This document provides an overview of a research project investigating social innovation in neighbourhood policing using soft systems methodology and critical realism. It describes the context of limited community engagement by neighbourhood police teams. The research questions examine how a toolkit was created and implemented by PCSOs to design socially innovative interventions. It also explores the mechanisms at work in the toolkit and how it can be improved. The investigation does not aim to evaluate social impacts or police effectiveness, but rather take a retrospective critical realist view of the social innovation in action.

1. 1

2. 2
A retrospective critical realist investigation, using soft
systems methodology, into social innovation in
action; in the context of neighbourhood policing.
Tim Curtis, The University of Northampton June 2016
aka ‘social innovation practices in neighbourhood policing’

3. The context
• “engagement and consultation with their
communities was predominately focused on
public meetings, local priorities were based on
the concerns of a small and unrepresentative part
of the community, and some hard-to-reach
groups in these areas reported that
neighbourhood teams did not engage with them”
• Myhill, A (2006/12) Community engagement in
Policing; Lessons from the literature. National
Policing Improvement Agency
3

4. The social innovation
research question
• How did I go about creating the toolkit? -
antecedents
• How was it implemented by PCSOs – case
studies, soft systems analysis
• What mechanisms (for social innovation) are
at work in the toolkit? Critical realist analysis
• Is it a reliable tool for designing socially
innovative interventions?
• How can the toolkit be improved?
4

5. What the investigation is not:
• An evaluation study
• A tool for measuring social impact
• An investigation into social impacts of
neighbourhood policing
– Impossible to create a counterfactual
– Long chains of causality and effect
• Criminology
• A review of police effectiveness or legitimacy
5

6. The story so far
6

7. First engagement Nov 2012
• Discussing community profiling and rich picturing
as a community engagement technique
• NP seeking better ‘data’ from LIPS – hard data,
closed question set.
• How to ‘use’ the JDI Vulnerable Localities Index
• What is ‘intensive community engagement’ and
how does it differ from:
– Super cocooning: Inform – Reassure – Advise
– SARA/NDM
– Social media and community events
7

8. LIPS data seriously flawed
8
The disparity between respondents to LIPS
survey and census population

9. Methodology
Participatory Action Research
• Rapid Appraisal
• Insights & themes
• Initial response
• Effectuate
• Review and Amend
PAR is collaborative, critical, participatory, and developmental.
9

10. Participatory Action Research
• acknowledge that the problem originates in the community itself
and is defined, analyzed, and solved by the community.
• ultimate goal of PAR research is the radical transformation of social
reality and improvement in the lives of the individuals involved;
thus, community members are the primary beneficiaries of the
research.
• PAR involves the full and active participation of the community at
all levels of the entire research process.
• PAR encompasses a range of powerless groups of individuals: the
exploited, the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized.
• the ability to create a greater awareness in individuals’ own
resources that can mobilize them for self-reliant development
10

11. Rapid Appraisal
• Interviews in St James/Dallington team
• Vertical sample through from Inspector
through PC to PCSO and to residents
• Use of Rich Picturing (RP) as exploratory tool
• Engagements recorded film/audio
• Seeking insights and themes
• Verify insights through extending sample
• Theoretical saturation
11

12. Insights and Themes
• Significant change in discourse about
communities between Police Officer and PCSO
• PCSO actively solving problems
• PSCO acting as a “boundary spanner”
(Tushman 1977)
• Intuitive rather than deliberate community
engagement and problem solving
• Frustrated by limited power and locus of
control (being ‘abstracted’ to other tasks)
Tushman, Michael L (1977). "Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process". Administrative
Science Quarterly 22 (4): 587–605.
12

13. Initial response
• PCSOs operating in complex (messy) social
environments
– Soft Systems Methodology specifically designed for this
• Police being measured on performance where
solutions owned by non-Police actors
– Community organising to get other working to deliver
Police outcomes
• Long tradition of expecting Police to solve everything
– Weekly ‘you said, we did’ closed loop cycle
– Required developing ‘self-efficacy’ in neighbourhoods
13

14. Unfreeze and Reframe
‘The Socially Entrepreneurial PCSO’ think piece Jan 2013
• PCSO needs to have autonomy and locus of control to act
effectively
• PCSOs will go about a consistent and repeatable set of information
gathering and problem analysis/solving tasks
• encouraging and training new ‘engaged citizen informants’ to
become smart customers of the Police equipped to ask the right
questions
• PCSO’s remit should follow natural community ‘neighbourhoods’
rather than parish boundaries
• Retain and motivate this talent for localities through long-term
engagement
• neighbourhood based Police & Community Foundations would
operates companies, led by the Police but securing funds and
incomes from a variety of contracts
Prompted by Policing 2020: What kind of police service do we want in 2020?” 14

15. Designing & Trialling
LISP
15

16. First cohort
• Generic but open framework of
– Community profiling
– Rich picture dialoguing
– Issue prioritising
– Intrinsic Motivation theory
• Too much detail/academic
• Too open and generic
• Needed case studies
• Methods well tested but never done in Police before
16

17. Three ‘test-sites’
• Dallington/St James –wider issues around
Operation Isotonic, gold burglaries amongst
Bangladeshi community, first cohort PCSOs
• Holy Sepulchre -complex neighbourhood with
street drinking/homelessness and sex trade.
• Rockingham Rd, Kettering- street drinking and
ASB, Polish community
• Training sites for subsequent cohorts
17

18. LISP Proforma
• Various re-ordering of toolkit- attempt to connect to
National Decision Model
• Better fit with SARA framework- familiar to PCSOs, but
with more in-depth investigation
• Refocus on ethos of engagement and community
organising
• Back burner for data, profiling, and issues ranking
• Lower priority for rich picturing- requires community
engagement first
• LISP coined as a counterpoint to LIPS
18

19. Second Cohort June/July 2013
• More focussed on LISP proforma
• Less academic
• Aide-memoire plus light touch ‘how-to’
• PCSOs still charged with reading all the background materials
• Supported by regular PCSO usergroup
• Challenges
• Handling through A01 process
• ECINS as collaboration tool
• Exclusion (of residents) arising from ‘technological responses’
• Sgts and Inspectors –’reinterpreting’ PCSO expectations, tasking
LISP as additional duties rather than 40% core business
19

20. PSCO responses
• Consistent language and process across county
• Open framework allows different responses
according to local conditions
• Written copy of work completed
• Evidence of crimes prevented
• Option to escalate to overcome blocks
• Hold partners to account
• ‘allows you to chip away at the [persistent]
problem’
20

21. Risks going forward
• Short term targets lead to frustration with apparent
lack of progress
• PSCOs given ‘activity’ rather than ‘outcome’ targets
• Confusion between SARA/NDM/AO1 and new imports
like super-cocooning
• PCSOs timid about addressing difficult challenges
‘being faced with an unresolvable issue’
• LISP proforma completion measured according to
‘numbers done’ rather than quality of outcomes
• LISPs remain a predominantly Police-led activity- Police
remain addicted to ‘being in charge’
21

22. Third cohort
• Remaining PCSOs trained in Nov/Dec 2013
• Version #6 of training slides and #12 of LISP
handbook published
• Concentration on St Seps area as training location
• Improvement in ‘assent’ from PCSOs and grasp of
RP approach
• Some PCs and Sgt involvement
• Briefing of all Sgts ‘Managing a LISP’.
22

23. Widening range of LISP projects
• PCSOs undertaking ‘practice’ LISPs
• Sgts clearer about selection criteria for LISPS
• Better justification for LISP areas, RD working with stats
team to create better crime rates data in standard set
• Evidence of more intensive engagement in some LISPs
• Reluctance to engage with RP as a planning technique
• Still tendency to ‘own’ the process and create
unsustainable ‘projects’
• Discussion about measuring cohesion.
• Success measures are still Police-led.
23

24. Widening scope
• Supt RJ shifted to new command Dec 2013- control
room.
• Supt Dave Hill in Corporate Services picking up and
widening LISP and IE to new Target Operating Model in
ASPIRE transformation programme
• Consider involving Special Constables and volunteers in
LISPing
• LISP project to be incorporated into Police and
Community Institute at University
• E-learning module created in Jan 2014
• Wider context of ‘Policing the Future’ project
24

25. Going forward
In Jan 14
• Reinforce training with PCSO fora
• Thorough case study on St Seps project as
demonstrator
• Laura Brodrick art work for better RP
• Briefing of Inspectors and PCC.
• Complete review of LISPs under progress- full
analysis of patterns and issues
25

26. The LISP toolkit
26

27. The 8 step process
27
Intensive Engagement- Locally Identified Solutions and Practices (LISP)- 8 step toolkit
LISP step 1 Clarify the justification for commencing Intensive Engagement -scan what is known about the neighbourhood. What does
crime and other data tell us? What are the issues identified? What is the evidence for this? Is there an evidence base for
adopting as a location?
LISP step 2 What community assets already exist in the location? What networks and associations are there? What are the
vulnerabilities are in the area? (what makes this area already mostly successful?)
LISP step 3 Who shares the problem? Stakeholders & networks Identify who are directly involved in this issue? (individuals, agencies,
businesses, residents etc). How are all people/ agencies involved associated?
LISP step 4 Develop Problem Rich Pictures – Engage with community members to establish how all stakeholders see the problem?
Where do the issues arise? What parts of the neighbourhood are successful? Map the results
LISP step 5 Form a working group made up of stakeholders who are engaged and able to make changes
LISP step 6 Develop Solution Rich Pictures –Engage the working group to identify what the solutions look like from the stakeholders
perspective? How can they be achieved? What would the neighbourhood look like if all the issues were solved?
LISP step 7 Agree Interventions & Evaluation (Who is doing what, when, how, by when, what does success look like?)
LISP step 8 Establish escalation processes with stakeholders, authorities and agencies- what will make the interventions fails? What are
you going to do about it to prevent that happening? Who will you need to approach to unblock barriers to progress?

28. Policing the Future project brief
28
Anon (2014) policing the future - project brief v3 Northants Police 19th Aug

29. or no future?
• 4th Dec 2014.
• Private meeting with new head of Institute-
“apart from niggles over communication and
misunderstandings (wilful or not), there is a
fundamental disjuncture between the long-term
embedded nature of LISP and the very short-term
operational demands of the Policing the Future
experiments. What constitutes success for PtF is
not defined and there is no evaluation process in
place. IE is not a package or intervention per se
but a way of delivering interventions within PtF”
29
Personal notes 4th Dec 2014

30. Force-wide Review Jan- April 2015
• “At some point in the last two years each of you
have been involved in developing and
implementing a new approach to Intensive
Engagement called LISP (Locally Identified
Solutions and Practices). ACC Balhatchet has
requested a review of how the implementation
has progressed in order to refine and improve the
LISP toolkit and to inform future development.”
From: George Jen
Sent: 26 January 2015 12:25
To: Lyall Nick; Murray Dennis; Thompson Thomas; Evans Mark
Cc: James Richard (Superintendent)
Subject: FW: Intensive Engagement Review- POD action
30

31. Self-evaluation survey
• A self-evaluation rubric was devised, based on the key
stages of LISP implementation, and key factors
highlighted by Pawson that influence the
implementation and success of policy interventions.
The rubric was structured with three levels of
statements that Police officers could select,
representing three levels of implementation;
beginning, intermediate and full implementation. The
survey was sent to all community policing teams in the
county in Jan 2015, with a two week window for
completion. The researchers received 21 responses
representing 11 distinct locations in the county
31
Curtis, T (2015) Interim Report -Force Wide Review of Intensive Engagement Feb
2015 #2
Curtis, T (2015) PHD Brief Research proposal- LISP-Social Innovation in Intensive
Community Policing Jan 2015#8b

32. Summary of Strategic
Recommendations
• TARGETING
• Identify new Priority Areas for Intensive Engagement: Review Priority Area data to widen the data
set from SAC to a basket of measures that better reflect community vulnerability to crime and
police demand management challenges. Set top level outcomes based on a basket of measures
• Prepare teams for IE Implementation: utilise existing skills and experience from across the force to
support and mentor the teams identified in the new Priority Areas and arrange training for senior
staff to ensure consistent implementation of intensive engagement. Select teams based on
behaviours and attitudes that promote public confidence and resilience in tackling complex and
sensitive issues
• Critical risk issues: explore the use of Intensive Engagement as a consistent approach to investigate
and design force responses to upcoming critical risk issues such as FGM, radicalisation, school
exclusions, troubled families and human trafficking.
• TESTING
• Prepare for evaluation: gather data on public confidence and resilience (i.e. that is not already
available) in new Priority Area locations
• TRACKING
• Governance and delivery: Identify and secure strategic governance to provide strategic lead and
individual to lead operational deliverability across BCUs and specialist and expert topic areas.
32
Curtis, T (2015) Proposed Recommendations from Forcewide Review of Intensive
Engagement March 2015#2

33. Beginning to seek Mechanisms
Community Policing Evidence Features of LISP based Intensive Engagement
What works
In-depth understanding of people, place and problems In-depth investigation of the police crime problem in the context of the other
problems experienced in the locality
Full and consistent application of interventions The training and subsequent evaluation of the quality of LISP work, and standard
proforma
Sufficient ‘dose’ of intensive engagement with sufficient time Success, i.e. depth of understanding of the problem and success of the
interventions is determined by the working group rather than police timeframes
Proactive contact Deliberate choices are made at the screening stage about the importance of the
locality to policing outcomes.
Process requires identification of all potential stakeholder groups, including hard to
reach.
A group of residents Where community organisations appropriate to the problems don’t exist, the LISP
process creates the social capital and networks to allow this to happen
Joint problem solving Co-production of the problem analysis and solving stages is central
What is promising
A consistent process As above
Highly connected individuals The LISP working group is made up of highly connected and highly capable
people,
Support is won Working group members elicit a clearly understood self-interest that underpins
expected successes to secure and ‘win’ support
Attuned to community dynamics The rich picturing processes develop a nuanced and empathetic understanding of
the community and the issues and tensions within it.
Tacit skills Training, with the aid of the publically available handbook, briefings to senior
officers and a process of identifying the best implementations of LISP and
mentoring of officers ensure that police skills are embedded and propgated across
the force
Not reliant on multi-agency delivery Where statutory partners are actively engaged, LISP provides a clear and discrete
method for limited involvement. Where statutory agencies are not engaged, LISP
provides a clear evidence base for Police and community to hold statutory
agencies to account.
33
Curtis, T (2015) Why we think that Intensive Engagement using LISP works#1 1st May
2015

34. • Richard will cover TVP project
• The PhD begins to take shape
• Piloting in Northants halts- new Chief
Constable, new PCC
34

35. Critical realism:
a post- post-modernist epistemology
35
Epistemologies
Ontologically real
http://starecat.com/this-is-true-this-is-truth-square-circle-please-consider-before-talking-typing/ Accessed 10 May 2016

36. Contexts: Case studies
• 2012 over 100 PCSOs rapidly trained
• 2012-2013 PCSOs pursue ‘LISP’ projects where
they can, with or without support
• 2013 receive coaching and mutual support,
provide ‘pro-forma’ reports (graded), self-
evaluation and interviews
36
Case No. Location Origin Priority Area Crime Confidence Stable team Mgt involved LISP Quality
1 Spencer/Asian Gold Pilot yes down up yes yes Gold
2 Spencer Haven Pilot yes down up yes yes Gold
3 Holy Sepulchre Pilot no steady steady no no Silver
4 All Saints Kettering Pilot yes steady steady no no Silver
5 Daventry Skatepark Pilot no low up yes no Gold
6 Towcester Self generated no down up no yes Bronze
7 Daventry no LISP N/A no steady steady yes no None
8 Wellingborough no LISP N/A no up down no no None

37. Soft Systems Methodology:
Making sense of complex contexts
situation
considered
problematic
problem
situation
expressed
real world
systems thinking
about real world
conceptual models
of systems described
in root definitions 4
comparison of
models and
real world 5
6 changes:
systemically desirable,
culturally feasible
7 action to
improve the
problem situation
3
root definition
of relevant systems
2
1
Checkland, 1985
37

38. PCSO picturing
38

39. PCSO feedback and planning
39

40. Conceptual modelling
40

41. Archer 1995, Bhaskar, 2013 and Pawson 2013 41

42. Neighbourhood
Policing Evidence
Features of LISP based
Intensive Engagement
Features of Holy Sepulchre LISP case
What works
1. In-depth
understanding of
people, place and
problems
In-depth investigation of
the police crime problem
in the context of the
other problems
experienced in the locality
The LISP got a good start because the PCSOs had been
working in this district for some time, but the analysis
in the LISP documentation, and the choice of
intervention was simplistic, indicating that the PCSOs
and their senior officers had limited local knowledge
1. Full and consistent
application of
interventions
The training and
subsequent evaluation of
the quality of LISP work,
and standard proforma
The intervention chosen, the community garden, was
not seen through to full implementation.
Developing a conceptual model
42

43. Contexts
43
C1 Vulnerable locality or area of significant multiple deprivation, and
C2 Long-term chronic crime patterns
C3 Complex, publicly contested crime types inc ASB, SAC

44. Mechanisms 1
44
No. Proposed Mechanism Features of LISP based Intensive
Engagement
Neighbourhood Policing Evidence: What
works
M 1 In-depth understanding of people, place and
problems
In-depth investigation of the police crime problem
in the context of the other problems experienced
in the locality
M2 Full and consistent application of interventions The training (and subsequent evaluation of the
quality of LISP work), and standard proforma
M3 Sufficient ‘dose’ of intensive engagement with
sufficient time
Success, i.e. depth of understanding of the
problem and success of the interventions is
determined by the working group rather than
police timeframes
M4 Proactive contact Deliberate choices are made at the screening
stage about the importance of the locality to
policing outcomes.
Process requires identification of all potential
stakeholder groups, including hard to reach.
M5 A group of residents Where community organisations appropriate to
the problems don’t exist, the LISP process creates
the social capital and networks to allow this to
happen
M6 Joint problem solving Co-production of the problem analysis and solving
stages is central

45. Mechanisms 2
45
What is promising
M7 Highly connected individuals The LISP working group is made up of ‘highly connected and highly capable
people’
M8 Support is won Working group members elicit a clearly understood self-interest that
underpins expected successes to secure and ‘win’ support
M9 Attuned to community dynamics The rich picturing processes develop a nuanced and empathetic
understanding of the community and the issues and tensions within it.
M10 Tacit skills Training, with the aid of the publicly available handbook, briefings to senior
officers and a process of identifying the best implementations of LISP and
mentoring of officers ensure that police skills are embedded and propagated
across the force
M11 Not reliant on multi-agency delivery Where statutory partners are actively engaged, LISP provides a clear and
discrete method for limited involvement. Where statutory agencies are not
engaged, LISP provides a clear evidence base for Police and community to
hold statutory agencies to account.

46. Mechanisms 3
46
Pawson’s Public Policy ‘Hidden’ Mechanisms Mechanism Ingredients in LISP Intensive Engagement
M13 Recruit the stakeholders with care Looking for the most highly connected, capable, and
motivated: whose self-interest and motivation to contribute
to public safety is understood
M14 Create expectations of change Intensive Engagement is oriented towards collaboratively
deciding on what change is needed, to design Solutions &
Practices
M15 Demand effort from stakeholders The LISP approach is designed to flip the Police response
from ‘what can we do?’ to ‘What solutions have you got?’ for
the Police.
M15 Offer encouragement and feedback The process is designed to recognise existing assets and
capabilities that the community, with the help of the Police,
that can be enhanced to support Police outcomes
(Kretzmann and McKnight, 1993)
M17 Build trust and resilience Long-term, locally based relationships are key to developing
mature LISP informed interventions
M18 Make accommodations for set-backs The embedding of the Motivational Interviewing ‘stages of
change model’ (Prochaska and DiClemente, 1994; Rollnick
and Miller, 1995; Miller and Rollnick, 2012) accounts for set-
backs within the process of engagement
M19 Explain the theory of change The theory of change for LISP is described as
“collaboratively designed solutions and co-produced
practices are more robust than short-term projects and
limited engagement”
M20 Share execution and control of the intervention The whole LISP model is built on recruiting capable and
connected decision-makers and resources to the support of
Police outcomes, and an attempt to ‘loosen the reins’ of
Police controlled design and implementation
M21 Ensure onward external continuation The purpose of the community designing and delivering the
interventions that are unique to a locality is to ensure that
the Police have a ‘step-back and sustain’ (rather than an
exit) strategy freeing resource up to tackle other localities
and problems, leaving a self-sustaining legacy

47. Mechanisms 4
47
Additional insights from case
study
Mechanism Ingredients in LISP Intensive Engagement
M22 Stable team Inspectors ought to be clear about the resource implications of choosing to undertake a LISP, in terms of long-term
commitment (against a backdrop of ‘weeks of action’ and three month long ‘operations’). Outcomes based resource
planning is required within LISPs rather than activity based.
Sergeants need to decide with Inspectors on the justification to LISP. The decision was made by the PCSOs to undertake
the LISP, but in this, the decision was aligned to the sergeants’ interests in managing the high profile performance
issues. This was sustained through a change of sergeant, but only after significant progress had been made on the LISP
process. The long-term stability of the PCSOs allowed significant connections to a marginalised and hard-to-reach
community to be made within the attention span of the senior officers.
M23 Responsibilisation This LISP hinged around a form of responsibilisation, a quid pro quo where the attention of the police shifted from being
visible through patrols to being the distributor of socially valuable goods- the smartwater etc. Rather than this being
devalued though being given away, the LISP established a ‘transaction value’ – being required to complete the 6 points
of action before receiving enhanced ‘attention’ through the distribution of freebies and receiving funding from the PCC.
M24 A mix of ‘contingent’ interventions The PCSO was clear that a number of different strategies, that could be introduced at different times, and with drawn if
they don’t work, would strengthen the initiative. The six point action plan developed in the Asian Gold burglaries case is
insufficient here, and over 20 different initiatives are used, including those that are existing successful practices
M25 Perspective taking A cognitive shift required to think of all the different stakeholders in a given problem situation, and systematically think
through their interest and investment in the status quo in that context. The needs to be a deliberate attempt to this, at
the point of evaluating the potential stakeholder group. The interests (and perhaps importantly, the self-interest) of the
stakeholders need to be considered, as does the lived experience of those stakeholders (empathy).
M26 Hidden community Attention should be paid to the less obvious communities of interest. Whilst there was a strong sense in which the street
drinking was being driven by transient workers and off-licenses exploiting the immediate situation, the more powerful
communities of interest were the estate agents, landlords and employers, whose interests in the features of the problem
situation were significant but invisible. When doing the scanning stage in the early part of the LISP process, there needs
to be a more specific attention given to the owners or operators of buildings and consider them as a part of the
community of interest
M27 Connecting communities The briefing in the LISP documentation regarding the stakeholders is to ask whether they can be connected to together.
This is too oblique. This case indicates strongly that vulnerability localities suffer from low bonding social capital
(especially when the residents are transient) and social cohesion is low. Bringing eastern European workers together
may be a part of the solution, but also bringing together business interests (who might not understand their
responsibility to a given neighbourhood) like landlord and employers of specific segments of the population (bridging
social capital). This requires much harder work bringing together and motivating stakeholders who might consider their
contribution to a neighbourhood to be even more minimal than the transient residents.

48. Outcomes
48
Code For whom Outcome
PO1 Police Performance. Reduced demand, lower crime rates, less enforcement activity
PO2 Effectiveness/Efficiency Reduced activity per outcome. Greater focus on prevention than
patrolling. Other statutory partners participating fully. Skills and assets levered from
community to support crime reduction
PO3 Improved legitimacy and/or confidence in policing

49. Connecting the mechanisms to the
evidence
49

50. Nominal ranking of mechanisms
50

51. Most ‘active’ mechanisms
51
M7 Highly connected individuals The LISP working group is made up of highly connected and highly capable people,
M9 Attuned to community dynamics
The rich picturing processes develop a nuanced and empathetic understanding of the community
and the issues and tensions within it.
M10 Tacit skills
Training, with the aid of the publicly available handbook, briefings to senior officers and a process
of identifying the best implementations of LISP and mentoring of officers ensure that police skills
are embedded and propagated across the force
M14 Demand effort from stakeholders
The LISP approach is designed to flip the Police response from ‘what can we do?’ to ‘What
solutions have you got?’ for the Police.
M16 Build trust and resilience Long-term, locally based relationships are key to developing mature LISP informed interventions

52. ‘Least active’ mechanisms
52
M1
In-depth understanding of people, place and
problems
In-depth investigation of the police crime problem in the context of the other problems
experienced in the locality
M3
Sufficient ‘dose’ of intensive engagement
with sufficient time
Success, i.e. depth of understanding of the problem and success of the interventions is
determined by the working group rather than police timeframes
M17 Make accommodations for set-backs
The embedding of the Motivational Interviewing ‘stages of change model’ (Prochaska and
DiClemente, 1994; Rollnick and Miller, 1995; Miller and Rollnick, 2012) accounts for set-backs
within the process of engagement
M18 Explain the theory of change
The theory of change for LISP is described as “collaboratively designed solutions and co-produced
practices are more robust than short-term projects and limited engagement”
M19
Share execution and control of the
intervention
The whole LISP model is built on recruiting capable and connected decision-makers and resources
to the support of Police outcomes, and an attempt to ‘loosen the reins’ of Police controlled design
and implementation
Ps, this does not mean that they are not relevant, just
more difficult to active

53. Conclusions
• “The above analysis demonstrates that within the
four most active mechanisms operating in the
LISP toolkit, strong CMO configurations can
readily be constructed between the context of a
‘vulnerable locality’, i.e that it is an area of high
deprivation, chronic levels of crime and a
complex problem situation. This doesn’t mean
that all other types of areas (low deprivation/high
crime or low deprivation/low crime or low
deprivation/low crime) LISP doesn’t work, but, in
the terms mentioned above, less ‘pressure’
would be necessary on different mechanisms.”
53

54. Conclusions
• “This study has demonstrated that the 27
mechanisms satisfactorily map from the
vulnerable locality contexts to the PEEL
policing outcomes, therefore LISP is an
effective new tool in the neighbourhood
policing toolkit for engaging with high risk
vulnerable neighbourhoods in an effective,
legitimate and confidence building manner.”
54

55. Contribution to theory
• Critical realism has not been utilised in social
entrepreneurship or social innovation studies-
mostly case studies, emerging critical theory
literature.
• Connecting critical realism to SSM as a
methodology, only undertaken by Mingers.
• The notion of ‘trigger pressure’ to activate
mechanisms
55

56. P: ‘pressure’ placed on mechanism to activate it

57. Contribution to practice
• Neighbourhood Policing (NP) has lacked a
theory of (sustained and sustainable) change
• Developing a process (social innovation)
whereby sustained, repeatable and
measurable social change can be secured in
NP
57
Additional
insights from
case study
Mechanism Ingredients in LISP Intensive Engagement
1.Perspective
taking
A cognitive shift required to think of all the different stakeholders in a
given problem situation, and systematically think through their interest
and investment in the status quo in that context. The needs to be a
deliberate attempt to this, at the point of evaluating the potential
stakeholder group. The interests (and perhaps importantly, the self-
interest) of the stakeholders need to be considered, as does the lived
experience of those stakeholders (empathy).

58. (partial literature)
Critical Realism
• Archer, M (1988) Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
• Archer, M (1995) Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
• Archer, M, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson and A. Norrie (eds) (1998) Critical Realism: Essential
Readings, Routledge, London.
• Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge university
press.
• Bhaskar, R. (2010). Reclaiming reality: A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy. Taylor &
Francis.
• Bhaskar, R. (2013). A realist theory of science. Routledge.
• Bhaskar, R.A., 1986, Learning procedures in arithmetic: the principle of cognitive vigor. Yorktown
Heights, N.Y.: International Business Machines Inc., Thomas J. Watson Research Center.
• Bhaskar, R.A., 1989, Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy,
London: Verso
• Bhaskar, R.A., 1993, Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom, London: Verso
• Bhaskar, R.A., 1994, Plato, etc.: The Problems of Philosophy and Their Resolution, London: Verso
• Bhaskar, R.A., 1997 [1975], A Realist Theory of Science, London: Verso
• Bhaskar, R.A., 1998 [1979], The Possibility of Naturalism (3rd edition), London: Routledge.
58

59. Realist Research
• Pawson, R. (2013). The science of evaluation:
a realist manifesto. Sage.
• Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic
evaluation. Sage.
• Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (2001). Realistic
evaluation bloodlines. The American Journal
of Evaluation, 22(3), 317-324.
59

60. Soft Systems Methodology
• Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. John Wiley
& Sons Ltd.
• Checkland, P. (1983). OR and the systems movement: mappings and
conflicts. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 661-675.
• Checkland, P. (1999). Soft Systems Methodology: a thirty year
retrospective. In Systems Research and Behavioral Science.
• Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Action research: its nature and
validity. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11(1), 9-21.
• Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action: a short
definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for
practitioner, teachers, and students (Vol. 26). Chichester: Wiley.
• Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in
action. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons.
60

61. Connecting the two
• Mingers, J. (1980). Towards an Appropriate Social Theory for
Applied Systems Thinking: Critical Theory and Soft Systems
Methodology. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 7, 41-50.
• Mingers, J. (1992). Recent developments in critical management
science. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 1-10.
• Mingers, J. (2014). Systems Thinking, Critical Realism and
Philosophy: A Confluence of Ideas. Routledge.
• Mingers, J., & Brocklesby, J. (1997). Multimethodology: towards a
framework for mixing methodologies. Omega, 25(5), 489-509.
• Mingers, John (2014) Systems Thinking, Critical Realism and
Philosophy: A Confluence of Ideas. Ontological Explorations .
Routledge, London
61