Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Rape and serious sexual offences (RASSO) investigations face complex and intrusive forensic evidential demands and a lengthy criminal justice process causing significant attrition, which can lead to entrenched attitudes exposing adherence to rape myths, resulting in the poor treatment of victim–survivors. Police organizations are inherently risk-averse, focusing on the scrutiny of mistakes, creating a ‘blame culture’. Critical reflective practice (CRP) is a mechanism to assess and diagnose practical operational approaches without focusing on blame. We deployed a CRP framework for RASSO investigations in one police force area, involving (a) evidence review and stakeholder consultation, (b) co-production of a model of CRP and (c) development and piloting of a prototype CRP model. The proposed CRP prototype model supported the After Action Review approach, which includes discrete phases of feedback, review, developing strategies for future tasks and assessing areas for improvement. We identified enhancements to this model, including creating a timely feedback loop to incorporate prior experiential knowledge and the importance of establishing psychological safety across all stages. This enhanced critical reflection model was perceived to have operational salience for RASSO investigations.

Keywords

RASSO critical reflection prototype case study after action review

Introduction

There is a tension within policing for investigators to prioritize the reduction of crime while also supporting the victims of crime (Foley and Massey, 2021; Noblet et al., 2009). Increased scrutiny of performance as part of ‘deliverology’ in public services has been noted within police culture (Brough et al., 2016), leading to a risk-averse ‘lessons learnt’ culture that focuses on the adverse outcomes resulting from policing errors (Heaton, 2011; Heaton and Tong, 2023). The tension between crime-solving and being responsive to the needs of victim–survivors is notably greater for investigators working within rape and serious sexual assault offences (RASSO). Increased RASSO cases reported to the police resulting from high-profile initiatives such as Operation Yewtree (Lampard and Marsden, 2015) have led to complex and intrusive forensic evidential demands, a lengthy criminal justice process causing significant attrition juxtaposed with entrenched attitudes exposing adherence to rape myths, resulting in the poor treatment of victim–survivors (Davies et al., 2022; George and Ferguson, 2021; Hohl and Stanko, 2022).

Within policing, there is a focus on ‘scrutiny panels’ that are notionally independent, involving non-police stakeholders and concentrating primarily on policing errors and mistakes. Alongside enhanced scrutiny of operational delivery, there has been a call to develop routine critical reflective practice (CRP) mechanisms to improve how investigators undertake investigations through learning and education (Christopher, 2015; Norman et al., 2022), particularly in RASSO investigations that face distinctive operational challenges (Barbin et al., 2025) including questions arising from the recruitment of a younger and inexperienced police workforce (Williams and Sondhi, 2022). In England and Wales, the development of an academic–police partnership as part of Operation Soteria Bluestone has argued for transformational change in the way RASSO cases are investigated (Stanko, 2022; Stanko and Crew, 2022) within the context of ineffectual learning practices when compared with other organizational practices (Rawdin, 2023). Prior to the establishment of Operation Soteria Bluestone, there was inadequate critical reflection, leading to enduring harmful police preconceptions and attitudes relating to rape myths (Djopkang, 2015; Gekoski et al., 2024). This resulted in adverse outcomes and the poor treatment of victim–survivors, especially those from migrant, Black and minoritized backgrounds (Lopes Heimer et al., 2024), and highlighted the need to develop this area of institutional and individual competence (Davies et al., 2022; George and Ferguson, 2021; Hohl and Stanko, 2022).

For the integration of CRP concepts into RASSO investigative practice, there is a need to appreciate how individuals understand and make sense of an experience or the cumulative consequence of events over the longer term. Schön (2017) argued that reflection is required for all professionals to cope with different practical situations. ‘Reflection-on-action’ examines a historical event to understand how to handle future problems, or a ‘cognitive post-mortem’ (Christopher, 2015: 330). ‘Reflection-in-action’ occurs when an opportunity remains to act upon an existing issue. The outcome of these reflections can be a range of operational activities, or increasingly, it can relate to understanding the work environment's impact on a person's resilience, health and wellbeing (Norman et al., 2022).

Psychological safety

In integrating CRP within a RASSO policing model, there are potential tensions between a risk-averse culture of policing and establishing the psychological safety required for the free exchange of ideas and feedback. Indeed, to enable critical reflection, such as CRP, there is a need for an environment conducive to open enquiry and self-disclosure (Gilheaney and Quigley, 2022; Marshall et al., 2022). In this respect, psychological safety helps describe a sense of permission for candour (Edmondson, 1999, 2018), believing that taking an interpersonal risk, such as speaking up to share ideas, concerns, questions or mistakes, is expected and possible. Within a work environment, psychological safety refers to how individuals feel confident and secure to express themselves without fear of negative repercussions, such as criticism or humiliation from others (Schein and Bennis, 1965), contextualized within interpersonal working relationships (Kahn, 1990). The concept can be thought about at three levels: individual experiences of psychological safety, shared beliefs around psychological safety within a team, and shared beliefs around psychological safety within an organization (Edmondson and Lei, 2014). However, research has also suggested that psychological safety is a group-level phenomenon, increasingly understood as an interpersonal construct (Carmeli et al., 2009; Edmondson and Lei, 2014) and seen as crucial in facilitating team and organizational learning (Bunderson and Boumgarden, 2010; Carmeli, 2007; Carmeli and Gittell, 2009; Edmondson, 1999; Tucker et al., 2007).

Carmeli (2007) and Carmeli and Gittell (2009) examined the relationship between psychological safety and learning from failure. Their study found evidence of psychological safety mediating the relationship between failure-based learning and high-quality relationships; i.e. the perceptions of high-quality work relationships correlated with psychological safety, predicting the ability to engage in failure-based learning. Key enablers of psychological safety in the workplace have been found to relate to inclusive leadership, good interpersonal relationships and supportive organizational practices (Edmondson and Lei, 2014; Newman et al., 2017). Conversely, barriers to psychological safety included hierarchy and an authoritarian leadership style that exhibited high levels of control over subordinates (Remtulla et al., 2021).

Reflection within RASSO investigations

This section provides an overview of RASSO investigations from a policing perspective aligned with the National Operating Model developed from the findings of Operation Soteria Bluestone¹, including identifying potential points at which CRP could be deployed or enhanced. The investigation of RASSO has layers of complexity (Rumney and McPhee, 2023) requiring specialist investigators to have undergone training to equip them with the necessary skills to manage traumatized victim–survivors from all backgrounds, ethnic groups, genders, ages and sexualities, who may have additional needs and vulnerabilities (Barbin et al., 2025). Investigators need to understand the grooming behaviours of perpetrators of sexual violence, behaviours that may have enabled these individuals to commit repeat offences against multiple victims (Davies et al., 2022). Further complexity comes from the potential sources of evidence, such as physical and digital forensic materials and information from third parties (Dalton et al., 2022). An added complication comes from abiding rape myths and misconceptions, which can lead to questioning the integrity of the victim's report.

RASSO investigators need to be ‘victim-centred, suspect-focused and context-led’. Victim-centred approaches recognize that rape myths will adversely affect victim–survivor engagement and heighten negative perceptions of police support (Davies et al., 2022) with detrimental outcomes for police investigations (White and McMillan, 2021). Suspect-focused approaches investigate the suspect's behaviour and, through doing so, are better able to understand how this impacts the victim's behaviours (Davies et al., 2022). Finally, context-led approaches appreciate that each RASSO case has a particular circumstance regarding the victim–suspect relationship, the victim (their needs and wishes), and the suspect, which must be understood to identify all potential and reasonable lines of enquiry (College of Policing, 2024; Stanko, 2022), building community trust in policing (Harding et al., 2024).

Furthermore, the role of sexual offences liaison officers focuses on engaging and maintaining effective contact with victim–survivors, including providing a risk assessment and safeguarding management plan (McMillan, 2015). Investigators work in partnership with other organizations, including sexual assault referral centres, independent sexual violence advisors (ISVA) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to secure a charge and conviction. Given the high-profile nature of RASSO cases, the officer in charge (OIC) may also develop a media strategy involving liaison with the local community. Owing to the seriousness and complexity of RASSO cases, there will be a senior investigative officer (SIO), usually of detective inspector rank, who will review the evidence within 48 h of a report and again at 28 days, thereby allowing for opportunities for reflective practice to take place. According to their wishes, communication with the victim–survivor throughout the investigation must be maintained as recorded on a victim communication plan. Victim–survivors have 12 rights under the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (the ‘Victims’ Code’)². Victims of the most serious crimes (which include sexual offences) have ‘enhanced rights’, which include the right to be updated within one working day about critical decisions or actions by the police. Maintaining contact with victim–survivors and ensuring they are supported (by an ISVA if they wish) is an integral part of the victim-centred approach. Thus, the evidential, procedural and legal complexities inherent in the RASSO investigation process encompassing offender behaviours, physical and forensic demands, and police attitudes towards victims emphasize the need for a coherent approach to team-level reflection to challenge existing practices and highlight areas of good practice.

This study aimed to pilot and test a critical reflection prototype model for RASSO investigators that focused on improving operational delivery instead of a broader risk-mitigation approach. Our research questions were to determine the salient factors appropriate within a CRP model for RASSO investigators and to create a prototype model for reflection based on the evidence base. Our final research question is to test the efficacy of a CRP prototype model with RASSO investigators and make recommendations for further development.

Method

We deployed the approach by Hawkins et al. (2017), which incorporates three stages of model development: systematically reviewing the evidence involving stakeholder consultation, a co-production stage that links the research evidence with operational practicalities, and prototyping a final agreed approach. The search strategy for the evidence review involved accessing peer-reviewed academic literature with a focus on existing reviews of the literature (such as systematic reviews), as the literature on this topic is considerable. University electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, PsychInfo and Web of Science) were searched for titles between 2010 and 2023. Following an initial investigation of papers from 2000, the research team judged that a more recent period would adequately capture the most informative literature. Key search terms included ‘reflective practice’, ‘critical reflection’, ‘after action reviews’ and ‘debrief ‘AND related terms, including ‘systematic review’, ‘literature review’, ‘scoping review’ or ‘review’. These terms were supplemented by relevant occupational areas, including ‘social work’, ‘healthcare’ or ‘health’, probation’, ‘education’, ‘policing’ or ‘police’ and ‘social care’. The inclusion criteria included any English language paper published within the domains highlighted above. The exclusion criteria included individual studies of interventions rather than full reviews and non-English language papers published outside the search period.

The review process followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines (Page et al., 2021) and a PRISMA diagram is included in the online Appendix. Of the 263 titles, three team members simultaneously screened titles and abstracts using Covidence, a web-based collaboration software platform that streamlines the production of systematic and other literature reviews. Two levels of screening were undertaken as recommended by Khangura et al. (2012). First, title duplicates were removed (753 titles were imported, of which 490 duplicates were removed). Then 263 titles were screened using inclusion/exclusion criteria by reviewing the title and abstract independently by the three researchers, resulting in 93 relevant studies. Next, the three researchers downloaded and reviewed the full-text papers to determine final inclusion, resulting in 46 titles included in our final analysis. Disagreements were resolved by mutual consensus. Of the excluded 50 papers, the largest number (24) were too general in scope, with 12 papers not being a review of the evidence (more detail is available in the online Appendix) The findings from the titles were synthesized using recommendations for a narrative synthesis in line with Popay et al. (2006). The conclusions of the included papers were captured visually using mapping methods advocated by Arksey and O’Malley (2005), which allowed for thematic coding of the key themes. The literature review findings were assessed by a panel of current and former serving police officers to test for operational salience.

The second stage included co-production methods to take the research findings and establish a working critical reflection model. We deployed an action research approach to discuss operationalizing the research findings between the research team and former/current police officers until a broad operational model was agreed. The final prototype phase involved testing critical reflection approaches for one successful RASSO case in one police force area. We selected the police force area because one member of the research team was an active RASSO police investigator in that area. The chosen team for inclusion in this study was the specialist RASSO team. In addition to the research team, seven members of the RASSO investigative team, including the OIC, were involved across all ranks, from police constable to detective chief inspector (DCI). Written reflection notes were also provided by the CPS charging lawyer. For phases 2 and 3, we gathered data through various sources and methods, including process documentation, participatory observations and in-depth interviews conducted at the time of review, and via email following completion of the pilot. The two methods deployed a broad explanatory mixed methods design (Fetters et al., 2013) that integrated the interpretation of the findings following the completion of the second phase of the research. The research team visually mapped the pilot process, supplemented by the literature review findings to highlight and describe the enablers and barriers of developing a critical reflection model for RASSO investigators. The Open University Human Research Ethics Committee HRCE/3854 approved the study.

Findings

We present the findings across two sections. The first summarizes the conclusions from the evidence review and the stakeholder consultation process that tested for operational feasibility. The second describes the findings of the observation of practice undertaken by the prototype pilot.

Literature review

Complex, stressful and multi-stakeholder working environments with high-performance demands, such as the RASSO investigations outlined above, provide challenges to experiential learning (Williams et al., 2022). Most papers reviewed focused on ‘reflection-on-action’ approaches to enhancing working practice within pre-service training (e.g. before deployment to a specific role). Health and wellbeing considerations were discussed, and these focused on interventions or practices aimed at resilience and included particular approaches such as Balint groups or Schwartz rounds. Most articles were from medicine or public health, with a smaller grouping from education. Two papers (Christopher, 2015; Norman et al., 2022) reviewed reflective practice from a policing perspective.

The review identified after action reviews (AARs) (Keiser and Arthur, 2021; Tannenbaum and Cerasoli, 2013) as demonstrating quantifiable and sizeable effects across various performance metrics. Although the AAR literature originates in the US military, there is extensive literature on its applicability across disciplines, nations and cultures encompassing high-pressure professions and crisis management (Eppich and Cheng, 2015). AARs are defined as a debriefing methodology involving facilitated team discussions to explore expectations, outcomes and lessons learnt from an episode or event to enhance learning and improve future performance (Finn et al., 2024). In particular, the transferability to organizations with high emotional demands allowing for ‘emotional venting’ (Eppich and Cheng, 2015) has been noted. Furthermore, the need for a model that operates when teams are dynamic (with changing composition and range of functions) has also been identified as a core requirement for a reflective approach within a policing setting. Evidence shows that AAR approaches improve performance in temporary, unstable teams and complex environments (Vashdi et al., 2013).

Across all domains, the underlying learning environment was pivotal to fostering the appropriate conditions in which critical reflection could flourish (Marshall et al., 2022). A robust learning environment was necessary to promote professional and peer support mechanisms in which critical conversations could occur. The teacher–learner relationship was also essential, especially within a psychologically safe environment. For AARs, Keiser and Arthur (2021, 2022) have developed a theoretical framework based on Villado and Arthur's (2013) conceptualization. Four components of the model have been theorized: (a) an event, episode, activity or action has taken place; (b) feedback is provided on that event; (c) the action is reflected upon; and (d) there is a discussion of that feedback. Keiser and Arthur (2021) describe the theoretical basis for the model incorporating feedback theory (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996), observational and behavioural modelling (Bandura, 1986) and goal-setting theory (Locke and Latha, 2006). Keiser and Arthur (2021, 2022) have further clarified the AAR model through the inclusion of five key components: (a) consideration of the nature of the feedback; (b) inclusion of a reaction phase; (c) how to review activity or performance; (d) working with task complexity; and (e) the existence of consequences for any errors made.

Keiser and Arthur's reviews (2021, 2022) have found that AAR is effective for highly complex, often ambiguous tasks and actions that lack intrinsic feedback (feedback not automatically built into the service delivery model). Variants of the AAR model, particularly within healthcare or medical environments, have included an initial ‘reaction’ phase linked to psychological safety concepts (Eppich and Cheng, 2015). This phase was theorized to allow for frank and honest exchanges about how well an action was undertaken. This phase has incorporated a wellbeing component to examine staff anxiety, issues or problems with the work environment. Keiser and Arthur (2022) found that while there was an effect when a reaction phase had been included in the model, the effectiveness of the AAR model was attenuated. They argue that emotional venting may not reference the theoretical constructs related to observational learning and behavioural modelling. The authors recommend following the original conceptual design instead of adding additional steps.

The third component was the review phase, which incorporates the ‘why’ questions, allowing participants to discuss the learning from successes and failures. Fourth, task complexity is viewed as a critical consideration in goal setting. As the task's complexity increases, the team's ability to complete that task is contingent on identifying what is working well (and less well). Keiser and Arthur (2022) found that AAR is useful for developing effective strategies for complex tasks. Goal-setting theory suggests that participants will be more motivated to achieve a positive outcome if there are consequences for failure (e.g. to the organization or in the case of policing to the victim–survivor). This may be affected by the extent of psychological safety, where participants feel less comfortable communicating mistakes. However, Keiser and Arthur (2022) suggested that tasks with high consequences for error offset psychological safety. Moreover, how feedback is delivered is crucial, such that poorly provided feedback can draw attention to the individual rather than focusing on the overall team performance. This may be a particular issue in hierarchical organizations such as the police, with a high ‘power distance’ between leaders and other staff. Keiser and Arthur (2022) argue that vagaries in the feedback process may be offset by including observational learning and a goal-setting component. Despite this evidence, several limitations to the AAR model should be noted. First, most papers focus on training rather than working on the job. There is a lack of knowledge about whether AAR effects are maintained long-term. There is a lack of detail in the papers about the study methodology, making discerning specific component effects hard to measure.

Case study of a pilot critical reflective model in RASSO investigations

The model of AAR in practice was developed using the components identified in the literature review. For definitional purposes and to be consistent with terminologies understood in policing, we used the term CRP to describe the operational model. The grouping of seven individuals was perceived as optimal to make the review workable without becoming too unwieldy, and consideration was given to including victim–survivor input for future reviews, including access to individuals via online channels. The case for review was a positive outcome (e.g. resulting in a charge and a conviction) because this encouraged the perception that the process focused on learning rather than scrutiny of mistakes. Following the stakeholder consultation and co-production phases, it was decided to omit a ‘reaction’ phase because the breadth of information to be covered demanded awareness of the time available for the review.

Feedback phase

The AAR was chaired by a detective sergeant using an informal approach, which permitted investigators to speak candidly and, if needed, off the record. It was suggested that the investigating OIC, a detective constable, should lead the discussion rather than adhering to a hierarchical lead. All participants perceived this as crucial to creating a psychologically safe environment. The most senior officer involved in the investigation did not attend in person but was present virtually, which allowed for a perceived de facto flattening of the hierarchies among those physically present. There was also no preset agenda to allow for a free-flowing conversation and to give the AAR a more informal feel. The SIO set the parameters of the discussion (what they did well, what did not go so well, and what could be improved, in what was defined as ‘ground rules’).

Review phase

We observed that the CRP model organically established eight stages of reflection: (a) response first attendance; (b) initial investigation; (c) interview of suspects; (d) forensic strategy and early liaison with CPS (from custody); (e) post charge; (f) defence; (g) trial; and (h) media strategy. The stages adhered to the AAR theoretical framework that reviewed the objective and outcome to determine best practices and instances where the investigation was sub-optimal. The time allocated for the AAR was 90 minutes, but it lasted for 1 hour. The literature (Keiser and Arthur, 2021) suggests an optimal period of around 20–30 minutes, but it was felt that a more extended time would be needed for complex RASSO cases involving multiple stakeholder perspectives. The main barrier at this stage was ensuring sufficient time was available for all participants.

Developing strategies for task complexity

The model was enhanced by the line of questioning that deployed strengths-based approaches such as ‘what was good about this approach?’ or ‘what would good look like?’. The chair enhanced the approach, allowing questions to be raised at any stage as they arose rather than at a single point at the end, creating a more informal and reflective atmosphere. Participants perceived this to be fundamentally different from scrutiny panels’ formalized approaches. Moreover, although the SIO/chair of the AAR delegated the discussion lead to the OIC, the DCI was present remotely via a Teams Link and often had the audio and visuals turned off. These activities, in combination, were perceived to support the importance of the AAR as an operational priority but allowed the atmosphere to remain non-hierarchical.

The eight stages of the investigation were reviewed sequentially, and good practices and areas for improvement were identified. As suggested by the literature (Keiser and Arthur, 2021), objective metrics provided discussion points (e.g. how forensic samples were recorded). Examples of good practice and learning were discussed. For example, the decision to delay a release to the media was scrutinized, examining in-depth the effect of this approach on the victim–survivor, the impact on the case, organizational risk and the perceptions of the wider community.

As the CRP progressed, there was a discussion about the trial and the jury's perception of biological terminology (e.g. peri-anal, rectal canal, higher vaginal swab). A reflection point identified the need for a diagrammatic representation of medical terms to support the jury's understanding of the forensic components of the case. There were eight additional operationally focused suggestions for improved practice encompassing the specific components of the case discussed: (a) establishing clear criteria for requesting extra resources; (b) better use of the police interview advisor; (c) enhanced completion of the MG2 Witness Assessment detailed and tailored to victim–survivor needs, and in their voice; (d) timely administrative support provided responding to CPS tasks; (e) at court for highly complex cases to ensure two officers are present (e.g. to allow for a break and to act as a runner), which could provide an opportunity to give an experience of a Crown Court environment for trainee offices; (f) developing a closer relationship with ISVAs at trial; (g) consideration of a community impact assessment, where appropriate; and (h) money obtained from the proceeds of this specific offence that could be donated to a domestic abuse charity.

Discussing errors

A key learning point from the early investigation discussion focused on whether more resources were required at the initial investigation stage. The failure to ask for more resourcing at a critical juncture was perceived as a learning point for future activity. This was further operationalized as a future goal, ensuring that adequate resources will be an automatic consideration for future investigations.

A final essential addition to the CRP model not explicitly covered by the broader literature is creating a feedback loop in which previous learning is incorporated at the review stage. The feedback loop can be extended to include wider organizational learning (such as being cascaded to a force-wide RASSO improvement group). In this RASSO investigation, completing a first responder booklet allowed for a reflection point that would act as a record of the event. However, respondents perceived that written, recorded reflections were only practical when combined with the experience of many investigations. Therefore, experiential and institutional memory were pivotal in ensuring awareness of previous cases and bringing that learning into new reviews.

Discussion

The findings from this pilot test of a prototype model of critical reflection using an AAR model suggest that the approach has salience for police investigators across all ranks and can be operationalized into a working model for use in complex RASSO investigations. The four-stage (Keiser and Arthur, 2021) model was perceived as having efficacy in ordering investigators’ discussions, starting with a feedback phase, followed by reviewing operational practice, developing strategies for complex tasks, including setting goals for future activity and discussing the consequences of negative actions (including errors and when something was not accomplished during the investigation). We, therefore, argue that structuring future critical reflections for RASSO investigations would benefit from this staging of discussions.

Previous research has highlighted the operational constraints on developing an approach to critical reflection across RASSO investigations (Barbin et al., 2025; Rawdin, 2023). A key finding from the evidence review and during the action research component testing of the prototype model, shows that critical reflection is conditional in creating a psychologically safe space for open discussions before, during and after the review. This confirms the view from the broader literature of the primacy of psychological safety as an essential precondition for practical critical reflection and learning that contributes to the broader organizational culture (Roussin et al., 2016). We have suggested that policing culture (as in other demanding industries) implicitly perceives operational errors as mistakes to be punished or avoided, leading to a risk-averse culture. Employers reward their employees for preventing errors and quietly correcting them when they occur, while discussions of reviewing performance can raise ‘uncomfortable truths’. This results in a feedback process that focuses on the negative consequences of policing, creating feelings of fear, anxiety and concerns about career advancement, including the possible detrimental effect on personal, professional and social identities, which can be manifested in withdrawing from discussions and a reluctance to disclose errors (Edmondson, 1999, 2018). The need to flatten standard hierarchies to promote psychological safety has been observed in medicine, alongside factors such as familiarity with colleagues involved in the discussion and individual differences such as gender and personality traits (O’Donovan and Mcauliffe, 2020). This may be problematic in a male-dominated environment such as policing (Workman-Stark, 2021, 2015), although it is recognized that the RASSO workforce has a large proportion of female investigators (Sondhi et al., 2023). We found considerations to flatten hierarchies, such as through the manner of the facilitator and including the most senior officer virtually, which helped set the tone for reflective discussions. Therefore, there is a need to consider creating a safe environment for critical reflections to occur. We suggest setting clear ‘ground rules’ for open, honest and frank discussions.

To supplement psychological safety considerations, the prototype model also identified the salience of positive enablers such as solution-focused ‘nudges’, for example ‘What does a “good” response look like?’. Focusing on strengths-based approaches can enhance the investigator's perceptions of psychological safety during critical reflection. Focusing on positive affirmation (Fineman, 2006) when achievements were noted was also seen as beneficial to creating a safe environment by offering motivational support during complex and occasionally discomforting discussions.

A further addition to the Keiser and Arthur (2021) model is the importance of incorporating extant operational and institutional learning and knowledge during the review phase. The prototype model, therefore, establishes the need to create a feedback loop from other investigations. This may include written or video documentation and the presence of investigators using experiential knowledge. We suggest that this approach allows for deeper reflection, including integrating learning from other investigations across units and teams, potentially including input from the CPS (Gekoski et al., 2023). The model should also consider how to involve victim–survivors. This may include innovative and non-invasive approaches, such as recorded statements using a set of key criteria developed using the four-stage model. This requires careful planning to ensure that any learning can be effectively synthesized without recreating trauma for the victim–survivor. There remains a balance between capturing operational information and burdening people who will have experienced a high level of trauma. The admission of errors or mistakes may also open up a force to possible litigation, which must be considered a potential barrier that requires careful consideration. Incorporating organizational learning to integrate force-wide learning within the CRP model structure is required, and there is currently a gap in the prototype model. The model must capture learning across teams that can be disseminated to individual units and shared with organizational learning teams as part of a two-way continuous learning and improvement process.

Strengths and limitations

The prototype model was developed using the three-stage framework that Hawkins et al. (2017) established, including a detailed evidence review and creating a co-produced operational model (the research team with former and currently serving police officers). We argue that the model is sufficiently scaffolded in the theoretical evidence base, and the prototype model had salience with RASSO investigators to allow a sense of ownership and the freedom to be openly critical about strategies that may not work. The co-produced model has several limitations. The stakeholder discussions were limited to police investigators and could have benefited from involving other professionals (e.g. ISVAs). As discussed above, the inclusion of a victim–survivor voice also requires further consideration. Further work requires considering the potential trade-off between establishing a psychologically safe environment for police investigators that may not be the same for other professionals or victim–survivors.

Conclusion

We have presented a framework, grounded in the theoretical literature, for enhancing critical reflection in RASSO investigations. The co-produced model supported Villado and Arthur's four-stage model, including establishing a psychologically safe environment as a priority for police investigators. We further argue that previous experiential learning should be included in future iterations of this model to allow for ongoing organizational learning from cases with positive and successful outcomes and where lessons can be drawn from investigations which did not result in a positive outcome. Ultimately, this framework will facilitate RASSO investigators’ engagement in CRP, enhancing their investigative practice and ensuring better service for victim–survivors.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-psm-10.1177_14613557251395962 - Supplemental material for A co-produced pilot prototype model for critical reflection in the police investigation of rape and serious sexual offences

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-psm-10.1177_14613557251395962 for A co-produced pilot prototype model for critical reflection in the police investigation of rape and serious sexual offences by Arun Sondhi, Rachel Ward and Daniela Abinashi in International Journal of Police Science & Management

Footnotes

Author's note

Arun Sondhi, Anglia Ruskin University/Therapeutic Solutions (Addictions) Ltd., UK.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the help and support provided by operational members of staff who provided this service.

ORCID iDs

Arun Sondhi

Rachel Ward

Author contributions

Conceptual design: AS, RW. Data acquisition, coding and cleaning: AS, RW. Data analysis: AS. Literature review: AS, RW, DA. Review and interpretation of findings: AS, RW, DA. Preparation of first draft: AS, RW, DA. Writing – reviewing and editing: AS, RW, DA. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the Home Office as part of Operation Soteria Bluestone.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author biographies

Arun Sondhi was a researcher at the Centre for Policing Research and Learning at the Open University, part of Operation Soteria Bluestone (now the National Operating Model).

Rachel Ward is a serving police officer with Devon and Cornwall Police and was a senior practitioner fellow with the Centre for Policing Research and Learning (CPRL) at the Open University. Her work with the CPRL is on the Operation Soteria research team, exploring officer learning, development, and wellbeing.

Daniela Abinashi was a research consultant on Operation Soteria Bluestone. She has previously worked for the Metropolitan Police Service and the Mayor's Office for Policing And Crime and is currently training to be a counselling psychologist. Her research interests include officer wellbeing and embedding reflexivity within a policing context.

References

Arksey

O’Malley

(2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1): 19–32.

Bandura

(1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barbin

Gekoski

Davies

, et al. (2025) Policing rape and serious sexual offences: officers’ insights on police specialism. Journal of Criminal Psychology 15(1): 54–70.

Brough

Chataway

Biggs

(2016) You don’t want people knowing you’re a copper! A contemporary assessment of police organizational culture. International Journal of Police Science & Management 18(1): 28–36.

Bunderson

Boumgarden

(2010) Structure and learning in self-managed teams: why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. Organization Science 21(3): 609–624.

Carmeli

(2007) Social capital, psychological safety and learning behaviours from failure in organizations. Long Range Planning: International Journal of Strategic Management 40(1): 30–44.

Carmeli

Brueller

Dutton

(2009) Learning behaviors in the workplace: the role of high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 26(1): 81–98.

Carmeli

Gittell

(2009) High-quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 30(6): 709–729.

Christopher

(2015) The police service can be a critical reflective practice… if it wants. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 9(4): 326–339.

10.

College of Policing (2024) Investigator’s Journey. Available at: https://www.college.police.uk/national-operating-model-rasso/investigators-journey (accessed 5/06/2024).

11.

Dalton

Barrett

Horvath

, et al. (2022) A systematic literature review of specialist policing of rape and serious sexual offences. International Criminology 2(3): 230–252.

12.

Davies

Spence

Cummings

, et al. (2022) Understanding sexual violence and factors related to police outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 977318.

13.

Djopkang

(2015) Practising critical reflection to develop emancipatory change: challenging the legal response to sexual assault. European Journal of Social Work 19(6): 1037–1038.

14.

Edmondson

(1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(2): 350–383.

15.

Edmondson

Lei

(2014) Psychological safety: the history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organisational Psychology and Organisational Behaviour 1: 23–43.

16.

Edmondson

(2018) The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

17.

Eppich

Cheng

(2015) Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation (PEARLS): development and rationale for a blended approach to health care simulation debriefing. Simulation in Healthcare 10(2): 106–115.

18.

Fetters

Curry

Creswell

(2013) Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Services Research 48(6, pt 2): 2134–2156.

19.

Fineman

(2006) On being positive: concerns and counterpoints. Academy of Management Review 31(2): 270–291.

20.

Finn

Walsh

Rafter

, et al. (2024) Applying the theoretical domains framework to identify enablers and barriers to after action review: an analysis of implementation in an Irish tertiary specialist hospital. Safety Science 175: 106489.

21.

Foley

Massey

KLD

(2021) The “cost” of caring in policing: from burnout to PTSD in police officers in England and Wales’. The Police Journal 94(3): 298–315.

22.

Gekoski

Davies

Allen

(2023) Barriers and challenges to police and crown prosecution service joint working on rape and serious sexual offence cases: a police perspective. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 17: paad041.

23.

Gekoski

Massey

Allen

, et al. (2024) A lot of the time it’s dealing with victims who don’t want to know, it’s all made up, or they’ve got mental health’: rape myths in a large English police force. International Review of Victimology 30(1): 3–24.

24.

George

Ferguson

(2021) Review into the Criminal Justice System Response to Adult Rape and Serious Sexual Offences Across England and Wales. London: HM Government.

25.

Gilheaney

Quigley

(2022) The enablers and barriers to facilitating the development of reflective practice skills of third level allied health professional students through technology: a scoping review. Advances in Communication and Swallowing 24(2): 125–145.

26.

Harding

Maguire

Williams

(2024) Competing concepts of public value and legitimacy in the police: organisational challenges in the investigation of rape and serious sexual offences. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 76: 100646.

27.

Hawkins

Madden

Fletcher

, et al. (2017) Development of a framework for the co-production and prototyping of public health interventions. BMC Public Health 17: 1–11.

28.

Heaton

(2011) We could be criticized! Policing and risk aversion. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 5(1): 75–86.

29.

Heaton

Tong

(2023) More lesson learning, less risk aversion in England and Wales? Prospects for the police (conduct) regulations 2020. The Police Journal 96(4): 535–552.

30.

Hohl

Stanko

(2022) Five pillars: a framework for transforming the police response to rape and sexual assault. International Criminology 2(3): 222–229.

31.

Kahn

(1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal 33(4): 692–724.

32.

Keiser

Arthur

Jr (2021) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the after-action review (or debrief) and factors that influence its effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology 106(7): 1007.

33.

Keiser

Arthur

(2022) A meta-analysis of task and training characteristics that contribute to or attenuate the effectiveness of the after-action review (or debrief). Journal of Business and Psychology 37(5): 953–976.

34.

Khangura

Konnyu

Cushman

, et al. (2012) Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews 1: 1–9.

35.

Kluger

DeNisi

(1996) The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin 119(2): 254.

36.

Lampard

Marsden

(2015) Themes and Lessons Learnt from NHS Investigations into Matters Relating to Jimmy Savile. Department of Health, available online at www. gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/407209/KL_lessons_learned_report_FINAL. pdf.

37.

Locke

Latham

(2006) New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15(5): 265–268.

38.

Lopes Heimer

RDV

Hardiman

Dalton

(2024) Intersectional injustices: police responses to migrant, Black and minoritised victim-survivors of rape and other sexual offences in England and Wales. Policing and Society 34(8): 763–780.

39.

Marshall

Keville

Cain

, et al. (2022) Facilitating reflection: a review and synthesis of the factors enabling effective facilitation of reflective practice. Reflective Practice 23(4): 483–496.

40.

McMillan

(2015) The role of the specially trained officer in rape and sexual offence cases. Policing and Society 25(6): 622–640.

41.

Newman

Donohue

Eva

(2017) Psychological safety: a systematic review of the literature. Human Resources Management Review 27: 521–535.

42.

Noblet

Rodwell

Allisey

(2009) Job stress in the law enforcement sector: comparing the linear, non-linear and interaction effects of working conditions. Stress and Health 25(1): 111–120.

43.

Norman

Fox

Harding

, et al. (2022) Critical reflection: the importance of case reviews and reflective practice in rape and serious sexual offences investigations. International Criminology 2(3): 276–285.

44.

O’Donovan

McAuliffe

(2020) A systematic review of factors that enable psychological safety in healthcare teams. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 32(4): 240–250.

45.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. bmj 372. 10.1136/bmj.n71

46.

Popay

Roberts

Sowden

, et al. (2006) Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product from the ESRC Methods Programme version 1(1): b92.

47.

Rawdin

(2023) Re-thinking learning and development and well-being in the policing of rape: insights from a rapid review of comparable public-service occupations. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 17: paad074.

48.

Remtulla

Hagana

Houbby

, et al. (2021) Exploring the barriers and facilitators of psychological safety in primary care teams: a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research 21(1): 269.

49.

Roussin

MacLean

Rudolph

(2016) The safety in unsafe teams: a multilevel approach to team psychological safety. Journal of Management 42(6): 1409–1433.

50.

Rumney

McPhee

(2023) Vulnerability, resilience, and rape: uncovering the hidden work of police officers during rape investigations. International Review of Victimology 29(3): 366–384.

51.

Schein

Bennis

(1965) Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods: The Laboratory Approach. New York: Wiley.

52.

Schön

(2017) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Routledge.

53.

Sondhi

Harding

Maguire

, et al. (2023) Understanding factors associated with burnout symptoms amongst investigators working on rape and serious sexual offence (RASSO) investigations in England and Wales. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 17: paad020.

54.

Stanko

(2022) Independent Report Operation Soteria Bluestone Year One Report. London: Home Office.

55.

Stanko

Crew

(2022) From Project Bluestone to Operation Soteria Bluestone: an academic–police collaboration. International Criminology 2(3): 299–304.

56.

Tannenbaum

Cerasoli

(2013) Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors 55(1): 231–245.

57.

Tucker

Nembhard

Edmondson

(2007) Implementing new practices: an empirical study of organizational learning in hospital intensive care units. Management Science 53(6): 894–907.

58.

Vashdi

Bamberger

Erez

(2013) Can surgical teams ever learn? The role of coordination, complexity, and transitivity in action team learning. Academy of Management Journal 56(4): 945–971.

59.

White

McMillan

(2021) [De]-centering the victim: police perceptions of victims of sexual violence through a comparative lens of evidence collection and processing. Feminist Criminology 16(5): 680–700.

60.

Williams

Norman

Ward

Harding

(2022) Linking professionalism, learning and wellbeing in the context of rape investigation: early findings from Project Bluestone. International Criminology 2(3): 262–275.

61.

Williams

Sondhi

(2022) A narrative review of the literature on the recruitment of younger police officers in age and in service: what are the implications for the police in England and Wales? Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 16(4): 648–662.

62.

Workman-Stark

(2015) From exclusion to inclusion: a proposed approach to addressing the culture of masculinity within policing. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 34(8): 764–775.

63.

Workman-Stark

(2021) Who am I? Who are we? Exploring the factors that contribute to work-related identities in policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 15(2): 995–1010.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB