↓ Skip to main content

Macrocognition in Day-To-Day Police Incident Response

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Macrocognition in Day-To-Day Police Incident Response
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00293
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris Baber, Richard McMaster

Abstract

Using examples of incidents that UK Police Forces deal with on a day-to-day basis, we explore the macrocognition of incident response. Central to our analysis is the idea that information relating to an incident is translated from negotiated to structured and actionable meaning, in terms of the Community of Practice of the personnel involved in incident response. Through participant observation of, and interviews with, police personnel, we explore the manner in which these different types of meaning shift over the course of incident. In this way, macrocognition relates to gathering, framing, and sharing information through the collaborative sensemaking practices of those involved. This involves two cycles of macrocognition, which we see as 'informal' (driven by information gathering as the Community of Practice negotiates and actions meaning) and 'formal' (driven by the need to assign resources to the response and the need to record incident details). The examples illustrate that these cycles are often intertwined, as are the different forms of meaning, in situation-specific ways that provide adaptive response to the demands of the incident.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Singapore 1 7%
Unknown 13 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 29%
Student > Master 3 21%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 14%
Engineering 2 14%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Decision Sciences 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 3 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2016.
All research outputs
#17,802,399
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,535
of 29,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,993
of 299,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#371
of 469 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,930 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,404 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 469 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.