“Are you the real police?” “No. We’re the campus police.” An examination of the way Ontario Special Constables govern risk on post-secondary campuses
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This dissertation examines the role of special constables on Ontario post-secondary campuses and where they are positioned in relation to the broad range of state and non-state law enforcement entities in Canada. Through in-depth qualitative interviews with department heads, alongside a detailed survey and focus groups with Ontario campus special constables, my research examines the everyday work and perspectives of a highly understudied group. Under neoliberal governance, there has been a growing reliance on non-state law enforcement entities to adopt roles that have traditionally been filled by police. Alongside this, we have witnessed an increasing demand for risk management due to growing private property ownership. As a result, studies that investigate the work of these groups offer important insight into their experiences and what is needed to ensure they can effectively manage risk in place of the police. Despite this, research examining the perspectives of non-state law enforcement is limited. Furthermore, there are even fewer studies on campus law enforcement and essentially no scholarly attention has been paid to those who work in this role on Canadian post-secondary campuses. This study addresses this gap by offering insight into the background, daily work, and experiences of Ontario campus special constables through a mixed methods design which allows for the production of information on a number of relevant topics from a broad range of participants. Based on my findings, I argue that much like other private policing entities, neoliberal processes have contributed to the role of special constables increasingly overlapping with that of the public police and, as a result, they play an important part in keeping campuses safe. At the same time, my study shows that this development has occurred to an even greater extent with special constables as a result of the general shift toward the professionalization of campus law enforcement, as well as the growing need to manage various risks on campus, particularly in light of increased media portrayal of serious crimes at universities and colleges. Moreover, despite the police-like work special constables are expected to perform on campus, my research indicates that, in line with the experiences of other non-state law enforcement, legitimacy challenges remain an issue. Although these issues appear to occur less often with special constables, students, staff, faculty, and other members of law enforcement are often unaware of the authority granted to special constables and in some cases, this situation has resulted in negative and escalated interactions between parties. Thus, this study contributes to this field of research by offering an explanation and potential solutions to address legitimacy challenges among private law enforcement. Consequently, I argue that institutions should increase awareness surrounding the role and authorities of special constables and that policymakers should take steps to enhance their standardization and training to improve the perception of this group as legitimate members of law enforcement. Additionally, given their ability to fully engage in the community policing model and offer institution-specific support at a lower cost (compared with municipal police), the work of special constables could be used by all post-secondary institutions across Canada to protect the campus community and ensure that all students, regardless of location, background, or school, are afforded the same level of security. This dissertation highlights the way special constables have the ability to manage both actual and perceived risk through the use of community-based policing on campus and therefore are valuable assets to the institutions that employ them. These findings have implications beyond post-secondary campuses in Ontario. They reinforce the importance of effective private law enforcement entities in a time of reduced state involvement under neoliberal governance and high demand for risk management among members of the public as well as the need for further research to ensure optimal performance and public acceptance of them.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,024 | 0,016 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».