456343

2013

EUC10110.1177/1477370812456343European Journal of CriminologyTerpstra and Schaap

Article

Police culture, stress conditions and working styles

European Journal of Criminology 10(1) 59­–73 © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permission: sagepub. co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1477370812456343 euc.sagepub.com

Jan Terpstra and Dorian Schaap Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice, The Netherlands

Abstract The standard model of police culture assumes that internal and external stress shapes police culture and that this culture promotes certain styles of policing. This model has been tested using a survey of police officers in the Netherlands. The street-level culture of the Dutch police has some elements in common with what we know from Anglo-Saxon studies, but there are also important differences. Dutch rank-and-file police are less conservative, the machismo element is less dominant and the fundamental mistrust of strangers is not as widespread. The findings of this study generally correspond with the causal relations of the model. Remarkably, no relationship was found between the professional police style and cultural elements in the police.

Keywords Culture, police, police styles, stress, the Netherlands

Introduction One of the central notions of police research is that the police have a distinct culture. The early years of police research produced some classic studies on police culture in the United States and the United Kingdom (such as those of Banton, 1964; Cain, 1973; Rubinstein, 1973; Skolnick, 1966; Westley, 1970). Contemporary understandings of these ‘complex ensembles of values, attitudes, symbols, rules, recipes, and practices’ (Reiner, 2010: 116) are largely based on these studies. The notion of a police culture is now so commonly accepted that it often appears to be an ‘unquestioned orthodoxy’ (Sklansky, 2007: 20). This concept is often used as a taken-for-granted explanation of all kinds of (mostly negative) aspects of the police, such as a lack of accountability, resistance to innovation, adverse treatment of members of ethnic minorities, or a lack of compliance with formal rules.

Corresponding author: Jan Terpstra, Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Faculty of Law, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, NL 6500, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

60

European Journal of Criminology 10(1)

The popularity and apparently self-evident nature of the police culture concept are the more remarkable because this raises important questions. Although the prevailing image of police culture is largely based on Anglo-Saxon studies, it is often assumed that it is more or less universal. However, it is unclear whether this assumption is correct, simply because there is an absence of systematic studies on police culture in non-English-speaking countries. The classic Anglo-Saxon studies of the 1960s and 1970s resulted in what may be called the standard model of police culture. This model not only provides a certain view of the main elements of this culture, but also offers an explanation of police culture and points to consequences that this culture may have for the way the police operate. The question we seek to answer concerns the extent to which the standard model of police culture applies to the contemporary police organization in the Netherlands. To what extent do the rank-and-file police officers in the Netherlands have a distinct culture? Do the main elements, causes and consequences of this culture correspond with the standard model? First, we give a brief, critical survey of the literature on police culture, including a sketch of the standard model. We then describe the design and methods of our empirical study. Our principal findings are presented in subsequent sections.

Police culture: Principal issues The study of police culture has its basis in the work of Westley (1970). This study of the local police of Gary (Indiana) was originally conducted in the late 1940s, but was not published until the 1970s. Most of the main elements of the contemporary common understanding of police culture can already be found in Westley’s analysis. He gave a detailed, vivid description of an organization that operated in a context that was often experienced as hostile. This contributed to isolation, self-protection, secrecy and internal solidarity – all seen as central values among the police officers. This is why they often closed ranks against the outside world. According to Westley, not only did the Gary police frequently use violence (especially against Black people); most of the officers considered this normal. Mistrust of outsiders and cynicism were almost second nature to these police officers. As was also shown in more recent studies, the police officers preferred crime-fighting tasks, which they considered to be the real work of the police. However, a considerable part of their work in fact consisted of service activities (see Punch and Naylor, 1973). Westley’s account of police work was further elaborated in subsequent studies. An important example is the study of Skolnick (1966). A main element in his analysis is the police ‘working personality’, which is seen as a reaction to the dangers that street work may pose, the problems in imposing authority and the pressure to work efficiently. Unpredictable threats and dangers were seen to give rise to suspicion of their external environment among the police officers. This leads to social isolation among police officers, emphasizes the need for mutual solidarity and contributes to conservatism, both emotional and political. On the basis of these and many other studies, Reiner (2010) published a well-known review of the most important elements of police or ‘cop culture’. The first central feature is a sense of mission, resulting in a powerful orientation towards direct action. At the same time, however, police officers tend to be cynical about citizens and pessimistic about their opportunities to change the world for the better. There is a suspicion among police officers, not only regarding dangers and risk, but also about outsiders such as citizens, politicians and sometimes even police managers, who are viewed as being too

Terpstra and Schaap

61

distant from ‘real police work’. The reverse side of this is that police officers stress the importance of internal solidarity, coupled with social isolation. As a consequence, police officers at street level tend to back each other up in cases when internal rules are violated. The police culture is a source of some obvious social categorizations, especially between ‘rough’ and ‘respectable’ persons and groups. This may include racial prejudice. The police culture contributes to a moral and political conservatism among police officers and an old-fashioned machismo. Finally, Reiner (2010: 131) distinguishes a form of pragmatism, a focus on concrete, practical activities and a ‘down-to-earth, anti-theoretical perspective [–] a kind of conceptual conservatism’ (see Chan, 1997; Foster, 2003; Herbert, 1998; Loftus, 2009; Skolnick, 1966; Terril et al., 2003). This model of police culture has often been criticized. Because of its ‘condemnatory potential’ (Waddington, 1999), police culture is mostly associated with the problematic aspects of the police (McLaughlin, 2007). As a result, negative cultural elements receive more attention than potentially positive elements, such as the moral involvement of police officers in support of citizens and their problems (Bittner, 1967; Manning, 2007; Muir, 1977), or what Björk (2008) called the pragmatic humanism that police officers may show in their relations with ‘problematic’ citizens. Police culture is often interpreted as a more or less homogeneous phenomenon, with great emphasis on consensus (Chan, 1997; Herbert, 1998; Loftus, 2009; Manning, 2007). A famous exception here is the study by Reuss-Ianni (1983). However, her conclusion that police organizations have two different and competing subcultures does not, strictly speaking, follow from her study. She only studied the street cops with their own subculture. Many of the street cops felt that their managers had their own, distinctive subculture. However, the correctness of this statement cannot be decided on the basis of her study because the managers formed no part of it. A much-debated question concerns the extent to which technological changes and the arrival of new categories of staff members with different social and cultural backgrounds, as well as developments in police work itself (such as the adoption of community policing), have had an impact on police culture (Paoline, 2003; Punch, 2007; Sklansky, 2007). Loftus’s (2009, 2010) study shows that there is more continuity in police culture than might be expected, given these changes. Despite these critical reviews, the assumption that there is a universal police culture seems to be generally accepted (see Chan, 1997). However, empirical studies of police culture are almost exclusively Anglo-Saxon in origin. Herbert (1998) presumes from his study in the USA that elements of ‘normative order’ prevailing there in the police culture ‘will structure the sub-cultural world of officers across departments’. However, there is a lack of empirical studies to support such a claim of universality. There are some reasons to doubt the validity of this hypothesis. For instance, Cassan’s (2010) study shows remarkable differences between the cultures of the French and the English police. There may also be significant differences between neighbouring continental European countries. For example, Liedenbaum’s (2011) study, although it does not deal with police culture in the proper sense, suggests important differences in both street cop and management police culture between North Rhine Westphalia (Germany) and the Netherlands, countries that in other cultural respects have much in common. A somewhat older study by Ferdinand (1980) showed that solidarity and social cohesiveness are much stronger in US police forces than in Dutch ones. Dutch police officers have a less punitive

62

European Journal of Criminology 10(1)

orientation and are more willing to engage citizens. This may be an indication of significant differences in police culture between these countries. An important element of this standard model is that police culture is viewed as resulting from the practical exigencies and pressures of police work. Often implicitly, this explanation rests on a quite simple stress-coping model. In this view, police culture is a mechanism that helps police officers cope with the problems, dangers and tensions that confront them in their daily work (Chan, 1997; Reiner, 2010). In Paoline’s (2003) view, police officers are faced with two sorts of tensions. First, officers experience tensions as a result of external risks and dangers as they work on the streets. However, there are also tensions that originate within the police organization, resulting from relations with police leaders and the inherent ambiguity of the police’s role. According to this view, police culture provides a response to these tensions. Once it has evolved, it is handed down from police generation to generation. The notion of police culture as a coping strategy has two important implications. First, it is responsible for police culture being predominantly seen as a common pattern. It is assumed that the core of police practice is more or less universal, creating the same problems and tensions across time and place. As a result, the cultural response to these demands and tensions is expected to be more or less the same. Secondly, it may explain why police culture is so stubborn, so highly resistant to change. After all, it is assumed to be a more or less ‘rational’ answer to the universal dangerous and unpredictable conditions of police work (Chan, 1997). It also contributes to the widespread pessimism about the opportunities to reform police culture in a positive way. Although the notion of police culture as a coping strategy has a certain appeal and cogency, it is not without its problems. In this view, police culture is seen as the result of a more or less objective ‘social exterior’, as Friedland and Mohr (2004) call it. This is to misunderstand the relative autonomy of culture. Not only is the environment in which the police operate dangerous and risky in itself; it is also defined as such by police officers. Police culture is not just a result of the structural features of police work; the converse may also be true. The stress-coping interpretation of police culture has some limitations, in common with other functionalist approaches. Police culture is explained by looking at its beneficial consequences for the continuation of a social system. As Chan (1997) rightly notes, this explanation rests on a circular argument. It does not explain the origin, change and diversity of police culture. In addition, despite the fact that a concept such as coping strategies suggests that police officers play an active role, not much attention is given to their active input into the production and change of police culture (Cockcroft, 2007). This may be why there is generally not much interest in the consequences of differences in police work for the police culture. A similar issue is that police culture is often unjustly seen as homogeneous (Chan, 1997; Herbert, 1998; Loftus, 2009). This contrasts clearly with studies that distinguish between different subcultures or working styles within the police (Mastrofski et al., 2002; Muir, 1977; Reuss-Ianni, 1983; Wilson, 1968). Often it is not very clear how the relationship should be understood between the assumption of a general police culture and the existence of different working styles. In general it seems to be assumed that the working styles are variations or specific elaborations of the police culture. Finally, it may be expected that background factors such as age, the length of service in the police or the specific position one has in the police organization will have an impact on the extent to which the norms and views of a police officer correspond to the standard model of police culture and on his or her working style (Ferdinand, 1980; Micucci and Gomme, 2005).

Terpstra and Schaap

63

This line of argumentation may be summarized in the form of a simple causal model. Figure 1 represents the standard model of police culture. The model assumes that the perceived internal and external stress results in the police culture and that the police culture has an impact on the working styles of police officers. Both causal relationships are mediated by the background factors mentioned above.

Figure 1.  Causal model of police culture

Research question, design and methods In this paper we test whether the standard model of police culture, largely based on Anglo-Saxon research, is also adequate for the rank-and-file police in the Netherlands, in both a descriptive and an explanatory sense. We deal with several questions. 1. Does this model with the core characteristics as described by Reiner (2010) fit the dominant police culture in the Netherlands? 2. Does the standard model prove to be an adequate explanation of the causes and consequences of the police culture? In other words, to what extent do stress situations as perceived by police officers result in a police culture, as the first hypothesis of the model says? To what extent does this culture have an impact on the working styles of police officers (the second hypothesis of the model)? 3. Finally, to what extent do these three elements (stress, police culture, working styles) depend on some background factors? Because this study also has an explanatory objective, the findings are not just relevant to the Netherlands. As a rule, police culture has been studied in a qualitative, ethnographic way by means of long-term observations. Such an approach offers the opportunity for a researcher to understand complex, often hidden processes, such as the tacit, informal rules among the rank-and-file members of the police, their deviations from formal procedures, their often implicit views of ‘real’ police work and the distinctions they make between respectable citizens and villains. However, these ethnographic studies may also have some serious shortcomings. One may wonder whether the description of police culture will come to depend too much on incidents, on striking but rather exceptional events or anecdotes, and on information from some dominant, individual police officers. Is there not a risk that a selective and biased type of information is used to substantiate far-reaching generalizations? For this reason we used a quantitative survey, which may provide a more general overview of cultural phenomena in the police. This should not be understood as an alternative to the ethnographic approach, which in our view is fundamental to cultural studies. Rather, our approach is an additional approach to the study of police culture that may compensate for some of the shortcomings of an ethnographic method.

64

European Journal of Criminology 10(1)

In this study we used a brief electronic questionnaire, which was sent to 465 police officers working in the patrol service, community police service and other street-level positions in the regional police force of Southern Gelderland, the Netherlands. This organization (with 1170 employees in 2009) may be considered a more or less ‘average’ Dutch police force, with both a large city (Nijmegen), some smaller towns (such as the city of Tiel) and rural areas, such as the Land of Maas and Waal. With 260 completed questionnaires, the response rate was 55.9 percent. The police culture was investigated using the list of core characteristics of the police culture as distinguished by Reiner (2010) as the main framework. These core elements were operationalized in terms of 20 propositions. For each proposition,1 police officers were asked to say whether they agreed (very much) or not. Following Paoline (2003), we made a distinction between internal and external sources of stress. The first type of stress results from the risk of danger in police officers’ street work, their unique coercive power and the problems they face in maintaining their authority. The second type of stress results from ‘unpredictable and punitive supervisory oversight’ and the ambiguity of the police’s role, which may create feelings of uncertainty among police officers (Paoline, 2003: 200–2). In addition, three police working styles were distinguished: crime fighter, guardian and protector of the public, and a service role. This was inspired by the well-known work of Wilson (1968), which characterizes a legalistic, watchman and service-oriented police style. Both perceived stress and working styles were examined by presenting propositions to the police officers, who were asked if they agreed (very much) or not. In addition, some information was requested about age, gender, educational level, how long the respondent had been working as a police officer and the kind of police work that was currently being done (patrol work, community work or otherwise).

Police culture in the Netherlands? A precondition for using a concept such as police culture is that police officers themselves recognize it as such. Following Max Weber (1964), the use of concepts such as culture should have not only a causal but also a meaningful (sinnhaft) adequacy. For that reason we first presented four propositions to the police officers and asked them if they felt that the police are in a somewhat different, separate world, with its own jargon, norms, values and manners, which can be learned in practice only from older, more practised colleagues. Almost 80 percent of the police officers believe that the police have their own specific culture. Only 7 percent of the police officers did not agree.2 What are the main elements of the Dutch police culture and to what degree does this fit in with the standard model of police culture as inferred from mainly Anglo-Saxon studies? First we look at the answers given by the police officers to the 20 propositions. These answers indicate whether the core characteristics described by Reiner (2010) may also be found in the culture of these Dutch street and neighbourhood cops (Table 1). Among these Dutch rank-and-file police officers strong support can be found for two of these core elements. The first is a powerful sense of mission to maintain norms of good and bad and to protect the weak against the predatory. Second, for a large majority of these police officers the main attraction of their work lies in its (supposed) action and excitement.

Notes: n = 260. aThe formulation of this proposition is a negative indication of this cultural element.

Pragmatism

Conservatism Conservatism Machismo Machismoa Machismo Pragmatism

Solidarity

20. In this work the output is what counts; how it is achieved is less important

  1. The maintenance of norms of good and bad is the main reason I do this job   2. In my work I want to support people and protect their property   3. The challenge of my job is that at the beginning of each shift you never know what will happen   4. Without the excitement and action I would not want to do this work   5. I have learned that many people you meet as a police officer are up to no good   6. It is an illusion that you can really improve public safety   7. To do this job adequately, you are forced to distrust strangers   8. In this job you should always be aware of risk and danger   9. Only those people who do this work themselves understand our job 10. In the case of danger as a police officer you can rely only on yourself 11. In this job you should be able to trust your colleagues blindly 12. In this work solidarity with colleagues is more important than other duties and rules 13. The worst thing in this job is if a colleague makes something public that for persons outside the police force is none of their business 14. In my job they should leave things as they are 15. In my view police work was much more pleasant in most respects in the past 16. My job demands the projection of physical strength 17. Women can do this job as well as men 18. Without daring and courage one will not succeed in this work 19. This job does not need so much brainwork, simply the practical tackling of problems

Mission Mission Action

Action Cynicism Cynicism Distrust Distrust Isolation Isolation Solidarity Solidarity

Proposition

Aspects of police culture

23.5

 7.3 56.0 54.2 79.5a 75.4  5.1

40.4

68.3 36.7 18.6 28.3 95.4 78.7 33.8 92.7 32.7

78.8 96.1 94.2

Agree (very much) (percent)

3.47

3.80 2.47 2.59 2.00a 2.22 3.96

2.91

2.19 2.90 3.43 3.09 1.67 2.07 3.05 1.75 2.95

2.08 1.69 1.54

Average score (on a scale of 1–5, 1 = agree very much)

Table 1.  Aspects of police culture: Percentage of police officers who agree (very much) with the propositions, together with their average score

Terpstra and Schaap 65

66

European Journal of Criminology 10(1)

With regard to the other elements, such as suspicion of the outside world, isolation, internal solidarity and machismo, the data are contradictory. For some elements the standard model can be confirmed, but not for others. Almost all of these Dutch street and neighbourhood police officers assume that their daily work involves a great deal of danger and risk but, in contrast to what seems usual for many of their US colleagues, this awareness of risk and danger does not result in a fundamental distrust of strangers. About three-quarters of the Dutch police officers share the view that their work is difficult to explain to outsiders. Nevertheless, only a third of them feel that in the case of risk and danger they can rely only upon themselves. In the Netherlands, too, the police culture stresses that officers should be able to trust each other blindly. But, in contrast to what US studies often show, the mutual solidarity is not so strong that openness to the outside world is prohibited or that it offers a justification for rule-breaking behaviour (although still almost one-third of these Dutch police officers believe that this is the case). For many of these Dutch street and neighbourhood cops their image of police work is closely related to physical strength and courage, but only a small minority of them think that women are not suitable for this work. In other words, the concept of machismo in its literal meaning does not seem to fit in with the current Dutch rank-andfile police. Instead of machismo, a strong physical image seems to be a more appropriate description. Some elements that are generally seen as important cultural traits in US police studies have only a small relevance in understanding this Dutch police culture. Cynicism and conservatism, in the Dutch context, are certainly not general phenomena, being restricted to a small segment of these police officers. This seems to be even more the case with pragmatism, the ‘concrete, down-to-earth, anti-theoretical perspective which is typical of the rank and file’ of US police forces (Reiner, 2010: 131). This can be found among only a small minority of Dutch street and neighbourhood cops. To what extent is there a structure in this complex pattern of answers that corresponds with the core characteristics that Reiner describes? A factor analysis of the answers to the 20 propositions shows that the culture of these Dutch police officers consists of four factors. This corresponds in part with Reiner’s categorization, but there are also some important differences. The first two dimensions correspond with the standard model. These dimensions are a strong belief in the police mission and an attachment to action and excitement.3 The two elements that were used as the operationalization of cynicism proved not to be one factor. However, cynicism about the public in combination with suspicion and isolation from the outside world did prove to be one factor. This third dimension of the Dutch police culture might be called cynicism and seclusion.4 Finally, there is a fourth dimension: conservatism.5 However, as can be seen from Table 1, conservatism is not a general phenomenon among these Dutch police officers. In summary, this Dutch rank-and-file police culture consists of two dominant dimensions: a strong emphasis on the police’s mission and an attachment to direct action. The third dimension (cynicism and seclusion) is less dominant than the first two, but may still be viewed as a characteristic of this culture. Because conservatism is not a general phenomenon among these police officers, it can probably best be understood as a secondary, partially latent dimension that manifests itself only among a (small) minority of police officers.

67

Terpstra and Schaap

Stress and working styles Despite all kinds of differences in theoretical approaches, such different police scientists as Paoline (2003), Reiner (2010) and Chan (1997) view police culture as a mechanism for coping with the tensions and problems created by police work. Following this line it is assumed that a police culture would be more marked if these forms of stress were felt more strongly. The external and internal types of stress were investigated by asking police officers what they think about nine propositions. Almost all police officers stated that they frequently faced external types of stress, such as danger, threats and insults during their street work, and that they feel that the general public’s respect for the police is declining, which makes it harder for them to maintain their authority. Police officers face stress not only from external causes but also from internal ones. The majority of the police officers are (very) negative about the support given them by their management (see Table 2). Apart from that, it is striking that many of the police officers add remarks to their answers on the questionnaire to the effect that they are much more positive about their own immediate superior. The negative attitude seems to be confined to the management at a distance or management as a general abstraction. Table 2.  Threat, respect on the streets as perceived by police officers and their opinion of police leadership (percentage and average score) Opinion (on a scale of 1–5, 1 = very high)

Perceived danger and threat on the streets

Perceived lack of respect on the streets

Perceived lack of support by police leaders

Very high (score 1.00–1.99) High (2.00–2.99) Neutral (3.00) Low (3.01–4.00) Very low (4.01–5.00) Average score

20.8 59.2 16.9  3.1 –  2.18

12.7 45.0 16.9 24.6  0.8  2.77

30.4 28.8 14.2 24.6  1.9  2.67

Note: n = 260.

One of the questions in this study concerned whether there is a relation between police culture and certain styles of police work. Is there a difference in working style between those police officers who have views and norms that resemble the police culture as described and those police officers who have different views and norms? To answer this question, at the beginning of this study three working styles were distinguished: the police as crime fighters, as protectors and maintainers of order, and as service providers. These working styles were also investigated by asking police officers what they viewed as the main tasks or activities in police work: criminal investigation and catching criminals (crime-fighting style), visible presence to reassure citizens and do preventive surveillance (protector/order maintenance style), service and the delivery of information and support (service style).

68

European Journal of Criminology 10(1)

In contrast to what was expected, factor analysis showed that the second and third styles were actually a single style (combining both the service function and order maintenance). This confirms that the service function as a separate police style, which was not unusual in Dutch community policing about 15 or 20 years ago, hardly exists any more (Terpstra, 2010). In addition, and in contrast to what was presumed, the analysis demonstrated that there is a category of police officers with a high score on both the crimefighting and the order maintenance/service functions. Further analysis suggests that police officers with a high score on these two elements should be seen not as an intermediate category but as a separate, third category. Police officers belonging to this category aim at a visible presence and service to citizens, but also think that the tougher aspects of police work such as crime-fighting are important. These police officers try to combine two core elements of police work: service and force. This working style corresponds to the professional style described by Muir (1977) some decades ago. In this style, police officers combine promptness of action (with the use of coercive measures if necessary) with the ability to view citizens as individuals, to help them if they need this, and to treat them with respect (see Bittner, 1967: 708–9; Björk, 2008: 96–7). In summary, three working styles may be distinguished among the police officers at street level: the styles of crime fighter, order maintenance/service provider and what we call, following Muir (1977), the professional style. In the police force that we studied the second style is the least frequent (28.5 percent of all officers studied). The crime fighter style is the most frequent (37.7 percent), whereas the percentage of police officers with a professional working style lies in between (33.8 percent).

Police culture, backgrounds and consequences To ascertain the empirical validity of the hypothesized relations of the standard model of police culture, both linear and logistic regression analyses were used. The linear regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between the three forms of stress and the characteristics of police culture. Logistic regression analysis was used to study the supposed impact of police cultural elements on working styles.6 Seven variables were used for the operationalization of police culture: the four dimensions revealed by the factor analysis (mission, action, cynicism and seclusion, and conservatism), supplemented with three propositions about police culture that proved to be markedly strong (solidarity, the physical image of police work, and pragmatism).7 As can be expected on the basis of the stress-coping hypothesis, the findings suggest that the three types of perceived stress (risk and danger, lack of respect and authority, and the feeling of police officers that they are inadequately supported by their leaders) contribute to a stronger police culture (Figure 2). This applies to five of the elements of police culture: mission, action, cynicism and seclusion, conservatism and the image of police work as related to physical strength. Only two of the core elements of police culture prove not to have a direct relation with perceived stress: solidarity and pragmatism. However, because the elements of police culture are often correlated,8 it may be hypothesized that there is an indirect relation between the three types of perceived stress and solidarity and pragmatism. In that case it might be that a perceived threat from the outside and inadequate support by police leaders may contribute to cynicism and distrust among police officers. This may promote solidarity among police officers, just like the pragmatic belief that police work is primarily a matter of simply tackling problems.

Terpstra and Schaap

69

This analysis is also in line with the assumption that police culture has an impact on the working styles of police officers.9 Street and neighbourhood cops who have a working style as a crime fighter have a relatively great interest in action and excitement in their work and feel a strong sense of mission.10 In other words, the crime fighter style is directly in line with the dominant police culture. On the other hand, a great emphasis on order maintenance and service provision generally does not fit into the dominant police culture. Rank-and-file officers who strongly emphasize the importance of a police mission and the elements of action and excitement in their work probably will not opt for such a working style.

Figure 2.  Regression analyses of relations between three elements of stress, characteristics of police culture and three police working styles

One of the striking findings of this study is that, compared with the police officers with a crime fighter style, the officers with a relatively strong service or professional orientation experience such problems as a lack of respect and authority from the public less frequently. The causal relation is presumably quite complex. It may be that police officers who do not have many problems with respect and authority in their relations with the public are more inclined to choose a service-oriented/order maintenance or professional style. But the reverse may also be true: officers with a service and professional orientation may less frequently encounter problems in receiving respect and authority from the public. Interestingly, the third, professional, style proves to have almost no relationship with police culture, either positive or negative. The only relationship that we found is that the professional police officers are strongly opposed to pragmatism, which does not seem to fit in with their conception of police work. The analysis of the impact of some selected background factors on police culture shows especially that the length of employment in the police is relevant (see Figure 3 in

70

European Journal of Criminology 10(1)

the Appendix). The longer officers work in the police, the more conservative they generally are, and often the greater is their aversion to intellectualism. Simultaneously, their orientation to action and excitement in police work often declines, as does their association of police work with physical strength. It may be assumed that not only is the duration of employment relevant here, but also their advancing age. A position as a community police officer or as a leader of a police street work team proves to be strongly related to a service-oriented and order maintenance style of work (see Micucci and Gomme, 2005). On the other hand, a crime-fighting style is found more often in the patrol service. It may be that certain positions in the police force encourage certain working styles, but the converse relation may also hold. In this latter case, officers select those positions that fit best with their cultural orientation.

Concluding remarks This study shows that important aspects of police culture as described in Anglo-Saxon research may also be found in the rank and file of this Dutch police force: the feeling that the police have an exceptional mission, the attachment to direct action in police work, the distrust of the outside world, which may cause danger and risk, and the emphasis on mutual solidarity among colleagues. However, there are also significant elements that cannot be found in the Dutch police. Compared with the standard model of police culture, many Dutch police officers are not conservative and generally do not share the idea (any longer) that police work should be only a male affair. Presuming that these research findings are more or less representative of the rank and file of the police in the Netherlands, the overall image of this Dutch police culture is less negative than US studies often suggest. For instance, internal solidarity does not result in a dominant view that solidarity justifies the neglect of other duties. An anti-intellectual pragmatism is also less evident. Nevertheless, even in the Netherlands about 40 percent of the street and neighbourhood cops think that the most serious problem that can happen in the police is that one of their colleagues might wash his dirty laundry in public. This suggests that, in the Netherlands too, the police are still a rather closed community, secluded from the outside world. This study confirms to a large extent the explanation offered by the standard model (stress → culture → working style). The stronger the perceived stress, the more evident the police culture will be. The model is also useful to explain two of the three working styles. The police style as a crime fighter is in line with the police culture. The police style that focuses mainly on service provision and order maintenance is hard to combine with the police culture. The Nagelkerke R2 for the crime fighter style is .268 and for the order maintenance/service provision style is .261. This implies that the model explains about 26 percent of the differences in working styles between the police officers. The most important question that remains unanswered by this study relates to the professional police style. Here the readiness to use coercive powers if necessary is combined with the provision of services to the public. According to this study, this professional style is unrelated to any of the police cultural elements, either positively or negatively. However, it is difficult to imagine that the development of a professional police style would be independent of police culture. It may be that this finding is a result of the fact that theories of police culture generally focus on the negative aspects of police

Terpstra and Schaap

71

organizations and police work. A broader orientation is needed that also recognizes more positive aspects and developments of the police organization. Contrary to what was expected, the study proved that pragmatism is not a general element of this rank-and-file police culture. However, this may be (partly) a consequence of the way that this concept was operationalized. Here the ‘anti-theoretical perspective’ was seen as the central element. However, police pragmatism may also be interpreted in another way, as the skills of police officers in handling difficult and contradictory problems and conflicts in a practical way (Bittner, 1967). For example, the study by Björk shows that police officers may use a form of pragmatic humanism in their street work, which may exist alongside the more cynical elements among the police back stage or in the canteen (see Waddington, 1999). A more multifaceted operationalization of the pragmatism concept would be needed in a follow-up study. Nevertheless, this study may be relevant for promoting other styles of police work. If initiatives are to change police practices, the cultural context is highly relevant. A direct change of police culture may generally be hard to achieve. It might be assumed that a more indirect cultural change strategy focused on the relevant sources of stress might be more effective and simpler to implement. Appendix

Figure 3. Regression estimates of relations between background characteristics and stress, culture and police styles.

72

European Journal of Criminology 10(1)

Notes   1. One of the characteristics that Reiner distinguished was omitted, namely racial prejudice. It was assumed that this issue was too complex to be studied by means of a short, standardized questionnaire.   2. The four propositions were used as a Likert scale (Cronbach’s α = .623). The average score on this scale, running from 1 (agree very much) up to 5 (do not agree at all) was 2.32.   3. Both dimensions were measured by means of two propositions (see Table 1). Cronbach’s α = .634 and .616 for the first dimension (propositions 1 and 2) and the second dimension (propositions 3 and 4), respectively.   4. This dimension was measured by means of propositions 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 (see Table 1); Cronbach’s α = . 619.   5. This dimension was measured by means of propositions 14 and 15 (see Table 1); Cronbachs’ α = . 544.   6. Because the culture elements were measured on an interval scale, a linear regression analysis was used. Dichotomous variables were used for the working styles. This requires a logistic approach.   7. The first four dimensions were constructed as a scale based on several propositions (see Table 1). Each of the three supplementary elements corresponds to a separate proposition (see Table 1): solidarity (proposition 11), physical image (16) and pragmatism (19).  8. Solidarity is correlated with cynicism and pragmatism (.256 and .158 respectively). Pragmatism is correlated with the image of police work as physical strength (.174).   9. For the measurement of these working styles the relevant propositions were constructed as three scales. 10. There is a negative relationship between solidarity and the crime fighter style. It is unclear how this should be interpreted.

References Banton M (1964) The Policeman in the Community. London: Tavistock. Bittner E (1967) The police on skid-row: A study on peace keeping. American Sociological Review 32(5): 699–715. Björk M (2008) Fighting cynicism. Some reflections on self-motivation in police work. Police Quarterly 11(1): 88–101. Cain ME (1973) Society and the Policeman’s Role. London/Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Cassan D (2010) Police socialisation in France and in England: How do they stand towards the community policing model? Journal of Police Studies 2010-3(16): 243–260. Chan JBL (1997) Changing Police Culture: Policing in a Multicultural Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cockcroft T (2007) Police culture(s): Some definitional, methodological and analytical considerations. In: O’Neil M, Marks M and Singh AM (eds) Police Occupational Culture: New Debates and Directions. Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI, 85–102. Ferdinand TN (1980) Police attitudes and police organization: Some interdepartmental and crosscultural comparisons. Police Studies: The International Review of Police Development 3(3): 46–60. Foster J (2003) Police cultures. In: Newburn T (ed.) Handbook of Policing. Cullompton, Devon: Willan, 196–227. Friedland R and Mohr J (2004) The cultural turn in American sociology. In: Friedland R and Mohr J (eds) Matters of Culture: Cultural Sociology in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–68.

Terpstra and Schaap

73

Herbert S (1998) Police subculture reconsidered. Criminology 36(2): 343–369. Liedenbaum C (2011) Politiewerk: Tussen taak en uitvoering. Een vergelijkend onderzoek naar de basispolitiezorg in Nederland en Noordrijn-Westfalen. Nijmegen: WLP. Loftus B (2009) Police Culture in a Changing World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Loftus B (2010) Police occupational culture: Classic themes, altered times. Policing and Society 20(1): 1–20. McLaughlin E (2007) The New Policing. London: Sage. Manning PK (2007) A dialectic of organizational and occupational culture. In: O’Neil M, Marks M and Singh AM (eds) Police Occupational Culture: New Debates and Directions. Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI, 47–83. Mastrofski SD, Willis JJ and Snipes JB (2002) Styles of patrol in a community policing context. In: Morash M and Ford JK (eds) The Move to Community Policing: Making Change Happen. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 81–111. Micucci AJ and Gomme IM (2005) American police and subcultural support for the use of excessive force. Journal of Criminal Justice 33(5): 487–500. Muir WK (1977) Police: Streetcorner Politicians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Paoline EA (2003) Taking stock: Toward a richer understanding of police culture. Journal of Criminal Justice 31(3): 199–214. Punch M (2007) Cops with honours: University education and police culture. In: O’Neil M, Marks M and Singh AM (eds) Police Occupational Culture: New Debates and Directions. Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI, 105–128. Punch M and Naylor T (1973) The police: A social service. New Society 17(554): 358–361. Reiner R (2010) The Politics of the Police, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reuss-Ianni E (1983) Two Cultures of Policing: Street Cops and Management Cops. New Brunswick: Transaction. Rubinstein J (1973) City Police. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Sklansky DA (2007) Seeing blue: Police reform, occupational culture, and cognitive burn-in, In: O’Neil M, Marks M and Singh AM (eds) Police Occupational Culture: New Debates and Directions. Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI, 19–45. Skolnick J (1966) Justice without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society. New York: Wiley. Terpstra J (2010) Community policing in practice: Ambitions and realization. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 4(1): 64–72. Terril W, Paoline EA and Manning PK (2003) Police culture and coercion. Criminology 41(4): 1003–1034. Waddington PAJ (1999) Police (canteen) culture. British Journal of Criminology 39(2): 287–309. Weber M (1964) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehende Soziologie. Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch. Westley WA (1970) Violence and the Police: A Sociological Study of Law, Custom, and Morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wilson JQ (1968) Varieties of Police Behavior: The Management of Law and Order in Eight Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.