1

TOUGH, LOYAL, REPUTABLE: D/DISCOURSES AND SUBCULTURES IN

VOCATIONAL POLICE TRAINING
Cheryl Maree Ryan
Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
cherylmaree61@gmail.com
cmrya@deakin.edu.au


Abstract

A critical examination of police training (i.e., vocational knowledge and skills to
fulfil police operations) raises concerns about its doctrinal intent and value versus
its educative intent and value, and questions its capacity to meet the demands of
policing in the 21
st
century. Police training acts as a formally sanctioned vehicle for
police culture, subcultures, and D/discourses but this is complicated by (a) the
predominance of pedagogical training practices that support a trainer-centred
approach and standardised lecture format for training, (b) a focus on law
enforcement at the cost of higher-order conceptual skills, (c) police management
education with a subculture resistant to theoretical analysis and critical reflection,
and a set of unconscious and unchallengeable assumptions regarding police work,
conduct, and leadership, and (d) debates about the relevance of a traditional (i.e.,
command and control) versus a contemporary (i.e., community policing) model of
policing. This paper provides an overview of research into the discourse-practice
framework of policing in a vocational police training context with recruits. The
research distinguishes the dominant subcultures and prevailing D/discourses
(words, tools, beliefs, thinking styles), and analyses the impact of these on
individuals identity, subjectivity, agency, learning, and membership within the
policing community. A backdrop to this research is the agenda amongst Australian
and New Zealand police services for policing to become a profession.

Keywords: Vocational police training, D/discourses, subcultures.


Introduction

The demands on policing in the 21
st
century require that police training (i.e., vocational
knowledge and skills to fulfil police operations) and police education (i.e., conceptual skills
for theoretical and analytical learning) are capable of meeting a range of complex and diverse
expectations (Kratcoski 2004). Policing is more demanding. It requires the ability to exercise
sound judgment and technical knowledge in a broad range of complex situations (Lanyon
2007:107; Murray 2005; Rowe 2008). Kratcoskis (2004) review of Australian and
international police training found that the training concentrates on rudimentary aspects of
law enforcement, at the cost of the higher-order conceptual skills.

Juxtaposed with this context is an agenda amongst Australian and New Zealand police
jurisdictions for policing to become a profession. This raises questions about the efficacy of
police training and education not only to meet the requirements of dynamic practice, but the
2

aspirant intention of policing to become a profession. Lanyon (2007:107) argues that policing
needs to move away from its artisan status to that of a profession in order to meet the
current and future sophisticated demands and expectations. In response, a number of police
jurisdictions have initiated partnerships with universities to provide higher education
pathways. These pathways vary amongst jurisdictions and the efficacy of them in integrating
the vocational police training with higher education, and enhancing policing practice, is as
yet unclear. Underscoring all of this is the need for radical restructuring of police
organisations (Lanyon 2007:107), clarity about the nature and scope of policing (Lanyon
2007; Murray 2005; Rowe 2008), the preferred model of policing, and what constitutes a
body of knowledge for policing (Lewis 2007; Murray 2005).

This paper provides an overview of research that focused specifically on police vocational
training for recruits. The research identified and analysed the dominant subcultures and
prevailing D/discourses.

Review of Literature
Police culture
Shearing and Ericson (1991:487) define police culture as figurative logic whereby culture is
not literal. Instead, it is symbolic, rhetorical, and metaphorical: it is the product of oral
communication (narratives, war stories) which explains and justifies action. These
conceptions of police culture resonate with the notion of D/discourses as particular ways of
talking and ways of seeing that are resistant to challenge and change (Fairclough 1995:41).

The literature review of police culture reveals a range of common characteristics that are
inherently interrelated, dynamic and need to be viewed as products and resources of
D/discourses. These characteristics can be more easily understood in terms of three
subcultures I have named for ease of explanation: family-relationships, command and
control, and real police work.

Subcultures
The heart of the family-relationships subculture is that peers represent the family and the
organisation the parent (Bonifacio 1991). Whilst parent and family provide a common
understanding and identity, they are also supportive and punitive (Bonifacio 1991; Fielding
1994; Neyroud & Beckley 2001; Prenzler 1998; Reiner 1992, cited in Shanahan 2000;
Waddington 1999b). Family-relationships are built upon the perception of and ability to be
capable and reliable which necessitates the need to be or be seen to be perfect (Bonifacio
1991; Neyroud & Beckley 2001; Manning 1978, cited in Chan 1997; Shanahan 2000;
Waddington 1999b).

The command and control subculture, with its paramilitary ethos and the organisations strict
hierarchical command structure (Bonifacio 1991; Heidensohn 1992; Cain 2002; Fleming &
Lafferty 2003; Palmer 1994; Panzarella 2003; Waddington 1999a & 1999b), simultaneously
underscores and complicates the family-relationships subculture. Waddington (1999a:301)
describes the police organisation as a punishment-centred bureaucracy where poor
behaviour is readily noted and punished, but where good behaviour is often unacknowledged.
The paramilitary model has been criticised for maintaining the status of police managers and
stifling independent thinking and innovative practice (Cowper 2000; Panzarella 2003).

3

Finally, the real police work subculture is grounded in operational policing. This is
supported by a sense of mission (Reiner 2000:89) and political and legal sanctions to
control society (Manning 1977). The cult of masculinity, combined with the emphasis on
fighting crime, provides further justification for the application of authority and the
maintenance of reputation and status (Dick & Cassell 2004; Frewin & Tuffin 1998; Reiner
2000; Martin & Jurik 1996; Waddington 1999a & 1999b). The need to maintain assertive
control requires quick and decisive action which means thinking (reflectively or critically)
could be judged as a weakness (Bonifacio 1991).

Police training
The literature on police vocational training reveals the predominance of pedagogical training
methods over andragogical (adult learning) methods and questions the doctrinal versus
educative intent and value of these methods (Birzer 2003; Birzer & Tannehill 2001; McCoy
2006; Marenin 2004). Such methods and the lack of integrated curricula do not guarantee the
development of skills in decision making, problem-solving, and critical thinking (Birzer &
Tannehill 2001, Ortmeier 1997, cited in McCoy 2006; Marenin 2004; White 2006).
Police instructors are primarily law enforcement practitioners and not educators (McCoy
2006:88). McCoy (2006) stresses the need for police trainers to develop a professional
training standpoint and to engage in reflective practice. Experience alone does not make a
person a professional adult educator (Elias & Merriam 1995, cited in McCoy 2006:89),
and the ability to reflect upon her or his practice and experience is imperative. Vickerss
(2000:508) and Adlams (2002) critiques of police management education found a set of
unchallengeable assumptions about police work and conduct which repressed learning
through reflection and critique.
Nature of policing
In attempting to define the nature and scope of policing, four dimensions are identified, but
the boundaries appear to be blurred. The dimensions are (1) fighting and preventing crime,
(2) the legitimate, state-sanctioned use of force, (3) the provision of a public service and
maintenance of public order, and (4) administrative and procedural functions in response to
the requirements and systems of accountability (Rowe 2008:8-13).

Model of policing
Integral to the nature of policing and training is the model of policing, Lewis (2007:149)
draws on Murrays (2002 & 2005) work in comparing the key features of these two models.
A traditional model frames policing as a craft/trade whereas the contemporary model
defines it as a profession. An authoritarian approach to policing is adopted in the
traditional model as opposed to the contemporary models problem-solving approach.
Historically, policing has been characterised by a quasi military management style which is
antithetical to a democratic management style of the contemporary model. [E]mphasis on
physical attributes underscores the traditional model of policing, whereas the contemporary
model has an emphasis on intelligence, or the thoughts that underscore action. Finally, the
traditional model is characterised by an insular and defensive culture, unlike the open and
consultative culture of the contemporary model.

Theoretical framework and methodology

A deconstructive/post-structural approach and assumptions were applied to this research.
(Connole 1993). It therefore aimed to challenge that which is taken-for-granted by
4

investigating the construction and interpretation of knowledge, truth, and social realities,
and the deconstruction of these through the lens of the prevailing D/discourse. While trainers
might believe their discourse-practice framework is based on true statements
(Cherryholmes 1988:34), from a deconstructive/post-structural perspective, truth is
discursive, and discourses are situated in history and are influenced by power (Cherryholmes
1988:34). According to Foucault (cited in Cherryholmes 1988:34-35), truth is represented by:
...the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true...the means by which it is
sanctioned; the techniques and procedures accorded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those
who are charged with saying what counts as true.

Gees (2005:7) definition of discourse as the correlation between language-in-use (little d
discourse) and other elements (big D discourse) such as symbols, tools, values, beliefs, and
thinking styles best captures the intent of this research. This definition is explained further by
Gee (2004:40-41) as:
a way of using not just words, but words, deeds, objects, tools, and so forth to enact a certain sort of
socially situated identity, andcultural models (taken-for-granted stories)to construct certain sorts
of situated meanings.

The repertory grid technique is situated within the constructionist paradigm (Cassell & Walsh
2004; Fransella & Bannister 1977). The grid is a type of structured interview that assigns
mathematical values to peoples personal constructs (Fransella & Bannister 1977:4). Various
character and personality attributes and gender, relating to a range of policing functions and
roles, were provided to the participants. The grid interview (Cassell & Walsh 2004; Dick &
Jankowicz 2001; Fransella & Bannister 1977) facilitated access to trainers and trainees
inner-most beliefs about themselves and others, either as police officers and police trainers,
or in the case of the trainees as their anticipated police self (Conti 2006:227), and the
expectations of the discourse-practice (Cherryholmes 1988:1) framework of policing. Data
from the questionnaires and interviews were analysed using grounded theory and a discourse
analytic framework respectively. The latter involved the examination of the data using
Faircloughs (1995:98) situational, institutional and societal dimensions of discourse
analysis, and Gees (2005) discourse analytic process investigating: meaning creation through
language, roles, values, thinking styles; identity formation; distribution of power, status and
gender; and the value and meaning attributed to people, objects, activities.

Fourteen police trainees (six females, eight males) and nine trainers (four females, five
males) participated in the repertory grid interviews. In addition, 54 questionnaires were
completed by 46 trainees (15 females and 29 males, the majority in the 19 to 25 years age
group) and eight trainers (three females and five males, the majority in the 36-45 years age
group).

Findings and Discussion

The most common personality and character attributes and gender (elements within the grid
interview), were classified according to the three D/discourses identified from the
questionnaire data.

Table 1 - Elements
Warrior D/discourse Tough-love family D/discourse Perfect self D/discourse
Element 1 tough
Element 2 authoritative
Element 4 compliant
Element 9 accepted
Element 12 reputable
Element 13 sensitive
5

Element 3 willing to exercise
power
Element 5 strong
Element 6 willing to use force
Element 7 female
Element 8 male
Element 10 different
Element 11 loyal
Element 17 conforms

Element 14 tolerant
Element 15 logical
Element 16 assertive
Element 18 self-control

The analysis of the data from the interviews revealed the predominant D/discourse across the
three groups was that of the Warrior, closely followed by the D/discourses of Tough-love
family and Perfect self.

D/discourses
Warrior D/discourse
Female Males are always believed to be the stronger and tougher sex
Male At some stage throughout the course ALL the females have been emotional (i.e.
upset, crying, etc) and no males have
Male Police culture is conveyed through war stories
Female Putting your body on the line
Male Being tough, strong and aggressive

Gender and the body as a political object (Foucault 1977; Westmarland 2001) are at the heart
of the Warrior D/discourse. Whilst many types of masculinity can exist simultaneously,
one type can dominate (Hearn & Collinson 2006) and become culturally exalted (Connell
1995:110). This is certainly evident within this D/discourse. Underscoring this D/discourse
are the command and control and real police work subcultures. The former is founded
on the paramilitary ethos and strict hierarchical command structure (Bonifacio 1991;
Heidensohn 1992; Cain 2002; Fleming & Lafferty 2003; Kappeler, Sluder & Alpert 2001;
Palmer 1994; Panzarella 2003; Waddington 1999a), which represent a punishment-centred
bureaucracy (Waddington 1999b:301). The real police work subculture signifies: crime-
fighting and a sense of mission (Reiner 2000:89); state power and the legitimate use of
force; physical strength, power and ability to take control; and authority and compliance
(Silvestri 2003; Westmarland 2001). A consequence of the Warrior D/discourse is that
gender becomes a powerful resource, a rationale and an outcome (West & Zimmerman
1987:126) for both females and males. The representation of policing as an essentially
masculine occupation through D/discourse and images permits gender and other differences
to be constructed and maintained (Brown & Heidensohn 2000; Garcia 2003; Silvestri 2003;
Westmarland 2001). The policewoman therefore represents the ultimate oxymoron (Brown
& Heidensohn 2000, cited in Silvestri 2003:31).

In the grid interview, element 8 male was positively correlated and ranked highly by the
trainers in three constructs admire, instructor, and ideal police officer, with female
ranked low. In the questionnaires, each participant group perceived differences (trainers
62.5 per cent, trainees 59 per cent and 46 per cent) between how males and females
experienced police training. Gender differences relating to physical ability, levels of
aggression, academic ability, and personality attributes such as an authoritative manner, were
commonly identified by both the trainers and the trainees.

Tough-love family D/discourse
Male Its like a private club to be joined at some time
Male Team, loyalty, strength, unity versus Look after mates, gossip, and bitchiness
Female Supportive (common work goals) and provides peer networks versus Misguided
6

loyalty and suppression of individual initiative
Female Its a huge gossip factory if you dont hear your own name, you must be doing
OK

The Tough-love family D/discourse is about internal relationships, conformity, membership,
and identification. It coalesces with the family-relationships subculture characterised by
solidarity, a common identity provided by peers (family) and the organisation (parent)
(Bonifacio 1991; Fielding 1994; Neyroud & Beckley 2001; Prenzler 1998; Reiner 1992, cited
in Shanahan 2000; Waddington 1999b), and tempered by support and punishment (Bonifacio
1991). The Tough-love family D/discourse is both a product and resource of the dominant
culture, the power relations inherent within it and, hence, circumscribes individuals
subjectivity and agency. It is about membership and acceptance within an organisation,
occupation, and a peer group, and how one is Othered by others (Hall 2004). Othering
can be understood as a consequence of a number of D/discourses that construct difference
and enact Othering based around a number of factors such as gender, sexuality,
commitment to the family (peers) and the parent (organisation), and lack of conformity.

Perfect self D/discourse
Male Its us (police) versus them (general public)
Female Supportive, understanding and a sense of belonging versus insular, us and them
mentality, and elitist
Male It is important to look and act professional.
Male The public want to be comforted by us when they are hurt, but they want more so to
be reassured by our actions that we have things under control at an incident. Our
strength makes them feel safe.
Male We know right from wrong... and we act with honesty and integrity.
Male Must not allow the public to get under your skin and change your course of action.

Image, discipline, separateness, the ability to handle self (Westmarland 2001), and a sense of
superiority underlie the Perfect self D/discourse and combine with the real police work
and the family-relationships subcultures. The family-relationships subculture is built upon the
need to be or be seen to be perfect (Bonifacio 1991; Neyroud & Beckley 2001; Shanahan
2000; Waddington 1999a & 1999b). This supports the real police work subculture which is
grounded in operational policing and political and legal sanctions to control society (Manning
1977). The Perfect self D/discourse and complementary subcultures support the development
of particular thinking styles that maintain culture, D/discourses, and power and gender
relations. Central to this D/discourse is an litist identity. Adlam (2002:27-28) refers to the
socio-biological litist rationality, built on the notions of legitimate power and authority
(Silvestri 2003), the belief that police know best (Adlam:27-28), and an obligation to look
the part (Frewin & Tuffin 1998:178-181). The litist identity and maintenance of image and
reputation bring into play the we/they [police/public] paradox (Perez 1997, cited in Garcia
2005:68), and exemplifies an organisations capacity to construct a particular stance towards
outsiders (Fairclough 1995:52).

In comparing the characteristics and functions of the subcultures and D/discourses with
traditional and contemporary models of policing, outlined previously, they appear to be
positioned predominantly within the traditional model.
Police training and its function
Police training is focused predominantly on law enforcement (Kratcoski 2004) which reflects
the aspirant intent of policing (Foster 2003), maintains the status quo, and positions training
7

in a traditional, technical framework (White 2006). Webster (2006:5) argues that when
pedagogies are viewed as a set of mechanical skills, a means rather than an outcome,
learning is at best trivialised, at worst, never evaluated, taken-for-granted, and overlooked.
The focus is instead on how effectively trainees can acquire skills, knowledge, and attitudes
to achieve certain behavioural learning outcomes and to demonstrate conformity. Pedagogies
are not ideologically neutral; they can be used to regulate behaviour, actions, and practices.
This is especially marked in settings where students are perceived as objects of value to
those in authority (Freire 1970/2000, cited in Webster 2006: 6). In this context, a police
trainee is a paid employee and that status essentially buys off a trainees rights to choose
how she or he should be treated (White 2006: 393). The trainee is paid to learn and is an
object of value to the organisation.

Various authors (Birzer 2003; Birzer & Tannehill 2001; McCoy 2006; Marenin 2004; White
2006) are unanimous in recommending a move from traditional pedagogical approaches in
police training to andragogical methods with integrated and holistic curricula, and the
adoption of professional practice requirements for police trainers (McCoy 2006).

Conclusion

The findings of this research are set in a somewhat complex context with an agenda amongst
Australian and New Zealand police jurisdictions for policing to become a profession, debates
about the nature and scope of policing, and the preferred model of policing. While
deliberations about these critical areas continue, the purpose, design and delivery of police
training and education varies amongst police jurisdictions.

The three prevailing D/discourses in police vocational training corroborate critical aspects
evident in the literature in terms of police culture, subcultures, the traditional model of
policing, and training practices. The research shows that the D/discourse of the Warrior
predominates in police training closely followed by the D/discourses of Tough-love family
and Perfect self.

Critically, the Warrior D/discourse influences both internal and external relationships and
interactions, and therefore the enactment of the other two D/discourses. The trainers and
trainees personal constructs in relation to gender and the body as a political object (Foucault
1977; Westmarland 2001) reveal the strength of the Warrior D/discourse. This is complicated
by pedagogical practices that reflect doctrinal values rather than educative values.
Membership, conformity, competence, and being the perfect police trainee are
manifestations of the Tough-love family D/discourse and determined by the Warrior
D/discourse. Similarly, the need to establish status and a reputable guise are manifestations of
the Perfect self D/discourse imposed by the D/discourse of the Warrior.

The functions and consequences of the D/discourses are the acquisition of a specified identity
and membership within the policing family. The manifestations, functions, and consequences
of the three D/discourses coalesce to establish and maintain a powerful and challenging
context within which identities are formed and augur a challenging context for change. The
words of two trainees reflect the challenges that the culture, subcultures, environment, and
these D/discourses present to the trainees:
Female Policing is the strongest, most pervasive culture I have come across.
Male I try to fit in and I think I do fit in... most of the time.

8


References
Adlam, R. (2002). Governmental rationalities in police leadership: An essay exploring
some of the 'deep structure' in police leadership praxis. Policing and Society, 12:1,
15-36.
Birzer, M.L. (2003). The theory of andragogy applied to police training. Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 26:1, 29-42.
Birzer, M.L. and Tannehill, R. (2001). A more effective training approach for contemporary
policing. Police Quarterly, 4:2, 233-252.
Bonifacio, P. (1991). The psychological effects of police work - a psychodynamic approach.
Plennum Press, New York.
Brown, J. and Heidensohn, F. (2000). Gender and policing. MacMillan Press Ltd.,
Hampshire.
Cain, T. N. (2002). Changing police procedures, in T. Prenzler and J. Ransley (eds.), Police
reform: Building integrity (pp.146-158). Hawkins Press, Annandale, NSW.
Cassell, C. and Walsh, S. (2004). Repertory grids, in C. Cassell and G. Symon (eds.),
Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp.61-72). Sage
Publications Ltd., London.
Chan, J.B.L. (1997). Changing police culture: Policing in a multicultural society. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Cherryholmes, C.H. (1988). Power and criticism: Poststructural investigations in Education.
Teachers College Press, New York .
Connell, R.W. (1995). Masculinities. Allen and Unwin, St Leonards, N.S.W.
Connole, H. (1993). The research enterprise, in Study Guide: Issues and
Methods in Research, H Connole, B Smith & R Wiseman (eds), University of South
Australia, Underdale, pp.17-42 in EXR780 Research Perspectives and Practices:
Reader. Geelong, Vic: Deakin University.
Conti, N. (2006). Role call: Preprofessional socialization into police culture. Policing &
Society, 16:3, 221-242.
Cowper, T.J. (2000). The myth of the "military model" of leadership in law Enforcement,
Police Quarterly, 3:3, 228-246.
Dick, P. and Cassell, C. (2004). The position of policewomen: a discourse analytic study.
Work, Employment and Society, 18:1, 51-72.
Dick, P. and Jankowicz, D. (2001). A social constructionist account of police culture and its
influence on the representation and progression of female officers: a repertory grid
analysis in a UK police force. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies
and Management, 24:2, 181-199.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Pearson
Education Limited, Harlow, Essex.
Fielding, N. (1994). Cop canteen culture, in T. Newburn and E. Stanko (eds.), Just boys
doing business: Men, masculinity and crime. Routledge, London.
Fleming, J. and Lafferty, G. (2003). Equity confounded? Women in Australian police
organisations. Labour and Industry, 13:3, 37-49.
Foster, J. (2003). Police cultures, in T. Newburn (ed.), Handbook of Policing (pp.196-227),
Willan Publishing, Cullompton, Devon.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, translated by A.
Sheridan, Penguin Books Ltd., London.
Fransella, F. and Bannister, D. (1977). A manual for repertory grid technique. Academic
Press Inc Ltd., London:
9

Frewin, K. and Tuffin, K. (1998). Police status, conformity and internal pressure: a
discursive analysis of police culture. Discourse and Society, 9:2, 173-185.
Garcia, V. ( 2005). Constructing the Other within police culture: An analysis of a deviant
unit within the police organization. Police Practice and Research, 6:1, 65-80.
Gee, J.P. (2004). Discourse analysis: What makes it critical? in R. Rogers
(ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp.19-50), Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey.
Gee, J.P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method, 2
nd
edn.
Routledge, New York.
Hall, D.E. (2004). Subjectivity. Routledge, New York.
Hearn, J. & Collinson, D. (2006). Men, masculinities and workplace diversity/diversion:
Power, intersections and contradictions, in A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, and J. K. Pringle
(eds), Handbook of workplace diversity. Sage Publications Ltd, London.
Heidensohn, F. (1992). Women in control? The role of women in law enforcement. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Kappeler, V.E. Sluder, R.D. and Alpert, G.P. (2001). Breeding deviant conformity: the
ideology and culture of police in R. G. Dunham and G. P. Alpert (eds.), Critical
issues in policing: Contemporary readings, 4
th
edn. Waveland Press Inc., Prospect
Heights, Illinois:
Kratcoski, P.C. (2004). Police education and training in a global society: Guest editors
introduction. Police Practice and Research, 5:2, 103-105.
Lanyon, I.J. (2007). Professionalisation of policing in Australia: The implications for police
managers, in M. Mitchell & J Casey (eds), Police leadership and management (pp.
107-123). The Federation Press, Annandale, NSW.
Lanyon, I.J. (2009). Professionalisation of Australasian Policing Its Time for the
Practitioners to Take the Lead. Australasian Policing. A Journal of Professional
Practice and Research, 1:1, 6-11.
Lewis, C. (2007). Leading for integrity and effective accountability: A challenge from
within, in M. Mitchell & J. Casey (eds), Police leadership and management (pp. 137-
149), The Federation Press, Annandale, NSW.
McCoy, M.R. (2006). Teaching style and the application of adult learning principles by
police instructors. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and
Management, 29:1, 77-91.
Manning, P.K. (1977). Police work: the social organization of policing. The Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Press (MITP), Cambridge.
Marenin, O. (2004). Police training for democracy. Police practice and Research, 5:2, 107-
123.
Martin, S.E. and Jurik, N.C. (1996). Doing justice, doing gender. Sage Publications Inc.,
Thousand Oaks.
Murray, J. (2002). Police culture: A critical component of community policing, Australian
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 34, 57-71.
Murray, J. (2005). Policing terrorism: A threat to community policing or just a shift in
priorities?. Police Practice and Research, 6:4, 347-361.
Neyroud, P. and Beckley, A. (2001). Policing, ethics and human rights. Willan Publishing,
Cullompton, Devon.
Palmer, M. (1994). Managing a hierarchical para-military organization in K. Bryett and
C. Lewis (eds.), Un-peeling tradition: contemporary policing. MacMillan Education
Australia Pty Ltd., South Melbourne.
Panzarella, R. (2003). Leadership myths and realities in R. Adlam and P.Villiers (eds.),
10

Police leadership in the twenty-first century: philosophy, doctrine and developments.
Waterside Press, United Kingdom.
Prenzler, T. (1998). Gender integration in Australian policing: The evolution of management
responsibility. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 1:3, 241-
259.
Reiner, R. (2000). The politics of the police, 3
rd
edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Rowe, M. (2008). Introduction to policing. Sage Publications Ltd., London.
Shanahan, P. (2000). Police culture and the learning organisation: A relationship?, Third
National Conference of the Australian Vocational Educational and Training Research
Association [AVETRA], Canberra Institute of Technology.
Shearing, C. D. and Ericson, R. V. (1991). Culture as figurative action. British Journal of
Sociology, 42:4, 481-506.
Silvestri, M. (2003). Women in charge: policing, gender and leadership. Willan Publishing,
Cullompton, Devon.
Vickers, M.H. (2000). Australian police management education and research: a comment
from outside the cave. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and
Management, 23:4, 506-524.
Waddington, P.A.J. (1999a). Policing citizens: authority and rights. UCL Press Limited.,
London.
Waddington, P.A.J. (1999b). Police (canteen) subculture: An appreciation. British Journal
of Criminology, 39:2, 287-309.
Webster, S.R. (2006). Educative teaching. Proceedings of the Australian Association for
Research in Education 2006 International Conference, University of South Australia,
Adelaide, November 26 -30. (Retrieved 19 October 2007)
http://www.aare.edu.au/o6pap/web06017.pdf
West, C. and Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1:2, 125-151.
Westmarland, L. (2001). Gender and policing: Sex, power and police culture. Willan
Publishing, Devon.
.White, D. (2006). A conceptual analysis of hidden curriculum of police training in
England and Wales. Police & Society, 16:4, 386-404.