Social Factors and Third Party Policing Research Paper

This sample Social Factors and Third Party Policing Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need help writing your assignment, please use our research paper writing service and buy a paper on any topic at affordable price. Also check our tips on how to write a research paper, see the lists of criminal justice research paper topics, and browse research paper examples.

The Third-Party Policing model of crime control advocates for the use of partnerships between the police and other key agents of social control – for example, government, business, and community sectors – however, to date, almost no research has examined the social factors that contribute to the success or failure of these partnerships. This research paper utilizes a Social Identity approach to analyze some of the key factors that affect the efficacy of these partnerships. Specifically, partnerships are broken down into three distinct phases, and various social factors are considered at each of these phases. This research paper also discusses some of the organizational level variables that will be affected if these partnerships are to succeed.


Third-Party Policing (TPP) is an approach to dealing with crime problems where police form partnerships with other public service agencies, business, nongovernment organizations, and the community to deliver more effective crime control strategies (Mazerolle and Ransley 2006). The TPP approach requires identification of “legal” mechanisms that are the domain of other parties to assist police in managing public order. Mazerolle and Ransley (2006) identify a wide range of legal levers used in a variety of different settings, such as partnerships with local councils, business, health and safety authorities, and other law enforcement agencies. The primary aim of the TPP approach is to deliver a more effective police service through a twofold approach: recruiting suitable crime control partners and making use of legal levers otherwise unavailable to the police.

This contribution aims to advance the theoretical understanding of TPP by outlining current research and theory on intergroup relations and applying this to policing partnerships. TPP advocates that partnerships are vital for the success of modern policing practices. However, to date, little to no research has been conducted within the policing arena to examine these partnerships and what drives their success and failures. Drawing on the Social Identity literature (see Brown 2000; Haslam 2004), this research paper examines some of the social and organizational factors that interact with the success or failure of these partnerships. This analysis is undertaken in five sections, which are comprised of two conceptually distinct areas, focusing on the social aspects of partnerships and then outlining the organizational factors that affected partnerships. The first section presents an overview of a Social Identity approach to intergroup process. The next section separates partnerships into three core stages, including partnership seeking, partnership development, and effective partnership functioning. Next, the role of information sharing in partnership development and functioning is addressed. Finally, some of the organizational constraints within police organizations that are likely to threaten the success of a partnership approach are addressed. At the end of each section, the arguments are summarized and important relationships between the key factors and likely outcomes are discussed.

A Social Identity Approach To Intergroup Process

Social Identity theory is the preeminent theory of intergroup relations. Social Identity theory explores the social motivations and consequences of group behavior. Specifically, Social Identity theory provides a context for examining individuals’ behavior within groups (Haslam 2004). According to Social Identity theory, individuals possess social representations of themselves, which are comprised of the social networks they maintain, the groups to which they belong, and the organizations for which they work (Ellemers et al. 2002). Social Identity theory argues that social identity is a critical component of self-concept, and as such, individuals seek to view their group memberships in a positive frame. This is achieved through negative comparisons between their own group and other groups. Through these comparisons, individuals are able to boost their self-esteem (Brown 2000) and show preferential treatment to those of their own groups (Brown 2000). Social Identity theory provides a meta-level context to analyze and understand a range of phenomena involved in intergroup processes.

Since the conception of Social Identity theory, there has been substantial development with a range of sub-theories having been developed to explain some of the more nuanced aspects of group behavior. This research paper applies a Social Identity approach to understanding the three hypothesized stages of partnerships. The first stage, termed “partnership seeking,” helps to understand the internal group structure of the police organization and how these social factors impact on partnership-seeking behavior. Here, key factors of cohesion, leadership, and the norms and values within the organization are all likely to affect the willingness of individuals to seek out partnerships. In the next phase, termed “partnership formation,” the core factors of diversity, distinctiveness, and identification during the formation of a new partnership are considered. In the final stage, “partnership functioning,” intragroup processes and their implication on cooperation are considered. Here, group identification, procedural justice, and leadership and the impact of these factors on cooperation within a newly formed partnership are discussed.

Partnership Seeking And The Role Of Social Identity Theory

This section uses Social Identity theory to examine three internal social factors that police organizations face when seeking TPP partnerships. First, the way that norms and attitudes of a police organization are likely to dictate individual officers’ intentions to seek out third-party partnerships is examined. Within this, the role of self-categorization and its impact on conformity with these norms are also outlined. Second, the role of leadership within a police organization in promoting partnership seeking and development of partnerships within the context of TPP is discussed. Finally, this section explores the effect of internal cohesion and how this poses a significant barrier for the police to effectively seek out partnership.

The development of self-categorization theory is an extension of Social Identity research and is particularly useful for understanding partnership-seeking behavior (Hogg and Terry 2000). Self-categorization theory stipulates that individuals categorize their social world by the groups to which they belong, through a process of depersonalization, in which people are reduced to a prototype of the group, thereby embodying the norms, values, and behaviors that personify the group (Hogg and Terry 2000). It is through this process of self-categorization that cognitive groups are formed. Depersonalization results in cognitive perceptions of similarity between individuals and their group. These effects are emphasized for individuals of out-groups, such that when they are perceived as a prototype of the group, the individual differences between group members are reduced and the similarities are enhanced. The outcome of this process is that individuals are no longer perceived as unique, rather, they are perceived to be a representative of their group (Hogg and Terry 2000).

Police are often faced with situations in which they categorize people into groups. This process allows the police to distinguish all members of a group – for example, a child protection agency – as being conceptually the same. Furthermore, the effect of self-categorization will be more salient. That is, the officer’s identity as a police officer will be more powerful, when officers are faced with the possibility of sharing aspects of their work that makes them unique, such as crime control. Evidence suggests that a critical component of group discrimination is the dimensions that the groups are compared on (Ashforth and Mael 1989). As managing law and order is a key dimension distinguishing police from other professionals, contexts requiring police to share this role with others will likely result in increased categorization of those others. This effect is likely to result in the police taking steps to demonstrate the inability of their partners to fulfill the role that they have been assigned. Empirical research supports this position, with results consistently demonstrating that self-categorization effects are most pronounced in an intergroup context (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Doosje et al. 2002). An example for policing may include a collaborative taskforce where the police share the responsibilities with a partner, such as a child protective service, who has the same power to act and responsibilities as the police. Therefore, it is possible the police would attempt to exasperate the difference between the two organizations with an emphasis on the positive aspects of police and the negative aspects of the child protection agency. This would likely result in the police demonstrating reluctance to share their responsibilities with this other agency through a distrust of their ability to deliver the required services.

Research also indicates that the degree of identification felt toward an organization is a critical factor in conformity to group norms, attitudes, and behaviors (Tyler and Blader 2001). As individuals seek to enhance both their own status within the group as well as the overall standing of the group, they are highly motivated to perform in a manner that increases their standing in both domains. Conforming to norms and attitudes is one method to achieve this. In doing so, individuals represent the prototype of the group, while demonstrating active commitment to the group. Conversely, individuals face sanctions for failing to conform. Therefore, the degree of self-categorization and meaningful value that an officer places on their position within the organization will also be predictive of their willingness to conform to the organizational rules, norms, and behaviors.

This suggests that the organizational norms and attitudes of police organizations need to foster partnership-seeking behavior if a police agency is to be successful in institutionalizing TPP. Police organizations may need to undergo a cultural change, with a strong focus on the involvement of partnerships in crime control innovation. In these situations, the self-categorization process will continue to reinforce these norms and attitudes, thereby ensuring that new police officers will also engage in this behavior.

Self-categorization theory argues that group leaders are well positioned to change the culture and develop new attitudes. According to self-categorization theory, leaders are perceived to be members of a group that are most prototypical (Hogg 2001), the individual(s) that embody the values, norms, and attitudes of the group (Hogg 2001). Furthermore, self-categorization theory argues that leaders have the consent of their followers to change the cultural attitudes and norms of a group. Leaders within an organization hold the unique position to install change and create a culture of active partnership formation. They hold unique positions where it is legitimate for them to deviate from the accepted cultural norms to install change. Research has demonstrated this critical role of leaders in conveying of norms (Hogg et al. 2006). Likewise, research has also consistently demonstrated the importance of leaders in fostering innovation and supporting change. Therefore, the onus is on police leaderships to create and foster norms and attitudes that will promote active partnership seeking and development among the junior ranks.

An outcome of highly salient group identity and strong leadership can lead to high levels of cohesion within groups (Hogg 1993). Cohesion is defined as the social connections that tie individuals to their fellow group members, resulting in their desire to behave and act in a manner consistent with the group (Casey-Campbell and Martens 2009). Research has extensively examined cohesive groups, with an emphasis on the cohesion-performance relationship. There is mixed evidence supporting the cohesion-performance relationship. However, there is general support for the notion that highly cohesive groups perform better on tasks, particularly in project-based team environments (Chiocchio and Essiembre 2009).

The nature of police work lends itself to high levels of internal cohesion. The police are required to rely on each other for safety and to work together to effectively achieve outcomes. Often they are required to sacrifice their own safety and wellbeing for the benefit of society. Anecdotally, police organizations are akin to military organizations, where there is a cultural of solidarity and unity. However, when considering a TPP initiative, highly cohesive police organizations pose a significant constraint on the take-up of TPP partnerships. Research indicates that highly cohesive groups are more reluctant to engage with external groups in intergroup contexts (Hardy et al. 2005). Therefore, excessively cohesive police organizations are likely to prevent officers from seeking partnerships.

It is possible that highly cohesive organizations will attempt to develop internal solutions, instead of seeking partnerships. This results in a continued drain on resources, without commiserate efficiency gains. When advocating for TPP partnerships, the role of cohesion and its effects on the success of new initiatives may need to be considered. Evidence for consideration of these effects can be seen from previous investigations into policing practices. For example, one of the key recommendations from an inquiry into police corruption in Australia was that for new recruits to be educated to a minimum of a tertiary level in an attempt to reduce the insular nature of policing (Fitzgerald 1989). This recommendation was made in an attempt to prevent the effects of a highly cohesive organization perpetuating bad practice.

This section has highlighted some of the internal social factors that police organizations face when seeking TPP partnerships. From the research outlined, the following relationships are proposed. First, the norms and attitudes of a police organization are likely to affect officer’s intentions to seek out third-party partnerships. Furthermore, it is possible that this relationship will be affected by the role of self-categorization, such that those who are highly identified may demonstrate greater conformity to these norms. Secondly, it is the role of the leaders within an organization to promote active search and development of partnerships. Finally, high levels of cohesion in police organizations are likely to impede effective partnership seeking.

Partnership Formation: Two Organizations Merging And The Role Of Diversity And Distinctiveness

Organizational mergers have long been the topic of interest for a range of business and academic communities. This research has largely focused on the outcomes of a newly formed organization (Terry and O’Brien 2001); however, recent research has also considered the social factors that contribute to the success or failure of partnerships (Terry et al. 2001). Policing partnerships are akin to other types of organizational mergers. They require at least two different organizations to work toward a unified goal and deliver a product – in this case public safety. Research by Terry et al. (2001) has investigated the role of social identity during the formation of a new superordinate organization after a merger. This research indicates a range of social factors that should be considered when forming a TPP partnership. Primarily, during the initial merger, the higher-status group members react more negatively toward the merger than lower-status group members (Terry et al. 2001). The implication of this finding is critical to understanding the police motivations to form a partnership. It is arguable that the police will hold the higher-status position within most new partnerships; they will typically be the organization that initiates the partnership and the organization that has the most to gain.

The inverse of the status relationship is also true. There is evidence to suggest that individuals from lower-status organizations are more willing to join higher-status organizations (Terry et al. 2001). However, some results have found that the effect of status can be moderated by legitimacy, such that, if lower-status organizations perceive their status as illegitimate, they will be less likely to join the higher-status organization (Amiot et al. 2007). When considering these findings in the context of a TPP partnership, it is clear that steps need to be taken to mitigate these effects in order for these diverse organizations to work together. This indicates that the police need to ensure that they do not portray themselves as superior to their partner organization as well as approach their partners in a collaborative and transparent manner that avoids invoking perceptions of status differences between the two groups.

Research indicates that lower-status organizations have higher staff turnover rates after merger (Amiot et al. 2007). This research also suggests that lower-status group members have less identification with new organization (Amiot et al. 2007). Together, these two findings are vital to the understanding of how partnerships function. As highlighted in the first section, the key to ensuring that individuals perform for the group, and adhere to the group norms of behavior and attitudes, is increasing the identification that they feel toward the group. Therefore, if lower-status individuals feel less identification toward the partnership, they are less likely to remain in the partnership. If the police believe that they are a higher-status organization and their key partners – such as child protection agencies – are a lower-status organization, then this is likely to result in initial reluctance from the police to form a partnership. However, should this be overcome, issues of status legitimacy, identification with the partnership, and turnover rates are all likely to be significant challenges for both parties.

When a new partnership is formed, the police and their partners come together under the banner of a new group. This partnership is formed to provide a more efficient service and reduce the resource burden from one agency alone. However, there is likely to be historical issues of status, prestige, and potentially conflict that need to be managed. Furthermore, issues of group diversity pose significant problems to the formation of these partnerships. Diversity within organizations has long been a topic of significant interest to the academic and business community (Brewer 1995). In the context of a TPP partnership, it is important to consider diversity within the context of police and the partner agencies. These partnerships involve individuals from different groups, with different experiences/skills and different organizational cultures. Furthermore, these individuals will come from organizations and skill backgrounds, which have different underlying philosophies and ideologies about how to manage complex crime problems. The research outlines the role of different approaches to problems and the impact of these cultural ideologies on the success of group performance.

Diverse partnerships have the potential to foster conformity to organizational norms and rules, as these become the superordinate guidelines to behavior within the given context (Rink and Ellemers 2007). To enable this, organizational identities need to be highly salient and provide significant emotional value to its members. In contrast, in partnerships where there is a history of conflict and highly charged emotions, the organizational identity will be weak, thereby making the subgroup identities highly salient (Tsui et al. 1992). This results in reduced compliance to the norms and rules of the partnership and a return to the norms and values of their originating organizations (Rink and Ellemers 2007). Forming a successful TPP partnership requires that all parties are aware of organizational diversity both within and across the partnering organizations. Historical conflict between partners poses a significant constraint on the success of these partnerships. Furthermore, by identifying common goals and objectives and reinforcing the mutual commitment of the organizations, it is possible to overcome these issues.

Research in the area of optimal distinctiveness theory helps to explain the conditions under which partnership identification is achieved. Optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer 1991) argues that we have two competing drives in social groups – one for inclusion and one for distinctiveness – and that these two drives act in opposition to each other. In the context of a new partnership, individuals will want to be included in the partnership, to feel they are a valued member and that they are able to contribute to the development and direction of the partnership. However, individuals will simultaneously want to maintain connections with their original organization. Therefore, the successful formation of a new partnership is contingent on both of these needs being met at an optimal level (Brewer 1995).

For the police to form a partnership with key partners, a significant risk arises from these organizations being identified under the banner of a large and ambiguous group, typical of “whole of government approaches,” as these groups remove the unique contributions of the individual organizations that comprise the partnership. Likewise, the assimilation of groups under the higher-status group, in this situation the police, poses the same risks. These partnerships need to develop identities that are unbiased and do not represent just one group, yet attempt to encompass the root values and goals of the partnership. Research shows that group size and overly inclusive groups are both negatively related to performance (Badea et al. 2010). According to the optimal distinctiveness literature, this is likely to result in poor functioning and lack of identification at the superordinate level (Badea et al. 2010) and likely to result in high turnover or a quick end to the partnership. Therefore, these partnerships should avoid the use of group structures that inhibit the unique contribution of each member organization.

This section highlighted the role of several key factors that inform the process and the likelihood of police forming partnerships within the context of TPP. The role of group diversity, distinctiveness, and partnership identity have all been examined and discussed. Next several relationships between these variables are examined. First, partnerships where status difference between the police and a partner organization is highly salient are likely to result in poor intergroup cooperation and weak identification with the partnership. Secondly, diversity of organizational identities in the partnerships will impact on partnership functioning. Specifically, partnerships with historical conflict and competition for resources will not function effectively as a partnership; this effect may be exasperated by differences in cultural ideology about how to approach problems. Finally, the success of a new partnership developing is contingent on the ability for individuals to retain connection with their originating organization.

Promoting Cooperation Within A Partnership: The Role Of Identification, Procedurally Fair Decision Making, And Leadership

TPP partnerships require the active and continued cooperation of its members. Significant research has explored the motivations that promote cooperation within groups, with a specific focus on information sharing, extra-role behavior, and ensuring that the long-term goals of the organization are met over the temptation of short-term individual gains. Recently, Tyler (2011) examined the relationship between instrumental factors such as material rewards and role titles, and social factors such as identification and procedurally fair decision making, in fostering cooperation of employees with the organization. The results consistently demonstrated that above and beyond instrumental factors, social motivation was found to be critical in adherence to organizational rules and norms, extra-role behavior, and intragroup cooperation (Tyler 2011). Extra-role behavior is defined as undertaking work and responsibilities that are outside the individual’s job description for which they do not receive direct momentary reward.

In this section two critical aspects of cooperation within partnerships are highlighted: identification with the partnership and procedural fairness of decision making within the partnership. As discussed in the earlier sections, when an individual categorizes themselves as a member of an organization, this will lead to increased adherence to the norms and attitudes of the organization (Tyler and Blader 2001). Therefore, increasing the degree of social identification with the partnership will lead to an individual feeling greater emotional significance about their connection with the group, thereby increasing their drive to enhance the group relative status. TPP partnerships require a significant commitment from both the individuals and the groups connected to them. This commitment can range from undertaking activities that are beyond the typical duties of the role they fulfill to providing extra resources to ensure the success of the partnership. By increasing the degree of identification to the partnership, there is potentially an increase in the adherence toward the goals and aims of the partnership. Furthermore, this is also likely to result in the members undertaking extra-role behavior when faced with impediments to ensure the success of the partnership (Tyler 2011).

According to group engagement model (Tyler and Blader 2003), identification with the organization is enhanced by the decision-making processes that the organization uses. Specifically, the use of procedurally fair processes to arrive at decisions increases the strength of identification that individuals feel toward their organization. Research demonstrates a link between the procedural fairness of an organization and the behavior of its employees (Blader and Tyler 2009). Procedural fairness can be described as the processes and methods that an individual or group enacts to arrive at a decision as being fair (Blader and Tyler 2003). There is consistent evidence within a range of fields that demonstrate the link between procedural fairness and cooperation, acceptance of outcomes, and extra-role behavior (Tyler and Blader 2001). Furthermore, evidence suggests that people are more concerned with the procedural fairness of a decision rather than the outcome of a decision alone. The goal of a new partnership, therefore, is to behave in a procedurally fair manner, as perceived by all members of the group. This is achieved through unbiased decision making, offering all members a voice before a decision is made, making the decision on facts rather than opinions, and using clear and transparent processes. Therefore, the relationship between procedural justice and cooperation in the group is mediated through identification with the group (Tyler and Blader 2003). For TPP partnerships, this finding implies that it is possible to increase the degree of identification that the individual members feel toward the partnership, by utilizing procedurally fair decision-making process.

The final aspect of effective partnership functioning relates to leadership. As discussed earlier, the role of a leader can be of critical importance in the conveying of norms, attitudes, and appropriate behavior (Hogg 2001). When a leader behaves in a manner that embodies the values of the group and is seen as the most representative member of the group, then it is likely that they will be able to gain the trust and confidence of their followers (De Cremer and Van Knippenberg 2002). Likewise, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a leader that acts in a procedurally fair manner is also likely to enhance their subordinates’ willingness to accept decisions (De Cremer and Van Knippenberg 2002). Extending this, research has indicated that leaders play a vital role in the development and fostering of innovative practices (Hogg et al. 2006). Therefore, it is vital that upon formation of the partnership, a leader who will drive the strategic direction, yet encompass the requirements outlined above, is identified. As outlined in earlier sections, leaders play a vital role in the success of any venture; they provide the strategic direction (Hogg et al. 2006) and can guide the subordinates through challenging times. The success of new partnerships hinges on the effectiveness of the leader.

Three critical aspects of a partnership define its functioning. First, individuals who are part of the partnership must demonstrate high levels of identification with the new partnership, as doing so will ensure compliance and cooperation with the partnership objectives. Second, in order to increase identification, the partnership must demonstrate procedurally fair processes in its decision making, with a particular emphasis on demonstrating collegial and collaborative approach and avoiding unilateral decision-making processes. Finally, the leadership of the partnership must represent all parties within the partnership and actively engage in procedurally fair process.

Organizational Constraints Of Third-Party Policing

In their analysis of TPP approaches to policing complex problems, Mazerolle and Ransley (2005) outline that police organizations face organizations’ constraints that are likely to impact on the ability of the police to form partnerships. When advocating for partnerships, these factors need to be considered in conjunction with the social factors outlined above. One of the most crucial factors that require consideration relates to the ability of organizations and government to effectively share information. This is vital, as without sharing of intelligence, methods, and policies, the ability of partner organizations to coordinate the delivery of their services becomes restricted. Furthermore, it may lead to redundancy and duplication of work or frustration for lack of action from partners.

The capacity to share information between partner organizations is one of the most complex factors to be overcome to facilitate a productive working partnership. When attempting to find innovative solutions to problems, one of the most important tools that can be employed is sharing information across organizational boundaries. However, when government agencies are involved in these partnerships, the transfer of information between partners can pose significant problems. Most Western governments have laws that restrict the transfer of information (Bellman et al. 2004). These restrictions typically impose conditions that prevent the transfer of information between government agencies. These laws are designed to protect the interests and privacy of individuals within the community. However, they can also prevent the effective coordination and cooperation of core agencies. Therefore, one of the most significant structural challenges that these partnerships face is the need to overcome information sharing hurdles (Lyons 2002). It is important to consider what information needs to be shared, how the information will be used, and who, under relevant laws, is able to hold that information. Addressing these considerations early in the formation of a partnership is critical to the success of a partnership.

Mazerolle and Ransley (2005) identify a number of organizational factors that either facilitate or constrain the adoption of Third-Party Policing. One of the most significant challenges that police agencies face in forming partnerships is the centralization of decision making. They argue that the concentration of decision-making power with the executive is not conducive to the formation of partnerships. The crux of their argument is that officers at all levels of the organization need to have the freedom to identify problems and innovate solutions, and doing so can only occur effectively when there has been a decentralization of decision making (Mazerolle and Ransley 2006). Furthermore, decentralization of decision making offers unique advantages to geographically dispersed police agencies. For example, issues that affect police forces in large metropolitan areas are likely to be significantly different from those that affect police officers in rural or remote areas. Therefore, officers need to be able to identify local solutions to local problems. This argument is not unique to TPP advocates. Problem-oriented policing, arguably one of the most influential developments in policing practice, has advocated for support from the senior executive for officers to implement localized strategies to complex crime problems (Goldstein 2003).

Finally, Mazerolle and Ransley (2006) outline that role specialization has a significant impact on the ability of officers to form partnerships, stating that more specialized roles are conducive to the formation of specific partnerships than roles that are more general. This argument follows the notion that officers and personnel that fulfill highly specialized roles within an organization will have greater insight into the needs from the partners and the ability of the partners to engage in a cooperative approach. Extending this argument, the seniority of officers will also have an impact on their ability to develop and formalize partnerships, with senior officers having the ability to implement formal cross-organizational partnerships and junior officers seeking ad hoc episodic partnerships. Therefore, identification of the right personnel within the police organization and gaining the support of the senior executive are factors that may well contribute to the success of potential partnerships.


In an era of social change in the way that the police conduct their duties, there is inherent value in a TPP approach to crime control. Through the use of effective partnerships, the police are able to provide a more efficient and effective service that has the potential to develop more holistic outcomes for the targets. This research paper examines the partnership aspect of TPP using Social Identity theory to explore the intergroup processes that affect the ability of the police to seek out and develop crime control partnerships. Three critical phases comprise the process of partnership building within TPP: partnership seeking, partnership formation, and partnership effectiveness.

In the partnership-seeking phase, research outlined the role of the internal social structure of the police organization, with an emphasis on the norms and attitudes, to ensure that they are focusing on the ultimate goal of the organization. In conjunction with this, the role of internal cohesion within a police force was considered, with a particular emphasis focusing on what impact this has on the ability and desire of the organization to seek out partnerships. Research also examined the role of leadership in shaping the future direction of police agencies, with an eye toward fostering partnership-seeking behavior. In the formation phase of TPP partnerships, the research outlined indicates that through the consideration of the diversity of ideological backgrounds and organizational culture, it is possible to improve working relationships. Extending this, allowing individuals to join and have meaningful input into the future directions of a partnership while still allowing them to maintain a strong connection with the organization where they originated is another avenue to success. In the final stage, partnership functioning, the research outlined above argues that it is critical to help the individual form a sense of identity with the partnership in order to foster cooperation. It is possible to achieve this with procedurally fair decision-making process, with a strong emphasis on the use of unbiased, fair, and neutral process. Engaging and developing a strong and consistent leader is also important in fostering a strong sense of identity with the new partnership.

While this research paper has largely focused on the importance of social factors in the formation and functioning of a partnership, there are also instrumental factors that contribute to the success and failure of partnerships. Information sharing is a significant challenge to the way that partnerships can function, with the inability of some information to be shared between partners potentially leading to duplication of work and frustration with partners. Likewise, the decision-making ability of individuals within an organization represents challenges for partnerships. In situations where all decisions need to be passed through the senior executive, this has the potential to limit the ability of officers to seek and contribute to partnerships. Finally, officer specialization is likely to impact on the quality and type of partnership, with more specialized officers having greater insight in the needs of their own organization in respect to specific issues but also insight into how partners function their ability to contribute to a coordinated effort.

The issue of partnership formation is not one that is solely the responsibility of the police. All key stakeholders, including government, policy makers, communities, and businesses have a role in overcoming the challenges faced in addressing complex crime. The police face many challenges in attempting to develop their practices in a new era of policing; therefore, drawing attention to these challenges provides opportunities for further research and input from policy makers and practitioners alike. If the police and society more generally are going to deliver a more effective service, then it is incumbent on the community to work collaboratively to develop solutions. As we learn more about how and why crime is committed, it is no longer feasible to assume that insular police organizations will be able to recruit and retain the knowledge, skills, and resources required to combat future criminal behavior.


  1. Abrams D, Hogg MA (2004) Metatheory: lessons from social identity research. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 8(2):98–106. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0802_2
  2. Amiot CE, Terry DJ, Callan VJ (2007) Status, equity and social identification during an intergroup merger: a longitudinal study. Br J Soc Psychol 46(3):557–577. doi:10.1348/014466606×146015
  3. Ashforth BE, Mael F (1989) Social identity theory and the organization. Acad Manage Rev 14(1):20–39
  4. Badea C, Jetten J, Czukor G, Askevis-Leherpeux F (2010) The bases of identification: when optimal distinctiveness needs face social identity threat. Br J Soc Psychol 49(1):21–41. doi:10.1348/000712608×397665
  5. Bass BM (1997) Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? Am Psychol 52(2):130–139. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.52.2.130
  6. Bellman S, Johnson EJ, Kobrin SJ, Lohse GL (2004) International differences in information privacy concerns: a global survey of consumers. Inf Soc 20(5):313–324. doi:10.1080/01972240490507956
  7. Blader SL, Tyler TR (2003) A four-component model of procedural justice: defining the meaning of a “Fair” process. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 29(6):747–758. doi:10.1177/0146167203029006007
  8. Blader SL, Tyler TR (2009) Testing and extending the group engagement model: linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. J Appl Psychol 94(2):445–464. doi:10.1037/a0013935
  9. Brewer MB (1991) The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 17(5):475–482. doi:10.1177/0146167291175001
  10. Brewer MB (1995) Managing diversity: the role of social identities. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC
  11. Brewer MB (1996) When contact is not enough: social identity and intergroup cooperation. Int J Intercult Relat 20 (3–4):291–303. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(96)00020-x
  12. Brown R (2000) Social identity theory: past achievements, current problems and future challenges. Eur J Soc Psychol 30(6):745–778. doi:10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6<745::aid-ejsp24>;2-o
  13. Casey-Campbell M, Martens ML (2009) Sticking it all together: a critical assessment of the group cohesion–performance literature. Int J Manag Rev 11(2):223–246. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00239.x
  14. Chiocchio FO, Essiembre H (2009) Cohesion and performance. Small Group Res 40(4):382–420. doi:10.1177/ 1046496409335103
  15. De Cremer D, Leonardelli GJ (2003) Cooperation in social dilemmas and the need to belong: the moderating effect of group size. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 7(2):168–174. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.7.2.168
  16. De Cremer D, Van Knippenberg D (2002) How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. J Appl Psychol 87(5):858–866. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.858
  17. Doosje B, Spears R, Ellemers N (2002) Social identity as both cause and effect: the development of group identification in response to anticipated and actual changes in the intergroup status hierarchy. Br J Soc Psychol 41(1):57–76. doi:10.1348/014466602165054
  18. Ellemers N, Spears R, Doosje B (2002) Self and social identity. Annu Rev Psychol 53(1):161–186. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135228
  19. Fitzgerald GE (1989) Report of a commission of inquiry pursuant to orders in council. Queensland Government, Brisbane
  20. Goldstein H (2003) On further developing problem-oriented policing: the most critical need, the major impediments, and a proposal. Crime Prev Stud 15:13–47
  21. Hardy J, Eys MA, Carron AV (2005) Exploring the potential disadvantages of high cohesion in sports teams. Small Group Res 36(2):166–187. doi:10.1177/1046496404266715
  22. Haslam SA (2004) Psychology in organizations: the social identity perspective. Sage, London
  23. Hogg MA (1993) Group cohesiveness: a critical review and some new directions. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 4(1):85–111. doi:10.1080/14792779343000031
  24. Hogg MA (2001) A social identity theory of leadership. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 5(3):184–200. doi:10.1207/ s15327957pspr0503_1
  25. Hogg MA, Terry DJ (2000) Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Acad Manage Rev 25(1):121–140
  26. Hogg MA, Fielding KS, Johnson D, Masser B, Russell E, Svensson A (2006) Demographic category membership and leadership in small groups: a social identity analysis. Leadersh Q 17(4):335–350. doi:10.1016/j. leaqua.2006.04.007
  27. Lyons W (2002) Partnerships, information and public safety: community policing in a time of terror. Polic Int J Police Strateg Manag 25(3):530–542
  28. Mazerolle L, Ransley J (2005) Third Party Policing. Cambridge University Press, New York
  29. Mazerolle L, Ransley J (2006) Third party policing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
  30. Rink F, Ellemers N (2007) Diversity as a basis for shared organizational identity: the norm congruity principle. Br J Manag 18:S17–S27. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-8551.2007.00523.x
  31. Tajfel H, Turner JC (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Worchel S, Austin WG (eds) Psychology of intergroup relations, 2nd edn. NelsonHall, Chicago, pp 7–24
  32. Terry DJ (2000) Inter-group relations and organizational mergers. In: Hogg MA, Terry DJ (eds) Social identity process in organizational contexts. Taylor & Francis, New York
  33. Terry DJ, O’Brien AT (2001) Status, legitimacy, and ingroup bias in the context of an organizational merger. Group Process Intergroup Relat 4(3):271–289. doi:10.1177/1368430201004003007
  34. Terry DJ, Carey CJ, Callan VJ (2001) Employee adjustment to an organizational merger: an intergroup perspective. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 27(3):267–280. doi:10.1177/0146167201273001
  35. Tsui AS, Egan TD, Iii CAOR (1992) Being different: relational demography and organizational attachment. Adm Sci Q 37(4):549–579
  36. Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes P, Reicher SD, Wetherell MS (1987) Rediscovering the social group: a self-categorization theory. Blackwell, Oxford, UK/Basil
  37. Tyler TR (1989) The psychology of procedural justice: a test of the group-value model. J Pers Soc Psychol 57(5):830–838. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.830
  38. Tyler TR, Blader SL (2001) Identity and cooperative behavior in groups. Group Process Intergroup Relat 4(3):207–226. doi:10.1177/1368430201004003003
  39. Tyler TR, Blader SL (2003) The group engagement model: procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 7(4):349–361. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0704_07
  40. Tyler T (2011) Why people cooperate: The role of social motivations. Princeton University Press. Princeton

See also:

Free research papers are not written to satisfy your specific instructions. You can use our professional writing services to buy a custom research paper on any topic and get your high quality paper at affordable price.


Always on-time


100% Confidentiality
Special offer! Get discount 10% for the first order. Promo code: cd1a428655