Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBoyd, KA
dc.contributor.authorDymond, A
dc.contributor.authorMelendez-Torres, GJ
dc.contributor.authorFleischer, D
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-21T10:13:23Z
dc.date.issued2023-08-10
dc.date.updated2023-07-21T09:40:38Z
dc.description.abstractWe 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.sponsorshipEconomic and Social Research Council (ESRC)en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 17, article paad048en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/police/paad048
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/133634
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0002-9580-0419 (Boyd, katharine)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen_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.titlePathways to TASER discharge: Qualitative comparative analysis of police use of forceen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2023-07-21T10:13:23Z
dc.identifier.issn1752-4512
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from Oxford University Press via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.eissn1752-4520
dc.identifier.journalPolicing: a Journal of Policy and Practiceen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2023-07-16
dcterms.dateSubmitted2023-05-12
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2023-07-16
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2023-07-21T09:40:42Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2023-08-31T14:11:49Z
refterms.panelCen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 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.
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.