Siinviidatud vabalevis olev tekst käsitleb politseimudeli institutsionaliseerumist. Kasutusel on teadmistepõhine (tõenduspõhine, vms) politseimudel (EBP) Briti näitel. Autor näitab, tuginedes peamiselt Foucault raamistikule, kuidas EBP saavutas domineeriva staatuse. Tekst võiks olla kohustuslikuks kirjanduseks kõikidele politseinikele ja kuuluda politseivaldkonna kursustel seminaritekstide hulka.

Eesti kontekstis – avalikus juhtimises üldisemalt, mitte ainult politseivaldkonnas – rõhutan kriitilistest alternatiividest vaikimise (mitteteadmise?) olulisust “tõe” kujunemisel.

Kontekstiks:

Evidence-Based Policing (EBP) is founded on the belief that following the approach to evidence-based medicine, underpinned by natural sciences, and transposing this into policing policy and decision making, can ‘improve’ policing (Sherman, 2013).

Valitsus võttis suuna:

EBP builds on the longer-established ‘evidence-based policy’ agenda, in the British context ushered in by the New Labour government from 1997 (Solesbury, 2001). […] By 2022 EBP is developing hegemonic status, dominating how we have come to see, think and act about policing (Knutsson and Tompson, 2017).

Positsioon ei ole siiski kõigutamatu:

In wider academic literatures there are concerns about the harnessing of state power to criminological knowledge (Cohen, 1981; Walters, 2003), the creeping influence of state agendas into scholarly research (Hillyard et al, 2004; Squires, 2013), and contestable ontological assumptions about ‘crime’, ‘justice’ and ‘policing’ (Hillyard and Tombs, 2007; Pemberton, 2015).

Autor väidab:

I argue that EBP has emerged into a hegemonic position in British policing for two key reasons. First, EBP aligns with wider politico-economic projects of late modernity; notably neoliberalism and managerialism. […] Second, I propose that the progression of EBP represents a new nadir in continuing and deepening the problematic relationship between the British state and the production of ‘useful’ criminological knowledge described by others (Cohen, 1981; Walters, 2003).

Artikli fookus:

This paper focuses exclusively on the ‘third lens’ of my discourse research: those important institutional reforms identified that arise from the progressive normalisation of EBP discourse.

Teoreetilisest lähtepunktist:

For Foucault (1969), knowledge requires a system of power to validate it as legitimate according to the ‘scientific discourse in a given period’. Knowledge must be ‘authorised’ systemically to acquire its ‘truth’ status, while power cannot exist without being validated by a requisite coherent system of knowledge. […] What were the moments of decision that led us to where we find ourselves presently?

Institutsionaliseerumisest:

Hajer suggests ‘discourse institutionalisation’ is observable when discourses become ‘translated into institutional arrangements’, and policy begins to be conducted within institutions according to theoretical concepts that exist within discourse. […] Discourse institutionalisation is an output of interconnected power relations that produces hegemony, drawing political frontiers of what is included and othered.

Genealoogiast:

My larger discourse analysis project illustrates EBP’s shared genealogical heritage with the wider discourses of late modernity: managerialism and neoliberalism. […] This paper describes four key institutional reforms that support this assessment of EBP’s progress in modern Britain. EBP is becoming hegemonic through institutionalised governance techniques of self-promotion that simultaneously ‘govern the silence’ of critical alternatives.

Betts, P. R. (2022). Governing the silence: the institutionalisation of evidence-based policing in modern Britain. Justice, Power and Resistance5(1-2), 9-27.