Pathways to TASER discharge: Qualitative comparative analysis of police use of force
dc.contributor.author | Boyd, KA | |
dc.contributor.author | Dymond, A | |
dc.contributor.author | Melendez-Torres, GJ | |
dc.contributor.author | Fleischer, D | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-07-21T10:13:23Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2023-08-10 | |
dc.date.updated | 2023-07-21T09:40:38Z | |
dc.description.abstract | We used a crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (csQCA) to analyse of how key conditions interact within police use of force incidents to contribute to Conducted Energy Devices (CED), commonly known by the brand name TASER, being drawn and red-dotted (0), or drawn, red-dotted, and fired (1). Our sample is 22 incidents (11 red-dotted, 11 red-dotted and fired) between one officer and one person subjected to force recorded in the Use of Force Monitoring Forms for CED incidents from one of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. We identify the most parsimonious causal recipes for both outcomes using five causal conditions –i.e. Intoxication, Intelligence, Prior Knowledge, Weapon Possession, and Aggression. We found three different pathways to CED being red-dotted (0) and five distinct pathways to CED being red-dotted and fired (1). Our findings show that reported intelligence and prior knowledge play central roles in shaping causal recipes, and reported aggression by the member of the public is critical to CED firing decisions. | en_GB |
dc.description.sponsorship | Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) | en_GB |
dc.identifier.citation | Vol. 17, article paad048 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1093/police/paad048 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10871/133634 | |
dc.identifier | ORCID: 0000-0002-9580-0419 (Boyd, katharine) | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_GB |
dc.publisher | Oxford University Press | en_GB |
dc.rights | © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. | |
dc.title | Pathways to TASER discharge: Qualitative comparative analysis of police use of force | en_GB |
dc.type | Article | en_GB |
dc.date.available | 2023-07-21T10:13:23Z | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1752-4512 | |
dc.description | This is the final version. Available on open access from Oxford University Press via the DOI in this record | en_GB |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1752-4520 | |
dc.identifier.journal | Policing: a Journal of Policy and Practice | en_GB |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | en_GB |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2023-07-16 | |
dcterms.dateSubmitted | 2023-05-12 | |
rioxxterms.version | VoR | en_GB |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2023-07-16 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | en_GB |
refterms.dateFCD | 2023-07-21T09:40:42Z | |
refterms.versionFCD | AM | |
refterms.dateFOA | 2023-08-31T14:11:49Z | |
refterms.panel | C | en_GB |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.