New international drug use stats

For years everybody has been citing the same good but somewhat dated stats on comparative drug use in the U.S. and other countries (I know because I did so in my book).

Well, while I was busy visiting family and friends in Amsterdam last week, a new study was released (in conjunction with the World Health Organization) that updates drug use stats in 17 countries. At first glance, it seems that nothing big has changed in the past 7 years. Here's the main table.

Guess what? Good news for all the red, white, and blue flag wavers! U.S.A.! We're number 1! We're number 1! In illegal drug use.

No country comes close to use in cocaine use. And only one country comes close in marijuana: New Zealand. For some reason, that's not a surprise to me.

In the name of research

The man behind the famous Stanford Prison Experiment, Dr. Phillip Zimbardo, is examining how people view altruism and heroism. Help his research by completing an online questionnaire at http://www.socialpsychresearch.org.

There are six screens of questions (I hate when they don't tell you when it will end). It takes about 10 min. What do you get out of it? Well, nothing perhaps. But in the end I enjoyed thinking about the differences between heroism and altruism.

And I promise you won't get locked up.

A night of fieldwork in Amsterdam

I often wonder why anybody would prefer to crunch numbers than do fun qualitative research.

I'm in Amsterdam right now. I made contact with and successfully gained access to my desired police station tonight (to make a long story short).

I want to compare the attitude toward drugs of Baltimore and Amsterdam police officers. These attitudes are very different. Even the most conservative of Dutch cops thinks that people should be able to purchase and smoke weed in “coffee shops.” No Dutch cop thinks that drug users should rot in prison. Most Dutch cops think that punishment needs to be harsher for dealers of “hard drugs” (crack and heroin).

I meet the chief. He is both friendly and smart. And welcoming to an outside American research he doesn't know. I interview him and some of his main men. Then I ask to talk to some low-level cops, doing the kind of work I did. I am passed around to various police officers and interview them all.

As a cop, I’m impressed with the free coffee machine. It makes much better coffee than the machines they used to have when I did research here 10 years ago in de Pijp.

Next to the coffee machines is a box of free sandwiches. While the cop in me loves free food. I pass on the broodjes. I think it’s strange that the police here make such an effort to keep cops from taking free food outside the police station that they prefer the cops to eat and drink without leaving the police station. Is that a victory?

One police officer asks me if I want to join some plain-clothes officers on their patrol of the Red Light District. Sure, I say. So I do.

The big problem of the area is not drug use or prostitution. Prostitution is legal here. Marijuana and hash can be legally bought in any of many legal “coffee shops.” The big problem of the vice-filled center in this city of sin is, get this, fake-drug dealers.

People who stand on bridges trying to get stupid tourists to buy drugs. Except they don't have drugs. And they might take you into an alley and rob you. It's not much of a crime here to sell baking soda. So it's hard to get rid of these guys. And they really are a terrible P.R. problem for Amsterdam.

So many tourists come here and think, "This city is so overrun with drugs. I mean, there's a drug dealer standing on every corner!" There's not a drug dealer on every corner. But there is a man trying to sell you fake drugs on most bridges in this very small part of the city where all the tourists walk around to do their vice-related slumming tour. (Can you imagine if Baltimore’s Eastern District was a tourist attraction... and it was perceived to represent the whole city?)

These cops, a man and a women, have been on this detail for three months. So all the bad guys know them, uniform or not.
You can see this as the guys look down and slink away when they see the plain-clothed police.

So the cops ask me to walk in front of them so people would proposition me (really, I'm not well known in the Red Light District). So I do. It's raining for the first time in days, so the streets are relatively empty. But after maybe 1/2 an hour, I walk by a man.
He says, "Cocaine?"
I say, "What?"
He says, "You want to buy cocaine, heroine, ecstasy?"
That’s it. That’s what they need for the arrest.
I say, "How much?"
He says, "Follow me."
I say, "No thanks." And, using our pre-arranged sign, I take off my hat. I walk away. The officers, close behind and in listening range, make the arrest.

This is such small-scale stuff for a Baltimore cop. But it’s been years since I’ve been part of the action. Hell, I never even worked plain-clothes. My heart is beating fast as I enjoy the small surge of adrenaline. It’s fun to be back in the game, even if in a very small way.

These cops have arrested this guy before. He is walked (rather freely, in my opinion) back to the police station. He is treated very politely and very humanly.


The prisoner is guilty of the very minor crime of offering (non) drugs. That’s a 150 euro fine. But he doesn’t have any real drugs on him, except his prescription meds. But he’s also guilty of violating his 3-month banishment order (issued four days ago) for the same crime. By law, he must stay out of the city center. Yes, in Europe, you can still be banished. Now he’ll get (re)offered a place to sleep and social help.

Unlike American police, most Dutch police are happy to offer social help.
“Really? Is that real police work?” I asked.
“Yes, because it helps solve the problem.... Isn’t it better to prevent a crime than make an arrest?” I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Brave ethnographic confession from Cop in the Hood

Professor Corey J. Colyer of West Virginia University sent me the following email:

Peter,

This note is motivated by a remark you make about your methods in the first chapter of Cop in the Hood. It is rare (and therefore refreshing) to see an ethnographer admit that they failed to capture details in their notes. We get tired, overwhelmed, and even bored in our efforts to craft moderately complete ethnographic records. The bulk of the methods literature (in my humble opinion) unrealistically frames the good ethnographer as a tireless scribe, who dutifully returns to the desk after a long day in the field to generate thousands of pages of notes. This leads to what I describe as "ethnographer's guilt" and worries of being a fraud. I've never measured up to this model and it's nice to see someone as talented as yourself admit to this as well. [By that I mean, you seem to more than adequately support your assertions with rich ethnographic detail]. I suppose it makes me feel less like a fraud as I return to my manuscript this morning.

I'll sharing that section of your first chapter with my graduate level methods class next Monday.

With respect,
Corey

Corey J. Colyer, PhD
Assistant Professor
Division of Sociology
School of Applied Social Sciences
West Virginia University
PO Box 6326
Morgantown, WV 26506-6326

Hate mail (2.4)

The latest from my conservative friend:

Prof Moskos;

Lets get real. Legalize drugs? Just look at alcohol. 21 years olds buy it give it to younger friends, who give it to even younger friends and now we have many 12 year old alcoholics in this country. Multiply that with narcotic addiction and see what the fabric of this country looks like then. Who will be trainable to fly the F22 raptor? Some coke head like Obama..... And lets be realistic.. What is so bad about drug dealers killing each other..?

As far as I'm concerned that is a win-win situation.

Now to your premise about liberals not ruining Police Depts.... In the past Baltimore had one of the best Homicide squads in the Nation. Their clearance rate was over 90%.

Then came the downfall " Affirmative Action" every liberals dream.

Good street smart homicide detectives were unceremoniously removed from homicide and put back in uniform. They were replaced with rookie, black, officers with little or no experience, just to appease the Gods of P.C.

Now the clearance rate is somewhere around 40% and homicides are up.

Please explain how this liberal move has made Baltimore a safer place to live.

Baltimore now has a new nickname which is known all over the East coast: " The City that Bleeds".

When I was a kid in the 40's and 50's you could sleep in Patterson Park on hot nights.

Try it now... if you dare....

Again about education. I have a daughter-in-law with a masters my son had 3 years college, and my family is conservative. Mostly because of family values and the fact that my son and his wife went to a Moderate school. There were no Ward Churchills teaching there. I myself have some credits from a community college. I am not against education, I am against educators brainwashing students to be little socialists.

Kruschev once said "we will destroy you from within". That destruction starts with biased education.
Mark DeRosa Sgt ( ret) Balto P D

Hate mail (2.3)

I'm giving the sergeant a pseudonym, Sgt. Mark DeRosa. That’s not his real name. He is willing to use his real name and print his email. But I’d prefer to give him a pseudonym and not print his email.

I wrote:

Sgt. DeRosa,

I also want you to know that I am and will continue to post our correspondence on www.copinthehood.com. I'm not identifying you in any way, other than retired BCPD sgt.

Yours,
Professor Peter Moskos
Dept. of Law and Police Science
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
899 10th Ave, Room 422
New York, NY 10019

Sgt [DeRosa] writes:

Feel free to post my name and address if you wish [Ed note: I do not wish. But I admire his willingness.] . I am a proud conservative and vote that way every election. I distrust any one who contends that "the police are the problem" in the ghetto. Those animals living there who rob "mostly their own" are the problem. I totally distrust any one who contends that drugs should be legalized. Hell, why not legalize bank robbery & rape, then we could lay all the police off as there would be no crimes to arrest for. Then we would have more money to give to those who chose not to work for a living.

Liberalism has ruined Police Depts all across this country. It has begun to ruin the whole country as well.

As for me I will not sing "Kum-by-ya.", I will keep my powder dry, my guns loaded, and my picture of Charlton Heston dusted. I will never be a victim because some liberal thinks I should be. Further more, I do not have a problem with your PHD, just the way educators use it to impress liberal views on young kids who are paying a fortune to be turned into future liberal activists. It is a statistical fact that 90% of professors are left wingers. Surveys that were taken prove this, as the intelligencia has admitted it. Ward Churchill is a perfect example. Teach if you wish, but teach the truth, not the truth as you wish it to be.
[Mark DeRosa] Sgt (ret) BCPD

My response:

[Sgt DeRosa],

The police are not the problem. I agree. Again, I wish you would read my book. You’ve taken me for some cop-bashing liberal. I’m not (well, I am liberal. But I’m not a cop basher. Believe it or not, those are two different things).

I do think drugs should be legalized. Basically because I don't think drug dealers wouldn't shoot each other as much if drugs were legal. There's more, but I’m not going to type my reasoning again here. It’s in the book.

I think you misunderstand Liberalism. I’m not saying there aren’t any stupid and intolerant liberal. There are. Just like exists among conservatives. I feel I do teach the truth. Sometimes the truth is Liberal. Sometimes the truth is Conservative. You know what liberals and conservatives have in common? When they know that they're always right and think less of those who hold other opinions, they become one and the same thing: fascist.

But no, I don’t think Liberalism has ruined Police Departments. I think Liberalism has made policing and the country better. I also think that police should reflect, to some extent, the people they police. So personally, being liberal and living in a liberal area, I’d prefer to have more liberal cops. I think the streets would be safer.

I appreciate you not hating me for having a college degree. I’m sorry you’re against higher education in general because of the generally liberal bias. But that's why you take many professors, to hear all different perspectives.

Peter

A sociology dissertation thesis?

Feel free to steal this idea:

For centuries, the Netherlands has tried to "normalize" their society. While it may have worked in the past, today "normalization" is killing Amsterdam. What makes Amsterdam great and unique, is that it isn't a "normal" city.

In Holland, they have a different idea of democracy. The mayor of Amsterdam isn't even an elected position. He's appointed. Imagine if George Bush appointed the mayor of New York City.

Hate mail (2.2)

This conversation starts a few posts down. Here's the latest:

I have read excerpts from your "book" and frankly sir, "YOU HAVE NOT PAID ENOUGH DUES TO BE CONVERSANT IN POLICE WORK". I think that your PHD impresses only you. It certainly does not impress me. As a Sgt, I had College grads working for me ( I am not one myself) and had to correct their misspelled, mispunctuated, sloppy, reports. It was laughable. One such " Grad" lost a $100 bet to me because he was so convinced that construction 'Site' was spelled "sight".
You sound like the usual liberal Academia, which has been the problem, not the solution to the type of recruits the Dept is getting.
I do not know which years you were on the dept, but I started in 62' when there were no walkie talkies, mace, issued handcuffs, and you had to WALK an arrestee blocks to get to a call box. Not to mention 60 year old .38 cal revolvers with ammo that you could actually see the bullet fly when you fired them.
P.S. I worked in the Eastern District for 4 years as a Sgt and it was a busy district, but not the combat zone you describe. Of course I had Officers working for me that were tough, street smart cops who did not have to resort to sociology to get the job done.
Before one "talks the talk", they should have "walked the walk"
I don't think you should be expecting "Pulitzer" to be calling soon.
[name removed] Sgt ( ret) BCPD..

My response:

Sgt [******],
First of all, I appreciate you writing me with the dignity of a full name and an email. I will talk to any man, man-to-man. I respect that.

But again, you seem to be reading too much into me without knowing me.

I never say police should be college grads (which seems to be your sore point). Just please don't hold it against me for having a PhD. It doesn't make me a worse person. Really. And it does allow me to get a great job teaching in college.

My book stands on my analysis and description of policing, not my degree.

You were real po-lice. Actually, if anything, my point is that we need more police like you. Police should be able to police like you did: no radio, no mace, and walking prisoners back to the District. I'm not making fun of you. I'm totally serious. You knew how to make a good arrest and walk that prisoner back without getting your ass kicked. It's not [that you] coddled bad guys. I'm sure you didn't. But you were able to gain the respect of people you policed because you knew who the bad guys were. That's what policing is all about. That's what may be lacking today. That's my point! But of course you don't know my point. You just think I'm a prick with a college degree. If you still think that after reading my book, that's your business.

You might actually find that we have a lot in common. I don't know what else to say. If you don't read my book, I have nothing else to say. I don't want to waste my time writing what is in my book. I mean, I've already written it. That's my book.

I'm politically liberal and I'm sure you're politically conservative. But we're probably less far off in our beliefs than you want to think.

One other question. I'm not telling, I'm asking... but I don't think the E.D. was a combat zone when you were patrolling it. Probably because you were doing a good job. I think the worst years were in the late 1980s and late 1990s.

Yours,
Professor Peter Moskos
Dept. of Law and Police Science
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
899 10th Ave, Room 422
New York, NY 10019
www.copinthehood.com

Hate mail (2.1)

Here's another. Once again, I can't take criticism too seriously from people who haven't read my book. I haven't yet heard anything bad from anybody who has actually read my book. But I'm sure that will come, too. In the meantime:

While I have not read your book, and don't intend to I have a question for you. How do you become such an expert on Police work and functions. Keeping in mind that you had to work one full year on each shift in your vast 3 year tenure. You only had one years experience on 4X12 shift where most of the action occurs. Day shift is boring and 12X8 shift is usually quiet after 3 AM.
You sure crammed alot in that one year of 4X12 combat.
I spent 25 yrs plus on the BCPD and keep company with police who have experiences in the 30-35 year range, some of them command staff.
They as well as I, do not "consider" ourselves experts, just experienced.
Good luck with the "book" rookie. Keep telling those war stories, someone might buy that bull.
[*** *******] Sgt (ret) BCPD

My reply:

Sgt. [*******],

Why so bitter? Because I only worked 20 months? Or because I wrote a book? I make no apologies for either.

A lot of your questions are answered in the book (I worked midnights, by the way). You really shouldn't be so critical of somebody for writing something you haven't read. It's not a long book.

I never called myself an expert. I don't consider myself an expert in the sense that I know more than anybody else who's worn the uniform. Given my 20-and-out (months, that is), I know less than any retired Baltimore City police officer. I have less experience that 80% of active police officers. I just call 'em like I see 'em.

People are and should be interested in policing. If more experienced police officers could and would write books about the job, there wouldn't be a need for my book. Why don't you write a book? Maybe then police officers would be treated with more respect. What are your ideas about how to improve policing? Now that you're retired, what have you done to make policing better? I've spent the past 7 years writing and working toward this book. I hope my book will improve the working conditions for all police officers, but especially police in the Eastern District.

If you want to judge me, first read my book. Or talk to somebody who has. Or at least talk to somebody who worked with me. They're not hard to track down. Get Cop in the Hood from the library to save that gigantic $1.50 royalty from paying off my meager advance.

Yours,
Professor Peter Moskos
Dept. of Law and Police Science
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
899 10th Ave, Room 422
New York, NY 10019
www.copinthehood.com

The raw excitment of criminal-justice

I was interviewed tonight by a good writer from a prominent local magazine. I ate and drank very well, thank you very much.

It was a nice chat. Toward the end, I was asked a softball question and couldn’t really make contact. “What’s the most exciting thing happening right now in the criminal justice field right?” I couldn’t really think of a good answer (other than my book, of course). That probably says more about me than it does about the field. But the field is somewhat to blame.

Biking home, I thought about this. One "proper" answer is the field of reentry. All those millions of people locked up are going to get out. What are we, as society, going to do about them? Answer: probably nothing. But there is lots of good stuff going on in field of reentry. But that's not really my field.

As for police-related research, I think the most exciting research is yet to be done. There are some people in the field doing interesting hands-on research (Venkatesh comes immediately to mind). But the bulk of researchers generally do out-of-touch quantitative work. There's more to the real world than statistically significant correlations.

I think there's more thought-provoking and real-world value in the average Malcolm Gladwell New Yorker article than there is in the average article in American Journal of Sociology. That's a shame.

Why aren't academics examining the merits of foot patrol? Why aren't academics more interested in the field of police discretion? Why aren't more professors really studying why the murder rate went down, what can we do to lower it more, and how can we keep it down? Why aren't more sociologists doing research that actually involves talking to people? Why aren't more professors interested in police and crime prevention? The general public certainly is. I don't have the answers.

Against Prediction

My book review of Bernard Harcourt's, Against Prediction, was just published in the American Journal of Sociology. You can read it here.

Criminal Justice Journalists

One of the best resources to stay on top of current police and criminal-justice news is a daily email from Criminal Justice Journalists. They're not exactly a secret, but most people don't know about it and everybody should.

Bookmark them or give them your email and they'll send you one e-mail every weekday (and nothing else and no spam). You get the headline from various stories and beneath that the first paragraph and a link to the full story. It's an essential part of my day, and not just because it gives the illusion I read every paper in the country.

Here's a sample of the headlines from Friday:

February 15, 2008
In This Issue
-- Prison Student Kills Six, Himself, At Northern Illinois University
-- Student Group Presses To Allow Self-Defense Guns On Campus
-- WA Crime Lab Director Quits After Charges Of Sloppy Work, Fraud
-- Houston To Offer $12,000 Cadet Bonus; Union Critical
-- Big Medical Group Seeks End Of Federal Marijuana Ban
-- Austin Sheriff Criticized For Letting Feds Set Up Office In Jail
-- N.C. Leaders Seek Funds To Pay For Sex Assault Victim Tests
-- Minneapolis Newspaper Finds 83 Sealed U.S. Criminal Court Cases
-- New Orleans Mayor Criticizes Media Over Gun Photo
-- Utah Police Seek To Block Public Access To Disciplinary Files
-- TV-Decency Group Protests CBS Show On Killer Forensic Expert
-- St. Louis-Area Chief Accused Of Deleting Database Arrest Record

More on IRBs

Fair warning:
If you’re not interested in Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)--and there’s no reason you should be--you should probably just skip this whole post.

Brief background: Federal regulations require IRB approval is required for all professors’ research on people. Since 1991 (I just learned this from Shrag’s blog), IRB approval was expanded to cover, among others things, participant-observation research (that’s what I do, with an emphasis on participant). You want to interview or observe somebody? You need IRB approval first. The purpose of the IRB is to protect research subjects. There’s a bit too much history about scientists doing bad things.

Professor Zachary Schrag, a man who keeps a blog about Institutional Review Boards, left me an interesting comment in regards to a previous post:

It's quite possible that an inept IRB would have blocked Venkatesh's research. But Venkatesh, by his own admission, "f[oul]ed up" by passing on information that people meant to tell him in confidence. So it is also possible that an adept IRB would have permitted the research while mitigating the harm. Not likely, perhaps, but possible.

Rather than deal in such speculations, I hope you will elaborate on your own experiences with IRBs that led you to distrust them.

I don’t distrust IRBs. My practical experiences have been more or less favorable. I just fundamentally question the very notion of needing IRB approval for non-experimental social-science research on capable adults. And I firmly believe that the simple nuisance and fear of conflict with an IRB limit social-science research.

But first let me deal in some speculations:

Not only do I think an IRB wouldn’t approve Venkatesh’s research. I don’t think an IRB doing its role of protecting research subjects should approve Venkatesh’s research. The risk of some harm from his research was so great as to be virtually inevitable. But I think Venkatesh should do his research, and hence my problem with the IRB in general.

I read one review of Venkatesh's book that went so far as to to use the word “evil.” I don't think it is. With regards to potentially violating protection of research subjects, I would draw the line between malum in se and mala prohibita. In other words: drug dealing OK, murder not. I don’t think Venkatesh crosses this line. But for Sudhir’s sake, I’m glad nobody shot somebody while exclaiming, “Am I going to make your book now, Mr. Professor?! Is this what you want?!”

While in theory the IRB could have mitigated harm in Venkatesh’s case, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where this would actually happen. I’ve never heard of an IRB with follow-up. Thus the IRB, while failing in its basic mission, still managing to hinder good qualitative research.

Too often, the quantitative researcher’s goal becomes how to outwit the IRB. I know of many good researchers and otherwise ethical people who admit to lying and deceit when it comes to the IRB. They feel, rightly or wrongly, that such deceit is necessary for research in their field to survive.

For my book's research, I honestly don’t remember or have a copy of what I gave to Harvard's IRB ten years ago. I know it took three of four drafts and I agreed to make an announcement on day one of the academy stating who I was. It was good to be forced to make this announcement as it wasn’t easy to make (so thanks, IRB). That being said, I also didn’t want to remind my classmates every hour that they were being watched by a researcher. Is this ethical? I think so. My point was to be honest and overt. And I was. But I think I was supposed to post something that never got posted.

I never got IRB approval for my switch in research plans when I actually had to get hired as a police officer. Between the heat from the P.D. brass disallowing my original research plan (for not being a cop) and the heat from my dissertation adviser for my new research plan (for being a cop), well, I had other priorities.

Alas, my fear of preserving confidentiality and protecting my research subjects went so far that I didn't leave any way to link specific people at different times to their actions and quotes. What if I get subpoenad(?!), I thought. This was a mistake. I could have written a better book if I had characters. I would have, if it weren’t for the IRB.

My own experiences with John Jay College's IRB have been pretty good. But there are still problems:

1) The line between doing research and not doing research is not as clear cut as the IRB want to believe. My book is done. I’m no longer doing research for it. But when a friend calls or writes, I’m still going to note information for my records. Am I supposed to get IRB approval before going to a Bull Roast? Am I to stop going to Baltimore now that my “research” is complete? Am I to ignore everything I see and do since I don’t have IRB approval?

2) Signed consent forms are simply impossible in police research. First of all, cops won’t sign them. Second, the social situation is flux. You arrive on a scene and officers come and go. Are you supposed to ask every arriving officer for signature? If signed consent forms were required and if this requirement were actually enforced, qualitative police research would simply end. Researchers who say they’re going to get signed consent forms from police officers are lying. Yet IRBs love signed consent forms. It’s like court overtime pay is for police. Just give ’em some and they’re happy.

3) IRBs want a guarantee of confidentiality. I won’t do that unconditionally. Luckily, Baltimore police behave pretty well, at least within the bounds of reason.

For those interested (and you might be if you’ve read this far), I’ll include the more original parts of my successful IRB submissions for approval without signed consent forms and without unconditional guarantees of confidentiality. And they said it couldn’t be done.

Requiring a signed consent form from every research subject would so limit my participant-observation research as to effectively kill it. Given the fluid nature of social interactions in a police station, it is not possible to have every police officer who enters a room or call for service to read, understand, and sign a consent form. My research methods are overt, but informal. While the bulk of police officers will be familiar with me and my research, it is inevitable that I will see and hear police officers who initially will not know who I am. Such confusion is usually clarified immediately by asking me or another police officer.

My research is confidential and offers minimal, if any, risk to police officers.

Police officers are not normally considered an “at-risk” group (quite the contrary, police officers are often seen as the group that places marginalized people at risk). Given the constant risk of observation by their supervisors, the public, the media, and internal affairs, an outside researcher who promises confidentiality present little risk. Police officers are used to being on-guard around people they do not know.
...
A Note on Criminal Behavior and Confidentiality

While IRB boards consider harms that may come to research subjects, the potential of research subjects harming others should not be ignored. Should a researcher remain quiet if confronted first-hand with research subjects who commit genocide, mass torture, or major war crimes? Of course not.

In reality, I do not expect to witness any war crimes. But I believe that in extreme cases, a researcher’s obligation as a human being come first. Were I to witness a police officer in severe violation of criminal law, I would have to weigh any promises of confidentiality with my moral and legal responsibility to do the right thing.

I would not violate confidentiality for violations of departmental regulation or even most criminal acts. In my years both as a police officer and as a researcher (often the two overlapped–I was a Harvard University graduate student researcher during my entire two-year tenure as a Baltimore City police officer), I have never participated in nor witnessed an act that would make me consider violating confidentiality.

But if, hypothetically, I witnessed a police officer rob and kill, or sexually abuse a 10-year-old child, or anally violate an innocent man with a plunger, I would feel little compunction legally and ethically to violate a vow of confidentiality. Of course the odds that I will witness such a scene are almost zero. I do not expect such a situation to occur. But I and the IRB must be aware that the possibility, however slight, exists.

I realize that it might facilitate approval of this project if I stated that all research subjects will sign consent forms and confidentiality would never be violated. But to pretend the former denies the reality of participant-observation research on police officers; to pretend the latter is morally irresponsible. I believe it is the combined duty of researchers and the IRB to promote ethical research and protect research subjects. This process begins with the presentation, discussion, and approval of an ethical and honest research proposal.

All researchers are free to use this for their own IRB submissions. I’m happy to try and help the field.

Outing the insiders

There’s a very interesting exchange on Slate.com between Sudhir Venkatesh and Alex Kotlowitz. These are two authors I respect deeply (and not just because Prof. Venkatesh was kind enough to offer to write a blurb for Cop in the Hood).

Their letters discuss the role of researchers vis-à-vis their research subjects. You should read all four.

I just finished reading Venkatesh’s Gang Leader for a Day. It’s a great book (and not just because Prof. Venkatesh was kind enough to write a blurb for Cop in the Hood)! I stayed up till 6am to finish it. Sudhir, as you may or may not know, got his hands on the books of a gang in Chicago. Like the actually financial books. With payments, employees, salaries. What a coup! He’s done great research in the old Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago. This book is the story of his research.

I’ve read two of Alex Kotlowitz’s books: There Are No Children Here and The Other Side of the River. They’re both great (and Mr. Kotlowitz didn’t write a blurb for my book). The former is about growing up Chicago projects and the latter about race and economic relations in St. Joseph and Benton Harbor, Michigan. He writes about cities and race honestly, fairly, and with great style.

In Gang Leader for a Day, Venkatesh arguably does some harm to his research subjects. This is a big no-no in the world of academic research. Venkatesh has gotten some flack for kicking a man who was in the process of getting a beat down. That doesn’t bother me, because in addition to arguably “deserving” the beat down, the man was attacking a friend of Venkatesh. More worrisome, at least to me, is Venkatesh taking part in business extortion and unintentionally “outing” the semi-legal hustles people use to get by in the projects.

Venkatesh could never have done his research if he had to go through a Human Subject Review Board (or I.R.B., Institutional Review Board). As a grad student, he somehow skirted this requirement. But I think the world would be a worse place without Venkatesh’s research. It’s good work and shame on the institution of I.R.B.s that wouldn’t allow it!

I’ve never been a fan of the I.R.B. Few professor are. I don’t think that overt non-experimental academic researchers should need approval to observe and interact with most human subjects. We’re not giving out experimental drugs. We’re not running experiments. We’re watching and talking and living. I don’t even like the term “human subjects.” It’s dehumanizing. They're people, damnit! It’s condescending to think that adults aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions about what to say to whom. And if they’re not, well, such is life.

Nor am I convinced that research subjects who harm others deserve institutional protection. I believe academics should act under a code similar to journalists. But federal law disagrees with me. And the press has explicit constitutional protection that professors don’t.

Kotlowitz, a journalist, doesn’t have to worry about I.R.B.s. But as human beings, both Venkatesh and Kotlowitz are naturally concerned about harms that may come from their presence. They both wonder about the obligation they have to their (poor) research subjects. Especially since they, the authors, are likely to benefit both financially and professionally.

Most research is done on the powerless and abused. In my study of police, I wasn’t dealing with what is traditionally considered an “at risk” group. If anything, police are considered by others to be powerful abusers! I wasn’t particularly concerned about my research “changing” my subjects. I want my research to change things for the better. I want a better police department and better policing.

But I had my concerns. What if I saw a Rodney King? What if I was asked to conspire in crimes? Should I stop my “research” and quit my job? Should I turn in other cops? Luckily, and hard as it is to for police-haters to imagine, I didn’t see any criminal or horrible police behavior (though I do think that somebody needs to keep better tabs on correctional officers—jail guards in particular).

Perhaps I’m underestimating the value of my Ivy League education, but I feel that any of my police colleagues could write a book as good as mine. Unfortunately they can’t write as well (and I give my public high-school English teachers more credit for that than Harvard or Princeton).

Researchers who “do” rather than just “watch” are always accused of not being “objective.” I’m not a big fan of objectivity. For starters, unless you’re a psychopath, I don’t think objectivity is possible. And even if it were, I’m not convinced it’s good. Too often objectivity is just a euphemism for ignorance. Objective outside research—that is to say, most research—runs the risk of being too ass-kissing and desperate, simply in an attempt to gain the access that naturally comes from an insider. Ethnography can’t and shouldn’t strive for the same level of scientific validity as found in the hard sciences. Ethnography isn’t chemistry.

What’s strange to me is the dearth of good social-science research on the police. I do think that it’s tougher to write about police officers than it is to write about gang members. You can write about who a gang member is, because there’s something more exotic there (at least to outsiders). The lives of people who go to work usually isn’t that interesting (so kudos to Ehrenreich for making it so). Workers provide for their families. I don’t think I have the writing skills to make a police officer interesting. But I do have the analytical skills to notice what police officers do. Luckily, what police do is often very interesting.

People also say police are closed to outsiders and hostile to researchers. That may be true, but only if you’re an outsider. Compared to Venkatesh befriending gang members, my becoming a police officer was a synch! And it’s very easy to become a police insider. They hire. And they even pay you.

You might say that my job as police officer was, to use Venkatesh’s language, a “hustle.” I used the police department to advance my academic career. I didn’t hide this fact. The Baltimore City Police Department knew this (and to their credit still hired me). Other police told me, “If you can use this job as a stepping stone to something better, more power to you.” I actually heard those exact words more than once. I had the luxury of being an insider.

If you’re studying the poor, or the working class, or prison guards, or restaurant workers, or taxi drivers, or drug dealers, you can simply become one or make friends with those who are. Maybe all groups aren’t open to outsiders, but most are. It’s human nature. The fact that most academics don’t even talk to the people they claim to study is either horrible class snobbery or a simple lack of cojones.

Cop in the Hood! All new material!! Plagiarism Free!!!

Well the second claim is true even if the first claim is a bit of an exaggeration.

For anybody who has ever turned a PhD dissertation into a book (uh, if you're reading this, odds are you have), you may wonder, just how different was my book from my dissertation. Hopefully a lot, because dissertations almost always suck.

My adviser, Orlando Patterson, was pretty good about letting me write my dissertation with the final book in mind. For one thing, that means my dissertation didn't have any statistical regressions. That's rare in sociology these days, at least at Harvard. But it's still a dissertation. Nobody fails to get a PhD because of passive verbs, or advising that more research is needed, or for having an extra chapter that should probably be cut.

Before my book gets set in type by a man who knows the printing press (I like to imagine Princeton University Press does things the old-fashioned way), I wanted to make sure my book is plagiarism free. Academics stay up at night worrying about things like that. And I'm talking about the ones who don't plagiarize. Given constant reworking, and all the things I've read, and my cut-and-pastes from a file of excerpts from books I've read, well it's easy to see how something could slip through. Or how I could read an idea and then come up with it on my own four days later. My family is famous for that. Half the time my brother says anything half intelligent I protest than I told him that, six months earlier. The other half of the time he read it in the Economist. Sometimes both. He doesn't care. Blood runs thicker than plagiarism.

Professors have the great resource of [lest they benefit from my praise, the name has been redacted by a cease-and-desist order from this company. They say I violated the licensing agreement by submitting my book.]. It's a plagiarism detection system on which I check all my students' papers. I haven't taught a single semester without failing at least one student for plagiarism. Sad but true, but that's for another post.

I submitted my book to [the company that wishes to remain unmentioned, despite my praise], just as I submitted my dissertation 3 years ago, to make sure it comes back clean. It did. If you exclude quotations (and I think it can only exclude some of those, because most of my quotes are long and without quotation marks), 25% of my book matches my dissertation. I think if you removed all the juicy quotes, it would go down to 15-20%. In other words, 75-85% of my book is new material, not in my dissertation in any form.

I don't know what the significance of that is or if the percentage is high or low. But I think it's interesting to know, and undoubtedly a credit to my great editor, Tim Sullivan. It's certainly great for the readability of my book.

The problems of ethnography peer review

Way back when, I submitted an article to a prominent ethnography journal. Time passed. Nothing happened. I submitted the article elsewhere. It was reviewed, accepted and published this past summer. Yesterday I received a reply from the journal. Rejection.

I have never been in the somewhat awkward a position to receive a rejection for a published article. (There were good reasons why the process was so delayed in this journal, related to an editor’s personal health).

But the rejections were striking. Three out of three people rejected the article. This article has been published in the peer-reviewed Law Enforcement Executive Forum. And it forms the basis for a chapter in my book. It's good enough ethnography for Princeton University Press but not, apparently, for this Journal. I couldn’t get over one of the rejections. It stated:

This is not appropriate submission for [the Journal]. I can’t see how in any shape or form that this is ethnography or has anything to do with ethnography.

This bothers me. My research is ethnographic. So I couldn’t help but write the editor, who did write back an understanding email. It’s not the editor's fault. The problem is the process of peer review, perhaps especially in what seems to be the self-limiting field of ethnography.

My book, Cop in the Hood, is coming out in May (Princeton University Press). It is, dare I say, an ethnography. Here's what I wrote:

I appreciate the comments and agree with many of the critical points. Perhaps the article isn't best for [the Journal]. The article is weak on theory. It is geared toward police policy and practice.

I have a few thoughts on my mind from reading the comments. I feel and hope that you and the journal may gain from my thoughts. Take them for what you will. Take them constructively and not as the ranting of a slighted academic. Again, the piece is published, so at some level it doesn't matter to me. But I care about ethnography.

All three reviewers harp on the fact that this isn’t your typical ethnography. That doesn’t strike me as bad. I know this piece is more policy-oriented, but I hope my research expands the field of ethnography slightly in that direction. It bothers me that a policy or real-world focus would be part of the grounds for rejection or exclusion from the field of ethnography. It bothers me when I see the peer-review process in this field so narrow-minded that it is unwilling to consider a piece that doesn't "fit the mold." Likewise it bothers me that ethnographers wouldn’t consider a piece that some numbers in it.

I know this article isn't the "typical" ethnographic piece. I am well aware of ethnographic theory and consider myself an ethnographer (what else could I consider myself given my research and writing based on two years of P.O. research?).

In my mind, and maybe I'm wrong, research that follows ethnographic methods *is* ethnography. The style of writing and the format of the paper should be issues to judge, but not litmus tests. Again, I understand there are legitimate reasons to reject this piece for the [Journal]. But for cryin’ out loud, ethnographers, have a more open mind about what counts as ethnography!

The comments from reviewer 2601 I think are the best (not the most positive, just the most useful comments). The comments from reviewer 2622 are also constructive. The comments from 2602 are, as you I'm sure know, useless. Please don't have this person review another piece for the journal. What an asshole. People like that who serve as gatekeepers really limit the field.

Why can’t ethnography combine qualitative and quantitative methods? Why can’t ethnography be more focused on policy than theory? Perhaps these issues would make a better article for [the Journal] than an analysis of 911 calls for police service. But for both for academic and political reasons, I would hope that ethnographers would be a little more open minded. Of all fields to be judgmental and closed minded... how ironic.


Yours,
Peter

Professor Peter Moskos
Dept. of Law and Police Science
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
899 10th Ave, Room 422
New York, NY 10019