Abstract

Purpose: This study employed technological frames of reference (TFR) theory to explore officer attitudes toward body-worn cameras (BWCs) in the Chicago Police Department (CPD) to uncover frames that may undermine compliance with BWC policy.

Design/methodology/approach: Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom and telephone with 11 officers in 2022. The interviews focused on their perceptions of the technology's purpose, catalysts for adoption, effectiveness metrics, and benefits and drawbacks.

Findings: Officers viewed BWCs primarily as tools for oversight and cited external influences and the department's desire to be perceived as progressive as key catalysts for BWC adoption. There was widespread uncertainty regarding the criteria CPD uses to gauge BWC effectiveness. The protective feature of the cameras was cited as the primary benefit of the technology, while privacy intrusion and discretion were identified as key drawbacks. Noteworthy nuances were observed across these perceptual domains.

Research limitations/implications: The study focuses on a single police agency, limiting its generalizability. Nevertheless, it holds value for departments experiencing BWC policy compliance issues and those preparing to implement the cameras.

Practical implications: Insights into officers’ technological frames help identify perspectives that threaten desired use of BWCs and highlight necessary training and policy interventions that align officers' BWC readings with departmental goals to enhance policy compliance.

Originality/Value: This study is among the few to employ TFR theory to examine officer perceptions of BWCs in a large urban police agency.

Keywords: body-worn cameras, police attitudes, technological frames of reference, police compliance.

Citation: St. Louis, E. (2024). Shades in Technological Frames: Exploring Police Attitudes Toward Body-Worn Cameras in Chicago. Policing: An International Journal, 47(6), 1144-1159. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-12-2023-0172

High-profile police-involved killings since 2014 have intensified police-community tensions, highlighting persistent issues with transparency and accountability within law enforcement. These incidents have rekindled demands for police reform, with stakeholders, particularly in impacted cities like Chicago, proposing body-worn cameras (BWCs) as a solution (White & Malm, 2020). This advocacy and government funding have accelerated BWC adoption, resulting in 80% of large agencies, including the Chicago Police Department (CPD), using the cameras by 2016 (Hyland, 2018). Despite legal and policy support, compliance with BWC activation remains a significant challenge (Maury, 2016; White et al., 2019). Research has found overall activation rates well below 50% and individual activation rates as low as 0%, as well as reduction in activation rate over time (Boivin et al., 2022; Katz et al., 2015).

Recent evaluations of CPD’s BWC program indicate that the agency exemplifies these challenges, reporting, for example, half of pedestrian stops and approximately a third of traffic stops went unrecorded in the early years of the program, and only 65% of use-of-force incidents in 2021 (COPA, 2021; OIG, 2021). While CPD has made several policy updates to promote routine activation, compliance issues persist in the department, threatening the success of its BWC program. Ongoing compliance issues suggest systemic challenges that could undermine the benefits of BWCs, emphasizing that they’re effectiveness is influenced by various non-technological factors, including environmental conditions and human attitudes.

Addressing these issues requires systematic examination of the lenses through which officers interpret the technology. Technological frames of reference theory (TFR), developed by Orlikowski and Gash (1994) to serve as a framework for systematically exploring the influence of micro-level factors on technology adoption, implementation and use in organizations, is well-suited for such research. TFR emphasizes the value in systematically examining the often taken-for-granted assumptions, expectations, and knowledge that organizational members, such as officers, use to make sense of and respond to technology in their departments.

Applying TFR in research on attitudes toward BWCs offers a retroactive longitudinal account of officers’ accumulated repertoire of beliefs they use to interpret BWCs and respond to the technology, providing a framework for making sense of compliance issues with BWC policy. Despite TFR theory’s demonstrated value (Dewald, 2022; Lum et al., 2017), its application in research on officer attitudes toward BWCs is notably limited, having been employed in less than a handful of studies in this area. Though insightful, these studies mainly focus on small to mid-size departments, potentially missing key nuances in large organizations. This highlights the need to expand TFR-driven research on attitudes toward BWCs to include large agencies like CPD. The broader empirical literature, which includes studies focused on a mix of small/midsize and large police agencies, contributes to the literature on officer attitudes toward BWCs. However, it favors survey data, highlighting general patterns in these attitudes (Gaub et al., 2023), yet overlooking potentially important nuances in these perspectives.

Considering these shortcomings, this study uses TRF theory to analyze interviews with 11 CPD officers to gain deeper insights into their BWC readings, proving a basis for deducing how might these interpretations undermine compliance with BWC policy in the department. Instead of directly centering on lived experiences and attitudes regarding non-compliance, interviews focused on exploring the technological frames officers have developed relative to the cameras, providing a basis for inferring their implications for compliance with BWC activation protocols. Specifically, interviews explored participants’ belief of the cameras’ purpose, adoption catalyst, awareness of effectiveness metrics, and perceived benefits and drawbacks. This study contributes to practice and academic knowledge. Practically, it offers actionable recommendations to better align officers’ technological frames with the department’s objectives and goals for BWCs, potentially promoting compliance with BWC activation requirements. Academically, it builds on the few studies that employed TFR theory in this area of inquiry. It also adds to the small number of qualitative studies on officer attitudes toward BWCs, offering a more profound understanding into police interpretations of BWCs.

Literature Review

This review summarizes survey and qualitative research, including the few that employed TFR theory. It highlights survey trends and qualitative nuances in officer perceptions of the purpose of BWCs, adoption catalysts, for adoption, awareness of effectiveness metrics, and perceived advantages and drawbacks.

Surveys

Surveys have been instrumental in research on police attitudes toward BWCs, highlighting promising and unfavorable trends. For instance, studies commonly report that officers perceive BWCs as accountability and protective tools (Snyder et al., 2019; Todak & Gaub, 2020). This perceived dual purpose suggests that there may be important nuances in officers’ interpretation of the technology worth exploring. Surveys often assess officers’ perceived purpose of BWCs, but they less frequently examine views regarding the catalyst for BWC adoption and awareness of the criteria used by their department to assess the technologies effectiveness. Survey research indicate that officers agree that BWCs’ adoption was driven primarily by public demand for greater police transparency and accountability (Pelfrey & Keener, 2016; Smykla et al., 2016). This hints that the implementation of the cameras may be viewed as an external imposition.

Existing studies, including Pelfrey and Keener (2018), have examined perceptions of BWC effectiveness in various contexts, such as evidence collection, but they do not provide insights into officers’ awareness of the specific criteria used in their department to gauge BWC success. This is a crucial gap that needs addressing because awareness of the effectiveness criteria for adopted technology promotes behavioral decisions that align with related departmental intentions (Jennings et al., 2015; Orlikowski & Gash, 1994). This underscores the value of exploring officer attitudes on this front, as it could provide insight into how to better align officers' interpretations of BWCs with departmental objectives, potentially promoting desired use (Lum et al., 2017).

Unlike metrics awareness, surveys have directed significant attention toward examine officer attitudes BWCs. Officers commonly agree that protection against complaints is the primary benefit of BWC. They also indicate improved training opportunities, enhanced report quality, and to a lesser degree, the civilizing power of the cameras as key benefits (Cochran & Worden, 2023; Snyder et al., 2019; Todak & Gaub, 2020). Despite these perceived advantages, officers routinely indicate constrained discretion, privacy intrusion, increased public scrutiny, and the technology being used for discipline as major concerns (Gramagila & Phillips, 2018; Snyder et al., 2019; Wooditch et al., 2020). These perceived advantages and drawbacks further highlight a duality in BWC interpretations that may yield deeper insights into officer perceptions, supporting a more comprehensive understanding how these views may be shape decisions surrounding the cameras when explored qualitatively.

Qualitative Studies

Qualitative research, though less prevalent, corroborates survey trends while also providing a more detailed understanding of officer attitudes toward BWCs (Gaub et al., 2023). Qualitative insights, including those from mixed-methods studies, consistently indicate that officers view BWCs as accountability and protective tools (Gaub et al., 2020; Pickering, 2020; Sandhu, 2019). However, these perceptions are layered. Some officers clarify that the accountability-building power of the cameras mainly manifests among the few ‘bad apples,’ noting that most officers do not require camera-imposed accountability, thus rendering the technology more of a tool for workplace surveillance (Fallik et al., 2020; Powell-Williams et al., 2021; Sandhu, 2019). Beyond survey trends indicating officers view the cameras as protection from false complaints, qualitative data reveal they also see them as a safeguard against problematic peers who threaten their credibility and accountability and strategic tool for managing public interactions and readings of recorded incidents (Fallik et al., 2020; Powell-Williams et al., 2021; Gaub et al., 2020; Sandhu, 2019).

While existing qualitative studies have provided insights into officers' perceived purposes of BWCs, specific catalysts for BWC adoption remain underexplored. The literature often cites external pressures namely from high-profile incidents across the country, as significant catalysts for BWC adoption (Fallik et al., 2020; Gaub et al., 2020). Although national crises have influenced police departments' decisions to acquire BWCs, understanding local contexts is also valuable as they may play a more influential role in officers' interpretations of BWCs (Koen et al., 2023). Moreover, qualitative studies often overlook officers' awareness of the specific metrics used in their departments to measure BWC effectiveness. These studies typically assess general perceptions of effectiveness in areas such as reducing use of force and complaints, but they often neglect less obvious metrics like successful de-escalation of emotionally charged suspects, application of procedural justice, and activation patterns across different types of stops (e.g., routine vs. high-stress incidents). This gap is worth exploring as it may reveal whether departments have intentions for BWCs that are not specified in policy or communicated effectively to officers. It can also highlight whether officers are aware of these metrics and identify important metrics that departments should consider.

Qualitative research, like surveys, often examines the perceived benefits and drawbacks of BWCs but provides more detailed insights. Officers commonly cite the evidentiary value of BWC as the primary benefit (Gaub et al., 2020; Sandhu, 2019), which cascades into various other benefits. These include protection from false and frivolous complaints and increased credibility supported by footage corroborating their accounts, especially in cases where probable cause might be challenged or in critical incidents (Fallik et al., 2020; Pickering, 2020; Sandhu, 2019; Willis, 2022; Wy et al., 2022). While officers acknowledge the limited civilizing power of BWCs, they also cited the technology’s potential to promote civility among civilians as a benefit, noting that the change is dependent on activation and notification (Fallik, 2020; Gaub et al., 2020; Sandhu, 2019). This benefit likely enhances the perceived protective power of the cameras, seeing that increased civility reduces the risk of false complaints, use of force, and situations that threaten officers’ credibility and invite public scrutiny (Nix et al., 2019). Qualitative studies, including Willis (2022) also indicate that officers see the potential for the cameras to improve training through scenario-based exercises using BWC recordings as a benefit.

Despites these benefits, several drawbacks have been documented in qualitative research, many of which are connected to the layered perception of BWCs as accountability tools. Officers often cite privacy concerns, noting trepidation surrounding recording sensitive situations involving civilians, and feeling under constant surveillance, which constrains genuine peer-interactions (Pelfrey & Keener, 2016; Pickering 2020; Powell-Williams et al., 2021; Sandhu, 2019). They also worry that BWCs will be used disciplinary tools, allowing supervisors to comb through footage for evidence of rule violation, potentially targeting officers for personal reasons (Fallik et al., 2020; Powell-Williams et al., 2021; Willis, 2022; Wy et al., 2022). Interestingly, while officers see increased credibility as a benefit associated with BWCs, they also stress that the cameras threaten their credibility in that the public and courts place more value on video evidence than on their accounts (Gaub et al, 2020; Powell-Williams et al., 2021; Sandhu, 2019). They also note that BWCs do not always capture everything they see, and technical limitations and the nature of policing can compound situations, leading to no footage or incomplete recordings, potentially causing the public to question their accounts, undermining their credibility (Gaub et al., 2020; Powell-Williams et al., 2021; Sandhu, 2019).

Reduced discretion is another key drawback noted by officers, explaining that the cameras cause second-guessing, especially in high-stress situations (Gaub et al., 2020; Powell-Williams et al., 2021; Wy et al., 2022). Furthermore, they feel that BWCs constrain their ability to use certain strategies, including lenient treatment and adapting communication styles to fit the environment, particularly in urban settings (Fallik et al., 2020; Gaub et al., 2020; Powell-Williams et al., 2021). These concerns are buoyed by worries about BWCs being used to punitively measure performance (Gaub et al., 2020; Powell-Williams et al., 2021; Willis, 2022). These complex attitudes hint at the technological frames officers may have developed relative to BWCs, yet these studies do not offer a focused and systematic analysis of the assumptions, expectations, and knowledge they have about the technology, leaving the empirical literature scattered and lacking practical utility.

In contrast, TFR-driven studies offer a more structured approach that enhances the practical utility of research findings. However, recent review of the literature identified less than a handful studies that applied this theory to explore officer attitudes toward BWCs. Newell and Greidanus (2017) used a mixed-method approach to examine officer perceptions of BWCs within the context of activation policies in two police agencies. They found that officers initially viewed BWCs as tools for accountability and protection but were concerned about privacy and misuse of footage by supervisors. However, extended experience with the cameras influenced a positive change in perceptions, influencing officers’ attitudes regarding activation policy. While this study employed TFR theory, its application was limited, as it did not fully leverage the core domains of TFR to provide a more systematic understanding of these interpretations.

In comparison, Koen and colleagues provide a focused application of the theory across two studies. In their mixed-method study of police attitudes toward BWCs in the Pennybridge Police Department, Koen et al. (2021) found that officers initially saw the cameras as a disciplinary tool for increasing accountability but later perceived the technology as providing protection against baseless complaints. However, these views reverted after the introduction of policies requiring supervisor audits of BWC recordings. Similarly, Koen and Willis (2020), observed that officers’ perceptions of the cameras evolved from viewing them as accountability tools to recognizing they provide protection against complaints. This perceptual shift was influenced by inclusive policy development, highlighting the dynamic nature of officer perceptions regarding the nature of BWCs and how these views are shaped by organizational factors.

Within the technology strategy frame domain, Koen and Colleagues, observed that officers perceived the adoption of BWCs as being prompted by local divisive police events that questioned transparency and accountability. These events include the controversial detainment of a Black suspect and the "Hand-cuff Event" in which an officer struck a handcuffed suspect (Koen et al., 2021; Koen & Willis, 2020). This view indicates that officers might interpret the introduction of BWCs more so as an obligation and less of an organizational decision. While these studies offered a more focused examination of attitudes toward BWCs, they too overlook officer awareness of the metrics used in their agency to measure BWC effectiveness and instead report on attitudes regarding the cameras’ effectiveness more generally. This gap further underscores the need to explore this area. Koen and colleagues' findings on officer attitudes toward BWCs within the technology-in-use domain echo those reported in the studies mentioned above, highlighting benefits such as protection from complaints through objective evidence, improved report writing, and enhanced learning and training opportunities. They also report similar drawbacks, including privacy concerns during downtime, constrained discretion, and misinterpretation of footage, potentially leading to undue public scrutiny and discipline (Koen & Willis, 2020; Koen et al., 2021).

The duality observed in officer perceptions across these studies suggest that the cameras are interpreted as being as a double-edged-sword, which does not bode well for policy compliance. This reading of BWCs points to the need for further research into the attitudinal component of BWC-policing to better understand police behavior surrounding the technology, particularly activation, as the potential benefits of the technology hinge on officers consistently activating and using them per policy. While notable progress has been made in BWC policy, police departments continue to grapple with compliance with activation protocols, with research reporting concerning departmental and individual-level activation rates. For instance, Lawrence et al., (2019) found activations rates across officers ranging from 0% to 72%, with an overall average activation rate of 54%, up from 3%. While this study observed an increase in activations over time, others like Katz et al., (2015) report an opposite trend. This documented compliance issues poses a challenge for police departments of all sizes, including CPD. Considering this ongoing issue, this study delves into CPD officers' perceptions of BWCs to gain a rich understanding of their technological frames, providing a framework for making sense of and suggesting interventions to address non-compliance with BWC policy.

Theory

Research indicates that 57% of police departments nationwide were using BWCs as of 2019, with much more planning to adopt the technology to improve transparency and accountability and enhance policing (Lenk et al., 2022). However, agencies currently using the cameras have been wrestling with ongoing compliance issues threatening their potential benefits, suggesting future adopters may encounter similar challenges (Huff et al., 2024) These dynamics underscore the need to examine police perceptions of BWCs and consider their implications for the successful use of the technology. TFR theory provides a framework to systematically analyzing how individual and group interpretations shape interactions with technology, making it fit for studying officer attitudes toward BWCs.

TFR theory maintains that technological frames are cultivated based on their assumptions, expectations, and knowledge of the technology. Furthermore, technological frames are shaped by personal experiences, peer influence, and organizational contexts. Organizational members, such as officers use these frames to make sense of and interact with technology. TFR theory examines attitudes across three core domains: nature of technology, technology strategy, and technology in-use, with each providing a lens for understanding officer attitudes toward BWCs. The nature of technology domain examines officer opinions about the purpose BWCs in their departments. The technology strategy domain explores officer beliefs regarding the catalyst for BWC adoption and awareness of the departmental metrics for measuring BWC effectiveness. Finally, the technology-in-use domain assesses officer perceived benefits and draw drawbacks associated with the day-to-day use of BWCs. This study explores officer attitudes toward BWCs across all three domains, providing a basis for inferring how these frames might influence compliance with BWC protocol.

Frame Alignment

In addition to exploring technological frames, TFR theory calls attention to the value of gauging the alignment between identified frames and the departmental goals for the adopted technology. TFR theory stresses that aligning officers’ technological frames with departmental goals for an adopted technology promote its effective use. Technological frames are deemed incongruent when officers’ interpretations of the purpose, adoption catalysts and metrics for BWCs’ effectiveness, and implications of daily use of the technology, are not aligned with departments’ goals of increase transparency and accountability, for example (Orlikowski & Gash, 1994). To avoid compliance issues that undermine BWC effectiveness, TFR stresses the need to identify and address misaligned frames using effective strategies.

TFR-driven research has identified several frame-aligning strategies. A common approach is fostering effective communication rather through training or internal communications approaches to ensure officers understand their departments’ BWC policy, objectives and goals for BWCs, and metrics for gauging the cameras’ effectiveness (Jakku & Thorburn, 2010; Lin & Silva, 2005). Another strategy is reframing existing frames through direct interaction and dialogue between officers and relevant internal stakeholders like frontline supervisors and administrators, with emphasis on shaping officers’ interpretation of the cameras to synchronize with organizational intentions for the technology (Lin & Silva, 2005). Furthermore, the literature provides evidence that treating BWCs as a 'boundary object' can also foster shared interpretations of BWCs among relevant internal and external BWC stakeholders Jakku & Thorburn, 2010). This approach can potentially shape technological frames to prioritize the camera’s role in enhancing transparency and accountability. Despite research on police non-BWC technology highlighting the influence of technological frames on police interpretations and use of technology and underscoring the value in studying and remedying problematic frames to optimize the effectiveness of techno-based strategies, TFR theory remains underutilized in perceptual studies on police attitudes toward BWCs (Dewald, 2022; Lum et al., 2017)

Methodology

This study explores CPD officers’ attitudes regarding the technology’s purpose, catalysts for their acquisition, awareness of metrics for assessing effectiveness, and the cameras’ benefits and drawbacks. The data is analyzed and interpreted using TFR theory to understand the technological frames officers have developed relative to BWCs. This approach provides a basis for inferring the implications of officers’ interpretations of the technology for policy compliance, and suggesting actionable interventions to promote usage of the cameras that align with the department’s goals for BWC-policing.

Research Questions

1) What is the perceived primary purpose of BWCs among CPD officers?

2a) What catalysts do officers believe prompted CPD’s adoption of BWCs?

2b) How aware are officers of the criteria CPD uses to measure BWCs' effectiveness?

3) What are the perceived benefits and drawbacks of BWCs among CPD officers?

Research Site

This study was conducted in CPD, the country’s second largest police agency. The agency has approximately 1200 officers serving a racially diverse population of about 2.7 residents. Historically, CPD has struggled to maintain a healthy relationship with the city’s minority community, buoyed by recurring allegations of procedurally unjust police practices, and high-profile incidents of misconduct, including unlawful use of deadly force. The 2014 shooting death of Laquan McDonald and the circumstances surrounding the release of in-car videos of the incident a year later exacerbated the police-community tension, leading to public protests and demand for increased transparency and accountability. Convinced that CPD, cannot hold itself accountable, the public called on the department to adopt BWCs as a solution (CPATF, 2016). CPD began testing BWCs in one of its 22 districts in 2015 before expanding to six additional districts in 2016 during its year-long formal pilot of the cameras (i.e., Axon Body 2). By 2017, these cameras were fully deployed departmentwide as a strategy to increase visibility of officer-civilian interactions, thereby enhancing transparency and accountability. In 2019, CPD upgraded to Axon Body 3 cameras, which offer updated surveillance features, including remote access, though the department has not purchased it.

CPD's foundational BWC policy, which uses a discretionary activation approach, and designed to promote transparency and accountability, and protect privacy, has evolved over the years. The initial policy, implemented in 2016, established general guidelines requiring that officers record all law enforcement activities from start to finish, with exceptions for legal or exigent circumstances. This policy has been revised periodically to improve compliance and effectiveness. Noteworthy updates include more specific guidelines mandating activation for all law enforcement activities like traffic stops, searches, and arrests, including high-risk ones and any situation where transparency and accountability are crucial, as specified in the revised policy in 2018 (CPD, 2024). The revised policy requires officers to explain failures to activate and fully record incidents, accounting for the unpredictable nature of police-civilian interactions and encouraging transparency and accountability. The switch to Axon Body 3 cameras in 2019 is also notable. This version of BWCs, which is currently being used by the department, extends the pre-event buffering time from 30 seconds, as featured in Axon Body 2 cameras, to two minutes. This change was made to help capture more comprehensive evidence during police-civilian interactions.

The revisions to the policy have been shaped by ongoing challenges with compliance with BWC activation protocols. For instance, an external evaluation notes that out of 186 civilian complaints alleging non-compliance from 2018 to 2020, only 37% (68) were upheld (COPA, 2021). Of these 68 sustained complaints, almost half (49%) involved complete non-activation (COPA, 2021). Furthermore, review of investigatory stop and use a force data revealed that between 2018 and 2019, BWCs we’re not turned on or available in 18% of 290,145 stops conducted. The report documents that these cases where BWCs are utilized per policy, involve a range of incident ranging from routine all the way to use a firearm. It further notes that officers underscore various reasons for their compliance challenges, including unfamiliarity with activation protocols, lack of awareness of no activation, and insufficient training. A recent evaluation highlights that these compliance issues are compounded by inconsistent supervisor audits of BWC videos (OIG, 2021), which the department has responded to revising the policy to provide more clarity regarding supervisors’ responsibility on this front. Although CPD has made progress in its quest to address these identified compliance issues, the problem continues. This underscores the need to examine the officer’s technological frames regarding BWCs to understand how their interpretations of the cameras may be influencing non-compliance.

Data Collection and Analysis

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 officers recruited using snowball sampling, beginning with individuals involved in the BWC pilot and interacted with the research team. Given the importance of trust in police subculture and the authors’ outsider status, snowball sampling was deemed most ethical and effective. This approach also allowed for the inclusion of participants with diverse BWC experiences who could contribute in-depth insights on the topic. Participants were encouraged to refer peers they believed would significantly contribute to the study, aiming to maximize diverse perspectives in terms of race/ethnicity, age, gender, and experience.

The first four participants included officers with expertise in community engagement and field training and a supervisor with over 30 years of experience who was involved in implementing BWCs and other technologies, such as in-car cameras. Throughout the sampling process, participants were carefully selected to minimize potential sampling biases and ensure a diverse sample. For instance, some participants were encouraged to refer female and minority officers. These measures yielded a diverse sample comprising three African Americans, two Whites, five Latino, and 1 participant who identified as other. The sample contains individuals whose ages ranged from their 20s to their 40s, and experience varied from early-career-officers to seasoned veterans.

Due to COVID-19 restrictions, interviews were conducted via Zoom and telephone from March to April 2022. Consent for audio recording using Zoom was obtained for 10 of the 11 interviews, allowing for verbatim transcription and accurate analysis. For phone interviews, detailed handwritten and computer-assisted notes were taken. The study’s purpose was explained to each participant before the interview, and verbal consent was obtained to assure voluntary participation and confidentiality. Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes, collectively yielding over 200 pages of transcription and notes. Zoom’s transcription feature was used to convert audio recordings to text. The transcriptions for these interviews were cross-checked with the original audio to ensure the data was reliable for analysis.

For the phone interview, handwritten jottings and computer-aided voice-to text notes were taken, with the author repeating selected responses and asking participants to confirm. This increased the richness of the data and providing verbatim quoteworthy comments. Atlas.ti was used to organize the data and facilitate a fully manual thematic analysis of the data. As described by Charmaz (2006), the process involved several coding strategies, beginning with open coding, deductive coding, and inductive coding. Finally, focused coding was applied to reveal emergent themes.

Findings

This section details the main discoveries based on the data collected and thematically analyzed vis-a-vis TFR theory. These findings provide insights into officers’ technological frames regarding BWCs, suggesting how these interpretations may shape BWC policy compliance within CPD.

Nature of Technology

To explore attitudes toward BWCs within the nature of technology domain, officers were questioned about the cameras' purposes in CPD. Most officers who addressed this question (7 of 10) believed BWCs were adopted primarily to increase individual accountability and professional conduct through increased scrutiny of officer-civilian interactions via BWC recordings. Officer Pelota emphasized that BWCs are used for transparency and accountability, making “sure [officers] are not doing anything that [they] are not supposed to do.” Officer Rockford echoed this sentiment and contextualized his answer by referencing the historically strained relationship between police and Black communities caused by unjust and unlawful police practices nationwide and in Chicago from the 1990s to the present, acknowledging the public’s rationale for the call for increased police visibility. Most of these officers discussed the purpose of BWCs from an individual rather than an organizational lens. A minority of them (3 out of 10) believed that BWCs’ purpose is to increase public safety by deterring misconduct and ensuring compliance. Officer Soto stands out, noting the BWCs program aims to reduce false complaints and associated legal costs.

Technology Strategy

To gain insights into officers' perspectives on BWCs within the technology strategy domain, they were asked to share their opinions about the catalyst for BWCs’ adoption and the criteria CPD uses to evaluate their effectiveness. A slight majority of officers (6 out of 11) attributed the cameras were adopted in response to external pressures from high-profile misconduct incidents. For instance, Officer Azalea reasoned the technology was adopted because “there have been some recent cases where officers have not followed what the city had trained them to do, and the city ended up paying a lot of money for misconduct.” Officer Rockford added, echoed these points, noting that local incidents triggered the acquisition of BWCs in Chicago amid intensified demand for greater police transparency and accountability nationwide. Four officers viewed these external pressures as secondary and cited CPD's desire to project a progressive image as the primary catalyst for adopting BWC. Officer Pelota explained that “It was the “progressive thing to do [as many] big cities have body-worn cameras.” He further emphasized the implementation of the technology was “a political move…to show the public the police care about accountability,” rather than a genuine shift in power dynamics.

Most officers (9 of 11) were uncertain about the criteria CPD uses to gauge BWC effectiveness. Officer Rockford stated, “I don’t know what they’re doing to evaluate it, but I think they might look to see if the lieutenants watch” BWC footage per policy. Two other officers echoed similar doubts, and two, including Cartwright, wondered whether metrics like use-of-force and complaints are used. Only two officers were confident, citing decreased crime and calls for service, fewer lawsuits, and improved police-community relations as potential indicators of BWC success. While some of these speculations somewhat align with the departments' documented metrics, there seems to be a gap in officers' general awareness of the official criteria CPD uses to assess BWC effectiveness. Improving internal communication and training needs to be addressed to fill this critical gap.

Technology-In-Use

For insights into officers’ attitudes toward BWCs within the technology-in-use domain, the data were analyzed focusing on perceived benefits and drawbacks. A slight majority (7 of 11) of officers identified protection against false complaints as the primary benefit of BWCs and referenced the high frequency of false complaints, especially pre-BWCs as shaping this sentiment. Officer Soto emphasized that “people even [file false complaints] on body cams, so imagine what happened” before the cameras.” Officer Pelota described a prolonged wrongful arrest case he was involved in pre-BWCs and noted how BWCs could have been used to quickly see that the allegations were false. Likewise, Officer Baxter described a case where BWC footage was used to dismiss a false racial discrimination and a COVID-19 protocol violation complaint against him, highlighting the camera's role in protecting him from possible career-damaging outcomes. Officer Brewer and another officer emphasized BWCs' role in increasing police accountability, fostering better police-community relations, and reducing lawsuits as secondary benefits. For three officers, BWCs provided the benefit of improved report writing, thereby bolstering officer credibility, with another citing improved civilian safety as a key benefit.

However, officers expressed several concerns about BWCs, including privacy issues, reduced discretion, and technological limitations that threaten officer credibility. While only four officers initially noted privacy concerns, deeper discussion revealed widespread worries, particularly about restroom breaks, downtime, and technical uncertainties. For instance, Officer Pelota stated, “Going to the bathroom with a camera does make me feel uncomfortable.” Officer Calico added, “The buffering time is too long, the cameras can catch me in my private intimate moments if I get a job.” Likewise, Officer Baxter, who is generally unconcerned about the invasion of privacy, expressed uneasiness in this context, saying, “If I get a job and the buffer goes back far enough, they will see my penis.”

Officers noted that the constant presence of BWCs makes them feel uneasy during downtime, fearing they are “being watched,” as Officer Azalea described it. They worried that casual conversation could be inadvertently captured in the prevent-event buffer time, potentially exposing interactions for which they had some expectations of privacy. Officer Soto underscored this sentiment, stating, “I would prefer not to have a camera recording me when I am not on a call. [I feel like] I can’t have a normal conversation with my partner or joke around and be goofy.” This concern intensified for Officer Azalea after a supervisor referenced personal information obtained from her BWC recording during downtime. Officers emphasize that this particular concern has had a chilling effect on casual dialogue and bonding.

Several technological uncertainties compound these privacy concerns. First, officers were concerned that the stated buffer duration could be longer than the department claims, potentially leading to unintended and intended surveillance. Second, they worried that the cameras were continuously recording. For instance, Officer Azalea speculated that the cameras were “recording all the time“ and referenced “a rumor floating around [CPD] saying that the buffer mode is not really two minutes,” indicating a fear it could be longer or non-existent. Officer Velasco shared this concern, noting that “before, the buffering was 30 seconds, and now it’s like 2 minutes. So, there is a thought that the buffering is endless." This rumor intensified among officers following this change in policy. Third, officers worried that the latest cameras (i.e., Axon Body 3 cameras) have remote accessibility, allowing supervisors to monitor them in real time. Officer Saldana underscored this concern, stating, “Since these new cameras came out, they (his peers) say [supervisors] can now activate them to see what you are doing…like they can watch you…even when on break eating lunch or just chillin’.” Going beyond speculation, Officer Soto, claimed she once discovered her camera recording unexpectedly, convincing her supervisors have remote access to BWCs. Even participants who were less concerned with privacy, like Officer Rockford, acknowledged the potential risks if policy changes intensify monitoring.

Nearly all officers expressed concern about BWCs’ restriction on discretion, particularly in low-level, drug-related stops and traffic stops involving unauthorized vehicles and drivers, where they feel obligated to strictly enforce the law. This strict adhere the law is shaped by the fear of being disciplined for being too lenient when dealing with violations that they would likely have treated lightly are captured on camera, creating a dilemma for them. As Officer Cartwright explained, “Body-worn cameras...definitely reduce discretion when it comes to finding things like a crack pipe, weed, or some shit that's just a misdemeanor. “Officer Rockford added, “Before marijuana legalization, if it’s caught on camera, I had to arrest them. I would be doing good by letting them go, but I don’t want to get in trouble; I gotta protect myself before I protect someone else.”

Officer Karlov further emphasized the conflicts officers experience in these situations by explaining that “The only time I think about the camera and make a different decision…is when I am considering not impounding cars.” He clarified that It’s a struggle and a lot of money for the owners to get their cars back. But the general order doesn’t give (officers) discretion; we must impound the cars, and if we don’t, we are responsible.” Despite the risks, some officers admitted a willingness to let certain individuals, such as aging and pregnant women, and female parents of young children, “off the hook.” Overall, participants felt that BWC-induced loss of discretion dissuade officers from “policing with compassion” as Officer Baxter noted. This finding hints at the need for policy changes and training updates that consider these nuances and dilemmas between legal measures and community-policing principles.

Additionally, some officers expressed concerns about technological limitations, fearing public misinterpretation of incidents. For example, Velasco and two others highlighted that the limited field of view of BWCs stands as a drawback. She opined that, “From the public['s] [perspective], it may seem like [the recorded images are] the only things the officer saw,” potentially leading to misunderstanding. Officers working in “busy” districts (2) noted that having to write detailed reports from the high number of BWC-recorded interactions is a disadvantage. Officer Rockford, who also worked in a “busy” district, cited subpar battery life as a critical issue. Drawing from his experience, he worried that battery failure could lead to his temporary removal from duty and create credibility issues if incidents go unrecorded. These findings highlight nuances and duality characterizing CPD officers’ interpretations of BWCs, hinting at potential areas for policy and training interventions to promote compliance.

Discussion

This study applied TFR theory to systematically explore the technological frames CPD officers have developed regarding BWCs. The study provides a focused and nuanced understanding of their interpretations of BWCs by exploring, through interviews, their perceptions across three frame domains: nature of technology (purpose of BWCs), technology strategy (adoption catalysts and effectiveness criteria), and technology-in-use (benefits and drawbacks). The main findings detailed below echo existing knowledge and highlight insights specific to CPD that point to the need for targeted training and strategic policy adjustments to enhance the alignment between officers’ technological frames with the department’s goal of leveraging BWCs to increase transparency and accountability. The following discussion contextualizes these findings within the existing literature on police attitudes toward BWCs, underscoring their implications for BWC policy compliance.

Main Findings

Officers held nuanced BWC attitudes within the nature of technology domain. They primarily perceived the technology as a tool to increase officer accountability, and professional behavior by monitoring and scrutinizing footage for disciplinary reasons, with the overall intent of deterring misconduct and increasing compliance with policies. This interpretation of the purpose BWCs may contribute to non-compliance or selective activation in routine and contentious contacts with civilians to obviate repercussions for possible rule violations. This finding aligns with existing research that have similarly found that officers view BWCs as oversight tools implement to impose accountability (Powell-Williams et al., 2021; Willis, 2022)

In the technology strategy domain, officers cited external pressures from national and local incidents like the Laquan McDonald shooting as catalysts for BWC adoption, stimulated public demands for more transparency and accountability. However, officers also recognized internal decision was a catalyst, explaining that CPD’s acquisition of BWCs as a performative act rather than a genuine strategy for substantially enhancing department-level accountability. Interpreting the introduction of the cameras as an imposition and partly as an expressive gesture and not as an adaptive strategy could lead officers to question the legitimacy of the BWC program, potentially and undermining compliance with its policies.

Officers were uncertain about the metrics CPD uses to measure BWC effectiveness, highlighting a significant gap in training and communication. This widespread uncertainty likely exists due to metrics being implied rather than explicitly stated in the BWC policy or due to in ineffective communication of these metrics. Addressing this gap is essential for aligning officers’ behavior surrounding the cameras with department goals for the technology. While this study aligns with past research that found officers cited external and internal influences as prompting the adoption of BWCs (Fallik et al., 2020; Koen et al., 2023), it differs from existing studies as it explored a notably overlooked lacuna in our understanding of officer awareness of departmental metrics used to measure BWC effectiveness.

Analysis of participants’ perceptions within the technology-in-use domain revealed that officers most value the protective benefits of BWCs. They emphasized that recorded footage shields them from false and frivolous complaints and preserve their professional credibility, thereby safeguarding their careers. Additionally, officers recognized the potential of BWCs to protect the department’s image and reduce legal spending as important benefits the agency. This finding highlights the duality in officers’ interpretations of BWCs. Whereas they view the technology as an oversight tool intended to impose accountability on them, they also see the cameras as offering them protection, though they do not see protection of officers as the primary purpose of the technology. This suggests officers may recognize that they can use the cameras in strategic ways that advantage their position over civilians (Sandhu, 2019).

Despite these benefits, officers cited several drawbacks. They emphasized privacy concerns, particularly related to the pre-event buffer time and possible remote access, especially in the context of restroom breaks and downtime interactions (Pickering, 2020; Cochran & Worden, 2023; Wooditch et al., 2020). Moreover, they expressed discontent over the BWC-induced loss of discretion, particularly in situations involving illegally operated vehicles and low-level drug offenses where they might prefer to use "compassionate policing." This finding aligns with Adams and Mastracci's (2019) observation that constant monitoring increases stress for officers and underscores the constraints BWCs can impose on community policing, highlighting the influence of local contexts on officer behavior surrounding BWCs. The duality in officers' interpretations of BWCs, along with these nuanced views, suggests a potential misalignment between their readings and CPD’s goals for the technology. These findings highlight the need for focused interventions to enhance the alignment between officers' technological frames regarding BWCs and departmental goals for the technology.

Training and Policy Implications

To enhance the alignment between officers’ technological frames of reference regarding BWCs with department goals for the technology, this study underscores the need for tailored communication and focused training interventions, complemented with strategic policy updates. These interventions should be integrated into existing training programs and delivered through joint workshops, refresher courses, and mentorship initiative led by champions of BWCs from all ranks. It is important these interventions leverage BWC footage to develop scenario-based training that draw from real life examples. Moreover, training should integrate role-playing exercises to enhance officers’ understanding of how to best handle complex situations, potentially increasing compliance with the police for BWCs. These approaches also provide opportunities for the department to educate officers on the dual purpose of the cameras. Knowledge and takeaways from these interventions should be further communicated through the department using effective communication strategies such as bulletins, to ensure retention and promote consistent understandings across all ranks.

Training should also clarify the catalyst for BWC adoption. This is crucial for ensuring that officers understand the implementation of BWC as an adaptive strategy intended to meaningfully increase accountability, and improve policing more broadly, rather than merely an expressive gesture to appease the public. Presenting BWCs as a boundary object in trainings or workshops where it can be demonstrated that BWC-supported accountability applies across all ranks and decision-making processes related to BWC-policing. The knowledge gap regarding officers’ awareness of the metrics used for assessing BWC it’s also important to address in training. Outside of clearly verbalizing these metrics, addressing this knowledge gap through training could be achieved, using various approaches, including case studies, research, and regular updates on performance metrics for the department as a whole and individual districts to promote a sense of responsibility and desired use of BWCs.

Consider the serious threat that concerns about privacy and discretion pose for compliance with BWC policy, they should not be overlooked in these interventions. These interventions should aim to raise awareness about the surveillance capabilities of the cameras, including remote accessibility and pre-event recording status, and clarify how footage captured during restroom breaks and downtime are handled. Importantly, they should also provide guidelines on balancing strict law enforcement with "compassionate policing.” It would benefit the department to train officers on using discretion on while wearing BWCs. Scenario-based training drawing from real and hypothetical situations could help increase confidence in these situations. This intervention should be supplemented with a platform for that allows officers to anonymously document challenges and submit feedback regarding challenges encounter on this front. Training should incorporate these insights, which should also guide revisions to the policy.

These training interventions will work best if supplemented by strategic policy updates that ensure clear and practical protocols that promote compliance with BWC policy. It is important that revisions to the policy specify the metrics use to assess BWC effectiveness. Formalizing these metrics in this way could address misunderstandings, further emphasize the importance of using the cameras accordingly, and provide department-specific framework for gauging effective use of the technology. Furthermore, the policy should outline acceptable use of discretion on camera to ensure officers feel supported by the department in these decisions. Considering that BWCs are being continually updated to have additional or more advanced surveillance features, and giving the changing environment in which police operate, it is important that the policy gets reviewed periodically and updated accordingly based on feedback from patrol officers and other ranks, especially line supervisors and Lieutenants. Together, these training and policy recommendations seek to better align officers’ technological frames regarding BWCs with the department’s objectives and goals for the technology to promote compliance.

Limitations and Future Research

This study’s findings should be carefully considered as they are tempered by several limitations. First, the generalizability of the study is limited, as it used data from one large police agency. However, it holds value for departments with BWC compliance issues and those preparing for implementation, such as those in Illinois, where BWCs must be implemented by 2025 (IML, 2024). Second, the study relied on snowball sampling to gather cross-sectional data, which provided only a snapshot of police attitudes toward BWCs, thus failing to substantially capture the evolution of these perspectives over time. Nonetheless, in discussing their perspectives in-depth, participants provided deep retroactive longitudinal insights. Third, the comprehensiveness of the findings is constrained by the narrow range of questions with the frame domains. Nevertheless, this study contributes to the literature on TFR theory by applying it to explore officer attitudes toward BWCs in a large urban police department, adding to our understanding of technological frames within the context of a surveillance technology in policing. Future TFR research should consider these gaps and incorporate a broader range of questions within the three frame domains to gain deeper insights into the technological frames officers have regarding BWCs.

Conclusion

Using TFR theory, this qualitative study explored the technological frames CPD officers have cultivated regarding BWCs in CPD, aiming to infer how these frames could be a source of non-compliance and offer actional recommendations to combat this issue. Suggested interventions are primed by officers’ technological frames indicating highlighting a need for better communication and support and center implementing tailored training and strategic policy updates to enhance the alignment between these frames and CPD’s goals for BWCs.

References

Adams, I., & Mastracci, S. (2019). Police body-worn cameras: Development of the perceived intensity of monitoring scale. Criminal Justice Review, 44(3), 386-405.

Boivin, R., Poirier, B., & D’Elia, M. (2022). Activate compliance: A multilevel study of factors associated with activation of body-worn cameras. Criminal justice review, 47(1), 103-118.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications.

Cochran, H., & Worden, R. E. (2023). Police culture and officers' receptivity to body-worn cameras: a panel study. Policing: an international journal, 46(1), 24-39.

COPA (Civilian Office of Police Accountability - City of Chicago). (2021). Report on non-compliance with body-worn camera regulations.https://www.chicagocopa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-07-26-BWC-Report-Package.pdf

CPATF (Chicago Police Accountability Task Force). (2016). Recommendations for reform: Restoring trust between the Chicago Police and the communities they serve.

CPD (Chicago Police Department) (2024). Chicago Police Department website. https://home.chicagopolice.org/

Dewald, S. (2023). Detectives and technological frames: integrating technology and social media into everyday work. Policing and society, 33(1), 111-128.

Fallik, S. W., Deuchar, R., & Crichlow, V. J. (2020). Body-worn cameras in the post-Ferguson era: An exploration of law enforcement perspectives. Journal of police and criminal Psychology, 35, 263-273.

Gaub, J. E., Todak, N., & White, M. D. (2020). One size doesn’t fit all: The deployment of police body- worn cameras to specialty units. International Criminal Justice Review, 30(2), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567718789237

Gaub, J. E., Huff, J., Orosco, C., White, M. D., & Malm, A. (2023). Officer perceptions of body-worn cameras: Directory of outcomes. BWC TTA.

Gramagila, J. A., & Phillips, S. W. (2018). Police officers’ perceptions of body-worn cameras in Buffalo and Rochester. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 313-328.

Hyland, S. (2018). Body-worn cameras in law enforcement agencies, 2016 (pp. 1-20). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Huff, J., White, M. D., Malm, A. E., & Katz, C. M. (2024). An officer-level examination of the prevalence and correlates of police body-worn camera activation. Police Quarterly, 0(0), 1-33. DOI: 10.1177/10986111241241751

Jakku, E., & Thorburn, P. J. (2010). A conceptual framework for guiding the participatory development of agricultural decision support systems. Agricultural Systems, 103(9), 675-682.

Jennings, W. G., Lynch, M. D., & Fridell, L. A. (2015). Evaluating the impact of police officer body-worn cameras (BWCs) on response-to-resistance and serious external complaints: Evidence from the Orlando police department (OPD) experience utilizing a randomized controlled experiment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(6), 480-486.

Katz, C. M., Kurtenbach, M., Choate, D. E., & White, M. D. (2015). Phoenix, Arizona, smart policing initiative: evaluating the impact of police officer body-worn cameras. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Koen, M. C., Newell, B. C., & Roberts, M. R. (2021). Body-worn cameras: Technological frames and project abandonment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 72, 101773.

Koen, M. C., & Willis, J. J. (2020). Making sense of body-worn cameras in a police organization: A technological frames analysis. Police Practice and Research, 21(4), 351-367.

Koen, M. C., Newell, B. C., & Roberts, M. R. (2023). The Pennybridge pioneers: Understanding internal stakeholder perceptions of body-worn camera implementation. Journal of Crime and Justice, 46(2), 194-210.

Lawrence, Daniel S., David McClure, Aili Malm, Mathew Lynch, and Nancy La Vigne. "Activation of body-worn cameras: Variation by officer, over time, and by policing activity." Criminal Justice Review 44, no. 3 (2019): 339-355.

Lenk, K., Jones-Webb, R., Paulus, S., Erickson, D., & Toomey, T. (2022, November). Body-worn camera use and policies among a national sample of law enforcement agencies. In APHA 2022 Annual Meeting and Expo. APHA.

Lin, A., & Silva, L. (2005). The social and political construction of technological frames. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), 49-59.

Lum, C., Koper, C. S., & Willis, J. (2017). Understanding the limits of technology’s impact on police effectiveness. Police Quarterly, 20(2), 135-163.

Maury, K. J. (2016). Police body-worn camera policy: Balancing the tension between privacy and public access in state law. Notre Dame Law Review, 92(1), 479–512.

Newell, B. C., & Greidanus, R. (2017). Officer discretion and the choice to record: Officer attitudes towards body-worn camera activation. NCL Rev., 96, 1525.

Nix, J., Pickett, J. T., & Mitchell, R. J. (2019). Compliance, noncompliance, and the in-between: Causal effects of civilian demeanor on police officers’ cognitions and emotions. Journal of experimental criminology, 15, 611-639.

OIG (Office of the Inspector General - City of Chicago). (2021). Evaluation of the Chicago Police Department’s random reviews of body-worn camera recordings follow-up. https://igchicago.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Evaluation-of-the-Chicago-Police-Departments-Random-Reviews-Of-Body-Worn-Camera-Recordings-Follow-Up-2.pdf

Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 12(2), 174-207.

Pelfrey Jr, W. V., & Keener, S. (2016). Police body worn cameras: A mixed method approach assessing perceptions of efficacy. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 39(3), 491-506.

Pelfrey Jr, W. V., & Keener, S. (2018). Body-worn cameras and officer perceptions: A mixed-method pretest posttest of patrol officers and supervisors. Journal of Crime and Justice, 41(5), 535-552. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2018.1479287

Pickering, J. C. (2020). Officers' perceptions regarding the unexpected effects of body-worn cameras. Policing: An International Journal, 43(2), 390-402.

Powell-Williams, M., Powell-Williams, T., & Hunt, H. D. (2021). Effects of officer perception of race and racial tensions on support for body-worn cameras. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 19(1), 1-24.

Sandhu, A. (2019). ‘I’m glad that was on camera’: a case study of police officers’ perceptions of cameras. Policing and society, 29(2), 223-235.

Smykla, J. O., Crow, M. S., Crichlow, V. J., & Snyder, J. A. (2016). Police body-worn cameras: Perceptions of law enforcement leadership. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 424-443.

Snyder, J. A., Crow, M. S., & Smykla, J. O. (2019). Police officer and supervisor perceptions of body-worn cameras pre-and postimplementation: The importance of officer buy-in. Criminal Justice Review, 44(3), 322-338.

Todak, N., & Gaub, J. E. (2020). Predictors of police body-worn camera acceptance: Digging deeper into officers' perceptions. Policing: An International Journal, 43(2), 299-313.

Willis, J. J. (2022). “Culture eats strategy for breakfast”: An in-depth examination of police officer perceptions of body-worn camera implementation and their relationship to policy, supervision, and training. Criminology & Public Policy, 21(3), 713-737.

Wooditch, A., Uchida, C. D., Solomon, S. E., Revier, L., Connor, C., Shutinya, M., ... & Swatt, M. L. (2020). Perceptions of body-worn cameras: Findings from a panel survey of two LAPD divisions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 426-453.

Wy, G. C., Gaub, J. E., & Koen, M. C. (2022). The impacts of body-worn cameras: An examination of police specialty unit perceptions through diffusion of innovations. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 47(2), 224-245.