Police communications and social media
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1477370821998969 |
| Published date | 01 January 2023 |
| Date | 01 January 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370821998969
European Journal of Criminology
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1477370821998969
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
Police communications and
social media
Nigel G. Fielding
University of Surrey, UK
Abstract
This article considers the affordances of Web 2.0 social media tools for public communications
by the police and illustrates their use, presenting data from exploratory fieldwork with officers
and staff in five UK police forces. Future lines of development are noted that may merit ongoing
research.
Keywords
Police, police and public relations, police communications, police social media
Introduction
Police forces engage in multiple forms of communication, for numerous purposes, with a
variety of recipients and stakeholders. This study focuses on public-oriented communica-
tions but recognizes their internal dimension. Information is a malleable entity that changes
as it flows through forces to Communications Departments (‘Comms’) and outwards. The
communications in frame may relate to specific investigations, focused information cam-
paigns, or broader objectives (for example, reassurance). Issues of provenance and trust-
worthiness play differently in each. In a ‘post-truth’ era of rising public scepticism, ‘fake
news’, trolling, cyber-bullying, and cybercrime, one might speculate whether the public
expects more of police online communications than of communications from other sources.
Whatever their prime purpose, police communications often have a supplementary
aim, namely, relationship-building. Police–public communications long cleaved to instru-
mental purposes while neglecting the influence of social media (‘SM’) on the police–
public relationship. Some feel that, by doing so, forces use SM as simply another broadcast
channel rather than for its core function – the social. Is relationship-building what the
public expect? When a force adopts that approach, does it undermine legitimacy?
Corresponding author:
Nigel G. Fielding, Department of Sociology, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK.
Email: n.fielding@surrey.ac.uk
998969EUC0010.1177/1477370821998969European Journal of CriminologyFielding
research-article2021
Article
2023, Vol. 20(1) 316–334
Research design and methods
This exploratory study drew on research literature; practice examples from group discus-
sions in an academic/police collaboration around counter-terrorism and serious crime;
and key informant interviews. Relevant literature included studies of online information
flows and evaluations of police SM communications. The practice examples concerned
SM-based interventions and campaigns. The key informant interviews took place in
2017/18 and drew on a non-probability sample of officers and civilian staff having the
communications function in five police forces with a combined population of 8,089,200.
Their communications personnel numbered respectively 15, 27, 25, 14, 19 (average =
20). Since key informants are individuals whose role gives them extensive insight into
the topic of interest, the technique is associated with ‘small N’ exploratory studies (Payne
and Payne, 2004). Five interviews were carried out per force, using a selection matrix of
roles and whether the role incumbent was headquarters-based or operational. Interviews
pursued instances of good/poor practice perceived by respondents; views about the role
of SM in force communications strategies; appraisals of obstacles to SM’s potential;
assessments of what communications tasks were unsuitable for SM.
The key informant interviews were semi-structured. Exploratory data analysis using
MAXQDA qualitative software supported a code-and-retrieve inspection of data from
which analytic themes were derived and refined. Data extracts are presented from five
informants, each from a different force, whose responses were particularly pertinent to the
themes pursued here and who had operational policing experience: the Senior
Communications Manager of a shire force with two large towns, the Digital Communications
Manager of a suburban/rural force, the Digital Communications Manager of a large urban/
rural force, the Social Media Manager of a second large urban/rural force, and the Head of
Marketing and Internal Communications of an urban/rural force. Where their comments
reflect those across the overall sample, this is noted. All had several years or more experi-
ence in communications work. SM featured in their off-duty lives, for identity work as well
as for communication (Suler, 2015). All mainstream SM platforms were used across the
sample bar Flickr. Twitter and Facebook were the principal tools of police SM communica-
tions, with specific purposes for using particular platforms often cited (including the kind of
social network they tap into) and others having niche utility. This discussion is thematically
driven rather than presenting points platform by platform.
Digital affordances
‘Affordances’ (Gibson, 1966) is a fundamental concept employed to understand how
new technologies are used. By examining benefits and limitations it can provide new
insights. For instance, applied to Web 1.0, it revealed that the familiar process by which
new devices are configured by users to meet their requirements is paralleled by a process
in which new devices ‘configure the user’ (Woolgar, 1990). The user’s behavioural rep-
ertoire is changed by the techniques they must follow to use the features provided by the
technology. Adopting a new technology can change how users seek to solve problems for
which they see the technology as a solution (Aiken, 2016). The policing corollary of the
‘configuring the user’ phenomenon is the extent to which policing has adapted its behav-
iours to SM’s affordances.
317
Fielding
To continue reading
Request your trial