Making Progress in the Chicago Police Department, 1862–2024

IF 2.8 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Tony Cheng, Johann Koehler
{"title":"Making Progress in the Chicago Police Department, 1862–2024","authors":"Tony Cheng, Johann Koehler","doi":"10.15195/v13.a17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Claims to have made progress are a mainstay of organizational reputation management. However, confusing and contradictory performance expectations can make progress difficult to locate among a police department’s priorities. A case study of the Chicago Police Department’s front-facing pronouncements over more than a century and a half clarifies how a bureaucracy works, stretches, and repackages “progress” to resolve those confusions and contradictions. We find that progress claims featured more prominently and fervently during moments when the department had reason to believe its legitimacy was threatened. Within that general pattern, we also find specific patterns in the form that progress claims took. We observe the stable reliance on two techniques to gesture toward progress the police either promised to enact or that it claimed it had already delivered: the police shifted goalposts by cycling through inconsistent measures of favorable performance from one year to the next, and they drummed crises to dramatize the obstacles that favorable performance required them to overcome. By showing how both techniques reinforced one another, we clarify how a police department “makes” progress.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v13.a17","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Claims to have made progress are a mainstay of organizational reputation management. However, confusing and contradictory performance expectations can make progress difficult to locate among a police department’s priorities. A case study of the Chicago Police Department’s front-facing pronouncements over more than a century and a half clarifies how a bureaucracy works, stretches, and repackages “progress” to resolve those confusions and contradictions. We find that progress claims featured more prominently and fervently during moments when the department had reason to believe its legitimacy was threatened. Within that general pattern, we also find specific patterns in the form that progress claims took. We observe the stable reliance on two techniques to gesture toward progress the police either promised to enact or that it claimed it had already delivered: the police shifted goalposts by cycling through inconsistent measures of favorable performance from one year to the next, and they drummed crises to dramatize the obstacles that favorable performance required them to overcome. By showing how both techniques reinforced one another, we clarify how a police department “makes” progress.
芝加哥警察局的进步,1862-2024
声称取得了进展是组织声誉管理的主要内容。然而,令人困惑和矛盾的绩效期望可能会使警察部门难以在优先事项中找到进展。一个对芝加哥警察局一个半世纪以来的正面声明的案例研究,阐明了官僚机构如何运作、延伸和重新包装“进步”,以解决这些困惑和矛盾。我们发现,在司法部有理由相信其合法性受到威胁的时刻,“进步”的说法显得更加突出和热烈。在一般模式中,我们还发现了进度声明所采用的形式的特定模式。我们观察到,警方稳定地依赖于两种技术来表示他们承诺实施或声称已经实现的进展:警方通过每年循环使用不一致的有利表现指标来改变目标,他们鼓吹危机,以戏剧化有利表现需要他们克服的障碍。通过展示这两种技术如何相互加强,我们阐明了警察部门是如何“取得”进步的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sociological Science
Sociological Science Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
2.90%
发文量
13
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Sociological Science is an open-access, online, peer-reviewed, international journal for social scientists committed to advancing a general understanding of social processes. Sociological Science welcomes original research and commentary from all subfields of sociology, and does not privilege any particular theoretical or methodological approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书