Advancing The Concept Of Problem In Problem-Oriented Policing

21
Internal Security, July–December
Advancing the Concept of Problem
in Problem-oriented Policing
Priit Suve
ORCID: 0000-0003-4408-3568
Estonian Academy of Security Sciences, Estonia
Abstract.Recent developments in understanding the concept of problem in problem-oriented policing denote valuable
perspectives but mainly from a substantialist perspective. In this article, the relational perspective in thinking of safety problems
wasintroduced,andsomekeyadvancementspresented.Exploitingcausalandconstitutivereasoningandtheideaofthecomplexity
of problems, the self-actional, inter-actional, and trans-actional perspectives were used for determining the differences between
thesubstantialistandrelationalistperspectives.Theconceptofproblemwasanalysedfromtwoperspectives.First,inlightofinitial
and recent elaborations of the term. Second, through the actual use of the term. The substantialist ethos dominated through
the data analysed and it has both advantages and disadvantages. However, relational thinking calls for a deeper understanding
ofsafetyproblems.Resigningfromthesubstantialistethosandaskingwhethertherearepre-givenA-sandB-s,andturningtowards
the idea that there is no A-s without B-s, creates an environment for a more open-minded understanding of problems in policing.
DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0014.6656
http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0014.6656
Keywords: policing, concept of problem, relationalism, substantialism
Introduction
The field of safety echoes: nobody can guarantee success.The question is, instead,
how to fail wisely? Failure and success can be weighed in light of some problem, but
theconceptofproblemshouldbeacknowledgedinthefirstplace.Inthisarticle,Iexpand
a discussion renewed by Borrion, et al.1
and initiated by Goldstein2
about the concept
of problem in problem-oriented policing (POP). However, using ideas of relational
thinking, a slightly different setting for thinking of problems will be elaborated.
Safety-related problems penetrate the whole social world, grasping many sci-
entific disciplines. The police and policing are hardly separable from these. Even
more, through crimes and the feeling of safety, they are often wedded into people’s
everyday lives. Problem, as a concept, has been one of the characteristics of the
police for a long time3
, still has an impact and high value in the field of criminol-
ogy4
, and present new input for the advancement of safety5
. The viewpoint, how
the concept of problems in relation to safety is or should be defined, conceptualised
1
BorrionH,EkblomP,AlrajehD,BorrionAL,KeaneA,KochD,etal.,TheProblemwithCrimeProb-
lem-Solving:TowardsaSecondGenerationPop?TheBritishJournalofCriminology,2019,Vol.60.
2
Goldstein H, Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime & Delinquency,
1979, Vol. 25, Issue 2, pp. 236–258.
3
Ibid., p. 242.
4
See, e.g., The Stockholm Prize in Criminology 2019. Internet. Available from: Electronic
source: https://www.su.se/english/about/prizes-awards/the-stockholm-prize-in-criminology/
winner-of-the-stockholm-prize-in-criminology-2018-1.355362, accessed: 17.12.2019.
5
Borrion H, et al., op. cit.

Priit Suve
22 Internal Security, July–December
and addressed in policing, is well elaborated6
, tested7
, and advanced8
. However,
the decentredness and low problem tractability (wickedness) of many problems put
pressure on the ways problems are understood. Working under the public eye directs
agents responsible for safety to propose answers instead of outlining questions.
Terrorism can be seen as one sign of our times presenting a blunt example of the
latter: ‘Before the US-led invasion in March 2003, Iraq had never experienced a sui-
cide terrorist attack in its history’.9
For policing and the concept of problem, it would
be challenging that the ‘presumed connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic
fundamentalism is largely misleading and, what is worse, it may be encouraging
domestic and foreign policies likely to exacerbate this terrorist threat’.10
The example
above distills general dilemma in thinking of problems — whether and/or when is it
sufficient to think of problems as static things or rather as dynamic relations? Does
terrorism belong to the terrorist or their victims? Despite the threat that the topic
of this article — thinking about problems — ‘would probably not receive much
support in policing circles today’11
, I take the risk and argue that relational thinking
has much to offer for both — to the practitioners related to policing and researchers
for more in-depth discussions and elaborations for the sake of safety. ‘[A]cknowl-
edging the political dimension of the problem-oriented approach’12
I introduce
discussions from (relational) sociology in showing how relationalism and sub-
stantialism, as different perspectives, open new sources in thinking of problems.
For example, one can imagine whether there is a difference in implementing
a community policing strategy (in different countries or the same place in differ-
ent times or by different people) as a pre-given substance or co-created process?
Although I use examples of particular and well-known problems of safety from
the point of view of police strategies (as they were expressed), the aim of the article
is broader — to advance interdisciplinary research and discussions about problem
from the point of view of and for the sake of safety at the micro and macro levels,
and from the analytical (how things are) and normative (how things should be) per-
spectives. The range of connections between problem and safety is broad and needs
to be clarified from the point of view of this article. In addition to the previously men-
tioned usage of the concept of problem, I emphasise two additional and also close
but different safety-related dimensions. The first is related to police organisations,
which should be designed in a way that allows administrative strategies (e.g. per-
sonnel and/or financial strategies) to be combined with functional strategies (e.g.
problem-oriented policing, COMPSTAT, community policing) in different functions
6
See, e.g. Goldstein H, op. cit., Goldstein H, On further developing problem-oriented poli-
cing:The most critical need, the major impediments, and a proposal. Crime prevention studies,
2003, Vol. 15, pp. 13–48.
7
Braga A.A, Weisburd D.L, Waring E.J, Mazerolle L.G, Spelman W, Gajewski F, Problem-
oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomised controlled experiment. Criminology,
1999, Vol. 37, Issue 3, pp. 541–580.
8
9
Pape RA. Dying to win: The strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Random House Incorpo-
rated, 2006, p. 33.
10
Ibid., p. 26.
11
Borrion H, et al., op. cit., p. 4.
12
Ibid., p. 16.

Advancing the Concept of Problem in Problem-oriented Policing
23
(e.g. criminal police, community officers, traffic police) and levels (e.g. senior staff,
rank-and-file officers). The second dimension is related to the social world that
poses increasing demands for advanced knowledge in understanding problems.
Here, I mean trends having a close impact on safety. These ‘trends’ are actually crises
that are a single crisis with different phases, which are not resolved but ‘managed
and contained’. This series of crises started in 2008 with the financial crisis; manifest-
ing itself in the migration crisis of 2010–2012; illuminated in the struggle of emerging
economies and rising powers (e.g. China and Brazil) 2013–2016, and in 2016,
we entered a fourth phase of the crisis, a political crisis, which has the potential
to reignite all of the previous three crises and generate a truly transformative
crisis.13
Previous and future crises or phases of the crisis have different epicenters
and hardly predictable directions. I argue that in the context of ‘failure to develop
adequate responses to complex problems’,14
it is still possible ‘translate’ problems
into a more adequate form and through the relational view, at least try to fail wisely.
The article starts with a clarification of relationalism compared to substantialism
with the clarification of self-action, inter-action, and trans-action. The latter is neces-
sary for understanding safety problems from analytical and normative positions.
Without grasping how things are (the problem!), the implementation of some tool
(e.g. strategy) may cause unpredictable results.
In the second part, I use the knowledge from problem-oriented policing
and examples of police practices to demonstrate the benefits of relational think-
ing. In using knowledge of problem-oriented policing, I will limit the discussions
to Goldstein’s classical texts15
and recently published ideas of second-generation
POP16
. Also, I use well-known examples of stop-and-search practices17
and the often
cited examination of problem-oriented policing18
. However, I will not dive into
discussions but will use these data with the purpose of illumination.
Theoretical issues
About relationalism
Although relational thinking has spread over many disciplines in the social sci-
ences19
, I will focus only on the nuances that have profound meaning for the topic.
Substantialism and relationalism, together with self-action, inter-action, and trans-
13
Gamble A, Conclusion: The Crisis Gets Political, [in:] The Coming Crisis. Springer, 2018,
pp. 117–118.
14
Hay C, Hunt T, Introduction: The Coming Crisis, the Gathering Storm, [in:] The Coming
Crisis. Springer, 2018, p. 8.
15
Goldstein H, 1979, 2003, op. cit.
16
17
DruryJ,BallR,NevilleF,ReicherS,StottC,Re-readingthe2011riots:ESRCbeyondcontagionin-
terimreport.2019;TiratelliM,QuintonP,BradfordB,Doesstopandsearchdetercrime?Evidencefrom
tenyearsofLondon-widedata.TheBritishJournalofCriminology,2018,Vol.58,Issue5,pp.1212–1231.
18
Braga A.A, op. cit.
19
See e.g. Dépelteau F, The Palgrave handbook of relational sociology. Springer, 2018.

Priit Suve
action are the concepts helping elaborate and advance knowledge in thinking about
the concept of problem from a safety-related perspective.
The field of safety and police research related to the concept of problem, faces
the same dilemma, as famously stated by Mustafa Emirbayer: ‘whether to conceive
of the social world as consisting primarily in substances or processes, in static ‘things’
or in dynamic, unfolding relations.”20
It seems trivial to state that social things are
interrelated. In the field of safety, it is often expected that there is a causal connec-
tion between an action and a social event. Sentences like ‘Problem-oriented policing
is currently promoted by practitioners and academics as a more effective response
to urban crime problems than conventional policing methods’21
articulate a com-
mon way of thinking, expressing this notion of causality. However, as was clear from
the example of terrorism mentioned above, this imaginary causality is not always
direct or linear (I do not argue that this was a claim of Braga et al.22
). In looking for
a tool (e.g., police strategy) to solve something unsolvable (e.g., terrorism) unpleasant
consequences may emerge.
In light of this article, it is appropriate to clarify the general meaning of relation-
alism with explanations from fields having direct links to safety issues: organisations
and power. In a broader sense, relational thinking means thinking of the social
world through social relations. In organisational theories, it was described as ‘[s]
hifting the focus of inquiry from entities (e.g., leadership, the organisation) to organ-
ising activity’.23
For our purposes, to understand and develop relational thinking
in the field of safety, the relational perspective on power is feasible: ‘It presumes
the primacy of relations over entities. The identities of the As, Bs, and other ele-
ments of power relations are viewed not as being ‘given’ prior to those relations,
but as being constituted within them.’24
How this seemingly simple division from
entities to relations produces something that is constituted within relations,
will be explained below in more detail. To be clear: the premise of safety issues
as given is another trap in policing since it binds the way of thinking and axiomatic
‘knowledge’. I will start this discussion with clarifying the idea of causality and con-
stitutiveness, which offer knowledge prerequisites for further discussions, and could
also be a useful starting point for thinking of a particular safety issue in everyday life.
Causal and constitutive reasoning
Social facts, like problems of safety, are made of thoughts, concepts, beliefs,
and other immaterial ‘things.‘ However, there are many things in common in the
material and immaterial world, and one of them is the method of explanation from
the point of causation. Marriage and a plate can both be broken, but it should
be distinguished: how it happened (the process) and what made it possible (the
20
Emirbayer M, Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 1997,
Vol. 103, Issue 2, p. 281.
21
Braga A.A, op. cit., p. 542.
22
Ibid.
23
Eacott S, Starting points for a relational approach to organisational theory: An overview.
Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 2019, Vol. 4, Issue 1, p. 17.
24
Selg P,‘The fable of the Bs’: between substantialism and deep relational thinking about
power. Journal of Political Power, 2016, Vol. 9, Issue 2, p. 184.

25
constitutive elements of a plate and marriage)? For that reason, in starting to think
about some problem, it is necessary to distinguish at least two kinds of explanations:
causal and constitutive. This division is especially crucial since it brings in discus-
sions about capacities, which poses an issue about the capacities of some particular
tool (e.g., police strategy) and all of the participants (e.g., individuals, groups,
organisations). However, also, it forces us to acknowledge a context, since ‘[t]he
causal capacity tells what the system would do in specified situations (e.g. in certain
enabling and triggering conditions).’25
For example, in choosing a police strategy
to address some safety issue, it is necessary to think about the possible capacities
of the strategy. The starting point is acknowledging the type of the strategy — is it
analytical (i.e., constructed for some purposes like community policing (see COMP-
STAT26
) or empirical (i.e., the description of particular empirical data27
? Explaining (1)
why some strategy does not work is different from explaining (2) what the constitu-
tive elements of this strategy are. The first question is about the process (normative)
and tells how the social world works. The second is analytical and tells how the social
world is composed, what the constitutive elements are. The same questions are also
appropriate to ask regarding problems. It is crucial to distinguish the identifica-
tion of (1) what a problem is (analytical-ontological position) from a question of (2)
how it has happened (the process). I will elaborate these distinctions in more detail
below, but ignoring the contextual information paves the way for failure. As Cum-
mins explains: ‘Capacities are best understood as a kind of complex dispositional
property.’28
This explanation was used in order to emphasise the complex nature
of capacities — there is no definite list of capacities. Even more, in social life, there
are countless ways to be related, but for failing wisely, it would be useful think about
some possible combinations creating fertile ground for capacities that may arise.
Analytical and processual capacities have different positions in the context (envi-
ronment). It is crucial to understand that causal capacities take the environment
for granted29
. For that reason, the contextual information (environment) should
be acknowledged and specified. There is nothing pre-given, but it depends on the
position of the researcher. After the conceptualisation of a context, appropriate
causal explanations will be available. However, relations between the constitutive
elements make different capacities feasible. In thinking of problems in relation
to possible solutions, it is also necessary to keep in mind the asymmetric nature
of relations: ‘the system’s causal capacities do not constitute its parts and their
organisation.’30
Also, compared to the process of the problem, the constitution
of capacity does not take time — it happens instantly. For example, if there is a plan
to use some police strategy, then it is necessary to train police officers. Both
25
Ylikoski P, Causal and constitutive explanation compared. Erkenntnis, 2013, Vol. 78,
Issue 2, p. 278.
26
Weisburd D, Mastrofski SD, McNally AM, Greenspan R, Willis JJ, Reforming to preserve:
Compstat and strategic problem solving in American policing. Criminology & Public Policy,
2003, Vol. 2, Issue 3, pp. 421–456.
27
See e.g., Wilson JQ, Varieties of police behavior. Harvard University Press, 1978.
28
Cummins R,‘How does it work?’versus‘What are the laws?’:Two conceptions of psycho-
logical explanation, [in:] Explanation and cognition. 2000, p. 122.
29
Ylikoski P, op. cit.
30
Ibid., p. 6.

Priit Suve
training and implementation of strategy take time, but after training, the capacity
for implementation is available instantly. As such, it is like a magic that can be used
in policing. The question is, how to prepare a context in which particular capacities
(e.g., kindness, safety) will appear, and how to discover these properties and condi-
tions that made existing capacities (e.g., riots, drug problem, street crimes) available.
Understanding and acknowledging contextual factors is a necessary precondition
for failing wisely. As we will see from the examples below, failing in preparations
may be preparation to fail. The actual situation is sometimes more complicated
than is often described in positivist models for situations with definable problems
and solutions. However, some problems are hard to define and not solvable, but still
need immediate action — wicked problems.
About the nature of problems
The central ethos of the problem-solving approach is to define a problem, i.e.,
a problem is the central element. Also, searching for the best practices is a well-
known and rooted culture in the field of safety. These are the causes to bring
in another dimension of problems — the nature of a problem. Seemingly the same
problem may have a different nature, which has a crucial impact on the ways
it should be treated. Comparative research related to gun violence in the US,
Canada, and Australia31
offer an excellent example of the different nature of the
problem and comes down to a search or creation of best practices. The research
reveals that ‘some wicked social problems are not inherently wicked, but are instead
influenced by the national political landscape.’32
This means, among other things,
that the nature of the problem is contextual, and there is nothing pre-given —
an idea that will be given a proper meaning in the discussions below. So, according
to this research, gun violence should be given different kinds of attention in the
compared countries. This knowledge is especially important because, at first glance,
gun violence is gun violence and should be treated similarly, i.e., looking for best
practices is the right way to go. However, this kind of oversimplification may appear
as a source of a new problem instead of a solution.
Although wickedness is a topic covered broadly in many disciplines, in this article,
I cover only the main ideas related to the article’s purpose. In their seminal article,
Rittel and Webber33
operate in the field of planning and claim that planners face
problems which they entitle ‘wicked’. They offer ten characteristics of these kinds
of problems. Although the authors often use safety-related issues as an example
of a wicked problem, it does not mean that all safety-related issues are wicked.
Instead of referring to these ideas, I draw an example which covers most of the
characteristics of wickedness emphasised by Rittel and Webber. For example, in the
case of problems with general public order:
— It is complicated to define the problem. How to cover something, which
is related to so many disciplines starting from policing and criminology, but
31
Newman J, Head B, The national context of wicked problems: Comparing policies
on gun violence in the US, Canada, and Australia. Journal of comparative policy analysis:
research and practice, 2017, Vol. 19, Issue 1, pp. 40–53.
32
Ibid., p. 50.
33
Rittel and Webber, op. cit.

27
also linked to social-psychology, housing, education, medicine, economy,
redundancy, and many others;
— There is no one-single stopping rule. There is no single success-formula
appliable to solve the problem of public order;
— Solutions are not true-or-false but good-or-bad. A solution that led to a good
result previously (e.g., some police strategy combined with some particular
youth policy), may not offer the same result next time;
— There is no ultimate test of a solution. Since many fields and agents are
involved, the effect of the previous action is severe if any to measure;
— Every attempt counts significantly. Mistakes will be visible and unforgivable.
In hiring and engaging more police officers on public order, the impact
on safety, society, and organisation may be drastic, starting with lowering
trust in the police or causing a misbalance between the police organisation’s
other functions;
— There is a countless set of possible solutions. Here, there is an emphasis
on the word set. In wicked issues, such as public order, the combination
of various tools (including agents) is a key for success;
— Every problem is unique can be considered to be a symptom of another
problem. In thinking of problems of public order, it is useful to label a prob-
lem as an answer and start to look for a question. Similarly to the example
of terrorism presented above;
— The existence of a problem can be explained in different ways. Reasoning
has a crucial factor in the solution. Pieces of evidence should be presented.
The question — how do you know that the problem is present? — is essen-
tial and unavoidable. Discovered evidence refer to an ontological point
(what is the problem), but not necessarily to the solution.
During this more than forty year period from the initial article of wicked prob-
lems, the idea of wickedness has spread and developed. Also, in the field of safety,
the span of the topic is broad, from grasping the problem of alcohol use34
to police
strategies such as problem-oriented policing35
. Since the purpose of this article
is to advance knowledge of thinking about the concept of problem in develop-
ing the groundwork for better tackling of safety issues, we emphasise here
the importance of framing a problem, which bridges the argumentation below.
As was highlighted, all safety issues are not wicked, but the nature of these should
also be clarified. From the point of view of decreasing complexity, problems can
be understood as tame (both the problem and solution are clear), complex (the
problem is clear, a solution is not), and wicked (neither the problem nor solution
is clear).36
However, the described typology does not cover many aspects of social
34
Fleming J, Rules of engagement: Policing anti-social behaviour and alcohol-related vio-
lence in and around licensed premises. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research,
2008.
35
Sidebottom A, Tilley N, Eck JE, Towards checklists to reduce common sources of prob-
lem-solving failure. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 2012, Vol. 6, Issue 2, pp. 194–209.
36
See,e.g.,ConklinJ,Wickedproblems&socialcomplexity.CogNexusInstituteSanFrancisco,
CA, 2006; Alford J, Head B.W,Wicked and less wicked problems: A typology and a contingency
framework. Policy and Society, 2017; Head B.W, Forty years of wicked problems literature:
Forging closer links to policy studies. Policy and Society, 2019, Vol. 38, Issue 2, pp. 180–197.

Priit Suve
life, which leads to the next crucial issue in the concept of problem, but also sheds
light on many aspects of social life. Selg (forthcoming) emphasises situations where
a solution is clear, but the problem is not. These kinds of problems — entitled ideo-
logical problems — can often be encountered in everyday political life, and in this
article, we look at the example below from the field of safety.
Two aspects of the described typology should be specified. First, the question
of the clarity of a problem seems to be simple, but also disastrous and often an object
of manipulation, as brilliantly presented by Charles Tilly using the example of ter-
rorism37
. Similarly to Tilly’s38
argumentation that there is no owner of a definition
of terror, terrorism, or terrorist, one should acknowledge that nobody owns the def-
inition of a particular problem. The latter is especially crucial in the field of safety,
which has countless regulations trying to capture all of the misbehavior. Second,
related to a problem, a solution may be even more complicated, since all of the
agents may imagine the outcome as well as the process of solving or mitigating
a particular problem differently. Although there may be several sets of contextual
factors, it is difficult to argue against the fact that in public service, there are often
situations where some social event (e.g., increasing street crime; a terrorist act)
cause public debate forcing officials to solve a problem. Problems of public order
are well-known (e.g., misdemeanors, riots, violent crimes), in which hiring more
police officers or applying military policing strategies appear to be quick and easy
solutions. However, as was described above, more police and aggressive police
tactics can be a source of new problems (such as distrust in the police). Also, there
are plenty of examples in criminology, where it is possible to recognise the displace-
ment of problems instead of resolving them. Riots or street crimes are obviously
a signal, but the problem maybe something else. The signal-noise dilemma is clearly
andfamouslypresentedbyNateSilver:‘Thenoiseiswhatdistractsusfromthetruth.’39
I am not offering a theory of truth, but a possibility to orient oneself in the noise.
Now, after clarifying the ideas of relationalism, causal and constitutive reason-
ing, and the nature of problems, it is easier to understand the key aspects of our
argumentation, and move closer to understandings of the concept of problem
as an interconnected phenomenon.
Substantialism and relationalism: self-action,
inter-action, and trans-action
Since the primary purpose of this article is to craft a groundwork for thinking
of problems in a way which allows the substantialist view to be made distinct from
the relational, I use the terminology of self-actionalism, inter-actionalism, and trans-
actionalism.40
According to François Dépelteau,41
there are two modes of perception
37
Tilly C, Terror as strategy and relational process. International Journal of Comparative
Sociology, 2005, Vol. 46, Issue 1–2, pp. 11–32.
38
Tilly C, Terror, terrorism, terrorists. Sociological theory, 2004, Vol. 22, issue 1, pp. 5–13.
39
Silver N, The signal and the noise: why so many predictions fail–but some don’t. Pen-
guin, 2012, p. 21.
40
Dewey J, Bentley AF, Knowing and the known. Beacon press Bosto, 1960; Emirbayer M,
op. cit., Dépelteau F, op. cit., Selg P, op. cit.
41
Dépelteau F, op. cit.

29
of the social world. First, the co-deterministic theories explain evolution as ‘the
effect of inter-actions between social structures and agency’.42
From that point,
there are pre-existing structures and agencies. For example, in safety, it is possible
to recognise good and bad actions; adults and juveniles; owners and the poor,
and so on. In this regard, social structures must be external to action since they
exist before action. Another view was first introduced in ‘Manifesto for a Relational
Sociology’43
, and means by words of Dépelteau, that ‘the main challenge posed
by relational theories is to explain social phenomena without any total or partial
causal relation from social structures to action.’44
The transaction is not like a line
within a mathematical formula composed by single components (e.g., criminal +
action + policeman) or just the addition of some actions of pre-given entities. These
different lines and participants ‘in their developing interrelationship, constitute
a singleness, such as we recognise when we speak of an argument, a debate, a dis-
cussion or a fight.’45
If social things are not pre-given entities, but relations (nodes
and ties) then who are criminals, what is a crime, and how should we think about
problems?
From the perspective of the concept of problem, the question is: should we study
(1) self-action (where things are viewed as acting under their own powers); (2) inter-
action (where thing is balanced against thing in causal interconnection);46
or (3)
trans-action (the action A is the action A only because it is interconnected with
the action B, and vice versa)?47
An answer to this question is not simple, since ‘[o]
ur spontaneous view of the world is substantialist, not relational: in our language,
we express the world as being composed of substances, rather than emerging,
unfolding and processual relations.’48
Norbert Elias provides a brilliant example
of this idea: ‘We say, ‘The wind is blowing’, as if the wind were actually a thing at rest
which, at a given point in time, begins to move and blow. We speak as if the wind
were separate from its blowing, as if a wind could exist which did not blow.”49
Fol-
lowing the idea, in safety, there should be substances like assets or criminals that
have properties like a price or dangerousness, which are connected in activities like
stealing or blackmailing.
From another perspective, Selg50
clarifies the relational view of everyday life
using the term ‘distance’. To put it into the context of safety, we can imagine
a distance between the policeman and criminal, while the ‘distance’ is a relation
between the two, not a property or action. The distance does not belong to police-
man or criminal. However, for a distance in our example, it is necessary to have
both policeman and criminal. The instantness in relational thinking should also
42
Ibid., p. 52.
43
Emirbayer M, op. cit.
44
Dépelteau F, op. cit., p. 59.
45
Blumer H, Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. University of California
Press, 1986, p. 110.
46
Dewey J, Bentley A.F, op. cit., p. 132.
47
48
Selg P, Power and relational sociology, [in:]The Palgrave Handbook of Relational Sociol-
ogy. Springer, 2018, p. 539.
49
Elias N, What is sociology? Columbia University Press, 1978, p. 112.
50
Selg P, op. cit., 2018, p. 540.

Priit Suve
be emphasised since the idea helps in further discussions: a ‘distance’ appears
instantly in thinking about policeman and criminal. It does not appear later. The
problem is, there are countless another instant ‘things’ similar to distance (for exam-
ple respect or fear), which we only recognise if needed, in particular circumstances.
All of these invisible things are in place regardless of their recognition.
Yet, this example does not offer suitable knowledge about how it would help
us to understand benefits from substantialist view to relational view of safety prob-
lems. So, it is possible to analyse individual action as a self-action by an observer,
‘but, in reality, it is reasonable to assume that so-called self-actions are always part
of transactions where the actions of A and B are interdependent.’51
There is nothing
wrong with conceptualising problems of safety from the point of view of stable
relations, but trying to discover and study interdependencies of social action
is more inclusive and offers deeper knowledge. In general, it is possible to analyse
a criminal and an asset; a community and disorder; a police strategy and the feeling
of safety, but these are always interrelated through ‘things’, as described above.
A criminal is a criminal only in relation to a particular asset; disorder is disorder
only in relation to a particular community; the police’s behavior has meaning with
a particular feeling of safety, and so forth. Of course, there are conditions in which
there is a higher capacity for something, but there still, nothing is pre-given.
Problem in policing: concept and examples
There are many ways to elucidate the theoretical ideas presented above. How-
ever, it is true that, in the field of policing, the discussions of the concept of problem
as relational is just the beginning. Therefore, I start from the outset. In this section
I first look at the concept of problem as it was presented by Goldstein52
and elabo-
rated by Borrion, et al.53
, and then move towards the use of the concept in the
classical experiment carried out by Braga, et al.,54
and in contemporary well-known
stop-and-search cases.55
In such a way, it is possible to grasp both theoretical discus-
sions as well as the concept in use. However, I do not criticise current standpoints,
but try to develop the idea and support Goldstein’s ethos56
(‘At one time this
emphasis was appropriate’) with minor accent: ideas developed in earlier times are
often not useless, but need to be developed along with contemporary knowledge.
The sections below are dedicated to illuminating the current positions of prob-
lem in the examples taken into analysis, and to asking further questions in line
with the theoretical perspectives to discover possible additional or hidden shades.
In more detail, I focus on causal and constitutive reasoning; the nature of problem;
and substantialist-relational perspectives. The following questions will be asked:
— About the causality and constitutiveness: is the emphasis on the process
(how is something happening) or on the constitutive elements (what makes
51
52
Goldstein H, op. cit. 1979, 2003.
53
54
Braga A.A, et al., op. cit.
55
Tiratelli M, et al., op. cit., Drury J, et al., op. cit.
56
Goldstein H, op. cit. ,1979, p. 239.

31
it possible)? The notion of capacities is vital since they ground a context
for an open-minded approach to a problem. Also, the knowledge of the
principle of instantness may lead to a deeper understandings of causes
of a problem by looking for a set that instantly made possible what hap-
pened. Thereupon it is easier to discover (1) crucial participants, and (2)
necessary causations. Recognising a moment of enactment (recognition)
of a problem, the activating process (including causes, reasons, agents) itself
may become clearer.
— About the nature of problems: are these problems presented as simple (both
the problem and the solution are clear), tame (the problem clear, a solution
is not), wicked (neither the problem nor solution is clear), or ideological (a
solution is clear, the problem is not)? Dealing with the recognition of the
nature of a problem also clarifies the field of participants, capacities,
and possible solutions, which all offer valuable input for organisational
design as well as strategic choices in everyday policing.
— About substantialism and relationalism: is the concept of problem or a par-
ticular problem under discussion handled from a substantialist or relationalist
perspective? The ontological-analytical position limits both the understand-
ing of a problem and possible solutions. Since the prevention of further
misbehavior can be recognised as one general ethos of the problem-oriented
approach, thinking in terms of relations or substances has a crucial impact.
In the analyses below, self-action and inter-action are treated as substantial,
and trans-action as relational. In this study, it is not necessary to discern all
three forms of action, and I make the difference based on the claim that ‘[s]
ocial actors and actions are what they are, at some specific time and space,
only through empirical chains of trans-actions.’57
Concept of problem in problem-oriented policing
The purpose of Goldstein’s seminal paper58
is to summarise the nature of the
‘means over ends’ syndrome in policing and to explore ways of focussing greater
attention on the results of policing — on the effect that police efforts have on the
problem that the police are expected to handle. By ‘problems’, he means ‘the
incredibly broad range of troublesome situations that prompt citizens to turn
to the police, such as street robberies, residential burglaries, battered wives, van-
dalism, speeding cars, runaway children, accidents, acts of terrorism, even fear’,
and emphasises the perspective of the job of police to deal ‘with a wide range
of behavioral and social problems that arise in a community — that the end prod-
uct of policing consists of dealing with these problems.’59
In his further, developing
paper, the purpose was ‘to join with others in exploring the future development
of problem-oriented policing.’60
He emphasises the early idea of problem-oriented
policing, which from the perspective of the police’s management, assumed ‘the
57
58
Goldstein H, op. cit., 1979, p. 238.
59
Ibid., p. 242.
60

Priit Suve
primary responsibility for identifying problems, analysing them’61
, and also ‘[t]he
fundamental premise underlying the concept of problem-oriented policing is that
police practices, in responding to common problems that arise in the community.’62
Both ideas cited are remarkable not only from the point of POP but also from
the point of current research. The third paper was analysed for the purpose of elab-
orating Goldstein’s above-cited ideas to ‘revisit the problem-oriented policing
(POP) literature and argue that the current conception of crime problem, akin to an
obstacle, has overshadowed the goals that are threatened by crime.’63
Although
all they found was the need to revise the concept of problem, the new ideas still
hold A-s and B-s as pre-given structures and agents, but there is little discussion
about the process of problem-creation. Table 1 generalises the overall concepts
of problems discussed in the cited papers from the perspective of this article.
Table 1. Mode of defining a problem by Goldstein 1997, 2003 and Borrion et al., 2019.
Improving policing:
A problem-oriented
approach64
On further developing
problem-oriented
policing: The most
critical need, the major
impediments,
and a proposal65
The Problem with
Crime Problem-Solving:
Towards a Second
Generation Pop?66
Definition
or description
of problem
‘By problems, I mean
the incredibly broad
range of troublesome
situations that prompt
citizens to turn
to the police, such
as street robberies,
residential burglaries,
battered wives,
vandalism, speeding
cars, runaway
children, accidents,
acts of terrorism, even
fear.’67
‘each discrete piece
of police business that
the public expects
the police to handle
(referred to as
a ‘problem’)’68
‘It was contemplated
that the problems
would be sizeable
— a collection
of many similar
incidents — usually
occurring throughout
the jurisdiction served
or within a reasonably
defined area. Examples
would be the problem
of the drinking-
driver, the robbery
of convenience stores,
or theft from retail
establishments.’69
‘the problems tackled
by practitioners should not
be defined in terms of crime
or crime reduction alone.
Indeed, the adequacy
of interventions
greatly depends upon
the ways analysts frame
the problems to solve in the
first place.’70
‘the problem is one of how
to intervene to reduce
crime to acceptable levels,
whilst also satisficing
the wider set of goals of all
stakeholders’71
‘In practice, this requires
revising the concept
of problem and aligning
problem-solving models
with the multicriteria
frameworks found in other
disciplines, including
design, engineering
and risk management.’72
61
Ibid., p. 15.
62
Ibid., p. 19.
63

33
Emphasis
on process (how
is something
happening)
or on constitutive
elements
(what makes
it possible)?
Emphasis
on elements.
Especially from
the point of crime,
which appears
as a core of a problem.
Emphasis on elements
and particular area.
Emphasis on elements with
the notion of multiplicity
of disciplines having input
on policing. Deals mostly
with what-questions,
and not how-questions.
Attention
on the nature
of a problem
as tame, complex,
or wicked.
The nature
of problems is not
analytically discerned.
The nature of problems
is not analytically
discerned.
Some indications of the
nature of problems (e.g.,
wickedness) are present.
Substantialism
or relationalism?
Substantialism
is the prevalent ethos.
Substantialism
Substantialism
Source: The author, based on Goldstein H, 1979 and 2003; Borrion H, et al., 2019.
Whatever the precise problem is, the causal and constitutive reasoning is a useful
tool guiding to capacities. It is especially useful to remember that causal capaci-
ties take the environment for granted, although it is questionable whether there
is any pre-given environment. Merely acknowledging the fact that every criminal
is responsible for his/her actions, but not solely responsible for his/her self, is a strik-
ing reminder of the latter.
Advancement and the notion towards interdisciplinarity is a valuable component
added to thinking of problems by Borrion, et al.73
However, thinking more analytically
about the nature of problems in terms of complexity (including ideological terms)
creates an environment that reduces the possibility of failure. The latter is an idea
from Bob Jessop, who emphasised the idea in governance where there is no guar-
antee of success. It is only possible to choose ‘preferred forms of failure’74
, and safety
is one of the fields holding no warrants. Moreover, the way that one thinks of prob-
lems implies possibilities for solutions and various means to the latter. It is not easy
to separate a signal from the noise, and all of the tools available could be captured.
However, the most important addition to the thinking of problems stems from
the substantialist ethos of current usage of the concept. Although the argumentation
is broadened from the crime-related problems to many different fields, the roots are
64
Goldstein H, op. cit., 1979.
65
Goldstein H, op. cit. 2003.
66
67
68
69
Ibid., p. 15.
70
71
Ibid., p. 13.
72
Ibid. p. 16.
73
Ibid.
74
Jessop B, Governance and meta-governance: on reflexivity, requisite variety and requi-
site irony. Governance as social and political communication, 2003, p. 118.

Priit Suve
still dialectical in terms of problems and tools. Contrary to substantialism, the rela-
tional thinking directs towards a shift of thinking focussed more on ethos instead
of means. Social actors are not isolated but interdependent, and these dependencies
should be discovered and studied in order to move closer to a problem. Environ-
mental criminologists may argue that there can be a particular environment that
creates a criminal or calls for a crime (self-actional perspective). However, the idea
itself is relational: there are no A-s (criminals) without B (an environment) in this
formula. Another widespread understanding is that there is a rule and a person
who violates the latter, and both are constant (inter-actional perspective). However,
it would be useful to think that there are no pre-given criminals, rules, or actions.
The example of decriminalisation or criminalisation may be one of these exam-
ples most familiar to the audience. The understanding of some particular action
(whether the action is a crime or not) can change simultaneously with a shift in the
calendar (in case of criminalisation or decriminalisation) or taking a step (in case
of crossing a state’s border). Also, the decriminalisation may be an effect of police
or citizens behaviour — for some reasons, actors stopped acting in particular way.
It does not necessarily have to be handled as a formal juridical act. Probably all con-
temporary societies can present some ‘dead’ legal rule. The example of the police’s
power to use violence might be telling. The same action — using violence — can
be legal if it is carried out by the police within the limits of the law, but it also can
be illegal if it is carried out by the persons who cannot be fit into this particular law.
Concept of problem in action
There is no need for a meta-analysis of case studies in problem-oriented policing
to express some hidden values of a variety of the concept of problem. Here, I use
data from the experiment of the efficacy of problem-oriented policing conducted
by Anthony Braga and colleagues75
, which still ‘remains a model evaluation study
today.’76
In addition to this study focussed on a problem-oriented approach, I take
a look at two reports involved in contemporary policing practices. Tiratelli M, et al.77
explored the relationship between stop-and-search and crime levels for a ten-year
period, and Drury et al.78
‘construct[ed] histories of some of the most significant riots
in August 2011’.
These data, mediated by experts, are appropriate to acquire knowledge about
how the concept of problem was handled. However, I do recognise the fact that these
data do not represent all of the understandings and angles in use. This is not the case.
And although the chosen examples concerned Anglo-American police culture, they
are also accessible, as well as well-known for a broader audience. Besides, luckily, all
ofthelimitationsmentionedabovewillnotinfluencethesubjectmatterofthisarticle.
As is presented in Table 2 below, the overall concept of the problems are treated from
a substantialist viewpoint. Regardless of the fact of many examples of an interactional
viewpoint, the problems are still treated in a substantial way presenting A-s and B-s.
75
76
Bachman R.D, Schutt R.K, Fundamentals of research in criminology and criminal justice.
Seventh Edition. Sage Publications, 2020, p. 668.
77
Tiratelli M, et al., op. cit.
78
Drury J, et al., op. cit., p. 69.

35
Table 2. Ethos of a problem in three studies
Problem‐oriented
policing in violent
crime places: A ran-
domised controlled
experiment79
Does more stop and search
mean less crime? Analysis
of Metropolitan Police
Service panel data,
2004–1480
Re-reading the 2011
English riots. ESRC ‘Beyond
Contagion’ interim report81
Definition
or description
of problem
‘Problem-oriented
policing challenges
officers to identify
and to analyze the causes
of problems behind
a string of criminal
incidents or substantive
community concern’;
‘verylittleisknownabout
the value of problem-
oriented interventions
in controlling violence’82
‘This research attempts
to generate more
knowledge on the
usefulness of problem-
oriented interventions
to control violent
places.’83
‘This study aimed to add
to the limited evidence
on the impact of stop
and search on crime. […]
As the type of analysis that
was carried out could only
show correlation and not
causation, any evidence of a
lagged negative association
would point to a possible
deterrent effect.’84
‘To explain waves of riots,
in place of the concept
of‘contagion’— the notion
that people simply copied
others in a mindless
and automatic way —
we propose a new model
of riot spread as identity-based
collective empowerment.’85
‘[…] riots influenced each
other: the occurrence of a riot
in one location subsequently
made rioting more likely
in certain other locations. […]
that this influence process
is actually one of the main
predictors of rioting, and that
the more intense the rioting
the greater the influence.’86
Emphasis on process
(how is something
happening)
or in constitutive
elements (what
makes it possible)?
Little or no attention
to constitutiveness.
Emphasis on process. Some limited attention
to constitutiveness, processes
are mostly in focus.
Attention
to the nature of a
problem as tame,
complex, or wicked.
to the nature
of problems from
the current perspective.
to the nature of problems
from the current
perspective.
There are some indicative signs
to the complexity of problems.
Substantialism
or relationalism?
Substantialism
Although emphasising
the relational idea,
it remains on frames
of interactionalism (with A-s
and B-s), and for that reason
is labelled as substantial.
Although emphasising
the relational idea, it remains
on frames of interactionalism
(with A-s and B-s), and for
that reason is labelled
as substantial.
Source: the author, based on Braga AA, et al., 1999; Quinton P, et al., 2017; Drury J, et al., 2019
79
80
Quinton P,Tiratelli M, Bradford B, Does More Stop and Search Mean Less Crime Analysis
of Metropolitan Police Service Panel Data, 2004–14. College of Policing; 2017.
81
Drury J, et al., op. cit.
82
Braga A.A, et al., op. cit., p. 542.
83
Ibid., p. 543.
84
Quinton P, et.al., op. cit., p. 3.
85
86
Ibid., p. 15.

Priit Suve
In addition to previous confirmations, I also acknowledge the limits coming
from the methods of analysis. However, in summing up the three questions under
discussion, in the research analysed, causality dominated over constitutiveness,
the complexity of problems was used in a mediated way, and substantialism was
therulingethos.Atthatpoint,itisappropriatetoemphasisethatallofthestressedfac-
tors—constitutivereasoning,natureofproblems,relationalism—areoftentouched
on in the literature related to problems in policing. Yet, the touch is often so gen-
eral, cursory and undeveloped that the benefits of these concepts remain hidden.
Discussion and conclusions
The purpose of the article is to advance the knowledge of thinking about the con-
cept of problem in developing the groundwork for better tackling of safety issues.
After the brief sketching out of ideas offering additional perspectives to the tra-
ditional practice, I looked at the concept of problem from two perspectives: how
it was elaborated in theoretical positions and used in three well-known studies.
Regarding causal and constitutive reasoning, in all the papers, the central ethos was
on processes and little or no attention was paid to constitutiveness. The process-
orientedness is not a problem in itself, but may still ground nebulousness leading
towards decisions having limited one-sided pieces of evidence and argumenta-
tion about a problem as well as possibilities for tackling it. Grounding constitutive
elements lead to more emotion-free knowledge, including particular contextual
information. There is no pre-given context, which is an axiomatic precondition in the
normative approach, and can appear as one of the reasons for failure. Both elements,
as well as causality, are related to the nature of problems in terms of complexity.
Althoughwithoutlabellingthenatureofa problem,theanalysisofproblem-oriented
policing and stop-and-search practices presented some undesirable consequences
that may accompany a vague understanding or definition of complexity. Starting
to solve the unsolvable problem, increases the probability of failure. Even more,
as the example of stop-and-search presented, it can appear as a separate problem.
Substantialism was probably the most evident feature characterising the per-
ception of the concept of problem. However, the relational ethos could be the novel
approach in thinking of safety problems and policing. As the dramatic conclusion
(‘stop-and-search is clearly a problem not a solution’).87
Drury, et al.88
manifested
that riots should be seen as a relation, not some pre-given event that should
be solved by A-s and B-s.
‘Failure is a routine feature of everyday life,’89
and for that reason should be taken
seriously. To fail wisely, the overall focus and wisdom on thinking about problems
as complex issues could be increased in the field of policing. In this article, only
some ideas were presented. The ideas of relationalism need more advanced
research and clarification in terms of trans-actionalism which is not a common
87
88
Ibid., p. 19.
89
Jessop B, From governance to governance failure and from multi-level governance
to multi-scalar meta-governance, [in:] The disoriented state: Shifts in governmentality, ter-
ritoriality and governance. Springer, 2009. p. 92.

37
vocabulary term and way of thinking in criminology and policing, although it does
have great potential in the realm of safety.
To summarise, the example of theft could be appropriate: a thief is responsible
for the action, but the theft does not belong to a thief or a victim (or an asset)
and should be seen as a relation in between. Acknowledging this, we are back
at the very beginning and should deal with the concept of problem from many
different perspectives within the enormous social roulette.
References
1. Alford J, Head B.W, Wicked and less wicked problems: A typology and a contin-
gency framework. Policy and Society, 2017, Vol. 36, Issue 3.
2. Bachman R.D, Schutt R.K, Fundamentals of research in criminology and criminal
justice. Seventh Edition. Sage Publications, 2020.
3. Blumer H, Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. University of Cali-
fornia Press, 1986.
4. Borrion H, Ekblom P, Alrajeh D, Borrion A.L, Keane A, Koch D, et al. The Prob-
lem with Crime Problem-Solving: Towards a Second Generation Pop? The British
Journal of Criminology, 2019, Vol. 60.
5. Braga A.A, Weisburd D.L, Waring E.J, Mazerolle L.G, Spelman W, Gajewski F, Prob-
lem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experi-
ment. Criminology, 1999, Vol. 37, Issue 3.
6. Conklin J, Wicked problems & social complexity. CogNexus Institute San Fran-
cisco, CA, 2006.
7. Cummins R, ‘How Does It Work?’ versus ‘What Are the Laws?’: Two Conceptions
of Psychological Explanation, [in:] Explanation and cognition. 2000.
8. Dépelteau F, Relational thinking: A critique of co-deterministic theories of struc-
ture and agency. Sociological theory, 2008, Vol. 26, Issue 1.
9. Dépelteau F, Relational sociology, pragmatism, transactions and social fields.
International Review of Sociology, 2015, Vol. 25, Issue 1.
10. Dépelteau F, The Palgrave handbook of relational sociology. Springer, 2018.
11. Dewey J, Bentley A.F, Knowing and the known. Beacon Press Bosto, 1960.
12. Drury J, Ball R, Neville F, Reicher S, Stott C, Re-reading the 2011 riots: ESRC be-
yond contagion interim report, 2019.
13. Eacott S, Starting points for a relational approach to organizational theory: An over-
view. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 2019, Vol. 4, Issue 1.
14. Elias N, What is sociology? Columbia University Press, 1978.
15. Emirbayer M, Manifesto for a relational sociology. American journal of sociology,
1997, Vol. 103, Issue 2.
16. Fleming J, Rules of engagement: Policing anti-social behaviour and alcohol-re-
lated violence in and around licensed premises. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime
Statistics and Research, 2008.
17. Gamble A, Conclusion: The Crisis Gets Political, [in:] The Coming Crisis. Springer,
2018.
18. Goldstein H, Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime & Delin-
quency, 1979, Vol. 25, Issue 2.

Priit Suve
19. Goldstein H, On further developing problem-oriented policing: The most critical
need, the major impediments, and a proposal. Crime prevention studies, 2003,
Vol. 15.
20. Hay C, Hunt T, Introduction: The Coming Crisis, the Gathering Storm, [in:]
The Coming Crisis. Springer, 2018.
21. Head B.W, Forty years of wicked problems literature: Forging closer links to pol-
icy studies. Policy and Society, 2019, Vol. 38, Issue 2.
22. Jessop B, Governance and meta-governance: on reflexivity, requisite variety
and requisite irony. Governance as social and political communication, 2003.
23. Jessop B, From governance to governance failure and from multi-level gover-
nance to multi-scalar meta-governance, [in:] The disoriented state: Shifts in gov-
ernmentality, territoriality and governance. Springer, 2009.
24. Newman J, Head B, The national context of wicked problems: Comparing poli-
cies on gun violence in the US, Canada, and Australia. Journal of comparative
policy analysis: research and practice, 2017, Vol. 19, Issue 1.
25. Pape RA. Dying to win: The strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Random House
Incorporated, 2006.
26. Quinton P, Tiratelli M, Bradford B, Does More Stop and Search Mean Less Crime
Analysis of Metropolitan Police Service Panel Data, 2004–14. College of Policing,
2017.
27. Rittel H.W, Webber M.M, Dilemmas in general planning theory. Policy Sciences,
1973, Vol. 4, Issue 2.
28. Selg P,‘The fable of the Bs’: between substantialism and deep relational thinking
about power. Journal of Political Power, 2016, Vol. 9, Issue 2.
29. Selg P, Two faces of the ‘relational turn’. PS: Political Science & Politics, 2016, Vol.
49, Issue 1.
30. Selg P, Power and relational sociology, [in:] The Palgrave Handbook of Relational
Sociology. Springer, 2018.
31. SidebottomA,TilleyN,EckJE.Towardscheckliststoreducecommonsourcesofprob-
lem-solving failure. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 2012, Vol. 6, Issue 2.
32. Silver N, The signal and the noise: why so many predictions fail–but some don’t.
Penguin, 2012.
33. Tilly C, Terror, terrorism, terrorists. Sociological theory, 2004, Vol. 22, Issue 1.
34. Tilly C, Terror as strategy and relational process. International Journal of Com-
parative Sociology, 2005, Vol. 46, Issue 1–2.
35. Tiratelli M, Quinton P, Bradford B. Does stop and search deter crime? Evidence
from ten years of London-wide data. The British Journal of Criminology, 2018, Vol.
58, Issue 5.
36. Weisburd D, Mastrofski SD, McNally AM, Greenspan R, Willis JJ. Reforming to pre-
serve: Compstat and strategic problem solving in American policing. Criminol-
ogy & Public Policy, 2003, Vol. 2(3).
37. Wilson J.Q, Varieties of police behavior. Harvard University Press, 1978.
38. Ylikoski P, Causal and constitutive explanation compared. Erkenntnis, 2013, Vol.
78, Issue 2.
39. The Stockholm Prize in Criminology 2019. Electronic source: https://www.su.se/
english/about/prizes-awards/the-stockholm-prize-in-criminology/winner-of-
the-stockholm-prize-in-criminology-2018-1.355362

39
AbouttheAuthor
Priit Suve, Assoc. Prof. of public management of School of Governance, Law and Society, Tallinn
University and professor of police theory Institute of Inernal Security of Estonian Academy
of Security Sciences in Estonia. Email: priit.suve@sisekaitse.ee
Streszczenie.Ostatnie zmiany w rozumieniu pojęcia problemu w policji, która jest instytucją zorientowaną na rozwiązywanie
problemów wskazują na wartościowe aspekty, głównie zaś z perspektywy merytorycznej. W niniejszym artykule przedstawiono
perspektywęrelacyjnąwmyśleniuoproblemachzwiązanychzbezpieczeństwemorazprzedstawionokilkakluczowychrozwiązań.
Opierając się na rozumowaniu przyczynowym i konstytutywnym oraz pojęciu złożoności problemów, do określenia różnic między
perspektywąsubstantialistycznąirelacjonalistycznąwykorzystanoperspektywęsamodzielności,interakcjiitransakcji.Koncepcja
problemuzostałaprzeanalizowanazdwóchperspektyw.Popierwsze,wświetlepoczątkowychiostatnichopracowańtegoterminu.
Po drugie, przez faktyczne używanie pojęcia. W analizowanych danych dominował etos substantialistyczny, domyślnie mający
zaletyiwady.Jednakmyślenierelacyjnewymagagłębszegozrozumieniaproblemówzwiązanychzbezpieczeństwem.Rezygnacja
zetosusubstantialistycznegoipytanie,czyistniejązgóryokreśloneAiB,orazzwróceniesięwstronęidei,żeniemaAbezB,stwarza
warunkidobardziejotwartegozrozumieniazagadnieniaproblemuwpolicji.
Zusammenfassung.DiejüngstenÄnderungenimVerständnisdesProblembegriffsbeiderPolizei,einerInstitution,dieinsichzur
Problemlösung berufen wurde, weisen auf wertvolle Aspekte hin, vor allem aber aus einer inhaltlichen Perspektive. Dieser Artikel
bietet eine relationale Perspektive zum Nachdenken über Sicherheitsprobleme und zeigt einige wichtige Fortschritte auf. Unter
VerwendungderkausalenundkonstitutivenArgumentationunddesKonzeptsderKomplexitätvonProblemen,umdieUnterschiede
zwischen der substantiellen und der relationalistischen Perspektive zu definieren, wurde die Perspektive der Unabhängigkeit,
Interaktion und Transaktion verwendet. Das Konzept des Problems wurde aus zwei Perspektiven analysiert: Zum einen im Lichte
der jüngsten Studien des Begriffs und zum anderen durch die tatsächliche Verwendung des Begriffs. In den analysierten Daten
dominierte das materielle Ethos, und es ist standardmäßig entweder gut oder schlecht. Relationales Denken erfordert jedoch ein
tieferes Verständnis von Sicherheitsproblemen. Die Aufgabe des substantiellen Ethos und die Frage, ob es vorbestimmtes A und
Bgibt,unddieHinwendungzuderIdee,dasseskeinAohneBgibt,schaffeneinUmfeldfüreinoffeneresVerständnisdesProblems
inderPolizei.
Резюме.Последние изменения в разработке вопросов, касающихся проблемы в полиции, являющейся органом,
ориентированным на решение проблем, указывают на полезные моменты, в основном, с точки зрения самого
содержанияпонятия.Встатьепредставленреляционныйвзгляднарассмотрениепроблемыбезопасности,атакже
представлены некоторые ключевые достижения в этой области. Используя причинно-следственное и консти-
тутивное мышление, а также концепцию сложности проблем, для определения различий между существенной
и релятивистской точками зрения была использована перспектива независимости, взаимодействия и сделки.
Концепция проблемы анализируется с двух точек зрения. Во-первых, в контексте первоначальных и недавних
разработок понятия. Во-вторых, посредством практического применения понятия. В проанализированных данных
восновномобладалпринципсущественности,ионимееткакпреимущества,такинедостатки. Однако,реляцион-
ноемышлениетребуетболееглубокогопониманиявопросоввсферебезопасности.Отказотсодержательногоэтиса
и вопрос, есть ли предопределенные А и Б, и обращение к идее, что без Б не существует А, создает среду для более
открытогопониманияпроблемывполиции.

Advancing The Concept Of Problem In Problem-Oriented Policing

Advancing The Concept Of Problem In Problem-Oriented Policing

More Related Content

Similar to Advancing The Concept Of Problem In Problem-Oriented Policing (20)

More from Andrea Porter (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Advancing The Concept Of Problem In Problem-Oriented Policing