Understanding the Organizational Culture of University Police

Introduction

Police culture is an issue gaining attention in the context of analyzing police organizations. Police researchers have long speculated on the importance that culture plays in everyday police practices. In many studies, police culture has been depicted as “widely shared attitudes, values, and norms, which serve to manage strains created by the nature of police work” (Paoline, 2003, p. 199). These studies, with some exceptions, focus on some characteristics of police organizations, such as paramilitary structure, training, and work environment (danger, stress) as sources of group loyalty, suspicion, authority, solidarity, and widely shared, static, unitary, and traditional police culture (Barker, 1999; Manning 1997; Paoline, 2003; Wood, 2004; Van Maanen, 1975).

This monolithic view of police culture is a greatly simplified, even distorted perception of reality. This view obscures the life and the activity that go on behind the apparent order. It ignores the political, social, organizational, and economic factors that contribute to ambiguity and conflict among individuals of different ranks and groups in favor of reaching clarity and simplicity or taxonomy, which eliminates much of the ambiguity and conflict. Moreover, over the past 25 years, policing has changed in at least two major respects: the spread of a community policing philosophy and the increasing diversity of police officers. These have changed both the occupational and the organizational environments of policing. Therefore, police organizations should be most accurately viewed as multicultural. Any research aiming to understand police organizations should be aware of the subgroups with different backgrounds, the ambiguity and complexity of police organizations, as well as the similarities. In this respect, university police departments, with the diverse community they serve –students, faculty, and staff- and the differentiation in the nature and diversity of crime problems are more likely to create some different attitudes in terms of police culture.

Within this context, this study primarily focuses on a university police department to get a richer understanding of the culture of university police. In spite of the changes in policing and police organizations, there are limited studies taking into account how these changes have shaped the culture of police organizations. In this regard, this study accounts for the possibility of multiple cultures and cultural fragmentation in police departments (Chan, 1996; Geertz, 1973; Martin, 1992; Terrill, Paoline & Manning, 2003). In addition, this study aims to explore the influence of community policing and the university setting on the culture of university police by comparing university police with municipal police.

Organizational Culture

The complexity and the broad coverage of the concept have influenced the definition and description of culture. It has been loosely defined in the literature. In recent years, there is a growing awareness that there is no single definition and conceptualization of culture that ensures clarity across research traditions, contexts, organizations, and circumstances. In this regard, organizational culture has been defined and analyzed in many different ways within different traditions.

There are two principle traditions in organizational studies which conceptualize and analyze organizational culture in a different way. The functionalistic research tradition considers culture to be an organizational variable as something the organization has (Riley, 1983; Smircich, 1983).

It is more likely to see definitions of culture in this tradition emphasizing widely shared, unwritten value systems and practices within any TIPS Connections_070708.indd 41 given organization. This perspective treats culture as something that can be managed to produce effective and better outcomes. Leaders or management executives play a central role in the transformation and creation of a strong culture. On the other hand, the interpretive tradition considers culture as a root metaphor, a pattern of symbolic discourse; something the organization is (Riley, 1983; Smircich, 1983). This tradition focuses on “processes and experiences through which people construct organizational reality. In this regard, culture is the process through which social action and interaction become constructed and reconstructed into an organizational reality” (Smircich & Calas, 1995, p. 233- 234). In this tradition, communication is at the center of organizational culture. These two main traditions change not only in their conceptualization of culture but also in their approach of how to study culture. Functionalist tradition underlines the principles of prediction, generalizability, and causality while interpretive tradition focuses on meaning and the processes (Smircich, 1983). There is also another constant debate regarding in what forms organizational culture manifests itself. Many researchers studying culture from different perspectives focus on different manifestations of culture. The most common manifestations of organizational culture in the literature that researchers focus on are visual, verbal, and material artifacts (Schein, 1984); espoused values (beliefs and values that rationalize the behaviors of the members of the organization) (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Schein, 1984); formal practices (written policies that govern organizational structures and rules) (Kundo, 2006); informal practices (such as unwritten norms about appropriate behavior or proper decision making procedures); stories about employees (Kundo, 1992; Martin et al., 1983); rituals (Kundo, 1992); organization-specific jargon (Van Maanen, 1991); humor, and the effects of décor (Barley, 1983); dress norms (McDonald, 1991; Van Maanen, 1991); interior design (Barley, 1983); and architecture (Carbaugh, 1988; Chen & Nath, 2005; Hatch, 1993; Martin, 1992). On the other hand, some researchers find it useful to focus on the patterns of interpretation underlying the various manifestations rather than focusing on a specific manifestation of culture (Martin, 1992).

Organizational Culture of Police

In police culture literature, it is common to refer to traditional, functional, and integrated perspectives which suggest a set of values, attitudes, practices, and norms that are widely shared among police officers. This literature suggests a long, intense, and unique background of police work which is very strong in shaping individual police officers’ occupational characteristics in a way needed to cope with the strains of their working environment (Crank, 1998, 2004; Kappeler, Sluber, & Alpert, 1998; Manning, 1997; Paoline, 2003; Reiner, 1985). This organizational culture has been produced and transmitted through various forms of socialization (Paoline, Myers, & Worden, 2000; Wood, 2004) and becomes a key aspect of police practices and common sense. When officers need guidance and answers in a discretionary area, the culture provides officers with a structured set of understandings gained and access to an accumulated body of knowledge which helps them to make sense of the issue (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Wall, 2002).

Until recently, the literature maintained that the common characteristics of this culture are group loyalty, isolation, solidarity, suspicion, perception of danger, and authority. The root causes of these common characteristics are asserted to be “danger, authority (the legitimate capacity to exercise force) and efficiency (the pressure to produce results)” (Reiner, 1985, pp. 87-88). Isolation is probably the most fundamental cultural theme in policing. Isolation indicates the emotional and physical situation in which the police separate themselves from the rest of the society. The police, because of organization- wide perception of threat, isolate themselves from the society (Crank, 2004; Kappeler, Sluber, & Alpert, 1998; Manning, 1997; Reiner, 1985; Vickers & Kouzmin, 2001). They generate a ‘them vs. us’ situation, in which the police inevitably continue to act defensively against potential threats. Solidarity is another apparent theme in the police organizational culture (Crank, 1998, 2004; Kappeler, Sluber, & Alpert, 1998; Manning, 1997; Reiner, 1985). Solidarity is believed to be a natural consequence of the police work which reinforces the “Don’t give up another cop” (Shearing, 1995) notion among colleagues. Police funerals, uniforms, and perceptions of danger are all common contributors to solidarity. In fact, danger is the most frequently emphasized factor for police solidarity. In this sense, danger becomes an element of police organizational culture by drastically affecting police perception. Danger is important in police organizational culture because danger influences perspectives, practices, and themes of police organizational culture (Barker, 1999; Crank, 1998, 2004; Kappeler, Sluber, & Alpert, 1998; Manning, 1997; Reiner, 1985; Terrill, Paoline, & Manning, 2003; Wall, 2002). Due to perceptions of danger, police officers become suspicious about citizens with whom they interact and distance themselves from the rest of society. In addition, officers, in pretraining, in service training, and in actual police practices, are taught to be suspicious. As a result, suspicion (Crank, 1998, 2004; Manning, 1997; Vickers & Kouzmin, 2001; Wall, 2002) becomes a key theme of police organizational culture which radically affects police common sense and practices. Police authority is accepted to be another important theme of police organizational culture (Crank, 2004; Kappeler, Sluber, & Alpert, 1998; Manning, 1997). Police use authority in police practices such as traffic stops and arrests. Indeed, authority is intertwined with danger. As Skolnick (1966) underlines, “danger typically yields selfdefensive conduct, conduct that must strain to be impulsive because danger arouses fear and anxiety so easily. Authority, under such conditions, becomes a resource to reduce perceived threat” (p. 67).

Some researchers imply that this dominant, traditional, integrated view of police culture is overdrawn. In this regard, recent studies have begun to question it more directly and have focused on the possibility of a less determined, fragmented police culture and distribution of police attitudes (Chan, 1996, 2001, 2003; Paoline, Myers, & Worden, 2000; Wood, 2004) in a period that has witnessed radical changes in the backgrounds of officers and working environment associated with community policing. These scholars have criticized earlier formulations of police culture as not accounting sufficiently for cultural variation within organizations. They instead focus on a highly limited conception of agency that understands individual actors as being mainly passive recipients of acculturation (Chan, 1996, 2003; Wood, 2004). The officers are not passive recipients that experience cultural values and practices in the same way. They both experience and influence it. In addition, the researchers assert that changing political, social, organizational, and economic factors have contributed ambiguity and conflict among individuals, different ranks, and groups which make culture more fluid and conditional (Chan, 1996, 2001, 2003; Paoline, Myers, & Worden, 2000; Wood, 2004).

Chan (2001) introduces the notion of ‘field’ in understanding cultural change and the structural conditions of policing. He argues that different elements of the field (rules of the game) shape police culture. In this regard, changes in the philosophy of policing over the past 25 years might be working to erode many of the values of the police culture. Within this time, policing has changed in at least two major respects: the spread of a community policing philosophy and the increasing diversity of police officers. Therefore, changes in the philosophy of policing might be expected to change the practices of policing, patterns of interaction and socialization, training, and organizational culture of police officers (Manning, 1994; Paoline, Myers, & Worden, 2000; Van Maanen, 1975). For instance, officers tend to increase their interactions and communication with citizens in handling crime problems. These changes might also be expected to affect “both the occupational strains between police and citizens (e.g., mitigate the suspiciousness of citizens and the ‘us vs. them’ distinction), as well as the organizational strains between police and their supervisors (e.g., lessening the need for a crime fighter image as officers expand their role orientation)” (Paoline, 2003, p. 208). In addition, the ambiguity of role identification between officers and different units might decrease the likelihood of a widely shared, traditional culture (Wood, 2004). Therefore, in contrast to early studies demonstrating a more integrated view of policing and police organizations, police organizations are becoming ethnically and culturally diverse and more complex in their function and practices which might lead to fragmentation of culture in many respects. This does not mean the nonexistence of a police culture, but it shows the need for an effort to understand analytically the content and scope of that culture.

Methodology

The method for the present undertaking is a case study approach. Since the researcher is interested in understanding police culture in a certain setting and how officers’ manifestation of culture depends on this organizational setting, position, and task, it seems that a case study would be beneficial for such an effort. The research site, a University Police Department (UPD), was chosen primarily for its convenience. It has a wide range of officers operating under various units, functional areas, and hierarchical levels which provided the basis of valuable information for research. Therefore, the organization fits the criterion necessary for the study. Thus, in-depth interviews were conducted with nine officers who represent different levels of hierarchy and units. Official documents were also included in the analysis in order to corroborate with other data collected by the interviews.

Results

Organizational Environment

The university police departments are different in some respects (neighborhood, the community served, and rate and nature of crimes) from municipal police departments, but the same in terms of the goals. The analysis of the UPD demonstrates in what ways the difference in the community and neighborhood has changed the policing and police culture of university police. The differences become more evident when two departments come together. As stated by one officer: “When we (municipal police and university police) come together at a match, the ways they handle things are a little different than us.” Most of the officers emphasize the ever-changing population, high level of education, young age range and cultural diversity of their target population as different from municipality police departments. These differences are expressed as an indicator of more challenging police work. Five officers expressed the difficulty of working in such a young and highly educated community. Some of these officers suggest that young and educated communities are more likely to oppose authority figures, reminding officers that they claim that they know their rights. Illustrative of this point is one officer’s remark:

“The community demands working here are very difficult for police to work with. Students in general are difficult to work with. Why? They are experiencing themselves for the first time. They leave their parents for the first time. Now, they are here and say: Don’t tell me what to do. I am going to tell you what to do. I know my rights.

” More importantly, as noted by two officers, the law enforcement is used less to control problems at the UPD than at municipality police departments. For instance, an officer says,

“I do a lot of narcotic investigations. If I worked in a municipality, I would not commit to the whole person. When I arrest somebody for drugs, if I were in a municipality, here is the summons, here is your warrant. I will see you in court. I am done with you. Here, I would get a sense of, this is a student and this is messing up their lives. In the future, what programs can I get them into, so we don’t see this again? Try to salvage whole person rather than treating one violation of law.”

Therefore, different community demands along with the university setting are reflected in the policing style of the department. In this regard, the basic concept that might be used to define the culture of the UPD is a ‘service style department’. It is even clear on the stickers over the patrol cars saying “serving the community of . . . .” Two officers specifically describe their culture as ‘service oriented’; in addition, others emphasize ‘helping people; serving their needs, and providing service to the university’ as their primary roles. One of them comments: “We provide a lot more services to the public than a municipality police department. We have a lot of services available to the students.” According to Wilson (1958), in this type of organization, the defining characteristic of the police role becomes the service to the community. In conjunction with this style, the importance of community and public relations is emphasized many times within the interviews. An example of these service activities at the UPD is ‘child seat inspection’ in which child seats have been checked to correct if they have been installed improperly.

Another concept highlighted in the data is the meaning of ‘being police’ at a university. One of the problems that officers address is that university police departments have not been regarded as real police departments, and university police have not been regarded as ‘real cops’. In other words, officers have an identity problem within (and outside of) the university. Three officers express such a perspective. One of them explains the nature of their problem with this highly educated population: “We have a wholeheartedly educated new population here. Not a whole a lot of people know the authority the campus police officers have. They don’t under- TIPS Connections_070708.indd 43 7/22/ stand that we have the same authority in a very large area [measure].” Another officer states,

“People have an identity crisis. You are nothing but a security guard. You are nothing but a campus cop. You are not a real cop. That’s why we have such a high turnover rate, because officers are coming here and saying, ‘I am not comfortable with being looked upon as a security officer. I am not comfortable with being looked upon as a campus officer. I am a police officer, I am a real cop.”

In fact, this identity issue affects the turnover rate.

“We have some young guys saying, ‘this is not for me’ and they leave. They go to municipal police departments because municipal police are looked upon differently, respected. Here a lot of times officers do not get respected. They are not respected because their badge is University Police instead of NYPD. That is a big challenge.”

As can be understood from the quotations, this situation is seen as one of the main reasons for high turnover rates among officers, in addition to lower salary rates compared to municipal police departments.

Uniforms are crucial for they provide instant communication about the types and culture of a police organization. Uniforms and dispatches historically correspond to a status symbol. With the change in policing styles, some of the police organizations have changed the color and the design of the uniforms. In accordance with the university setting and the concept of community policing, the UPD has changed the color and design of their uniforms. An officer comments, “We have more soft uniforms, and have changed equipment which [is seen] as an authority figure.” In fact, the change of the uniforms indicates the change of the culture at UPD. The officer’s comment is clearly an indication of a more tolerant, more open police department.

In addition to the general university setting, the physical environment of the workplace is said to make a difference in terms of organizational culture. Physical closeness is connected to cultural closeness and unity as illustrated in the following ‘family’ metaphor:

“Our office was very small. We have always been like a kind of family. It has changed now, maybe because of the different physical environment we work in. Our old headquarters was like a house, three-storey. We were very close, we had to be. We moved to this building last year. Now, in this building, everybody is on different floors. We have a kind of isolation.”

Another officer makes explicit connections between the new building and changes in the organizational culture:

“Actually since we moved out in this building a year ago, we spread out. Before moving in here, we were all in one small building. There were a lot more informal contacts. If I walked to the bathroom, I could run into the chief‘s office on my way to the bathroom. Here, she is on her floor, I am on my floor. We do not see each other unless it is something formal. So, culture has changed in the sense that we do not have [the same] formal and informal contacts that we used to.”

Therefore, the building situation reinforces the difference in the different units and ranks. People’s worlds revolve around their own part of the building and a sense of isolation is created.

These points emphasize that aspects of police culture may differ between university and municipality police departments. The organizational culture of the UPD is partly a function of the neighborhood and the given community’s needs. In this regard, as organizational environments differ, the way officers cope and their culture becomes different.

Differentiation in Rank and Position

In the literature, it is common to refer to the differentiation of the police culture among officers into two cultures: street cop culture and management cop culture (Crank, 1998; Manning, 1997; Van Maanen, 1975). In fact, this study found that the division might be more accurately conceptualized as ‘indoor police culture’ and ‘outdoor police culture’. In this regard, the officers generally express a distinction among patrol and bureau. One officer’s remark illustrates the distinction between patrol and bureau: “We do not interact much directly with patrol. We have our own little culture.” Two other officers support this distinction and provide reasons for the distinction: “You have more in common. You work together. Culturally you separate yourselves from the others.” Another officer states, “There is fragmentation. They (patrol officers) don’t know the responsibilities of other ranks unless they get promoted to that rank.” As can be understood from the quotes, a differentiation of culture exists within the department. This differentiation has been formed and reinforced primarily through interactions with others. As noted by Kuhn and Nelson (2002), the frequent communication partners and the content of those interactions lead to cultural similarity among group members and diversity among officers working in different positions. In addition to communication practices, the environment of the work reinforces the differentiation of culture. According to one officer:

“Especially, when you work on patrol, you became like family. You are responsible for my life, I am responsible for yours. When we get into a fight, you jump in to get, to help me. As we do not have the same kind of stress in the bureau, those relationships do not work the same.”

From these comments, it is reasonable to claim that different cultural commitments emerge among officers based primarily on changes in work environments and responsibilities.

In spite of the differences insisted upon by some of the officers, others emphasize the cohesiveness and unity in the department. One officer expresses this perspective: “The department is definitely cohesive. People do work together. We have a common vision.” Another officer highlights the role crisis might play in the unity of the department: “When there is a crisis situation, everybody rallies to get the job done. When you get a crisis or a tragedy, you set aside all the differences, your personal concerns to try to resolve the situation.” In this regard, a crisis situation is likely to enact “a regnant communal force, a shared and meaningful motive that lends a grand aura of unity to the work place” (Carbaugh, 1988, p. 226).

In spite of the differentiation among different ranks and position, the feelings and perception of the officers towards the public is similar. Most of the officers stress the importance of the public-police relationship. For instance, one officer says, “Community policing officers (CPO) are the bridge between us and the outside community. They will know the ever-changing population.” Another officer remarks, “Community policing is just like breaking down the psychological barrier with police and community. The objective of CPO is to go out and try to get the confidence of public. So, we do work together. We do projects together.”

Consequently, based on the arguments mentioned earlier, it can be suggested that community policing and the university setting might be influencing the extent of the solidarity, isolation, authority, and perception of danger and weakening a cohesive cop culture among the officers. It is hard to claim that there are monolithic, widely shared attitudes, values, and norms among officers. Different operational contexts and needs have changed the parameters among the personnel which cause the culture to be variable (Chan, 1996, 2001, 2003; Paoline, Myers, & Worden, 2000; Wood, 2004).

Community Policing and University Police Culture

Community policing has become the most popular trend during the past few decades in the US. In spite of the ambiguity and diversity of community policing practices and the lack of a complete definition and theory of community policing, it is mainly a reaction to the traditional policing approach which focuses on reacting to crime rather than on being proactive to prevent and reduce crime. Within this context, the supporters of community policing attach considerable importance to decreased tensions between the police and the community and to increased effectiveness in dealing with community problems.

This fundamental change in policing style could be expected to affect the occupational environment and challenge the sustainability of traditional organizational culture. In fact, the results confirm the considerable effect of community policing on the culture of the UPD. As stated by officers, stable assignments to each campus have facilitated officers’ familiarity with the people and places in those areas, and provided for more frequent contacts with citizens. The implication of this point in the frame of culture is that it mitigates, to some degree, the perceived threats in officers’ environments and leads to decreased suspicion and isolation between the police and the public. One of the officer’s responses shows how community policing serves to decrease suspicion and isolation between the police and the public:

“I think a lot of times officers don’t realize that just getting out of car, walking down the street, walking in to a building, speaking to people that are in the building, is an aspect or face of community policing. When you start interacting and dialoging with people, then, that is a form of community policing.”

In addition, the community policing philosophy expands the scope and priorities of the police role. There is greater attention to reducing disorder, solving neighborhood problems, and building rapport with citizens. This philosophy becomes salient in educational and social programs of the UPD, such as alcohol and drug awareness education programs, child seat inspection programs, annual 5-K run/walks, and national night-out. With these changes, officers might be less likely to adopt an ‘us vs. them’ approach toward citizens (Paoline, Myers, & Worden, 2000). The responses of community policing officers show the importance given to know the public they serve:

“I was taking calls from people of different religious and cultural backgrounds. It is really important to know their cultural backgrounds. Being a CPO helped me to learn to show respect for other cultures. It is important when you are solving a problem or even arresting.”

Another CPO recalls the importance of understanding the community being served to meet the needs of the society: “Culture is different, moral values are different. We try to keep up with the trainings. We try to understand what is going on. You have to understand people. You have to understand likenesses and differences. It is constantly changing.” In this regard, the effect of community policing is certainly stronger for CPOs. In a similar vein, patrol officers who have observed the practicability and effectiveness of community policing express similar ideas. On the other hand, this does not mean that officers do not go out and arrest criminals. They do, but they become more aware that there are other ways to deal with crime.

Overall, in their responses, the officers indicate that there is greater receptivity to community policing and problem-solving efforts. At the same time, there is a strong degree of consensus among officers on the meaning of community policing and its impact on the culture of the department. It seems that this new philosophy has affected the officers’ perceptions of the central features of the department and their role in this process. The concepts of ‘partnership, cooperation, service style, education’ are repeated much more than ‘aggressive policing, isolation, legalistic style’. Moreover, as already mentioned, officers do not define their role in narrow terms that emphasize only law enforcement. Most of the officers stress the importance of the educational programs conducted by the department.

Discussion

Recent research has begun to directly question the existence and conceptualization of a monolithic police culture and focus on the complexity of culture and variation among officers and police organizations. As police organizations continue to diversify and as community policing becomes part of the philosophy of policing (Paoline, 2003; Paoline, Myers, & Worden, 2000; Wood, 2004), more cultural variation is expected within police organizations.

In this regard, this study demonstrates the role community policing, rank, position, and organization could play in the fragmentation of police culture in a UPD. This study does not assert that there is no cultural agreement or consensus among officers. As already stated, this study aims at analytically understanding the content and scope of police culture rather than treating it as a monolithic, single organizational culture in which the attitudes, values, and norms of officers are homogenous. Based on this premise, the common characteristics (e.g., isolation, solidarity, authority, suspicion) of traditional police culture should be reconsidered. “The forces of fragmentation should be working to erode a single monolithic police culture, but not totally dissolve it” (Paoline, 2003, p. 210).

Within this context, it is reasonable to conclude that the university setting, target population, and philosophy of community policing have certainly played a role in the new cultural trend of the UPD. As the data reveal, officers tend to increase their interactions and communication with citizens in handling crime problems. This environment has also lessened the need for a crime fighter image and use of law enforcement solely to control crime problems. The implication of these points in the frame of culture is that it alleviates to some degree the perceived threats in officers’ environments, the ‘‘us versus them’’ distinction, and the authority aspect of police culture, which leads to decreased suspicion and isolation between the police and the public. This new culture might be expressed best as ‘service style’.

Some boundaries to fragmentation and terms of police diversity, organizational environment, and policing philosophy. Group loyalty might vary in intensity among officers and units, but there is no reason to suppose that officers are no longer loyal to one another. It is still a major outcome of police culture. In a similar vein, suspicion, authority, and danger continue to be part of this culture. As suggested in this study, the main point is that it changes within varied occupational and organizational environments.

Conclusion

It is reasonable to suggest that police organizations, including UPDs, contain some cultural practices, norms, and values that are mainly unique to police work, but the ways in which officers handle these cultural practices and values appear to be more fragmented than have been depicted by many police researchers (Terrill, Paoline, & Manning, 2003). In this regard, organizations can more correctly be viewed in terms of multiple cultures changing through time rather than as fixed and homogeneous cultures. And, this study adds to our greater understanding of the complexities of culture.

* Turkish Police Captain and Ph.D. Student at Rutgers University, School of Communication, Information and Library Studies

References

Barker, J. C. (1999). Danger, duty, and disillusion. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press Inc.

Barley, S. R. (1983). Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 393-413.

Bratton, W. & Knobler, P. (1998). Turnaround: How America’s top cop reversed the crime epidemic. New York: Random House. Bratton, W. & Smith, D. C. (2001). Performance management in New York City: Compstat and the revolution in police management. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from www.rockinst.org/publications/ federalism/QuickerBetterCheaper Chapter16 .pdf

Carbaugh, D. (1988). Cultural terms and tensions in the speech at a television station. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52, 216- 237.

Chan, J. (1996). Changing police culture. British Journal of Criminology, 36, 109-134. Chan, J. (2001). Negotiating the field: New observations on the making of police officers. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 34, 114-132.

Chan, J. (2003). Fair cop: Learning the art of policing. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Chen, L. & Nath, R. (2005). Nomadic culture: Cultural support for working anytime, anywhere. Information Systems Management, 22, 56-64.

Crank, J. P. (1998). Understanding police culture. Boston: Anderson Publishing Co. Crank, J. P. (2004). Understanding police culture (2nd ed). Boston: Anderson Publishing Co.

Davies, A. & Thomas, R. (2003). Talking cop: Discourses of change and policing identities. Public Administration, 81, 681-699.

Eisenberg, E., & Riley, P. (2001). Organizational culture. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 291-322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Feldman, D.C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 433-452.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Gibbs, J. L. (2007). Loose coupling in global teams: Negotiating tensions across time, space, and culture. Under review at Human Relations.

Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 18, 657-693.

Kappeler, V. E., Sluder, R. D., & Alpert, G. P. (1998). Forces of deviance: Understanding the dark side of policing (2nd ed). Long Grove, IL:Waveland Press, Inc.

Kuhn, T. &Nelson, N. (2002) Reengineering identity: A Case Study of multiplicity and duality in organizational identification. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 15-38.

Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Lindlof, T.R. & Taylor, B.C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Manning, P. K. (1997). Police work: The social organization of policing (2nd ed). Long Grove, IL; Waveland Press, Inc.

Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organization. New York: Oxford University Press.

Martin, J., Feldman, M. S., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, S. B. (1983). The uniqueness paradox in organizational stories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 438-453.

McDonald, P. (1991). The Los Angeles Olympic organizing committee: Developing organizational culture in the short run. In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin, (Eds.). Reframing organizational culture (pp. 26-38). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Murray, J. (1998). Qualitative methods. International Review of Psychiatry, 10, 312-316.

Paoline, E.A., Myers, S.M., & Worden, R.E. (2000). Police culture, individualism, and community policing: Evidence from two police departments. Justice Quarterly, 17.

Paoline, E.A. (2003). Taking stock: Toward a richer understanding of police culture. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 199-214.

Patton, M.Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ravisi, D. & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 433-458.

Reiner, R. (1985). The politics of the police, Brighton, UK: Wheatsheaf Books Ltd. Riley, P. (1983). A structurationist account of political culture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 414-437.

Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review, 26, 3-16.

Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Shearing, C. (1995). Transforming the culture of policing: Thoughts from South Africa. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology special issue, 54-61.

Skolnick, J. H. (1966). Justice without trial: Law enforcement in democratic society. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339-358.

Smircich, L.M. & Calas, M.B. (1995). Critical perspectives on organizational and management theory. Brookfield, VT: Aldershot.

Terrill, W., Paoline, E. A., & Manning, P. K. (2003). Police culture and coercion. Criminology, 41(4), 1003-1034.

Van Maanen, J. (1975). Breaking in: A consideration of organizational socialization. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook of work, organization, and society. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Van Maanen, J. (1991). The smile factory: Work at Disneyland. In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin, (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture. (pp. 58-76). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Vickers, M. H. & Kouzmin, A. (2001). New managerialism and Australian police organizations: A cautionary research note. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 14, 7-26.

Walker, R. (Ed). (1985). Applied qualitative research. Brookfield, VT: Aldershot.

Wall, D. S. (2002). Cop cultures and police action. Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, Retrieved February 12, 2007, from http://www. leeds.ac.uk/law/staff/lawdw/cyberpolice/pol6. htm.

Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E., & Malik, S.D. (1984). Organizational socialization and group development: toward an integrative perspective. Academy of Management Review, 9, 670-683.

Wilson, O.W. (1958). Police planning. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Witmer, D. F. (1997). Communication and recovery: Structuration as an ontological approach to organizational culture. Communication Monographs, 64, 324-349.

Wood, J. (2004). Cultural change in the governance of security. Policing & Society, 14, 31-