Instructor, Trainer, Sifu, Coach or Professor? - Reflections on the Use of Terminology in Police Learning Settings Dealing with Physical Conflict Management

Abstract

Police training and learning settings focusing on physical conflict management skills regularly comprise at least two parties: on the one side the individuals learning and developing their conflict management skills and on the other side the individuals in charge of planning and delivering the training sessions. While the first category refers to learners, the latter category is referred to, among others, as instructor, trainer, coach, sifu or professor, depending on contextual constraints. While it seems arbitrary to use different terms for describing the learner's counterpart in a learning setting, we argue for a sensible consideration of manifest and latent implications of how these individuals are referred to-and how they perceive their role. Drawing from autoeth-nographic data in various conflict management training settings, we identify functional, dysfunc-tional and irritating aspects of different terms used. By reflecting through the lenses of functio-nality from a systemic perspective, we aim at providing insights towards a more nuanced understanding of contextual constraints and reflexive use of these terms.

Full text

Instructor, Trainer, Sifu, Coach or Professor? – Reections on the Use of
Terminology in Police Learning Settings Dealing with Physical Conict
Management
1Mario S. Staller1, 2Swen Koerner2
1 University of Applied Sciences for Police and Public Administration North Rhine-
Westphalia, Department of Police, Gelsenkirchen, Germany
2 German Sport University Cologne, Department of Training Pedagogy and Martial
Research, Cologne, Germany
Submitted: 2021-11-10; Accepted: 2021-11-25; Published: 2021-12-02
1 Corresponding author: mario.staller@hspv.nrw.de
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8608-9098
2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1938-082X
NBP 2021, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 7-17
https://doi.org/10.5937/nabepo26-34869
Original scientic paper
ISSN 26200406
Citation: Staller, M. S., & Koerner, S. (2021). Instructor, Trainer, Sifu, Coach or
Professor? – Reections on the Use of Terminology in Police Learning Settings
Dealing with Physical Conict Management NBP. Nauka, bezbednost, policija,
26(2), 7-17.
Abstract Police training and learning settings focusing on physical conict management skills
regularly comprise at least two parties: on the one side the individuals learning and developing
their conict management skills and on the other side the individuals in charge of planning and
delivering the training sessions. While the rst category refers to learners, the latter category is
referred to, among others, as instructor, trainer, coach, sifu or professor, depending on contextual
constraints. While it seems arbitrary to use dierent terms for describing the learner’s counterpart
in a learning setting, we argue for a sensible consideration of manifest and latent implications of
how these individuals are referred to – and how they perceive their role. Drawing from autoeth-
nographic data in various conict management training settings, we identify functional, dysfunc-
tional and irritating aspects of dierent terms used. By reecting through the lenses of functio-
nality from a systemic perspective, we aim at providing insights towards a more nuanced under-
standing of contextual constraints and reexive use of these terms.
Keywords: police training, use of terminology, pedagogical communication, pedagogical authority.
Graphical abstract
Learner • Student • Recruit • Ocer
Instructor • Trainer • Coach • Sifu • Professor

2
NBP. Nauka, bezbednost, policija
NBP 2021, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 7-17
INTRODUCTION
Police training and learning settings focusing on physical conict management skills (e.g.,
ocer safety training, police use of force training, self-defence and arrest training, rearm
training, tactical training) regularly comprise at least two parties: on the one side, the in-
dividuals learning and developing their conict management skills and on the other side,
the individuals in charge of planning and delivering the training sessions. While the rst
category refers to learners – or depending on their role in the police institution as recruits,
students or ocers, the latter category is referred to as instructor (Morrison, 2006; Murray
& Haberfeld, 2021), trainer (Staller, 2014), sifu (Lo, 2011), coach (Koerner & Staller, 2020;
Staller & Koerner, 2021) or professor (Ruiken, 2016), depending on contextual constraints.
While it seems arbitrary to use dierent terms for describing the learner’s counterpart in a
learning setting, we argue for a sensible consideration of manifest and latent implications
of how these individuals are referred to – and how they perceive their role.
Our argument is based on an autoethnographic analysis of four experiences related to the
use of terminology in police conict management training settings. In order to discuss
these dierent terms used, we neutrally speak of alter for the trainer, coach, etc. and ego,
when we talk about the learner, student or recruit. We start by presenting our autoeth-
nographic accounts that relate to the use of dierent terms for alter before turning to the
function of police conict management training as a basis for framing the functionality
for the use of dierent terms. We then identify four dierent functions of the use of terms
for alter. Based on this analysis, we conclude by arguing for a sensible use of terminology,
that allow for the dierentiation between alter and ego and simultaneously limit the au-
thoritarian status of the alter to a minimum.
EXPERIENCES OF DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGY
Anecdote 1: Trainer or Instructor?
e rst anecdote took place in 2005, when I (MS) was working in the Department of sport
and operational training (“Sport- und Einsatzausbildung”) at the German Federal Criminal
Police Oce. At this time, the training department was restructured increasing the focus
on operational competencies beyond rearms training, compared to the dominant focus
on sport and tness at the time. As such, training started to include more tactical behaviour
(entering and clearing rooms), and physical conict management, like self-defence and use
of force training.1 With the restructuring of the training department, the question of how
the alter (the person delivering the training) should be referred to arose.
Our team consisted of four individuals: Me, Udo, Franz and the superior Volt (names
are anonymized). e question was posed by Volt, because he wanted to change the door
signs on the oce doors. Till that time the alters like myself were referred to as sport
and operational instructors (“Sport- und Einsatzausbilder”). With the focus on operational
competencies, the new title should also reect this. Volt told us that he wanted to change
the oce door signs to “operational instructors” (“Einsatzausbilder”). I asked the team if
1 De-escalation training or verbal communicative behaviour did play a larger role at the time.

3
NBP. Nauka, bezbednost, policija
NBP 2021, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 7-17
the term “trainer” (“Trainer”) would be an alternative. I based my argument on my (sub-
jective) experience in high performance sports at this time. “My trainer helps me to reach
my goals, but he does not necessarily instruct me what to do. He is more of a manager of
my performance.” While I cannot remember the exact lines I told, I am condent about
the core of my argument: I wanted to have a role on the side of my students, not above
them. For me, this was related to either instructing (I tell them what to do) versus training
them (I design learning environments). While I had clear roles associated with the dif-
ferent terms, my colleagues also did. All three heavily put forward the argument that an
instructor has more authority than a trainer. Volt also spoke to himself, testing the sound
of the title: “Trainer, trainer, operational trainer…instructor, operational instructor. No…
instructor sounds much better. We tell them what to do.”
e discussion le me wondering about my role within the department. I – at least that I
would think of myself – was concerned about my relationship with the police recruits. It
was important for me that they value the training I designed for them. On the other hand,
there were my colleagues; and it seemed that they were more concerned about the power
relation between police recruits and them. ey wanted authority. However, reecting on
this episode, I have to add, that at this point during my time as alter I also was intrigued
about the authority I had with “my” recruits; but in comparison to my colleagues, this
seemed to be far less prominent; and I tried to gain this authority through good training.
Anecdote 2: e Sifu and the Special Operations Unit
e second anecdote refers to an experience at an open day at the Federal Criminal Police
Oce in 2010. A special operations unit prepared a hand-to-hand-combat show for the
public audience. e lead part of the show was exhibited by an external (civilian) hand-to-
hand combat alter, who taught the police trainers of the special operations force – a Wing
Tsun sifu. Aer the show, the leading police alter and two colleagues showed the external
guest around. While they were walking around, the sifu was in the middle, one step ahead
of the alters. e police alters tried to avoid walking in front of the sifu. I was stunned by the
look of the sifu and his entourage, which reminded me of the movie Ip Man at the time. As
they approached me for some small talk, the leading police alter introduced the sifu to me:
“is is sifu [anonymised name]”. Also, aer the sifu was gone, the trainers of the special
operations unit also referred to their trainer not by the name, but by the title: sifu.
Anecdote 3: e (Non-)Professors
In 2020 we (SK/MS) conducted a two days coaching clinic for police alters at a German
police academy. Even though the both of us work as professors, we did not pay attention
to pointing out our title when engaging with the police alters of the academy. We were
just Swen and Mario, who conduct research within the area of police training and provide
coach development courses. On the second day, we were approached by a police alter ask-
ing us if we know professor [anonymized name], a black belt in Brazilian jujitsu. e police
alter regularly referred to the individual by the full title of professor [anonymized name] –
not just his name. While we did not give this event much consideration at the time, a short
while later, this event le us wondering which knowledge structures police alters adhere

4
NBP. Nauka, bezbednost, policija
NBP 2021, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 7-17
to – the academic professors or the martial arts professor. Also, the question for us arose:
Who do they trust when it comes to communicating knowledge?
Anecdote 4: Coach or Instructor/Trainer?
e last anecdote relates to an experience we (MS/SK) had as the authors of manuscripts
we submitted to academic journals. Within the manuscripts we referred to the alter in the
context of police conict management (e.g., self-defence training, rearms training, tacti-
cal training, arrest and use of force training) as coaches. is was agged as “interesting”
by a reviewer for a manuscript we submitted in 2021: “Interesting that the author(s) have
reframed this group as ‘coaches’ rather that trainers or instructors […], and training as
‘learning’. Some exploration around this and the argument for doing it is required. is is
an important distinction and arguably necessary for the development of the eld.”
In 2020 we received feedback on another manuscript stating: “e article is premised on
the idea that [police use of force] trainers are coaches, and engage in coaching, without
establishing that this is the case. […] What is provided seems to be an idealistic descrip-
tion of how coaching might be applied to [police use of force] training, with reference
to articles focused on coaching in sport. is is problematic as the description does not
match the reality of PUOF training, at least not in [anonymized country]. […] it cannot be
assumed that this is the case across the world […]. For example, in [anonymized country],
[police use of force] training occurs within a training academy. Individual trainers are
required to deliver a standardized training course, developed by the agency. “
Both comments le us wondering, if the distinction between trainers and coaches is that
big. However, it seemed to be big enough for us; otherwise, we could easily change the
term to trainers and avoid that kind of irritation by using the term coaches. But we stayed
with the term coach. When reecting on why we keep putting forward this idea – and
submit manuscripts referring coaches instead of trainers – we argue that what those indi-
viduals do is more like coaching than training learners (of course we have to provide an
argument for this as the reviewer stated).
THE FUNCTION OF POLICE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
TRAINING AS THE CONTEXTUAL FRAME
e described anecdotes indicate that the used terminology for alter matters: sometimes
more than in other instances and for others as well as for us. e diagnosis “it matters”
refers to the function of the terminology. By communicating what something is, and what
it is not, individuals explicitly or implicitly ascribe functionality towards the term. So the
question remains: What is the function of the dierent terms used. What is the function of
calling someone (or being called) instructor, coach, trainer, sifu or professor?
Before answering this question, we rst have to elaborate the context in which this ques-
tion is posed, since the context constrains the function. Our anecdotes – and the context of
this papers – refer to the setting of police conict management training, with all sub-set-
tings, that prepare, train, educate, and develop (here again we can argue about the dier-
ent terms) police ocers to cope with conict situations. e explicit function of such

5
NBP. Nauka, bezbednost, policija
NBP 2021, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 7-17
settings is clear and spelled out in the respective curricula: developing the competencies
for police ocers to cope with the demands in the eld. However, a closer analytical look
at what is done within these settings questions the sheer functional alignment of such pro-
grams. Various research endeavours indicated that such settings tend to be self-referential
(Koerner & Staller, 2021): it is trained what has to be trained according to the trainers;
and concerning these knowledge structures, trainers know what they have been taught by
other trainers (Staller et al., 2018). As such, the functionality of terms used depends on the
function of the training setting. For our analysis, we normatively set the function of police
conict management training settings to the explicit function. Consequently, the roles
and terminology within these settings have to full that function, the function of allowing
police ocers to learn (and to develop) what is needed in the eld. In our understanding
this also extends to metacognitive skills, such as reexivity.
THE FUNCTION OF USED TERMINOLOGY
Since we have set the context, we can now turn towards the function of the terms used
in our analysis. Based on our reection of the described anecdotes, we see four dierent
functions: dierentiations, description, relation and (pedagogical) authority.
Dierentiation
e core process taking place within police conict management training settings is a
pedagogical one. In line with modern social systems theory, pedagogy can be identified
operatively as a distinct form of communication (Luhmann, 1990). e model of peda-
gogical communication (Körner & Staller, 2018), based on work from Kade (2004), takes
the following dimensions and underlying assumptions into account: (1) In the social di-
mension, pedagogical communication is constituted by alter and ego, usually related to
one another as someone who knows and delivers (alter) and someone who receives and
learns (ego). (2) In the factual dimension, pedagogical communication revolves around
information, qualified either as knowledge or value. At this point, a double selection is
made by ‘alter’: what information is to be transmitted (this/not that) and how (oral, writ-
ten, gestural, medially supported, etc.). (3) In the temporal dimension, pedagogical com-
munication is constituted by two interrelated operations: transmission of information (by
alter) and acquisition respectively learning (through ego). (4) e process of pedagogical
communication is underpinned by two premises. It assumes (a) an asymmetry of knowl-
edge and ability: someone (alter) presently has knowledge and/or ability, whilst the other
party (ego) does not yet. Pedagogical communication is driven (b) by the assumption of
a potential for change: something inside or about ‘eg o’ is not as it should be, but could be.
Transforming individual potential into reality, learning by ego, is pedagogy’s main goal
(Figure 1).

6
NBP. Nauka, bezbednost, policija
NBP 2021, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 7-17
Figure 1. e model of pedagogical communication
(Körner & Staller, 2018)
Based on the model of pedagogical communication and its underlying assumptions, the
terminology used dierentiates between alter (coach, trainer, instructor, etc.) and ego (the
learner, student, recruit, etc.). e introduction of two new terms (alter/ego) indicates that
how alter is called does not matter; it is about the dierentiation from the “other side” –
ego. Based on this function, the use of terminology in anecdotes 1–4 serves to delineate
the alter from the ego; however, extant discussions about which term to use (anecdote 1
and 4) would be dysfunctional. e terms used would be synonyms for alter.
Description
e process taking place in the learning setting of police conict management training is
linked to what alter does: training, instructing, coaching, and/or also helping, motivating,
telling, showing, and so on. Under this function the terminology used for alter would be
a description of al t e r ’s behaviour. Dierent understandings of what the alter is supposed
to do in police conict management training is suggested by anecdote 1. “We tell them”
seems to refer to direct instructions, prescriptive teaching und ultimately leads to the
question about the role of alter in police learning settings (Basham, 2014).
Also, there is a factual dierence between what alter is doing depending on the country
or jurisdiction, which becomes evident in anecdote 4. Our description of what coaches are
supposed to be doing in Germany (e.g. coaching) did not match the reality of police use of
force training in other countries. We have to add that this is also not the case in Germany,
but by providing an idealistic picture of the actual behaviour of alter, we have hoped to
provide a linguistic frame of what alter is doing: coaching – and not only instructing.
While we did not provide enough information about the dierence in anecdote 4, the
rst reviewer exactly pointed towards this issue: “Some exploration around this and the

7
NBP. Nauka, bezbednost, policija
NBP 2021, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 7-17
argument for doing it is required.” In other words, interpreted from the perspective of the
descriptive function of terminology, if we are reframing the terminology used (e.g. coaches
instead of trainers or instructors), we have to provide a description of the dierent behav-
iour this terminology entails.
Belonging
Dierent cultural settings have dierent vocabulary describing the same things. Concern-
ing martial arts (that are at some point linked to police self-defence and arrest training),
there are, depending on the martial art, several terms referring to alter: sensei in the Jap-
anese martial arts like judo or karate, sifu in kung fu related martial arts like wing tsun,
maestro in the Brazilian martial art of capoeira, professor in Brazilian jiu-jitsu or instructor
in reality-based self-defence systems like krav maga.
Using the vocabulary present in a specic community of practice may serve the purpose of
belonging. A common vocabulary is a key characteristic of communities of practices, and
as such of martial arts and other learning settings. e use of terminology in anecdotes 2
and 3 may be explained by this. As part of the community, the police alter refers to alter
of a community he engages with as a professor (anecdote 2); and the police ocers of the
special operations force refer to their alter in hand-to-hand combat as a sifu (anecdote 3).
By referring to these terms, they show that they belong.
Research in the context of martial arts describes belonging as an essential motive in mar-
tial arts (Heil et al., 2017). Concerning wing tsun especially, but also other systems like
krav maga, speak of practitioners of the system as “family” (Koerner et al., 2019). e
metaphor of family emphasizes the bond between practitioners, belonging as an essential
feature of practicing within a community.
(Pedagogical) Authority
e concept of obeying authority is regularly negatively connotated and is thus hard to
navigate if some kind of authority is needed in any social setting (Reichenbach, 2009).
e experience of Nazi Germany and Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments (Mil-
gram, 1974) showed the disastrous consequences of unreectively following the lead of
authorities. As such, authority – in the sense of authoritarian alter behaviour – is also
critically discussed in learning settings.
In the context of police conict management, there is also another aspect worth con-
sidering. Authority maintenance theory posits that police ocers tend to take measures
(e.g., use of force) to reinstate their authority once it has been threatened in police-citizen
interactions (Alpert et al., 2020; Klukkert et al., 2008). Concerning the learning settings
within police, it has been argued that an authoritarian teaching style of the alter provides
the observational template for the ego, to learn how authority is managed if it is threat-
ened (Staller et al., 2019). Based on the observation that the concept of authority is prom-
inent in the police organization and socialization (Chappell & Lanza-Kaduce, 2010) and
that decisions tend to be based on authority that is not based on an objective discourse
(Mitchell & Lewis, 2017), a reexive focus on what the implicit leading authorities are
seems warranted.

8
NBP. Nauka, bezbednost, policija
NBP 2021, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 7-17
It is exactly this argument that Reichenbach (2009) puts forward when he argues that
there is the need of authority in learning settings. In his understanding pedagogical au-
thority refers to the recognition of authority in learning settings that is needed in order
to engage in learning activities that are instructed and to be receptive of knowledge struc-
tures that are conveyed from alter to ego. If there is no explicit authority to turn to, implicit
authorities will provide the orientation for learning and behavioural conduct. However, he
points out that it is the responsibility of the mature individual to critically evaluate whose
authority to adhere to (“No one has the right to obey”, S. 74). is evaluation has to be
based on the content, not on the status and the terminology used to describe this status.
Once pedagogical authority is recognized, its eects are twofold: obedience on a behav-
ioural level and believing on a knowledge level (Reichenbach, 2009). In the light of the
consequences of blind recognition of authority, the critical evaluation of the recognition
of authority becomes essential.
Based on this perspective, the terminology used for alter falls behind the content of the
pedagogical process. Hence, it seems problematic if the terminology is used to justify ped-
agogical authority. It may be functional if authority is sought out in its own right; yet, if the
process is in the focus, authority is the result of the process, not its foundation. We would
argue that in order for conveyed information to be able to resonate a certain amount of
authority it has to be granted initially, at least insofar as to allow for an alter-ego interac-
tion that allows for the authority to be challenged, to be maintained or to be further built
up, depending on the objective discourse. As such pedagogical authority rests within what
is said and done. e rationale for why pedagogical authority should be granted is based
on the content and on the processes that alter conveys or initiates. It has to be gained and
maintained. It is not in the title or in the terminology used to describe the status. As such,
the responsibility of the recognition of pedagogical authority lies within the learner – the
ego. However, alter has the responsibility that there is something worth adhering to.
Viewed from this perspective, anecdote 1 shows a distinct pattern: the claim for recog-
nition of authority through the terminology used to describe a l t e r ’s authority. It seemed
that the focus of the acting individuals rested on nding the right term (“instructor”) that
grants more authority on a semantic level. e content (the pedagogical process between
alter and ego) moved into the background. In anecdote 2 there are two interpretations (or
a combination of these) concerning the aspect of pedagogical authority: on the one hand,
the sifu has earned his authority through the process of training and is as such referred to
as sifu and treated with submissive behaviour (police trainers always walked behind him).
On the other hand, the granted semantic authority (sifu) and the behaviour of the police
trainers in his presence manifested the (pedagogical) authority that then extends to the
content (knowledge, etc.) he is providing. While the second interpretation is more prob-
lematic than the rst one, both interpretations ultimately include an exaggeration of the
recognition of authority that may lead to an uncritical transfer of knowledge structures
and an uncritical obedience towards instructions form the alter.

9
NBP. Nauka, bezbednost, policija
NBP 2021, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 7-17
CONCLUSION: INSIGHT MATTERS
e use of terminology of describing and addressing the alter in police conict manage-
ment training settings is based on its functions. It may serve the purpose of (a) dierenti-
ating alter from ego, (b) describing what alter does, (c) expressing belonging to a commu-
nity of practice, or (d) justify authority. By referring to four autoethnographic accounts,
we have provided insights into how the dierent functions are manifested within social in-
teraction related to training settings. While we value the importance of dierent functions
in dierent social contexts, we argue for the case of police conict management training
that the function of dierentiation and the indication of pedagogical authority are key
concerns for professional practice and police organizational culture. Both functions are
practically not concerned with an exaggeration of the authority status of alter. erefore,
we would argue for a sensible use of terms which allows for the dierentiation between
alter and ego and simultaneously limit the authoritarian status of alter to a minimum.
erefore, we would argue for a sensible use of terminology depending on one’s under-
standing of professional practice. In order to nd one’s own appropriate term, insight into
the dierent functions matters. Either way, the use of terms for pedagogical roles within
police training also reects the current state of police professionalization.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
e authors declare no conict of interest.
REFERENCES
Alpert, G., Dunham, R., Nix, J., McLean, K., & Wolfe, S. (2020). Authority maintenance
theory of police-citizen interactions. In R. G. Dunham, G. P. Alpert, & K. D. McLean
(Eds.), Critical issues in policing (pp. 398–415). Waveland Press.
Basham, B. B. (2014). Police instructor or police educator? Salus Journal, 2(1), 99–109.
Chappell, A. T., & Lanza-Kaduce, L. (2010). Police academy socialization: Understanding
the lessons learned in a paramilitary-bureaucratic organization. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 39(2), 187–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241609342230
Heil, V., Staller, M. S., & Körner, S. (2017). Motive in der Selbstverteidigung – Eine quali-
tative und quantitative Studie am Beispiel Krav Maga und Wing Chun [Motives in self-de-
fense training – A qualitative and quantitative study of krav maga and wing chun]. In S.
Körner & L. Istas (Eds.), Martial arts and society. Zur gesellschalichen Bedeutung von
Kampunst, Kampfsport und Selbstverteidigung (pp. 146–159). Czwalina.
Kade, J. (2004). Erziehung als pädagogische Kommunikation [Education as pedagogical
communication]. In D. Lenzen, Irritationen des Erziehungssystems: Pädagogische Resonan-
zen auf Niklas Luhmann (pp. 199–232). Surhkamp.

10
NBP. Nauka, bezbednost, policija
NBP 2021, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 7-17
Klukkert, A., Ohlemacher, T., & Feltes, T. (2008). Torn between two targets: German po-
lice ocers talk about the use of force. Crime, Law and Social Change, 52(2), 181–206.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-008-9178-5
Koerner, S., & Staller, M. S. (2020). Coaching self-defense under COVID-19: Challeng-
es and solutions in the police and civilian domain. Security Journal, 1–15. https://doi.
org/10.1057/s41284-020-00269-9
Koerner, S., & Staller, M. S. (2021). From data to knowledge: Training of police and mil-
itary special operations forces in systemic perspective. Special Operations Journal, 7(1),
29–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/23296151.2021.1904571
Koerner, S., Staller, M. S., & Judkins, B. N. (2019). e creation of Wing Tsun – A German
case study. Martial Arts Studies, 0(7), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.18573/mas.60
Körner, S., & Staller, M. S. (2018). Pedagogy of terrorism. Mujahid Guide revisited. Journal
of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 13(2), 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/18
335330.2018.1503700
Lo, M. K. (2011). Police Kung Fu. Tuttle Publishing.
Luhmann, N. (1990). Die Wissenscha der Gesellscha [e science of society]. Suhrkamp.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harper and Row.
Mitchell, R. J., & Lewis, S. (2017). Intention is not method, belief is not evidence, rank is
not proof: Ethical policing needs evidence-based decision making. International Journal of
Emergency Services, 31(3), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijes-04-2017-0018
Morrison, G. B. (2006). Deadly force programs among larger U.S. police departments.
Police Quarterly, 9(3), 331–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611105276542
Murray, K. R., & Haberfeld, M. R. (2021). Use of force training in law enforcement: A reality
based approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59880-8
Reichenbach, R. (2009). Bildung und Autorität [Education and authority]. In C. Bünger
& A. L. Pongratz (Eds.), Bildung der Kontrollgesellscha: Analyse und Kritik pädagogischer
Vereinnahmungen (pp. 71–84). Schöningh.
Ruiken, B. V. (2016). Power and politics in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu teams [Unpublished master’s
thesis]. University of Bergen.
Staller, M. S. (2014). Kämpfen lehren im polizeilichen Kontext – Zum Kompetenzprol
des Einsatztrainers [Teaching ghting in a police context – e competence prole of the
police trainer]. In S. Liebl & P. Kuhn (Eds.), Menschen im Zweikampf – Kampunst und
Kampfsport in Forschung und Lehre 2013 (pp. 216–223). Czwalina.
Staller, M. S., Abraham, A., Poolton, J. M., & Körner, S. (2018). Avoidance, de-escalation
and attacking: An expert coach consensus in self-defence practice. Movement. Journal of
Physical Education Sport Sciences, 11(3), 213–214.
Staller, M. S., & Koerner, S. (2021). Regression, progression and renewal: e continuous
redevelopment of expertise in police use of force coaching. European Journal of Security
Research, 6, 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41125-020-00069-7

11
NBP. Nauka, bezbednost, policija
NBP 2021, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 7-17
Staller, M. S., Körner, S., Heil, V., & Kecke, A. (2019). Mehr gelernt als geplant? Versteckte
Lehrpläne im Einsatztraining [More learned than planed? e hidden curriculum in po-
lice use of force training]. In B. Frevel & P. Schmidt (Eds.), Empirische Polizeiforschung
XXII Demokratie und Menschenrechte – Herausforderungen für und an die polizeiliche Bil-
dungsarbeit (pp. 132–149). Verlag für Polizeiwissenscha