Policing Everyday Cybercrime

: Police Scotland's Sensemaking Approach to Cybercrime Policing

Abstract

This thesis investigates how everyday cybercrimes are policed in Scotland and determines the role of police culture in cybercrime policing by considering, through a sensemaking framework, the role of local policing teams as well as specialist cybercrime units. Between 2019/20 and 2021/22, the number of recorded cybercrimes in Scotland has doubled (Scottish Government, 2022). Police Scotland has had to make sense of changes in the criminal and policing environment and adapt its working practices to keep up with cybercriminals and new criminal trends. Research has recently focused on structural and practical innovations in reaction to cybercrime policing, considering the merits of specialist cybercrime units in the search for effective cybercrime policing (Willits and Nowacki, 2016), whilst attempts to clearly and universally define cybercrimes have been unsuccessful (Phillips et al., 2022). This has resulted in confusion and uncertainty in the policing of these crimes (Hadlington, Lumsden, Black and Ferra, 2018). This research therefore provides analysis of how police officers make sense of cybercrimes, the changes in their working environments, their investigative expectations and their role in investigating cybercrimes.

The thesis used Q Methodology to explore the subjective views of police officers and provide in-depth consideration of complex and contentious viewpoints regarding cybercrime policing. 40 officers from three local policing divisions (‘A’, ‘D’ and ‘G’) and specialist crime division participated in an online Q Sort, followed by a semi-structured interview to provide context to their completed sorting task. The Q Sort data was analysed using online factor analysis software (KADE) and Distinguishing Card Content Analysis was conducted on the gathered interview. The statements used in the Q methodology, and this thesis more broadly, was also informed by 45 case studies obtained from Police Scotland (to identify some of the procedures involved in cybercrime investigations) alongside a review of academic and Police Scotland literature.

Four factors emerged from the analysis of the Q Sorts: ‘Innovation Required,’ ‘The Importance of the Frontline’, ‘Apprehension’, and ‘Acceptance.’ Findings from the four factors revealed that the conscious sensemaking (Weick, 1993) processes of officers are activated as they attempt to apply meaning to unfamiliar cybercrimes. An ‘us and them’ attitude emerged within the findings with tensions between those in frontline policing and in specialist units clearly expressed. The bond created between likeminded officers has been presented as an important method of survival in uncertain working environments as it promotes trust and support (Chan, 1996) however, the ‘us and them’ attitude provides support to beliefs that strong in-group cultural bonds results in exclusion and isolation of out-group members (Rim, Rivera and Ba, 2019). The presence of tensions and poor working relationships between those on the frontline and specialist counterparts promotes the view that police culture is not monolithic, and subcultures are present in cybercrime policing.

Taking a cultural approach to this research also opened up avenues to consider how various social aspects of policing have an influence on the ways in which cybercrimes are policed. This research therefore looks at the bond between officers, the communication structures that are in place, the level of motivation to work on cybercrimes and the influence of knowledge sharing among colleagues to help understand and develop shared understanding to inform and influence future action as described by Chan (2007) in her four stages of sensemaking.

The emergence of 4 factors in this research signified different cultural responses and sensemaking outputs in relation to cybercrime policing. These varying outputs provide insights into the influence of the bond among police officers and its impact in making sense of new and novel cybercrime investigations. It is clear there are different views on the approach to cybercrime policing and these approaches have emerged through the sensemaking outputs or factors, helping us understand that Police Scotland have not determined a universally accepted approach to cybercrime policing.

Using a sensemaking framework has provided information on how officers are challenged in making sense of changes to their working environments, utilise their limited cultural knowledge and experience to influence future action in cybercrime investigations and rely on the creation of strong bonds with likeminded individuals to determine the appropriate course of action. Sensemaking has been highlighted in the police culture literature as a process which can help assess the creation and maintenance of shared understanding through stories and communications (van Hulst and Tsoukas, 2021). A greater awareness of the sensemaking processes in officers is supported by considerations of the police culture literature on the bond between officers, emerging tensions and an officer’s sense of mission as it provides insight on the information used by officers to develop understanding. The use of Q Methodology and Q sorts in this research provided officers with comprehensive coverage of the topic to consider and provide their subjective views, tailored to their strongest beliefs. Q Methodology ensured officers engaged with the full topic and follow-up interviews provided in-depth context and explanations for their views. The findings highlight the wider importance of determining a clear and widely accepted classification of cybercrimes in order to aid the understanding and sensemaking processes of officers tasked with these investigations. These findings provide valuable context to the literatures of police culture and sensemaking by considering the current approach to cybercrime policing through the lens of sensemaking and the influence of police culture.

Date of Award	2024
Original language	English
Supervisor	Megan McMillan (Supervisor), Jonathan Mendel (Supervisor) & Alexander Dowall (Supervisor)