A state-of-the-art review on police accountability
| Date | 01 September 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461355718786297 |
| Published date | 01 September 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
International Journal of
Police Science & Management
A state-of-the-art review on police
2018, Vol. 20(3) 225–239
ª The Author(s) 2018
accountability: What do we know
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
from empirical studies?
DOI: 10.1177/1461355718786297
journals.sagepub.com/home/psm
Yinthe Feys
Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy, Ghent University, Belgium
Antoinette Verhage
Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy, Ghent University, Belgium
Dominique Boels
Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy, Ghent University, Belgium
Abstract
The method and results of a scoping review, based on the principles of a systematic literature review, on police
accountability are presented with the aim of providing an overview of the characteristics of empirical research on
the topic and the main themes covered in this research tradition. To our knowledge, no systematically conducted
review has been undertaken although one could help to identify gaps in the (empirical) literature and give insights into
the themes studied in this regard. Three main themes were discovered during the review; aside from police
accountability as such, many studies related to police integrity or, to a lesser extent, historical facts concerning
police accountability or integrity. Two of the most striking findings were the low number of empirical studies
included in our thematic synthesis and the limited amount of methodological information reported in these
publications. As such, the authors recommend more empirical research regarding police accountability and, more
generally, sufficient methodological reporting when writing a publication.
Keywords
Police accountability, scoping review, police integrity, thematic synthesis, literature review
Submitted 18 Dec 2017, Revise received 04 May 2018, accepted 15 May 2018
Introduction
from control over the police and regulating policing activ-
ities to explaining and justifying certain behaviour, as well
Police officers are granted influential powers and possess a
as evaluations of those decisions (Busuioc et al., 2011;
certain amount of discretion when making decisions during
Chan, 1999; Eijkman, 2006; Findlay, 1994; Ransley
their daily activities. Because these actions can have far-
et al., 2007). For the purposes of this review, we follow
reaching consequences, police accountability is essential
Chan’s (1999) definition of accountability:
(Kelling et al., 1988; Lamboo, 2010; Millen and Stephens,
2011; Ransley et al., 2007).
Police accountability is a reflexive, complex and multi-
faceted phenomenon that is defined in multiple ways
Corresponding author:
(Cheung, 2005; Manning, 2012; Walker and Archbold,
Yinthe Feys, Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy
2014). A large amount of literature has been written on the
(IRCP), Ghent University, Universiteitstraat 4, Ghent, Belgium.
subject, using different definitions. These definitions range
Email: Yinthe.Feys@UGent.be
226
International Journal of Police Science & Management 20(3)
being answerable to audiences for performing up to certain
prescribed standards, thereby fulfilling obligations, duties,
•Research plan
expectations, and other charges . . . When people are accoun-
•Research quesons/hypotheses
research •Inclusion criteria
table, they can be made to explain and justify their conduct,
protocol
and their behaviour can be scrutinized, judged, and sanctioned
•Databases and keywords
by audiences. (p. 253)
•Published and unpublished research
search
•Search strategy
Hence, accountability refers to being accountable for
strategy •Result: longlist
police conduct, oversight of policing activities and evalua-
•Literature selecon based on inclusion criteria
tion of those activities. Police officers need to account for
•Reporng reasons for inclusion or exclusion publicaons
certain (mis)behaviour, during the course of either a mis-
•Two independent researchers
shortlist •Result: shortlist
conduct investigation or their daily activities (not necessa-
rily for misconduct). As such, complaints and investigative
•Analysis methodological quality
procedures, early warning systems, civilian oversight,
•Analysis results individual studies
content
independent commissions and many more topics were all
•Two independent researchers
analysis
(possibly) relevant to our review. Because authors relate
the topic of police accountability to these subjects (De
•Reporng results for each research queson
Angelis, 2009; De Angelis and Kupchik, 2007; McGregor,
reporng
2015; Schaible et al., 2012; Walker and Archbold, 2014),
results
inclusion of these themes reduces the possibility of missing
relevant publications.
Ponsaers (2010) remarks that there are many different
Figure 1. Steps in a systematic literature review (Verhage and
research themes in regard to police accountability, such as
Boels, 2015).
police culture or evaluations of the police. Muller (2002),
Myhill (2007) and Walker (2007) argue that police
accountability can be achieved in different ways, such as
accountability has regained more scholarly and policy
the use of body-worn cameras (Coudert et al., 2015; DA
attention. However, Mazeika et al. (2010) state that, despite
Harris, 2010) or early intervention systems (DA Harris,
fairly constant attention on police accountability as a
2009). In this study, we chose to include all four
research subject, there was a small decrease in attention
dimensions.
on the topic in 2006–2007. Recently, the debate concerning
Reviews on topics concerning the police have already
police accountability has focused mainly on external over-
been conducted; for example, regarding plural policing and
sight (FC Harris, 2013).
community-oriented policing (Boels and Verhage, 2016;
Despite the complexity of the subject, police account-
Gill et al., 2014). Although a systematic overview of
ability has some general characteristics. Cheung (2005)
empirical research on police accountability may comple-
distinguishes four dimensions, the first two of which refer
ment these previous reviews, such a review is, to our
to the question who is accountable and for what. Individual
knowledge, missing. Given the importance of this subject,
police officers are accountable for their own behaviour,
we aim to provide such an overview here. This review was
whereas the police organization is accountable for the per-
conducted between December 2015 and September 2016.
formance of the department and the quality of the offered
First, the method is discussed, after which the general char-
services (Ransley et al., 2007; Walker, 2007). Cheung’s
acteristics of the literature and the methods used to study
third dimension refers to whom one must account. Multiple
police accountability are highlighted. Subsequently, the
bodies may be able to impose accountability by monitoring
results of the thematic synthesis are presented briefly. The
and assessing police officers’ behaviour (Busuioc et al.,
article ends with some concluding remarks and recommen-
2011). In this regard, a distinction is often made between
dations for future research.
internal and external accountability. Internal accountability
is associated with organizational responsibility, supervi-
sion, performance evaluations, codes of conduct, the dis-
Method
ciplinary system, loyalty and control, whereas external
Because we aimed to shed light on empirical research con-
accountability refers to, among other factors, public hear-
cerning police accountability, a scoping review based on
ings, annual reports, conferences, civilian oversight agen-
the principles of a systematic literature review was con-
cies and criminal and/or civil litigation (den Boer, 2002;
ducted. A systematic literature review entails different
Ransley et al., 2007; Walker, 2007). Cheung’s fourth ques-
steps (Verhage and Boels, 2015), which are presented
tion asks how police accountability can be achieved. This
in Figure 1. However, this review also includes the
Feys et al.
227
characteristics of a narrative meta-review (Greenhalgh
publication should be appointed, the authors took the
et al., 2005; Wong et al., 2013). Initially, we aimed to
research questions, aim and/or description of the study
answer multiple questions related to the topic of police
into account. As such, only publications that specifically
accountability, but because of the relatively limited infor-
stated that they would study perceptions on accountability
mation in the publications, we were obliged to rephrase the
were appointed to the second research question. Never-
research questions. Eventually, we decided to act on two
theless, when analysing the studies included in this
general, broad questions, the first of which is ‘What is
review, the authors noticed that in two publications, both
police accountability?’. This question aims to answer what
accountability and perceptions on accountability were
accountability is and which topics are (empirically) studied
studied, which is why we decided to include them for both
in this regard. The second research question was formu-
research questions8.
lated as follows: ‘Which perceptions exist on police
Subsequently, a quality or critical appraisal was exe-
accountability?’ (e.g. what do citizens, police officers and
cuted, based on reporting criteria (Thomas and Harden,
other actors regard as ‘accountability’?). The remainder of
2008; Verhage and Boels, 2016). We used five reporting
this article focuses entirely on...
To continue reading
Request your trial