The ethics of action research in community policing: the contexts of 'no man's lands' and 'no go areas'

Research in policing and law enforcement has made tremendous progress over the past few decades. At the same time, policing theories have proliferated and become more innovative, pushing further the barriers of fieldwork and research insight.One of the most recent developments of research in community policing has been the attempt at mixing different community policing theories to tackle major problems in particular neighbourhoods. Problem-oriented policing, broken-windows policing and intelligence-led practice models (among others) have been merged together in order to develop solutions to address hotspot criminality, manage public safety, address fear of crime, etc. But what if research in community policing was pushed further and was looking at areas in which police are not welcomed by the community and to which police does not want to go anymore? Who is responsible for defining and restoring order when no one wants to take responsibility?After looking at policing hotspot areas, the next logical step for research in co-production of safety and security should be concerned with what is commonly known as no go areas or no man's lands. But where should the research start? What are the ethical issues the researcher needs to look at in the early stages and further development of action research projects? How should negative bi-partisan representations and the sensibilities of parties at stake be understood and form part of the research process?Through specific case studies, this paper discusses ethical components in the development of action research projects which look at the elaboration of flexible models for restoring order and rediscovering responsibilities in areas where police and community relations have broken down.