Conducting Critical Research on Powerful Organisations

Introduction

Research is important for the development of society. All researchers must consider aspects of ethical procedures and the value of independence and integrity, with the ideal that research should be carried out objectively and free from stakeholder influence (Swedish Research Council, 2017). Although it is vital that researchers do not act in their own personal interests or in the interests of other stakeholders, researchers may be placed in situations or assignments where this is difficult to achieve. This is particularly important when research presents critical results on powerful organisations. All researchers in these situations probably reflect on how to present critical results about an organisation; how these results are received by various stakeholders; and the effect that the presentation may have on the researcher’s career. The two authors of this article have independently identified dilemmas associated with presenting critical research about the Swedish police, and this has led us to explore the issue further.

In recent decades, several changes have been made in the Nordic countries that we suspect influence the possibilities to conduct critical research on police organisations in these countries. These include political and economic pressures on organisations arising from the adoption of new public management, an increase in an evidence-based orientation to research that gives priority to ‘what works’, and the importance for organisations to promote an image of a well-functioning organisation that can be trusted (e.g. Davies, 2016; Holmberg, 2014; 2015; Punch, 2015). Davies (2016), for example, argues that the increasing collaborative relationship between police research and police organisations is needed, but also states that it is important to scrutinise the underlying motivations for research. Depending on these motivations, researchers are faced with challenges of independence and integrity, which in the long run might corrode trust in police research as a whole (see also Reiner, 2012).

This development not only concerns research on Nordic police organisations, but should be seen as part of changes in many societies at large that influence research in various disciplines and organisations. In recent decades, organisational research has shown how legitimacy work is fundamental in both private and public institutions (e.g. Alvesson, 2013b; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). The discourse of ‘value-based organisations’ has increased the significance of value branding and value work in these institutions (Krause-Jensen, 2011). It is worthwhile for organisations to strive to create public trust, but an aim to build positive impressions might come with other consequences. Brunsson (1993) argues, among other things, that higher priority is given to numbers in public organisations than to the reality behind them. The term ‘window dressing’ has been used by scholars to describe and explain the institutional image or organisational brand that is communicated to the public. Critics argue that the focus on window dressing downplays the actual performance of an organisation, in favour of rhetoric and strategic value branding of the organisation (e.g. Alvesson, 2013a; 2013b). Research also suggests that an organisation can be aided by researchers to build a desired image of the organisation (e.g. Holgersson, 2014; Holmberg, 2015; Wertz, Kyriss, Paranjape & Glantz, 2011). Wertz et al. (2011) found that industry researchers have a long history of manipulation of the presentation of scientific results. An important implication of their analysis of research results concerning the toxic effects of cigarette additives was that the scientific community and regulatory authorities did not take conclusions made by researchers within the tobacco industry or industry-funded research at face value.

This article wishes to deepen the understanding of how powerful organisations, such as the police, respond to critical research on policy and practice, and how this might have an influence on the independence and integrity of researchers. We align with scholars who argue that researchers need “to bring political economy and ethical critique back into academic policing debate” (Reiner, 2012, p. 107), and that they must be reflexive “about current trends in police research, asking critical questions about the underlying motives of the research and stepping back to think about the wider implications of the research” (Davies, 2016, p. 163).

The article suggests that conducting and presenting critical research on an organisation is part of challenging the brand of the organisation. Therefore, branding is significant to understand the conditions under which researchers conduct and present critical research on powerful organisations. The aim is not to study branding per se, but to explore what prevents researchers from challenging the police’s brand, and to describe how researchers can act when their results do so. Data from many sources, including interviews with researchers, are here used to answer how researchers describe their experiences and reasons for not challenging the police’s brand, to describe the outcomes that can be expected when challenging the brand, and to suggest how researchers can act to avoid challenging the police’s brand. The study is based on interviews with all Swedish researchers who have publicly challenged the Swedish Police’s brand on several occasions, presenting critical results that described structural problems for which the police is the problem‑owner.

Branding and the Swedish Police

Legitimacy work plays a significant role in organisational management and functions in several ways (e.g. Alvesson, 2013b; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Holgersson, 2013; 2014; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Rennstam, 2013). We use the term ‘branding’ to refer to various image‑promoting processes with the aim of making an organisation look good (Alvesson, 2013; Holgersson, 2014). Organisational identity is a key concept when explaining organisational behaviour, where ‘image’ is central to how the organisation is perceived by the public or its members (Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000). This image is fluid and can change, depending on how people portray the organisation, and how the organisation (or its members) portrays itself. Organisational image and identity are interrelated and thus subjected to both internal and external communication (Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000).

Theories of branding can be used to explain a driving force for many organisations to ‘look good’. Legitimacy activities may be particularly complex in public organisations that ‘have a political dimension inside; but there is also a political dimension outside […] with strong connections to the work practices within. In both dimensions, legitimacy is an important factor’ (Holgersson & Melin, 2015, p. 14. See also Mintzberg, 1985). Thus, officials are in a difficult position when it comes to public statements concerning the police. Critical statements of a public organisation can negatively influence public perception of the organisation. Public trust in police organisations can therefore be seen as imperative, since loss of legitimacy and perceived ineptitude can erode formal and informal mechanisms of social control that are necessary to maintain order. It is also important for the welfare of the public and employees’ job satisfaction. Another aspect to add to the complexity of value branding in a specific area is that branding can also be used to promote personal careers (Holgersson, 2014; 2019).

The Swedish Police places more emphasis and invests more resources in branding than before (Forsell & Ivarsson Westerberg, 2014; Holgersson, 2014). For instance, the national police commissioner formulated a policy in 2015 that stated that the aim of the police’s communication work is to strengthen the brand (Polisen, 2015). The increasing employment of communicators in the public sector and in governmental authorities, such as the police, is one effect of the increased emphasis now being placed on value branding (Forsell & Ivarsson Westerberg, 2014). To initiate research studies and present their results can be a part of the branding strategy of an organisation (Holgersson, 2014). Scholars have described a tendency in the Swedish Police that is also found in other public institutions: to give priority to political strategies in order to create a good reputation, rather than to address institutional obstacles and problems (Holgersson, 2014; 2015; Rennstam, 2013). This phenomenon has been observed in other police organisations, such as the National Danish Police (Holmberg, 2015) and the New York Police Department (Eterno & Silverman, 2012).

Several studies have given examples of how the communication from the Swedish Police puts the police in a more positive light, where information from the police has been misleading, and sometimes directly wrong (Holgersson, 2013; 2014; Rostami, Melde & Holgersson, 2014). One study has identified more than twenty communication techniques used by the police to deflect criticism and to put forward positive messages (Holgersson, 2014). This way of communicating also concerns data published in annual reports, where negative results have been concealed (Holgersson, 2014; RRV, 2016). Misleading or wrong information is not always the result of intentional behaviour, but may be the result of misunderstandings or mistakes (Holgersson, 2015).

Critical research and the Swedish Police

Scholars argue that little research with a critical approach that concerns the police has been carried out and presented (e.g. Holmberg, 2014; 2015). This is neither a solely Swedish problem, nor a problem only in police research. Holmberg (2015, p. 45) identifies seven problems in relation to this in Nordic police research: “direction by authorities, censorship, selective funding, ‘shopping around’, neglect, self-censorship and misguided ethical demands”. He shows that the authority is attempting to ensure positive results by exerting strict control, which raises the risk of self-censorship among researchers to secure further funding. The attempt to secure positive results also leads to research being replaced by evaluations, which has two basic implications (Holmberg, 2015, p. 50):

First, the questions being studied will more often than not be pre-defined and instrumental in scope – leading to the abovementioned lack of critical studies. Second, instrumental evaluations may demand less of the evaluators than does more comprehensive research. Once the goals of the evaluation have been agreed upon, the need for deeper knowledge of the field of study is rendered unnecessary. This opens the door for consultancy firms with limited knowledge about policing and little interest in advancing our knowledge of the field beyond what is specifically paid for. In such a field of competition, it would be no wonder if police researchers restricted themselves, to the detriment of police science.

Several scholars are concerned that the increasingly collaborative nature of police research may have an impact on research independence, which might mean being unable to take on a critical perspective on particular police practices (e.g. Bayley, 2015; Davies, 2016; Holmberg, 2015; Reiner, 2012). Moreover, Holmberg (2015, pp. 49–50) argues that the increasing necessity for external research funding and “the mere threat of selective allocation of funding towards more ‘positive’ results may influence both how we study specific problems, and what problems we study”. Davies (2016, pp. 161–162) suggests that this may “be driven by pragmatic willingness to keep close ties to police organisations in order to secure future research funding and access”, and that this embeddedness may have implications for research ethics, such as the reporting of malpractice.

The development of stricter control and the desire to secure positive results are evident in several cases concerning the Swedish Police. One recent example of how this can lead to an increased number of evaluations occurred in 2017. The police received targeted funding from Brottsförebyggande rådet, Brå (the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention), to enable it to be responsible for conducting evaluations. 82 percent of Brå’s targeted funding was granted to the police in 2017. Another example of how the above-mentioned development can lead to censorship occurred in 2010, when the Swedish Government instructed the police to improve its ability to conduct evaluations. An independent evaluation unit was established at the Swedish Police with the task of examining and guaranteeing the quality of the published research. Researchers were hired to work at this unit. One purpose of the unit was to improve how the police reports to both the Swedish government and to citizens. Other purposes were to help transform the police into a learning organisation, and to increase police effectiveness and efficiency. However, top-ranking commanders interfered with the work of the independent evaluation unit. In one case, publication of a critical report was forbidden. Researchers were placed in a dilemma in which they must choose between adapting to the authority’s control over research and quitting. The senior researcher who led the evaluation unit resigned in protest, and the research board fell apart when the board members no longer wanted to be part of it (Knutsson, 2015).

Recent research presents several characteristics of the Swedish Police that may have implications for the possibilities to conduct research on the police, and the reception of the results. Scholars have argued that the police management is less open than the managements of other public authorities and in other sectors (Andersson-Arntén, Jansson, Olsen & Archer, 2017). One report questions whether the Swedish Police is capable of learning, when it comes to appreciating and identifying problems (Andersson-Arntén, 2013). Other reports describe a widespread fear of reprisals among police employees, which affects the willingness to address problems in the organisation (Holgersson, 2019; Wieslander, 2016; 2018). Moreover, police employees score the lowest value for how important they consider it to be that their work is grounded in science. On a scale from +100 to –100, university teachers score over 90, doctors and psychologists just under 90, engineers and teachers between 50 and 60, and priests 30. Police employees score –20. The police employees also scored the lowest value (–30) of all 18 professions concerning how important they consider it to be to be updated on new research findings (Brante, Johnsson, Olofsson & Svensson, 2015).

One scholar, who in numerous publications has identified problems and suggested solutions concerning the Swedish Police, reported that the police’s reaction towards critical research has been multifaceted, and the consequences have been both positive and negative (Holgersson, 2015). Holgersson argues that it is possible to criticise without any negative outcomes, but the key is how much the result challenges the positive image that the police wishes to promote. It is particularly difficult to publish criticism if it does not support an image that high-ranking officials with great influence have put a lot of effort into creating (Holgersson, 2014; 2015).

It is important to identify and describe problems in order to improve organisational effectiveness and efficiency (e.g. Miceli, Near & Schwenk, 1991), but a fear of voicing criticism (Shepherd, Patzelt, Williams & Warnecke, 2014) and actions taken by what are known as ‘information gatekeepers’ (Bouhnik & Giat, 2015) can lead to misleading information being presented. Intense attempts by an organisation to ‘look good’ run the risk of creating an atmosphere in which individuals may believe, falsely, that their primary responsibility is to save face for the organisation by covering up wrongdoing (Goffman, 1956). Bayley (2015, p.11) concludes that in the past 50 years of police research, police organisations “have not been the source of significant reform ideas”. Rather, the majority of innovations in police research (e.g. community policing, hotspots policing, problem-oriented policing) have all come from outsiders (Bayley, 2015).

In summary, an interest in branding by governmental organisations generates window‑dressing activities, and this seems to be the case even for the Swedish Police. Further, research has shown that the Swedish Police is far from being a learning organisation: its transparency is low and there is a widespread opinion within the organisation that one risks retaliation when raising criticism. Thus, we suggest that conducting and presenting critical research on an organisation must be placed in the context of branding. Branding is significant for, and can contribute to, understanding why the independence and integrity of researchers may be challenged when conducting critical research on powerful organisations who put a lot of effort into branding.

Methodology

The aims of this study were to explore what prevents researchers from challenging the police’s brand, and to describe how researchers can act when their results do so. The following research questions have been central to the analysis:

This study uses a critical research approach. Stahl (2008, p. 139) defines ‘critical research’ as “research characterised by an intention to change the status quo, overcome injustice and alienation, and promote emancipation”. Myers and Klein (2011, p. 25) have stated that:

[…] critical theorists advocate values such as open democracy, equal opportunity, or discursive ethics […] The goal is not just to reveal the current forms of domination, but to suggest how unwarranted uses of power might be overcome.

We agree with these researchers. More importantly, we believed when starting this study that a critical approach would enable us to achieve its aims, which concern the conditions for independent research about powerful organisations.

Data

We collected data from several sources. The sources consist of:

Public records: Public records from agencies/government bodies were used. These included emails between researchers, emails between researchers and the police, and other public records from the police.

Reports and media: We used a large number of research studies and reports about the Swedish Police. The receptions of these studies from the police, such as official and unofficial statements in media and on the police’s webpages, were included in the dataset. Additionally, we used the internet to identify researchers who had made critical public statements about the Swedish Police, and researchers who had mitigated critique. These media statements and research reports are also included in the dataset.

Interviews with researchers: Seven semi-structured interviews were conducted with all Swedish researchers who have had experience of publicly challenging the Swedish Police’s brand on several occasions. We asked about their perception and experiences of making such challenges. Three further researchers were interviewed who had been employed by the police or another Swedish government agency conducting research on the police. Two of these had criticized the police and one had not. These ten researchers met the requirement of having extensive postdoctoral research experience of researching the police. Nine of these interviews were conducted by telephone, and one by email.

Research process and selection of data sample

We used an iterative research process, in which an analysis of the data collected was used to determine whether there was a need for more data collection. In the initial data collection and analysis, we intended to answer the research questions using our own field notes and by referring to research reports, statements from both researchers and the police, media reports and public records to which we had access, such as emails to and from employees in governmental organisations. We decided to supplement this material with interviews with researchers who have presented extensive criticism of the police. In the following, we describe how the research process developed, the selection of the data sample in this process, and the nature of the data that were used for analysis.

Google searches using several search terms were used for two main purposes. Firstly, this identified media articles in which researchers challenged the police’s brand, and secondly, it gave us the names of researchers to contact for interviews. Furthermore, we sought articles by specific researchers who we believed to have written articles critical of the police, while being unsure of the extent of criticism. Details of these searches have been anonymised to ensure confidentiality. We defined “challenging the brand” as presenting criticism that described structural problems for which the police is the problem‑owner. This meant that we excluded criticism such as pointing out that the police need more resources, that they need help from others in society to solve a problem, and that they need new laws. In the same way, we did not define statements as “challenging” if they were formulated in a way that presented the police in a positive manner, such as reports that the police are on their way to solving a problem, and that they are using (or are about to use) new tactics or methods to improve police work (see Holgersson, 2014). We defined “several times” as three or more different cases of challenging criticism. The same criticism presented in different media articles or in different channels was calculated as one case.

The search resulted in nearly 1000 media articles. Of these, many were excluded because the person criticising the police was not a researcher, or the critique did not challenge the police’s brand. The remaining articles were qualitatively analysed. This data gave information of the manner and content of the challenge to the police’s brand. In this analysis, we also identified researchers who had expressed themselves in ways that mitigated critique of the police’s brand. Reports and research connected to these researchers were also read, and compared with the statements in the press. Questions guiding this phase of analysis were: are the report and the statements in press compatible, and on what scientific grounds are the critique or the mitigation of critique based? In this analysis, we classified the type of criticism and calculated how many times it had been published. In summary, these media records and reports written by researchers were used in the analysis to gain a broad understanding of how the independence of researchers can be challenged when conducting research on powerful organisations. This data sample is used to provide various examples of this phenomenon, and we do not claim that it illustrates the full variation in terms of generalisation (Larsson, 2009).

In this data search, over 50 researchers who had expressed criticism of the police were identified. Forty-two of these researchers did not fulfil the criteria for inclusion in the sample, since they had not challenged the brand, or had challenged it only once. Eight of the 50 researchers were included in the analysis, having criticized the police several times in the media in a way that had challenged its brand. The purpose of this selection was to ensure greater reliability and provide additional perspectives on the research questions – since they deal specifically with reasons that prevent researchers challenging the police’s brand, and the description of how researchers can act when their results do so. One of the authors of this article was among the eight researchers who had challenged the police brand several times. We interviewed the other seven researchers who fell into this category (referred below as “Researchers A-G”).

In order to develop the dataset and collect more data, we attempted to interview other researchers with extensive postdoctoral experience of researching the police. We identified six researchers who fulfilled these criteria. Three of these researchers had presented criticism of the police of various degrees of severity, and three of them had not. Of these six, we interviewed two, and one sent answers via email (Researchers H-J). Two of these had criticized the police and one had not. The remaining three were not interviewed: one could not be contacted, and two declined to participate. They responded to our email in a way that clearly indicated that they declined to participate for reasons that were in line with the answers given by other researchers who were interviewed in this study.

The data from the different sources did not differ qualitatively concerning content. It is true that we initially found a difference in that in the results from the media search we came across researchers who stated that criticising the police was not a problem and that the police were open to research. However, when we analysed this further it became clear that these researchers had not challenged the brand. Although the dataset does not contain any conflicting ideas, the interviews generated data on motivation, and included explanations from researchers that the public records lacked.

Ethical considerations

The organisation addressed in this study is not anonymous. The names of the officials involved are not mentioned in the paper, but sometimes figures in these organisations are so visible that it is not possible to protect their identity (Pettigrew, 1997). The public records, research reports and media articles that we have used are all freely available, and it was not necessary to obtain the author’s consent to use these. All participants who were interviewed were informed about the purpose of the study, and all gave their consent. They were offered the opportunity to read through and revise their statements, and have given their consent to publication. Several informants stated that they could be named in the study, but we decided not to provide the name of any participant, in order to enhance and secure the confidentiality of all participants. This includes the lack of explicit references to statements and reports presented by various researchers. We concluded that the confidentiality of the individual is more important than the opportunity for the police to defend itself. However, it is still possible for the police to respond to the general results of the study. It is a major disadvantage for the transparency and validity of the study not to be able to support the examples we give with references. We have, however, concluded that the benefits of identifying individual researchers are not sufficiently large to justify this breach of anonymity.

Findings

The first section focuses on researchers’ experiences and reasons for not challenging the police’s brand, and what they consider may be possible outcomes for researchers who do challenge it. This section deals in detail with material that has emerged in interviews with the researchers, and includes other data, such as email, statistics, governmental decisions, governmental reports and other types of public records.

The second section focuses on how researchers can act in order not to challenge the police’s brand, and describes how researchers avoid challenging or even contributing to a challenge of the branding of the police. This section contains information from interviews with researchers, together with large quantities of data from other sources, such as public records, research reports, and media statements from researchers, both those who have been interviewed and those who have not been interviewed.

Reasons for not challenging the police’s brand

How researchers can act in order to avoid challenging the police’s brand

Researchers face choices in how to act in order to avoid challenging the police’s brand. We have identified two main strategies for researchers to avoid challenging the police’s brand: to avoid engaging in critical research, and to contribute to a positive branding of the police. These findings derive from several sources of data that include statements from interviewed researchers and statements from researchers found in research reports, media statements and public records.

Discussion

Bayley (2015) showed that police organisations have not been the source of significant reform ideas in the past 50 years of police research. Bayley’s finding is not surprising. It is important for public organisations, such as the police, to promote an image of a well-functioning organisation that can be trusted (e.g. Davies, 2016; Holmberg, 2014; 2015; Punch, 2015). When an organisation has a strong desire to ‘look good’, there is a risk that significant problems will be hidden or played down, and therefore remain undealt with (e.g. Miceli, Near & Schwenk, 1991). The concerns raised in public by scholars can, therefore, seem to be a natural consequence – that an increasingly collaborative policing research can have an impact on research independence and the ability to take a critical perspective on particular police practices (Bayley, 2015; Davies, 2015; Holmberg, 2014; 2015; Reiner, 2012). The findings presented here confirm that their worries are well‑grounded. When powerful organisations, such as the police, place more emphasis and invest more resources in branding than before (cf. Forsell & Ivarsson Westerberg, 2014; Holgersson, 2014), we can expect that the strain on research independence and integrity will be intensified.

If an organisation is receptive towards research results, there is less need for researchers to make their criticism public. At the same time, research on police culture and management addresses the importance that researchers create a pressure for change, in order for the police to develop in a desired manner (Andersson-Arntén, 2013; Andersson-Arntén, Jansson, Olsen & Archer, 2017; Brante, Johnsson, Olofsson & Svensson, 2015; Wieslander, 2016). However, the work presented here indicates that researchers who have repeatedly challenged the police’s brand share similar experiences and perceptions: publishing critical results may result in several disadvantages for the researcher, and obstacles to future research. This confirms previous results (Davies, 2015; Holmberg, 2014; 2015, Reiner, 2012).

A researcher relies not only on his or her own experiences when carrying out research, but also on those of other researchers. Researchers become aware of conditions and potential consequences as they share experiences in networks. The results presented here focus on the reasons given by researchers that they refrain from challenging the police’s brand, but the police may also be aided by researchers in promoting and enhancing the police as a strong and positive brand. We have also given some examples of this.

Holmberg (2015, p. 55) asks whether research integrity and independence can be maintained in an environment of this kind. The results presented here suggest that there is a need to increase and sustain opportunities for independent research, where funding is granted by independent research councils, and where the effects of an agency’s desire for branding are minimised. This is not only in the interest of the research community and the public good, but also of the police. Independent research can not only provide legitimacy and increase trust, but also contribute to the development of an efficient organisation. Either way, independent research (even with critical results) can, and maybe should, become a more significant part of an organisation’s strategic branding, thus providing an image of an organisation that develops according to scientific standards.

The findings in this study reinforce arguments from scholars “to bring political economy and ethical critique back into academic policing debate” (Reiner, 2012, p. 107) and to explore critical questions about the underlying motives of the research (Davies, 2016, p. 163).We agree with the warnings given by Davies (2016) that shortcomings in researchers’ independence and integrity corrode trust in police research as a whole (see also Reiner, 2012). The effect for the police can be the same in a long-term perspective. However, if an organisation wishes to create positive images in a short-term perspective, it can be tempting for it to put pressures onto researchers that interfere with the researcher’s independence and integrity. We will therefore add our voice to those, such as Enterno and Silverman (2012), Holgersson (2014; 2015) and Rennstam (2013), who have pointed at the importance of a more comprehensive debate about branding within the police.

Conclusions

In order to develop an organisation, it is vital that significant problems are not hidden or played down (e.g. Miceli, Near & Schwenk, 1991). It is, therefore, important to carry out research that identifies and describes problems. However, governmental authorities, such as the police, are also influenced by an increased emphasis on value branding (Forsell & Ivarsson Westerberg, 2014). This concerns various image‑promoting processes intended to make an organisation look good (Alvesson, 2013a; 2013b), rather than to address institutional obstacles and problems (Eterno & Silverman, 2012; Holgersson, 2014; Holmberg, 2015; Rennstam, 2013).

It is central to ethical procedures that research results are presented objectively and without any influence from stakeholders (Swedish Research Council, 2017). Organisational branding whose immediate aim is to create positive images of an organisation might challenge the independence and integrity of researchers.

We have identified two central factors that put researchers into difficult situations. Firstly, pressure is increasing for the police to maintain a positive brand and, secondly, acceptance of internal and external whistleblowing is low (see also Holgersson, 2019; Wieslander 2016; 2018). Researchers describe how the prospects for conducting research within the Swedish Police have worsened in recent years. They describe also how they have been questioned about the research design and their credibility, and how they are forced to carry out self-censorship – especially researchers employed by the police. Similar reports have been made concerning researchers who study the National Danish Police (Holmberg, 2014; 2015). Results that are likely to negatively affect the police’s brand have been publicly dismissed as dead or bad research by police supervisors. Data suggest that police supervisors have adjusted, toned down and deleted the results of “problematic” reports. Some researchers state that it is not only their research that has been questioned: criticism has also been made on a personal level.

This article has identified several reasons that cause researchers to refrain from challenging the police’s brand, based on data from several sources, such as interviews with researchers who have presented critical research results, and an examination of the way in which critical research is presented in the media. The reasons identified are: the existence of a suppressive research climate for critical research on the police; the perceived risk of negative reactions from the police; and the fear of decreased possibilities for further research, as a result of, for example, decreased funding, decreased chances of employment, and denial of access in the field. The article also suggests that researchers can react to these circumstances in several ways. Naturally, the reasons for the reluctance to challenge the police’s brand are intertwined with the actions taken by researchers to avoid challenging the brand. Examples of these actions are an avoidance of (open) collaboration with researchers who present critical results, and an avoidance of undertaking critical research. Researchers may also contribute to the positive branding of the police by being representatives for expert-shopping, by adjusting reports or toning down criticism in reports and public statements, and by giving legitimacy to police work by appearing as a guarantor for good police work, or at least as a guarantor that the work is improving.