thematic-analysis-perception-police-cameras-student-guide

Analyzing Focus Groups to Understand Specialized Unit Officers’ Perceptions of Police Body-Worn Cameras Student Guide Introduction In this dataset, we describe how to analyze qualita

Understand Specialized Unit Officers’ Perceptions of Police

Body-Worn Cameras

© 2019 SAGE Publications, Ltd All Rights Reserved

This PDF has been generated from SAGE Research Methods Datasets

Analyzing Focus Groups to

Understand Specialized Unit

Officers’ Perceptions of Police

Body-Worn Cameras Student Guide

Introduction

In this dataset, we describe how to analyze qualitative transcripts of interviews and focus groups As an example, we draw on data collected from 17 specialized police units in two police departments in the Western United States The larger study from which these data originate is a randomized controlled trial of the effects of body-worn cameras (BWCs) in the Spokane (Washington) and Tempe (Arizona) Police Departments, led by Dr Michael White (Professor, Arizona State University), Dr Janne Gaub (Assistant Professor, East Carolina University), and

Dr Natalie Todak (Assistant Professor, University of Alabama at Birmingham) Several datasets were collected as part of this study to assess different outcomes, including an officer perceptions survey administered to all officers at various points throughout the study Through survey results and conversations with officers, it became apparent that the perceptions of officers in specialized units may differ from those in general patrol To more fully understand these differences, we conducted a series of focus groups with officers in specialized units We sought

to understand their unique experiences with BWCs and whether deployment to specialized units might require adjustments to policy or practice

Focus Groups

Focus groups are a commonly used qualitative research method that allows the researcher to gather the opinions of many people together through group conversations (Kitzinger, 1995) Compared to one-on-one interviews, focus groups are less costly and time-intensive Additionally, they allow research participants to discuss their opinions and perspectives in a social setting The group setting elicits more detailed discussions, allows for variations in viewpoints, and engages participants’ emotional processes and reactions to others In the current study, police officers who participated in the focus groups were able to talk about their shared on-the-job experiences with members of their own units

The focus groups used in this study were semi-structured, meaning we used broad questions to guide the discussion, but asked follow-up probing questions where appropriate and allowed participants to draw the conversation in different directions as they saw fit Compared to a structured interview or focus group, the semi-structured method allows individuals to tell their own stories and allows the researcher to probe deeper into the concepts broached by participants (Rabionet, 2011) We used a semi-structured method in the current study to accommodate the fact that every specialized unit has a different purpose in the department and, therefore, may encounter different problems, have varying concerns, or perceive diverse benefits of BWCs We allowed each unit to identify the main pros and cons

of BWCs and took the conversation from there It is important to note, however, that maintaining an amount of structure in the qualitative focus group is key to ensure the data elicited are relevant to and address the research questions

For this study, all members of specialized units in the two police departments were invited to participate Participation was voluntary, and confidentiality was guaranteed from the perspective of the researcher However, it is impossible to guarantee 100% confidentiality when using the focus group method, as other

members of the focus group could repeat what is said All participants were advised of this possibility Focus groups were organized in Spokane using a central contact person because the researchers needed to travel to Spokane, thus only had 2–3 days to conduct the groups One concern with this approach

is that researchers can experience fatigue when conducting multiple focus groups

in quick succession In Tempe, focus groups were conducted during regularly scheduled roll call briefings (i.e., when officers meet at the beginning of their shift for a meeting with the sergeant) at the police station or at another time that was better suited for the group involved Since the researchers were located locally

in Tempe, those focus groups occurred on a more relaxed time frame and were scheduled directly with sergeants When conducting focus groups or interviews, researchers have several options for recording data:

1 Take written or typed notes;

2 Audio record;

3 Video record; or

4 A combination of these

Each approach has benefits and drawbacks and, in some cases, can be determined by Institutional Review Board (IRB) restrictions or requirements In this study, all focus groups were audio recorded and then transcribed

Dataset: Focus Groups of Officers in Specialized Police Units

At the time of the study, all research examining police officer perceptions of BWCs had focused on general patrol officers This makes sense, as patrol divisions are usually the focus of BWC programs, and patrol forces make up the majority of

a police department In the two departments under study, however, many of the specialized units were included in the patrol division and were included in BWC deployment We realized that by only assessing patrol officer perceptions on a broad scale, without accounting for group-level differences such as by unit, we

could be ignoring unique problems with implementation for the specialty units Thus, we opted to assess specialized units separately from general patrol The study’s multisite design allowed the researchers to examine differences in officer perceptions in three ways: between units, between departments, and between specialized units and general patrol (based on existing research evidence) In our analysis, it became apparent that officers in specialized units perceived different challenges and benefits of BWCs, compared to general patrol officers We also found that, within units, each specialized unit had unique experiences in their adoptions of BWCs

As noted, both departments participated in randomized controlled trials The focus groups were conducted approximately six months after the conclusion

of the randomized period to ensure that all participating officers had sufficient experience with the cameras before being questioned about their perceptions and experiences Some units were not assigned to wear BWCs at all, per their agency’s policy; specialized units without cameras were included in the current study to understand their perceptions about that decision and their general beliefs about the utility of cameras for specialized units The questions used to guide the semi-structured groups were:

1 Do you believe that BWCs are useful for police officers generally (not just for those in your unit)? What about for your unit?

2 What do you think are the most important benefits of BWCs generally? [ask officers to rank order, or identify the top 3–4]

3 Are the benefits for your unit the same or different than the benefits generally?

4 What do you think are the most important drawbacks of BWCs generally? [ask officers to rank order, or identify the top 3–4]

5 Are the drawbacks for your unit the same or different than the drawbacks generally?

6 What has been the biggest challenge to integrating BWCs into your daily work?

7 Provide some examples of how you have used BWCs in the field that

is unique to your unit (or different from the traditional use in patrol)

8 Do you think the benefits of BWCs outweigh the drawbacks for the police department as a whole? What about for your unit?

9 What are some examples of issues that departments should consider when making decisions about BWC purchasing, policy, training, and implementation that are relevant to your unit?

10 Is there anything else that we have not covered that you would like to mention about how BWCs affect your unit or general patrol, or the differences between them?

Analysis: Thematic

Our population for this study was police officers working in specialized units We sampled 72 officers from 17 different units in the Spokane and Tempe Police Departments The goals of the analysis were (1) to assess whether there are commonalities among the sample as a whole and (2) whether there are differences by department and by unit

Part 1: Read and Code All the Transcripts

Thematic analysis involves a search through qualitative data for major ideas that are important to the subject under study (Daly, Kellehear, & Gliksman, 1997) The first step of a qualitative thematic analysis is to immerse yourself in your data (Rice & Ezzy, 1999) During this stage, the researchers read each transcript and make notes about the various ideas and topics discussed It is important

to complete this process a few times during the data analysis stage to become fully acquainted with your data, ensure important ideas are not missed, and allow for new ideas and patterns to emerge over time, particularly if they are

contradictory to expectations Once you are familiar with your data, the structured coding process can be both deductively and inductively driven (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006) Deductive codes are developed from predetermined themes

based on previously derived hypotheses or theoretical insights The researcher determines these themes in a template before coding (Crabtree & Miller, 1992) For example, existing research indicated that patrol officers might receive fewer citizen complaints when they wear BWCs compared to when they don’t We therefore wanted to see whether officers in specialized units reported receiving more, the same, or fewer citizen complaints after they adopted BWCs and, by asking officers to relay their experiences, we hoped to better understand why During the first read through of the transcripts, we deductively coded for any mention of complaints and grouped these comments into the theme “complaints.” Over time, as we noticed a common story surrounding the topic of complaints, we honed this code to be more specific: “BWCs reduce complaints.”

During our analysis, we also looked for any ideas that were common but that

we hadn’t previously considered (Boyatzis, 1998) These ideas can eventually become emergent themes and are consistent with inductive coding During this

process, you let the data speak to you and see what you find One emergent theme we found was that some units believed they could not under any circumstance wear BWCs without compromising the entire mission of their unit The Patrol Anti-Crime Team (PACT) in Spokane worked with confidential informants and believed there was no way that they could wear BWCs without risking the safety of their informants They believed suspects might see the BWC videos, learn the identities of the informants, and retaliate against them We called these officers’ concerns “deal breakers”—an emergent theme in our data that we did not anticipate Only a few units in our sample reported that BWCs were “deal breakers” for them, while the rest had some concerns but generally thought the benefits outweighed the drawbacks

Part 2: Look for Big Patterns Across the Entire Sample

Once you have read through all the data and completed the first round of coding, you can then assess what themes are common across your entire dataset At this stage of the process, we were looking specifically at what specialized unit officers thought about BWCs This question was important because research had focused only on what patrol officers thought, finding they were generally very supportive

of BWCs Given the differences in mission between patrol officers and specialized units, we wanted to see whether specialized units were also supportive of BWCs

One theme that was common across most of the specialized unit officers was the belief that the BWC policy designed for patrol officers did not consider the needs of specialized units Our sample believed specialized units required tailored policies

to account for their unique missions and activities Officers on the Tactical (TAC) team in Spokane work major events that sometimes last all day, such as running races, sporting events, or protests These officers said they were instructed by their agency’s policy to record any official law enforcement activity However, TAC officers were unsure when to activate their BWCs and when to keep them off during these long events They could not feasibly record the entire event because the battery would die Further, if they recorded continuously for 15 hours, the recorded videos would be mostly useless and very expensive for the agency

to store These officers said their unit required a more customized policy that instructed them on when to activate their cameras at long events

Another theme that was common among all the units was the use of BWCs

in innovative ways Almost every unit described figuring out inventive ways to use the BWCs to help them better perform their duties, serve the public, collect evidence, and conduct investigations Officers in the gang unit in Tempe stated that they always recorded themselves searching vehicles and persons to prevent accused persons from claiming the evidence was planting by the police Because

these accusations are quite common for gang units, they make sure to record on the body camera the exact locations from which they find pieces of evidence and how they collected and bagged it

Part 3: Assess Department-Level Differences

Once the transcripts are coded and reviewed as a whole for common themes, the third stage of the analysis involves separating data into categories We first categorized our data into two groups—the Spokane units and the Tempe units—to assess whether there were differences between the units from the two agencies

A primary difference we found was that Washington had very open public records laws, which presented strong privacy concerns for the Spokane units At the time

of data collection, Washington State laws provided that any citizen could request

a copy of police BWC video if they submitted the proper form, and the agency was required to redact the video and release it to that citizen in a timely manner The citizen did not need to have an association with the case in order to request the video For this reason, Spokane units worried about what should be recorded for fear that videos could compromise the safety or privacy of individuals, show violent or traumatic scenes not suitable for public viewing, or expose special police tactics to the public We did not find these same concerns among the Tempe units because Arizona state laws were more restrictive in who could request and review footage

We found several additional department-level differences, which we critically explored in our published works Acknowledging these differences underscored the need for agencies to do comprehensive planning within their own organizations before developing policies to better suit individual units Examining these department-level differences also highlighted the need for future research

to assess the generalizability of the research findings to other agencies and communities

Part 4: Assess Unit-Level Differences

The final task of the analysis was to conduct in-depth readings of each transcript and consider the unique perceptions of BWCs held by each unit This process highlights specific issues that each unit had with implementation that we could then discuss in detail to aid other police agencies in their considerations and planning For example, we opted to conduct a focus group with the Dignitary Protection unit in Spokane, even though the unit did not wear BWCs, because

we wanted to understand the rationale behind their decision This unit provides protection as a supplement to federal law enforcement agencies, such as the Secret Service, when special dignitaries visit the city We learned that Dignitary Protection officers derive much of their authority by allowing outsiders to believe they are members of federal law enforcement They do so by wearing plain clothes and radio ear pieces They do not wear clothing or insignia that identifies them

as police officers These officers said BWCs would immediately identify them

as police, and therefore they cannot wear them and still conceal their identities Dignitary officers also said there was no place to mount a BWC on their plain clothes suits because the devices were created for mounting on police uniforms Our in-depth analysis of the Dignitary Protection Unit, the SWAT team, and the PACT in Spokane, all of which did not wear BWCs, helped us provide nuanced information to police agencies about these units’ decisions not to implement BWCs Agencies considering implementation with these units could make more informed decisions and perhaps decide not to deploy cameras if doing so would compromise the unit’s mission

Conclusion

When programs are designed for one part of an organization—as BWC programs are designed for implementation among general patrol officers—we cannot assume that they will function the same way when implemented among other