Technology is Not Information and Information is Not Knowledge

Below is another snippet of my MA final project written in 2001. 

The entire paper can be found at the International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts website on the Resources & Publications/Police and Intelligence section - the bottom line, "The Role of the Crime Analyst in Policing (Osborne)." Access it at this link.

Technology is Not Information and Information is Not Knowledge

     Local law enforcement is a creator of mass volumes of information daily as new crimes are reported, calls for service logged, arrests made, and citations given. With the development of information technology, local police departments can now access and utilize this wealth of information in innovative ways. Along with the information that comes into police agencies daily, there exists other sources of information, such as parole and probation reports, open source information, and other types of data that can be analyzed to uncover possible correlations to crimes.

    Unfortunately, many police agencies operate under the assumption that the information that results from new technology equals new knowledge. Modern industry has also operated under this false assumption. Technology only helps us to produce information in new forms that are more accessible for analysis, but this improved information productivity does not create knowledge. Only human interpretation can give meaning to information. 

      With this new ability to produce and make use of information comes the imperative to develop the role of persons trained to be information experts.

      None of the data stored in a police agency have meaning until a human being gives them meaning. Artificial intelligence, when it arrives in policing, cannot tell police what information means. If police agencies rely on technology to improve policing without developing a role for persons to become information crafters, the technology will be a waste of tax dollars. The role of the crime analyst, if developed and supported, will be that information crafter in local law enforcement, the “knowledge worker” of policing.

     For too long policing at the local level has relied primarily on “tacit knowledge.” Tacit knowledge, in policing, refers to the knowledge officers have about crime, criminals, and public disorder, which is not knowledge that is written down or articulated to share or pass on to others. Depending on tacit knowledge in policing has significant problems. If officers do not want to admit that they have a problem they can’t solve, as is sometimes found in traditional police culture, they may be unlikely to go to others for help. Thus the knowledge others have will not get to them. If a police agency has crime analysts on staff who are trained and who generate meaningful information (knowledge), officers will be informed without having to ask others for help. If the political atmosphere of the police department sanctions crime analysis and it becomes “politically correct” to make use of an analyst’s expertise, more knowledge will flow through a police organization. 

    There is no way to evaluate tacit knowledge if it is simply spread “word-of-mouth.” It is even more difficult to know whether it is wrong when it is unexpressed, since it is then unquestioned. If police officers are operating under unexamined false assumptions, their effectiveness suffers significantly.

     If crime analysis is developed as a true profession and instituted in larger police departments, some of the institutional knowledge of police officers may be captured, incorporated into the knowledge base of the police organization and made available to many. The role of the crime analyst will complement that of police officers, rather than replace it, and will expand the knowledge base of police organizations. If knowledge is a type of power, than we can safely assume that policing effectiveness will improve as the tool of knowledge becomes more readily available.

     Although officers may resent the changes in traditional policing, these changes may be presented as a win-win situation; the officer looks more knowledgeable and is, in fact, more knowledgeable with the support of formal crime analysis in his or her police department. It is the officer who gets credit for an arrest and it is the officer who has contact with the public in the role of information-sharer. The crime analysts are in the background and the public may never know of their contributions. The crime analyst has the privilege of doing “police” work without the inherent risks that face the street cop.

      It should be noted that researchers from universities have tried to assist local law enforcement with knowledge creation and information support. However, often the researchers impose their own research designs on these agencies. Since police culture is known to be resistant to change and suspicious of outsiders, the world of academia is unlikely to infiltrate most police departments. This is why the creation of the crime analyst’s role as an internal researcher, working for and with police officers is the best way to incorporate research findings into the street level of policing.

     The importance of information sharing and knowledge creation in policing has been underestimated and inadequately analyzed. If we consider how actionable information can assist police, we will realize how urgent the imperative is to develop the role of the analyst in policing.