No abstract

In this article we reflect on the use of a scoping review method in the course of a student assignment. In total, 24 scoping reviews were conducted on police research topics, following the same procedure with similar yet topic-specific review protocols. We discuss each of the eight phases of the scoping review method and provide examples and good practices on how to conduct these steps. We also focus on difficulties that were experienced and how to overcome them in future scoping reviews. The aim of this article is twofold: providing criminological examples of scoping reviews that can help define new scoping review protocols and avoid difficulties experienced in these reviews on the one hand, and reflecting on students' participation in the assignment on the other hand to stimulate involving students in scoping review projects more often. KeywordsScoping review • Student assignment • Criminology • Synthesis method • Good practices (crime reduction Braga 2005; Braga et al. 2015; Carriaga & Worral 2015) and various other topics such as procedural justice and police legitimacy (Mazerolle et al. 2013a, b), police leadership (Pearson-Goff and Herrington 2014), stress management (Patterson et al. 2012), and the effects of body-worn cameras (Lum et al. 2020).Grant and Booth (2009) distinguish fourteen review types (e.g. critical reviews, mapping reviews, rapid reviews, systematic reviews, scoping reviews), that all differ in purpose, rigour, time necessary to conduct the review and specific procedures to be followed. For instance, scoping reviews 1 differ from systematic reviews by studying a broader topic or theme (Arksey and O'

The method and results of a scoping review, based on the principles of a systematic literature review, on police accountability are presented with the aim of providing an overview of the characteristics of empirical research on the topic and the main themes covered in this research tradition. To our knowledge, no systematically conducted review has been undertaken although one could help to identify gaps in the (empirical) literature and give insights into the themes studied in this regard. Three main themes were discovered during the review; aside from police accountability as such, many studies related to police integrity or, to a lesser extent, historical facts concerning police accountability or integrity. Two of the most striking findings were the low number of empirical studies included in our thematic synthesis and the limited amount of methodological information reported in these publications. As such, the authors recommend more empirical research regarding police accountability and, more generally, sufficient methodological reporting when writing a publication.

PurposeThis article provides an overview of the latest empirical research regarding police decision-making in Belgium from 2000 to 2021 in terms of methodology and general findings (e.g. types and year of publication, topics studied). Recommendations are given concerning police research and the development of a research agenda.Design/methodology/approachFourteen separate and limited scoping reviews regarding police decision-making topics were carried out by students in criminology and law. All scoping reviews followed the same procedure.FindingsSeventy-nine unique publications are included in the analyses. These show that police violence is most frequently studied, whereas violence against the police was only included in one publication. Empirical research on bodycams and (social) media was not found. Most of the studies followed a quantitative research design, mainly by means of secondary data analysis.Research limitations/implicationsThe scoping reviews are limited in scope and were carried out by different students, potentially leading to variable interpretations and selections. Additionally, the conclusions are partly the result of the developed review protocols (e.g. keywords, databases).Originality/valueThis article combines 14 different scoping reviews, following the same procedure, on subtopics regarding police decision-making and thus enabling comparison of the literature found in a consistent way.

In many Western countries, an emerging collaboration between academic researchers and practitioners can be noticed. While different practitioners (e.g. government and policy actors, national security practitioners, social welfare practitioners) are increasingly drawing on external knowledge and expertise to improve their evidence-based policies and practices, academic researchers are involving such actors more closely in their research to benefit the research process. However, despite the various advantages of such cooperation, some ethical and practical issues may arise inherent to their different practices and objectives that could hamper interaction and cooperation between both parties. Starting from personal research experiences, the aim of this contribution is to provide both academic researchers and practitioners with insight into the potential challenges they may encounter during academic-practitioner cooperation and how to overcome them. By providing an overview of good practices and effective strategies, we hope to improve and increase future engagement and interaction between both worlds. This contribution draws upon the research experiences of both authors conducting (criminological) research commissioned by and/or in collaboration with practitioners in Belgium. In the first research project, commissioned by the Flemish government, the disengagement policy in the Flemish prisons was evaluated based on qualitative in-depth interviews, observations and a framinganalysis. The second project, focussing on police officers' ethical decision-making processes, entails a mixed-method design (exploratory phase, online survey, semistructured interviews, systematic social observations, field check by means of focus groups). The challenges of academic-practitioner cooperation relate, amongst others, to the context in which the research is conducted, the researcher's academic independence, the dissemination of the research results and anonymity and confidentiality concerns. The advantages relate, for instance, to the facilitation of (certain parts of) the research process, the knowledge exchange between both worlds, the dissemination of the research results and the networking opportunities. We explicitly aim to give some practical recommendations and good practices concerning how to organize cooperation between practitioners and academic researchers. Cooperation between Extended author information available on the last page of the article