Effective academic–practitioner collaboration on gender research in federal law enforcement: the value of a coproduction process
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| Author | Helen H. Yu |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852318801499 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Review of
Administrative
Article
Sciences
International Review of Administrative
Effective academic–
Sciences
2020, Vol. 86(3) 567–581
!
practitioner
The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
collaboration on gender
DOI: 10.1177/0020852318801499
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
research in federal law
enforcement: the value of
a coproduction process
Helen H. Yu
University of Hawai’i at Manoa, USA
Abstract
Coproduction is the latest and most exhaustive model of academic–practitioner col-
laboration to engage public administration scholarship. Coproduction centers on the
production of research as an interactive process where academics and practitioners
collaborate across all phases of a research project. This article contributes to the
literature by presenting a critical and reflective examination of a personal journey
in coproduction, with a well-known federal law enforcement agency, and offers three
recommendations for the academic community to effectively tackle their own copro-
duction efforts. The benefits and challenges of this partnership are presented, empha-
sizing a less participatory form of coproduction to recognize workplace issues and
solutions. The topic of coproduction is relevant in today’s literature for highlighting
academic–practitioner collaboration as a tool to advance knowledge.
Points for practitioners
•
Successful academic–practitioner collaborations require three elements: a
“champion” in the practitioner community to advance the coproduction partner-
ship; tenured stakeholders; and compromise amid the two communities to
advance knowledge.
• A less participatory form of coproduction can be equally effective to highlight
workplace issues and solutions.
Corresponding author:
Helen H. Yu, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, 2424 Maile Way, Saunders Hall, 631 Honolulu, HI 96822, USA.
Email: helenyu@hawaii.edu
568
International Review of Administrative Sciences 86(3)
• Joint problem solving with academics is essential for understanding the under-
representation of women in federal law enforcement.
Keywords
academic–practitioner collaboration, coproduction, federal government, gender, law
enforcement
Introduction
The scholarship on academic–practitioner collaboration has long been a concern in
public administration and has grown rapidly in recent years (Buick et al., 2015,
2016; Bushouse et al., 2011; Gooden et al., 2014; Hock et al., 2013; Lahat, 2019;
Newman et al., 2016; Orr and Bennett, 2012; Perry, 2015; Raadschelders,
2008; Radin, 2013). Unfortunately, collaboration between the academic and prac-
titioner communities have been difficult at best, especially in public safety organ-
izations such as federal law enforcement, which appear unwelcoming to outsiders.
This is evident by the lack of research with practitioner participation. However, the
importance of forging academic–practitioner partnerships cannot be overstated
because “Scholars need the laboratories that government, quasi-government,
and nonprofit organizations represent [and] such laboratories give scholars an
opportunity to do more rigorous research” (Perry, 2015: 343–344). The obvious
benefits of this research include designing data-collection methods and instruments
suitable for today’s labor force and interpreting results accurately within the
framework of practitioner context, allowing for meaningful policy recommenda-
tions. This is particularly important for federal law enforcement, which has all
been ignored by the research community (Keverline, 2003; Schulz, 2009; Yu, 2015).
Like all public organizations, federal law enforcement agencies increasingly
have to contend for quality candidates in order to reflect the diversity of the
communities they serve. Although women account for 47% of all working
Americans (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017), they comprise just 15.5% of
all sworn federal law enforcement officers authorized to make arrests and carry
firearms (Reaves, 2012). Over 100 federal law enforcement agencies exist across the
entire federal domain, employing over 120,000 sworn officers in more than 40 job
series on behalf of federal agencies operating in all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, US territories and in an ever-increasing number of foreign countries,
performing one of six primary functions: criminal investigation; police response
and patrol; inspections; corrections and detention; security and protection; and
court operations (Ackerman, 2006; Bumgarner, 2006; Damp, 2008; Reaves, 2012).
Congress created the first federal law enforcement agencies in 1789—the US
Customs Service (now known as the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement)
and the US Marshals Service (Bumgarner, 2006)—however, women’s entry into
Yu
569
federal law enforcement did not occur until some 182 years later when the Civil
Service Commission (now dissolved with functions split between the US Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) and the Merit Systems Protection Board) canceled
a “firearms” exception in 1971 (Schulz, 2009). Although women have now worked
in federal law enforcement for more than 45 years, not much is known about their
experiences in the federal domain as most studies have concentrated on municipal
policing. This gap contained only five studies that examined female federal law
enforcement officers in the workplace, none of which included access to a practi-
tioner agency (Barratt et al., 2015; Keverline, 2003; Schulz, 2009; Yu, 2015, 2017).
However, without access to participants in the practitioner community, it becomes
impossible to ascertain why women in federal law enforcement are under-
represented.
In Yu’s (2015) exploratory study of the challenges that women face in federal
law enforcement, she encouraged dialogue between academics and the federal
agencies (practitioners) to uncover root issues and provide policy recommenda-
tions for increasing women’s participation in federal policing. This article responds
to that call and has two aims: the first is to contribute knowledge on a coproduc-
tion process that resulted in a productive academic–practitioner partnership; and
the second is to demonstrate academic–practitioner collaboration as a method for
providing policy recommendations on important social issues. This article does
not offer any substantive findings that originated from the academic–practitioner
partnership except for illustrative purposes. Rather, the intent is to make a con-
tribution to the literature by critically examining a personal journey in coproduc-
tion. This reflective process facilitates an examination of subjective conduct and
the political dynamics of an accepted research practice.
The article is structured in the following manner. The first section reviews the
scholarship on academic–practitioner collaboration, specifically the emergence of
coproduction. The second section offers recommendations for academics on the
coproduction process used in this partnership. Lastly, the conclusion will offer an
overarching implication of this process.
Academic–practitioner collaboration: Coproduction
Public administration, as well as other scholarly disciplines, has “emphasized the
importance of connecting academic research to practitioner needs—as well as the
reverse, practitioners influencing the direction and content of public administra-
tion research” (Orr and Bennett, 2012: 487–488). Academic–practitioner collab-
oration comes in many forms (e.g. evidence-based management and action
research); however, the most exhaustive means of creating academic–practition-
er collaboration is through coproduction. The literature has two definitions for
coproduction. The first refers to the practice of users and service providers
working together to improve the delivery of government services to all consum-
ers (Bovaird et al., 2016; Sicilia et al., 2016; Van Eijk and Steen, 2016). The
second refers to research collaboration between academics and practitioners,
570
International Review of Administrative Sciences 86(3)
and is offered in this article (Antonacopoulou, 2010; Buick et al., 2016; Cepiku,
2011; Lahat, 2019). In the context of public administration scholarship, copro-
duction builds on the traditions of “pracademics”—scholars that are both prac-
titioners and academics—who strive to synthesize what they have experienced as
practitioners into relevant scholarship (Ospina and Dodge, 2005; Posner, 2009;
Raadschelders, 2008). Although academic journals offer many opportunities for
practitioners to share their knowledge and experience about important issues
across the public administration domain, these “pracademics” are rare in today’s
practitioner community. Thus, a new basis for collaboration emerged for
research partnerships amid the academic and practitioner communities.
Coproduction presumes that academics and practitioners examine complex
social issues by collaborating across the basic stages of the research process,
including formulating problems, designing research, undertaking fieldwork, ana-
lyzing and interpreting data, and disseminating the research findings (Bansal et al.,
2012; Buick et al., 2016; Cepiku, 2011; Orr and Bennett, 2012). Rather than focus-
ing on the “evidence” or research knowledge, as in the case of evidence-based
management, or action research, where the researcher has privileged insight into
the field of study, creating a liberating effect, coproduction focuses more on the
production of research as an interactive multistage process where researchers and
practitioners work together in all phases of a research project (Bansal et al.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial