Search results

Purpose – This chapter explores how select “evidence-based” police scholars act as gatekeepers to research opportunities, in Canada, thus impeding critical research that pertains to Black communities.

Methodology/Approach – Using the critical race method of counter-storytelling, the following narrative demonstrates how race and racism may play a role in the collection and dissemination of research that examines racial bias in Canadian policing. This methodology aims to refute the notion of critical objectivity, which is often used to promote the principles of evidence-based policing (EBP).

Findings – Findings suggest that through various powers and levels within both the policing and academic community, a select number of scholars have influence over Canadian policing research that explores racial bias and discrimination. As such, research that may help to develop effective and efficient policing programs to address racial bias, is thwarted.

Originality – No Canadian study explores anti-racist training programs or evaluates their effectiveness. This chapter demonstrates that this may be the result of gatekeeping. The following chapter provides insight into how this is done within EBP circles.

Purpose – This chapter explores the topic of free speech protections and social media use in academia through an examination of the current legal landscape as it applies to various stakeholders on university campuses in the United States. The authors focus this examination primarily on public universities. Methodology/Approach – Legal research methods were utilized, including an analysis of relevant United States federal and state laws, case law, and secondary sources such as law reviews. Non-legal sources, such as academic journals, were also reviewed, with particular emphasis on topics such as university policies, tenure protections, academic freedom, as well as current events. Findings – The law regarding personal social media communications in a university setting is a series of complex and interconnected legal questions. Courts are still flushing out how free speech protections, personal social media use, and other relevant legal protections (e.g., employment law) may interface in a university-related case. Outcomes of cases are highly fact driven, and legal precedent is still being established. Originality/Value – This chapter offers a comprehensive examination of the topic of free speech and social media use in United States academia by (1) examining legal protections as applied to various stakeholders on a college campus and (2) analyzing the current legal landscape of social media cases involving universities.