613) (office) Course Meets: Tuesdays and Thursdays 11:35AM to 2:25PM (July 3 to August 14 inclusive) Location: Loeb A715 Pre-requisites: fourth-year Honours standing Calendar Description: Through seminar discussions, framed by selected readings, this course will explore, in some depth, issues and challenges concerning the police in Canada and internationally, including: policing and race; police use of force; police accountability and public confidence; police occupational subculture; policing s new visibility; police misconduct; the phenomenon of depolicing; and examinations of police practices (reactive versus proactive policing, communitybased policing, broken windows policing, procedural justice, etc.). Course Description: This course is not an introductory-level sociology or criminology course, nor does it provide training in applied law enforcement. Students are expected to have some understanding of what policing is (broadly), what the police do (or are supposed to do), and how, generally, they do it. This fourth-year advanced course explores contemporary police practices and the relationship between policing and society. It seeks to advance understandings of socio-political considerations in today s policing through exploring, in some depth, issues and challenges concerning the police and their relationship with, broadly speaking, the public in Canada and internationally. Ericson and colleagues (1989: 91-92) presented an observation that is instructive to the course s broad themes in advancing that the police possess political centrality in society and that, like the state and society itself, the police are continually the object and the forum of political conflicts. Themes to be considered include: policing and race; police use of force; police accountability and public confidence; police occupational subculture; policing s new visibility; police misconduct; the phenomenon of de-policing; and examinations of police practices (reactive versus proactive policing, community-based policing, broken windows policing, procedural justice, etc.). This course follows a seminar format and our sessions will be structured around discussion of required readings. This course is organized on the assumption that learning results from a

2 continuing process of rational discourse and the application of critical thinking. Students are expected to: 1) attend class; 2) have completed the required readings, have prepared notes, and have formulated questions emerging from the student s deliberations on each of the required readings (to facilitate dialogue among the group); 3) be prepared to consider, inquire, and engage with issues/arguments emerging from the readings and the observations of your colleagues and the instructor. This course is reading intensive, with the expectation that students will closely read and understand between 50 and 75 pages of scholarly material in advance of each session. The readings have been chosen, with much deliberation, to intellectually challenge and stimulate. The focus of this course is on public police, as differentiated from other forms of social control (policing) in our society. It is the public police who are the most direct mechanism through which the power of the state over the citizenry is applied and the actions of the public police are the most visible embodiment of the state s exercise of control and authority. The particular socio-political significance of policing in democratic governance arises because of both this institution s unique role as that which is mandated to enforce social control and maintain order throughout civil society and the extraordinary powers entrusted to police in support of their role. The police are the formal institutionalization of the policing function in our society individuals collectively invested with exclusive powers to encroach on citizen s fundamental rights, to restrict individual s liberty, and to use force in order to coerce compliance in resolving conflicts and guaranteeing certain behaviour from citizens. Ericson (1989: 155), in applying the deliberations of Marx and Weber to policing, articulated that the police are seen to be at the forefront of the coercive arm of the state, the embodiment of the state s monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In any consideration of police powers and their exercise, it is also important to appreciate that the police possess inherent discretion in determining when and how to use their unique powers; or, as phrased by Seron and colleagues (2004: 666), [Police practice] a strong tradition of street level discretion. Ericson, R. (1989) Patrolling the facts: Secrecy and publicity in police work. British Journal of Sociology, 40(2): Ericson, R., Baranek, P. & Chan, J. (1989) Negotiating Control: A Study of News Sources. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Seron, C., Pereira, J. & Kovath, J. (2004) Judging police misconduct: Street level versus professional policing. Law and Society Review, 38(4): Aims: In broad terms, this course will enable students to acquire intellectual tools and analytical skills (such as the development of advanced critical thinking) as they develop more comprehensive understandings of issues in the contemporary policing of society and the practices of public police. Through the learning process in this course, students will apply their sociological lenses (and consider those perspectives advanced by others) in exploring and challenging observations, ideas, and constructions related to some of the most important developments, policies, issues, controversies, and debates in today s policing. Among many considerations, students can draw on insights about social history, context, power, inequality, bureaucracy, culture, identity, and other sociological and social sciences paradigms to inform their deliberations on topics covered in this course. 2

3 Learning Objectives: Students who successfully complete, and perform well in, this course will have: Engaged with, and considered, information on contemporary policing from various sources and from a variety of perspectives; Become more proficient in applying critical thinking in general; Understood today s complex relationships involving the police and society (other social institutions, groups, and individuals); Developed advanced skills in reading academic texts and recording useful notes to allow for meaningful contributions to discussions; Analyzed, assessed, and synthesized information from assigned readings, seminar discussions, and independent work; Worked independently to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the topics explored in the course; Articulated, supported by a reasoned argument, what the student believes is the best course of action for improvements in the contemporary policing of society. Reading(s)/Textbook(s): There are no textbooks required for this course. All course readings will be available electronically (through the library s online journal database, Google Scholar, CULearn, and/or ARES) or through books placed on reserve at MacOdrum Library. Please note that, although unlikely, additional readings may be added, or some readings may be removed, at the discretion of the instructor. Books on Reserve: Newburn, Tim (ed.) Policing: Key Readings (2005) Collumpton, UK: Willan. MacOdrum reserves HV7921.P Reiner, Robert. The Politics of the Police, 4 th ed. (2010) New York: Oxford University Press. MacOdrum reserves HV8195.A2 R Dunham, Roger & Geoffrey Alpert (eds.) Critical Issues in Policing, 7 th ed. (2015) Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. MacOdrum reserves HV8138.C Course Requirements & Methods of Evaluation: REQUIREMENT % OF FINAL GRADE DUE DATE Participation/Presentations 30% assessed throughout the term Integrated (Comparative) Essay 20% on or before July 26 Proposal/Bibliography 10% on or before August 9 Final Take-Home Examination 40% on or before August 24 Students must complete all course requirements to receive a passing grade. Please note that spelling, grammar, structure (organization), and comprehensibility (clarity) will be assessed in all written course submissions (and will account for 20% of each assignment s mark). 3

4 1. Participation and Presentations (30%) Participation is a key requirement of seminar courses. Just attending our sessions is not considered participation. Students are expected to attend each seminar, arrive having completed that session s reading requirements, and actively engage in the discussion related to each session s theme. The mark you receive will be based on the overall quality (not the quantity) of your participation (e.g., your level of engagement, how well you have understood the readings, your ability to critically engage with the materials and relate them to the overall theme of the course, your ability to listen to others, your contribution to the debates and conversations, etc.). This aspect of participation will be evaluated out of 5% of the course mark. For each session (2 through 11 inclusive), students will prepare one insightful question pertaining to each of the session s assigned readings. These questions will demonstrate the student s engagement with the article and that the student has considered one particularly interesting issue/argument arising from their reading of the article. These will be provided (in writing preferably word processed) to the instructor at the beginning of each session. Each of these weekly question assignments are valued at 2% of the course mark (for a total of 20%). Each student will also contribute one (and potentially two) 10 to 15-minute presentation(s) on a required reading and chair the discussion of that article/chapter during the corresponding seminar session. A sign-up sheet will be completed during our first session on July 3, The discussant will provide an overview of the reading, highlight particularly important points, and introduce, and then facilitate, discussion on issues that arise from the article. To assist with discussion, the presenter will come to class prepared with several discussion questions pertaining to their assigned reading, which they will provide to the instructor before class begins. Presentations can take on your own personality; feel free to be creative. For example, bringing in popular media pieces, another scholarly journal article, or multimedia sources for illustration whatever you think will contribute to your presentation on, and interpretation of, the topic and stimulate discussion among your colleagues. This component of course participation will be graded at 5% of the course mark. 2. Integrated (Comparative) Essay (20%) Students will prepare an integrated (comparative) essay (approximately 5 pages), comparing the works considered in one of the seminar sessions (weeks 2 through 7) of their choice. This essay should identify key themes and critical issues, synthesize similarities and differences, and evaluate contributions of each article/chapter to understanding the broad seminar theme. This is not a summary of the articles. It is a summary and analysis of the articles and how they present similar or contradictory perspectives and speak to shared or contrasting themes. The objective is to help students gain experience critically evaluating the ways in which different scholars examine and interpret issues. Further information about this assignment will be presented well before it is due, but a good overview summary of an integrated (or comparative) essay is available at the following website (courtesy of University of Waterloo): centre/files/uploads/files/comparative_essays_0.pdf This assignment is due by no later than 4:00PM on July 26, It can be handed it during the seminar on this date or deposited to the Sociology drop box (7 th floor Loeb building). 4

5 3. Proposal/Bibliography (10%) Students will prepare a final take-home examination proposal, which describes how they plan to approach the final take-home examination questions (two pages) and presents at least 8 scholarly sources of support for their approach (one page). One or two sentences explaining how each source contributes to the student s approach in required. This assignment is due by no later than 4:00PM on August 7, It can be handed it during the seminar on this date or deposited to the Sociology drop box (7 th floor Loeb building). 4. Final Take-Home Examination (40%) To promote further consideration of ideas developed throughout this course and to provide the opportunity for additional higher-order learning, a final take-home examination will require students to engage with much of the information we have reflected on throughout the course. In synthesizing concepts and advancing their understandings (through well-reasoned and thoughtful analysis) students will address the following questions: Policing in the 21st century is complex, controversial, and contested, as we have discovered in our discussions throughout this course. What do you see as the principal challenge(s) and/or issue(s) in policing today? Why? And, why do you particularize this/these over others? What would you suggest, in terms of reforms/measures to address these challenge(s) and/or issue(s)? Length: pages (double-spaced, standard formatting) Citation Style: ASA in-text with a list of references an American Sociological Association Style Guide (4th ed., 2010) Quick Tips document will be distributed in our first meeting) References Required: a minimum of 10 peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles and/or academic book chapters Further information on producing an effective final take-home examination will be communicated throughout the term. The key to doing well on this examination is to clearly articulate well-reasoned analysis and argument that you support with contributions of scholars in the field. You are not expected to conduct original research (we do not have the time or resources to administer questionnaires, empanel focus groups, or make applications to the Ethics Review Board to conduct interviews) but, rather, you are to apply what we learn together in this course, and some further information from your independent work in assembling supporting academic sources, in presenting your position on the questions posed in this final take-home examination. The final take-home examination is due by no later than 4:00PM on August 24, 2018, deposited to the Sociology drop box (7 th floor Loeb building). Late Penalty: Subject to the granting of an extension, any of the assignments (other than the final take-home assignment) turned in after the specified due date will be penalized one grade point per day. For example, an A- integrated essay submitted at 09:00AM on July 27, 2018 will be assigned a B+ grade for that assignment. This is not done to be punitive, but rather to be fair to all students in the course and to encourage students to develop good time management skills. The instructor reserves the right to extend the due date for any assignment (for the entire class). 5

6 Extension Policy: Students must request an extension prior to the due date of any of the course s assignments (other than the final take-home assignment). To receive an extension, a student must provide written documentation of the student s inability to complete the assignment on time. Written documentation will generally take the form of a note from the student s physician. For other circumstances, the instructor will accept a note from the Registrar s Office (or similar university official), social worker, mental health professional, clergy member, lawyer, etc. Once the student has provided the instructor with adequate documentation of their inability to complete the assignment on time, the student and the instructor will negotiate a new due date for the assignment. Any assignment submitted after the negotiated deadline will be subject to the late penalty policy outlined above. Final Take-Home Examination: Pursuant to university regulations (4.3.2 Deferred Final Examinations), students who are unable to write a final examination because of illness or other circumstances beyond their control may apply to write a deferred examination. The student must apply for the deferral through the Registrar s Office. The application for deferred examination must: Be made in writing to the Registrar's Office no later than three working days after the original final examination or the due date of the take-home examination; and be fully supported in cases of illness by a medical certificate or by appropriate documents in other cases. Medical documents must specify the date of the onset of the illness, the (expected) date of recovery, and the extent to which the student was/is incapacitated during the time of the examination. Deferred final examinations are available only to students who have performed satisfactorily in the course according to the evaluation scheme established in the course outline. In accordance with the Carleton University Undergraduate Calendar Regulations, the letter grades assigned in this course will have the following percentage equivalents: A+ = B+ = C+ = D+ = A = B = C = D = A - = B - = C - = D - = F = Below 50 WDN = Withdrawn from the course DEF = Deferred Academic Regulations, Accommodations, Plagiarism, Etc. University rules regarding registration, withdrawal, appealing marks, and most anything else you might need to know can be found on the university s website, here: Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities The Paul Menton Centre for Students with Disabilities (PMC) provides services to students with 6

7 Learning Disabilities (LD), psychiatric/mental health disabilities, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), chronic medical conditions, and impairments in mobility, hearing, and vision. If you have a disability requiring academic accommodations in this course, please contact PMC at or pmc@carleton.ca for a formal evaluation. If you are already registered with the PMC, contact your PMC coordinator to send your Letter of Accommodation at the beginning of the term, and no later than two weeks before the first in-class scheduled test or exam requiring accommodation (if applicable). *The deadlines for contacting the Paul Menton Centre regarding accommodation for final exams for the Summer exam period is July 23, For Religious Obligations Students requesting academic accommodation on the basis of religious obligation should make a formal, written request to their instructors for alternate dates and/or means of satisfying academic requirements. Such requests should be made during the first two weeks of class, or as soon as possible after the need for accommodation is known to exist, but no later than two weeks before the compulsory event. Accommodation is to be worked out directly and on an individual basis between the student and the instructor(s) involved. Instructors will make accommodations in a way that avoids academic disadvantage to the student. Students or instructors who have questions or want to confirm accommodation eligibility of a religious event or practice may refer to the Equity Services website for a list of holy days and Carleton's Academic Accommodation policies, or may contact an Equity Services Advisor in the Equity Services Department for assistance. For Pregnancy Pregnant students requiring academic accommodations are encouraged to contact an Equity Advisor in Equity Services to complete a letter of accommodation. The student must then make an appointment to discuss her needs with the instructor at least two weeks prior to the first academic event in which it is anticipated the accommodation will be required. Plagiarism Plagiarism is the passing off of someone else's work as your own and is a serious academic offence. For the details of what constitutes plagiarism, the potential penalties and the procedures refer to the section on Instructional Offences in the Undergraduate Calendar. What are the Penalties for Plagiarism? A student found to have plagiarized an assignment may be subject to one of several penalties including: expulsion; suspension from all studies at Carleton; suspension from full-time studies; and/or a reprimand; a refusal of permission to continue or to register in a specific degree program; academic probation; award of an FNS, Fail, or an ABS. What are the Procedures? All allegations of plagiarism are reported to the faculty of Dean of FASS and Management. Documentation is prepared by instructors and/or departmental chairs. The Dean writes to the student and the University Ombudsperson about the alleged plagiarism. The Dean reviews the allegation. If it is not resolved at this level then it is referred to a tribunal appointed by the Senate. 7

8 Students are expected to familiarize themselves with and follow the Carleton University Student Academic Integrity Policy (See The Policy is strictly enforced and is binding on all students. Plagiarism and cheating presenting another s ideas, arguments, words or images as your own, using unauthorized material, misrepresentation, fabricating or misrepresenting research data, unauthorized co-operation or collaboration or completing work for another student weaken the quality of the graduate degree. Academic dishonesty in any form will not be tolerated. Students who infringe the Policy may be subject to one of several penalties including: expulsion; suspension from all studies at Carleton; suspension from full-time studies; a refusal of permission to continue or to register in a specific degree program; academic probation; or a grade of Failure in the course. Assistance for Students Academic and Career Development Services: Writing Services: Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS): Important Information Student or instructor materials created for this course (including presentations and posted notes, labs, case studies, assignments and exams) remain the intellectual property of the author(s). They are intended for personal use and may not be reproduced or redistributed without prior written consent of the author(s). Students must always retain a hard copy of all work that is submitted. Standing in a course is determined by the course instructor subject to the approval of the Faculty Dean. This means that grades submitted by the instructor may be subject to revision. No grades are final until they have been approved by the Dean. Carleton University is committed to protecting the privacy of those who study or work here (currently and formerly). To that end, Carleton s Privacy Office seeks to encourage the implementation of the privacy provisions of Ontario s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) within the university. In accordance with FIPPA, please ensure all communication with staff/faculty is via your Carleton account. To get your Carleton you will need to activate your MyCarletonOne account through Carleton Central. Once you have activated your MyCarletonOne account, log into the MyCarleton Portal. 8

9 Important Dates (Summer 2018 term): July 2, 2018 July 3, 2018 July 10, 2018 July 20-22, 2018 July 23, 2018 August 6, 2018 August 15, 2018 August 18-24, 2018 August 24, 2018 Statutory holiday University closed Late summer classes begin Last day for registration and course changes for late summer courses Early summer term deferred final examinations to be held Last day to request Formal Examination Accommodation Forms for August examinations to the PMC Statutory holiday University closed Last day of late summer classes Last day for academic withdrawal from late summer courses Last day for handing in term assignments Final examinations in late summer courses may be held All take home examinations are due on this day Seminar Schedule: Session 1 will present an introduction to the course, the instructor, and the students. Session 2 will provide students with theoretical/conceptual context as we move into considering contemporary issues in policing, which will be the focus of sessions 3 through 11 (inclusive). Each week, we will consider a different topic but many, as you will observe, are interwoven given complexities in today s policing. Sessions 12 and 13 will be dedicated to in-class discussion toward improving each student s take-home paper including a writing skills seminar and information on academic research resources. Please understand that, although unlikely, the schedule may be subject to change at the discretion of the instructor. Similarly, the instructor reserves the right to add, subtract, and/or substitute assigned readings. Students will be consulted before any such proposed changes in course readings. Please be aware that we may be joined in some sessions by guest discussants, who have particular expertise in the topic we will be considering that week. July 3 (Session 1) Introduction to the Course Required Readings (two brief articles will be distributed and read in class): (1) Bayley, David (1994/2005) What do the police do? In (Newburn, T., ed.) Policing: Key Readings: Collumpton, UK: Willan. (2) Bayley, David (2011) Et tu brute: Are police agencies managed better or worse than universities? Police Practice & Research, 12(4): July 5 (Session 2) Policing and the Social (Theoretical/Conceptual Understandings of the Public Police in Contemporary Society) (1) McLaughlin, Eugene (2007) The sociological construction of the police. In The New Policing: London: Sage. (2) Ericson, Richard (2007) Rules in Policing: Five Perspectives. Theoretical Criminology, 11(3): (3) Reiner, Robert (2010) Watching the watchers: Theory and research in policing studies. In The Politics of the Police, 4 th ed.: New York: Oxford University Press. 9

10 Further (Optional) Reading(s) 1 : (4) Loader, Ian (1997) Policing and the social: Questions of symbolic power. British Journal of Sociology, 40(1): (5) Neocleous, Mark (2000) Police begets good order. In The Fabrication of Social Order: A Critical Theory of Police Power: London: Pluto Press. (6) Ericson, Richard (1982/2005). The police as reproducers of order. In (Newburn, T., ed.) Policing: Key Readings: Collumpton, UK: Willan. (7) Brodeur. Jean-Paul (2010) Elements of a theory of policing, In The Policing Web: New York: Oxford University Press. (8) Bittner, Egon (1990/2005) Florence Nightingale in pursuit of Willie Sutton: A theory of the police. In (Newburn, T., ed.) Policing: Key Readings: Collumpton, UK: Willan. (9) Ericson, Richard & Kevin Haggerty (2002/2005) The policing of risk. In (Newburn, T., ed.) Policing: Key Readings: Collumpton, UK: Willan. July 10 (Session 3) Approaches to (or Philosophies of) Police Work (1) Wilson, James Q. & George Kelling (1982) Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly, 249(3): (2) Jones, Trevor & Tim Newburn (2002/2005) The transformation of policing? Understanding current trends in policing systems. In (Newburn, T., ed.) Policing: Key Readings: Collumpton, UK: Willan. (3) Correia, Mark (2000) The conceptual ambiguity of community in community policing: Filtering the muddy waters. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 23(2): Further (Optional) Reading(s): (4) Herbert, Steve (2001) Policing the contemporary city: Fixing broken windows or shoring up neo-liberalism? Theoretical Criminology, 5(4): (5) Eck, John & Edward McGuire (2006). Have changes in policing reduced violent crime? An assessment of the evidence. In (A. Blumstein & J. Wallman, eds.) The Crime Drop in America (revised ed.): New York: Cambridge University Press. (6) Monaghan, Jeffry & Kevin Walby (2012) They attacked the city: Security intelligence, the sociology of protest policing and the anarchist threat at the 2010 Toronto G20 summit. Current Sociology, 60(5): (7) Gillham, Patrick F., Bob Edwards & John A. Noakes (2013) Strategic incapacitation and the policing of Occupy Wall Street protests in New York City, Policing & Society, 23(1): (8) Kelling, George, Tony Pate, Duane Dieckman & Charles E. Brown (1974) The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Summary Report. Washington: Police Foundation. (9) Welsh, Brandon, Anthony Braga & Gerben Bruinsma (2015) Reimagining brokens windows: From theory to policy. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 52(4): (10) Dixon, David (1999/2005) Beyond zero tolerance. In (Newburn, T., ed.) Policing: Key Readings: Collumpton, UK: Willan. 1 Students are not expected to read these selected optional materials; however, some may be helpful for the final term paper assignment in contributing to your arguments through scholarly support. 10

11 (11) Braga, Anthony, Andrew Papachristos & David Hureau (2014) The effects of hot spots policing on crime: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 31: July 12 (Session 4) Police Accountability and Public Confidence in the Police (1) Harris, Frank (2012) Holding police accountability theory to account. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 6(3): (2) Sunshine, Jason & Tom Tyler (2003) The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37: (3) Hawdon, James (2008) Legitimacy, trust, social capital and policing styles: A theoretical statement. Police Quarterly, 11(2): Further (Optional) Reading(s): (4) Bridenball, Blaine & Paul Jesilow (2008) What matters? The formation of attitudes toward the police. Police Quarterly, 11(2): (5) Tyler, Tom, Jeffrey Fagan & Amanda Geller (2014) Street stops and police legitimacy: Teachable moments in young urban men s legal socialization. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11: (6) Jackson, Jonathan & Jason Sunshine (2007) Public confidence in policing: A neo- Durkheimian perspective. British Journal of Criminology, 47(2): (7) Sheptycki, James (2002) Accountability across the policing field: Towards a general cartography of accountability for post-modern policing. Policing & Society, 12(4): (8) Bradford, Ben, Jonathan Jackson & Elizabeth Stanko (2009) Contact and confidence: Revisiting the impact of public encounters with the police. Policing & Society, 19(1): (9) Callanan, Valerie & Jared Rosenberger (2011) Media and public perception of the police: Examining the impact of race and personal experience. Policing & Society, 21(2): (10) Frank, James, Brad W. Smith & Kenneth Novak (2005) Exploring the basis of citizens attitudes toward the police. Police Quarterly, 8(2): (11) Chan, Janet (1999) Governing police practice: Limits of the new accountability. British Journal of Sociology, 50(2): (12) Rosenbaum, Dennis, Amie Schuck, Sandra Costello, Darnell Hawkins & Marianne Ring (2005) Attitudes toward the police: The effects of direct and vicarious experience. Police Quarterly, 8(3): July 17 (Session 5) Police Occupational Culture (1) Reiner, Robert (2010). Cop cultures. In The Politics of the Police, 4th ed.: New York: Oxford University Press. (2) Loftus, Bethan (2010). Police occupational culture: Classic themes, altered times. Policing & Society, 20(1): (3) Paoline, Eugene (2004) Shedding light on police culture: An examination of officers occupational attitudes. Police Quarterly, 7(2): Further (Optional) Reading(s): (4) Chan, Janet (1996) Changing police culture. British Journal of Criminology, 36(1):

12 (5) Chappel, Alison & Lonn Lanza-Kaduce (2010). Police academy socialization: Understanding the lessons learned in a paramilitary-bureaucratic organization. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 39(2): (6) Waddington, P.A.J. (1999) Police (canteen) sub-culture: An appreciation. British Journal of Criminology, 39(2): (7) Chan, Janet (2003) Organizational socialization and professionalism. In Fair Cop: Learning the Art of Policing: Toronto: University of Toronto Press. (8) Chan, Janet (1997) Re-examining police culture. In Changing Police Culture: Policing in a Multicultural Society: New York: Cambridge University Press. (9) Herbert, Steve (1998) Police subculture reconsidered. Criminology, 36(2): (10) Chan, Janet (1997) Changing police culture. In Changing Police Culture: Policing in a Multicultural Society: New York: Cambridge University Press. (11) Loftus, Bethan (2009) The new social field of policing. In Police Culture in a Changing World: New York: Oxford University Press. July 19 (Session 6) Police and Use of Force (1) Adams, Kenneth (2015). What we know about police use of force. In (Dunham, R. & G. Alpert, eds.) Critical Issues in Policing,7 th ed.: Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. (2) Reiss, Albert (1968) Police brutality: Answers to key questions. Trans-Action, 5(8): (3) Terrill, William, Eugene Paoline III & Jacinta Gau (2016) Three pillars of police legitimacy: procedural justice, use of force, and occupational culture. In (Mathieu Deflem, ed.) Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance. The Politics of Policing: Between Force and Legitimacy: London: Emerald. Further (Optional) Reading(s): (4) Garner, Joel, Christopher Maxwell & Cedrick Heraux (2002) Characteristics associated with the prevalence and severity of force used by the police. Justice Quarterly, 19(4): (5) Terrill, William (2005) Police use of force: A transactional approach. Justice Quarterly, 22(1): (6) Rojek, Jeff, Geoffrey Alpert & Hayden Smith (2012). Examining officer and citizen accounts of police use-of-force incidents. Crime & Delinquency, 58(2): (7) Jefferis, Eric, Frederick Butcher & Dena Hanley (2011). Measuring perceptions of police use of force. Police Practice & Research, 12(1): (8) Terrill, William & Eugene Paoline (2017) Police use of less lethal force: Does administrative policy matter? Justice Quarterly, 34(2): July 24 (Session 7) Policing and Race (1) Hayle, Steven, Scot Wortley & Julian Tanner (2016) Race, street life, and policing: Implications for racial profiling. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 58(3): (2) Lynch, Omori & Valasik Roussell (2013) Policing the progressive city: The racialized geography of drug law enforcement. Theoretical Criminology, 17(3): (3) Comack, Elizabeth (2012) Starlight tours. In Racialized Policing: Aboriginal People s Encounters with the Police: Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing. 12

13 Further (Optional) Reading(s): (4) Dunham, Roger, Geoffrey Alpert, Meghan Stroshine & Katherine Bennett (2005) Transforming citizens into suspects: Factors that influence the formation of police suspicion. Police Quarterly, 8(3): (5) Petrocelli, Matthew, Alex Piquero & Michael R. Smith (2003). Conflict theory and racial profiling: An empirical analysis of police traffic stop data. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(1): (6) Dafnos, Tia Pacification and indigenous struggles in Canada. Socialist Studies. 9(2): (7) Wortley, Scot & Julian Tanner (2003). Data, denials, and confusion: The racial profiling debate in Toronto. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 45(3): (8) Wortley, Scot & Julian Tanner (2005) Inflammatory Rhetoric? Baseless Accusations? A Response to Gabor's Critique of Racial Profiling Research in Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 47: (9) Engel, Robin, Jennifer Calnon & Thomas J. Bernard (2002) Theory and racial profiling: Shortcomings and future directions in research. Justice Quarterly, 19(2): (10) Comack, Elizabeth (2012) Racial profiling versus racialized policing. In Racialized Policing: Aboriginal People s Encounters with the Police: Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing. July 26 (Session 8) Policing s New Visibility (1) Antony, Mary & Ryan Thomas (2010) This is citizen journalism at its finest: YouTube and the public sphere in the Oscar Grant shooting incident. New Media & Society, 12(8): (2) Brown, Gregory R. (2016) The blue line on thin ice: Use of force modifications in the era of cameraphones and YouTube. British Journal of Criminology, 56(2): Further (Optional) Reading(s): (3) Goldsmith, Andrew (2010) Policing's new visibility. British Journal of Criminology, 50(5): (4) Foucault, Michel (1975) Panopticism. In Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison: New York: Vintage Books. (5) Thompson, John (2005) The new visibility. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(6): July 31 (Session 9) To Swerve and Neglect? The Phenomenon of De-Policing and Consideration of the Ferguson Effect (1) Oliver, Willard (2015) Depolicing: Rhetoric or reality? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28(5): (2) Shjarback, John, David Pyrooz, Scott Wolfe & Scott Decker (2017) De-policing and crime in the wake of Ferguson: Racialized changes in the quantity and quality of policing among Missouri police departments. Journal of Criminal Justice, 50: (3) Beckett, Lois (2016) Is the 'Ferguson effect' real? Researcher has second thoughts. The Guardian. 13 May. [Online] Retrieved from 13

14 Further (Optional) Reading(s): (4) Heaton, Robert (2011) We could be criticized! Policing and risk aversion. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 5(1): (5) Campeau, Holly (2015) Police culture at work: Making sense of police oversight. British Journal of Criminology, 55(4): (6) Wolfe, Scott & Justin Nix (2016). The alleged Ferguson effect and police willingness to engage in community partnership. Law and Human Behavior, 40(1), (7) Nix, Justin & Justin Pickett (2017) Third-person perceptions, hostile media effects, and policing: Developing a theoretical framework for assessing the Ferguson effect. Journal of Criminal Justice, 51: August 2 (Session 10) Police Misconduct (1) Kappeler, Victor, Richard Sluder & Geoffrey Alpert (1998/2015). Breeding deviant conformity: The ideology and culture of the police. In (Dunham, R. & G. Alpert, eds.) Critical Issues in Policing, 7 th ed.: Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. (2) Klockars, Carl (1980/2005). The Dirty Harry problem. In (Newburn, T., ed.) Policing: Key Readings: Collumpton, UK: Willan. (3) Van Maanen, John (1978/2015) The asshole. In (Dunham, R. & G. Alpert, eds.) Critical Issues in Policing, 7 th ed.: Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Further (Optional) Reading(s): (4) Parnaby, Patrick & Myra Leyden (2011) Dirty Harry and the station queens: A Mertonian analysis of police deviance. Policing & Society, 21(3): (5) Tyler, Tom, Patrick E. Callahan & Jeffrey Frost (2007) Armed and dangerous(?): Motivating rule adherence among agents of social control. Law & Society Review, 41(2): (6) Punch, Maurice (2009) Police Corruption: Deviance, Accountability and Reform in Policing. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. August 7 (Session 11) Contemporary Challenges/Issues in Police Investigations (1) Chifflet, Pascale (2015) Questioning the validity of criminal profiling: An evidence-based approach. Australia & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49(2): (2) David, Gary, Anne Rawls & James Trainum (2017) Playing the interrogation game: Rapport, coercion, and confessions in police interrogations. Symbolic Interaction, 41(1): (3) Adrian Cherney & Jason Hartley (2017) Community engagement to tackle terrorism and violent extremism: Challenges, tensions and pitfalls. Policing & Society, 27(7): August 9 (Session 12) Writing Seminar and Final Take-Home Examination Discussion none assigned August 14 (Week 13) Discussion (open forum), Course Wrap-Up, Feedback none assigned 14

15 Suggested Additional Readings These may be helpful for the final take-home examination particularly in introducing how the police are theorized by accomplished criminology/sociology scholars. (1) Bayley, David & Clifford Shearing (1996/2005) The future of policing. In (Newburn, T., ed.) Policing: Key Readings: Collumpton, UK: Willan. (2) Manning, Peter K. (2001) Theorizing policing: The drama and myth of crime control in the NYPD. Theoretical Criminology, 5(3), (3) Ericson, Richard & Kevin Haggerty (1997) Policing as risk communications. In Policing the Risk Society: Toronto: University of Toronto Press. (4) Loader, Ian & Neil Walker (2001) Policing as a public good: Reconstituting the connections between policing and the state. Theoretical Criminology, 5(1): (5) Wilson, James Q. (1968) The patrolman. In Varieties of Police Behavior: The Management of Law and Order in Eight Communities: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (6) Manning, Peter K. (1978/2005) The police: Mandate, strategies, and appearances. In (Newburn, T., ed.) Policing: Key Readings: Collumpton, UK: Willan. Seminar Etiquette Internet surfing, playing computer games, checking , and/or text messaging are disruptive to other students. This behavior is also disrespectful toward the instructor. Please also be courteous to your classmates and the instructor and turn off mobile phones before the seminar starts. Mobile computer devices are to be used exclusively for notetaking and reviewing course materials during seminars. The use of recording devices (audio or visual) is not permitted, unless authorized, in advance, by the instructor. All students will treat their classmates with respect. We may disagree on certain issues; however, we must keep an open mind and consider the differing opinions and points of view of our colleagues. Focus on the issue/argument and not the person. 15