Why Do People Trust the Police? A Case Study of Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think it is an excellent article on a complicated subject. Concepts used in the research are very clearly defined. Moreover the authors are very well aware of the stronger aspects of the research they present and  of the limitations of the research conducted so far. Overall the merit is large.  I am enthusiastic on this type of research.

The main question concerns the trust in the police in Thailand. As I know from long periods of stay in Thailand this trust is not very big especially not in the capital. That is why this research is so interesting. The method chosen (multiple regression analysis) is well suited and efficiently applied. This is the reason why I am quite content with this research. The research is conducted in two areas in the east of Thailand. These areas are so far lesser researched than the central part of Thailand or Bangkok itself. The research tries to address as the main questions what the trust in the police in these areas implies, how people do regard the police and what trust in fact implies. 

As may be clear from the above this research indeed addresses a specific gap in the field. So far research is mainly on the capital and the central regions of Thailand. Isaan is rarely investigated. It is an area of its own with its specific particular characteristics. This research therefore indeed fills in a  gap.

The methodology is very clear. Concepts are clearly described (trust, the antecedents, the role played by age). As the authors write: so far this type of analysis was done above all descriptive. Here the researchers try to investigate the questions empirically with assembled data from systematic questionnaires. That makes this research strong. Moreover the researchers are well aware of their position in the field, they know the limitations of the research and out of this future research can be designed. This they indicate possibilities for  broadening this type of research in the future.

 

 

Author Response

1) I think it is an excellent article on a complicated subject. Concepts used in the research are very clearly defined. Moreover, the authors are very well aware of the stronger aspects of the research they present and of the limitations of the research conducted so far. Overall the merit is large.  I am enthusiastic on this type of research.

 

Response: Thank you so much for the complement.  We did do a thorough search for related studies on this topic. 

 

2) The main question concerns the trust in the police in Thailand. As I know from long periods of stay in Thailand this trust is not very big especially not in the capital. That is why this research is so interesting. The method chosen (multiple regression analysis) is well suited and efficiently applied. This is the reason why I am quite content with this research. The research is conducted in two areas in the east of Thailand. These areas are so far lesser researched than the central part of Thailand or Bangkok itself. The research tries to address as the main questions what the trust in the police in these areas implies, how people do regard the police and what trust in fact implies.

Response: Thank you again for the support and encouragement.  We totally agree that public trust in the police in Thailand has some issue, and that is why we chose this topic to do research on.

3)  As may be clear from the above this research indeed addresses a specific gap in the field. So far research is mainly on the capital and the central regions of Thailand. Isaan is rarely investigated. It is an area of its own with its specific particular characteristics. This research therefore indeed fills in a  gap.

Response: Thank you for your comment. And thank you for visiting our country.  In fact, the current study examined the attitudes of people in the eastern region, which is also rarely investigated.  These are provinces outside the central region.  Isaan is a nick name for the northeast region, which is above the eastern one.

 

4) The methodology is very clear. Concepts are clearly described (trust, the antecedents, the role played by age). As the authors write: so far this type of analysis was done above all descriptive. Here the researchers try to investigate the questions empirically with assembled data from systematic questionnaires. That makes this research strong. Moreover, the researchers are well aware of their position in the field, they know the limitations of the research and out of this future research can be designed. This they indicate possibilities for broadening this type of research in the future.

 

Response: Thank you for your nice comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction: In the second paragraph, please cite the references for the corresponding studies mentioned. A different subheading of “trust in police” and a literature review is not required as the whole research is focused upon it. This portion could be incorporated in the discussion section to compare and contrast the present study findings with previous studies.

Materials and method: The methodology section needs to be reproducible. The authors have not mentioned the ethics committee's approval of the study. Furthermore, written informed consent from the participants is also missing. Hypothesis questions should be mentioned in the methodology section. All the questions in the questionnaire need to be mentioned (or should be presented as a supplemental file). The reliability testing of the questionnaire should be mentioned in the methods section with the alpha score. Once the questionnaire is valid, then only it is robust and used for the study. The study findings are mentioned in the methods section which should be presented in the results section.

Results: A table listing independent variables and their mean score should be presented similarly to Table 2. I would recommend expressing the scores in the interquartile range.

Discussion: There is a repetition of the context presented in the introduction section in the discussion section which could be avoided. I would suggest the authors discuss the study finding from the present study and how it is similar or different from previous studies from Thailand.

Please remove the bullet points in the discussion section to highlight the limitations of the present study. Furthermore, it would be better to highlight the strength of the present study before the limitations are discussed.

The last paragraph of the discussion section is a conclusion which can be presented as a separate subheading of ‘conclusion’ without references.

Recommendations if any should be mentioned. Please highlight how the plan and policy makers would benefit from the findings of this study.

 

Reference: Please adhere to the journal guidelines for formatting references and style. 

Author Response

1) Introduction: In the second paragraph, please cite the references for the corresponding studies mentioned. (Response: Seven references that correspond with the studies were included in the paragraph.)

A different subheading of “trust in police” and a literature review is not required as the whole research is focused upon it.  (Response: the subheading of “trust in police” was taken out as suggested.)

This portion could be incorporated in the discussion section to compare and contrast the present study findings with previous studies.  (Response: It was incorporated as suggested in the discussion section).

2) Materials and method: The methodology section needs to be reproducible. The authors have not mentioned the ethics committee's approval of the study Furthermore, written informed consent from the participants is also missing. (Response: the statements regarding the human subject committee and informed consent were added in the “sample” section on page 5.).

Hypothesis questions should be mentioned in the methodology section (Response: Thank you for the advice.  However, each hypothesis was derived from the analysis of previous studies’ findings in the literature review section. Therefore, the researchers believe the hypotheses should be placed there.  Putting hypotheses in the methodology section again will be redundant.

All the questions in the questionnaire need to be mentioned (or should be presented as a supplemental file). (Response: Each question item in the survey have already been mentioned in the measurement section on pages 6-7.)

The reliability testing of the questionnaire should be mentioned in the methods section with the alpha score. Once the questionnaire is valid, then only it is robust and used for the study. The study findings are mentioned in the methods section which should be presented in the results section. (Response: The alpha reliability testing was included in the dependent and independent variables sub-section on pages 6-7.)

3) Results: A table listing independent variables and their mean score should be presented similarly to Table 2. I would recommend expressing the scores in the interquartile range. (Response: Although mean scores can be included in the table, the results of ordinary multiple regression (Table 3 on page 8) could stand as is without the mean score.  The table shows coefficient beta of each of the variables, which is sufficient to reveal the impact each one has on the dependent variable.  Therefore, the researchers would prefer not to including the mean score in the table.

4) Discussion: There is a repetition of the context presented in the introduction section in the discussion section which could be avoided. I would suggest the authors discuss the study finding from the present study and how it is similar or different from previous studies from Thailand. (Response: The repetition of the context has been corrected and paraphrased into different sentences (pages 8-9).

5) Please remove the bullet points in the discussion section to highlight the limitations of the present study. Furthermore, it would be better to highlight the strength of the present study before the limitations are discussed.  (Response: The bullet points were removed, and the strengths of the present study were mentioned, when possible.)

6) The last paragraph of the discussion section is a conclusion which can be presented as a separate subheading of ‘conclusion’ without references. (Response: It was corrected as suggested (page 10).)

7) Recommendations if any should be mentioned. Please highlight how the plan and policy makers would benefit from the findings of this study. (Response: The recommendation paragraph was added, which is the first full paragraph of page 10.)

8) Reference: Please adhere to the journal guidelines for formatting references and style. (Response: The present format and style of the article was arranged by the journal’s official. If it needs to be reformatted, the researchers would be more than happy to do so if the journal official suggests later.)

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

There is a marked improvement in the present revision.