Making the ‘Visible’ Visible:

An Interactional Understanding of
Police Visibility in Community
Engagement

Thesis submitted in accordance with the

requirements of the University of Liverpool for
the degree of Doctor in Philosophy

by Lisa Anne Weston

December 2020
 Abstract

Patrol gained renewed importance in UK policing reforms in the early 2000s. The
introduction of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) and their subsequent
integration into the national rollout of Neighbourhood Policing marked a significant
shift in policing policy and practice. Dedicated Neighbourhood Policing Teams (NPTs)
made up of police officers, special constables and PCSOs were tasked with providing
a visible, accessible and familiar policing function in every neighbourhood across the
country. The underlying ideology of focusing resources on the public knowing and
being able to contact local police officers and staff and having the opportunity to
contribute to local policing priorities and decision-making emphasised the
importance of community engagement in policing at the same time as developing
the contribution of patrol to this area of work. However, over time and against a
backdrop of ever-increasing demand, reduced resources and the changing nature of
crime, the day-to-day activities of NPTs have altered to the extent that the function
of Neighbourhood Policing generally and the role of PCSOs more specifically have
become pertinent concerns. In response, the College of Policing has formulated
Neighbourhood Policing Guidelines which, in regard to patrol, identify police officers
and staff having a targeted visible presence in neighbourhoods as an essential
element of community engagement.

In light of the shifting landscape of Neighbourhood Policing, this thesis seeks to

understand the visible presence of police officers and staff on foot and vehicle patrol
to explore the way in which they can contribute to community engagement as
structured in the Neighbourhood Policing Guidelines. The thesis applies concepts
from the work of Erving Goffman to ethnographic fieldwork conducted in two NPTs
in one urban UK constabulary to analyse the interactional properties of police patrol
in vehicles and on foot. Using Goffman’s theoretical lens, the communicative acts of
police officers and staff conducting patrol are explored to identify the potential
opportunities for and restrictions on police contact with the public and show how
the interactional devices of PCSOs on foot can create a type of visibility that facilitates
two-way dialogue with the public and a better understanding of communities.
Bringing together the identified communicative mechanisms that can occur on patrol
to facilitate or counteract community engagement, an interactional understanding
of police visibility is presented to develop practice understandings. Overall, the thesis
provides practical insights that illustrate the continued relevance of foot patrol and
the ongoing utility of PCSOs in Neighbourhood Policing while developing broader
considerations of perception and symbolism in the policing literature and the use of
ethnography to study patrol practice in policing research.

2
 Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations P.6

List of Figures and Tables P.7

Introducing Police Visibility P.8

Research Context P.9
Policing Context P.12
Thesis Outline p.15
Defining Police Visibility and Community Engagement p.18

Chapter 1 – Contextualising Police Visibility in Policy P.21

Chapter 2 – Blurred Police Visibility: A Review of the Policy p.29

Assumptions
Citizens Will Engage with Police Officers and Staff on Patrol p.29
• Citizen Participation in Community Policing p.30
• Citizen Perception of Police Patrol p.36
A Police Presence Will Provide an Engagement Function p.45
• Cultural Influences on Community Engagement p.46
• Organisational Influences on Community Engagement p.53
Communities are Identifiable to Police Officers and Staff on Patrol p.65
Summary and Research Questions p.75

Chapter 3 – Observing Police Visibility P.79

A Qualitative View of Patrol p.79
An Ethnographic Lens p.83
Philosophical and Theoretical Perspective p.87
Personal Influences p.89
Ethics p.89

3
Accessing the Field p.93
The Landscape of the Field p.95
• Seawynne NPT p.96
• Seabarrow NPT p.97
Negotiating the Field p.98
• Presentation in the Field p.104
• Relationships in the Field p.108
Fieldwork Summary p.114
Analysing the Field p.118
A Goffmanian Theoretical Framework p.123

Chapter 4 – Illuminating Police Visibility p.129

The Interactional Space of Patrol p.129
Vehicle Patrol p.131
Foot Patrol p.138
Glancing p.140
Civil Inattention p.140
• Facilitating Orderliness p.142
• Conveying Information p.143

• Initiating Face Engagements p.147

Chapter 5 – High Police Visibility p.156

Unplanned Face Engagements p.156
Accessibility p.165
Acquaintanceship p.171

Chapter 6 – Impaired Police Visibility p.180

Impropriety in Face Engagements p.180
PCSO Inaccessibility p.186
• Low Footfall of People p.186
• Missed Interactional Opportunities p.193

4
 • Organisational Change p.197

Chapter 7 – Distinguishing Police Visibility p.202

Summary of Findings p.202
Examining an Interactional Understanding of Police Visibility p.209
• Citizen Engagement with Police on Patrol p.210
• Police Engagement with Citizens on Patrol p.215

• Identifying Communities to Engage on Patrol p.219

Chapter 8 - Concluding Police Visibility p.222

Researching Police Visibility in Community Engagement p.223
Contributions to Knowledge p.231
• Theoretical p.231
• Practical p.232
• Methodological p.236
Suggestions for Future Research p.237

Appendix 1 – Participant Information and Consent Forms p.238

Bibliography p.242

5
 List of Abbreviations

APCC Association of Police and Crime Commissioners

EBP Evidence-Based Policing

HASC Home Affairs Select Committee

HMIC Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary

HMICFRS Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services

NPCC National Police Chiefs’ Council

NPT Neighbourhood Policing Team

PC Police Constable

PCSO Police Community Support Officer

SCP Signal Crimes Perspective

Sgt Sergeant

6
 List of Figures and Tables

Figures

Figure 1 The ‘Engaging Communities’ Guideline p.15

Tables

Table 1 Summary of Observations p.117

Table 2 Focussed Coding Framework Using Concepts and Definitions p.120

Taken from Goffman's (1963) Work on Face-to-Face Interaction

Table 3 Summary of Main Themes and Sub-Themes p.122

7
 Introduction

Introducing Police Visibility

Police visibility, traditionally represented by ‘bobbies on the beat’, has always been
prominent in public expectations of policing (Crawford et al. 2005; Bradley, 1998;
Fitzgerald, Hough and Joseph, 2002). The public value attached to uniformed foot
patrol is in part related to how it symbolises ‘the presence of protection, and the
capacity, albeit limited, to manage risks and threats to security’ (Innes, 2005, p.160).
The ‘reassurance function’ a visible police presence can provide, that is the feelings
of safety and security citizens can experience when they see and are aware of a police
officer or police vehicle close by, is substantiated in evaluations of foot patrol (Bahn,
1974). An increased visible police presence has been shown to reduce citizen’s fear
of crime and increase their feelings of personal safety (Police Foundation, 1981;
Trojanowicz, 1982). At the same time, enhancing citizen reassurance is not simply a
matter of increasing police patrols, equally important is what police officers do when
they are on patrol (Innes and Fielding, 2002; Skogan and Harnett, 1997). This draws
attention to the need for the police to consider their ‘symbolic communication [and]
impression management’ in their patrol practice (Innes and Fielding, 2002, Para. 8.4);
it is less about quantity of patrols and more about the quality of the police-public
interaction (Innes, 2004a, p.161). This refocusing of the semiotic properties of police
visibility to consider the relationship between the police and the public has become
notable in public views of policing.

In recent times, public desire for an increased police presence is motivated by the
opportunity it creates for the police to ‘re-engage’ with people and better
understand local security and low-level crime and disorder problems that matter to
communities (Fitzgerald, Hough and Joseph, 2002, p.132). The alignment of police
visibility with community engagement, particularly in terms of increasing police
responsiveness to local needs, reinforces the broader symbolism and cultural
significance invoked by policing. Scholars emphasise how for some sections of the
population the figure of the ‘bobby on the beat’ produces and communicates
meaning indicative of cohesive order, legal authority and communal morality to the

8
 Introduction

extent that it is interpreted as a measure of the state of policing and wider society
(Loader and Mulcahy, 2003). In this way, patrolling police officers come to represent
‘symbolic ‘guardians’ of social stability and order held responsible for community
values and informal social controls’ with any perceived absence of their presence
signalling a loss of discipline, societal decline and a failure of the policing institution
to connect with communities (Jackson and Bradford, 2009, p.2; Loader and Mulcahy,
2003).

The meanings, beliefs and sentiments underpinning police visibility accord it a

symbolic capital that has been mobilised by political actors to gain popular support
for increasing and developing police resources (Loader and Mulcahy, 2003). In the
last twenty years this can be seen through the implementation of Community
Policing programmes, specifically the Reassurance Policing and Neighbourhood
Policing Programmes in the UK. These Programmes, complemented by the creation
and integration of the Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) role, have placed a
‘reinvigorated emphasis’ on uniformed foot patrol as a mechanism for delivering a
visible, accessible and familiar style of policing where the public know and are able
to contact their local police and have the opportunity to contribute to policing (Innes,
2004a, p.168). This type of police visibility, characterised by the patrol presence of
police officers and staff, the construction and communication of its semiotic and
symbolic qualities in the public space and its contribution to community engagement
is the focus of this thesis. To understand the rationale for embarking on studying this
specific area of policing, the chapter will set out the research and policing context
that provided the initial impetus for conducting the PhD before outlining the research
plan and structure of the thesis.

Research Context

Community engagement, namely the responsibility of the police to reflect the ‘needs
and expectations of […] local communities in decision making, service delivery and
practice’, has become embedded in policing policy (Home Office, 2006, p.3). It forms

9
 Introduction

part of an approach to increase the visibility, accountability and responsiveness of

police forces in communities through Neighbourhood Policing (Barnes and Eagle,
2007). Identifying that there is little academic coverage of the way in which
community engagement is constructed at the local level in policing, particularly in a
climate of austerity, my Masters research involved qualitative interviews with police
officers, police staff and a volunteer in one UK police force to develop incomplete
insights into the practice context. The study’s findings illustrated that community
engagement can consist of a complex interplay of police inputs and community
inputs contributing to different types of police contact with the public (Weston,
2016). It showed that these contacts between the police and public fulfil a range of
policing outcomes that do not easily translate into broader measures for
understanding the nature, reach and impact of community engagement work
(Weston, 2016). Within this broad understanding of community engagement
practice, police visibility characterised through police officers and staff enacting a
physical and online presence in communities appeared to be an integral mechanism
through which the police experienced and were experienced by the public. As one
PCSO expressed, ‘[community engagement] for me, [is] just being out and about,
visible to the public […] we’ll go round and we’ll say hello to people and they’re seeing
us’ (Weston, 2016, p.101 -102). This idea of ‘being out and about’ in the public space,
and as another officer described it, ‘saying hello, […] stopping to speak to people;
staff aren’t just walking out, hands in pockets head down going somewhere’
(Weston, 2016, p.76), was voiced on a number of occasions during the research.
Participants tended to explain their presence in terms of making people in
communities feel safer and protected by the police, but they seemed to struggle to
expand upon what it was specifically about what they were doing that fulfilled a
community engagement function. Consequently, at the end of the research, I sensed
that I had not fully grasped the essence of what community engagement is in the
day-to-day work of police officers and staff.

Turning to the literature to explore the ideas described by participants, it was clear
that the police officers and staff I spoke to were attuned to the symbolic value the
public attach to a police presence, particularly in terms of its ‘reassurance factor’.

10
 Introduction

This concept, suggested by Bahn (1974), highlights how the public appeal of an
everyday conspicuous police patrol relates to a police presence, regardless of its
effectiveness in addressing crime, symbolising concern and security. While the
reassurance offered by a visible ‘beat cop’ appears as a ‘nostalgic dream of a tranquil
past that never was’, it remains a desirable symbol in public understandings of
policing (Bahn, 1974, p.342). Providing an explanation for the ongoing public
attachment to a police presence, the Signal Crimes Perspective (SCP) provides a
theoretical framework that builds on the semiotic and symbolic qualities of visible
policing and informs the methodology for Reassurance Policing (Innes, 2005; 2007).
The SCP shows that the communicative properties of certain crimes and disorders
(‘signal crimes’) disproportionately influence how people, individually and
collectively, come to understand, sense and act in relation to their security (Innes,
2007). This is because some crimes and some disorders are markedly ‘visible’ to
people and are perceived as ‘warning signals’ about the ‘risky people, places and
events that they either do, or might, encounter in their lives’ (Innes, 2004b, p.336).
Accordingly, policing interventions, like patrol, that convey ‘the presence of a
protective form of action’, known as ‘control signals’, can be purposely devised to
target the signal crimes identified as influencing a community’s sense of security to
alleviate or counteract their negative perceptual impact (Innes, 2005, p.163; 2014).
In this way, the SCP emphasises the communicative significance of police visibility,
specifically uniformed foot patrol. It formed, as the next section will outline, part of
understanding the importance of the PCSO role, was identified as a key policing
mechanism in the programme of Reassurance Policing and remained a prominent
function in Neighbourhood Policing (Barker, 2014).

The SCP, however, focuses on how the public come to make sense of crime and
disorder and how such understandings are embodied in the ‘wider symbolic
construction of social space’ (Innes, 2004b, p.336 and 352). By solely concentrating
on police visibility in the public’s interpretation of safety and security, the SCP does
not elaborate on how a police presence should be applied and maximised in the
practice context to best achieve a control signal that acts as ‘a protective form of
action’ (Innes, 2005, p.163). The absence of direction on police visibility is highlighted

11
 Introduction

in the SCP methodology where the researchers point out that the task of developing
what the police are actually seen to be doing during visible patrol is the responsibility
of the police themselves (Innes and Fielding, 2002). The lack of consideration for the
nature of police symbolic communications on patrol to convey safety and security
makes the perspective equally limiting for thinking about how the semiotic features
of police visibility can contribute, in the way the participants in my Masters research
described, to community engagement. This revealed a gap in understanding how a
police presence can deliver a community engagement function and it appeared a
more pertinent concern when considering police visibility in the current policing
landscape.

Policing Context

Community Policing programmes inherently encapsulate a range of different

philosophical perspectives and organisational strategies, but one of the main
approaches adopted is police officers being assigned to localities on a long-term basis
with regular patrol responsibilities to deliver inter alia community engagement (Eck
and Rosenbaum, 1994, p.3; Fielding, 2005). It is seen as creating a ‘style of policing
where the police are close to the public, know their concerns from regular contacts,
and act on them in accord with the community’s wishes’ (Fielding, 2005, p.460). In
the UK, this style of Community Policing has taken shape in the Reassurance Policing
and Neighbourhood Policing programmes and has been complemented by the PCSO
role; all of which have been designed around strengthening the utility of police
visibility in public policing. PCSOs, non-warranted members of police staff introduced
under the Police Reform Act 2002, were created as an additional policing resource
for delivering highly visible uniformed patrol and engaging with communities to
improve feelings of safety and security, reduce anti-social behaviour and increase
public confidence (ACPO, 2007). They were introduced at a time when the police
organisation feared losing its patrol function to private sector providers who were
increasingly monopolising this area of policing (Innes, 2005). Supporting the
maintenance of uniformed patrol in public policing, Reassurance Policing offered a

12
 Introduction

‘philosophy and set of values’ to explain the importance of police visibility in

delivering public reassurance (Innes, 2005). The Reassurance Policing Programme,
piloted between 2003 and 2005, centred on a strategy of visible police officers being
accessible to and familiar with local people, targeting the problems identified as
significant to them and co-producing solutions with them and partner organisations
(Innes, 2004a). The translation of Reassurance Policing into Neighbourhood Policing
retained the emphasis on police visibility but positioned it as part of a wider approach
to the delivery of local policing (Innes, 2006).

The Neighbourhood Policing Programme incorporated the three delivery

mechanisms formulated in the Reassurance Policing Programme – police visibility,
community involvement in identifying local priorities and collaborative problem-
solving with partners and the public – with the aims to improve the detection and
prevention of crime, encourage civility and foster more cohesive communities (Home
Office, 2005; Quinton and Morris, 2008). Dedicated Neighbourhood Policing Teams
(NPTs) made up of police officers, special constables and PCSOs in every
neighbourhood across the country were tasked with ‘providing a visible, reassuring
presence’ (Home Office, 2004b, p.7). In particular, the integration of the PCSO role
into Neighbourhood Policing established the auxiliaries as ‘key deliverers of visible
and community-focused policing tasks’ (Greig-Midlane, 2014, p.7). However, over
time police visibility, and more specifically the PCSO role, has become increasingly
threatened by changes in the policing landscape.

The ever-increasing demand on service, diminished resources brought about by

austerity in 2010 and the changing nature of crime has placed increasing pressure on
police forces to adapt on a radical scale (Brown 2014). A ‘worrying consequence’
highlighted by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), in its 2016 Police
Effectiveness Report, has been the inadequate investment in local policing whereby
many forces have overlooked and failed to revise their community-based policing
models to reflect changes in their budgets, service provision and communities (HMIC,
2016). Within this austere climate of change police visibility has noticeably reduced,

13
 Introduction

partly evidenced through the substantial decrease in the number of PCSOs 1 (Hymas,
2019). This has both raised questions about the necessity and cost effectiveness of
the PCSO role2 and led to specific concerns about the end of ‘bobbies on the beat’
(Dearden, 2019; Loveday and Smith, 2015). While police visibility has been
susceptible to the financial cuts in policing, its symbolic capital appears to have
endured with recent changes in policy placing a renewed emphasis on its importance
in the delivery of local policing.

Acknowledging that the day-to-day activities of Neighbourhood Policing have

dramatically altered and addressing the concerns raised by the Inspectorate, the
College of Policing (2018a) recently developed Neighbourhood Policing Guidelines to
provide forces with a practicable framework for delivering local policing. Police
visibility, as figure 1 below illustrates, features as an ‘essential element’ of the
‘engaging communities’ guideline. It has since been indirectly boosted by the
government announcing a commitment to increasing police funding to put ‘more
bobbies on the beat’ (GOV.UK, 2019). These developments, although in their infancy,
recast police visibility as an important part of local policing functions, particularly
delivering community engagement. Against this backdrop, it seemed increasingly
relevant to develop understandings into how police visibility, and more specifically
the visible presence of PCSOs, can contribute to providing an ongoing two-way
dialogue between the police and the public and enabling the police to better
understand communities, as envisaged in the ‘engaging communities’ guideline.

1
The total number of PCSOs in England and Wales has reduced from 16,918, at its peak in
2010, to 10,213 officers, as of March 2017 (Statista, 2017).
2
The most recent illustration is the Chief Constable of Norfolk Police revealing the decision
to make 150 PCSOs redundant to instead fund more fully warranted police officers based on
the view that they are better equipped to meet new policing demands produced by the
growing complexity of crime and the need to protect the most vulnerable (cited in BBC News,
2017 and Guardian, 2017).

14
 Introduction

Figure 1 - The 'Engaging Communities' Guideline (College of Policing, 2018a, p.5)

Thesis Outline

The preceding sections have set out the contextual factors underpinning the primary
research motivation for exploring police visibility as an aspect of community
engagement work in more depth. The remainder of the thesis will present the
research project through the following chapter structure:

Chapter One provides a brief overview of the policy context of police visibility as an
aspect of community engagement. It shows how this area of policing policy is
consistently constructed as part of a service responsive to the community which
implies that citizens will engage with police officers and staff on patrol; that a police
presence will provide an engagement function; and that communities will be
identifiable units discernible to police officers and staff on patrol.

15
 Introduction

Chapter Two challenges the identified policy assumptions separately using the
academic literature. In the first section, research into citizen participation in
Community Policing and citizen perception of patrol is presented to show the
confluence of factors that contribute to citizen engagement making it unlikely that
members of the public will straightforwardly engage with police officers and staff on
patrol. Following this in the second section, studies highlighting the cultural and
organisational issues impacting upon the delivery of community engagement are
explored to argue that police officers and staff are not instinctively inclined,
supported or equipped to deliver an engagement function on patrol. In the third
section, academic commentary around the presentation of community in policing
policy and the theories that underpin it are examined to contend that contemporary
communities are not simple organisational units detectable to and compatible with
patrolling police officers and staff. Through all three critiques of the policy
assumptions, the lack of scholarly understanding of the dynamics of citizen
engagement with the police on patrol and the ways in which police officers and staff
negotiate the patrol practice context to engage with contemporary communities,
especially from a qualitative research perspective, is emphasised. In the final section,
this gap in the literature is summarised and used to formulate two research questions
that aim to qualitatively explore police visibility in community engagement in more
depth:

• What is a visible police presence in the day-to-day work of NPTs?

• In what ways does police visibility, particularly PCSO visibility, contribute to
community engagement?

Chapter Three sets out the research methodology. It details how an ethnographic
approach involving fieldwork in two NPTs in one urban constabulary in the North of
England, renamed Wildebay Police, was devised and experienced to answer the
research questions. The first part sets out what underpinned the rationale for
selecting ethnography as the research method. It outlines how it provided a method
for developing the evidence-base of police patrol work by offering a way of seeing
policing from the inside; how it was theoretically positioned to capture insights about
16
 Introduction

the social action of police officers and staff on patrol; and how it was a choice
influenced by my personal background. The subsequent sections detail the research
procedure including the ethical considerations and personal reflections that formed
the process of accessing and negotiating the fieldwork setting to collect and record
descriptive accounts of police officers and staff on patrol. The final sections cover the
analytical process, including the use of concepts from Goffman’s work on face-to-
face interaction in the coding of fieldnotes, and the reasoning for choosing a
Goffmanian perspective to develop insights about police patrol.

Chapters Four, Five and Six illustrate through the application of Goffman’s concepts
on face-to-face interaction the communicative acts of police officers and staff
conducting patrol, including the potential opportunities for and restrictions on police
contact with the public, and how such interactional possibilities and shortcomings
can facilitate or hinder community engagement. Chapter Four analyses the
interactional space of the police vehicle to show how it creates potential
communicative barriers that can have implications for delivering community
engagement before contrasting it with an examination of the interactional space of
the street and the communicative gains brought about by PCSOs on foot. It reveals
that PCSOs on foot occupy a visible presence that can create the basis for developing
a type of community engagement that vehicle patrol is unlikely to achieve. Building
on the interactional features of foot patrol and how they can function to support
community engagement, Chapter Five analyses in more detail the nature of the face-
to-face interaction PCSOs can experience with the public and the different functions
it serves to show how it can develop the two-way dialogue and better understanding
of communities proposed in the College of Policing (2018a) ‘engaging communities’
guideline. Chapter Six examines the communicative challenges and barriers that can
hinder the interactional influence of PCSOs on foot patrol, including improper public
conduct, situational factors, PCSOs’ individual dispositions and organisational
directions and changes.

Chapter Seven summarises in the first section the Goffmanian analysis of the findings
to answer the research questions. It explains how a visible police presence in the

17
 Introduction

routine work of NPTs is created by the interactional accessibility of police officers and
staff on patrol before setting out how the interactional space of foot patrol, in
comparison to vehicle patrol, can create the communicative conditions for
establishing a visible presence to engage communities. The interactional devices
available to PCSOs on foot are described to show how they can lead to indirect and
direct forms of contact, produce face engagements and develop acquaintanceships
with all those around them. It is proposed that these interactions on foot patrol are
capable of cultivating community engagement by promoting a sense of belonging,
trust, reassurance and familiarity at the same time as facilitating ongoing two-way
dialogue, enabling information-sharing about communities’ needs, risks and threats
and involving people in local policing. Bringing together these insights around the
different interactional spaces of vehicle and foot patrol and the distinctive types of
contact and messages that can be created from them, an interactional understanding
of police visibility is constructed. In the final section, this perspective is explored
alongside the literature to consider how it complements and expands on existing
knowledge about community engagement in policing.

Chapter Eight concludes the thesis with a summary of the PhD study. It brings
together the research insights to show how the thesis has contributed to practice
understandings of police visibility as a mechanism of community engagement,
especially in relation to the role of PCSOs, in addition to developing theoretical
reflections around perception and symbolism in policing and supporting the use of
ethnography to study police patrol work. The chapter ends by making suggestions for
future research to build on the use of an interactional understanding of police
visibility in the day-to-day community engagement practice of NPTs.

Defining Police Visibility and Community Engagement

Given the many different uses and descriptions of policing terms, those that are
central to this PhD research are listed below with a brief explanation of how they are
specifically referenced in the subsequent chapters.

18
 Introduction

• Police visibility refers to police officers and staff having a physical presence in
public and private spaces in the course of conducting foot and vehicle patrol.
The term is therefore used interchangeably with patrol and presence.

• Patrol denotes police officers and staff travelling around geographical

locations in vehicles or on foot in a traditional surveillance capacity and
includes all the tasks and initiatives they incorporate into this activity to
reflect, as Wakefield (2006) identifies, the all-encompassing nature of this
type of work. In terms of the fieldwork, the geographical locations either
formed part of the dedicated ‘beat’ areas of the participants or were
identified by the NPTs as places requiring increased police attention due to
specific concerns, such as a rise in anti-social behaviour issues. The tasks and
initiatives often varied between police officers and police staff related to the
different remits of their roles, the resources available and/or the specific day
or time of the shift. They are specified in more detail in the findings and
analysis chapters where relevant to understanding the participants’ patrol
practices. It is of note that the participants in the field excerpts detailed in
these chapters sometimes use the term High Visibility Patrol to describe their
work. However, due to their use of this term not reflecting anything different
from the definition of patrol already described, it was decided not to adopt it
in the rest of the thesis to avoid potential confusion. High Visibility Patrol can
be interpreted as a geographical saturation of marked police personnel and
vehicles, which was not observed in this fieldwork (see NCJRS, 1974, p.1).

• Community is a difficult concept to define, particularly when making sense of

it in the context of Community Policing. This is recognised and explored in
more detail in Chapter 2. When using the term and not referencing a specific
research position, in accordance with Myhill (2012, p.15), community will be
understood as a ‘multi-faceted, fluid concept.’ It can relate, but is not limited,
to residence in a geographic location; identification with certain demographic
characteristics; alignment with specific attitudes, values or beliefs; and/or
19
 Introduction

affiliation with particular interests, activities or occupations. An individual can

be a part of multiple communities at any one time, and may move in, out or
between one or more communities over time (Myhill, 2012, p.15).

• Community Engagement is characterised according to the objectives of the

College of Policing (2018a) ‘engaging communities’ guideline (see Figure 1)
and refers to police officers and staff providing an ongoing two-way dialogue
between the police and the public and developing a better understanding of
communities, their needs, risks and threats. The decision to use the guideline
as a benchmark for describing community engagement practice in this
research was two-fold. Firstly, the guideline is the current reference point for
police forces to structure their community engagement practice and it will
inform future police inspections. Secondly, the guideline was assessed as
realistically reflecting the most achievable level of community engagement
police forces can and do expect to deliver. This was based on findings from a
review by Simmonds (2015) which highlighted that, in comparison to the
broad notion of community engagement involving the transfer of power and
decision-making to communities, police forces’ community engagement
strategies tend to be passive in nature, limited to types of consultation or
information gathering and presented in terms of understanding local issues
or meeting the needs of service users. It is also of note that engagement is
used interchangeably with participation, partnership and involvement, and
these terms are sometimes used with the word citizen instead of community,
specifically when presenting a review of research. It is recognised that all
these expressions can mean different things to different people. The decision
to include this vocabulary was based on community engagement being a
relatively recent concept in policy and all of these identified terms being
associated with it and/or used to describe police-public interaction in the
wider literature (Myhill, 2012).

20
 Policy Context

Chapter 1
Contextualising Police Visibility in Policy

Police visibility as an aspect of community engagement in policing policy is structured

around a number of implicit assumptions about the role of citizens, the functioning
of a police presence and the community as the site for policing. It is embedded in
descriptions of the police delivering a service responsive to the community which in
turn implies that citizens will engage with police officers and staff on patrol; that a
police presence will provide an engagement function; and that communities will be
identifiable units discernible to police officers and staff on patrol. This section will
look at how the policy portrayal of police visibility in community engagement over
the last forty years has shaped these assumptions about citizens, communities and
policing.

Before proceeding, it is important to note that by using policy and academic

literature to summarise the nature and practice of police visibility in community
engagement in public policing over time, it is not the intention of this or subsequent
chapters to suggest that the conceptualisations presented are the only ones that can
be made on the topic or that they represent the experiences of all the populace.
Indeed, the historical context of policing is complex wherein an intricate web of
social, economic, political and structural influences, changes and challenges
operating at national, and often differently at local levels has resulted in citizens
experiencing and relating to policing activity and police personnel in different ways
(Kelling and Moore, 1988). Therefore, in light of the clear difficulty in and lack of
space for outlining all insights surrounding police visibility in community engagement
work, the discussions presented in Chapters 1 and 2 derive from recognised trends
in the literature.

The Brixton disorders in the early 1980s are a useful starting point for thinking about
Community Policing reforms involving police visibility because they brought to the
fore the clear disconnect that existed at the time between police officers and

21
 Policy Context

communities (Bullock, 2014). In his inquiry into the Brixton disorders, Lord Scarman
(1981) highlighted that ‘hard’ policing styles characterised by aggressive, unlawful
and racially prejudiced tactics together with inadequate consultation mechanisms
had fuelled outrage, resentment and suspicion among citizens, particularly young
people. Against this observation, he pointed out the importance of ‘policing with the
active consent and support of the community’ which he likened to the ‘friendly
bobby-on-the-beat’ (Scarman, 1981, p.88). The Scarman Report, according to
Hattersley (HC Deb, 10 December 1981, Vol.14, cc1001-80), presented an
opportunity for restoring a type of policing where the ‘policeman’ could ‘once more
become a visible, regular presence known to the local community.’ In the years post
Scarman, an ongoing programme of reform has demonstrated a tacit commitment
to Community Policing in which police visibility, represented by the beat officer, has
become a central feature (Bennett, 1994; Bullock, 2014).

Alongside Scarman’s recommendations for improving police-community relations,

police visibility developed in different ways and to varying degrees in and between
forces through a number of community-oriented practices, summarised by Bennett
(1993) as, including:
• Area-based foot patrols, also known as community constables
• Types of area-based policing
• Police-public contact strategies, such as police surgeries and door-to-door
patrols
• Patrol initiatives involving dedicated, temporary or specialist officers in small
teams attending a location to provide a police presence, address community
problems or prevent a specific issue on a permanent or short-term basis

The Home Office (1993) White Paper Police Reform sought to co-ordinate these
practices and provide official support for Community Policing more broadly by
strengthening the organisation and delivery of policing (Bennett, 1994). Teams of
officers, assigned to local command units, were each responsible for specific districts
to ‘establish clearer ownership of [areas] and in turn allow the community to identify

22
 Policy Context

them as their police officers’ (Home Office, 1993, p.12). The move aimed to make
policing ‘a more local service, responsive to the needs of local communities’ (Home
Office, 1993, p.3). This idea of police visibility forming part of a service responsive to
local communities is a theme that has been developed in subsequent policy
portrayals of police officers and staff delivering community engagement, specifically
within the two main Community Policing programmes adopted in the UK -
Reassurance Policing and Neighbourhood Policing.

The disconnect between falling crime levels, public perception of rising crime, high
levels of fear of crime and reduced public confidence in the police in the mid-1990s,
named the ‘reassurance gap’, contributed to a policy of Reassurance Policing (Millie,
2014). A HMIC thematic inspection report by Sir Keith Povey (2001, p.viii) pinpointed
that public reassurance is not simply influenced by objective crime statistics, but
consists of many factors, including subjective perceptions of risk and order from
signs, and direct or indirect experiences of crime and disorder in the local
environment. The presence of uniformed police officers on the street was identified
as a key contributor to the public sensing order in their surroundings, and while the
number of ‘bobbies on the beat’ demanded by the public could not be practically
delivered nor was it alone sufficient to reassure, enhancing the type of patrol that
already existed was identified as one of the solutions (Povey, 2001, p.ix). A ‘visible,
accessible and familiar community-focused style of policing’ where ‘officers who are
known and accessible – preferably on foot patrol – and who are skilled at engaging
with local communities and their problems’ was recommended to facilitate smarter
interactions with the public and better information about local needs and
expectations (Povey, 2001, p.ix and xiv). Povey’s recommendations were implicitly
endorsed by a government consultation exercise on police reform highlighting that
the public wanted more visible, accessible and responsive policing, specifically 60%
of participants were keen to convey their views by contact with officers on patrol
(Home Office, 2003). The proposals underpinned the creation of PCSOs to increase
police presence in localities and were further developed through the National
Reassurance Policing Programme.

23
 Policy Context

Policing activities that targeted and problem-solved crime and disorder important to
neighbourhoods; engaged the community in identifying priorities and taking action
to tackle them; and involved visible, accessible and locally known police officers and
staff were trialled as part of the National Reassurance Policing Programme between
2003 and 2005 (Tuffin et al. 2006, p.xii). In relation to police visibility, the evaluation
of the programme showed positive results in terms of improved public awareness of
a police presence and familiarity with local officers and staff (Tuffin et al. 2006).
However, it was noted that visibility and familiarity alone could not bring about shifts
in public perception, and that a local policing strategy that combined engagement,
problem-solving and visible patrol mechanisms would be more effective.
Accordingly, foot patrol was pinpointed as another ‘means of engagement’ (Tuffin et
al. 2006, p.63). The visibility, accessibility and familiarity of officers on foot patrol
pursued in Reassurance Policing exemplified the notion of a responsive community-
oriented service focused on the needs and experiences of the citizen introduced in
earlier policy.

The National Reassurance Policing Programme was translated into the

Neighbourhood Policing Programme and became a key component of a citizen-
focused policing philosophy. The Neighbourhood Policing programme aimed for
‘every community’ to have a team of dedicated police officers and staff ‘providing a
visible, reassuring presence, preventing and detecting crime and developing
constructive and lasting engagement’ (Home Office, 2004b, p.7). It envisaged a ‘new
relationship’ of ‘active cooperation’ between the police and public guided by a clear
understanding of what each could expect from the other to deal with crime and
disorder (Home Office, 2005, p.5). The public could expect to see and have regular
contact with the same officers, influence local policing priorities and solutions, and
hold the police and their partners to account (Home Office, 2005, p.5). At the same
time, the police could anticipate the public sharing responsibility for community
safety by communicating problems and participating in solutions to them, including
joining crime prevention initiatives such as Neighbourhood Watch or volunteering
with a police force (Home Office, 2005, p.5).

24
 Policy Context

The transition to Neighbourhood Policing, set out in the Home Office (2004b, p.47)
paper Building Communities, Beating Crime, was described in terms of driving citizen-
focused policing, namely policing that is ‘responsive to people’s needs and
performed as a shared undertaking with the active involvement of the public’. The
policy argument for embedding structures to facilitate community engagement was
presented using the results of public consultations which showed strong support for
such measures. Casey (2008) in a review titled Engaging Communities in Fighting
Crime found that 75% of the 14,478 members of the public questioned were
prepared to take an active role in tackling crime. Similarly, other public surveys
highlighted that the majority of participants endorsed more involvement in policing,
and specifically in relation to police visibility, favoured face-to-face contact with local
police officers and staff (Flanagan, 2008; Home Office, 2003). Accordingly, an
important aspect of this citizen-focused policing agenda was the police visibility
provided by PCSOs, whose numbers were directed to increase in Neighbourhood
Policing Teams (NPTs) (Home Office, 2006). In this way, responsiveness continued to
be equated with visibility, and was linked to increasing public confidence, satisfaction
and involvement in policing (Home Office, 2006).

Embedding and delivering successful Neighbourhood Policing, of which police

officers and PCSOs being visible and accessible to local people was considered a
crucial element, became an important concern in policing policy (Flanagan, 2008).
Casey (2008) argued that the public identified police contact, access, visibility and
responsiveness as important approaches, but viewed them as not being delivered
well by the police. In response, the Home Office (2008, p.29) issued a Policing Pledge
consisting of ten national standards for ‘accessible and responsive local policing’,
including an assurance that 80% of NPTs’ time on duty would be spent performing
visible patrol at times and places where they were required. This commitment to
police visibility remained an important objective for policing as it entered a period of
austerity from 20103 (HMIC, 2010). The spending cuts were characterised as a means

3
In 2010 the government declared a twenty per cent reduction in real terms of central
funding to the police service between 2011 and 2015 (HM Treasury, 2010).

25
 Policy Context

of reducing government bureaucratic interference in policing to transfer power back

to the people and restore the connection between the police and public, including
giving the police more time to be visible and accessible on the streets, in communities
(Home Office, 2010). Accordingly, sustaining police visibility was identified as a
priority in any economising of operational policing to take account of the public
valuing a police presence (HMIC, 2010, p.3-4).

A report by the Independent Police Commission (2013) recognised the budget cuts
contributed to ‘tumultuous change’ and ‘huge challenges’ in public policing by
making it difficult to improve or develop resources by spending money. The report
reinforced the importance of protecting ‘visible, locally responsive policing’ provided
by NPTs and warned that the ‘symbolic function of the police as guarantors of social
order and legitimate governance’ should not be undermined by measures
implemented by the police service to adapt to austerity, including developing
relationships with the private sector (Independent Police Commission, 2013, p.13-
16). In spite of official commentary, HMIC (2016) revealed that the continued
demand on the police service to make efficiency savings over time had led to police
forces inadequately investing in local policing. In particular, it was recorded that
there had been a substantial decline in the number of people ‘seeing’ a uniformed
police presence in their area (HMIC, 2016, p.10). The College of Policing (2018a)
devised Neighbourhood Policing Guidelines in response to HMIC’s findings. The
guidelines set out seven key areas of work for delivering and supporting
Neighbourhood Policing4. Police visibility formed an essential element of the
‘engaging communities’ guideline, as illustrated in Figure 1 on p.15. It is described as
‘officers, staff and volunteers being responsible for and having a targeted visible
presence in neighbourhoods’ to contribute to the overarching aims of providing an
‘ongoing two-way dialogue between the police and the public’ and enabling the

4
The seven areas covered by the guidelines are engaging communities; solving problems;
targeting activity; promoting the right culture; building analytical capability; developing
officers, staff and volunteers; and developing and sharing learning (College of Policing,
2018a, p.4).

26
 Policy Context

police ‘to develop a better understanding of communities, and their needs, risks and
threats’ (College of Policing, 2018a, p.5).

The College of Policing (2018a) guidelines present the most up-to-date formulation
of police visibility in community engagement work where it remains characterised as
part of a service centred on, and responsive to, the community. The guidelines
support the commitment to proactive policing in communities set out in the National
Police Chief’s Council Policing Vision 2025; a ten-year policing plan signed up to by all
police forces and their Police Crime Commissioners. The vision recognises the
primacy of developing and utilising local police functions to keep people safe and
provide an ‘effective, accessible and value for money service’ (APCC and NPCC, 2016,
p.1-2). Moving forward, the Home Office (2019) has confirmed that Her Majesty’s
Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services will use the guidelines to
inform future inspections. In what could be considered a response to ongoing
concerns that the demands on policing and reduced resources might obstruct the
type of proactive neighbourhood practice proposed in the guidelines (HASC, 2018),
the Policing and Crime Act 2017 introduced ‘community support’ and ‘policing
support’ volunteers to provide an additional policing resource. The Community
Support Volunteer possesses fewer powers than a PCSO but is still able to complete
a lot of the same tasks, including visible uniformed patrol. While this recent
development is still in its infancy, it adds a new dimension to uniformed patrol work
and how the police can be responsive to communities.

The preceding paragraphs provide a brief overview of Community Policing in the UK

in the last forty years with a particular emphasis on the articulation of police visibility
as a mechanism of community engagement. What becomes noticeable in the policy
discourse is the repeated construction of police visibility as a service responsive to
the community. These themes of service, responsiveness and community give rise to
the assumptions that citizens will engage with police officers and staff on patrol; that
a police presence will provide an engagement function; and that communities are
identifiable units discernible to police officers and staff on patrol. Using academic
literature, the next chapter will argue that these implicit policy assumptions

27
 Policy Context

perpetuate a romanticism about policing that reveals a lack of insight into the actual
workings of police officers and staff on patrol in present-day communities.

28
 Literature Review

Chapter 2
Blurred Police Visibility:
A Review of the Policy Assumptions

The policy portrayal of police visibility in community engagement work is structured

around a number of implicit assumptions that suggests citizens will engage with
police officers and staff on patrol; that a police presence will provide an engagement
function; and that communities will be identifiable to police officers and staff on
patrol. Taking each of these policy assumptions separately, this chapter will use the
literature to challenge the narrative that surrounds the policy ideas around citizens,
communities and policing in the 21st century. Through this presentation of academic
work, the limited way in which it explores police visibility in community engagement
practice, both in terms of the focus of studies and the research methods adopted,
will be revealed. Summarising the review of the literature, the final section will
conclude that the mechanics of how police visibility operates as an element of
community engagement in Neighbourhood Policing is not clearly depicted in policing
policy and research, especially not from a qualitative perspective, to set out the
research questions that guided the PhD study.

Citizens will Engage with Police Officers and Staff on Patrol

Community Policing promotes the role of the community as an ‘active coparticipant’

in addressing local crime and disorder which, in the UK, has underpinned the broad
philosophy of citizen-focused policing and the focus on community engagement in
Neighbourhood Policing (Cosgrove and Ramshaw, 2015, p.81; Myhill, 2012). Central
to this policy agenda, as outlined in the last chapter, is the notion of empowering
citizens to have ‘a greater voice in and influence over local decision-making and the
delivery of services’ to increase police accountability and responsiveness to the
people they serve (Home Office, 2004a, p.3). Within this construction of community
engagement, it is implied that the required ‘interest, willingness and ability of the
public to play their part in a cooperative relationship with the police’, in this case

29
 Literature Review

engaging with police officers and staff on patrol, is already established (Bullock and
Sindall, 2014, p.385). This notion of pre-existing citizen empowerment represents a
flaw in the broader community engagement policy framework by presuming that it
is something ‘out there’ to be tapped into, when in reality, it is structured by a ‘cadre
of professionals’, including policymakers and practitioners, ‘whose ability to sustain
this discourse is indicative of the power they possess’ (Cooke and Kothari, 2001,
p.15). This forms, what Chanan and Miller (2011, cited in Jacobson et al. 2014, p.69)
conceptualise as, an ‘empowerment misconception’ whereby the government’s
commitment to giving power to people and communities overlooks the fact that
people have invested power in the government in the first instance to do the things
they want done collectively, and cannot be achieved by ‘spasmodic citizen action’.
The inconsistency between the policy construction of community engagement and
the practice reality is identified in policing. Scholars highlight that the notion of the
public being willing and able to participate is more complex than its policy depiction
(Barnes and Eagle, 2007; Bullock, 2014).

Turning to the literature to explore the discrepancy between the policy and practice
context, citizen engagement with police officers and staff on patrol is not an explicit
focus in research. Instead, it appears to be a subject matter that is broadly considered
in studies examining citizen participation in Community Policing and studies
exploring citizen perception of patrol. This section will be divided into two parts to
examine these respective areas of research. It will show the complex interaction of
factors that can contribute to citizen engagement to question the policy assumption
that all citizens will engage with police patrol. Throughout the analysis, the lack of
qualitative insight into the individualities of citizen engagement with patrol,
particularly in the context of Neighbourhood Policing in the UK, will be emphasised.

Citizen Participation - Community Policing

Research examining citizen participation in Community Policing considers the level

of participation, and in terms of the UK, the evidence highlights limited public

30
 Literature Review

engagement with policing programmes. In contrast to the high levels of expressed

public interest in becoming involved in policing efforts to deal with crime and
disorder that is presented in policy (Casey, 2008; Flanagan, 2008; and Home Office,
2003), research pinpoints that it does not straightforwardly translate into direct
action (Jacobson et al. 2014). Jacobson et al. (2014, p.68) show that only a marginal
section of the population in England and Wales engage in some form of civic action
or volunteering, and generally public interest in policing does not extend beyond a
preference to know what the police are doing. This is broadly reflected in Bullock and
Sindall’s (2014) analysis of data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales which
revealed that the majority of the population do not participate in Neighbourhood
Policing. Relatedly, the evaluation of the National Reassurance Policing Programme
trial sites found that public attendance at police meetings was low varying between
12% and 32% (Tuffin et al. 2006). Taken together the generally low levels of citizen
participation identified in Community Policing programmes in the UK suggests that
despite expressing high levels of support most citizens do not engage with local
policing. Furthermore, of those citizens that do engage, it is likely that they will
disproportionately represent a specific cross section of the population, commonly
referred to as the ‘usual suspects’ (Brodie et al. 2009). This issue of representation is
a key concern in research exploring citizen participation in Community Policing,
particularly in American policing (Myhill, 2012).

Studies point to a range of factors that not only impact upon citizens’ willingness and
capacity to engage in Community Policing programmes, but can result in unequal
outcomes (Myhill, 2012). Herbert (2005, p.859) conducted research exploring
residents’ perceptions and experiences of Community Policing in a set of diverse
neighbourhoods across Seattle. The study found that participants believed the state
was responsible for providing security to its citizenry, they experienced the
participatory procedures as tedious and time-consuming, and they felt that the
complicated nature of the process placed poorer neighbourhoods at a competitive
disadvantage with those in more affluent areas. Consequently, Herbert (2005)
concluded that the extent of the state’s ‘offloading’ of crime control which
Community Policing expects is perceived as unwarranted; experienced as unfulfilling

31
 Literature Review

and unproductive; and is in practice illegitimate as it leads to the perpetuation of

inequality. The relationship between social inequality and participation is again
reflected in Skogan’s (1998, p.90) evaluation of a Community Policing programme in
Houston where efforts were more visible, and participation was more likely in
predominantly white neighbourhoods. The finding was related to ‘better-organized
home-owning whites’ being more prepared to make the most of the resources the
programme brought, and police officers ‘naturally’ focusing their efforts on places
where they believed they were well received and having more impact. Accordingly,
these studies show how the processes of Community Policing programmes can be
more advantageous to those who already enjoy social, political and economic
benefits which partly reflects, and can be exacerbated by, how police officers
interpret and apply Community Policing (Bullock, 2014). Putting aside the police role
in community engagement as this will be covered in the next section, research
identifies the range of dynamics involved in citizen participation in Community
Policing programmes which brings to light the contradictory and conflicting nature of
participation.

Academics document concerns about historic poor relations between the police and
residents, particularly in deprived areas; a lack of awareness of the goals and tactics
of the programmes; previous short-lived policing interventions; and the presence of
mutual hostility, distrust and suspicion in crime-ridden neighbourhoods as impacting
upon citizen’s willingness to engage in Community Policing programmes (Skogan and
Hartnett, 1997). Evidencing these issues and identifying additional barriers to
participation, Grinc (1994), in an evaluation of eight Community Policing
programmes, reported that in each case it was extremely difficult for the police to
stimulate community resident participation related to high levels of fear; scepticism
about the longevity of the programme; the heterogenous populations and
disorganisation that often characterise these communities; intragroup conflict
among community leaders and residents; and the poor relationship between the
police and residents in poor, minority communities that had historically been
subjected to police abuses. Similarly, Rosenbaum and Lurigio (1994) identify, in a
review of Community Policing studies, resident fear of victimisation and distrust of

32
 Literature Review

the police, especially in high-crime socially disadvantaged minority neighbourhoods,

as influencing levels of participation. At the same time, research shows that negative
attitudes towards the police and residence in deprived minority neighbourhoods do
not necessarily hinder citizen participation in Community Policing programmes.

Frank et al. (1996) contends that those who hold unfavourable views of the police
and are less satisfied with policing may feel more inclined to engage in policing
initiatives. Looking at the individual and community-based indicators of participation
in crime prevention in more detail, Pattavina, Bryne and Garcia (2006) found in their
study in Boston that residents in high-crime neighbourhoods, particularly those from
ethnic minority backgrounds; residents who feel they are part of the neighbourhood;
and residents who believe the police get to know them, were more likely to become
involved in community crime prevention activities. Comparably, research analysing
citizen involvement in the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) consistently
showed participation in police ‘beat meetings’ to be highest in poor, high-crime
communities with bad housing; in predominantly African American beats; and in
areas where other public services were not meeting residents’ needs (Skogan and
Hartnett, 1997; Skogan and Steiner, 2004). The inconsistency across studies
examining citizen participation in Community Policing programmes shows that
participation cannot be assumed to be dependent on the type of neighbourhood.
Looking at the issues in more detail, research highlights how citizen participation is
further obscured by the following three factors.

Firstly, participatory behaviour in Community Policing programmes might be shaped

by specific types of citizen attitudes towards the police. Pattavina, Bryne and Garcia
(2006) found that regardless of the level of crime in a neighbourhood the
development of personal relationships between the police and residents was more
significant to citizen involvement than perception of the effectiveness of Community
Policing activities. The notion that attitudes relating to police treatment of citizens,
specifically within personal interactions, is an important factor in participation links
to the procedural justice literature (Bullock, 2014). Research shows that citizens’
perceptions of fair treatment in their personal experiences with the police can

33
 Literature Review

increase cooperation with police crime prevention activity (Tyler and Fagan, 2008;
Tyler and Jackson 2014). Acts of cooperation, as Hough et al. (2010, p.207) conclude,
may strengthen the relationships between the police and public, and ‘promote the
view that addressing crime is a collaborative process’. Indeed, Reisig (2007) found
that procedurally just policing tactics can have a positive impact on citizens’
motivation to participate in Community Policing crime prevention activity, especially
within moderate- and high-crime communities.

Secondly, a more complex relationship between neighbourhood social cohesion and

citizen participation in formal crime prevention activity may exist. Studies show a
connection between socially cohesive neighbourhoods and citizen intervention to
deal with local problems (Bellair, 2000; Frank et al. 1996; Wells et al. 2006). However,
these studies also indicate how residents in more cohesive neighbourhoods might
not necessarily engage in formal crime prevention mechanisms, utilising instead
informal social controls, such as surveillance by neighbours or expressing disapproval
in subtle ways (Bellair, 2000; Wells et al. 2006). In contrast, research shows that
residents in less cohesive communities are more likely to participate in organised
crime prevention activity related to weak informal problem-solving capacities in
these areas (Skogan, 1989, p.453). Relatedly, Pattavina, Bryne and Garcia (2006)
found that one measure of social cohesion, ‘rely on neighbours for help’, was largely
absent in high-crime neighbourhoods where participation in crime prevention was
more likely. Accordingly, the authors suggest that the lack of private networks of
support, such as neighbourly assistance, in high-crime neighbourhoods leads
residents to engage with crime prevention activity delivered through parochial (i.e.,
community organisations) and public social control (i.e., the police) mechanisms as
there are no other options available. This finding has been used to emphasise the
importance of the ‘new parochialism’, namely ‘semiformal practices co-produced by
residents and formal agents of control’, over dense interpersonal ties in bringing
about effective neighbourhood control (Carr, 2003, p.1284). Additionally, it supports
findings from the CAPS evaluation which showed citizen awareness and engagement
in the programme to be associated with their involvement in existing community
organisations, such as church (Skogan and Steiner, 2004).

34
 Literature Review

Finally, individual citizen characteristics may be influential in shaping participation in

Community Policing programmes. While different people are active to different
degrees across participatory activities, typical participants in forms of local-level
decision-making, including those attending consultation groups/meetings and
completing questionnaires, are considered more likely to be white, older, better
educated, wealthy, middle-class and male (Brodie et al. 2009). Subsequently, it raises
the issue of ‘certain voices’ in society, especially those from younger, non-white,
lower socioeconomic groups, not being heard (Brodie et al. 2009). Analysis of the
individual characteristics of participants in Community Policing programmes reveals
a more mixed picture which suggests that community engagement in policing can
have a broader reach than first assumed. Skogan and Steiner (2004) found that
participation in CAPS was higher among African American, less educated, low-income
and female residents. In relation to Neighbourhood Policing, Bullock and Sindall
(2014) revealed some parallels with those considered to be the ‘usual suspects’ in
participation, namely older people, people with more formal education and those
who are more confident in the police, but also showed participation across other
groups. White people were no more likely to participate in Neighbourhood Policing
than those of other ethnicities, while social renters, victims of crime and those who
felt that they lived in high-crime areas were all more likely to participate. Taken
together the findings examining the individual characteristics of participation in
Community Policing programmes indicates that participation is largely distributed
amongst those populations who need it most and is driven by concern about crime
(Bullock and Sindall, 2014; Skogan and Steiner, 2004).

The preceding paragraphs present research examining citizen participation in

Community Policing. The studies provide insights into a broad spectrum of
interconnecting influences, ranging from socio-demographic factors through to
neighbourhood structures, that suggest the nature of citizen participation in
Community Policing to be more complex than all citizens straightforwardly engaging
with police officers. However, there are features of these studies which make it
difficult to directly apply the findings to citizen engagement with patrol. To begin

35
 Literature Review

with, the studies consider citizen engagement at the macro-level. Whether

examining the level and nature of citizen participation (Bullock and Sindall, 2014;
Frank et al. 1996; Herbert, 2005; Pattavina, Bryne and Garcia, 2006); analysing
informal control mechanisms (Bellair, 2000); evaluating specific Community Policing
programmes (Grinc, 1994; Skogan, 1998; Skogan and Steiner, 2004; and Tuffin et al.
2006); or exploring the influence of citizen’s views or personal experiences of policing
on participation (Hough et al. 2010; Tyler and Fagan, 2008; Tyler and Jackson, 2014;
and Reisig, 2007), the studies make generalised conclusions about citizen
engagement with Community Policing, largely within an American policing context.
Moreover, when citizen engagement with specific Community Policing methods is
considered, these are usually formal in nature, such as police organised meetings,
and police patrol does not feature. If police visibility is referenced, it is simply in terms
of ascertaining the extent to which citizens have seen a police officer (Tuffin et al.
2006), as opposed to considering the nature of citizen engagement with patrol.
Related to this restricted focus of the studies, with the exception of Herbert (2005),
Grinc (1994) and Skogan and Steiner (2004), they exclusively use survey data and
quantitative analysis to examine citizen participation. The preoccupation with
quantitative methods in this area of research makes it difficult to gain a micro-level
understanding of citizen participation, such as understanding the influences on
citizen engagement in the everyday context of Community Policing, and more
specifically in relation to Neighbourhood Policing in the UK. Some of these identified
limitations are noticeable when research is more focused on police patrol as the next
section will show.

Citizen Perception of Police Patrol

Turning to research examining police visibility, there are numerous American studies
of patrol where a citizen perspective is explored, usually in terms of citizen
perception of crime and policing. The Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment
used an experimental research design to examine variations in the level of routine
vehicle patrol across 15 Kansas City ‘beat’ areas (Kelling et al. 1974). It found no

36
 Literature Review

significant differences in citizen attitudes towards the police and no effect on citizen
fear of crime thus leading the researchers to confirm that vehicle patrol is less
noticeable and has little to no consequence on crime and the community. This focus
on citizen fear of crime and attitudes towards the police was replicated in the Newark
Foot Patrol Experiment which found the presence of foot patrol to improve feelings
of safety and citizen perception of the police (Kelling et al. 1981). A more recent
experiment by Simpson (2017) confirmed that police officers are generally perceived
more favourably when presented on bike or on foot in comparison to a vehicle.
However, these analyses of citizen perception, as researchers in the Newark Foot
Patrol Experiment acknowledged, lack a more in-depth consideration of what
happens between police officers and the public on patrol. There are a number of
studies which focus more on the interventions delivered by police officers on foot
patrol.

A study on Reducing Fear of Crime in Houston and Newark evaluated, as part of

Community Policing programmes in both cities, contacts made by police officers on
patrol with neighbourhood residents to determine and address local problems (Pate
et al. 1985 and 1986). In terms of citizen impact, the results showed reductions in
levels of perceived crime and disorder, less fear and concern about crime and
improved evaluations of the police service. The close police-public contact
established during the programmes, specifically police officers having frequent
discussions with citizens, was identified as significant to their success. While the
study showed that positive police contact with citizens on patrol to develop
familiarity is an important factor in their assessments of crime and policing, the
contact was police-initiated with police officers, in a lot of cases, attending residents’
addresses and/or completing structured questionnaires to elicit information. This
combined with the study only considering the resident perspective in terms of fear
of crime, perception of crime and satisfaction with the police resulted in little detail
about the nature of citizen engagement and the more informal unplanned contact in
the public space during patrol. This critique is similarly perceptible in the research
Evaluating a Neighbourhood Foot Patrol Experiment in Flint (Trojanowicz, 1982), in a
study of Policing Houston: Reducing Fear and Improving Service (Brown and Wycoff,

37
 Literature Review

1987) and in a UK-based study exploring The Effectiveness of a Police Initiated Fear
Reducing Strategy (Bennett, 1991). Overcoming some of these limitations, there are
a couple of studies that concentrate on exploring police-public contact on patrol for
the purpose of developing community engagement.

Vernon and Lasley’s (1992) experiment exploring the use of Community Policing to
restore order and identify initiatives that can build police-public partnerships in Los
Angeles involved police officers patrolling on foot, bicycle and horseback to increase
positive interpersonal contacts and a group of police officers working alongside
community groups to ‘maximise informal positive contacts with citizens’ (Vernon and
Lasley, 1992, p.20). Examining the nature of the resulting police-public partnership,
the resident survey questionnaires found that regular visible contact (only) of
officers; frequent face-to-face contact, particularly daily personal contact, with
officers; and contact with officers in the home or in both homes and on the street
were influential in enhancing residents’ attitudes around partnerships with the police
and improving relationships with the police. Furthermore, the researchers
discovered that officers’ demeanour and politeness in face-to-face contacts with
residents, most notably residents believing that ‘officers cared about them as a
person’, significantly improved residents’ opinions of partnerships with the police.
The research highlighted that informal police/citizen interaction, from seeing officers
to having personal contact with them, and officer expressions of helpfulness and
understanding during citizen contacts are important parts of building relationships
with the public on police patrol. These findings are reinforced by the previous
procedural justice studies referenced on pages 33 and 34, which highlight the
influence of perceptions of fairness, decency and attentiveness in public cooperation
and participation in policing activity.

More recently, Cowell and Kringen’s (2016) qualitative research on foot patrol as a
community engagement strategy in five US states developed the citizen perspective
on interaction with police officers on patrol. The study revealed that citizens are
more likely to engage with foot patrol because it humanises police officers, makes
them more approachable and increases the opportunities for interaction in

38
 Literature Review

comparison to motorised patrol. The preceding studies indicate that citizen

engagement with patrol is influenced by the type of patrol and the nature of the
interaction with police officers. However, the majority of this research took place in
the US, and with the exception of Cowell and Kringen (2016), most of the findings are
over twenty years old and/or derived from quantitative evaluation. Together these
features limit the studies comparability to the current landscape of UK policing and
a fuller understanding of the nature of citizen engagement with the police on patrol.

Turning specifically to the UK policing context, there are a number of studies

considering a citizen perspective of police visibility which reflect some of the findings
from the US foot patrol studies, particularly in terms of highlighting how patrol can
be an important factor in both how people relate to the police and their overall
understandings of policing. A preference for foot patrol was identified in Shapland
and Vagg’s (1987) study of local policing in six areas in the UK to understand citizen’s
perceptions of nuisances, problems and crime, and ways to deal with them. Using
interviews and observations, the researchers pinpointed four roles local people
considered the police should undertake including the police providing a ‘visible
symbol of order and normality’ by increasing the amount of foot patrol to enable
police officers to be more visible, to act as a deterrent and to make them more
available for the public to pass on their concerns (Shapland and Vagg, 1987, p.58).
This desire for increased police visibility was highlighted by Bradford, Jackson and
Stanko (2009) in their examination of data from the Metropolitan Police Public
Attitudes Survey which included questions regarding experience of and feelings
about the police. The analysis indicated that if people perceive an increase in police
patrol activity it is likely their opinions of the police will improve. Moreover, the study
identified that perceptions of police visibility and how informed people feel about
police actions are linked to judgements about police effectiveness, fairness and
community engagement. These findings, as the researchers suggest, highlight how
police visibility offers a more substantive type of contact than what is often inferred
from the insatiable public demand for more bobbies on the beat. This focus on
increased police patrol and better communication in thinking about how the public
make sense of community engagement is indirectly reinforced by Crawford, Lister

39
 Literature Review

and Wall’s (2003) study of Contracted Community Policing in New Earswick. While
the Community Policing initiative sought to increase police visibility, a number of
implementation issues led to it not fulfilling its objectives and being terminated early.
However, the subsequent analysis of what went wrong drew attention to the
importance of good and consistent communication between the police and public to
build relationships. Taken as a whole, these studies share some of the benefits and
drawbacks identified in the US research. They show the communicative function of
police visibility as an aspect influencing citizen engagement with policing, but they
lack the detail about the nature of the interaction and its role in citizen engagement,
again possibly related to the research focus and/or method in the studies.

Exploring a citizen perspective of police visibility in more recent times, the literature
is predominantly concerned with PCSOs. A lot of these studies are interested to
understand public perception of the PCSO role related to the auxiliaries wearing a
uniform and having a police identity, but not holding full policing powers. Initial
academic commentary highlighted that an important part of the public
understanding a PCSO presence is how distinguishable they are from other
uniformed patrol officers, particularly in light of the pluralised nature of security work
in public spaces (de Carmargo, 2019). Cooke (2005) questioned the extent to which
the addition of PCSOs to the pool of other authority figures providing a visible
presence could bring about public reassurance, especially given the continued
prevalence of the traditional imagery of the police constable as the ‘bobby on the
beat’ in public notions of lawful authority and legitimacy in policing. It not only
created the potential for the public to find it difficult to differentiate between
policing roles but could lead to a ‘diluting’ of the significance accorded to them and
impact upon how the public engage with police officers and staff (Cooke, 2005,
p.238). Following the introduction of PCSOs, 312 resident surveys in one London
borough revealed the majority of respondents felt ‘more reassured’ by the PCSO
presence, believed that their work had helped to reduce their fear of crime ‘a lot’ or
‘a little’, and ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that ‘PCSOs provided an effective way of
meeting the public’s demand for a greater police presence on the street’ (Johnson,
2005). In terms of accessibility, a large proportion of the same respondents

40
 Literature Review

considered PCSOs to provide an important link between the local community and the
police.

Reflecting the initial encouraging reception of PCSOs, Cooper et al. (2006)

determined from their evaluation, comprising 17 focus groups with local residents
and 12 mini-group discussions with local businesses across 3 case study areas, a
largely positive perception of the auxiliaries. In two areas, PCSOs were well-known
by name and residents and local businesses felt they had made a real impact,
particularly in dealing with youth disorder. In localities where PCSOs had been
deployed for longer periods of time residents expressed feeling safer, and when
residents voiced uncertainty about their local PCSOs, it usually related to a lack of
publicity about the role and them having little direct experience of the auxiliaries.
These findings were broadly reflected in Paskell’s (2007) study which included
interviews with residents in 8 geographical areas. While the PCSOs generally seemed
to occupy a low profile with many expressing a preference for police officers, PCSOs
exhibited a higher profile among residents with whom their paths crossed during
their patrol. It was these residents, and those in areas where PCSOs had been
dedicated for some time, that were identified as approving of the role and perceiving
the auxiliaries to have improved local policing.

These earlier studies show a largely favourable public perception of PCSOs and
indicate that, similar to the US foot patrol studies, those who have contact and
knowledge of policing representatives tend to be more positive about the role.
However, they are heavily focused upon public perception of the role as opposed to
public experience of the role in a patrol context, which results in little additional
insight into what shapes public engagement with PCSOs during their foot patrols.
Subsequent studies have maintained this restrictive lens by continuing to
concentrate on public perception of PCSOs and their perceived impact. Pamment’s
(2009) observations and semi-structured interviews with 15 young offenders
highlighted that they recognised the PCSO role but did not view it as credible,
primarily due to the PCSOs lack of policing powers. Paskell (2007, p.356) noted similar
reactions from young people she encountered in her study, some of whom had

41
 Literature Review

nicknamed PCSOs ‘plastic police’ or ‘mobile scarecrows’. Examining more specifically

the impact of PCSOs on fear of anti-social behaviour and crime in one borough of
Cheshire using 570 postal questionnaires, Hill (2010) discerned that the majority of
respondents had little knowledge of their local PCSOs or understanding of their
impact on ‘quality of life’ issues5. Hill used the findings to highlight the need for more
publicity about the local PCSOs to residents. Similarly, Rowland and Coupe (2014)
identified in their study that the role and status of PCSOs still requires public
advertisement. The researchers conducted 517 survey interviews with customers in
five shopping centres across the South of England. Measuring perceptions of safety
and worry instilled by different types of patrol officer, the researchers found that
respondents were able to distinguish between police officers and PCSOs, and
perceived police officers to offer higher levels of reassurance than their PCSO
counterparts. In addition, PCSOs were measured as evoking lower levels of
reassurance than other non-police uniformed patrol staff.

The more recent studies explore a citizen standpoint on police patrol in the UK
through examining perception of PCSO visibility. They show some support for the
notion that knowledge and familiarity of PCSOs in certain situations may be
influential in citizen engagement, however they restrict understanding in a number
of ways. Firstly, the studies are overwhelmingly interested in citizen awareness of
and reaction to the PCSO role, specifically in terms of whether it provides
reassurance, which makes it difficult to draw insights about what influences citizen
engagement with the auxiliaries in the course of patrol. This is further problematised
by the studies being unable to ascertain the degree to which the research
participants could distinguish PCSOs from their police officer counterparts. Johnston
(2005) highlighted that the surveys assumed residents could differentiate between
PCSOs and police officers, however respondents may have misidentified PCSOs
and/or the policing tasks they were responsible for completing. This is likely given
Paskell’s (2007) experience of interviewees expressing confusion over PCSOs’

5
The ‘quality of life’ issues in the survey were identified as teenagers gathered on streets;
vandalism; graffiti; drug activity; and nuisance behaviours in public.

42
 Literature Review

identity, roles and powers with some admitting that they had mistaken the auxiliaries
for police officers or wardens. Furthermore, Paskell (2007) noted that, in some
instances, participants asserted positive sentiments about PCSOs but had little in the
way of personal experience of the auxiliaries to support their claims making it difficult
to assess the extent to which residents felt reassured by them.

Secondly, there is a disregard for police officers and their visibility. When police
officers are considered, it is to examine the extent to which PCSOs can provide
comparable public confidence and reassurance. Thirdly, several of the studies used
survey research with fixed-choice questioning which, as Hill (2010) recognised,
prevented respondents from substantiating their answers. This resulted in
unexplained discrepancies in the findings, such as in Hill’s (2010) study 76% of
respondents stated that they would like to see more PCSOs recruited despite also
reporting little to no understanding of the impact of PCSOs in their localities or
expressing the view that the auxiliaries had been ineffective at addressing issues.
Another limitation identified by Rowland and Coupe (2014) in their research was that
any attitude survey relies on respondents’ interpretations, which can not only differ
between them, but change for the same individuals over time. Taken together, these
identified shortcomings highlight that even if the research can be used to indicate
that awareness and experience of a PCSO presence in some circumstances is
important in citizen engagement with police patrol, it does not explain the specific
circumstances in which this can occur, if it is PCSOs the public believe they are
experiencing and how citizens engage with police officer visibility.

A number of studies touch upon interactions between PCSOs and the public through
which inferences can be made about citizen engagement with patrol at the micro-
level. Crawford et al.’s (2005) analysis of different patrol personnel using qualitative
and quantitative data from 6 focused case studies highlighted that it is the ‘manner’
in which PCSOs interact with the public that influences public confidence and fosters
reassurance. This was an area of practice that was identified as lacking with PCSOs
sometimes appearing uncertain about what to do on foot patrol and members of the
public mentioning that the auxiliaries appeared at times unapproachable,

43
 Literature Review

particularly when they were engaged in conversation with each other. The implied
link between citizen perception of the approachability of PCSOs and the
communicative availability of PCSOs is referenced in other studies. Cooper et al.
(2006) and Long, Robinson and Senior (2006, p.20) in their evaluations of PCSOs,
which included focus groups and surveys with residents, identified the importance of
the auxiliaries developing ‘interactional street skills’ to both be able to appropriately
communicate with people and deal with their concerns, and demonstrate this ability
to people around them. However, what these communicative skills specifically
resemble in practice and their influence on citizen engagement is not explored.
Instead, there appears a broader focus on the amount and quality of PCSO
interactions with the public. Crawford et al. (2005) highlighted the importance of
PCSOs exhibiting high ethical and professional standards in their interactions to deal
with the public appropriately. Long, Robinson and Senior (2006, p.6-7) repeated this
sentiment, and also outlined that consideration should be given to the levels of
interaction the auxiliaries have with the public. Here the concern was for the
potential quantity of PCSO contact with the public overwhelmingly contributing to
‘community cohesion’ over ‘crime reduction’. The brief exploration of PCSO
interactions at the micro-level from a citizen perspective links in with Cowell and
Kringen’s (2016) finding that the perceived approachability of policing
representatives on patrol influences citizen engagement. It emphasises the
communicative dimension to police visibility, however the studies do not expand
upon the actual nature of contact the public experience with PCSOs, and how it can
influence their awareness of the auxiliaries and the work that they do.

The studies presented in the second part of this section explore more specifically a
citizen perspective of police patrol. They challenge the policy assumption that
citizens will straightforwardly engage with police officers and staff by showing that
particular factors are influential in their perception of police patrol, including the type
of patrol, the perceived approachability of police officers and staff, and the amount
and nature of contact that takes place. However, a lot of the findings are based on
experimental research designs conducted in the US across previous decades which
reduces their comparability to contemporary policing in the UK. Furthermore, when

44
 Literature Review

more recent UK policing studies are considered, they predominantly use survey
research to explore public perception of PCSOs, which is equally limiting for
examining in more depth the dynamics of citizen engagement with patrol. The next
section will continue to develop the complex relationship between citizens and the
police in the delivery of community engagement work by examining the police
perspective through the policy assumption that police visibility provides an
engagement function.

A Police Presence Will Provide an Engagement Function

The contention that more police results in positive outcomes for communities,
particularly in terms of reducing crime, is an often-cited theory by citizens and
officials that has become a ‘general doctrine’ in public policy and supported the
expansion of police patrol work (Sherman, 1998b, p.227). The public value accorded
to a uniformed police patrol is related to officers representing ‘the symbol of concern
and security’ (Bahn, 1974, p.4) and through their presence being able to
communicate ‘a sense of guardianship’ in localities (Innes and Fielding, 2002, Para
8.4). The communicative significance of policing, as detailed in the introduction, was
recognised in the SCP, developed in the programme of Reassurance Policing, and
remained prominent in the transition to Neighbourhood Policing through high-
visibility policing (Barker, 2014). However, the resulting narrative around the policy
development of uniformed patrol akin to Neighbourhood Policing supposes that its
implementation is an outcome in itself, that is police officers and staff by virtue of
their presence will be able to deliver an engagement function (Barnes and Eagle,
2007). In actuality, a number of cultural and organisational issues impacting upon the
delivery of community engagement have been identified by researchers concerned
with policy implementation, which indicates that police visibility in community
engagement work is more complicated than first assumed (Myhill, 2012; Lloyd and
Foster, 2009; Simmonds, 2015). This section will review the literature to explore
these cultural and organisational issues in policing which have implications for
implementing community engagement to both highlight that police officers and staff

45
 Literature Review

on patrol are not instinctively equipped to engage with the public and show the lack
of qualitative inquiry into the ‘craft’ of patrol work to develop this area of policing.

Cultural Influences on Community Engagement

The shift to Neighbourhood Policing emphasised ‘soft policing’ functions, ‘defined as

the non-coercive aspects of police-led social control encompassing the provision of a
visible presence of authority, persuasion, negotiation and community interaction’
(Innes, 2005, p.157). These are identified as conflicting with the ‘hard policing
functions’, such as catching criminals and maintaining public order, that require a
more direct execution of coercion and tend to be preferred and valued by frontline
police officers (Innes, 2005, p.157). The resulting tension is seen as being exacerbated
by the police occupational culture which interprets softer policing functions as a
direct challenge to the ‘orthodoxy of what constitutes ‘real’ police work’ (Innes, 2005,
p.165). Consequently, policing commentators pinpoint that widespread cultural
change is necessary for a ‘community engagement philosophy’ to be accepted
(Myhill, 2012; Lloyd and Foster, 2009; Simmonds, 2015). The academic literature
around police culture, as this section will set out, focuses on the construction of
police officers and PCSOs’ occupational identities and orientations to Community
Policing functions. Within this debate, it is discernible that police officers and staff
are not necessarily predisposed to community engagement work. However, the
research is grounded in the internal organisational environment and neglects a fuller
exploration of the practice context in making sense of and developing the cultural
influences in policing.

The occupational culture of the rank and file is recognised as an important influence
on officers’ ‘frames of reference, coping strategies, practice knowledge and
‘common-sense’ understandings’ that inform their decisions and actions (Bacon,
2014, p.103-104). The traditional characterisation of police culture emphasises
officers’ exaggerated sense of mission; preference for crime control and action-
oriented activity; and conservative, cynical, suspicious and machismo disposition

46
 Literature Review

(Reiner, 2000). According to this ‘orthodox’ perspective, community work is afforded

a low status with police culture negatively influencing the way police officers think
about and interact with citizens and cultivating a police identity that is resistant to
change (McConville and Shepherd, 1992; Loftus, 2010). From ‘respectables’ and
‘roughs’ (Cain, 1973); ‘prigs’ and ‘scumbags’ (Young, 1991); ‘rubbish’, ‘challengers’
and ‘disarmers’ (Holdaway, 1983); to ‘suspicious persons’, ‘assholes’ and ‘know
nothings’ (Van Maanen, 1974), research has documented the different
categorisations police officers use to create distance between themselves and the
public. The thought of then working with the public is one, Skogan et al. (1999, p.22)
note, that is met with disdain as police officers fear the ‘community loud mouths’ will
take charge and their work will resemble ‘social work’ or ‘wave and smile’ policing.
This type of opposition is reflected in US studies showing frontline police officers to
be less committed and more resistant to Community Policing (Garcia, 2002; Sadd and
Grinc, 1994), and in terms of the UK, this has been found to be more prevalent among
younger officers (Bennett and Lupton, 1992).

Despite the traditional cultural influence in police officers’ assessments and

acceptance of Community Policing, there are a number of studies which show that
the initial ambivalence of police officers towards adopting a Community Policing
approach is replaced with enthusiasm once officers experience the advantages of
contact with the public (Brown and Wycoff, 1987; Pate et al. 1986). Cowell and
Kringen (2016) identified that many of the police officers in their study initially did
not want to do foot patrol, but they found it rewarding and beneficial related to the
increase in positive interactions they experienced with citizens. The potential for a
variation in cultural characteristics is emphasised by some academics who argue that
the orthodox narrative of police culture oversimplifies police practices and neglects
the development of police sub-cultures. Waddington (1999, p.287) argues that a
misleading interpretation of police culture has developed from researchers using
officers’ ‘canteen talk’, often comprising exaggerated expressive chatter, to ‘explain
and condemn a broad spectrum of policing practice’ when it is detached from and
not reflective of police action on the street. Following this line of argument, it is
reasoned that to understand police culture strictly in terms of its traditional

47
 Literature Review

conception risks presenting it as ‘singular, monolithic and unchanging’ when there is

other research that shows important differences within and between a range of
police sub-cultures (Foster, 2003, p.196).

Cain (1973) identified that ‘city’ police officers defined ‘real police work’ as solely
dealing with crime, but ‘county’ police officers’ explained their work in accordance
with the community’s perception of their role and the crimes that were important.
The variation in officers’ attitudes and approaches to police work, particularly in
relation to patrol work, is also captured in the different officer typologies identified
in research. Based on in-depth interviews and observations with rank-and-file
officers in California, Muir (1977, p.56-57) identified four types of officer: the
‘avoider’; the ‘enforcer’; the ‘reciprocator’’ and the ‘professional’ who could be
distinguished in a number of ways, including the extent to which they could
understand and relate to the citizenry. Similarly, from in-depth interviews with rank-
and-file officers in the UK, Reiner (1978) distinguished typical patterns in the police
outlook as the ‘bobby’, the ‘uniform carrier’, the ‘new centurion’, the ‘social worker’,
the ‘professional’ and the ‘Federation activist’. According to these typologies, the
‘bobby’ interpreted the role as involving some social service aspects, but mainly
focusing on crime prevention whereas the ‘new centurion’ considered the role
should concentrate on crime control and the ‘professional’ observed the role as many
functions. The notion that police officers foster different styles of working in
response to the operational environment is reinforced by Ramshaw’s (2012)
ethnographic fieldwork of a Community Policing Team. The research highlighted that
individual patrolling police officers approached their work in various ways, including
the ‘intelligence gatherer’ who focused foot patrol on completing crime-related
work; the ‘order restorer’ who used foot patrol as a way to deal with local problems;
and the ‘meet and greet walker’ who embraced foot patrol as a method of liaising
and developing relationships with the local community. All these studies show how
police officers can develop ways of working that reflect, expand on or restrict the
traditional occupational culture and can influence the degree to which they are
amenable to engaging with the community on patrol.

48
 Literature Review

Organisational changes, such as the introduction of softer policing functions, are also
identified as stimulating transformations in occupational cultures (Beech and
Johnson, 2005). Davies and Thomas (2008, p.639), in their small-scale ethnographic
study, discovered that police officers were ‘re-crafting’ the Community Policing
discourse to be ‘more closely aligned with their personal interests, sectional interests
and their different understandings of occupational identities’ resulting in identities
that acknowledged and identities that resisted the legitimacy of the community.
Indeed, Fielding (1995, p.11) points out that cultural variance is likely in the
Community Policing context as its social work orientation can distance officers from
‘customary occupational perspectives’ and make them ‘critics as well as insiders’.
Recognising the capacity of police officers to change their cultural understandings to
align with organisational changes, Chan (1997, p.225) theorises a new framework
that considers police practice in terms of the interaction between certain structural
conditions of police work (the field) and the cultural knowledge police officers build
up (habitus) to draw attention to the ‘active role played by police actors in
developing, reinforcing, resisting or transforming cultural knowledge and
institutionalised practice’. Evidencing the potential for a ‘re-negotiation’ of police
culture in Community Policing, O’Neill and McCarthy (2014) studied partnership work
and Neighbourhood Policing and discovered that the conventional cultural leaning
towards pragmatism among police officers facilitated multi-agency working.
Pragmatism enabled the officers to navigate and value their relationships with other
agencies to achieve productive outcomes. The finding highlighted how traditional
cultural expressions can be ‘disturbed’ and are receptive to change (O’Neill and
McCarthy, 2014, p.16). However, scholars also emphasise how the occupational
culture is not always responsive to change, especially in Community Policing work.

The extent to which police officers’ cultural knowledge can adapt to the principles
and mechanisms of Community Policing is questioned, particularly in relation to
patrol work where the mixed market of provision risks reducing its status as a
‘desirable and distinctive aspect of police work’ (Cosgrove and Ramshaw, 2015, p.78).
Using data from an ethnographic study of police culture, Loftus (2009) found that the
dominant features in the traditional characterisation of police culture, including a

49
 Literature Review

sense of mission, preference for crime-fighting and celebration of masculine exploits,

continued to be evident in the discourses, interactions and views of police officers
and influenced their day-to-day work. Similarly, Davies and Thomas (2008, p.639)
identified in their research the construction of a pervasive macho, masculine, and
subjective position among police officers to counter the ‘pink and fluffy’ feminised
imagery perceived by them as representing community-focused work. The
civilianisation of patrol presented the opportunity to disrupt the traditional police
culture and generate alternative police subcultures, particularly in relation to
increasing the desirability of community engagement in policing, which has formed
a significant part of research examining the PCSO role (Cosgrove, 2010).

The introduction of PCSOs was an attempt to restore the significance of patrol and
Neighbourhood Policing, diversify the staff group and make the workforce more
representative of local communities (Cosgrove and Ramshaw, 2015; HMIC, 2004).
Consequently, early research was focused on the integration and recruitment profile
of PCSOs entering the police organisation. Studies identified PCSOs struggling to fully
assimilate into policing teams due to poor communication of their role and
responsibilities; a lack of acceptance by their team members; and insufficient
management of their work and personal development needs (Cooper et al. 2006;
Johnson, 2005). The combination of few resources to oversee the civilianising
programme and a general scepticism and disapproval of the new auxiliary role by
police officers was pinpointed as contributing to PCSOs receiving an unwelcoming
reception (Cooper et al. 2006; Johnson, 2005; Pamment, 2006). Initial portrayals of
PCSO membership revealed the recruitment process to be successfully attracting
applicants from underrepresented groups, including persons older in age, from
ethnic minorities and with wide-ranging previous work experiences (Cooper et al.
2006; Johnston, 2006). However, despite this initial diverse recruitment profile,
Johnston (2006) highlighted the inadequate organisational support to continue to
recruit and retain staff from ethnic minority backgrounds. Exploring more closely the
assimilation of the auxiliaries into the policing organisation, studies have analysed
PCSOs cultural identity and its influence on their working relationships and practice,
specifically in relation to their community engagement remit.

50
 Literature Review

The integration of PCSOS into mixed policing teams improved relations between the
auxiliaries and police officers (HMIC, 2004). Merritt (2010), using semi-structured
interviews and focus groups, found that perception of the auxiliaries had evolved
inside the organisation with less ideological resistance towards the role. Thinking
more specifically about the extent of their integration into NPTs, O’Neill (2017)
examined how PCSOs presented themselves to and interacted with their police
officer counterparts. Using insights from ethnographic fieldwork, O’Neill (2017)
revealed that PCSOs’ performances related to the nature of the teams they worked
in. PCSO performances in ‘complementary teams’ involving collaborative working
practices appreciative of PCSOs comprised telling stories that emphasised the
‘exciting’ and ‘engaging’ parts of their work, for example crime control activities. This
allowed the auxiliaries to demonstrate their value to policing and increase the
congruence between their organisational identity and the reality of their work to
colleagues (O’Neill, 2019, p.130). In contrast, PCSO performances in ‘competitive
teams’ involving non-collaborative practices that undervalued PCSOs encompassed
a ‘work to rule approach’ and use of stories to ‘justify’ their actions. This reflected
the auxiliaries lack of expectation in relation to their organisational identity and an
accompanying sense that they did not need to prove themselves to their colleagues
(O’Neill, 2019, p.131). While O’Neill (2019) showed that PCSOs function in a separate
performance team to PCs, de Camargo (2019) identified that the auxiliaries can also
be reorganised into new performance teams. Using findings from an ethnographic
study of PCSOs, de Camargo (2019) explored how the auxiliaries can construct their
identity performances through their uniform. The analysis uncovered that some
PCSOs purposely made modifications to their uniforms, including concealing PCSO
markings/insignia and wearing black tops, to give the impression they were PCs and
increase their organisational legitimacy. However, the misrepresentation of their
uniform was perceived by both PC and PCSO colleagues as a deviation from the
‘performance norm’ and they were derisively re-classified as wannabe PCs. These
studies show how PCSOs despite representing a softer policing function do not
straightforwardly affiliate themselves with community engagement work inside the
organisation.

51
 Literature Review

Developing how PCSO identity is constructed in their orientations to work, Merritt

(2010) identified that the role itself had evolved to encompass a range of crime
control and community focused policing activities to the extent that PCSO practice
could be viewed along a continuum; from a ‘junior enforcer’ with a responsibility to
support PCs in their work at one extreme to a ‘bridge builder’ or ‘uniformed
community development worker’ at the other. The observed emergence of
enforcement and community support practices in the PCSO role is pinpointed by
Cosgrove (2010) in her exploration of how the auxiliaries developed an occupational
identity. From conducting an appreciative ethnography of PCSOs, Cosgrove (2010)
identified tensions in the role created from the civilian status and community support
function being at odds with the masculinised organisational environment that
prioritised and valued crime-fighting and control. This was further complicated by
the majority of PCSOs, at least in Cosgrove’s study, striving to become fully warranted
police officers. To distinguish the ways in which PCSOs negotiated the conflicts in
their role and oriented themselves with the dominant police occupational culture,
Cosgrove (2016) developed a three-fold typology. ‘Disillusioned PCSOs’ distanced
themselves from the role and organisation fostering an apathetic approach to their
work and cynical stance towards career progression. ‘Frustrated PCSOs’ strongly
committed themselves to crime control activities to align themselves as closely as
possible with the organisational mandate and work towards becoming PCs.
‘Professional PCSOs’, influenced to a lesser extent by the dominant culture, sought
to fulfil the original intent and purpose of the role to gain experience and develop
police ‘craft skills’.

The struggle for legitimacy that features in research examining PCSOs’ cultural
identities brings to light how the auxiliaries can easily gravitate away from their
community engagement remit. This is something that is likely to be further
complicated by continued changes in the organisational environment, including the
recent pluralisation of police staff functions. O’Neill (2019) indicates that the
introduction of voluntary police staff roles will potentially develop PCSOs’ cultural
experiences and performances within their teams. An early evaluation of Volunteer

52
 Literature Review

Police Community Support Officers in Lincolnshire Police highlighted a largely

discouraging perception of the new role inside the organisation due to concerns that
it could replace, as oppose to complement, existing PCSO functions (Strudwick,
Jameson and Rowe, 2017).

The academic examination of police occupational culture shows how it can shape the
motivations, understandings, experiences and working practices of police officers
and staff to the extent that they are not all necessarily open to working with citizens
in the way the policy depiction of community engagement envisages. Crime control,
even in NPTs where the focus is on softer policing, remains an important part of how
some police officers and staff make sense of their work which conflicts with the idea
that police officers, and more specifically PCSOs, will actively position themselves to
engage with citizens on patrol. Indeed, reviews of police research and practice
repeatedly acknowledge that the successful implementation of community
engagement requires the widespread development of the police occupational
culture to understand and value citizens and communities (Lloyd and Foster, 2009;
Myhill, 2012; Simmonds, 2015). At the same time, the focus on how police officers
and staff negotiate the internal organisational environment to make sense of the
delivery of Community Policing functions, such as community engagement, shifts the
focus away from the actualities of what they do in the external practice environment
and how this can shape cultural understandings of policing. This neglect of the
practice context is further evidenced by research exploring the organisational
influences on community engagement.

Organisational Influences on Community Engagement

The cultural preference for short-term enforcement-oriented approaches to crime

control in policing is maintained by the overarching organisational structures and
procedures valuing and prioritising this area of work which presents further
challenges for the implementation of community engagement (Gilling, 2008; Myhill,
2012; Simmonds, 2015). Manning (1997) explains how the police organisation is set

53
 Literature Review

an impossible and burdensome mandate to prevent, control, deter and punish crime.
It is impossible because the police are constrained in fulfilling a crime control mission
by a number of structural factors ranging from limited access to crime-relevant
information and private spaces to depending on the public for cooperation, and this
is compounded by the bulk of their time being consumed by non-crime related
activity. At the same time, it becomes burdensome because, despite the identified
structural shortcomings, the police consistently seek to legitimate themselves as a
crime-fighting agency which hinders them both in terms of the public understanding
their limitations in controlling crime and accepting alternative views of their role,
including their capacity to adopt a Community Policing approach. Community
Policing represents policing ‘with’ and ‘for’ the community as opposed to policing ‘of’
the community (Tilley, 2003, p.315). It ‘marks and dramatizes the service aspect of
policing, supresses the dirty work and violent aspects, and promises a police-public
dynamic’ (Manning, 1997, p.13). Accordingly, Community Policing contradicts the
police definition of their role and instils a tension in the ability of the organisation to
fully integrate and provide a community-oriented service to neighbourhoods.
Reviewing the literature, this section will show how a range of organisational
influences exacerbate this contradiction in policing. It will highlight how it cannot be
assumed police officers and staff on patrol can deliver an engagement function and
it will expose the lack of qualitative insight into what police officers and staff should
do on patrol to engage with the public.

The emphasis on performance in policing is one aspect of the organisational

environment that is identified as contributing to the resilience of skills, values and
beliefs supportive of harder policing functions in the traditional occupational culture
(Loftus, 2010; Wood et al. 2014). The centralised performance management process
in UK policing focuses on measuring volume and serious crime in a way that has led
to the prioritisation of law enforcement and maintenance of a crime control mindset
across the police organisation and poses a problem for the delivery of community
engagement work (Barnes and Eagle, 2007; Loftus, 2010). At the start of their action
research project to improve community engagement in 4 NPTs, Foster and Jones
(2010, p.396) described the prevailing culture as ‘dominated by narrowly defined

54
 Literature Review

‘performance’ measures with daily crime targets and a ‘what gets measured gets
done’ orientation.’ Consequently, it reinforced a ‘crime-centric approach’ that led to
community engagement being regarded as ‘nice to do but not essential’; something
that was reflected in the general lack of police interaction with the public. This shows
how the prioritisation of crime control at the organisational level can influence how
work is completed in NPTs to the extent that community engagement activity can be
side-lined by police officers and staff on patrol. Relatedly, the traditional focus on
arrests and detection in police forces’ performance measures has made it difficult for
them to assess the performance and effectiveness of community engagement
activity (Simmonds, 2015). While some research has started to identify how police
performance can be measured in new ways, such as the Police-Community
Interaction Survey (Rosenbaum et al. 2017), there remains a focus on continuing to
understand and assess the police-public interaction through forms of measurement,
including structured surveys and randomised sampling, that are incompatible with
many aspects of engagement activity (Fielding and Innes, 2006). This has led scholars
to repeatedly argue for qualitative alternatives that are meaningful to both citizens
and officers (Fielding and Innes, 2006; Fitzgerald, 2010). The precedence given to
crime control work in NPTs is further reflected in research exploring PCSOs where
assessments of their work activities show how in the organisation the role has
become more focused on and valued as providing a resource to crime control.

Examinations of the role and practices of PCSOs have identified how their core tasks
have expanded over time with community engagement becoming a less central part
of their work. Early research showed the auxiliaries to be engaging in a range of
activities, from spending time in public on patrol, intelligence gathering and dealing
with low-level crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour to compiling police reports
and conducting enquiries (Cooper et al. 2006; Crawford et al. 2005; Paskell, 2007).
The fragmentation of their work between community-oriented and crime-focused
tasks highlighted how the role had become ‘wider and more complex than a
straightforward patrol function’ (Long, Robinson and Senior, 2006, p.7). This was
emphasised in evaluations showing how the different types of activities completed
by PCSOs could be organised in different ways to make sense of how the role was

55
 Literature Review

being performed and how it should be developed. Crawford et al. (2005, p.59)
identified two models, the ‘junior police officer’ and the ‘dedicated patrol officer’,
that separated the different tasks and expectations of PCSOs. The former model
captured PCSOs acting as a supplementary policing resource to free-up police officers
from ‘time consuming, minor and less serious tasks’, including attending minor
criminal incidents, completing focused investigations and interviews, guarding crime
scenes and traffic duties. The latter model focused PCSOs entirely on providing
reassurance through visible patrol to enable them to be accessible and familiar to the
public and knowledgeable about localities. Using findings from their evaluation of 6
police divisions in West Yorkshire, Long, Robinson and Senior (2006, p.38) expanded
on Crawford et al.’s (2005) classifications by adding a third ‘community engagement’
model to take account of the networking, liaison, advocacy, mediation and support
activities PCSOs were also involved in. Long, Robinson and Senior (2006) considered
that aspects of all three models were to varying degrees evident in PCSOs’ workload.
The researchers proposed that the PCSOs’ main responsibilities, summarised as
‘supporting policing’, ‘community engagement’ and ‘patrol’, should be understood
as distinct parts of their practice and allocated equal amounts of time to complete.
In comparison, Crawford et al. (2005) considered the different responsibilities of
PCSOs as potential supplementary functions to patrol.

The different academic understandings of the PCSO role not only highlight how
community engagement is considered less of an overarching function, but it can be
structured as a distinct part of their work tacked onto or delivered separately from
patrol. It shows how the auxiliaries will not necessarily consider engagement in their
patrol practice in the way depicted in policing policy. This repositioning of community
engagement in PCSO practice can be linked to a number of organisational responses
to the role that are highlighted in research. Firstly, the cultural leaning towards crime
control in policing is reflected in how PCSOs’ work is assessed. O’Neill (2014a)
identified that PCSOs who received the most praise and appreciation for their work
efforts were those who supplied intelligence that supported police investigations and
arrests. In contrast, PCSOs proficient in community engagement work, particularly
those demonstrating success in developing social capital, did not receive the same

56
 Literature Review

recognition for their endeavours. The lack of praise for community engagement
achievements inspired an ‘enforcement mind frame’ in PCSOs, some of whom were
always partly on the lookout for enforcement work to assist PCs (O’Neill, 2014a,
p.28). Secondly, the deployment of PCSOs regularly revolves around them supporting
the work of PCs. Studies have identified how PCSOs are often abstracted to other
responsive policing activities, which both removed the auxiliaries from opportunities
to engage with the public and undermined the original purpose of their role
(Cosgrove and Ramshaw, 2015; O’Neill, 2014a). Thirdly, the lack of opportunity for
progression within the PCSO role and the advertisement of the role as an opportunity
to gain foundational policing experience has made it more difficult to retain PCSOs
to deliver a consistent community engagement function in localities (Cooper et al.
2006; Loveday and Smith, 2015).

The way the PCSO role has become structured by police forces, as the
aforementioned findings indicate, questions the police organisation’s commitment
to both PCSOs and community engagement in policing (Cosgrove and Ramshaw,
2015). This set of circumstances can be seen to have been exacerbated by the policy
of financial austerity initiated by the coalition government in 2010. The prioritisation
of making financial savings across the police organisation has disproportionately
impacted NPTs and resulted in fewer PCSOs (Unison, 2016). The risk is not only to the
continuance of PCSOs, as demonstrated by the recent actions of Norfolk Police (BBC
News, 2017; Guardian, 2017), but to the gradual overhaul of the functions originally
assigned to the role. Reviewing the changes to PCSO workloads since the spending
cuts, Unison (2016) concluded that the auxiliaries are now less visible within
communities, deployed to cover the work of police officers and allocated tasks that
other agencies are no longer resourced to carry out. The resulting shift away from
community engagement further encourages the auxiliaries to evidence their worth
in relation to crime control (Cosgrove and Ramshaw, 2015).

The confusion and crossover between crime control and community engagement in
PCSOs’ work is complicated by their policing powers. Despite PCSOs being introduced
to complement the work of police officers by providing a visible, accessible and

57
 Literature Review

familiar presence to engage communities, Merritt (2009) contends that the

legislative provisions establishing the police staff role confused the extent to which
it is community oriented. The auxiliaries are tasked with a community support
function, but they are assigned some constabulary powers and identified alongside a
number of the same occupational standards as PCs, which sets up the execution of
their role as that of a ‘junior ranking police officer’ (Merritt, 2009). This has been
further obscured by calls to review and extend PCSO powers to reduce the demands
on police officers (see for example: The Home Office (2004a, p.10) White Paper
Policing: Modernising Police Powers to Meet Community Needs). The ‘crisis of
identity’ created in the implementation of the role in the practice context is
exacerbated by the designation of specific PCSO powers being at the discretion of
Chief Constables (Merritt, 2009, p.385). HMIC (2004) pinpointed variation nationally
in the powers appointed to PCSOs with some police forces creating ‘different types’
of auxiliary through the allocation of powers. The inconsistency between the type of
powers assigned to PCSOs across different police force areas, including periodic
changes to the powers issued to the auxiliaries within constabularies, has created
confusion for PCSOs about the extent and use of their powers (O’Neill, 2014a).

The tension in the legislative regulations for PCSOs is revealed in research exploring
their perceptions and experiences of the practice context where grounds to extend
PCSO powers are presented. Cooper et al. (2006) remarked that a large majority of
PCSOs who participated in their evaluation had reported suffering some type of
physical violence and most had experienced verbal abuse. Similarly, Pamment (2009)
presented recorded data showing assaults on the auxiliaries to have trebled between
2004 and 2006 to emphasise the seriousness and extent of the risk posed to police
staff. The research highlighted that PCSOs lack of status supported by their limited
policing powers exacerbated their vulnerability, particularly in the presence of young
people, and assigning the auxiliaries additional powers, equipment and training to
increase their protection and deterrence value could make them more effective.
Accompanying the concern for PCSOs’ safety, it was also pointed out that they had
insufficient powers to deal with the crimes and low-level disorder they regularly
encountered. In Paskell’s (2007) interviews, PCSOs described their limited

58
 Literature Review

enforcement powers as constraining their capacity to deal with crime and disorder
in progress. This often made them ineffective at dealing with the problems they were
tasked with addressing, specifically managing youth disorder. Explaining this practice
issue, Pamment (2009) pointed out that young peoples’ understandings of PCSOs’
enforcement limitations contributed to them intentionally exhibiting non-
compliance and hostility towards the auxiliaries. Merritt (2010) concluded that a
clear tension existed between the original aim that PCSOs perform ‘non-
confrontational’ duties in public and their lived reality of dealing with low-level crime
and disorder which can place the auxiliaries at risk, make their work more challenging
and weaken their status in public. In line with this reasoning, a vast number of PCSOs
questioned in studies have expressed their preference for greater policing powers
(see for example: Long, Robinson and Senior, 2006; Paskell, 2007; and O’Neill,
2014a). At the same time, the demand for more policing powers has prompted
challenge on the basis that such a move undermines the core responsibility of PCSOs
to support the community (Johnston, 2005).

In view of PCSOs being introduced to promote reassurance and develop community

engagement in local policing, O’Neill (2014b) contended that the case for assessing
PCSO powers incorrectly compares the police staff to their police officer counterparts
when the two roles have different purposes. Instead of establishing another type of
enforcement officer, PCSOs were allocated limited powers to be executed in specific
circumstances to reflect the non-confrontational focus of their remit (ACPO, 2007).
Consequently, the PCSO role should promote a way of working and skillset that does
not utilise or depend on formal and coercive powers (O’Neill, 2014b). Indeed, O’Neill
(2014a) identified how PCSOs had tailored their practice to overcome their limited
enforcement capacity by developing adept interpersonal communication skills,
including the ability to persuade, stay calm, distract and use their knowledge of a
person to negotiate challenging behaviours and control situations. Accordingly,
PCSOs having few powers is recognised as benefitting their role by not only improving
their ability to engage with local residents and organisations but familiarise
themselves with and approach young people (Cooper et al. 2006; Paskell, 2007).

59
 Literature Review

The communicative success of PCSOs to compensate for their enforcement

limitations is considered to be at risk if their powers are extended. Crawford et al.
(2005, p.42) argued that any broadening of PCSO powers has the potential to create
‘adversarial relations’ between PCSOs and the public, reducing their recourse to
using persuasion and negotiation to encourage compliance, damaging their ability to
engage with people, and leading to a more enforcement-orientated role. By the same
token, Long, Robinson and Senior (2006) warned that any changes to PCSO powers
might undermine their high visibility and reassurance potential and obstruct their
development of a communication skillset. The authors highlighted that these are
valuable aspects of their role that both give rise to their capacity to be accessible and
engage with the community and make them distinct from police officers. O’Neill
(2014b, p.270) concluded that the credibility PCSOs have established as ‘formal social
control agent[s]’ capable of building a great deal of trust and social capital within
communities is likely to be compromised by extending the legal powers available to
them.

The academic debate around PCSO practice highlights how organisational influences
can prioritise and reward crime control work to the degree that community
engagement, particularly in relation to patrol, has become considered a less essential
part of the auxiliaries’ work which challenges the policy narrative. Cosgrove and
Ramshaw (2015), in a comparative review of their individual ethnographic studies of
local policing, summarised this mixed picture of community engagement in PCSO
practice. The authors pointed out that methods of informal and formal engagement
existed, including PCSOs attending resident meetings and establishing and
maintaining familiarity with local people and organisations, and this extended to
developing contact with disillusioned or minority groups. However, the degree to
which PCSOs were committed to and able to deliver engagement, particularly in light
of their ‘legitimacy deficit’ and experiencing barriers from some communities, was
dependent upon the role orientations of individual auxiliaries and their possession of
communication and ‘craft skills’ to develop relationships (Cosgrove and Ramshaw,
2015, p.86). Moreover, the occupational motivation of PCSOs to deliver community
engagement was influenced by, and often side-lined in favour of, the prioritisation of

60
 Literature Review

crime control work in NPTs where the auxiliaries were largely viewed as an additional
resource to deter crime, gather intelligence, identify suspects and address low level
crime and disorder. Consequently, engagement often took the form of ‘a
complementary outcome of crime control activity’ as opposed to being harnessed as
a primary function in their work (Cosgrove and Ramshaw, 2015, p.88).

In the preceding examination, the shift towards crime control in PCSO practice also
brings to light how the communicative skills of PCSOs, which are described as a
distinctive and important part of their community engagement work, are not fully
explored, especially in terms of patrol. PCSOs being stretched across two divergent
functions, as O’Neill (2014a, p.7) explains, has resulted in a lack of understanding
about ‘community engagement and trust-building work’ for some police officers and
staff. Studies show that PCSOs do not always know how to appropriately deliver this
type of work and police officers can overlook the importance of PCSOs management
of their relations with the public (Crawford et al. 2005; O’Neill, 2014a). It is
insufficient to assume that placing police officers and staff on patrol in the
community will naturally bring about engagement with the public (Cosgrove and
Ramshaw, 2015). In a similar way, this is reflected in the literature around
Reassurance Policing which shows that the presence of police officers and staff does
not automatically signify safety and protection for all persons (Barker, 2014; Innes,
2014). In a qualitative investigation of the experiences and perceptions of residents
encountering reassurance policing strategies, Barker (2014) discovered that police
patrols can be ambivalently interpreted. Some residents derived reassurance from
police visibility while others perceived it as a reminder of potential risks and threats
around them. Similarly, Innes (2014) referred to findings from the evaluation of the
National Reassurance Policing Programme to highlight how in some instances the
sight of officers conveyed the message that there were a lot of problems in an area
or communicated a sense of emergency.

The potential for some people to sense insecurity is also related to a police presence
signifying danger and alarm and causing feelings of distress, fear and suspicion,
particularly for members of minority groups who are more likely to have experienced

61
 Literature Review

discriminatory and oppressive policing practices in the public space (StopWatch,

2020). Public interpretation of a police presence, as Innes (2014) goes on to explain,
is not straightforward and incorporates a multitude of other experiences,
perceptions and judgements about safety triggering positive and negative reactions
capable of enhancing or undermining perceptions of policing. Combining these
insights with the literature on procedural justice which shows that police contact
with the public ‘matters’ and can be influential in perceptions of community
engagement, it is evident that the police knowing what to do on patrol to
appropriately engage with the public is a significant part of their work that requires
attention (Bradford, Jackson and Stanko, 2009; Merry et al. 2012). This is reinforced
by research highlighting that the police do not actively engage with all publics they
come into contact with.

A study involving systematic observations of police officers in two US states to

understand how they spent their time with the community found that those who
were community policing specialists chose contacts with citizens who were less likely
to be victims, complainants, involved in disputes or crises, or viewed as ‘wrongdoers’.
Instead, these officers were more likely to have contact with persons known to them
that were often positioned in local businesses and organisations. The researchers
concluded that officers who were given the opportunity to engage in face-to-face
contact with citizens showed a bias towards encountering those that did not require
any immediate intervention and were perceived as more agreeable to ‘mingle’ with.
Skogan’s (1994) evaluation of a Community Policing programme in Houston also
showed that the police when acting on their own initiative focused their efforts in
areas where they were well received. This resulted in the police only representing
the views and addressing the needs of white residents owning single-family homes.
Making similar observations in a UK Community Policing context, Ramshaw (2012)
identified that police officers who valued foot patrol and maintained links with local
groups and organisations engaged with ‘respectable contacts’. These officers made
a distinction between those ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ of their attention and
support which led them to miss opportunities to develop contact with non-
conforming persons who were suspicious, distrustful and resentful of the police. The

62
 Literature Review

research emphasised that in addition to the need for attitudinal and behavioural
change the police organisation should encourage police officers to foster ways of
learning about and making contact with diverse groups that make up local
communities (Ramshaw, 2012).

The lack of evaluation by the police organisation of the mechanisms adopted to

develop contact with different sections of the community was also highlighted by
Jones and Newburn (2001) in their examination of UK policing community
consultation initiatives. Using telephone surveys with all police forces and in-depth
interviews with police officers and local people in 5 police force areas, the
researchers pinpointed a number of limitations of formal consultation, including it
not always suiting the needs of different community groups and often being
unrepresentative of the wider population. The research revealed the importance of
formal consultation not replacing policing practices, like foot patrol, where police
officers can develop sustained and consistent informal consultation and relationships
at the ground level with members of the public. Together these studies show how
police officers and staff will not always engage with all the persons they come into
contact with, both formally and informally, including on patrol. Furthermore, it
highlights the need for the police organisation to develop the skills and practices of
officers to seek contact with a broader cross-section of persons and groups in local
communities and avoid only engaging with those that they feel comfortable with and
uphold their interests (Barnes and Eagle, 2007; Bobov, 1999; Myhill, 2012).

The police organisation is criticised for prioritising the evaluation of police tactics and
strategies over exploring the ‘craft of policing’ and making use of a police officer
perspective in considerations of learning and development, which neglects a fuller
understanding of frontline police patrol work (Ramshaw, 2012; Willis and Mastrofski,
2018). This is apparent in the use of evaluative and experimental research findings to
inform the ‘engaging communities’ Neighbourhood Policing guideline and the
supplementary advice and resources that accompany it (see College of Policing, 2012;
2013; 2018b; Colover and Quinton, 2018). In terms of patrol, the research referenced
highlights that targeted foot patrol when implemented alongside community

63
 Literature Review

engagement and problem-solving activity can reduce crime, increase public

reassurance and enhance perceptions of the police (Colsover and Quinton, 2018). It
also recommends ways police officers and staff can maximise their visibility, including
targeting patrols in places where there are hot spots of crime, low public confidence
or high footfalls of people, and using foot patrol to have informal conversations,
develop networks, gather community intelligence and find out about local problems
(College of Policing, 2018b). While these evidence-based practice summarises offer
suggestions around where police officers and staff can position themselves on patrol
and identify the overarching tasks that can optimise their visibility, they lack any
specificity about what police officers and staff need to do to be able to complete
these tasks and engage with people on patrol. This is particularly pertinent given the
significance of the communicative function of patrol identified in Community Policing
research.

Posick and Hatfield (2017) show through their application of the H.E.A.R.T medical
model (Hear, Empathise, Apologise, Respond and Thank) to police-community
interactions that communication is an important element of the contact the police
have with the public. Similarly, PCSOs surveyed in Crawford et al.’s (2005) research
identified communication and people skills to be some of their most important work
attributes. Merging these insights, Hail, Aston and O’Neill (2018, p.17) in a systematic
review of policing research aimed at understanding the effect of different methods
of visible policing on public confidence identified that ‘officers should be encouraged
to, and rewarded for, adopting methods which prioritise face-to-face interactions
conducted with empathy and fairness’ to engage citizens. Nonetheless, the process
of interaction, as Willis and Mastrofski (2018) reveal from in-depth interviews with
patrol officers in the US, is an aspect of practice that police officers find challenging.
Therefore, to access and develop this area of police ‘craft’, particularly in relation to
patrol work, scholars argue that the use of qualitative enquiry is pivotal.

Wood et al. (2014, p.364) incorporated ethnography into their foot patrol
experiment in Philadelphia to understand the ‘normative, cultural and pragmatic
complexities’ involved in officers’ negotiation of their role in foot beat areas. Through

64
 Literature Review

observations the researchers discovered that foot patrol officers valued both the
extensive knowledge they gained on foot patrol and its influence on behaviours and
fostering positive community relations. The study emphasised the worth of using
qualitative research alongside experimental designs and seeking officer knowledge
in the implementation of policing interventions. Yet, there is a lack of research
exploring what police officers and staff do on foot patrol from a qualitative
perspective (Hail, Aston and O’Neill, 2018; Ramshaw, 2012). This position is aptly
summarised by Ramshaw (2012, p.230) who argues, ‘a fuller appreciation of what
the police officer does on patrol, how and why, is invaluable for the development of
future localized policing models. Hence the need for further ethnographies of the
front line to develop a more fluid and sophisticated analysis of patrol work.’ The next
section will show how this lack of insight also extends to how police officers and staff
make sense of the communities they are expected to engage on patrol.

Communities are Identifiable to Police Officers and Staff on Patrol

In the most recent articulations of UK Community Policing programmes, police

officers and staff are tasked inter alia with providing a visible, accessible and familiar
presence in communities that are mapped out according to geographic boundaries.
In this way, the presentation and structure of patrol connects with a ‘euphemistic
rhetoric’ of community and policing (Eck and Rosenbaum, 1994, p.11). It assumes
that police patrol can be readily inserted into predefined functional communities, or
as Stacey (1969, p.135) describes, ideal typical communities where a sense of
belonging is associated with the social relations embedded within a particular area.
The resulting depiction can be seen to be rooted in a romanticised view of community
and police-public relations which believes the police and public are close;
communities are unchanging and comprise collective value systems; and sharing
these values the police can work to benefit and fulfil the interests of all (Fielding,
2009, p.2-3). This kind of community is symbolised by the fictional character of PC
George Dixon – the friendly, well-known and ever-present local bobby on the beat

65
 Literature Review

and evokes a ‘golden age of policing’ that the public find reassuring (Fielding, 2009;
Reiner, 2000, p.36).

Regardless of whether such an idealised community or relationship with the police

ever existed, it remains prominent in repeated public demands for more police on
the streets and in the populist rhetoric underpinning police visibility in policing policy
reforms (Fielding, 2009; Manning, 1984; McLaughlin, 2007). However, ‘appeals to
community’ in policy, as Evans (1997, p.35) summarises, are ‘inadequately explored,
theorised or evaluated’, and this is particularly relevant to policing policies where the
romantic image of community is unrealistic for delivering Community Policing in the
21st century (Fielding, 2009). Building on these ideas, this section will firstly set out
the romanticised articulation of community and policing in policy before critiquing
the theories that have influenced it to show its incompatibility with contemporary
understandings. This will be further evidenced by presenting scholarly suggestions
on how the police can redefine the way in which they approach working with
communities, including online communities. Together these academic discussions
around community and policing will challenge the policy assumption and highlight
the lack of insight around how the police negotiate the complexities of modern
communities to deliver an engagement function on patrol.

Community, especially within the field of criminology, lacks a clear definition, partly
due to a sense that ‘we all know a community when we see one’ (Wilcox, Cullen and
Feldmeyer, 2018, p.2). The conceptual ambiguity of community has allowed
policymakers to adapt the term to invoke specific ideas and imagery (Crawford,
1999), and in Community Policing this has taken the form of ‘a politics of nostalgia’
that captures populist themes of yearning for the virtuous communal associations of
an imagined past and a personalisation of service (Manning, 1984, p.205). These
imaginings are created from feelings, emotions, vocabularies, imagery and
associations that are bound up in peoples’ sense of place and take the form of
narratives about ‘personal biography, community career, and perceptions of national
change and decline’ (Girling, Loader and Sparks, 2000, p.170). Regardless of how
transferable these conceptions are to the present-day social context, they continue

66
 Literature Review

to be prominent in public and political discourse, particularly in public perceptions of

crime and disorder and confidence in policing (Jackson and Bradford, 2009;
McLaughlin, 2007). It has resulted in a romantic narrative of community and policing.
Community is distinguished spatially as local, encompassing face-to-face interactions
and ‘qualities of social stability and togetherness, shared lives and values’ (Joseph,
2002; Loader and Mulcahy, 2003, p.79). Policing is characterised by the local bobby-
on-the-beat, most commonly re-imagined in the mature, physically imposing, well-
known and accepted authority figure of a patrolling police officer that exhibits a
demeanour that is simultaneously ‘avuncular, friendly, and benign and awesome,
frightening, and intimidating’ (Loader and Mulcahy, 2003, p.73 and p.82).

The emblematic imagery of a united geographic community policed by a local bobby

on foot patrol, however authentic, is one that has retained political and public
traction in the delivery of policing6 and feeds into the dedicated foot patrol model
advocated in Community Policing policies (Fielding, 2009). It is this idealised
sentiment that exacerbates the very condition it seeks to resolve by presenting a
basic structure of communal life that speaks to similarity over diversity and attributes
sameness with unity (Bauman, 2001; Delanty, 2003). The result is a style of
community that implicates the police in ‘hegemonic national histories and dominant
renditions of national identity in ways that expressly or implicitly denigrate or
misrecognise minority populations’ (Loader, 2006, p.211). Accordingly, it is
incompatible with the heterogeneity and dynamism of modern life and overlooks the
challenges, differences and conflicts that both exist in communal living and serve an
important role in the processes of collective action (Brent, 1997; Delanty, 2003).
Reviewing the theoretical influences on the policing policy discourse highlights how
this romantic image of community and policing in the presentation of police visibility
has been reinforced.

6
Public demand for more police visibility in the form of bobbies on the beat is recurrently
portrayed in the media (see for example: BBC, 2016; Hymas, 2019; Telegraph Reporters,
2017).

67
 Literature Review

Strands of communitarian thought, particularly the work of Robert Putnam (1993,

2000) and Amitai Etzioni (1993, 1995, 1998), became influential in thinking about
citizens and communities, and their relationship with the delivery of public services,
including policing (Bullock, 2014; Hoggett, 1997). Putnam (1993, 2000) introduced
the notion of social capital to understandings of community by arguing that strong
participative networks, trust and solidarity between citizens created reciprocal and
productive relationships both among them and with the state administration.
Extending his work to an American context, Putnam (2000) argued that modern
society was in a state of degeneration and required greater collective engagement in
societal institutions, in the form of reviving social connections, developing unity and
strengthening trust, to build social capital and facilitate mutually beneficial
outcomes. Similarly, Etzioni (1993,1995, 1998) argued that communities had been
weakened by public institutions assuming social tasks and enforcing responsibilities
otherwise exercisable at local level resulting in a culture of self-interest and a lack of
social responsibility. Etzioni advocated the formation of ‘responsive communities’
composed of shared expectations and values imparted through education and
maintained through mutual praise and disapproval to support citizens in appreciating
their moral commitments; acknowledging their social responsibilities and rights; and
developing the skills to self-govern. These arguments challenged the individualistic
principles of neo-liberal political philosophy by showing that there exist obligations
and commitments not bound by market forces, such as family, and the self is
attached to and partly constructed by communal commitments and values which are
not matters of choice (Buchanan, 1989). Instead, community could be thought of as
a form of collective citizenship involving shared values, norms and bonds that can act
as a resource for harnessing ‘active practices of self-management and identity
construction’ to deliver the common good (Delanty 2003; Giddens, 1999; Rose, 1999,
p.176).

The type of communitarian community described by Putnam and Etzioni was

transferable to Community Policing strategies, police-citizen partnership work and
neighbourhood watch, because it demonstrated how police officers could foster local
support and accountability at the same time as working with citizens to improve the

68
 Literature Review

quality of life in their neighbourhoods and reduce their reliance on the police service
(Etzioni, 1998; Giddens, 1999). It offered an approach to criminal justice that allowed
the government to demonstrate a sustained commitment to crime and disorder, but
with less of the burden of accounting for its effectiveness as the onus was placed on
citizens (Crawford, 1999). These ideas around the nature and role of community
translated into a re-branding of crime prevention as the ‘task of the whole
community’ (Home Office, 1984, p.1) with the language in the policy discourse,
particularly in the dialogue associated with the active citizenship and civil renewal
agenda, creating the vision of one community, local and face-to-face (Millner, 2008).
However, the community envisaged by Etzioni and Putnam, and captured in
government policy, is criticised for embellishing an archaic image of social life that is
irreconcilable with the contemporary world (Delanty, 2003).

Communities, unlike the kind advocated in communitarian thought, are not neatly
packaged homogenous and self-reliant units of people capable of mobilising in
harmony (Delanty, 2003). This one-dimensional perspective can be seen to tie in with
early sociological ideas of communities formed around kinship associations, known
as gemeinschaft (Tonnies and Loomis, 1955), or the ‘mechanical solidarity’ between
people from sharing formal and informal pursuits (Durkheim, 1964). These usages
categorise community in terms of social relations in a defined geographic space or a
sense of belonging to a group (Stacey, 1969, p.135), and emphasise how it can be an
aspect of social understanding important to making sense of human organisation and
a feeling of untainted goodness desirable to most (Crow and Allan, 1994; Bauman,
2001). However, writers exploring the modern politics of sexuality, gender, ethnicity
and class have highlighted in different ways, what Rutherford (1990, p.24) captures
in an essay titled A Place Called Home, ‘the multiplicity of subject positions and
potential identities’ invariably unbounded on which we establish and attempt to
construct a sense of self. Consequently, these works draw attention to the
multiplicity, fluidity and complexity involved in making sense of communities in
modern life. In contrast to earlier understandings, they show how communities can
exist in a countless number of potentially overlapping and everchanging forms based

69
 Literature Review

on the individualities that people actively, passively or unwillingly identify with or are
identified by (Hoggett, 1997).

A person may be simultaneously affiliated with a local, familial, organisational,

sectoral, cultural, ethnic or religious community, each of which may symbolise
different values and involve opposing activities highlighting the conflict of interests
that can exist (Crawford, 1999). At the same time, communities can be founded on
more abstract conceptions of self, such as morals, values, attitudes and beliefs
(Johnson, 2000). These contemporary insights challenge the idea of ‘one’ objective
community that police officers and staff can engage with on patrol, and pinpoint the
different, subjective and uncomplimentary communities that may exist within the
spaces they traverse. Furthermore, given the personal nature of many of the
communities that individuals can identify with, it becomes apparent that most will
be unnoticeable to patrolling police officers and staff. The plurality and diversity of
communities makes it difficult for the police to define and respond to communities
(Johnson, 2000), and highlights the significance of tailoring policing to communities’
needs and preferences – ‘there is no one formula for all communities […]’ (Wycoff,
2004, p.22). Accordingly, it challenges the place-based approach to Neighbourhood
Policing by questioning the extent to which geographic boundaries are constructive
markers for police officers and staff to delineate communities to engage with on
patrol.

A geographic focus to policing, specifically the notion of the neighbourhood, took

shape through theories, labelled the ‘criminologies of everyday life’, that emphasised
how daily routines, communal structures, situational factors and physical spaces
within localities could influence and prevent crime and disorder (Garland, 2001).
Three theories, in particular, have been identified as influential in policy
considerations of crime prevention in communities (Crawford, 1999). Firstly, Oscar
Newman (1973) created the ‘defensible space’ model for urban housing to overcome
physical design flaws that made residents vulnerable to, and prevented ‘collective
community action’ against, crime and disorder. Defensible spaces, characterised by
‘real and symbolic barriers, strongly defined areas of influence, and improved

70
 Literature Review

opportunities for surveillance’, were advocated to facilitate processes of informal

social control between residents to better manage their living environment and
prevent crime (Newman, 1973, p.3). Secondly, George Kelling and James Wilson
(1982) devised the ‘broken windows’ thesis to explain how incivilities and signs of
social decay can breakdown informal neighbourhood controls inviting disorderly
conduct and creating the conditions for crime to flourish. They argued that police use
of ‘order maintenance’ techniques, shaped by neighbourhood standards, including
increased visibility through foot patrol, can promote public order by strengthening
informal social control and counteracting neighbourhood decline to prevent disorder
and crime, in other words fix ‘broken windows’. Thirdly, a group of researchers,
including Ron Clarke and Patricia Mayhew, explored how the material circumstances
of a place could assist a capable offender in securing rewards with limited risk to
illustrate the opportunistic nature of crime (Hough, Clarke and Mayhew, 1980). They
advocated opportunity reducing measures and situational crime prevention
techniques that designed out crime by increasing the effort (e.g., making targets
harder to access); adding risks (e.g., natural and formal methods of surveillance); and
reducing the reward (e.g., removing the target) (Clarke, 1997, p.4; Clarke cited in
Hughes, 1998).

In the UK, the situational and social approaches to crime prevention have been
classified under the umbrella of ‘community safety’ and ‘associated with
neighbourhood-based solutions, partnership working and participatory frameworks’
to emphasise the importance of combining knowledge and expertise of both
residents and frontline practitioners experiencing and dealing with neighbourhood
problems on a daily basis (Crawford and Evans, 2017, p.805). The emphasis on the
role of informal social control in generating and maintaining safety in localities has
raised the profile of community and identified it as a site for accessing and organising
people to take preventative steps to control crime (Crawford, 1999). However, the
heavy focus upon geography within the criminologies of everyday life while
broadening understandings of crime beyond the dispositional bias in criminological
research is identified as having a number of limitations for policing and crime
prevention (Crawford and Evans, 2017).

71
 Literature Review

Firstly, comprehending communities in terms of place limits the definition and

exploration of social relations and their links to delinquency (Kornhauser, 1978). This
can be evidenced in policing policy where ‘more community’ is believed to result in
‘less crime’ (Crawford, 1999 p.300), however research shows that strong
communities characterised by high levels of informal social control (i.e., dense
private ties) does not necessarily correlate with lower rates of crime (Wilcox, Cullen
and Feldmeyer, 2018). For example, Foster’s (1995, p.580) ethnographic research of
a London housing estate with higher-than-average levels of crime identified that the
presence of informal social control created a situation where crime was to a large
extent being ‘contained’. The limitations of understanding communities and crime in
terms of strong interpersonal ties is further highlighted by collective efficacy theory
which shows how social cohesion from working trust and shared expectations in
neighbourhoods combined with residents’ willingness to intervene for the ‘common
good’ is linked to low rates of crime (Sampson, Raudenbash and Earls, 1997;
Sampson, 2002).

Secondly, the spatial dimension to crime prevention practices can impose arbitrary
boundaries around people residing in the same vicinity. The result is the creation of
lots of communities of ‘insiders’ defending themselves against the potential criminal
threat from ‘outsiders’ fuelling distrust and hostility (Crawford, 1999). This can be
seen to draw parallels with critiques of broken windows theory which led to a ‘zero-
tolerance’ policing approach (see Wilcox, Cullen and Feldmeyer, 2018). Zero-
tolerance policing, specifically in the city of New York, involved aggressive and
punitive tactics largely against groups and individuals who exhibited worrying or
troubling tendencies (the outsiders) in places based on the moral classification of the
established order (the insiders) resulting in human rights violations (Innes, 1999).
Equally the geographic boundaries residents can impose to delineate their
community can differ from and be more constricting than formal neighbourhood
borders. In their study of local policing, Shapland and Vagg (1987) found that
residents’ perceptions of and responses to problems were extremely localised to the
extent that they considered the street too large a unit to take responsibility for.

72
 Literature Review

Thirdly, it is mistaken to suppose that everyone and everything is inter-connected

within a small locality (Stacey, 1969), especially in contemporary geographic
communities where people have weaker and fewer associations to places due to the
increased freedom to move around and occupy many different spaces (Bullock,
2014). Indeed, Trojanowicz and Moore (1988, p.5 cited in Fielding, 2005, p.466) argue
that the global scale of transit, communications and media has ‘widened the rift
between a sense of community based on geography and one based on a community
of interest’ highlighting how contemporary society is more structured towards ties
of association.

The use of community in policing policy discourse, using the words of Hillery (1963,
p.779), ‘embraces a motley assortment of concepts and qualitatively different
phenomena’, and attempts to reduce them to a nostalgic notion of one homogenous,
place-based and co-ordinated community. This dreamy and attractive perspective
fails to grasp the inherent limits both internally within the structures of communities
and externally in organising communities in the modern political economy
(DeFilippis, Fisher and Shragge, 2010). The filtered political understanding of
community neglects consideration of the wider forces and processes at work, the
provision of assets beyond the local context and the interplay of power relations at
the core of community organising (DeFilippis, Fisher and Shragge, 2010).
Consequently, the stripped-down version of community presented in policing policy
challenges the extent to which police officers and staff can deliver community
engagement work (Bullock, 2014). More specifically, it raises questions about how
police officers and staff on patrol can provide a visible, accessible and familiar
presence to all the multiple communities that may live in a neighbourhood, including
the ‘hard to reach’ and other minority and marginalised populations (Millie, 2014).
This is highlighted in Vernon and Lasley’s (1992) research where they struggled to
demarcate the community according to traditional markings, such as interpersonal
experiences, in the geographical area they planned to study resulting in the
researchers installing physical boundaries around the place to identify participants.

73
 Literature Review

Even when a minority community is more identifiable to the police, as Bullock and
Johnson (2017) show in their qualitative study of police engagement with Muslim
citizens and communities, a number of multifaceted challenges stemming from
within and beyond the police organisation need to be understood and resolved for
engagement to succeed. These can include, as the last section highlighted, policing
practices that generate suspicion and mistrust, the legacy of allegations of racism in
policing and previous unsatisfactory policing responses that have led to
disengagement. There is acknowledgement in the policy literature that the police
should adopt a flexible approach to community engagement to take account of the
needs and preferences of communities, including citizens’ affinity with ‘communities
of interest’ as opposed to geographical neighbourhoods (Colover and Quinton, 2018;
Myhill, 2012, p.81). However, what this looks like in practice is not explored in any
depth in policy and it neglects a finer examination of the individualities of different
citizens and communities and the engagement strategies that can effectively support
police officers and staff, particularly on patrol, in this area of work (Barnes and Eagle,
2007; Bullock and Johnson, 2017).

Academics have highlighted the importance of the police building knowledge about
the key issues that concern different communities (Bullock and Johnson, 2017) and
gaining this awareness ‘from people in a position to know’ (Fielding, 2009, p.3),
including those that are already part of existing community groups and organisations
(Barnes and Eagle, 2007). However, trying to reach a broader cross section of
communities and involve a diversity of groups in policing, as Fielding (2005, p.467)
argues, requires the police to acknowledge that they cannot reflect ‘the face of the
community’ and to increase their tolerance towards the differences in civil order
between locales. Equally, underpinning all of these proposed approaches to
community engagement is a fundamental need for the police to possess the
‘interactional skills’ that can break down barriers with different citizens and groups
to make engagement possible (Bullock and Johnson, 2017, p.17). In addition to
exploring how the police can physically develop their approach to identifying and
accessing different citizens and communities in neighbourhoods, there is an

74
 Literature Review

increasing academic focus on how the police engage virtually with online
communities.

The growth of social media has led to its promotion in policing as a tool that can be
utilised to forge links with citizens, foster two-way dialogue and involve more people
and groups in policing (Bullock, 2018). Accordingly, research has started to consider
how the police use social media to communicate with citizens and communities, and
the extent to which it facilitates engagement (Brainard and McNutt, 2010; Bullock,
2018; Crump, 2011; Grimmelikhuijsen and Meijer, 2015; Lieberman, Koetzle and
Sakiyama, 2013). Nevertheless, the academic shift in focus to police-citizen
engagement via online platforms neglects a more detailed insight into how police
officers and staff presently navigate the complexities of understanding and engaging
contemporary communities when they are conducting a patrol function. The need to
continue to think about and develop this physical aspect of community engagement
is reinforced by research showing that policing, specifically in the UK, remains a ‘low
technology occupation’ and police use of social media has not transformed police-
citizen communication in the way envisaged (Bullock, 2018, p.255).

Summary and Research Questions

Reviewing the policy assumptions using the policing literature, the preceding
sections have detailed how police visibility in community engagement work is more
complex than a police presence providing a service that is responsive to the
community. The research evidence highlighted that all citizens will not willingly and
capably engage with police officers and staff on patrol; that all police officers and
staff will not routinely be directed to, want to or know how to provide an
engagement function on patrol; and that communities are not standardised social
units visible and accessible to patrolling police officers and staff. The studies
problematised the policy assumptions in three ways. Firstly, research showed how
individual, neighbourhood and structural characteristics impact upon the level of
citizen engagement with Community Policing programmes. It then highlighted how

75
 Literature Review

citizen perception of the type of patrol, the amount and nature of contact with police
on patrol, and the approachability of patrolling PCSOs can shape assessments of
police visibility and community engagement. Together these findings drew attention
to the array of intersecting factors which can influence the extent to which citizens
engage with police officers and staff on patrol. Secondly, studies underlined how the
occupational police culture is not traditionally aligned with community engagement
resulting in a range of working styles that accept and resist this part of Community
Policing practice. This was then shown to be exacerbated by the prioritisation of
crime control in the organisational structures guiding performance frameworks and
the functioning of the PCSO role at the expense of understanding and developing the
communicative work involved in patrol. These cultural and organisational influences
emphasised the ways in which police officers and staff will not necessarily be
motivated, supported or equipped to use patrol to deliver community engagement.
Thirdly, research revealed how the diversity, fluidity and complexity of contemporary
life is at odds with the united, homogenous and localised community model
presented in policing policy. This portrayal of community, underpinned by strands of
communitarian and crime prevention theory, was shown to perpetuate a
romanticised narrative and construct a place-based approach that is incompatible
with police officers and staff delivering an engagement function on patrol.

The review of the literature while critical of policy assumptions, nevertheless also
revealed insights about community engagement and police patrol work. In
comparison to vehicle patrol, the research showed that foot patrol is more
noticeable, perceived more favourably, makes police officers appear more
approachable and increases opportunities for interaction. Moreover, when patrol
involves the public seeing the police and/or having informal exchanges with them, it
can develop familiarity, build police-public relationships and lead to positive
assessments of policing and community engagement, especially when the police are
perceived as being helpful, understanding and/or communicating information about
policing. Similarly, awareness and familiarity of PCSOs through local contact, and the
perceived approachability and manner of the auxiliaries can be influential in public
assessments of and engagement with them. Studies highlighted that there is an

76
 Literature Review

important communicative function to police visibility, particularly for PCSOs, but

more learning and development in this area is required in policing. It showed that
police officers and staff do not always know what they need to do on patrol to engage
with many different publics, which is aggravated by an organisational preference for
evaluating police tactics and strategies over qualitative inquiry into the knowledge
and experiences of police officers and staff in patrol work. The research also
emphasised the challenges, differences and conflicts involved in making sense of
contemporary communities.

Bringing together the policy critique and existing research, it was revealed that there
is a lack of qualitative insight into community engagement delivered by police officers
and staff on patrol. Citizen engagement was not an explicit focus of the majority of
the research and the largely quantitative examination of citizen participation in
Community Policing programmes and citizen perception of police officers and staff
on patrol made it difficult to draw out a detailed understanding of what citizens
experience when they come into contact with patrolling police officers and staff, and
how it shapes their engagement with them. Furthermore, a lot of the studies referred
to were conducted in an American policing context and in different time periods,
which reduced their transferability to understanding present-day Neighbourhood
Policing in the UK.

There were more qualitative research insights about the cultural and organisational
influences on police officers and staff tasked with community engagement in the UK,
however there was little focus on the ‘craft’ of patrol and exploring how it can be
used to provide an engagement function, particularly within the context of PCSOs
and Neighbourhood Policing. It was shown as an area of practice that would benefit
from more qualitative exploration to understand what police officers and staff do on
patrol at the micro-level and develop insights into the communicative dimension to
their work. This type of qualitative view offers the opportunity to explore the
identified disconnect between the romanticised policy narrative of a placed-based
patrol and the reality of engaging citizens and contemporary communities by
examining how police officers and staff make sense of and shape the delivery of this

77
 Literature Review

policy in their everyday work. These identified gaps in knowledge about police
visibility in community engagement work delivered by NPTs contributed to the
development of the following research questions:

• What is a visible police presence in the day-to-day work of NPTs?

• In what ways does police visibility, particularly PCSO visibility, contribute to
community engagement?

78
 Methodology

Chapter 3
Observing Police Visibility

The literature review in Chapter 2 identified a gap in understanding police visibility

in community engagement work from a policing perspective using qualitative
research which led to the formulation of two research questions:

• What is a visible police presence in the day-to-day work of NPTs?

• In what ways does police visibility, particularly PCSO visibility, contribute to
community engagement?

This chapter will set out how an ethnographic approach involving fieldwork in two
NPTs in one urban constabulary in the North of England, renamed Wildebay Police,
was chosen, planned and experienced to answer the research questions.

A Qualitative View of Patrol

In the most recent policy articulation of police visibility in the Neighbourhood Policing
‘engaging communities’ guidelines, it is presented as being developed from the ‘best
available current evidence’ to support police forces in designing and implementing
an effective modern Neighbourhood Policing function (College of Policing, 2018a,
p.3). This focus on setting standards using the best available evidence reflects the
overarching approach of Evidenced Based Policing (EBP) adopted by the College of
Policing to inform and challenge their policies, practices and decisions (College of
Policing, 2020). It is shaped by the principle that scientific research evidence of ‘what
works best’ offers the most effective guide for developing and measuring the impact
of policing interventions to avoid inefficient, costly or potentially harmful ways of
working (Sherman, 1998a and 2013). However, EBP is criticised for prioritising
experimental forms of research to develop policing knowledge at the expense of
taking account of the breadth of evidence required for producing deeper insights into
the real-life complexity of policing (Punch, 2015). This is discernible in the prevalence

79
 Methodology

of experimental and evaluative studies examining police visibility presented in

Chapter 2 and reviewed by the College of Policing (2017) to provide the evidence-
base for visible patrol. Chapter 2 highlighted how the tendency to use quantitative
data collection and analysis methods in studies of police patrol work limited the
range of knowledge about the practice at the micro-level from a policing perspective.
Furthermore, the need for a qualitative gaze in understandings of police visibility was
supported by academics examining patrol practices (Hail, Aston and O’Neill, 2018;
Ramshaw, 2012; Wood et al. 2014). In seeking to respond to this identified gap in
police patrol research methods, an ethnographic approach was chosen to explore
police visibility in community engagement work. This section will set out the specific
rationale for choosing a qualitative method before highlighting the reason for
adopting an ethnographic lens, the theoretical assumptions underpinning it and
personal influences that shaped it.

The decision to adopt a qualitative approach was based on it offering a way of seeing
policing practice that cannot be captured by the traditional EBP research methods
which have assumed, what Punch (2015) argues is, a distorted superiority in policing
research. Reflecting on EBP, Sherman (2013, p.417) reasons that good research
evidence derives from scientific methods where reliability and validity can be
established and where findings can be assessed using a scale of methodological
quality, such as the Scientific Methods Scale which has been used to rank policing
and crime prevention practices according to the scientific rigor of the research on
which they are based (Sherman and Eck, 2006). While qualitative research is not
explicitly discounted, there is a clear preference for experimental research designs
that test causal hypotheses, specifically the use of randomised controlled trials, and
evaluations of their effectiveness using statistical measurement (Farrington et al.
2006; Punch, 2015). However, scholars are increasingly highlighting a number of
drawbacks to the narrow focus of the research methods underpinning EBP and
arguing for more diversity in policing research to broaden and strengthen the
evidence-base. It is within this argument that a qualitative research method was
considered to add value to the evidence-base in a number of ways.

80
 Methodology

Firstly, a qualitative perspective can expand the scope of policing knowledge. The
experimental research methods informing EBP concentrate on the effectiveness of
practices, specifically in relation to crime reduction, which only captures a partial
picture of what is relevant (Thacher, 2001). This is evident in the studies reviewed by
the College of Policing (2017) to provide an evidence-base for police visibility which
are chosen to consider ‘the effectiveness of visible patrol.’ The result is policing
practice, and in this case patrol work, becoming increasingly understood using
instrumental knowledge that likens it to a form of treatment to deal with crime
control leaving many questions unanswered (Thacher, 2001). The preoccupation
with effectiveness of policing practices undermines the countless other, equally
important, concerns related to the function of policing and which feed into wider
discussions of police accountability, legitimacy, fairness and justice (Bowling, 2006).
Policing, as the focus of this PhD research highlights, involves many responsibilities,
choices and dilemmas outside of crime control and prevention involving citizens and
communities (van Dijk et al. 2015). Therefore, research considerations of police work
need to integrate the different and complex dimensions constituting the meaning
and practice of policing (van Dijk et al. 2015). Thacher (2001, p.392) summarises this
position by stating, ‘it is simply not possible to develop legitimate guidelines about
what the police should do based only on instrumental knowledge about the effect of
police actions on crime.’ Accordingly, an expansion of the type and focus of research,
specifically using qualitative methods, can embrace the broad range of ‘knowledge
needs’ that exist in policing and allow the police to incorporate ‘everything relevant’
into their management of the practice context (Fyfe and Wilson, 2012, p.308). This is
particularly significant given that police organisations are now situated in an
uncertain and risky state of transformation where ongoing shifts in the structure,
mandate and accountability mechanisms of the workforce are creating a demand for
a ‘what matters’ focus in research (van Dijk et al. 2015).

Secondly, qualitative research methods can attend to aspects of policing and the
practice context that can go unnoticed if only considered from a systematic and
experimental perspective. This is raised in the research examining police patrol
where academics highlight the need for a qualitative element to understand in more

81
 Methodology

detail the realities, nuances and ironies of this type of work from an officer
perspective (Wood et al. 2014). Hough (2004) makes a similar observation of the
Home Office Crime Reduction Programme where the systematic and focussed nature
of the research procedure led to an oversimplification of the research setting and the
complexity of the policing task being overlooked. Experimental styles of research are
not always suited to examining areas of policing where human subjects, sensitive
issues, changeable work environments and the broader social, political and structural
conditions that surround the police function are not easily reduced to simple
variables or can be divided into a systematic format for measurement (Punch, 2015).
It follows that research frameworks need to be more general and adaptable,
especially given the breadth of values, actions and activities that embody modern
policing, and qualitative research methods can facilitate this (Greene, 2013).

Finally, the strength of validity and reliability in experimental methods informing EBP
cannot be straightforwardly assumed, and results should be considered alongside
other forms of research evidence, such as that provided by qualitative enquiry. Tilley
(2009) outlines that there is no certainty that the samples of participants selected
from spatio-temporally specific populations in field tests are representative of all or
any given population, and how they interact with treatment interventions will vary
and potentially change over time. Similarly, participant compliance with
experimental tests is often low resulting in unexamined assumptions being used to
make causal inferences (Sampson, 2010). Police officers, not unlike other
practitioners, cannot be relied upon to provide accurate data in field tests which can
lead to their contribution representing circumstantial evidence of the effectiveness
of policing interventions - see for example Bowling (1999) and (Punch, 2015). Even if
the internal validity of an experiment is strong, it’s external validity, specifically when
results are translated into policy, can be weak and potentially damaging (Sampson,
2010). An example is the findings from the ‘Minneapolis domestic violence
experiment’ being used to support a policy of mandatory police arrest of domestic
violence perpetrators to reduce repeat victimisation, but subsequent studies
showing increased victimisation of partners following the arrest of domestic violence
perpetrators (Sherman and Berk, 1984; Bowling, 2006). It is therefore important that

82
 Methodology

experimental results are considered in synthesis with other types of evidence and
not applied to practice in isolation of theory (Tilley, 2009).

The growth of EBP has emphasised the worth of empirical research that tests and
evaluates interventions under controlled conditions to inform policy and practice
(Sherman, 2013). Yet, while systematic approaches to examining police work are
valuable and cost effective, they restrict the production of knowledge to ‘what works’
and disregard the diversity of knowledge required for policing (Fyfe and Wilson,
2012). Indeed, it is distinctly apparent in the range of methods already being utilised
to examine the everyday nature of policing that a qualitative dimension that goes
beyond the efficiency and effectiveness of ‘what works’ is necessary. Examples
include but are not limited to historical studies (e.g., Emsley, 1996); interviews (e.g.,
O’Neill and McCarthy, 2014); comparative studies (e.g., Hinton and Newburn, 2009);
and case studies (e.g., Silk, Spalek and O’Rawe, 2013). By introducing different
methods and triangulating their findings, the quality of data informing the evidence-
base for policing will be improved so as to take account of the complexities within
routine police work and move the focus away from the ‘one size fits all’ model
implied in traditional conceptualisations of EBP (Punch, 2015). The need for a
qualitative component in policing research is discernible in the area of police patrol
where the overwhelming focus, as Chapter 2 highlighted, is on quantitative forms of
measurement. Therefore, the decision to use a qualitative research method provided
a way to expand the evidence-base and embrace all knowledge requirements for
understanding police patrol in community engagement.

An Ethnographic Lens

A qualitative research method not only formed a meaningful way to make a

methodological contribution to the study of police patrol, but it was identified as the
most appropriate means of exploring the ‘what’ focus of my research questions.
‘What’ research questions, as Blaikie (2010, p.60) identifies, concentrate on
‘discovering and describing the characteristics of and patterns in some social

83
 Methodology

phenomenon.’ The purpose of this research was to seek to describe the visible
presence of police officers and staff and its relationship with community
engagement. It was important to gain descriptive insights from the social world as
perceived and experienced by police officers and staff and therefore, it was my task
to uncover and illustrate the ‘insider view’, that is the ‘largely tacit, mutual
knowledge, the symbolic meanings, intentions and rules, which provide the
orientations’ for the actions of police officers and staff (Blaikie, 2010, p.89). To
ascertain this ‘insider view’, I needed a research strategy that enabled me to be part
of the social world of police officers and staff and in a position to discover their ways
of interpreting and making sense of their actions, others’ actions and the social
situations encompassing everyday patrol work (Blaikie, 2010, p.90). An abductive
research strategy offered this ‘bottom-up’ approach to generate descriptive insights
‘grounded in the language, meanings and perspectives’ of police officers and staff in
the course of carrying out routine patrol (Blaikie, 2010, p.91; Bryman, 2012, p.401).

Ethnography is identified as a method that offers a means of engaging with people

in their social world to establish an ‘insider view’ that can facilitate detailed insights
into the micro-interactions and nuances that makeup organisational life (Cunliffe,
2010). It is a way to capture understandings that are located within the ‘highly
contingent nature of everyday policing and its interactional construction’ (Punch,
2015, p.16), specifically to make sense of the variable communications,
interpretations and meanings that exist in this setting (Greene, 2014, p.194). Through
the processes of immersion in the lifeworld of social actors and translation of their
language, behaviours, interactions, events, rituals and practices, I would be in a
position to ‘explore the intricacies, challenges, tensions and choices’ in the
functioning of the police organisation (Cunliffe, 2010, p.227). Marks (2004)
emphasises the importance of the researcher being involved in the ‘natural setting’
of police work in order to ‘see’ how the culture that informs officers’ decision-making
and practice is constructed and experienced over time.

In the field of policing, ethnography is not new. Early seminal studies of policing
organisations employed ethnographic approaches to learn about the day-to-day

84
 Methodology

reality of policing, namely what the police do and how they do it (Manning, 2014) -
see for example, Banton (1964); Bittner (1970); Skolnick (1966); Van Maanen (1973);
and Westley (1970). The insights on studying the police in action captured by these
early monographs have served to influence academic debate and set the scene for
subsequent policing research, including demonstrating the value of ethnography to
studying the police (Reiner, 2015). Within the field of British policing, ethnography is
an established research method - see for example Cain (1973); Holdaway (1983);
Loftus (2009); O’Neill (2005); and Waddington (1999). In an overview of policing
ethnography, Manning (2014, p.532-535) describes how the nature of policing
dictates the engagement of the researcher with the practice context as it is only in
these circumstances that they will have full access to the nuances and complexities
that shape the ways officers make sense of, manage and perform their role within
the occupational setting. The author draws on a selection of monographs to make
three salient points about why ethnography suits studies of policing.

Firstly, by seeing officers’ actions, the nature, meaning and impact of behaviours,
values, norms, laws and rules, as experienced and perceived by them, is uncovered.
In a study of the police on skid-row, Bittner (1967) observed how officers’ decision-
making is often shaped by tacit knowledge and experience that is not readily
noticeable to the outsider. It follows that to able to understand police work through
the ‘occupational lens’ of officers requires the researcher to be present in the ‘here
and now’ of the practice encounter. Such presence provides the opportunity to ‘see’
the dynamics of the situation as it unfolds in its raw state and perceive the subtleties
of the setting, interaction or task that are often unspoken.

Secondly, the ethnographer has access to the external appearance and internal
reality of policing which can be very different occupational experiences for officers.
Holdaway (1983), in a covert participant observation of the police, observed officers
establishing symbolic boundaries between the public ‘front stage’ and private
‘backstage’ areas of the police station. The mapping of public and private territories
revealed novel insights about the distinct ways police officers use and perform in the
different areas of their work environment and how they ‘construct their world and

85
 Methodology

protect it from outsiders’ (Holdaway, 1983, p.35). In ethnographic fieldwork, the

observer is in a unique position of having the opportunity to move between the
public and private spheres of police practice to gain a fuller insight into how officers
experience, understand and manage their work in the different spaces they occupy.

Thirdly, the process of taking part in officers’ routines enables the ethnographer to
hear their talk and observe their action to develop the relationship between what
officers say they do and what they actually do as these are not always the same.
Police officers have been observed as acting without engaging in an explicit
evaluation of the situation they are confronted with; ‘they are pragmatists who act
first and rationalise later’ (Manning, 2014, p.533). These distinct phases of practice
construct different perspectives which in turn feed into the ‘multiple realities’ of
policing. An ethnographer can observe each stage of an officer’s execution of their
role, from the act as it unfolds on the street through to its articulation and
presentation in the office, to understand the process of interpretation, and the
relationship between action and talk. This is particularly important given that ‘the
core of the work in policing remains the officer working alone, taking on and shaping
work as he or she defines it’ (Manning, 2014, p.534).

The preceding points provide a snapshot of the suitability of ethnography to the

particularities of policing. Of course, in the social sciences there are issues of validity
and reliability which, in the case of ethnography, have been emphasised to reject its
legitimacy as a method, particularly in researching organisations (Zickar and Carter,
2010; Punch, 2015). The cause of this contention rests with ethnography being
assessed according to the criteria for validity and reliability used in experimental
forms of research with specific concerns raised about the potential personal bias of
the researcher (Zickar and Carter, 2010). However, ethnography fundamentally
differs from quantitative methodology, and so addressing its credibility necessitates
different techniques which are embedded into the processes of data collection and
analysis (LeCompte and Goetz, 1982). Moreover, the realisation that human
behaviour is never static, and subjectivities enter the research process whatever the
method employed highlights uncertainties that exist across the

86
 Methodology

qualitative/quantitative divide (LeCompte and Goetz, 1982; Zickar and Carter, 2010).
From corroborating fieldnotes with participants and colleagues; observing many
participants across different sites over a prolonged period of time; recording
everything, even the seemingly routine and insignificant; through to self-monitoring
and providing reflexive accounts, ethnographers utilise numerous approaches to
increase the credibility of their work (Muir, 1977; Lecompte and Goetz, 1982;
Holdaway, 1983; Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). Essentially, ‘ethnographic
studies, by their nature, are more likely to be sensitive to important contextual and
cultural variables’ which appropriately positions the method as a valuable tool for
knowledge-production in the field of policing (Zickar and Carter, 2010, p.312). This
way of seeing the world incorporated into the research strategy brought to the fore
a particular set of theoretical and philosophical assumptions which formed an
important part of selecting an ethnographic research method.

Philosophical and Theoretical Perspective

Accessing the social world of police officers and staff to make sense of their ‘local,
subjective reality’ as experienced by them to draw insights about patrol emphasised
the importance of ‘interpretative understanding’ in this research (Scott, 2009, p.16).
It highlighted that human behaviour is not predictable but is subject to how people
interpret situations and influence each other (Scott, 2009, p.24). This idea that
meaning is ‘constructed by the interpretative acts of the interactants’ aligns with
symbolic interactionalism (Fink, 2016, p.8). Symbolic interactionalism is a ‘style of
sociological reasoning and methodology’ that has a contested history and has been
shaped by a number of thinkers (Rock, 2001, p.26). Herbert Blumer, influenced by
the work of George Mead, offers a straightforward conceptualisation of symbolic
interactionalism and its methodological implications (Fink, 2016; Rock, 2001).
Symbolic interactionalism, according to Blumer (1969, p.3), is founded on three
premises: people act towards things on the basis of meanings, the meanings of such
things are derived from the social interaction one has with others, and these
meanings are managed and revised through an interpretative process by the

87
 Methodology

individuals concerned. Using these principles, the basic ideas of symbolic

interactionalism are that human society consists of people engaging in social
interaction, that this involves people taking account of the actions of one another as
they form their own action and that this occurs through a dual process of indicating
to others how to act and interpreting the indications made by others (Blumer, 1969,
p.10). Social action occurs within this process of social interaction and involves
individuals ‘noting, interpreting and assessing things’ they are confronted with in
order to act, and devising a ‘prospective line of action’ (Blumer, 1969, p.56). Taken
together, people are ‘reflexive and self-aware agents’ capable of transforming and
continuously constructing their social worlds with communication (and interaction
through communication) forming an integral part of this (Jacobsen, 2017, p.14).

Taking a symbolic interactionist position, it follows that to make sense of social action
one has to get close to it and see it in terms of the actors and the processes by which
it is constructed; all of which emphasise the importance of a ‘naturalistic
investigation’ (Blumer, 1969, p.46 and p.55). Knowledge, as Rock (2001, p.29)
summarises, ‘is not won in the library but in the field.’ Accordingly, an ethnographic
method provided a means of seeing patrol as it is seen by police officers and staff in
its natural state, that is to observe how police officers and staff ‘define the situations’
in which they participate, what they take into account and the process by which they
interpret this (Blumer, 1962, p.180; 1969, p.56). It was an approach that could
facilitate the type of ‘descriptive accounts from actors’ required to fully understand
how they see, act and refer to patrol in a variety of situations (Blumer, 1969, p.61).
At the same time, it was equally important to acknowledge that I would never be
telling the story exactly how police officers and staff might tell this story themselves;
I would ‘be there’ to see their world, but I would also ‘be here’ to present their world
(Pearson, 1993, p.viii-ix). The type of knowing that results from ‘watching, listening
and asking questions’ is very different from the type of knowing that takes place
when ‘one is directly responsible for one’s own actions in a specific situation’ (Van
Maanen, 1981, p.490). Accordingly, the descriptive accounts I reproduced would be
‘provisional, bound temporally and contextually, shaped both by [my] particular
purposes and experiences […], and by the encounters which [I] had with particular’

88
 Methodology

police officers and staff in the field (Rock, 2001, p.31). Subsequently, I recognised
how my personal background was a factor actively influencing the methodological
choices I had made (Reyes, 2020).

Personal Influences

My most recent employment in the National Probation Service was an aspect of my

background that I considered factored into my choice of a research method that
sought to gain an ‘insider’ perspective. During my time working in probation, there
were significant organisational changes as part of the ‘transforming rehabilitation’
agenda to improve the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery.
However, I believed staff had not been sufficiently incorporated into the design and
implementation of the subsequent operational arrangements which, I judged,
resulted in a disconnect between the policy and practice context to the extent that
working conditions and service delivery were unsatisfactory. This experience
highlighted the importance of understanding and developing insights into the day-
to-day reality of criminal justice work from practitioners’ perspectives to improve
how policy is devised and executed. Therefore, the opportunity to research an aspect
of policing where there was little understanding of the practice context from the
experiences of police officers and staff demanded, in my view, an immersive research
method, like ethnography, that could capture it.

Ethics

Wildebay Police force was pre-selected for the study. Due to the study forming a
strand of a wider research initiative, formal authorisation to conduct ethnographic
research in the force had already been granted through the Chief Officers’ group,
Police Federation and other staff associations. The opportunistic rationale for
choosing Wildebay Police as the research site is not uncommon in ethnographic
research where the selection of a setting often comes first (Hammersley and
Atkinson, 2007). At the same time, I conducted my Masters research in Wildebay

89
 Methodology

Police and it seemed logical to continue to study this force, especially given that it
was an unexplained aspect of the findings from my Master’s study which shaped the
focus of this research, as summarised in the introduction. With preliminary research
access already agreed with Wildebay Police, I was quite quickly able to submit an
ethics application to the University Ethics Committee. It set out my plans to conduct
non-participant observation and unstructured interviews of police officers and staff
situated within NPTs in the course of their duties across a number of locations,
including police stations, police vehicles and public spaces. As part of my application,
I proposed procedures to ensure informed consent was gained from participants;
confidentiality and data protection was maintained; and plans were in place to
address potential risks to the participants and myself7.

The ethics application was reviewed by the Central University Research Ethics
Committee and involved a largely straightforward review meeting with the ethics
panel. There were no concerns about the research subject and the proposed
methods, but some practical queries were raised, including what my position as a
researcher would be if I witnessed criminal offences or I was questioned by members
of the public during fieldwork. The below responses to these matters provided more
detail and formed amendments to the original application, which was subsequently
approved by the reviewers.
• In the event that members of the public query my presence with participants,
I will explain my role as a researcher, and where they request, withdraw from
the interaction.
• During observations of participants carrying out their routine duties, there is
the potential to witness criminal acts or other incidents that might become
subject to legal or other proceedings. In these circumstances, my position will
be that of any member of the public who, if required, will be able to provide
eyewitness testimony.
Having followed the standard University ethical procedure and received approval,
there was an initial sense that the ethics of my study had been taken care of.

7
See Appendix 1 for copies of the participant information and consent forms.

90
 Methodology

However, ethical considerations, especially in ethnography, are not clear-cut and

simply fulfilled by following a set of guidelines (Murphy and Dingwall, 2001);
something which can be further complicated by the law when the research relates to
crime (Elliott and Fleetwood, 2017) and by the potential to witness occupational
deviancy in policing (Norris, 1993).

From recruiting, relationship building through to using fieldwork data, there are a
great deal of ethical dilemmas facing the ethnographer. To begin with, the idea that
participants are given the opportunity to provide informed consent assumes that all
those who could be potentially involved in the research are identifiable before it
commences; that the research project is not only clearly defined from the outset, but
the definition is portrayed in the same format to all persons; and that participants
will remain aware of their involvement in the research after giving initial permission.
In actuality, an ethnographer has no control over the field of observation (Murphy
and Dingwall, 2001); it is a natural setting where it is impossible for the many persons
present to be informed about the research or freely consent to participate
(Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). Moreover, of those that do provide informed
consent, they are often only being presented with a partial version of the research
project. The information provided about the research is usually vague in nature
related to it being adapted in a layperson format to make it understandable; the
focus of the research usually taking shape over the course of the fieldwork; and the
risk of revealing specific details influencing participants’ behaviour in a way that
might undermine the findings (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007; Murphy and
Dingwall, 2001). In addition, once initial consent is provided, it is likely that
participants will forget about their involvement in the research and will not be able
to gauge when the researcher is ‘working’ or having ‘time out’ (Shaw, 2010). It is
disruptive, if not impossible, to continually remind participants that ‘anything you say
or do may be taken down and used as data’ (Bell, 1977, p.59; Hammersley and
Atkinson, 2007). Therefore, the extent to which participants are able to provide
informed consent in ethnographic research is questionable, and this ethical challenge
continues as fieldwork progresses.

91
 Methodology

In ethnography, researchers are encouraged to build rapport and trust with

participants to reduce the potential stress and anxiety of taking part in the research,
including the potential for the participant to perceive that the researcher is
evaluating their work or them personally, and encourage them to act as they would
were the researcher not present (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). While on the one
hand, developing relationships with participants is considered a way to lessen the
possible harm caused by the research, the nature and extent of these relations
between the researcher and the researched can be equally harmful. Some academics
argue that the research relationship is deceitful and exploitative; the researcher
seeks to develop a reciprocal relationship with participants to elicit information,
which may involve giving a false impression of oneself, before leaving the field with
the participant having received nothing in return (Wolf, 1996a). Others suggest that
exploitation only occurs when the researcher takes advantage at a ‘real cost’ to those
researched (Wolf, 1996b, p.217), although most benefits and costs cannot be
measured definitively (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). Even taking a collaborative
approach with participants and involving them in the research process still involves
the researcher exercising some control over the procedure (Chase, 1996). This raises
the issue of power which is embedded in research – starting with the ‘different
positionalities of the researcher and the researched’; taking shape in the definition
of the ‘research relationship, the unequal exchange and exploitation’ in the research
process; and continuing in the ‘post-fieldwork period of writing and representation’
(Wolf, 1996a, p.2).

The collection and analysis of descriptive data about people and their organisations
involves a level of abstraction, generalisation and classification that carries
implications for the persons researched. The nature of social research fundamentally
questions participants’ rights to self-definition – ‘who has the right to interpret
another’s reality, to define what should or should not be included and what meanings
should or should not be attributed, and by what right do they do so?’ (Murphy and
Dingwall, 2001, p.345). Essentially, participants’ ‘cherished values, questionable
practices and guarded secrets are put on display for others to see and judge’ (Van
Maanen, 1981, p.491). Accordingly, researchers’ interpretations, as Josselson (1996,

92
 Methodology

p.70) argues, will always be ‘intrusive and narcissistically unsettling’ for participants.
This politics of interpretation is captured by Brettell (1993) who presents studies
where ethnographic texts have caused informants to feel betrayed (Davis, 1993); led
to factionalism within the organisation studied (Glazier, 1993); and resulted in the
researcher being labelled an ‘outsider’ (Jaffe, 1993). The actual or perceived
misrepresentation of participants highlights the subjectivity in research where it is
not a question of ‘whether we should take sides, […] but rather whose side are we
on?’ (Becker, 1967, p.239).

To navigate the identified ethical challenges, my awareness of the inherent

difficulties in respecting participants’ rights combined with the University ethical
guidelines formed part of an ongoing process of personal reflection and contributed
to my decision-making about my research practices throughout the fieldwork. I was
continually thinking about the nature of the research alongside the potential for
harm to be caused to the participants, the police organisation, the University, the
wider public audience and myself, which included considerations of honesty and
fairness; anonymity and confidentiality; and integrity and carefulness in my research
practice. This position aligns with the notion that ethical practice is not exclusively
dependent upon codes of practice but involves the moral character of the researcher
and their judgement in the research setting (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007;
Murphy and Dingwall, 2001; Shaw, 2010); ‘every fieldworker should be her own
moralist’ (Punch, 1986, p.79). To focus on my moral obligations necessitated a
‘realistic’ view of human relations and likely consequences (Hammersley and
Atkinson, 2007), and a reflexive approach that incorporated an understanding of
what was required of participants to be involved in the fieldwork - ‘the informant
game’ (Van Maanen, 1981, p.492).

Accessing the Field

The lead gatekeeper selected and put me in touch with two NPTs, Seabarrow and
Seawynne, that had been purposefully selected based on the criteria that they would

93
 Methodology

provide a contrast in terms of their policing priorities and relationships with

residents. The introductions resulted in two separate face-to-face meetings: one with
the Chief Inspector and Inspector of Seawynne NPT; and one with the Inspector of
Seabarrow NPT. The agenda of the meetings was similar in each with the officers
seeking more information about the proposed research and the practicalities of
conducting fieldwork. The nature of the discussions suggested that they were
interested to ascertain the utility of the research to Neighbourhood Policing at the
same time as gauging the impact it would have on the day-to-day running of their
teams. While no specific issues were raised, I was keen to reinforce that I perceived
my role as one of learning to develop understandings in Neighbourhood Policing; that
it was my intention to cause minimal interference in the daily functioning of the NPTs;
and that I was committed to maintaining the anonymity of participants. I adopted
this approach to alleviate potential anxieties that I perceived may have existed
around the intrusive nature of this type of research, especially as the selected NPTs
had not experienced an academic observer and the participants in my Masters
research had alluded to the ever-present public critique of policing. The seemingly
straightforward process for gaining official access to the NPTs seemed to reflect,
what Reiner and Newburn (2008) identify as, a wider acceptance of police research
over the last 20 years.

The meetings with the Inspectors and Chief Inspector, including the lead gatekeeper,
in the initial stages of the research were, in my view, also a form of assessment. I
believed that it was important to demonstrate my experience of the Criminal Justice
System generally, my understanding of Neighbourhood Policing specifically and my
ability to conduct police research to not only gain authorisation, but overall
acceptance into the NPTs. With their stamp of approval and the rank-and-file
structure of policing, I perceived that I would be straightforwardly received well by
all staff under their command. However, I realised that the real test started at the
point I was introduced to the Sgts with whom the Inspectors had delegated oversight
of my fieldwork to. It reflected the fundamental distinction that is customarily
experienced in ethnographic police research between gaining formal access and
achieving ‘social access on an everyday, interpersonal level’ (Loftus, 2009, p.202).

94
 Methodology

The Sgts, particularly at Seawynne, during initial contacts questioned me about the
aims and outcomes of my research and managing the fieldwork setting. The
regularity with which I experienced this format of introduction was such that I
labelled it in my personal reflections as the ‘initiation’. On the surface, the
questioning seemed reasonable given that the Sgts did not know me and most likely
wanted to gauge the level of intrusion my presence might cause. However, their
responses, usually at the end of these conversations, sometimes took the form of
short summaries of how they perceived me, for example ‘you seem sensible’ [Obs 4
– 27/09/17] and ‘you’re switched on’ [Obs 5 – 06/10/17]. The manner of these
concluding remarks suggested that they had structured the discussions to gain some
measure of my character so as to examine my acceptability to observe their teams.
In combination with the initial discussions with the Inspectors, the process of access
shared similarities with, what Cunliffe and Alcadipani (2016, p.542) frame as, a
‘transactional relationship’ in the sense that my status and credibility as a fieldworker
was sought through an examination of my articulation of the research and
competency to work in a policing environment. The positive, and as I interpreted it,
supercilious nature of the Sgt’s assessments of me indicated that I had passed the
test so to speak. This experience of ‘passing the test’ in fieldwork is highlighted by
ethnographers who report a range of ‘subtle and not so subtle, unpleasant, awkward,
violent, or ethnically or emotionally challenging’ tests to gain acceptance and
credibility which, I soon realised, extended beyond the initial gatekeepers to
participants (Lindberg and Eule, 2020, p.125).

The Landscape of the Field

This section sets out the overall structure of Neighbourhood Policing in Wildebay and
describes the individual layouts of Seawynne and Seabarrow NPTs to provide context
to how the fieldwork was experienced and highlight the subtle differences that
existed between the sites. Around six months prior to the commencement of the
fieldwork, Wildebay Police had undergone an organisational restructure which, in

95
 Methodology

relation to the NPTs, had resulted in the amalgamation of teams to cover fewer larger
neighbourhood areas realigned with the metropolitan boroughs of the county. The
reorganisation of the NPTs involved the relocation of staff from satellite offices
situated within neighbourhoods to one or two larger police stations in the newly
mapped areas. While some of the satellite offices remained in use, most were closed
with a view to being sold, and all staff were required to start and end their shifts at
the centralised police stations. The changes, it seemed from fieldwork discussions,
were related to the force making financial and efficiency savings to reduce costs from
funding multiple premises, increase flexibility in the deployment of staff to cover the
larger geographical areas and better meet wider force priorities. Consequently, a lot
of staff had experienced changes in the composition of their teams and their
dedicated beats to the extent that some were adjusting to new locations and
colleagues at the same time as adapting to a new way of working to accommodate
the larger neighbourhood areas. Each NPT area had at least one main town centre
and outlying suburbs, some rural and some coastal, which comprised a combination
of, what the participants described as, deprived and wealthy localities.

Seawynne NPT

Seawynne NPT consisted of approximately 5 Sgts, 19 PCs and 32 PCSOs8 split

between three smaller sub-teams across two police stations which were under the
supervision of one Inspector and one Chief Inspector. The two police stations,
labelled A and B for the purposes of this section, housed other policing teams with
different operational responsibilities, but they were slightly different in layout.
Station A was medium in size and located in a large town, and it was here that I
conducted 8 out of 10 of my observations of Seawynne NPT. The sub-teams were
located between 4 offices positioned next to each other on the same corridor. The
Sgts were in one; the PCs and PCSOs were spread across two; and a PC with a
specialist function was in another. There was an additional small ‘overspill’ office

8
Due to the transient nature of staffing in both NPTs, even during the short time I was
conducting my fieldwork, only estimated levels of staffing are provided.

96
 Methodology

situated at the other end of the corridor that was unoccupied and provided extra
desk space if required. The Inspector’s office was located on another floor and staff
lockers were situated on the ground floor of the station. The offices were small with
the largest of them containing a projector screen used for the briefings at the start
of shifts. To give an idea of size, when all staff in one of the sub-teams assembled for
their briefing in the largest office, some sitting on chairs and some standing, the room
was full. The staff had created makeshift tea and coffee areas, but they all took their
breaks in a dining area with a kitchen on another floor. Station B was smaller in size
and located in a market town. In the main, fewer people were based here, and a
number of empty rooms and desks indicated that a lot of staff had been relocated to
other police stations as a result of the restructure. The sub-team was the smallest
out of the three and was located in a large, half empty, office on one floor with a
separate small kitchen and seating area for breaks. The Sgt was located in another
office on the same floor.

Seabarrow NPT

Seabarrow NPT differed slightly from Seawynne in that it was split into two divisions
each with a separate Inspector and both managed by the same Chief Inspector. Only
one of the divisions formed part of the fieldwork and it was located in one medium-
sized police station in a town. It consisted of approximately 4 Sgts, 9 PCs and 21
PCSOs split across three sub-teams. The NPT was in a large open-plan room shared
by the PCs, PCSOs and Sgts with the Inspector located in a connecting side office.
There was a small kitchenette attached to the office space and all staff used a
separate dining area in a room on the same floor for breaks. In the main office area,
there was a small conference table with a projector screen that staff gathered around
for briefings at the start of their shifts.

The subtle differences in structure and layouts in Seawynne and Seabarrow NPTs
created quite different fieldwork experiences. In Seawynne, the small size and tight
arrangement of the offices felt quite restricting, both for the staff who were often

97
 Methodology

moving a lot between the small spaces to speak to each other, and for myself who
was trying to avoid getting in the way. When most staff from one or two of the sub-
teams were in the offices, it quite quickly became overcrowded which meant that
there was either not a desk for me to sit at, I could occupy a desk for short time
before being moved or I had to sit at a table that had little room for staff to
manoeuvre around me. For the most part, this was not an issue as the offices were
rarely fully occupied and I did not spend a lot of time there. However, as a non-
member of staff who was trying to blend in, it was quite awkward to navigate, and I
was constantly thinking about how to position myself to cause the least disruption.
This most likely contributed to me being directed to the ‘overspill’ office on two
occasions at the start of observations to wait for the participants. Being situated in
the ‘overspill’ office was quite isolating as not only was it located out of sight of the
other offices, but it reinforced for me a sense of causing inconvenience and not
belonging to the group. In contrast, the office space in Seabarrow was less
problematic. After the Sgts directed me to sit at their desk during the initial part of
the first observation, I quickly managed to establish a new seating position at the
conference table that did not interfere with any of the staff workspaces or align me
with management. This became my regular spot and it felt more comfortable having
somewhere I could go to without having to consult staff or cause any disruption,
especially as I tended to be in the office for longer periods in Seabarrow.

Negotiating the Field

Researchers have reflected on their personal biographies and positionality in the field
to highlight how their identities impacted upon their engagement with participants
and the kind of descriptive accounts generated (Bourke, 2014; Hollis, 2014; Loftus,
2009; Marks, 2004; Stockdale, 2017). This section will show the negotiations,
influenced by my identity, presentation and research persona, that created my
‘ethnographic self’ in fieldwork (Coffey, 1999, p.36). From the moment I entered the
field, I was very aware of the significance of my identity, specifically how I sensed
others were perceiving me, which formed an ongoing part of my personal reflections

98
 Methodology

and informed both how I interacted and how I interpreted others interacted with me.
I likened the initial experience of entering the NPT offices to walking into a rural
village pub and all the locals turning and staring before resuming their conversations.
Dressed in plain clothes with a rucksack and being introduced as a ‘student from the
University’ situated me firmly as an outsider (Brown, 1996). Given my visible young
female appearance, I immediately sensed that I was assumed to be a naïve
undergraduate student learning about the world and gaining some work experience.
With this in mind, the following paragraphs will attempt to capture how I believed
my individual ‘ethnographic toolkit’ – my social capital and personal characteristics -
shaped the field dynamics (Reyes, 2020, p.221).

In both NPTs, the Sgts decided who I observed during each shift. This sometimes
altered, with the Sgt’s authorisation, depending on what transpired during the shift,
for example on one occasion I switched from observing Artie and Junior to their
colleague for a brief period when they were booking someone in at a custody suite
(Obs 5 – 06/10/17). The manner in which the Sgts approached police officers and
staff to gain their consent for participating in observations varied. A couple of Sgts
asked staff outright if I could accompany them on their shift while others had
arranged it prior to my attendance, and one Sgt tended to speak to staff in private
while I waited in another room. Admittedly the recruitment procedure was very
different to the one I envisaged in my ethics application with the extent to which
identified participants could freely give their consent to the research being heavily
influenced by the rank-and-file structure of command in the organisation (May,
1997). No police officer or police staff member that I witnessed challenged an
instruction issued by one of the Sgts which most likely meant that when they were
asked if they would participate in my research, they interpreted it as a direction to
comply with (Norris, 1993). To illustrate, on one occasion Tony asked Silvio over the
radio if I could observe him for the rest of the shift, after a short pause, Tony added
‘Sgt says’, and Silvio instantly agreed (Obs 2 – 17/07/17).

The explicit display of compliance in the recruitment process initially felt awkward
because, as Fielding (2006, p.281) highlights, ‘those who indicate a general

99
 Methodology

willingness to cooperate are not offering a blanket receptiveness.’ Nevertheless, this

did not change how I approached identified participants in that I ensured I provided
them with information about my research, either verbally or in writing depending on
how we were introduced and their preference, and I obtained a signed consent form
from them. In addition, in the introductory discussions I had with participants, I
always reinforced their anonymity in the research and emphasised that I would take
their lead, and do as they instructed, including removing myself from situations they
did not want me to observe, to highlight their autonomy in the process. Recognising
that there might be potential suspicions about my motivations, I also made a point
of saying that I was not there to ‘spy’ on individuals for management, a
characterisation I had previously heard a PC use to describe researchers. This
combined with my approach to developing relationships with participants, described
in more detail below, highlighted my attempts to make the ongoing process of access
more ‘relational’ in nature, namely establishing relations characterised by
‘mutuality’, ‘integrity’ and holding myself ‘morally accountable’ to participants
(Cunliffe and Alcadipani, 2016, p.543).

The young female student label, I interpreted that I had been assigned on entering
the field, was emphasised throughout my observations by the behaviour of the
Inspector at Seabarrow and most of the Sgts, particularly in Seawynne. They would
often gesture in implicit and explicit ways that I needed to be looked after. In terms
of the Inspector at Seabarrow, unlike Seawynne, his co-location with the team meant
that he was present in the office on a lot of occasions and spent more time with staff
being sociable. I experienced his presence to be particularly disruptive as at different
points during the fieldwork he drew attention to my outsider status and introduced
me to other more senior police officers in a way that reinforced the aforementioned
‘label’ and linked me to management. During my first observation at Seabarrow, the
Inspector light-heartedly asked me in front of the whole room whether everyone was
treating me well and to let him know if they were not (Obs 1 – 10/07/17). On other
occasions in front of the team, he apologised to me for swearing mid-way through
addressing everyone (Obs 12 - 30/11/17), and lightheadedly reproached staff on
their behaviour in my presence (Obs 14 – 14/12/17). This sense that I needed ‘special

100
 Methodology

treatment’ was maintained by the Sgt’s oversight of participant recruitment and their
monitoring of my whereabouts or how I was getting on during shifts. This usually
took the form of checking in with me in passing during periods of downtime at the
police station, although there were occasions when it was more noticeable. For
example, during one shift when I was accompanying Adriana on foot patrol, Sgt
Rosalie asked Adriana over the radio if I was with her and when Adriana replied ‘yes’,
Rosalie cheered. Around twenty-five minutes later and close to the time when we
would be returning to the police station, a PC contacted Adriana over the radio and
stated that he would transport us back. Adriana commented, ‘I like it when you’re
around’, indicating that this would not have transpired had I not been there, and I
wondered if the Sgt had prompted the PC to make this offer of transport (Obs 7 –
24/10/17).

The Sgts micro-management of me maintained emphasis on my outsider position in

the teams throughout the fieldwork. Their supervision of the arrangements for the
majority of my observations meant that I always had to go to the police station
receptions, ask for one of them and usually wait for either them or another member
of staff to escort me to the NPT office. This became less stringent at Seabarrow with
some of the Sgts not being available on the days I was observing or appearing less
concerned about my movements once I was in the office, and I was ‘trusted’ to make
my own way from reception to the NPT on a number of occasions. However, it still
placed me in an awkward position because I had no advance way of knowing the
occasions when they would not be present or actively involved in managing my
observations so when this occurred, I did not know if any of the participants I had
been working with would be on shift or willing to have me observe. At the same time,
the absences of the Sgts, at least in Seabarrow, allowed me to gauge the extent to
which their oversight changed participants’ behaviour towards me. In the main, I
sensed that this particular management of me also served another form of subtly
‘testing’ how I was dealing with the policing environment and gauging my reaction
as the fieldwork progressed – did I hold damaging opinions or have issues with
particular individuals or practices?

101
 Methodology

It was possible given the level of managerial oversight that the Inspector and Sgts set
the tone for how the police officers and staff in their teams should approach and
relate to me. Indeed, there were some indications of this in my interactions with
police officers and staff, especially in the early phases of fieldwork or when they first
experienced me. They tended to always take a very formal position, most visibly
illustrated by them apologising for swearing or casually reprimanding each other if
someone said something that might be considered inappropriate. In addition, there
were occasions when police officers spoke to me or directed me to do something in
a way that not only highlighted my outsider status but felt patronising. Examples
included: PC DeAngelis asking me at the start of an observation if I needed to see
anything specific for my ‘little project’ [Obs 14 – 14/12/17]; a trainee PC commenting
that he was impressed that I was willing to put myself in risky situations to observe
the police (Obs 12 – 30/11/17); PC Carmella directing me to ‘come and sit down’ on
the only seat in the room while she and PC Gabriella conducted an interview (Obs 10
– 16/11/17); and a police officer at the front desk who had been instructed to let me
go up to the NPT office alone commenting, ‘they trust you, so I’ll trust you’ [Obs 13 –
07/12/17]. Relatedly, there was also a noticeable atmosphere of suspicion towards
me, especially in the beginning of fieldwork. From quick glances to brief pauses in
conversations, police officers and staff often seemed to be discreetly scrutinising my
reaction to opinions, behaviours or incidents that they or others were expressing or
performing. It appeared, as I perceived it, to form a way for them to ascertain if I was
who I said I was and if I was amenable to and could be trusted with the ‘backstage’
of policing (Holdaway, 1980). It was most likely that suspicions of my motives were
amplified by the fact that more senior ranks had approved and introduced me into
the organisation (Ericson, 1982), and together with the Sgts supervision of me, there
was the potential for me to be perceived as a ‘management snoop’ (Reiner and
Newburn, 2008, p.358).

These perceived impressions and behaviours towards me, particularly in the initial
stages of fieldwork, were a source of frustration, anger and awkwardness that
influenced how I engaged with staff early on. I was infuriated by the thought that the
teams viewed me as a little girl to be treated with caution as she learns about the

102
 Methodology

world of policing, especially when a lot of the police officers and staff in the NPTs
were younger than me. Furthermore, I worked in an organisational environment
where humour involving a twist or joke that might seem insulting or harsh and the
use of offensive language to ‘let off steam’ were commonplace (Fielding, 2006); I did
not need to be protected. Fundamentally, what angered me was that this perception
overlooked so many aspects of my identity that I valued, and which would not only
have shown me to have life and work experience, but skills and knowledge relevant
to how the police officers and staff negotiated their frontline roles. At first, I used any
opportunity I could to mention my probation work to try to override the perception
I considered the staff had of me and to build some rapport, such as referring to my
practice experiences to demonstrate my knowledge of the criminal justice
environment and the types of challenges facing the police, but it did not seem to
increase my credibility. A lot of the police officers and staff knew very little about the
National Probation Service, and if they did, they did not seem to accord the role much
worth; one officer mentioned stopping a Probation Officer who was using their
mobile while driving once.

Documenting my thoughts and feelings in a separate record to the fieldnotes after

each observation was important to the research process. May (1993) details how
researcher honesty about feelings and experiences during fieldwork is a source of
strength to facilitate better understanding. It was also a way to separate my ‘private
self’ from my ‘professional researcher’ self and deal with negative feelings (Blix and
Wettergren, 2015, p.692). From reflecting on my initial feelings after the first few
observations, I realised that I should not be internalising the ‘feelings of inadequacy’
the field interactions were triggering for me, but alternatively viewing them as part
of a ‘normal’ process (May, 1993, p.79). I recognised that I was trying too hard to win
the approval of the teams and I did not need to concern myself with making sure
people had the ‘right’ impression of me; I was there to experience their practice
worlds, not impose myself onto them. Relatedly, making reflection an integral part
of my research practice emphasised and maintained my ‘distance’ and ‘difference’
during fieldwork; something which, Pearson (1993, p.xiii) identifies as, ‘the
touchstone of authenticity’ in ethnographic research. Thinking about my identity and

103
 Methodology

positionality immediately on commencing the fieldwork also made me conscious that

I too was a subject in all my observations; I was both the researcher and the
researched (Van Maanen, 1981, p.471). Consequently, I recognised the ongoing need
to balance the way in which I responded to how participants perceived me with
ethical considerations of building research relationships and appropriately managing
the feelings and emotions it triggered for me. This resulted in me being in a state of
hyper-awareness, or as Van Maanen (1981, p.474) describes, ‘a strategic situational
consciousness’ in relation to how I presented myself and how I engaged with
participants to maintain access and develop relationships. Each of these
considerations will be discussed below.

Presentation in the Field

In the field, Coffey (1999, p.62) highlights that ethnographers engage in ‘body work’,
including the conscious self-presentation, the spatial positioning and negotiation of
the body, to establish an acceptable researcher role. I believed that my appearance
and how I conducted myself during observations was particularly important because
it was a way to demonstrate my professionalism and competence in managing the
practicalities of policing. I did not want to feed into the impression police officers and
staff had of me by appearing unprepared and ill-equipped to observe them.
Accordingly, I tried to ‘integrate and blend in’ by making sure my clothes were as
similar and functional as participants’ uniforms (Blix and Wettergren, 2015, p.696).
This was not only to avoid drawing unnecessary attention, but to be able to manage
without issue the different environments and weather conditions the participants
experienced during their shifts. A lot of the observations involved walking long
distances in wintry and sometimes wet weather conditions across housing areas and
parkland, and at times when I accompanied officers in vehicles, they were often cold
and uncomfortable. Therefore, I quite quickly developed my own uniform of black
jeans, black walking boots and a black waterproof with warm layers underneath.
Furthermore, to make sure I could move around with ease, I did not take my rucksack
out of the office. Instead, I carried my mobile and some emergency cash in my

104
 Methodology

pockets in case I had to separate from participants and make my own way back to
the office.

Outside the office, aside from following any instructions from the participants, I
always made a point of not wanting to get in the way of what they were doing. I
would step to the side or hang back when I sensed they needed some space to gauge
the situation or persons before them, or when I considered my presence might be
overwhelming for the member/s of the public or situation they were dealing with.
This was sometimes logistically challenging when I was with two police officers or
PCSOs and accompanied them into private spaces and there was little room for
manoeuvre (Obs 6 – 16/10/17; Obs 16 – 10/01/18; and Obs 10 – 16/11/17). Despite
trying not to stand out, this was inevitable given that I was a plain clothed or on a
couple of occasions in the beginning at Seabarrow wearing a high visibility police
‘observer’ vest alongside uniformed police officers and staff. There were times when
my presence attracted attention from the public: one person wondered if I was from
CID (Obs 9 – 06/11/17); another person stopped me in passing and asked me about
my role (Obs 28/07/17); and a couple of people approached me to find out if I had
been arrested because moments earlier, they had seen me with the PCSOs (Obs 4 –
27/09/17).

Most of the time, however, the public did not question my presence which enabled
me to fully observe the routine interactions police officers and staff had with the
public. Participants either introduced me by simply saying she’s ‘with us’, ‘a student’
or ‘from the university’; or they did not say anything. The general level of public
acceptance towards me was reflected by people on some occasions addressing their
answers to PCSOs’ questions to me (Obs 8 – 01/11/17 and Obs 11 – 28/1/17). This
highlighted the issue that in the absence of visible formal identification there was no
way for me to know that my research role was the role that others were responding
to (Van Maanen, 1978, p.346), and it raised the question of the degree to which I
should participate in public interactions. Indeed, the public had the right to claim my
participation (May, 1993). While I did not want to seem rude or ignorant and it was
tempting to get involved, especially given my work background, I knew that it was

105
 Methodology

not my place to actively engage in ‘police business’. Therefore, in these situations, I

conveyed my responses through verbal utterances and facial expressions that
showed I was listening and understood their position without giving an explicit reply.
This also reflected my general ‘overt’ and ‘passive’ research position during
observations; I took on the role of a ‘fan’ (Van Maanen cited in Norris, 1993, p.127).

Related to not wanting to attract unnecessary attention, I did not openly take notes
when I was out of the office with participants. Given my student identity in the NPTs,
I believed the sight of me hastily writing down details would emphasise my different
commitments and priorities, and possibly create awkwardness and tension if
participants perceived I had a lot to write about their activities (Emerson, Fretz and
Shaw, 2001). Instead, I was actively taking ‘headnotes’, that is remembering details
of people, interactions, events and impressions of what I was experiencing, alongside
making ‘jottings’, consisting of times and key words or phrases, on a note application
on my mobile phone (Emerson, Fretz and Shaw, 2011, p.24 and p.29). The use of my
mobile for jottings was useful because it was a conspicuous activity not readily
associated with conducting research that attracted little attention, especially when
participants were distracted, using their handheld devices or taking breaks. These
‘participating in order to write’ approaches were used to construct ‘full fieldnotes’
electronically as soon as was practically possible following each observation
(Emerson, Fretz and Shaw, 2001, p.356). Although, I sometimes used the down time
in the office when participants were completing computer work to start to type up
full fieldnotes on my laptop to look busy.

The need to appear occupied formed an unexpected and large part of managing the
fieldwork setting. Participants, particularly at Seabarrow, spent long periods in the
office at the start of their shifts, either side of their break times and/or before the
end of their shifts. These times were difficult to manage and I was always having an
internal conversation with myself about how I should act and how it could be
perceived: should I initiate or intercept conversations with participants or would this
be too overbearing and get in the way of staff working?; should I complete work on
my laptop or glance at my mobile or would this make me seem detached and not

106
 Methodology

interested?; or should I sit and look around or would this make me appear bemused
or bored? This was sometimes complicated by participants indicating that we would
be leaving the office imminently to then take considerably longer leaving me ready
and waiting aimlessly in the corridors or ‘overspill’ office. The combination of
lingering and doing nothing was emphasised on a number of occasions when I spent
long periods in the police station receptions waiting for a member of the NPT to
escort me to the office. Once I waited for 50 minutes in reception after a
miscommunication between the front desk and a Sgt (Obs 17 – 31/01/18). There
were instances when the Sgts noticed that I was unoccupied and made a point of
asking members of staff where the participants I was due to observe were (Obs 4 –
27/09/17) or prompt participants to go out sooner than they had planned so I could
observe a patrol (Obs 3 – 28/07/17), which was equally awkward because I did not
want it to appear to participants that I had expressed some form of frustration or
cause them additional inconvenience.

Looking ‘switched-on’ was also a challenge outside the office during vehicle patrols,
especially when I was accompanying two officers and sitting in the back seat, as the
majority of the time nothing was happening. Unlike the media representation of
policing, the ‘everyday reality of patrols’, as Fassin (2017, p.270) experienced in field
observations of Parisian police officers, ‘is a monotonous and tedious routine’. On
one occasion, during a late shift on vehicle patrol, I was trying to fight the continuous
need to yawn, and after a period of being silent, PC Servitto looked over his shoulder
and asked, ‘are you still awake?’ (Obs 14 – 14/12/17). Paradoxically, doing nothing
was exhausting! However, nothing is always productive of something (Scott, 2018).
In this study, the ‘something’ was the ways in which police officers and staff could be
seen to manage the boredom and attempt to ‘give meaning to doing nothing’ in my
presence (Charlton and Hertz, 1989, p.301). They tended to refer to the busyness of
a previous shift, the types of policing action they had experienced on patrol in the
past or, what they considered to be, the more dynamic aspects of policing they
believed I should also observe. This type of talk, also described as storytelling, is
identified by policing researchers as a nostalgic practice that allows police officers to
act out the drama of police work (Trujillo and Dionisopoulos, 1987), affirm the

107
 Methodology

canteen cop culture (Waddington, 1999) and keep the job appealing at times of quiet
(Holdaway, 1983). However, similar to Van Hulst’s (2013) observations, in my
fieldwork these stories ranged from the exciting to the mundane and appeared
grounded in the context of police officers and staff passing time on patrol, which was
valuable to gaining a sense of how they constructed their identity and environment.
Nevertheless, these instances of waiting, hanging around and managing ‘nothing’
were often draining because no matter what was happening or not happening, I
believed it was important to maintain the same level of enthusiasm, appreciation and
satisfaction with participants so that they did not feel discouraged by my presence.
This draws attention to the next consideration, managing relationships with
participants.

Relationships in the Field

The process of building relationships with participants is often more complicated

when researching ‘restrictive contexts’ (Purdy and Jones, 2013, p.298). Punch (1978,
p.330) described overidentifying with his research participants, facilitated by the
‘seductive’ nature of the policing world, to fulfil their developing expectation of him
as a colleague which, as he acknowledges, possibly compromised his observations.
On the other hand, as Loftus (2009) points out, acting in ways that might be alienating
could reinforce the ‘outsider’ status of the researcher and be equally damaging to
observations. Accordingly, I needed to be able to demonstrate, as Loftus (2009)
highlights in her own approach to observations, that I was human and could take a
joke. At a morning team briefing early on in the fieldwork, PC Cifaretto sat across
from me at the conference table, looked over and asked bluntly in front of the team,
‘who are you? And where are you from?’, to which all the staff burst into laughter
(Obs 4 – 28/07/17). They were laughing at Cifaretto’s directness and subsequently
joked about his lack of social etiquette towards someone he did not know. I was a
little taken off-guard but joined in with the laughter.

108
 Methodology

The abovementioned occurrence summarised well the initial standoffish manner of

some staff towards me and the subtleness with which, as I perceived it, they tested
me to gauge my personal management – could I hack it? I negotiated a lot of the
interactions in a similar way by adopting a friendly approach where I followed the
tone of what was being said to be sociable without expressing any overt displays of
agreement or disagreement. I assumed, what Fielding (2006, p.282) describes as, a
‘maximally agreeable demeanour.’ I also tried to reinforce this disposition when
responding neutrally and approvingly to questions from the Sgts and Inspector (at
Seabarrow) when they asked about my experience of the shift or team to
demonstrate to the rest of the team that I understood police work was not
performed in a prescribed way and that I was not reporting back on exactly what I
was seeing or not seeing taking place (Norris, 1993). Together these interactional
devices served to show that I could identify with participants’ personal and
occupational inclinations and situations and demonstrate my commitment to
confidentiality and anonymity while also evidencing that I was not trying to align
myself with management or imitate being a member of the organisation. This
allowed me to carve out a ‘social performance’ appropriate to the research setting
and ‘manufacture’ trust in my research relationships (Van Maanen, 1981, p.476;
Norris, 1993, p.132-133).

The ‘emotional labour’ involved in creating and upholding this social performance to
gain, secure and maintain access was an integral part of my fieldwork experience
(Coffey, 1999; Blix and Wettergren, 2015). I engaged in, what Blix and Wettergren
(2015, p.697) conceptualise as, ‘quick adaptive deep acting’ that is entering research
relationships with ‘attentiveness to its specificities’ and shaping my ‘researcher
persona to fit’. For me, the persona was being positive, focussed and understanding
to be as ‘physically and socially non-disturbing’ to be around as possible (Blix and
Wettergren, 2015, p.697). This also meant that I did not express any negative
emotions triggered by the way I was treated by others, and instead at these times, I
took a submissive and gracious stance (Blix and Wettergren, 2015). Comparable to
Purdy and Jones (2013, p.299), ‘my researcher-self’ played a ‘dominant role’. My
research persona coupled with my young naïve student identity gave the impression

109
 Methodology

that I posed no kind of disruption to participants or the everyday functioning of the

teams. I sensed that this idea of me became more embedded in the NPTs as I
observed different police officers and staff, and they experienced no difficulties from
participating in my research. There were a couple of occasions on starting
observations with new participants that they referenced my previous observations
with others which, by the tone of their voice, suggested that they had asked about
me and had been reassured by what had been said (Obs 5 – 06/10/17 and Obs 9 –
06/11/17).

Participants quite quickly relaxed around me and acted in a way that I assumed would
be similar to if I was not present evidenced by the different personal and job-specific
conversations I was party to, in which a range of thoughts, feelings and beliefs, some
possibly controversial and offensive, were expressed. In addition, my research
persona and identity facilitated participants, without prompt or direct lines of
questioning, providing a lot of informal detail about processes, decisions and actions
to develop my perceived limited knowledge. My presence possibly offered
participants a ‘rare and perhaps gratifying opportunity to speak with some authority
on subjects’ they knew best (Van Maanen, 1981, p.478). This suited my position as
an interactionist ethnographer where gaining information about the seemingly
obvious or irrelevant which everyone either knows already or is not inclined to probe
further facilitates reproducing some of subjective knowledge about their social world
(Rock, 2001, p.32). This level of access boosted my ‘emotional energy’ because I
believed I was gaining a type of insider understanding which might not have been
possible had I presented differently (Blix and Wettergren, 2015; Loftus, 2009). It was
also likely influenced by my personal attributes, specifically my gender.

Gender is a significant characteristic that frames the different stages of fieldwork and
can pose specific issues between researchers and participants (Warren and Hackney,
2000). Indeed, female policing ethnographers have referred to the challenges of
becoming ‘part of the scenery’ in a predominantly male policing environment (Hollis,
2014; Loftus, 2009; Marks, 2004; O’Neill, 2002; and Westmarland, 2011, p.10).
Similar to the experiences of these researchers, my female identity led to a

110
 Methodology

paternalistic response from the Inspector, Sgts and some of the police officers, as
previously described, and it probably contributed to the initial formal reaction I
received from staff in the NPTs and the general sense that I was harmless as the
fieldwork progressed. Accordingly, my femaleness was beneficial to negotiating
access quickly with participants, and in some ways, this shaped my research persona
and how I expressed myself throughout the fieldwork. I adopted, as the preceding
paragraph sets out, an empathetic and subservient approach which are
characteristics commonly associated with women, and as such will have most likely
reinforced my status as a female to be looked after (Hunt, 1984). However, unlike
the experiences of other female policing ethnographers, I did not feel any pressure
to explicitly ‘prove myself in a hyper masculine atmosphere’ (Hollis, 2014, p.159;
Marks, 2004) or construct a more masculinised social identity (Hunt, 1984) to fit in.
This might have related to me observing the ‘softer’ aspects of police work that are
more aligned with feminine skills and personality traits and are therefore more
accepting of a female presence (Hunt, 1984; O’Neill, 2002). Additionally, the cultural
environment could have been influenced by the significant number of females of
different ages in PCSO, PC and Sgt roles working in both NPTs.

Participants always appeared to be aware of me, for example they joked, ‘don’t write
that up’ (Obs 5 – 06/10/17; Obs 19 – 02/02/18). However, these moments also
indicated that participants considered they could contribute to my research and were
more accepting of my presence (Purdy and Jones, 2013). Similarly, there were a lot
of occasions when participants would ask me about my thoughts on Neighbourhood
Policing from what I had experienced or my judgements on how they had handled a
particular interaction. I understood that these types of questions were a means of
showing an interest in what I was doing and what I had to say, but I was also aware
that they could be an indirect way of gauging how I perceived policing and more
specifically, the policing in Wildebay – was I aligned with their way of thinking about
the job? It was often difficult to answer these questions as at that time I did not have
anything insightful to report, nor did I want to take a particularly vocal stance, but I
also did not want to appear inattentive and incapable. To balance out these conflicts,
I tended to reply as neutrally as possible by reflecting back the opinions or

111
 Methodology

considerations expressed by the individual/s asking the questions to show, at the

very least, that I understood the context of Neighbourhood Policing and their
perspective. The level of acceptance seemed to increase as fieldwork progressed and
was most visibly evidenced in Seabarrow when the Sgt provided me with a high
visibility outdoor jacket labelled ‘police’ to protect my clothing when the team were
executing search warrants (Obs 19 – 02/02/18). I gratefully took the jacket, but not
wanting to wear it and knowing that it was unethical to do so, I managed to leave it
behind in the police carrier without anyone saying anything. At the same time, I was
not uniformly accepted by everyone, specifically in Seabarrow where there seemed
to be a small clique of PCSOs that never acknowledged me, and I was never given
access to observe them (Obs 12 – 30/11/17).

The Sgt’s micro-management of participant recruitment and observations could be

seen as an attempt to control who and what I observed. However, in actuality the
Sgts’ oversight increased my exposure because I encountered a lot of staff over the
course of the observations. The combination of the different sub-teams working
alternate rotas and the fieldwork consisting of conducting observations across all the
teams on different shifts resulted in me recruiting a large sample of participants and
experiencing the different orientations to work the police officers and staff occupied.
Similar to Van Maanen’s (1981, p.484) characterisations, I observed the ‘gung-ho’
types predominantly dedicated to catching criminals; the ‘cabbages’ who did the
bare minimum and actively avoided work; the ‘high-minded professionals’ who were
committed to doing the job properly; the ‘cop’s cops’ who were cynical of what could
be achieved by strictly adhering to procedure; and the ‘brownnosers’ who had carved
out a particular role for themselves and worked with management to protect it. This
allowed me to gain a good sense of the dynamics of how the teams functioned and
how this shaped the way in which patrol was delivered. Overall, the way the
recruitment process materialised created a ‘fluidity’ which, as Merritt (2010, p.735)
identified in his own research, mitigated against participants being briefed to say the
‘right’ things. This was further evidenced in one observation when a Sgt took his
break with the rest of the team and appeared to try to unsuccessfully steer the

112
 Methodology

conversation towards, what I perceived he considered, was a more appropriate topic

of conversation in my presence (Obs 15 – 17/12/17).

The Sgts always tried to offer their policing knowledge and asked if I had any
questions about the job and if there was anything specific I wanted to observe, but
from the outset, I had no particular requests. I wanted to be guided as much as
possible by what the police officers and staff routinely did on a day-to-day basis, as
opposed to receiving prescriptive responses and observing orchestrated activities.
Yet, this lack of direction might have contributed to police officers on a number of
occasions trying to show me aspects of Neighbourhood Policing they thought I should
experience, or which possibly created an image of policing they wanted me to share.
In a discussion with the Inspector at Seabarrow and a Superintendent he introduced
me to, they talked about the prevalence of gun crime and blasé attitude of a lot of
the residents in Seabarrow compared to other areas, like Seawynne (Obs 14 –
14/12/17). I sensed that a lot of emphasis was being placed on the danger aspect of
the workload in Seabarrow. Similarly, a Sgt in Seawynne appeared to make a point of
talking about the increase in knife crime and the UK approach to policing it in her
introduction to me.

The emphasis on ‘crime fighting’ in my presence was noticeable in a couple of

instances when the Sgts accompanied police officers and staff on patrol and seemed
to be actively pursuing opportunities to show crime control, including completing
stops of individuals to question them about what they were doing or to undertake
searches, and chasing suspicious vehicles (Obs 7 – 24/1017 and Obs 8 – 01/11/17).
On another occasion, a Sgt and PC Cifaretto were enthusiastic for me to observe the
team executing a couple of search warrants on properties suspected of growing
Cannabis. When nothing came of the searches, except for highlighting a lack of
reliable intelligence, all of those who had participated were visibly disappointed and
PC DeAngelis commented to me, ‘it would have been better for you if we’d found
something’ (Obs 19 – 02/02/18). The desire for the PCs to show me some policing
action, possibly related to the aforementioned quietness on vehicle patrols, was also
reflected in some of them taking the slightest of opportunities to put on the sirens,

113
 Methodology

flashing lights and drive at speed, including when they were not far away from the
scene and other officers were present (Obs 2 - 17/07/17) or when they were a long
distance from the scene and in the knowledge that other officers on route would
arrive before them (Obs 2 – 17/07/17; Obs 6 – 16/10/17; Obs 18 – 01/02/18).

Fieldwork Summary

The fieldwork was conducted over a period of eight months (July 2017 to February
2018). It consisted of 20 observations, 10 observations in each NPT, totalling 150
hours. The observations covered 15 ‘day’ shifts (0800 until 1600 or 1800) and 5 ‘late’
shifts (1400 or 1500 until 2200 or 0000) with the length of each observation varying
between 5 hours and 10 hours. In terms of participants, the observations included
22 PCSOs of which 10 were female and 12 were male, and 19 police officers of which
9 were female and 10 were male. There were no minority ethnic PCSOs or police
officers involved in the research which reflected the ethnic composition of the wider
force and neighbourhood areas studied. Table 1 below sets out the specific details of
each observation.

The shifts followed a common template in terms of how police officers and staff
structured their time and the types of tasks they completed. The rest of this section
will describe these to provide context for the findings and analysis. A typical shift
started with staff checking the systems and their emails to get a sense of what had
happened since their last shift and what they would most likely be doing on this shift,
including any assignments they had been allocated. This would be quite quickly
followed by a team briefing, usually led by one of the Sgts, which covered a handover
from the previous shift; an update on local crimes, issues and persons of interest for
the purpose of keeping staff informed as they carried out their routine duties, finding
out further information or highlighting specific tasks that staff needed to complete;
and allocating staff to jobs that were additional to their assigned workload. There
were a lot of occasions when unplanned occurrences meant that police officers,
PCSOs or both sets of staff were assigned to jobs that had to take priority for the

114
 Methodology

shift, such as guarding crime scenes; assisting on criminal investigations or missing

persons cases; being present at partnership initiatives or meetings; or conducting
interventions to respond to recent incidents or intelligence, for example an open land
search for knives. When this happened, it often disrupted everyone’s plans because
those who were not allocated any priority assignments were expected to cover the
work of their colleagues.

Following the team briefing, police officers and staff proceeded with any priority
assignments; continued with administrative computer-based work; and/or
commenced completing routine tasks as a part of a vehicle or foot patrol that covered
their dedicated beats. For police officers, these tasks included dealing with cases that
had arisen from calls for service or were part of ongoing investigations assigned to
the NPT; completing daily checks of places or properties where there were ongoing
risk concerns, including residences where vulnerable persons were present;
inspecting areas or properties where intelligence indicated possible criminal activity;
or providing reassurance through attending places, events or properties where some
form of public activity was taking place or there were concerns about crime. The tasks
involved the police officers frequenting private residences, public venues, Courts and
the custody suites located across the force area.

For PCSOs, their tasks involved delivering verbal or written crime prevention
messages; providing support, guidance and reassurance around crime-related or
social issues to local persons or groups, identified vulnerable persons or victims of
crime; or following-up on or implementing enforcement action against low-level
crime and disorder incidents. These activities were sometimes co-ordinated as part
of initiatives the NPTs were participating in or delivering to address specific issues,
for example working with the fire service to increase arson awareness in private
residences or increasing crime prevention in specific areas experiencing heightened
crime problems. The tasks and initiatives involved PCSOs completing visits to private
residences, public venues and organisations; attending meetings; and staffing the

115
 Methodology

mobile police station9. In the main, police officers and staff patrolled in pairs, but
there were occasions when they went out alone or grouped together depending on
the nature of the task, their individual workloads and resources available. This largely
involved them dealing with groups of youths that were congregating in public spaces,
causing nuisance and/or misusing substances.

The team usually returned to the office or a satellite office for an hour lunch or dinner
break, either side of which they spent a variable amount of time completing
computer work, before returning to their patrol and ‘tacked on’ activities (Wakefield,
2006). There were some differences in activities completed by each NPT which had
been devised to develop more effective ways of working within their local areas. In
Seabarrow, the NPT hosted a weekly partnership meeting in the office consisting of
representatives from local agencies, which involved exchanging information,
formulating multi-agency responses to identified issues or organising assistance to
deal with specific anti-social or criminal problems or individuals. In Seawynne, the
team allocated to the late shift on Fridays and Saturdays would go out together in a
police carrier on a vehicle patrol to survey areas known for anti-social and criminal
behaviour at the weekend and respond to any non-emergency calls for service in the
NPT area at these times.

9
The mobile police station is a type of police vehicle best described as a portable office
that takes on the appearance of a motor home. The two main functions of the mobile
police station are firstly, to provide the police with a private workspace at events or
incidents and secondly, to act as a base in places where the police decide to have a
temporary stationary presence or to target a specific group of people to increase police-
public contact. In the fieldwork, the PCSOs did not drive the mobile police station and
used it for the latter purpose.

116
 Methodology

Table 1 - Summary of Observations

Obs Date Shift Time NPT Participant(s)
1 10/07/17 Day 07:45 – 15:30 Seabarrow PC Christopher (M)
PC Tony (M)
2 17/07/17 Day 07:45 – 15:00 Seabarrow PCSO Paulie (M)
PC Silvio (M)
Sgt Bobby (M)
PC Cifaretto (M)
3 28/07/17 Day 07:45 – 15:15 Seabarrow
PC DeAngelis (M)
PCSO Germani (M)
PCSO Meadow (F)
4 27/09/17 Day 08:45 – 17:00 Seawynne PCSO Adriana (F)
PCSO Furio (M)
PC Artie (M)
PC Junior (M)
5 06/10/17 Late 14:00 – 22:15 Seawynne PCSO Vito (M)
PCSO Patsy (F)
PCSO Janice (F)
PCSO Salvatore (M)
6 16/10/17 Day 08:30 – 16:30 Seawynne
PCSO Carlo (M)
PCSO Adriana (F)
PCSO Meadow (F)
7 24/10/17 Late 14:00 – 22:15 Seawynne
PCSO Furio (M)
Sgt Rosalie (F)
PCSO Charmaine (F)
PCSO Ginny (F)
8 01/11/17 Day 08:00 – 15:00 Seawynne
PC Irina (F)
Sgt Mary (F)
PCSO Vincent (M)
9 06/11/17 Day 08:00 – 16:45 Seawynne
PCSO Frank (M)
PCSO Benny (M)
PCSO Hesh (M)
10 16/11/17 Day 08:20 – 15:30 Seawynne
PC Carmella (F)
PC Gabriella (F)
PCSO Germani (M)
11 28/11/17 Day 08:20 – 16:20 Seabarrow
PCSO Livia (F)
PCSO Germani (M)
12 30/11/17 Day 08:25 – 16:00 Seabarrow PC Angia (F)
PC Eugena (F)
13 07/12/17 Late 14:00 – 21:15 Seabarrow PCSO Carmine (M)
PC Servitto (M)
14 14/12/17 Late 14:00 – 23:15 Seabarrow
PC DeAngelis (M)
PC Gabriella (M)
15 17/12/17 Late 15:00 – 21:45 Seawynne
PC Bucco (M)
PCSO Montisanti (M)
16 10/01/18 Day 08:30 – 16:40 Seawynne
PCSO Melfi (F)
PCSO Livia (F)
17 31/01/18 Day 09:00 – 14:45 Seabarrow
PCSO Parisi (F)
PC Cifaretto (M)
18 01/02/18 Day 09:00 – 14:30 Seabarrow
PC Fazio (F)
PC Cifaretto (M)
19 02/02/18 Day 09:00 – 14:00 Seabarrow PC Fazio (F)
PC Angia (F)

117
 Methodology

PC DeAngelis (M)
PC Artie (M)
20 14/02/18 Day 08:30 – 16:00 Seawynne PC Curto (M)
PCSO Barese (F)

Analysing the Field

Using my headnotes and jottings, I structured my full fieldnotes in a ‘descriptive’

format that detailed ‘the basic scenes, settings, objects, people and actions’ I
observed in chronological sequence with no specific point or theme in mind
(Emerson, Fretz and Shaw, 2011, p.58 and p.74). Within this, I used pseudonyms to
protect the anonymity of participants; recorded dialogue through reported speech
and paraphrasing with only verbatim phrases placed between quotation marks; and
included myself as a character in the setting and interactions (Emerson, Fretz and
Shaw, 2011, p.63 and p.72). On reflection, it occurred to me that my experience of
reading Crown Prosecution Service documentation which includes police and witness
statements indirectly influenced the structure and style of my description, dialogue
and characterisation in the fieldnotes (Emmerson et al. 2011). Separate to each
fieldnote, I completed a personal reflection, or as Emerson, Fretz and Shaw (2011,
p.81) characterise, ‘commentaries’ which recorded a combination of personal
reactions, feelings, thoughts and issues arising from my interactions with participants
in the field, and specific aspects that I considered relevant to the research topic from
the observation and, if applicable, their links with previous observations. In addition,
after completing a number of observations, I completed another piece of succinct
writing, similar to what Emerson, Fretz and Shaw (2011, p.80) label ‘asides’, that
included summaries with examples of PCSOs’ actions and attributes; concerns
surrounding their role; and the differences and similarities between their patrol work
and that of PCs. Consequently, from the beginning of writing-up full fieldnotes, I was
analysing what I had experienced, how it related to my research questions and
connections between my observations (O’Reilly, 2009).

The combination of ‘asides’ and ‘commentaries’ started to organise my thinking and

trigger questions or considerations to explore in subsequent observations, for

118
 Methodology

example I noted ‘when police officers and staff refer to providing reassurance, what
do they mean?’ Through these analytic writing tools, I started to engage in a
‘dialogue’ between the data and ideas to find concepts that would help me make
sense of my observations (Atkinson, 2017, p.166; Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007).
The ideas that I generated started to take shape in Observation 5 when I identified
that police officer and staff ‘presence’ and the ‘interactional spaces of patrol’ were
significant to how police officers and staff engaged with the public. The specific
formulation of these ideas is described in Chapter 4. These ideas connected with
some of my interpretations noted in my asides and commentaries. However,
recognising that they were vague and only offered a starting point for analysis, I
turned to the literature to explore the subject of interaction in more detail. Having
adopted a symbolic interactionist approach in my research, I knew that my interest
in developing the ideas of ‘presence’ and ‘interactional spaces’ would focus on the
micro-level of face-to-face interactions between police officers and staff, their
environments and the public, and the meanings they attach to their behaviour (Scott,
2015). This led me to the work of Erving Goffman which conceptualises ‘how social
actors present, perform and strategically manage different versions of themselves in
different situations’ (Scott, 2015, p.11). While Goffman did not distinctly align his
work with symbolic interactionism, it is regarded as a variant of this tradition (Scott,
2015).

Goffman’s work on face-to-face interaction, specifically that which is documented in

his books titled ‘Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of
Gatherings’ (Goffman, 1963) and ‘Relations in Public. Microstudies of the Public
Order’ (Goffman, 2010), examined social interaction in a way that provided a
‘template’ for making sense of my evolving interpretations and ideas around
‘presence’ and ‘interactional spaces’ (Atkinson, 2017, p.168). The next section offers
more detail about the ‘fit’ of Goffman’s work with my observations and the basic
premises of his analysis of face-to-face interaction. Returning to the process of
analysis, on identifying the parallels between Goffman’s work and my fieldnotes, I
engaged in an iterative process of reviewing my fieldnotes and Goffman’s (1963) key
concepts of face-to-face interaction to establish a coding framework (see Table 2). I

119
 Methodology

applied these ‘focused’ codes to the fieldnotes with accompanying ‘focused memos’,
which elaborated on the use of the codes and made links between them (O’Reilly,
2009, p.37). Reviewing the focused coding and memos alongside further reading of
Goffman’s (1963 and 2010) work, I created main themes and sub-themes which
categorised the codes according to patterns in the types of interaction they were
describing, their functions, their relationships to vehicle and foot patrol and their
connections to developing community engagement (Bryman, 2012) (see Table 3).

Table 2 - Focussed Coding Framework Using Concepts and Definitions Taken from
Goffman's (1963) Work on Face-to-Face Interaction
Unfocused Interaction (the kind of communication that occurs when one gleans information
about another person present by glancing at them, if only momentarily)
Involvement Shields (shielding involvement by blocking perception of either bodily signs of
involvement or objects of involvement, or both to conceal improper involvement and to affect
appropriate involvement)
Side Involvements (an activity an individual can carry on in an abstracted fashion without
threatening or confusing simultaneous maintenance of a main involvement) and Subordinate
Involvements (an activity one is allowed to sustain only to the degree, and during the time, that
their attention is patently not required by the dominating involvement)
Main Involvements (absorbs a major part of an individual’s attention and interest, visibly forming
the principal determinant of their actions) and Dominant Involvements (one whose claim upon
the individual the social occasion obliges them to be ready to recognise):

-Occasioned Main Involvements (an intrinsic part of the social occasion in which the situation
occurs)
-Minimal Main Involvements (obliged to sustain a certain minimal main involvement to avoid the
appearance of being utterly disengaged)
-Portable Sources of Involvement (brought forward whenever the individual feels they should
have an involvement but does not)
Civil Inattention (one person gives the other enough visual notice to demonstrate that one
appreciates that the other is present (and one admits openly to having seen them), while at the
next moment withdrawing one’s attention from them) and Staring
Focused Interaction (when persons come into one another’s immediate presence and openly
cooperate to sustain a single focus of attention)
Structure of Face Engagements (all those instances of 2 or more participants in a situation joining
each other openly in maintaining a single focus of cognitive and visual attention e.g.,
conversation):

-Rationale (non-instrumental or mutual instrumental)

-Type of Encounter (conversational or non-verbal)
-Type of Gathering (fully-focused, partly-focused or multi-focused)
-Bystander Presence
-Initiation of the Encounter (the opening move – expression of eyes, statement or tone of voice)
-Personal Encounter (opportunity it provides or enforces some type of social intimacy)
-Type of Face Engagement (chats, greetings or friendly glances)
Accessibility (in every situation, those present will be obliged to retain some readiness for
potential face engagements) and Inaccessibility (instances of hostility)

120
 Methodology

Leave Taking Rights (just as the individual is obliged not to exploit the accessibility of others, they
are also obliged to release those with whom they are engaged should it appear through
conventional cues that they desire to be released)
Acquaintanceship (when each of two individuals can personally identify the other by knowledge
that distinguishes this other from everyone else):

-Type of Recognition (cognitive recognition or social recognition)

-Mere Acquaintanceship (rights of social recognition form the principal substance of the
relationship)
-Tact (when one party to the recognitional engagement is considered to have extra rights or to be
worth treating carefully)
-Development of acquaintanceship (informally or formally)
Unacquainted Engagements (when any 2 unacquainted persons can properly join each other in
some kind of face engagement):

-Exposed Positions (related to instances or types of persons that exposes them to engagement)
-Opening Positions (related to individuals who have a built-in licence to accost others)
-Open Regions (physically bounded places where any 2 persons, acquainted or not, have a right
to initiate face engagement with each other to extend salutations)
Accessible Engagements
Communication Boundaries (The regulations that apply to a face engagement once it has formed
and only when there are bystanders in the situation, that is persons present who are not ratified
members of the engagement, involves a consideration of ‘boundedness’):

-Conventional Situational Closure (when an individual is allowed to enter a region or is excluded

from it, they will often be required to show some kind of regard for the physical boundary around
it)
-Accessible Engagements (whenever a face engagement is accessible to non-participants there is
a fully shared and an unshared participation. Persons in the gathering at large will be immersed in
unfocused interaction and the ratified members of a particular engagement will be participating
in focused interaction)
-Conventional Engagement Closure (effort on the part of the participants and bystanders to act
as if the accessible engagement were physically cut off from the rest of the situation)
Gathering At Large

ENCOUNTER

Uncontained Participation (Seeking some degree of intimacy with potential fellow participants in
the encounter, the individual can be rejected or mistreated in a way that is visible to bystanders):

-Diversion of Attention (obligation of participants to withhold attention from matters occurring

outside the engagement)
-Scenes (failure of participants in an engagement to contain their activity can cause the content
and feeling generated to flow over into the situation at large)
-Desertion (leave-taking that terminates the engagement – designed to express rejection)
-Tactful Leaving (seize an opportunity to have a reason to leave)
Interpretations
Tightness and Looseness (another way of talking about the involvement structure - how
disciplined the individual is obliged to be in connection with the several ways in which respect for
the gathering and its social occasion can be expressed. More descriptive than informal and
formal):

121
 Methodology

-Social Setting
-Roles
-Orientation to the Gathering
Situational Improprieties (when an individual intentionally or unintentionally conducts himself in
a way that others consider situationally improper, and shows thereby that he is either alienated
from, or an alien to, the gathering):

-Acts of Malice or Spite (imply arrogance, disdain and deep hostility. Represent some kind of
extreme of intentionality)
-Contingent Offenses (same as spiteful acts except the offender has reasons for his act outside of
the occasion)
-Offenses (because the individual is accustomed to a different idiom and structure of
involvement)
-Withdrawn (the individual could, if they wished, withdraw from their withdrawal)
-Preoccupation (the individual who is too preoccupied, too nervous or too self-conscious to fit in)

Table 3 - Summary of Main Themes and Sub-Themes

Vehicle Patrol

Conventional Situational Closure Involvement Within the Situation

Minimal Focused Interaction Officers Display Properly Occasioned Activity (Able to
Affect Appropriate Involvement)
Officers Making Claims of Others from the Vehicle is a Barrier to Perception (Portable Involvement
Vehicle Shield)
Others Making Claims of Officers Inside the
Vehicle
Foot Patrol

PCSOs as Civil Unplanned Accessibility Acquaintanceship Impaired

Pedestrians Inattention Face PCSO
Engagements Visibility
Externalizatio Facilitating Conversationa A situational Exposed Position Impropriety:
n Orderliness l Encounters: Presence: of PCSOs
Situationally
Social Reinforces a Improper
Closeness and Sense of Behaviours
Relatedness Belonging
Assessments
Support and Features in the of Improper
Assistance Unfocused Acts and
Interaction of Persons
Intelligence Others
Gathering
Creates a
Preventing Ripple Effect of
and Communicatio
Addressing n
Low-Level
Crime and
Disorder
Scanning Conveying Speaking and Conventional Mere PCSO
Information Leave taking Engagement Acquaintanceship: Inaccessibility
Rights Closure: :
Cognitive
-Spacing Recognition Based Low Footfall
of People

122
 Methodology

-Regulation of on Social
Conduct Information Missed
opportunities
-Integrity and Social Recognition
Boundaries Organisationa
l Change
Regulation of Initiating Face Farewell Development of
Street Traffic Encounters: Displays Acquaintanceship
:
Supportive
Interchanges Second Seeing

Greetings Informal

Chats Formal

Communicatio
n Boundaries
Glancing Cognitive
Recognition
Based on
Personal
Information:

Unplanned Face
Encounters in
Passing

Unplanned Visits
in Passing

Planned Meetings

Tact
Maintenance
Rites

A Goffmanian Theoretical Framework

The work by Erving Goffman on everyday face-to-face interaction reveals it to be an

area of social life worthy of investigation. Goffman considers face-to-face interaction
to be a social domain characterised by ‘co-presence’ (whenever persons are present
before others), and one that is naturally bounded by the expressive, communicative,
perceptual and physical faculties of human beings (Smith, 2006). Through co-
presence “persons [are] uniquely accessible, available and subject to one another”
(Goffman, 1963, p.22) which brings about a wide array of communicative
opportunities between them ranging from glances or gestures to physical comfort or
assault (Goffman, 1979). Interactional conduct generated by co-presence, as
Goffman’s description suggests, transcends the notion of people simply physically

123
 Methodology

encountering each other. Instead, it brings to light a more nuanced understanding

that takes account of the unavoidable emotional and cognitive components of face-
to-face interaction (Goffman, 1963). Goffman understands interaction as comprising
the conveyance of embodied information between persons in the form of linguistic
messages, i.e., information given through talk considered intentional, and expressive
messages, i.e., information given off frequently presumed to be unintentional (facial
gestures, tone of voice, posture etc.), which they audit and monitor to make
inferences about each other (Smith, 2006). Accordingly, a reciprocal process of giving
and receiving information takes place among interactants establishing a ‘special
mutuality’ between them as each person uses their experience of the other, and the
knowledge that they are also being experienced, to guide their actions (Goffman,
1963). The routine occurrence of interaction requires a social competence as
interactants order and coordinate socially sanctioned rules and conventions, both
intentionally and unknowingly, in their production of encounters (Smith, 2006).
Taken together, Goffman makes the point that the functioning of face-to-face
interaction in everyday social situations goes beyond that of a setting with mere
communication opportunities to one that constitutes a ‘little social reality’ that
individuals uphold.

Goffman’s work lends itself as an appropriate lens for observational research. It is a

type of analysis that does not rely on knowing the actualities of participants’
intentions and motivations, but the type of conduct that they and others sense they
are maintaining. Indeed, the themes and concepts examining the processes,
structures and elements of face-to-face interaction in Goffman’s analyses, termed
‘the interaction order’ (Goffman, 1983), have provided a valuable theoretical
framework for studying policing (Manning, 1997). There are a substantial number of
contemporary policing studies that apply a Goffmanian analysis (see for example:
Bullock, 2018; de Camargo, 2019; Lumsden and Black, 2018; Manning, 2001; Mawby,
2014; O’Neill, 2017), and within this area of the literature, there are a number which
specifically focus on police encounters with the public (De Man, 2017; Kilgallon, 2020;
O’Neill, 2002; Peterson, 2008; Sanders, 1979; Southgate, 1987; Quinton, 2020).
However, these studies explore face encounters in the context of policing in other

124
 Methodology

countries (De Man, 2017; Peterson, 2008; Sanders, 1979) and delivered by police
officers (Southgate, 1987), including those with public order or response policing
roles (Kilgallon, 2020; O’Neill, 2002; Quinton, 2020; Sanders, 1979). Furthermore, the
analyses use Goffman to explore the demeanour of police officers and the public
towards each other (Southgate, 1987); police management of interactions with
suspects (Quinton, 2020), carnival revellers (Kilgallon, 2020), football supporters
(O’Neill, 2002) and young men (Peterson, 2008); and forms of interaction between
police officers and the public (De Man, 2017; Sanders, 1979). Therefore, the use of a
Goffmanian analysis to explore face-to-face interaction between police officers and
staff in Neighbourhood Policing roles and the public within the context of community
engagement has not yet been completed. While the relevance of using Goffman as
an analytical tool for this research topic is evidenced, this type of micro-sociological
level of analysis is not without challenge.

Scholars caution the exploration of interaction at the micro-level as it risks

constructing meanings that make a ‘fetish’ out of daily social life (Brittan, 1973).
Gouldner (1970) takes this critique further by arguing that Goffman’s work in
particular depicts a superficial and amoral vision of the social world that neglects
considerations of macro-level structures such as social stratification systems, wider
societal conditions and the influence of power and morality in peoples’ capabilities
to present themselves. Recognising these arguments and taking a middle ground,
Raffel (2013) contends that while Goffman provides a way of making sense of
phenomena, there are ‘blind spots’ in his perspective which lead to an overly rational,
strategic and oppositional view of social life. Nonetheless, Goffman (1959, p.9)
himself acknowledged that his work was not without its ‘inadequacies’, and in
focusing too heavily on these challenges, the essence of what his work actually
sought to understand and what it achieved can be overlooked. Goffman, as Burns
(1992, p.6) summarises, viewed the ‘practice of social science as discovery’ through
which ‘he made clear what was previously unclear, pointed to the significance of
things which had been regarded as little or no consequence, and disentangled what
was previously an indiscriminate muddle.’ Positioning Goffman’s endeavour more
broadly in the field of social interactionism, Scott (2015, p.18) highlights that

125
 Methodology

symbolic interactionism is not concerned with the ‘why’ of social action, but the
‘how’ of social order within which power relations and social divisions form an
integral part of understanding the ‘patterns of interaction’, ‘normative conventions’
and ‘agreed-upon definitions of reality’. Consequently, it provides a necessary
conceptual framework for understanding ‘how individuals are shaped by, and in turn,
create elements of social structure’ in their everyday activity (Denzin, 1969, p.922).

In more recent times, however, the nature of everyday activity has changed to the
extent that the applicability of Goffman’s work is called into question. Gergen (1991,
p.6-7) argues that the growth of new technologies has expanded direct and indirect
communication networks to the point of social saturation resulting in a ‘multiplicity
of incoherent and unrelated languages of the self’ and a ‘multiplicity of incoherent
and disconnected relationships’ pulling in countless directions. Human action in this
‘postmodern’ society, he claims, cannot be understood using Goffman’s concepts
because they are rooted in a different cultural context and specific to a period of
history (Gergen, 1991, p.149-150). Similarly, Henry (2020, p.9) highlights how an
interactionist sociological perspective assumes that encounters involve the physical
co-presence of human participants which disregards the growing use of technologies
in mediating social interaction in policing; ‘the whole experience of interaction and
‘being there’ has been, and is being, changed’. Henry (2020) goes on to pose new
questions about what constitutes a police encounter in contemporary policing
beyond face-to-face co-presence. While the landscape of encounters has no doubt
diversified, particularly with the growth of new digital technologies, it could be
argued that it is mistaken to dismiss the pertinence of using Goffman’s work,
especially in the field of policing.

Face-to-face interaction, as the literature around procedural justice identifies,

remains a prominent part in how policing is represented, experienced and evaluated.
Add to this the conclusions drawn in Chapter 2 around the lack of insight into the
individualities of patrol work, the use of Goffman to explore the micro-elements of
ordinary contact is fitting, especially when it is these very aspects of the everyday co-
mingling of people that are often taken for granted (Goffman, 2010, p.249-260). This

126
 Methodology

‘commitment to the everyday and the ordinary’ that Goffman’s concepts facilitate
can allow the ethnographer to move beyond the evocative parts of policing, pay
greater analytical attention to the minutiae of routine practice and explain important
aspects of contemporary policing, in this case patrol work (Fassin, 2017, p.287;
Sausdal, 2020).

To contextualise the analysis of patrol presented in Chapters 4-6, a number of

introductory terms will be briefly outlined. Face-to-face interaction is classified as
occurring in three types of unit, named ‘face engagements’, ‘social gatherings’ and
‘social occasions’. ‘Face engagements’ entail two or more persons who are at that
specific time in one another’s immediate presence, typically engaged in
conversation. ‘Social gatherings’ consist of all the persons jointly present to one
another during any continuous period of time. The full spatial environment around
the gathering is the ‘social situation’ within which any entering person becomes a
member of the gathering. ‘Social occasions’ refer to the broader social context
bounded by space and time in which engagements arise, for example a birthday
party, and they provide an overarching structure for the activities that are expected
to take place, termed ‘occasioned activities’, and the behaviour of the participants.
To show engagement in occasioned activity, described as demonstrating some type
of cognitive and emotional attentiveness to it, is to be involved in it. The allocation
of an individual’s involvement, that is their ability to devote themselves fully or
withhold their attention to an activity at hand, is considered an aspect of interaction
that is inferred through customary non-verbal behavioural cues. In the presence of
others, individuals realise that they must express something about themselves, and
this unavoidably conveys information about their allocation of involvement.

Guiding co-presence during these units of interaction and regulating the allocation
of involvement are a distinct set of rules called ‘situational proprieties’. Situational
proprieties include ‘the common courtesies’ and ‘culturally learned practical
knowledge’ about the non-verbal features of behaviour that are appropriate to
different situations (Smith, 2006). The enactment of situational proprieties enables
individuals to adjust their behaviour in lots of standardised ways to navigate

127
 Methodology

particular social situations. When considering communication in interaction two

steps are identified. Firstly, ‘unfocused interaction’ takes place when one person
infers information from another by glancing at them, even if it is only fleetingly.
Secondly, ‘focused interaction’ occurs when persons come into one another’s
immediate presence and “openly cooperate to sustain a single focus of attention”
(Goffman, 1963, p.24). The next three chapters will, using Goffman’s concepts on
face-to-face interaction, describe in detail the aforementioned main themes and sub-
themes formulated from the thematic analysis of my fieldnotes. They will show the
communicative acts of police officers and staff conducting vehicle and foot patrol,
the opportunities for and restrictions on contact with the public they can create, and
how they can facilitate or hinder community engagement.

128
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

Chapter 4
Illuminating Police Visibility

The chapter will, using fieldnote extracts and concepts from Goffman’s work on face-
to-face interaction, illustrate how the visible presence afforded by vehicle patrol
varies to that offered by foot patrol. The first part of the chapter will analyse the
interactional space of the vehicle to show how it creates potential communicative
barriers that can have implications for delivering community engagement. This will
be contrasted with an analysis of the interactional space of the street in the second
part of the chapter. From the position of the street, the communication opportunities
brought about by PCSOs on foot will be explored to show how they illuminate a
visible presence that can create the basis for a type of community engagement that
vehicle patrol is unlikely to achieve.

The Interactional Space of Patrol

PCSOs Meadow and Adriana take me to an area of their ‘beat’ by bus. After
completing some home visits, we patrol the area on foot. As we’re walking
along, Meadow greets and briefly talks to two residents in passing, and a little
later, we pass the entrance to a traveller site. The PCSOs tell me about the
families that live on the site, and they agree that, in the most part, the families
are civil with them. In their experience, the families don’t automatically have a
problem with them because they are from the police; it is more when they’ve
had a specific experience with the police that has left them feeling aggrieved
that they take issue. Adriana recalls a time when one of the traveller children
made her mother stop the car, so she could get out and say hello to Adriana.
(Obs 4 – 27/09/2017)

Just over one week later, I’m accompanying PCs Artie and Junior on a vehicle
patrol. As we drive around one particular area, Artie points out the crime
hotspots and describes some of the problems experienced here. We approach
a busy high street, and Artie notices a known male from one of the traveller

129
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

families using a public payphone, which he suspects is related to drug activity.

As we drive past, the officers make a point of looking at the male and he
antagonistically stares back. This leads onto both officers telling me about the
traveller families that reside in the area and their links to organised crime. The
streets start to look familiar, and I suddenly realise that this is the same location
I’d previously walked through with Adriana and Meadow. (Obs 5 - 06/10/2017)

In Wildebay Police force, the PCs conducted patrol exclusively in vehicles whereas for
PCSOs patrol was largely performed on foot or bike, sometimes with the use of public
transport to make the journey to and from the station. However, there existed an
emerging tendency for PCSOs to use police vehicles when they were available to
conduct patrol work. In the course of the observations, the visible presence of PCSOs
during their foot patrols became noticeably distinctive from that of their PC
colleagues – it allowed them to have a type of contact with the public that did not
seem possible through vehicle patrol. Take the two above-mentioned fieldnote
extracts, the foot patrol in contrast to the vehicle patrol of the same area varied
considerably in terms of how the officers and staff experienced the space. It was not
a matter of comparing the individual officers and staff or the general community
focused remit of the PCSO role with that of the enforcement-led PCs, especially given
both examples are specific to one moment in time on one day at one location, and it
could have been very different for the officers and staff involved on a subsequent
patrol of the same area. Instead, what was striking is the different interactional
spaces that the officers and staff occupied from the position of walking on foot and
travelling in a vehicle and how it possibly influenced the type and nature of the
contact they experienced with the public. To illustrate the distinctiveness of the
interactional space that PCSOs occupy on foot patrol and the contact it facilitates,
consideration will first be given to the physical perimeters of vehicle patrol and its
potential influence on the communication the officers have with the public.

130
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

Vehicle Patrol

Exploring any type of communicative contact that takes place within social situations
requires an understanding of ‘boundedness’ (Goffman, 1963, p.151). In the case of
the aforementioned patrol examples, the closed bounded region of vehicle patrol in
comparison to the open unbounded space of foot patrol has the potential to create
different communication possibilities. In the former instance, the police vehicle
establishes an authoritative physical boundary around the officers that requires any
member of the public to acknowledge it to both enter and avoid it. The boundary is
not impenetrable – police officers can survey their surroundings, passing members
of the public can see into the vehicle and focused interaction can take place.
However, if an encounter with a member of the public is to occur it is expected to do
so either across the vehicle boundary at a specific point (window or door) or within
it at the invitation or approval of the officers inside. The window, in particular, offers
a means for a type of ‘partial participation in a situation’ and it is expected that it will
not be taken advantage of, for instance a person staring at the officers close-up
through a closed window (Goffman, 1963, p.152). These assumed social conventions
guiding interaction according to the physical boundary of the police vehicle can,
‘among properly conducted members of the community’, restrict how
communication occurs between officers inside and the public outside (Goffman,
1963, p.152). Accordingly, the presence of the vehicle can produce ‘conventional
situational closure’ where both parties recognise and respect the vehicle perimeter
as cutting off more communication than it actually does (Goffman, 1963, p.152). To
understand how the conventional situational closure brought about by the
positioning of officers in a vehicle can influence the nature of their contact with the
public, the following extracts illustrate the types of interaction observed during the
fieldwork that typically took place when officers were conducting vehicle patrol.

Minimal Focused Interaction

It’s mid-morning and after attending to a couple of assigned jobs PC Christopher
indicates that he’ll conduct HVP. We fleetingly pass through the leafy suburban

131
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

residences, council housing estates and rural countryside that make-up the
neighbourhood area, and Christopher highlights the types of crimes that are
routinely reported and the different expectations of the police in each. We
return to the station for lunch and leave again at around 12:45. Christopher
mentions that we’ll be patrolling the area again. As we’re driving along
Christopher spots some colleagues stationed in vehicles guarding a crime scene
and he pulls up alongside them for a brief chat. We return to driving around the
locality and this prompts me to ask Christopher about how effective he
considers the van patrol to be in engaging with people. He describes how in a
lot of instances residents are fearful or resistant to talking to the police whether
officers are in a vehicle or on foot. However, he believes that he is still able to
acknowledge people from the van and provide reassurance from being seen
patrolling the neighbourhood. He goes on to recall a couple of occasions when
being in the vehicle has led to his intervention in criminal incidents. At
approximately 14:00, a call comes over the radio for Christopher to attend to a
distressed female, but the job is cancelled when more information comes to
light. Christopher continues to patrol until 15:00 when we return to the station.
(Obs 1 – 10/07/17)

Officers Making Claims of Others from the Vehicle

Driving along the main high street, PC Tony points out the street drinkers who
routinely gather on the same bench most days. As we turn a corner, a
dishevelled male crossing the road glances at the police vehicle and dashes
behind a tall hedge. Tony notices the male’s behaviour and slowly drives past
the hedge. The male becomes completely visible and is standing hunched with
his arms covering his chest. He then proceeds to take a mouthful of what looks
like a three-litre bottle of strong cider nestled inside his jacket. Tony leans over
and shouts out the window, ‘alright mate’, to which the male sheepishly looks
over and nods before zipping his jacket up over the cider bottle and walking on.
Tony continues down the road. (Obs 2 – 17/07/17)

Others Making Claims of Officers Inside the Vehicle

Driving back to the station in the police carrier with PCs Artie and Junior and
their Sgt, a female perched with two males on metal railings flags down the

132
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

officers. The Sgt indicates that she’ll pull over and Artie winds down his window.
The female approaches and explains that they [a group of local taxi drivers]
contacted the police over an hour ago to report a female that made off without
paying her £15 taxi fare and no officers have responded to their call. Artie asks
for more information and the complainant goes on to explain that they tracked
down the female to the YMCA [the building directly behind her] and she wants
the money that she is owed as the female is repeatedly getting away with
evading taxi fares. The Sgt signals for Artie and Junior to get out and deal with
the matter. (Obs 5 – 06/10/17)

The field extracts indicate that officers conducting vehicle patrol are less likely to
have focused interaction with the public and when they do it is more likely to be
formal in nature with either the officers or public making official claims of the other.
The tendency for minimal verbal exchange with the public or communication limited
to official lines of enquiry when officers are conducting vehicle patrol suggests that
the conventional situational closure produced by the vehicle can inhibit or restrict
verbal contact to formal exchanges between the police and public. While the focused
interaction that does take place is meaningful in that it relates to the officers dealing
with matters that involve or are suggestive of crime and disorder, the occurrence of
conventional situational closure appears to largely act as a barrier to police-public
contact, especially informal exchanges, making it difficult for community
engagement beyond dealing with incidents at that moment in time to materialise.

The potential for conventional situational closure to reduce and limit focused
interaction challenges the extent to which ‘having a targeted visible presence in
neighbourhoods’, as set out in the College of Policing (2018a) guidelines, can be fully
realised. If taken literally, as PC Christopher alludes to during his patrol, the visibility
of a police vehicle alone can act as a sign to the public of the police effecting a specific
presence in a locality. However, it could be argued that for a ‘targeted visible
presence’ to be acknowledged as such by the residents of an area they would need
to be able to distinguish that a passing police vehicle is fulfilling this engagement
purpose. Otherwise, a police vehicle travelling around an area could be mistaken for

133
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

other types of police work, for example officers driving to a specific incident.
Subsequently, it is less likely that informal focused interaction will occur as the public
do not necessarily know that patrol is taking place or that officers in the vehicle are
approachable for everyday communication. Furthermore, as the below extract
highlights, the conventional situational closure of the vehicle can also be exacerbated
by other factors, including time of day, weather and the particular location(s) covered
by the patrol, increasing the officers’ inaccessibility for focused interaction during
patrol.

At around 1600 I leave the station with PCs DeAngelis and Servitto in the police
van. We drive along a main road of interspersed residential properties,
takeaways, independent retailers and convenience shops. DeAngelis indicates
that they’re passing through this area as there have been a number of ‘slashings’
in the past couple of days. It’s getting dark and traffic is starting to build up. We
queue at a number of traffic lights and the officers chit-chat. As DeAngelis turns
into a retail park, he mentions that they [the NPT] are conducting HVP around
places that are potential targets for crime due to it nearing Christmas when
there is increased demand for goods and more available cash. We drive past the
shop entrances and follow a road around to the back of the stores completing a
full circle of the premises. The officers remain chatting and DeAngelis weaves
around the narrow roads and junctions making up the now busy car park to
reach the exit. We join the slow-moving traffic on the dual carriageway to make
our way to a neighbouring residential area. As we drive around the housing
estates, I note the almost deserted streets with only the lit outdoor Christmas
decorations and parked cars signalling that people are around. Passing through
one estate DeAngelis points out where the Chief Insp lives, and he jokes that it
looks good if they’re seen conducting patrol here. At around 1815, DeAngelis
hints that we’ll make our way back to the station. (Obs 14 – 14/12/17)

The idea that the conventional situational closure constructed by the vehicle creates
a barrier to informal police-public focused interaction is reinforced by an outward
assessment of the officers ‘involvement within the situation’ when they are travelling
in a police vehicle. In the presence of others, even when no spoken communication

134
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

is required, individuals are still communicating information in the form of socially

recognised non-verbal signs, consisting of ‘bodily appearance and personal acts’, that
speak to the allocation of their involvement (Goffman, 1963, p.33). From a partial
awareness that their activity is on display for all those around them to perceive,
persons can alter their behaviour in line with social expectations to present in certain
ways in particular situations; they may modify their activity to ‘employ it with its
public character in mind’ (Goffman, 1963, p.33-35). Since assessing involvement
comprises a reading of unfocused interaction, the ‘actual involvement’ of a person is
not as important as their ‘effective involvement’, namely ‘the involvement that the
actor and the others sense that he is maintaining, or sense he is (or might be) sensed
to be maintaining’ (Goffman, 1963, p.38). Consequently, officers in a vehicle will be
conveying information, from their facial expressions to their physical gestures, to
those in their immediate surroundings about the way they are managing their
situated activities.

Thinking about the aforementioned fieldwork patrol examples, the signs observable
to a bystander might be the presence of uniformed officers travelling in a moving
police vehicle; the tendency for said persons to be looking directly ahead or focusing
on something or someone specific; intermittent conversation between those inside
the vehicle; and said persons using their radios or other handheld devices. All of these
activities could be perceived as on duty police officers occupied with a policing
related task in hand. The onlooker will, in all probability, not know what the task is
that concerns the officers, the content of their talk or the nature of their radio usage,
however the movements nevertheless gesture at policing in action. Persons dressed
in police uniform travelling in a police vehicle appearing engrossed through their
facial expressions and use of equipment can fulfil an unknowing member of the
public’s conception of officers engaging in policing activity; they are displaying
‘properly occasioned activity’ (Goffman, 1963, p.36). Of course, in some instances,
the officers will be engaged in a specific task that has arisen during their patrol or
one that also requires the use of patrol. Still, at the times when they are solely
conducting patrol and nothing work-related is absorbing their full attention, the

135
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

officers are potentially communicating the same non-verbal information indicative

of them being fully engaged in a specific policing task.

The notion that officers in a vehicle, whether they are fully absorbed in a task related
to patrol or not, are still able to affect appropriate involvement indicates the
potential for the vehicle to act as a barrier to perception by shielding the officers’
involvement within the situation, otherwise known as an ‘involvement shield’
(Goffman, 1963, p.39). For officers, the protection afforded by the vehicle can
facilitate them talking informally and potentially portraying a self they would not in
a professional capacity reveal in their direct dealings with the public. In this way, the
involvement shield permits them to temporarily ‘break role’ (Goffman, 1963, p.40).
Furthermore, the shelter of the vehicle can serve as a means for officers to affect
appropriate involvement when they are not fully motivated by the task in hand; they
can maintain an impression of ‘proper involvement’ in police work (Goffman, 1963,
p.41). Given that the actual involvement maintained by an individual within a
situation is based on their internal intents, it is not possible nor is it within the scope
of the research to suggest the specific motivations of officers other than to show the
communicative components that can arise from and influence their ways of working.

For members of the public, the portable involvement shield sustained by the vehicle
can potentially create the appearance that officers are occupied in policing related
activity and cannot be stopped on a whim for a non-urgent matter or a casual chat.
In most instances, at the very moment when this possible assessment of the officers’
involvement within the situation is combined with the conventional situational
closure created by the vehicle, it could be argued that the perceiver has no other
information available to them to confirm, disprove or alter their review of the
situation (unless they have prior knowledge or there are additional signs in the wider
situation to indicate the nature of the officers’ work, for example a road traffic
accident). Consequently, a set of circumstances is created whereby the conventional
situational closure and involvement shield constructed by the vehicle results in a lack
of impetus for informal dialogue that would, amongst other outcomes, allow a fuller
understanding of the visible presence the officers are trying to establish. This is

136
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

clearly illustrated in the below fieldnote where even the opportunity for the officers
and residents to initiate focused interaction with each other is not acted upon.

During vehicle patrol in the afternoon, PCs Carmella and Gabriella agree to
travel to a residential area in Morcoast where a burglary had occurred the
previous evening. Entering a cul-de-sac of large, detached houses, the van
moves slowly up the road as both officers try to figure out which house was
burgled. Gradually returning down the road a resident standing outside her
front door follows the vehicle with her eyes indicating (to me) a curiosity about
the police presence. A little further on, another resident walking along the
pavement glances over. The officers continue with their discussion and decide
that the end house is the one that was burgled. Gabriella briefly stops the
vehicle as both officers survey the house in question and comment on the
factors that may have made it susceptible to being burgled before driving on.
(Obs 10 – 16/11/2017)

The analysis of vehicle patrol has illustrated, using Goffman’s concepts of

conventional situational closure and involvement, the way in which the interactional
space of the police vehicle has the potential to limit the amount and type of focused
interaction officers experience with the public to a few formal verbal exchanges. It
has highlighted how the police vehicle does not outright stop contact with the public,
especially as there will always be unfocused interaction taking place, but it can act as
a barrier to perception. In this way, the non-verbal information conveyed to
bystanders about the allocation of the officers’ involvement within the situation is
likely to suggest that they are giving concerted attention to a policing activity in hand
even if this is not the case and they are not available for informal contact. The
identified obstacles to focused interaction brought about by the police vehicle
questions the extent to which the police can establish a meaningful visible presence
in an area and develop a dialogue with people. In contrast, the foot patrol conducted
by PCSOs can be seen to create a different type of police presence that can overcome
some of the communicative barriers associated with the use of a vehicle.

137
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

Foot Patrol

To consider the communicative features of PCSO foot patrol presence, this section
will firstly explore how the context of the street contrasted with the road creates the
basis for focused interaction. PCSOs walking around the public space take on the role
of pedestrians. They move across roads and streets to get from one place to another,
and in combination with members of the public present at that time, they form
‘street traffic’. In essence, PCSOs, like all other pedestrians, are what Goffman (2010)
describes as a type of ‘vehicular unit’. They are human navigators, so to speak,
subject to ‘traffic codes’ that allow them to move around independently and avoid
collision or obstruction (Goffman, 2010, p.6). Street traffic is controlled by
pedestrians use of techniques to take note of each other and plot a route that avoids
collision (Goffman, 2010, p.6 and p.11). These regulatory methods consist of
‘externalization’ whereby one intentionally uses ‘over-all body gesture’ to make
information about their ‘direction, rate and resoluteness of proposed course’
available to others, and ‘scanning’ which simply involves checking the movements of
the persons in one’s immediate walking area (Goffman, 2010, p.11). Essentially,
externalization and scanning are interpersonal devices that involve pedestrians
‘eyeing each other’ to assess and manoeuvre their way through their surroundings
on foot. The interplay of these subtle everyday practices on the street highlights the
continuous focused contact that takes place between persons in each other’s
presence who are not or need not be acquainted. Both techniques not only form
fundamental processes in day-to-day street interaction, but they demonstrate the
understated means through which PCSOs on foot can be visible to those around them
without engaging in explicit encounters with persons.

PCSOs on foot by their mere role as pedestrians are physically visible in a way they
might not be on the roads. A pedestrian will most likely notice a PCSO walking or
standing in their immediate or approaching surroundings as it is pertinent to them
mapping out an unobstructed walking route. However, a pedestrian might not notice
officers in a moving police vehicle on the road in the same way unless their attention

138
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

turns to the road, for example to cross it. Similarly, a road user might not interact
with a police vehicle as they would as a pedestrian. The navigation of a road vehicular
unit provides the opportunity for, and sometimes involves, eye-to-eye contact
between drivers, and drivers and pedestrians, but it does not necessarily take place
with the same necessity or regularity. Drivers are largely guided by scanning other
vehicles; following physical indicators, like road markings and traffic lights; and
applying formal rules, including the highway code; all of which, it could be argued,
lack the communicative connection between persons that takes place in street
traffic. Moreover, the regulation of street traffic largely involves a ‘voluntary
coordination of action’ between persons, often strangers, through which ‘mutual
trust’ is exhibited (Goffman, 2010, p.17). Two pedestrians approaching each other
are required to provide one another with information that they are following an
appropriate route to avoid collision and by keeping to their obligations to one
another trust is sustained between them (Goffman, 2010, p.18). As a result, the
implicit shared bond between pedestrians on the street can be more meaningful than
that of passing vehicles, and for PCSOs on foot, it provides an opportunity to be a
part of this interactional occurrence.

On the surface, these subtle differences between the road and street may seem
insignificant, especially when applied to police patrol work. Yet, it is this very nuance
between the two settings that provides the foundation on which the potential
communicative gains of foot patrol are constructed. The unbounded and
pedestrianised nature of foot patrol allows PCSOs and persons in their immediate
presence to engage in unplanned contact of a kind that facilitates a ‘special
communication licence’ between them to potentially bring about different types of
focused interaction (Goffman, 1963, p.83). The communicative possibilities exhibited
by PCSOs on foot will be set out below to show how their visible presence on the
street can create forms of focused interaction, however trivial in character, that can
establish an expressive association between the auxiliaries and public capable of
bringing about a type of community engagement (Goffman, 1963, p.83).

139
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

Glancing

Building on the notion of PCSOs as vehicular units navigating a walking route on the
street, the interpersonal act of ‘glancing’ is one that often routinely and
unintentionally takes place between persons both known and unknown to each other
in passing in the public space. The act itself may seem quite inconsequential, but
when differences in how glancing is performed are considered, its overall relevance
to interaction can be perceived. For instance, in its extreme form, glancing can be
executed as a fixed stare accompanied by a facial expression reacting to the
observed, for example a look of disdain (Goffman, 1963, p.83). Alternatively, glancing
can be outright avoided to purposely ‘not see’ a person; a kind of ‘non-person
treatment’ of those deemed underserving of attention (Goffman, 1963, p.83). What
becomes evident through these instances is that glancing serves an important
communicative function between people by offering a non-verbal means of
surveying who is around, gathering information about those who are observable and
exhibiting a reaction to their attendance. It is an initial way of assessing the
environment around us, and in terms of both ‘seeing’ or ‘not seeing’ PCSOs when
they are conducting patrol, glancing can bring about some form of acknowledgement
of their presence.

Civil Inattention

While glancing is often inexplicit in that persons do not necessarily have to engage in
face-to-face contact and it can take place without the knowledge of those present,
most situations entail a more ‘proper’ form of recognition between people as
exemplified in the below extract.

Adriana and Furio finish a home visit and they indicate that they are going to
take a walk around the area. We follow the residential road until we approach
open parkland. Going through the park, we pass a small play area occupied by a

140
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

number of adults and toddlers. The PCSOs acknowledge a couple of passers-by

as we proceed along the path. (Obs 4 – 27/09/17)

The impromptu contact triggered by the PCSOs ‘acknowledging’ a couple of people

in passing can be alternatively understood as the auxiliaries according members of
the public ‘civil inattention’. Civil inattention is described as occurring when a person,
mutually present to another person and not engaged in any focused interaction with
them, gives them enough momentary visual attention to show that they
acknowledge their presence before withdrawing their gaze (Goffman, 1963, p.84).
The eyes of each person might meet as each gives the other sufficient notice to admit
that they have seen the other, but each avoids prolonging their observance to show
that the other does not attract any need for further attention (Goffman, 1963, p.84).
The fleeting exchange of glances allows the observer and observed to reciprocally
inform the other that they accept and are unperturbed by their presence. It forms a
courteous signal between persons that there is no reason for apprehension,
antagonism or evasion; there is no ill-feeling among them (Goffman, 1963, p.84). In
doing so, the persons present extend a treatment to each other that shows them to
be a participant in the gathering in turn creating a mutual sense of calm and unity
(Goffman, 1963, p.86). Civil inattention tacitly reinforces to others that they are
behaving in a manner considered acceptable; ‘propriety on the individual’s part tends
to ensure him being accorded civil inattention’ (Goffman, 1963, p.87). Of course,
there are times when those behaving improperly are still accorded civil inattention,
although to a lesser extent, to diplomatically negotiate the scene and maintain a
façade of social stability (Goffman, 1963, p.87).

Civil inattention is the ‘slightest of interpersonal rituals’ that consistently occurs in

everyday interaction and provides a means of regulating conduct between persons
without direct verbal dialogue (Goffman 1963, p.84). For PCSOs on foot patrol, the
use of civil inattention emphasises how the auxiliaries are not walking around in a
vacuum. The boundless area around them allows for close contact with the public
through which they can actively engage in mutual glances that contribute to the daily
regulation of the public space, possibly strengthened by the PCSOs representing an

141
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

authoritative presence. Thinking more specially about the worth of civil inattention
to foot patrol, the practice serves a number of distinctive communicative functions,
including facilitating orderliness, conveying information and initiating face
encounters, each of which will be considered below to show how they can be
complemented by a PCSO presence.

Facilitating Orderliness

As we approach the parade of shops, Adriana recognises a housing worker

exiting the small supermarket and they catch-up with one another. During the
conversation, Adriana is slightly distracted by some shouting and she glances
across the road to where the sound is originating. I look over too and see a small
group stood in the front garden of a property behaving loudly, but it doesn’t
seem hostile. Some of the group catch sight of Adriana staring in their direction
and this seems to quieten them. Adriana returns to the conversation. (Obs 7 –
24/10/17)

Adriana briefly staring at the noisy group appears to act as a ‘negative sanction’ to
control their conduct (Goffman, 1963, p.88). In what transpires, it seems that the
group catch sight of Adriana’s prolonged gaze and note that their loud behaviour has
attracted her attention. To possibly avoid an escalation in her response to them,
maybe related to her authoritative status, they calm down. Civil inattention
implemented in this way can serve as an initial and final warning to others that they
are acting ‘improperly’ and provide them with the opportunity to alter their conduct.
It offers a subtle, and often less provocative, means of establishing social stability
without the overt display of a reprimand. However, it could be contended that in the
field extract on page 128, the use of civil inattention by PCs Artie and Junior as they
drive past a male is actually quite confrontational as indicated by the male
antagonistically staring back at them. In the aforesaid instance, it seems that the
male responding by staring at the officers materialises as ‘a sanction against [their]
staring’ (Goffman, 1963, p.88). On the one hand, the incident points to the
complexities of human interaction where the nature of relationships, personal

142
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

histories and experiences undoubtedly impact on how individuals execute and

receive communicative acts like civil inattention. Consequently, in some
circumstances, there is the potential to incite some form of disorder as opposed to
establish order. While on the other, the instance highlights the potential effect of the
interactional space on how a communicative act is delivered and accepted by the
persons involved. A slow-moving police vehicle with officers inside staring at a person
from a short distance away for the duration of their passing can be seen to make a
different statement to officers in the street briefly staring over to a person before
resuming their business.

To begin with, for the officers to be able to afford civil inattention from within the
vehicle to those outside, it has to be stationary or moving slowly, and as the previous
section suggests, the presence of a vehicle can create a barrier. Subsequently, when
trying to execute focused interaction, like that of civil inattention, through the barrier
of the vehicle, it can create a more explicit authoritative expression; uniformed
officers in a marked police vehicle positioned directly in front of a person is
potentially more intrusive and noticeable to both the person targeted and
bystanders. Likewise, the perimeter of the vehicle, as indicated earlier, in creating
the impression that the officers are inaccessible may lead to the receiver of such an
act interpreting it more forcefully. Accordingly, the person might be more inclined to
challenge it, especially if it is believed the officers in question will be less likely to
retaliate due to their perceived unapproachability. When considered in this way, the
use of civil inattention from the position of foot patrol, especially when employed to
subtly reprimand others, can be seen to be more inconspicuous and integrated with
the flow of street traffic.

Conveying Information

During the latter part of the morning, Frank proceeds on foot to patrol in and
around Seawynne town centre. We follow the canal path round to an adjoining
road. On the pavement, Frank looks around, stands still and waits until the only
other people in the immediate vicinity, two females chatting with shopping

143
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

bags, make their way past us. Frank glances at them as they walk by and we set
off a short distance behind [Part 1].

Later in the shift, Frank and Vincent are manning the ‘mobile police station’ in
the town centre. A male approaches Frank as he is strolling around the outside
entrance of the station and reports the smell of burning on the other side of the
street. The PCSOs follow him over to a telephone junction box encircled by a
small cloud of smoke. Two shop staff who are standing examining the box
retreat when they see the PCSOs coming. Some members of the public in the
distance peer over as Frank inspects down the back of the box and identifies a
discarded lit cigarette. Vincent passes Frank a pint of water he has acquired
from the public house opposite and Frank pours it over the affected area. The
smoke ceases and the people in the surrounding area return to their business.
[Part 2] (Obs 9 – 06/11/17)

Civil inattention signals information between persons that feeds into their
assessments of their immediate environment allowing them to sense potential
threats and opportunities to navigate or avoid. In day-to-day life people tend to
negotiate between the state of being ‘tranquil’, i.e., calmly carrying out routine
activities, and ‘fully mobilised’, i.e., distressed, geared up to abscond or confront, by
constantly, and in the main instinctively, checking their surroundings through
communicative means, like that of civil inattention, for signs of ‘alarm’ (Goffman,
2010, p.238-239). At times when nothing unusual occurs and an individual can attend
to their daily business at ease and without issue, they will sense an ordinary state of
affairs. In these circumstances, as Goffman (2010, p.239) describes, ‘appearances are
“natural” or “normal”’ indicating a degree of safety and stability in the immediate
environment. Relatedly, there are times when something may occur, or someone
may behave in an untoward way, but it does not necessarily cause the individual to
directly feel alarmed, and they will continue as they were.

In human gatherings, people gauge whether something is wrong in their ‘umwelt’,

that is the immediate region around them in which signs for alarm can emanate and
sources of alarm can be situated, from two occurrences (Goffman, 2010, p.253-254).

144
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

Firstly, they perceive ‘signs of being alarmed’ from others, typically from their sound
and appearance showing some form of distress. Secondly, they pick up on the signals
given by those in a specialised role, like that of the police, tasked with keeping guard,
warning the public and dealing with the source of alarm (Goffman, 2010, p.244-247).
With this in mind, the presence of PCSOs on foot in public has the potential to be
beneficial to the everyday occurrence of civil inattention taking place between
people by positively feeding into their perceptions and understandings of their
immediate surroundings. The two parts of the above extract highlight two distinct
ways in which civil inattention involving PCSOs can possibly assist in reducing a sense
of alarm.

Firstly, as illustrated in Part 1, by making his presence known to the passing public
through purposely standing in their eyeline for civil inattention to take place, Frank
shows the potential for PCSOs to effect ‘normal appearances’. In making a point of
being noticed on patrol through affording members of the public civil inattention
Frank has the potential to create for them a perception of safety. Generally, when in
the presence of others, tacit information about their ‘social and personal identity,
intents and … [purposes] and information about [their] social relationships to others
present…’ is what one expects to be sufficiently available to determine whether or
not they should be alarmed by them (Goffman, 2010, p.304). In the case of Frank, it
will be discernible by his uniform that he is a police representative and for some, this
information will signify safety and security, and may create a sense of reassurance as
he can easily be called upon if a source of alarm directly affects them or takes place
in their immediate vicinity.

PCSOs will most likely be very visible in a person’s umwelt because they are accorded
a ‘special status’ due to their role involving maintenance of social order and an
obligation to respond to requests from the public when something is wrong
(Goffman, 2010, p.307). At the same time, the presence of individuals, like PCSOs,
tasked with upholding the peace in the public space are often of little interest to
others. Beyond registering that they are there, the public are likely to see no reason
to concern themselves with the auxiliaries, as is the case in part 1, when the passing

145
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

pedestrians continue on their way. Accordingly, Goffman (2010, p.307) highlights

how there is a tendency for ‘stocked characters’, like PCSOs, who have a ‘freedom to
be present’ to be treated as ‘non-persons, mere background figures’ by users of the
street. In this way, PCSOs being afforded non-person treatment indicates, in a lot of
instances, a tacit acceptance of their role and an understated sense of reassurance
from their mere presence. The aforesaid occurrence of civil inattention also starts to
open out understanding of how a visible presence functions in community
engagement by illustrating how PCSO patrol work can establish a type of reciprocal
unplanned and tacit contact with the public that can be reassuring.

Secondly, as exemplified in Part 2 of the extract, in responding to an on-the-spot

report of burning the PCSOs’ actions demonstrate how they can de-escalate
perceived unease in the event of something or someone causing alarm. Frank and
Vincent in actively dealing with and eliminating the source of alarm they are alerted
to, by someone Frank engages in civil inattention, has the potential to generate a
sense of protection. This perception is not only conveyed to the participant of the
gathering, in this example the male who reported the incident, but to the bystanders
to the gathering, in this instance the shop staff and onlookers, who are able to ‘learn
something about the encounter’s participants and to be affected by how the
encounter as a whole is conducted’ (Goffman, 1963, p.154). The focused and
unfocused interaction, including the use of civil inattention, between all those
present, will potentially lead to them acquiring ‘reassuring information’ from the
PCSOs management of the situation. It will allow them to infer that the cause for
alarm is false and lead to, as was described in Part 2, their concentration on the
matter ‘decay[ing] quickly’ (Goffman, 2010, p.262).

In addition to reducing a sense of alarm at that moment in time, the potential

information signalled from the positive actions of the PCSOs could have a longer-
term impact on the persons present. In Part 2, the conduct of Frank and Vincent could
also be seen to affirm their role in maintaining community safety. This is an insight
which could form positive ‘identificatory information’ about the auxiliaries for the
persons present in turn contributing to how they consider and approach PCSOs in the

146
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

future. For example, the persons may be more likely to think of the PCSOs as
providing a positive contribution to policing or to approach the auxiliaries if they
require assistance. Indeed, people take enough notice of ‘properly behaved’ passers-
by in the street to obtain and remember ‘a lot of identificatory information’ about
them that they can then utilise to initiate future contact with them (Goffman, 2010,
p.323). Therefore, it could be argued that the identificatory information persons
acquire from a figure with ‘special status’, like that of PCSOs, acting in a situation that
draws their attention is potentially more profound. Again, it is another example of
how PCSOs in their daily duties on foot can potentially establish meaningful contact
with the wider public without directly addressing them.

Initiating Face Engagements

Furio and Adriana walk along a couple of streets until they reach a small row of
shops set down from the road. There are a couple of males standing by a railing.
The PCSOs glance at them as they pass by and one of the males in their eyeline
says, ‘morning’ while the other laughs correcting him, ‘it’s afternoon’. The
PCSOs smile at both men and walk on. [No 1] (Obs 4 – 27/09/17)

Carmine stops and looks around after hearing his name being called from
behind. A young male runs towards us and Carmine cheerfully says hello in a
tone of voice that suggests he knows him. The male informs Carmine that his
nana passed away and Carmine passes on his regards to the male and his family
before asking some general questions about the male’s circumstances. The
exchange soon comes to a close and we walk on. [No 2] (Obs 13 – 07/12/17)

Meadow glances over to an elderly male holding a walking stick unsteadily

making his way up a garden path. She asks him if he’s alright to which he replies
that he is struggling. She checks to see if he needs any help and he light-
heartedly states that he’s 91 so that’s why he’s struggling! Adriana joins them,
and they have a brief chat about how he is getting on and if he’s experiencing
any problems in the area. [No 3] (Obs 4 – 27/09/17)

147
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

Eye-to-eye looks play an important role in the ‘communication life of the community’
– they create an openness between persons that facilitates focused interaction
(Goffman, 1963, p.92). When the PCSOs were mutually engaged in civil inattention
with the public, it often increased both parties’ approachability to enter a verbal
encounter with the other, in the form of a ‘greeting’ or ‘chat’. In some instances, the
exchange encompassed a non-instrumental rationale with a simple salutation and/or
gesture marking the start and finish of the interaction. While the occurrence of such
‘social contact’ between PCSOs and the public may appear trivial, it can be seen to
serve as a ‘positive interpersonal ritual’ that strengthens the message of consensus
initially conveyed through civil inattention. In everyday encounters brief
interpersonal rituals of a positive and negative nature form an embedded and routine
structure for exchanges between persons (Goffman, 2010, p.64). In regard to a
positive interpersonal ritual, Goffman (2010, p.63) draws on the work of Durkheim
(Durkheim, Cosman and Cladis, 2001) to describe it as a practice entailing a
performer providing a type of ‘offering’ that signals ‘involvement in’ and
‘connectedness to’ another. In response, the recipient shows some form of
acknowledgement and appreciation of the offering, which confirms the existence of
the relationship implied by the performer’s actions and demonstrates regard for the
performer as a person (Goffman, 2010, p.63). Therefore, when persons are present
to each other, the dialogic process of performing a ritual offering and receiving a
show of approval forms ‘a little ceremony – a supportive interchange’ that affirms
and supports the social relationship between them (Goffman, 2010, p.64).

The supportive interchanges, in this case represented by the face engagements

initiated by PCSOs and the public to each other through civil inattention, can be seen
to feature and function in ways that can attest to a constructive police-public
relationship and provide the foundations on which the auxiliaries can develop a
dialogue with people. In most instances during the field work, the supportive
interchanges between the PCSOs and public took place unexpectedly with each party
independently happening upon the other in the course of using the same streets,
establishments or public transport (Goffman, 2010, p.71). In terms of the costs
involved in arranging and executing this type of interaction, specifically the amount

148
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

of time it occupied, the financial expense it generated and the physical and emotional
effort it required, this particular ‘base of contact’ entailed minimal personal sacrifice
(Goffman, 2010, p.72). For both PCSOs and the public, it occurred during their daily
routines with less expectations on them to act in a way that would be anticipated if
a formal planned contact had been arranged. For example, if a public meeting had
been organised by the PCSOs, the invited persons would be required to attend a
specified venue at a certain time and afford their attention and/or make a
contribution. Accordingly, the fortuitous low-cost circumstances and minimal
undertaking involved in this type of contact created an informal openness that could
be seen to increase the likelihood of, and potentially frequency of, ‘greeting
behaviour’ between PCSOs and the public.

Greetings, as described by Goffman (2010, p.74), typically take the form of positive
expressions of social recognition (for example, smiling and eyes glistening) and/or
physical gestures (for instance, waving and nodding) usually accompanied by a verbal
salutation. Generally, greetings are characterised by expressions and feelings of
‘pleasure’ and ‘delight’ between people in one another’s presence and they offer a
type of positive assurance to their relationships with each other (Goffman, 2010,
p.74). On the one hand, the innocuous, low-cost and spontaneous nature of greetings
can be considered a trivial event, especially as the circumstances of such interaction
means there is a high likelihood that contact between the same PCSOs and members
of the public will not take place regularly, unless their routines continue to
accidentally collide (Goffman, 2010, p.72). Furthermore, the length and content of a
‘greeting-like ritual’ between newly acquainted persons is normally likely to be ‘light’
as relations between them have barely formed for anything more intense to be
accepted (Goffman, 2010, p.90). However, when greeting practices are analysed in
more depth, it becomes apparent how they can provide a functional and meaningful
device for PCSOs to connect with the public.

There are ‘passing greetings’ that, in the context of the PCSO-public interaction, act
as ‘social recognition rituals’ whereby the PCSOs and public come across and
acknowledge each other in the course of their daily activities without pausing. Field

149
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

extract 1 is a clear example of a passing greeting between the PCSOs and public in
which the two parties briefly give each other a welcoming sign. These displays
between persons can represent a friendly show of approval that point towards the
individuals involved positively accepting and allowing each other to occupy and move
through the same physical space (Goffman, 2010, p.74). They build on the sense of
trust and safety expressed through the initial exchange of civil inattention by
physically gesturing and/or verbally confirming that no bad intent exists. Similarly,
the use of smiles, also demonstrated in fieldnote 1, occupy an important role in
interaction. In the context of the PCSOs smiling at the public they come across, they
can serve a number of purposes for the auxiliaries, including a form of
acknowledgement to the everyday social situation both parties are involved in, a
silent gesture of gratitude or a means of communicating good intentions to those
around them (Goffman, 2010, p.160). In addition to the passing greeting, there may
be times when PCSOs and members of the public know each other and unexpectedly
come across one another during their routines. In these circumstances, a ‘surprise
greeting’ may take place similar to that outlined in fieldnote 2 (Goffman, 2010, p.76).
Here the exchange is slightly more prolonged than the passing greeting with a brief
chat between the two persons occurring. Despite the unforeseen nature of the
contact, as Carmine shows, effort is taken to adjust to the circumstances and
demonstrate ‘mutual consideration’ (Goffman, 2010, p.76).

While passing and surprise greetings transpire slightly differently, their structure is
similar as they possess a ‘maintenance’ quality (Goffman, 2010, p.76). In both cases,
the coming together of each party sets up, and in doing so implicitly guarantees,
contact between them. As a result, the performance of these brief supportive
interchanges maintains relations between persons whether that be in a civil way for
those unacquainted or a more considerate manner for those acquainted.
Furthermore, where passing or surprise greetings may ordinarily take the form of a
momentary and inconsequential cordial occurrence, the presence of a PCSO has the
potential to make it more meaningful. A passing greeting performed to a PCSO can
act as a form of assent to their status as a policing representative, in other words,
the public in greeting the auxiliaries are recognising their role and showing a degree

150
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

of conformity to what it symbolises (Goffman, 2010, p.74). Similarly, a passing

greeting extended by a PCSO to a member of the public can function as showing
regard for their positioning as someone the auxiliaries serve. Taken together the
meanings associated with a greeting combined with its reciprocal nature can create
a mutual demonstration of appreciation and cooperation between PCSOs and the
public that builds or reinforces relations between them.

Besides fulfilling a sociable function that can represent a welcoming demonstration

of approval and trust, a greeting can also allow the PCSOs to gauge how they are
received by those around them or gain a sense of whether an individual is
experiencing difficulty. Generally, if a greeting expressed by a person is not returned
in the same manner as it was delivered or not responded to at all, it can indicate that
‘something is wrong’ as it is anticipated that the initial offering will be, and often
spontaneously, repaid by the receiver (Goffman, 2010, p.75). For PCSOs, this type of
response could point to the receiver of the greeting taking issue with the auxiliaries
or experiencing a problem impacting upon their ability to reciprocate appropriately.
Either way, it offers a potential opportunity for intervention by the PCSOs to improve
relations with the individual or assist them in some way. Field extract 3 illustrates
one such instance where the response to a passing greeting acted as a sign to
Meadow to inquire for more information. In this instance, the reasoning behind the
male’s response was light-hearted, however it triggered an extended face encounter
that might otherwise not have taken place and it was a constructive exchange for the
PCSOs in regard to acquainting themselves with another person and his experience
of the neighbourhood. Accordingly, the function of a greeting can extend beyond
symbolism to offering the means to directly connect with people for a notable period
of time (in comparison to a glance or gesture).

Typically, the extension of a greeting carves out a ‘time-person slot’ that marks a
phase of increased access between participants (Goffman, 2010, p.77 and p.80). For
PCSOs this type of access offers two opportunities – it opens the channels of
communication for further talk, and it allows the auxiliaries ‘to enter into a personal
relationship’ with the people involved (Goffman, 2010, p.77 and p.79). Fieldnotes 2

151
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

and 3 show how salutations can increase communicative access for ‘chats’ to
develop, that is individuals pausing in their ‘separate lines of action for [..] a brief
period of time’ (Goffman, 1963, p.101). A passing greeting is identified as the
exception to this convention, particularly between the unacquainted, due to the
transitory nature of the contact that occurs resulting in the increased access between
the participants only existing in principle (Goffman, 2010, p.79). However, to specify
all the roles and positions of greetings in face encounters is difficult given that they
are ‘complex’ and ‘variable’, and for PCSOs with their ‘built-in license’ to approach
and receive others, it could be argued that any type of greeting offered or received
by the auxiliaries to both the acquainted and unacquainted has the potential to
develop into a face engagement (Goffman, 1963, p.129; Goffman, 2010, p.76).
Indeed, Goffman (2010, p.83) also points out that greetings are receptive to the ‘kind
of ritual licence binding the performers’, and in regard to policing representatives like
PCSOs, it is customary that any advance made by them or to them is received. At the
same time the ease with which social contact, like that of a greeting and chat, can
potentially occur when it involves someone with recognised status like a PCSO cannot
be assumed to be a straightforward communicative move for the auxiliaries. To
highlight some of the complexity of exhibiting increased access for face-to-face
interaction, two points of consideration arose for PCSOs in their initiation and receipt
of unplanned encounters.

Firstly, the appropriateness of entering into talk was a factor that sometimes
featured in PCSOs’ assessments of the people they came across. Generally, in
circumstances where unacquainted persons come together ‘the obligation to keep
one’s distance’ is a key thought to avoid acting in an overly intrusive, and by
implication situationally improper, manner (Goffman, 2010, p.91). Similarly, people
use the public space in the knowledge that their availability will not be taken
advantage of by others resulting in the expectation that contact will be initiated ‘only
under circumstances that [they] will easily see to be justified’ (Goffman, 1963, p.106).
Technically for PCSOs with their intrinsic authority to make claims of others, it could
be contended that thinking about the level of intrusion they exercise in social contact
is not relevant as a degree of imposition into the routines of the people they happen

152
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

upon is an expected part of their role. However, an equally important aspect is

building rapport with local people, and to be able to fulfil this communicative
function, it could be argued that the auxiliaries are required to utilise skills to
navigate their connectedness to the people, both acquainted and unacquainted, that
they encounter to circumvent alienating them or themselves. Consequently, there
were times when PCSOs demonstrated using their awareness of the information
being given out and given off by people to execute care in how they approached
them for focused interaction to avoid any type of invasiveness. In the below field
extract, Frank shows and discusses how he negotiates communication boundaries
with people who are potentially very conscious of his authoritative status and wary
of contact with him in public.

At the top of the high street, Frank states that he can see a female he knows,
and whom he is aware uses drugs, heading in our direction. We pass the female
as we’re crossing the road and Frank acknowledges her. While continuing to
walk purposefully past us she asks Frank if he has seen [name of a person] and
Frank replies that he hasn’t seen them. The female carries on down the street
and Frank comments that he didn’t try to engage her further because she
seemed to be preoccupied and in a hurry. As we walk on, Frank describes being
aware that some people with drug and alcohol addictions who spend a lot of
time in public places are often distrustful and suspicious of him. He explains that
he tries to show them that he wants to work with them and will not act in a way
that might disaffect them. He tries to avoid making it obvious that he knows
them or proceeding to talk to them in front of others unless they speak to him
first or indicate in advance that they are happy for him to approach them. (Obs
9 – 06/11/17)

Secondly, the ease with which the PCSOs could be called upon seemed to influence
how the auxiliaries received members of the public when approached by them. Often
the auxiliaries would limit the linguistic and expressive information they conveyed to
persons in the opening phases of the face engagement. Goffman (2010, p.87),
referring to the ‘period of easier contact’ created by a greeting, draws attention to
participants constraining their interest at the start of a face encounter to prevent

153
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

giving a ‘misleading indication’ of what is likely to happen. It is in the beginning stages

when participants are more available to one another that there is the opportunity
for their level of involvement in and connectedness to each other to be realised
(Goffman, 2010, p.87). Accordingly, the need to manage expectations through
structuring the interaction in a particular way, specifically when face engagements
were initiated by others, could be seen as a way for the PCSOs to avoid signalling the
wrong impression about what the face engagement might entail. To illustrate, the
field extract below provides an example of the PCSOs restricting their reaction to a
female’s request until they gain a full sense of what she requires from them.

A female approaches the PCSOs, greets them and asks if she can get their advice.
Salvatore and Carlo both say ‘yes’ and pause allowing the female to speak. She
states that a mechanic she believed worked at a local car garage collected her
vehicle from her address for repair. Since then, she has been unable to contact
the mechanic or ascertain the location of the garage causing her concern. The
female asks the PCSOs if they know where the business is located and if this set
of circumstances constitutes a crime. Both PCSOs express having not heard of
the garage or where it could be situated, and Salvatore suggests that it is
possible a crime has been committed. He goes on to advise that she report the
matter to 101 if she is unable to locate the mechanic and retrieve her vehicle.
The female agrees and thanks the PCSOs before walking away. (Obs 6 –
16/10/17)

The fieldnote highlights how the communicative accessibility of the PCSOs can lead
to the public easily approaching them for reasons they will not be aware of until they
engage in talk, and this can involve people making claims of them that are outside
their mandate. On the one hand, it might be argued that the handling of public
expectations, especially when they go beyond the PCSO remit, can be negotiated by
the auxiliaries through talk. Indeed, Salvatore demonstrates how advice and
guidance can be still provided to the public in the event that the auxiliaries are unable
to directly assist with the issue. While on the other, the PCSOs also show how the
way in which they structure their initial interchanges with people, specifically when
they receive overtures from others, goes some way to setting the tone for what can

154
 Findings and Analysis – Part 1

be expected of them. In the field extract, Salvatore and Carlo accept the female’s
request for further talk, but they do not reciprocate with offerings or express
‘increased closeness or involvement’ straightaway (Goffman, 2010, p.87). Instead,
they pause to understand the nature of the female’s contact before providing a
response. In doing so, the auxiliaries avoid creating ‘burdensome anticipations’ at the
beginning of the interaction that they might be unable to meet (Goffman, 2010,
p.87). For instance, they do not take the lead in talk and potentially give the
impression that they can actively deal with or resolve whatever is presented to them.
The two aforementioned considerations bring to light how the initiation and receipt
of a face engagement are distinctive aspects of social contact that can require skilful
manoeuvre by the PCSOs to create a constructive perception and experience of
them.

155
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

Chapter 5
High Police Visibility

Building on the interactional features of foot patrol and how they can function to
support and create the foundations for community engagement highlighted in
Chapter 4, this chapter will analyse in more detail the nature of the focused
interaction and the different functions it serves to show how it can develop the two-
way dialogue and better understanding of communities that has been identified as
integral to NPTs’ community engagement work. By exploring unplanned face
engagements, the accessibility of PCSOs in public and the process and type of
acquaintanceship they can foster with people, it will be demonstrated how the
auxiliaries can cultivate high visibility in their patrol presence to deliver community
engagement.

Unplanned Face Engagements

The initiation of unplanned face engagements from the extension of civil inattention
and greeting behaviours between PCSOs and the public often created the
opportunity for them to be available to one another for further talk. These
encounters took the form of ‘conversations’ where the persons present became
physically and facially oriented towards each other, and a ‘single focus of attention’
on a speaker and subject matter materialised (Goffman, 1963, p.95-96). While the
single focus of attention could change from one speaker to another and from one
subject to another, what could be seen to emerge in most instances was a joint
understanding of the situation between the PCSOs and public. Goffman (1963, p.96)
refers to the formation of a ‘shared definition’ in a conversational encounter as
including ‘agreement concerning perceptual relevancies and irrelevancies’, and a
‘working consensus involving a degree of mutual considerateness.’ It is this resulting
state of ‘mutual participation’ embodied in the shared activity of conversation that
provided the PCSOs and public with a type of collaborative bond or, as Goffman
terms it, a ‘we-rationale’ (Goffman, 1963, p.98 and p.100). The below field extracts

156
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

provide a sample of the different forms mutual participation assumed between the
PCSOs and public in the unplanned face encounters.

Social Closeness and Relatedness

Adriana and Furio turn into a housing estate. Straightaway a group of three
young girls, aged around 10, head towards us, and one shouts Adriana’s name
running up to her. Adriana asks the girl how she is, and the girl replies querying
if Adriana has heard about the death of her brother. As the girl is re-joined by
her two friends, she points out that one of them has let her use her handbag,
and Adriana complements it. Adriana, pointing to a bottle of sparkly hand gel
attached to her vest, asks the girl if she would like some. The girl agrees, and
Adriana applies a small amount to her hand and points out the glitter. The other
girls agree to have some too. The main girl turns her attention to Furio and asks
him about a small figurine dangling from one of his pens. Furio points out the
other badges on his vest and says that he will be able to get her one too. The
girl, whispering, asks Furio if he’s also heard about her brother before running
back to her two friends. Adriana and Furio say goodbye. (Obs 4 – 27/09/17)

Support and Assistance

Germani turns off the main high street down a side passage and looks directly
at a dishevelled female sitting on the ground. The female glances back at
Germani and he walks over to her. The female’s dog excitedly jumps up as the
female, now standing, appears agitated and asserts that she is not begging.
Germani tries to reassure her that he is here to find out if she is okay and if he
can offer any help. They enter into a conversation about her circumstances in
which the female talks about what led to her being homeless, other personal
problems and recent threats from a couple of males. Germani informs her that
he is going to record some details to make sure she has the right support in
place. He takes note of her personal information telling her that he will be
referring her onto an accommodation outreach team and logging her report of
being threatened. The female seems accepting of Germani’s response and we
say bye. (Obs 11 – 28/11/17)

157
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

Intelligence Gathering
Heading in the direction of the town centre with Frank and Vincent, an untidy
looking male, who I am later informed is a drug user known to them, walks
towards us. As we get closer, Frank and the male acknowledge each other. Frank
stops and greets the male before indicating to us that he is going to chat with
him. Vincent and I continue walking to give them some privacy. Not long after,
Frank comes over the radio and informs Vincent that the male has disclosed
some important intelligence to him, and he is planning to return to the police
station to input the information on the system. (Obs 9 – 06/11/17)

Preventing and Addressing Low-Level Crime and Disorder

Walking down a residential street, Montisanti and Melfi pass a male trying to
tape a broken wing mirror to a car. The PCSOs acknowledge him, and he
comments, sounding frustrated, that local youths damaged the wing mirror.
Montisanti asks when the incident happened, and the male indicates it took
place the previous evening. Montisanti suggests asking the neighbours if they
saw or heard anything and the male agrees. A male answers the door to
Montisanti at a bungalow across the road and a female answers the door to
Melfi at the house next to where the male complainant resides. Both neighbours
express having not been alerted to anything or anyone suspicious the previous
evening. The PCSOs return to the complainant and Montisanti summarises that
it seems unlikely given their enquiries and the nature of the incident that there
are any witnesses. Melfi suggests the male park in a different location, and he
disagrees before outlining his current family circumstances. The PCSOs
empathise and Montisanti concludes by stating that they will be patrolling the
area and if the male becomes aware of anything more about the incident to
report it. (Obs 16 – 10/01/18)

The mutual participation in a lot of the unplanned face engagements, as the above
excerpts illustrate, was of a personal nature in that the content of the talk concerned
the life, relationships and emotions of the participants at that moment in time.
Consequently, they generated a kind of ‘social intimacy’ between the PCSOs and
public building on the sense of togetherness arising from their initial co-presence in
the public space (Goffman, 1963, p.100). Despite occurring spontaneously, the

158
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

encounters still possessed purpose, especially from a Neighbourhood Policing

perspective. At the very least the face engagements all represented acts of sociability
where the PCSOs and public could be seen to be establishing or maintaining a degree
of rapport with each other. While more specifically from the position of the
auxiliaries, the conversations could be seen to fulfil more instrumental policing tasks,
including developing and updating local knowledge about people, places and
problems; providing supportive interventions which in turn, in some instances,
contributed to dealing with broader community problems, for example street
drinking and homelessness; and preventing and addressing low-level criminal and
anti-social behaviours. At the same time, the informal and impromptu basis of the
conversations increased the opportunity for the PCSOs to initiate, receive and
maintain associations with many different publics, some of whom may ordinarily be
hard to reach or might be unable or unwilling to participate in planned forms of
interaction organised by the police, for example community meetings. Nevertheless,
the portrayal of conversations as shared participatory activities overlooks the way in
which the presence of a policing representative can impact upon the encounter.

In spite of the largely sociable approach to and structure of conversational

encounters involving PCSOs, their positioning as members of police staff could be
seen to provide them with enough recognised authority to influence how the
interaction was conducted. Whereas the ‘rights and obligations’ owed to an everyday
face encounter tend to be shared equally, the participation of PCSOs resulted in them
being unevenly allocated between persons (Goffman, 1963, p.100). In particular the
speaking and leave-taking rights were two elements of the face engagement that the
auxiliaries seemed to influence. PCSOs, as already referred to in the previous
discussion of initiating face engagements, are ‘opening persons’ with a licence to
approach and receive members of the public they come across (Goffman, 1963,
p.129). Part of this authorisation involves the right of the PCSOs within the legal remit
of their role to make claims of persons, including asking questions, and an
expectation that such requests will be responded to and complied with. It is this
specific obligation that appeared to implicitly structure the speaking and leave-taking

159
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

rights in face encounters between the PCSOs and public with the extent to which it
seemed to influence varying in each instance.

In relation to speaking rights, certainly the use of questions and requests by the
auxiliaries to guide the spoken encounters they entered into were a necessary
communication tool because they enabled them to fulfil the aforementioned policing
functions. However, there were times when these devices together with the role and
status of the PCSOs seemed to restrict the content and amount of what was spoken
by the other persons present. Take the below field extract for example, the few
minimal responses from the group of young people to Barese’s line of talk shapes a
face encounter where the participants appear to be largely ‘denied the
communication courtesy’ to respond fully (Goffman, 1963, p.100). Indeed, it is not
possible or within the scope of the analysis to determine if this is the actual
interpretation of the young peoples’ reading of Barese’s communication. However,
in terms of the structure of the interaction, it is observable how the mixture of
questions, requests and statements delivered in quick succession to individuals and
the group as a whole by a person with authoritative status can potentially limit the
speaking rights of the other participants.

Walking down a side road near the main high street, Barese comes across a
group of around thirteen young male and female youths, some of whom are
messing around stood up while others are sat down chatting. Approaching the
group Barese assertively asks if they are alright and without pausing queries
what they are doing. She promptly notices that one has a cigarette, and she asks
how old she is. I don’t hear the mumbled reply, but Barese quickly responds
saying that she is confiscating the cigarette and she asks the rest of the group if
they have anymore. Another one of the young people mutters a comment to
which Barese replies asking if they have any ID to prove their age. Most of the
group are silent with a couple of the males making muffled remarks. Barese
recognises one of the girls from a previous incident and asks to check the soft
drink bottle she is holding for alcohol. Addressing the whole group, Barese
instructs them to move on telling them that they cannot congregate in this area.

160
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

They slowly organise themselves and start walking forwards. (Obs 20 –

14/02/18)

Similarly, the PCSOs could often be observed taking control of bringing the face
engagements they participated in to a close; a process Goffman (1963, p.110) refers
to as ‘leave-taking’. In most instances, the face encounters seemed to reach a natural
conclusion with the PCSOs expressing closing remarks or instructions that suggested
the subject matter in question had been discussed and responded to. At the same
time, the termination of face encounters was facilitated by the co-operation of the
other participants in recognising and acting on the PCSOs’ signals to leave. This
demonstration of ‘tactful leave-taking’ by the public could be seen to be based on
the implicit obligation individuals have to ‘release those with whom [they are]
engaged, should it appear, through conventional cues, that they desire to be
released’ (Goffman, 1963, p.110). The general inclination for the PCSOs to take
charge of the length of the face encounter appeared less a means for them to
explicitly demonstrate their authoritative status to the individuals they
communicated with, and more of a way to use their role to constructively organise
the engagement. To illustrate the potential significance of the PCSOs taking a lead in
leave-taking, the below field extract shows how a face encounter can play out when
such regulation is lacking.

A male and female approach the mobile police station and report a group of
youths on bikes in the town centre over a week ago causing nuisance. The PCSOs
empathise with their apparent disapproval of the incident as another female
walks over and joins the couple. The male and female comment that there are
no police around anymore to which the PCSOs explain the lack of resources and
the current NPT operation to increase police presence. The couple then refer to
another recent incident where the police didn’t directly intervene and Frank
attempts to outline police procedures. This leads to the couple expressing their
views about the general state of affairs in the town. They are briefly paused by
another female asking if she can report drug activity and Frank invites her into
the private office area. Vincent is poised listening to the group; he remains
quiet, and the group address him less. The subject changes to religion. After a

161
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

few minutes, a police car pulls up. Two PCs get out and brush past the group
slightly to enter the van resulting in the members shuffling a little away from
the doorway and turning to each other to talk. The PCs sit down and start to
speak to Vincent who quickly utters ‘bye’ to the group before responding to the
officers. (Obs 9 – 06/11/17)

In the face encounter, a subtle conflict can be seen to develop between the ‘rights of
departure’ owed Vincent and the ‘rules of tactful leave-taking’ owed the other
participants (Goffman, 1963, p.110). In what ensues, the participants display less
cooperation to release Vincent from the face encounter despite his limited
involvement in it until a change in the situation prompts leave-taking from both the
participants and Vincent. While the structure of the leave-taking could have
benefitted from more oversight from Vincent to avoid the conversation digressing
into content that could be seen to be irrelevant to the work of the PCSOs, the
continuance of the face encounter did allow for the participants to perceive that their
views were being heard. Nonetheless, a missing, and possibly more damaging, part
of Vincent’s leave-taking is the demonstration of a noticeable ‘farewell display’
(Goffman, 2010, p.79).

A farewell, similar to the function of a greeting, is a supportive ritual in face

engagements, however, it differs in that it represents a ‘state of decreased access’
between persons (Goffman, 2010, p.79). The expression of a farewell in a face
encounter ‘brings the encounter to an unambiguous close, sums up the consequence
of the encounter for the relationship, and bolsters the relationship for the
anticipated period of no contact’ (Goffman, 2010, p.79). Therefore, the performance
of a farewell at the conclusion of a face engagement can be an important statement
for figures, like PCSOs, attempting to foster relationships and leave a positive
impression on people they may or may not see again. Accordingly, in a lot of
instances, whether they were acquainted or unacquainted with the individual and
saw them regularly or not at all, there was a tendency for PCSOs to structure their
farewells in a similar way that implied or encouraged future contact, as
demonstrated below.

162
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

Germani walks over to a male sitting on the ground with a few belongings
scattered around him. On seeing the PCSO, the male starts to hurriedly stuff a
double duvet into a rucksack that looks too small for it. Germani tries to reassure
the male that he wants to offer assistance and he asks the male where he usually
stays. The male reports seeking out hostel accommodation on a nightly basis
and Germani suggests a couple of hostels he might want to attend. He goes on
to ask the male if he has taken any steps to find accommodation through the
council and the male suggests that he is waiting for some paperwork to be
processed. Germani informs the male that if he ever wants advice or support
with gaining accommodation, he is welcome to attend the Police Station and
ask for him. He mentions having some links with the council and being able to
refer him on. The male agrees, gathers his bags and starts to stand up. Germani
offers to help him before saying goodbye. (Obs 3 – 28/07/19)

Approaching the shops, Adriana greets a young girl she knows. The girl is
juggling a couple of food items while trying to ride her bike. Adriana suggests
how she can manoeuvre the bike and she goes on to ask after the girl’s family.
The girl mentions a relative who has recently given birth. Adriana, realising that
she is heading in a different direction, comments that she will have to visit the
girl’s family and see the new-born baby soon. The girl smiles and Adriana says
bye. (Obs 4 – 27/09/17)

In the above fieldnotes, Germani departs the encounter by offering future assistance
to a male unknown to him and Adriana leaves the engagement by indicating a
potential visit to a girl known to her. Neither of the PCSOs make specific
arrangements for future contact with the persons, but they both show an openness
to this possibility in their farewells. Ordinarily, the type of farewell will often be
determined by the nature and closeness of the relationship between the participants
and the probability of their next contact, for example a farewell display to a sibling
one regularly sees will be different to that of a long-absent sibling (Goffman, 2010,
p.83). However, as is discernible in the two aforementioned unplanned face
engagements, these factors are not always distinguishable in the PCSOs’ farewells,

163
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

possibly related to their role requiring them to establish rapport and maintain
relationships with all persons they engage and the impromptu nature of their
encounters making the likelihood of future contact occurring unpredictable.
Whether they intended or expected contact with the individuals again, the
suggestion by the auxiliaries can potentially allow people to feel considered by them
and familiar with them; possibly reinforcing the sense of belonging created from their
co-participation in the public space.

At the same time, the gesture of future contact creates a positive impression that is
ideally placed in a farewell at the end of an unplanned face encounter. It is at this
moment of decreasing access between the participants that the PCSOs can
demonstrate consideration without generating ‘burdensome anticipations’
(Goffman, 2010, p.87). During a farewell there is little opportunity for offerings, like
that of suggesting potential contact, to be fully realised and any ‘reservations the
senders-off have about the merit of the leave-taker’, in this case the PCSO, are likely
to be ‘erased because soon close evaluation will not be an issue’ (Goffman, 2010,
p.87). The implication here is not to recommend that the auxiliaries bid farewells
with ambitious offerings that they do not necessarily have to satisfy because they are
less accountable for what they have expressed from this point in the interaction
onwards. Rather, it shows how the auxiliaries can demonstrate civility and regard in
a way that does not explicitly create expectations, either of them or the public
involved, that they might not be able to fulfil.

The section has illustrated the nature and structure of unplanned face engagements
between the PCSOs and public during foot patrol to show how these impromptu
contacts can symbolise a sense of belonging at the same time as serving a utility in
community engagement work, specifically enabling the NPT to develop a better
understanding of communities. It shows what the communicative opportunities can
be during foot patrol and how they can be utilised to contribute to community
engagement practice. What makes these unfocused and focused interactional
occurrences possible, and underpins the uniqueness of PCSO patrol on foot, is the
accessibility of the auxiliaries in the public space. The next section will consider the

164
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

accessibility of PCSOs in more detail, including the benefit of their accessibility to

community engagement and how they can manage it to create privacy in their face
encounters.

Accessibility

The PCSO role obliges the auxiliaries to initiate and respond to requests for face
engagements with persons they come across, but their positioning in public opened
them up for and increased the likelihood of communication, in all the forms discussed
so far, taking place. It is this heightened readiness for and responsiveness to social
contact that allowed the auxiliaries to demonstrate, what Goffman (2010, p.104)
terms, a ‘situational presence’ that is advantageous to both their work and the wider
policing context in a number of ways. To begin with, being increasingly available for
a face engagement, a unit of interaction already identified as signalling ‘social
closeness and relatedness’, allows the PCSOs to reinforce a more general sense of
belonging between the police and public (Goffman, 1963, p.104). The act of being
accepted for talk allows one to become a member of the gathering and the social
occasion in which it occurs (Goffman, 1963, p.104). Therefore, the acceptance
symbolised by PCSOs receiving a person for talk can both make the individual feel
part of the dialogue and connected to the auxiliaries at that point in time as well as
related to and included in the wider policing narrative.

Secondly, the accessibility of PCSOs increases the opportunity for them to feature in
the unfocused interaction of others which, as touched upon in the previous
discussion of conveying information through civil inattention, is equally beneficial to
public perceptions of policing. Accessible face engagements, that is those face
encounters taking place in the presence of bystanders, involve all persons jointly
present to one another engaging in ‘a common pool of unfocused interaction, each
person, by [their] mere presence, manner, and appearance’ giving off some
information about themselves at the same time as receiving like information from all
the others in attendance (Goffman, 2010, p.154). It is this opportunity for ‘widely

165
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

available communication’ that benefits the positioning of PCSOs in the public space
(Goffman, 2010, p.154). From their ‘mere presence’ to the ‘encounters in which
others do and do not see’ them in (Goffman, 1963, p.103), information is being
transmitted by the PCSOs to the situation at large. Consequently, there is the
potential for their presence in the public space and/or involvement in conversational
encounters to lead to positive information being communicated about their
readiness to engage with people and the type of work they perform. The same
observations can also feed into public understanding of policing priorities and
allocation of resources, for example the availability of PCSOs in open places might
suggest to passing persons that the police force is committed to local policing and
public safety. In the same way, the accessibility allows PCSOs to convey visible
evidence of desirable characterological traits of their role through bodily gestures as
the below field extract illustrates.

Adriana and Furio chat as they stand and wait for the bus. They seem to position
themselves a short distance from the front of the stand to allow people to form
a queue. The bus pulls in and the PCSOs hover to the side of the queue letting
all the people who have been waiting or who are just arriving at the stand to
board the bus before them. As the queue shortens, the PCSOs make a slow
exaggerated walk to join the end of the line. Later in the shift, the PCSOs wait
again at a bus stop to make the journey back to the station. When the bus
arrives Adriana signals with her hand for the only other person waiting to board
before them. The male smiles and hurriedly moves in front of them. (Obs 4 –
27/09/17)

The PCSOs can be seen to demonstrate types of gestures which Goffman describes
as ‘body gloss’, namely the ‘self-conscious gesticulation an individual can perform
with [their] whole body to give pointed evidence concerning some passing issue’
(Goffman, 2010, p.128 and p.129). In the above example, the PCSOs appear to be
concerned with showing regard for the public proceeding before them in the bus
queue to avoid causing any offence. On the surface, it might be considered a trivial
matter, but the performance of this kind of civil courtesy potentially conveys
information to the public about how the PCSOs see themselves and others. One way
166
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

of gauging the importance of these types of acts is to think about what the outcome
would be if they were not performed (Goffman, 1963). If the PCSOs boarded the bus
first when in the presence of queuing others, they might be thought of as self-
important or rude, especially as they represent a community support function, which
not only reflects badly on the individual auxiliaries but the police force as a whole.
The use of body gloss highlights how even when they are not directly engaged in talk
with others, PCSOs can interact meaningfully with them (Goffman, 2010, p.137).

Finally, the accessibility of the PCSOs for unfocused and focused interaction in the
public space can create a ripple effect of communication to others in the vicinity that
aids the policing task they are completing without additional effort or resource. To
explain, the below fieldnote distinctly captures the potential reach of information
and the means through which it can be transmitted from a PCSO completing routine
work in the course of their foot patrol.

Salvatore is posting letters along a designated street where a house was

recently burgled to inform the surrounding residents of the crime and remind
them to be vigilant. A car pulls up and Salvatore greets the female exiting the
vehicle. He knows her through her work at a partner organisation and she
resides on the street. They have a brief conversation in which Salvatore
mentions the burglary and the female, already aware of the crime, explains that
her CCTV shows a male walking up her drive at the alleged time, but he
disappears out of sight and his face is indistinguishable. Salvatore finishes the
exchange by informing her that he has posted a letter at her address. He
continues along the street, and after a couple of minutes, a voice from behind
shouts, ‘excuse me, could you tell me what you’re doing?’ We turn to see an
approaching female walking her dog. I stroke the dog as Salvatore informs her
about the burglary and he hands her a letter. While Salvatore resumes making
his way around the houses, I notice the same female a little further up the street
stop and talk to another resident also out walking. They both glance in the
direction of Salvatore suggesting that he is the topic of conversation. Salvatore
indicates that he’s covered most of the addresses and we head back along the
street. As we come parallel to one house, a male makes his way up the driveway

167
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

uttering a couple of sounds to get our attention. The male asks what we’re
doing, and when Salvatore explains, he mentions what he knows about the
crime. Salvatore concludes by handing him a letter and we head back to the
office. (Obs 6 – 16/10/17)

In the field excerpt, crime prevention information is relayed to the residents through
letters, face encounters with Salvatore and word of mouth between them; all within
a short space of time. While it is not possible to ascertain the number of persons in
total who received information from this interaction, including those who were
alerted to policing activity by observing Salvatore from inside their property or
hearing from those who conversed with him at a later time, it is likely that more
people than those who were present were informed of the crime and the PCSO
presence. Therefore, regardless of the speed with which such information can be
communicated, it provides an example of how the accessibility of the PCSOs can lead
to them reaching out to a number of people in different ways during the course of
completing a policing activity on foot patrol, potentially maximising its influence and
impact at no extra cost.

The idea that the accessibility of the PCSOs opens them up for communication that
is discernible to bystanders in the situation at large questions the extent to which
their encounters in public can be private, and this is particularly pertinent when the
topic of conversation is of a sensitive nature. Indeed, there were instances when the
auxiliaries and the participants in a face encounter could create conventional
situational closure by going into a private space, for example the staff area of a shop.
However, in the main, a ‘conventional engagement closure’, that is ‘some obligation
and some effort on the part of both participants and bystanders to act as if the
engagement were physically cut off from the rest of the situation’, could be seen to
be established in the face encounters taking place in areas of high footfall (Goffman,
1963, p.156). At these times, the PCSOs tended to encircle the person/s to create a
closed off area or in the event there was only one PCSO they would position
themselves in front of the individual/s at a distance that was close enough for them
to demonstrate their participation in the face engagement but open enough to allow

168
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

them to comfortably see and speak to one another. In both instances, a key
consideration seemed to be ‘spacing’ whereby the auxiliaries situated themselves in
proportion to the participants of the face encounter and the unengaged individuals
around them in the available space to enable the exchange of glances and talk
without obstruction or intrusion (Goffman, 1963, p.161). Another important factor
in the maintenance of conventional engagement closure was the ‘regulation of
conduct’ between the participants, including the control of sound levels, gestures
and words to ‘protect the privacy of the encounter’ (Goffman, 1963, p.155 and
p.159). At the same time, the ‘integrity and boundaries’ of the face engagement
could only be maintained if the surrounding bystanders tacitly cooperated in
facilitating the closure (Goffman, 1963, p.155 and p.159). However, given the status
and visibility of the PCSOs, this was not always possible.

While the PCSOs attempted to create conventional engagement closure, occasionally

the presence of the auxiliaries could be seen to attract the attention of bystanders
to the point that they encroached on the face encounter in some way. Two possible
reasons for the discourtesy seemed to be curiosity and/or a disregard for the work
of the auxiliaries. Some bystanders seemed overly interested to know the nature of
the auxiliaries’ contact with the other participants in the face encounter, potentially
stemming from a general nosiness in what was transpiring or out of an inclination to
intervene to assist a participant in some way. A policing representative in action, so
to speak, can raise questions for an inquisitive onlooker – who are the PCSOs talking
to? Has something happened? What are they talking about? Other bystanders,
potentially sharing in the same curiosity, also acted in a manner that appeared to be
making a subtle point that they did not view the presence of the auxiliaries as
significant enough to warrant respect for the integrity and boundaries of the face
engagement. In each case, the PCSOs in talk with others could be seen to create an
‘excitement level’ for bystanders that contributed to their abuse of the
‘communication position’ they found themselves in (Goffman, 1963, p.155 and
p.159). Consequently, every now and then, bystanders took advantage of their
positioning by engaging in prolonged gazes or repeated glances; walking or standing

169
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

in close proximity to the PCSOs; or interrupting the encounter. The field extract
below illustrates a combination of these actions by passers-by.

Approaching the shopping centre, Barese recognises a dishevelled male sitting

on the ground. She greets him and asks him how he is and if he is making any
progress with accommodation. As the male starts to talk, Barese briefly glances
behind her at the steady stream of people walking past and she steps closer to
him. The male begins to explain the difficulties he continues to experience when
another male stops in passing and greets him before glancing at Barese and
walking on. Barese checks out who the person was and the male comments that
he knows him to say hello to. Barese continues with the conversation. Soon
after, a female approaches the male causing him to glance over at her and she
asks him if he received some sandwiches today. He seems to know her and tells
her that he did, and she walks away. Barese concludes by saying that she will
ask around to find out if there are any other solutions available to support the
male and he expresses his appreciation. (Obs 20 – 14/02/18)

The actions of the bystanders in the above extract point to a degree of impropriety
in that they prioritised their own needs over showing regard for the conversation
that was already taking place between Barese and the male. It is typically expected
that the entrant to an encounter will give ‘advance warning of [their] intention and
the participants a moment to straighten their house for the newcomer’ (Goffman,
1963, p.161). However, at the same time, there is a sense that their ‘non-person’
treatment of Barese, a concept previously referred to on p.146, could also be related
to her role forming part of the public setting and not requiring explicit recognition.
Indeed, Barese did not interpret their actions offensively, and the interruptions
provided an opportunity for her to learn something more about the people the male
was in contact with. Consequently, the breaches in a conventional engagement
closure can potentially allow the PCSOs to come into contact with more people and
increase their knowledge of the persons or situation.

The accessibility of the PCSOs on foot patrol facilitated communicative contact that
allowed the auxiliaries and public to familiarise themselves and build relations with

170
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

each other. The nature of these relations is portrayed in the previous sections in
terms of whether the PCSOs were acquainted or unacquainted with people. The next
section will develop these references by exploring the ‘institution of
acquaintanceship’ to understand the nature of the PCSO-public relationship during
foot patrol, its influence on interaction and its potential contribution to community
engagement work (Goffman, 1963, p.112).

Acquaintanceship

A ‘tacit contract’ informing how persons manage contact with unacquainted and
acquainted others guides everyday co-presence in the public space (Goffman, 1963,
p.124). In the case of two unacquainted persons coming together, there is a tendency
for each party to demonstrate a ‘willingness’ to avoid seeking a face encounter so as
not to take or be taken advantage of through ‘inopportune overtures and requests’
(Goffman, 1963, p.124). However, as alluded to in the preceding analysis, PCSOs on
foot patrol engaging in focused interaction with the public provides one circumstance
where two seemingly unacquainted parties can approach each other for contact. In
this context, the occupational role of PCSOs places them in an ‘exposed position’
where they are available to everyone at the same time as making them ‘opening
persons’ authorised to accost others (Goffman, 1963, p.125 and p.129). The
subsequent openness of the PCSOs to focused interaction with everyone in their
surroundings has been described in the previous sections through making a
distinction between the unacquainted and acquainted people the auxiliaries come
into contact with. However, when the social relationship of acquaintanceship is
explored in more detail, it is evident that there is a degree of acquaintanceship in all
relations between the PCSOs and public, and the practice of foot patrol is conducive
to developing this acquaintanceship.

Acquaintanceship, in its fullest sense, is described as ‘each of two individuals

personally identify[ing] the other by knowledge that distinguishes this other from
everyone else … [and] … each acknowledge[ing] to the other that this state of mutual

171
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

information exists’ (Goffman, 1963, p.112). Essentially, acquaintanceship can be

observed as evolving from some type of mutual identification between persons. For
PCSOs and the persons they came into contact within the course of foot patrol, the
principal form of identification involved ‘cognitive recognition’ whereby the
auxiliaries and public distinguished each other by social and/or personal information
(Goffman, 1963, p.113). To begin with, the discernibility of the PCSO uniform could
allow the public to socially categorise the auxiliaries as on-duty policing
representatives. At the same time, in some cases, persons linked the sight of the
auxiliaries to exclusive information about them, for example the PCSO’s name. A
similar process of identification could be seen to take place for the PCSOs with them
cognitively recognising persons they came across according to some kind of
categorisation loosely pertaining to their general status as a member of the public,
for example young person, or their personal identity.

In addition to cognitive recognition, a second type of identification named ‘social

recognition’ is pinpointed which encompasses the ‘process of openly welcoming or
at least accepting the initiation of an engagement as when a greeting or smile is
returned’ (Goffman, 1963, p.113). While social recognition is more concerned with
the demonstration of a ‘ceremonial gesture of contact’ as opposed to knowing
something of the person(s) involved, for PCSOs whose uniform makes their role and
status clearly visible, it could be contended that any form of social recognition
extended to the public is likely to be received through cognitive recognition of them
(Goffman, 1963, p.113). Nonetheless, social recognition can still form a valid practice
to include in thinking about the association between PCSOs and the public because,
as Goffman highlights, cognitive recognition can often feature in the functioning of
this type of identification (Goffman, 1963, p.113).

The reciprocal activity of cognitive recognition based on social information, namely

the identification of the auxiliaries as police staff by the public and the identification
of passing persons as members of the public by the PCSOs, and social recognition
through glances and greetings appeared to form the basis of the auxiliaries’ relations
with the public in most of their contact. The nature of this social relationship could

172
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

be described as ‘mere acquaintanceship’ where ‘the rights of social recognition

form[ed] the principal substance’ of the connection between the PCSOs and public
(Goffman, 1963, p.114). However, the regular presence of the PCSOs in localities
could be seen to enable them and some of the people living or working in the areas
to progress the basis of their cognitive recognition of each other to centring on
personal information. This transition in the type of recognition underpinning PCSO-
public acquaintanceship can be partially explained using the concept of ‘second
seeing’ (Goffman, 2010, p.323).

Second seeing refers to a person using identificatory information gleaned about a

stranger, under circumstances where the person and stranger have caught sight of
one another seeing each other, to proffer ‘an acquaintanceship greeting’ in a
subsequent encountering of said stranger (Goffman, 2010, p.323). The second seeing
between the persons involves their recollection of their first meeting and the
identificatory information they acquired, and ‘the participants [can] see from the
context of their two seeings that they are appropriately placed socially for
acquaintanceship’ (Goffman, 2010, p.323). Applying the principles of second seeing
to PCSOs conducting foot patrol in their beat areas, the auxiliaries in regularly
attending the same places and coming across the same people can use and build on
their previous ‘seeings’ of said persons through talk to learn more about them and
the locality. The increased familiarity between the PCSOs and local people they
regularly happened upon over time could be seen to ‘informally’ develop their
acquaintanceship (Goffman, 1963, p.119). They came to know more about each
other through casual means where there were no expectations of either party to
perform in a specific way (aside from general courtesy). Alternatively,
acquaintanceship could be seen to develop ‘formally’ with the PCSOs having been
introduced to some people through their involvement in a policing related matter,
participation in a specific intervention or through a third party (Goffman, 1963,
p.120). The informal and formal development of acquaintanceship in the course of
the PCSOs’ patrols allowed them to have a more personal connection with some
people which in turn aided their work.

173
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

The shift to cognitive recognition based on personal information between the PCSOs
and some of the public in their communications is particularly meaningful to their
community engagement remit. It is the ‘mutual personal identification’ in this form
of recognition that gives rise to them establishing an acquaintanceship which, in most
cases, brings about a ‘social bondedness’ that obliges or entitles contact between
them thereafter (Goffman, 1963, p.112 and p.114). Therefore, acquaintanceships,
like other relationships, can increase the access between the PCSOs and public, and
it was this aspect of the association that could be seen to facilitate an ongoing two-
way dialogue (Goffman, 2010, p.79). Their acquaintanceships with some of the local
people allowed the PCSOs to regularly enter into talk with them either in passing on
the street or visiting them at their place of work or residence for a planned or
unplanned meeting. These acquainted face encounters could generate information
that confirmed or updated the auxiliaries’ knowledge of the community as well as
nurturing relations between the PCSOs and persons involved. By drawing on their
acquaintanceships with others, a potential outcome for the auxiliaries is that they
are able to provide ongoing reassurance and build a picture of the community’s
needs, risks and threats.

To illustrate acquaintanceship when it was based on ‘cognitive recognition - personal

information’ in action, three types of circumstances in which it materialised are
identified. Firstly, PCSOs engaged in brief unplanned face encounters with
acquaintances in passing. Some of the field examples already used in the chapter,
from Adriana sharing sparkly hand gel with the group of girls on p.157 or Carmine
having a catch-up with a male on p.147 to Frank being provided intelligence on p.158,
demonstrate the PCSOs having engagements with acquaintances they happened
across. Secondly, the auxiliaries conducted brief unplanned visits to acquaintances
when they were in the vicinity of the private spaces where they were employed,
including local retailers, organisations, partner agencies, charities, libraries, religious
venues and schools. It was usually the nature or location of the persons’ work that
prompted the acquaintanceship in the first instance as they occupied a physical site
or delivered a provision where crime and disorder was likely to occur, a footfall of
people used the space or the PCSOs could access certain groups or support. The face

174
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

encounters would usually be structured around the auxiliaries finding out if the
people, places or services were experiencing any problems or imparting some
policing related information, sometimes interspersed with general chit-chat, and
depending on what was said, offering advice, support or instructions. Finally, the
PCSOs attended planned meetings with acquaintances in private spaces, including
their residences and places of work, in the course of their patrol. The purpose of the
face engagements was often similar to the impromptu visits in that the PCSOs would
be interested to ascertain if there were any issues they could assist with or to provide
specific policing information, but they also could centre on the auxiliaries completing
a specific task or delivering an intervention. The contacts usually involved more
casual conversation as the participants had more time allocated to talk. The below
field extracts illustrate acquaintanceship in the latter two circumstances.

Salvatore suggests to Carlo that they check-in at the Primary School up ahead.
The headteacher comes to reception, greets the auxiliaries and directs them to
her office. In the corridor, a group of children in the playground outside start to
congregate at the windows staring in and pointing excitedly at the PCSOs. The
PCSOs wave and the headteacher laughs at the stir. Inside the office, Salvatore
asks if there’s been any problems at the school. The headteacher mentions a
now resolved dispute between two families and an incident where a stranger in
a car outside the school grounds asked a child to get inside. She adds that it was
reported to the police and they are remaining vigilant. Salvatore advises that
the school report any further concerns to 101 and they [PCSOs] will keep a
lookout during patrol. The headteacher asks if she can book the PCSOs to give a
presentation about keeping safe on Halloween and Bonfire Night. They discuss
how the presentations can be delivered and arrange a time for Carlo and a
colleague to attend. (Obs 6 – 16/10/17)

Benny and Hesh attend a planned meeting with four elderly residents in the
communal area of their supported accommodation. The residents welcome the
PCSOs, gesture for them to sit down and encourage them to have something to
eat and drink. There’s some chit-chat before the PCSOs ask if there have been
any issues. One resident mentions talking to some street drinkers about

175
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

congregating outside her address. The PCSOs advise her not to confront
strangers as it could put her in a risky situation and to report any concerns. Hesh
informs the group about the NPT’s operation in the town centre which leads
onto a brief discussion about the area. Hesh gives a resident a paper copy of this
month’s local crime figures. She glances over it and comments on the nature
and volume of the offences listed. Another resident talks about the impact of
austerity and sympathises with the lack of police resources. A male, who has
been sitting quietly, describes his suspicions about drug activity outside his
property. The PCSOs advise that he take note of any details about the individuals
or vehicles involved if it is safe to do so. Benny pulls out a handful of ‘bag dipping
prevention’ items, including bells and straps, for the residents. There's more chit
chat with the PCSOs and residents joking with one other. The PCSOs signal that
they need to go to their next job, and they arrange a date for the next meeting.
(Obs 10 – 16/11/17)

Montisanti knocks on Lilliana’s door before walking in. The PCSOs greet Lilliana
and her sister, and Montisanti outlines what they plan to do, including
completing some more surveys10 and taking her neighbour’s statement to
support the Closure Order11 application for a neighbouring property. Montisanti
asks Lilliana to fill in another survey and as she completes it her neighbour,
Valentina, arrives. There’s some general chat before Montisanti explains to
Lilliana and Valentina the process of the application. After Valentina completes
a survey, Melfi asks her questions about her experience of living on the street
and takes note of her responses. In the background, Montisanti continues to
talk to the others about day-to-day happenings and helps out making drinks.
Every so often he checks that Melfi is gathering the relevant detail as this is her

10
The survey is a set of questions the PCSOs devised to ascertain residents’ views on their
neighbourhood, any issues they were experiencing and any action they would like to be
taken by the NPT.
11
A Closure Order is a civil intervention available to the police and local authority that can
be implemented for up to three months on a property where the court is satisfied that a
person or persons have engaged in ASB, disorder or criminal behaviour on the premises
or such behaviour is likely or use of the premises is associated with serious disorder or
public nuisance. The order can prohibit access to the premises to anyone including the
landlord, owner and habitual residents, and can be extended for a further three months.
Breach of the order is a criminal offence that carries the penalty of imprisonment (Home
Office, 2014, p.38).

176
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

first statement. Melfi reviews what she intends to detail with Valentina before
writing it on the forms and Montisanti continues in conversation until she has
finished. As the PCSOs get ready to leave, Montisanti states that he will keep in
touch and Lilliana agrees to obtain completed surveys from the other residents.
(Obs 16 – 10/01/18)

In the face engagements involving acquaintanceship based on ‘cognitive recognition

- personal information’, the PCSOs demonstrated an awareness of the people and
places that enabled them to engage with, what seemed like, relative ease in lengthy
friendly conversations with them. This coming together can be considered a form of
supportive ritual wherein the PCSOs demonstrated, in different ways, regard and
respect towards their acquaintances in turn serving, among other policing functions,
to positively solidify relations between them (Goffman, 2010, p.62-63).
Consequently, the acquaintanceships can be seen to allow the PCSOs the opportunity
to relate to their localities to gain a type of insight and provide a type of support that
would be hard to gauge and develop from the position of a police vehicle. At the
same time, the acquaintanceships offer the other participants the chance to have
their views and experiences heard and to be advised or supported with issues that
matter to them. They can, and feel like they are, influencing local policing. Of course,
as the field extracts show, from supplying information to helping out with resident
surveys and providing statements, the nature and extent of this contribution will
vary, but the acquaintanceships nevertheless can be a means for people to be a part
of policing in their localities. Moreover, the acquaintanceships have the potential to
influence how the individuals involved perceive and connect with policing in the
longer term. If the persons acquainted with the PCSOs have a positive relationship
and experience with them, they may be more likely to feel reassured by policing
generally and cooperate with different types of policing, like police investigations, in
future.

Indeed, acquaintanceship with people did not always mean that the PCSOs engaged
in face encounters with them. The social contact arising from their acquaintance
could take the form of passing acknowledgement of each other, for example smiles,

177
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

or no focused interaction at all (Goffman, 1963, p.116). There were instances where
the PCSOs showed consideration for the acquainted person’s circumstances and
offered them the right to determine whether or not social recognition or talk would
occur (Goffman, 1963, p.116). The fieldnote on p.153 is one such example where
Frank outlines the potential negative implications for some of his acquaintances if
they are seen talking to him when they are in the company of others resulting in him
allowing them to decide if a face engagement will take place when they meet. The
demonstration of ‘tact’ in the execution of social recognition and face engagements
was also sometimes displayed by the public as well. Often a person would approach
the PCSOs and check that it was permissible for them to engage the auxiliaries in talk.
This occurrence is possibly related to said persons interpreting the authoritative
status of the PCSOs as bestowing them ‘extra rights or to be worth treating carefully’
in the ‘recognitional engagement’ (Goffman, 1963, p.117). Whether or not a face
engagement occurs every time the auxiliaries and public are co-present, the
existence of an acquaintanceship between them affords both parties the opportunity
for future contact. It can be contended that through the formation of an
acquaintanceship a sufficient connection has been established for either the PCSOs
or public to initiate contact at a subsequent time with little introduction. The idea of
ongoing contact leads onto consideration of the ‘maintenance rites’ of PCSO
acquaintanceships (Goffman, 2010, p.73).

In relation to ‘ritual support’ of the acquaintanceship beyond social recognition in

passing, it is customary for participants to ‘develop some understanding and
presumption concerning the costs and probabilities of contact between them’
(Goffman, 2010, p.72). In the case of PCSO acquaintanceships, the connection is
between a policing representative and member of the public and occurs in the
context of policing activity. On this basis, while there are costs to both parties in
terms of time and resources to sustain contact, it could be contended that the cost
is reduced for PCSOs because contact takes place in the course of them fulfilling their
occupational duties indicating less personal investment. Therefore, unless
maintaining contact serves an ongoing interest to the individual, it can be forwarded
that there is less expectation or need for the public to commit to upholding the social

178
 Findings and Analysis – Part 2

relationship, and the onus rests more with the auxiliaries. With this in mind,
probability of contact is then dependent upon the occupational availability of the
PCSOs to be in a position to maintain the wellbeing of their acquaintanceships during
their shifts. This most likely explains the reason for the different types of
acquaintanceships the auxiliaries experienced.

It is impossible for the PCSOs to be able to ‘engineer a coming together’ with all their
acquaintances on a regular basis so maintenance of the social relationship is largely
reliant on unplanned contacts with either the auxiliaries happening across
acquaintances in passing or attempting to contact them spontaneously if their work
responsibilities and patrol route make it possible (Goffman, 2010, p.73). Otherwise,
the PCSOs organise meetings with particular acquaintances which, during the
fieldwork, was arranged according to workload and demand; particular policing
priorities at the time; and whether the acquaintance/s were part of a group or service
that the auxiliaries did not come across regularly in the course of their patrol, such
as elderly people.

179
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

Chapter 6
Impaired Police Visibility

The previous two chapters explored the communicative opportunities for PCSOs on
foot to show how this particular form of patrol can facilitate a type of community
engagement that creates two-way dialogue with citizens and a better understanding
of communities. However, in making this claim, the analysis is not assuming that all
PCSOs by their mere co-presence with the public on foot patrol can or will utilise the
communicative opportunities described to engage with people. There were instances
where either the public or auxiliaries acted in ways that were clearly unconducive to
social contact creating conditions unlikely to bring about community engagement. It
could be identified that PCSO visibility was impaired in one of two ways: either
through ‘impropriety in the face engagement’ or ‘PCSO inaccessibility’. The chapter
will examine these categories to show the communicative challenges and barriers,
including improper public conduct, situational factors, individual dispositions of
PCSOs and organisational directives and changes, that can arise in PCSO foot patrol
to hinder their interactional influence.

Impropriety in Face Engagements

The social position of police staff allows for them to be approached by a wide range
of others, partly based on the belief that no one will try to exploit their public status
(Goffman, 1963, p.125). Similarly, their social standing permits them to accost the
public as it is trusted that their intentions will be legitimate and they will not seek to
take advantage of those they engage (Goffman, 1963, p.129). However, any
readiness for focused interaction generally places people at risk of ‘pleadings,
commands, insults and false information’ (Goffman, 1963, p.105), and the auxiliaries
were not excluded from such treatment. There were occasions where members of
the public abused the communication position of the PCSOs by acting in an improper
manner as illustrated in the field extracts below.

180
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

A male passes Adriana and Furio and stares straight at them with a sullen facial
expression. Afterwards Adriana explains that she knows the male and he is
renowned for disliking the police, but they are unsure why. She recalls a
previous occasion where he was verbally abusive towards her resulting in her
Sgt reprimanding and soliciting an apology from him [A]. (Obs 4 – 27/09/17)

A young male riding a bike passes Carmine and says something that ends with
the statement, ‘get a real job.’ Carmine turns and shouts back. The male
continues riding away and shouts, what sounds like, something similar to his
previous insult [B]. (Obs 13 – 07/12/17)

Adriana and Furio separate to check the streets surrounding a park where there
has been a complaint of youths throwing fireworks. Furio re-joins Adriana on
the main road where she is stood in confrontation with two young males.
Adriana is raising her voice to try to overpower the repeated hostile utterances
of one of the males. She says that she firstly called over to him to ask him to
move out of the line of traffic in the road and she is now speaking to him
because he matches the description of the youths linked to the complaint. Three
young females walk up the pavement and stand to the side watching the
exchange. Furio tries to quieten the male before turning to the females and
instructing them to move on. The male says the females are waiting for him, and
they remain in their places. The male refuses to listen further and swears at
Adriana as he turns away from her and walks up the road. The other male cycles
ahead of him and the females follow [C]. (Obs 7 -24/10/17)

The field excerpts show how focused interaction with the PCSOs can involve
impropriety in the actions of others. In field examples A and B, the approaching
persons take the opportunity to express some form of explicit contempt at the
auxiliaries’ presence in the public space. In contrast, field extract C shows a male
reacting antagonistically in response to having been accosted by Adriana while his
acquaintances express their disrespect for the situation by ignoring Furio’s
instructions and actively breaching the conventional engagement closure of the
encounter. Another striking feature of the incivility within this encounter is the
male’s leave-taking. He animatedly terminates the face engagement by talking

181
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

obscenely at Adriana while walking away from her. In doing so, he exposes his
emotions within the encounter to ‘the situation at large’, explicitly rejects the PCSOs
and provides them with little opportunity to ‘compose themselves’ (Goffman, 1963,
p.187). What occurs is a betrayal of the face engagement and a show of disrespect
to the auxiliaries (Goffman, 1963, p.188). In addition to instances where individuals
addressed the PCSOs directly with incivility there were times when passing persons
would exchange critical comments about the auxiliaries in earshot of them.

Vincent turns down a side street a short distance from a couple of males giving
directions to a passer-by. The exchange concludes as Vincent approaches and
he says in a light-hearted tone to the males, ‘you’re doing my job for me.’ The
males briefly glance at Vincent with half-smile expressions before one utters
something that sounds disapproving and the other sniggers. (Obs 9 – 06/11/17)

Germani is talking to a homeless male about his circumstances. Two females

glance over at the exchange as they pass by. One mutters that they [the PCSOs]
should leave the male alone and the other agrees. (Obs 3 – 28/7/17)

In both examples the persons engage in a ‘special kind of half scene’ where they talk
in a ‘sufficiently loud and pointed fashion to be heard’ by the PCSOs but regulate
what they say enough to give the auxiliaries the chance to dismiss their remarks
(Goffman, 1963, p.186). While half scenes allow for the person targeted to respond
to the comments, usually with an expression similar to ‘did you say something?’, the
auxiliaries tended to disregard half-spoken muttering (Goffman, 1963, p.186).

All the instances of impropriety show persons demonstrating some form of

‘situationally improper’ behaviour signalling that they are or want to appear
alienated from the ongoing engagement (Goffman, 1963, p.217 and p.231). To assess
any situationally improper act and any perpetrator of impropriety, Goffman (1963,
p.218) proposes that consideration be given to the improper person using the
following questions:

182
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

‘Does the actor have the capacity and training to appreciate the meaning of his
offense, and if so, does he in fact appreciate its meaning? Is the act within the
physical control of the actor, and if so, would he be willing to change his conduct
if he were apprised of its meaning and given the opportunity to do so? Does the
actor have extenuating reasons, external to the participants in the situation, for
committing the offense?’

The multitude of factors that can arise from this line of questioning point to the wide-
ranging nature and significance of an individual’s ‘alienation from the gathering and
its rulings’, including ‘malicious acts’ signalling ‘extreme intentionality’ through to
uncontrollable or ‘preoccupied’ behaviours marking ‘complete unintentionality’
(Goffman, 1963, p.218-219). Given that many types of intentionality, unintentionality
and levels of significance can exist in the commission of situational improprieties, it
is evident that the actual offense conveys little information about the perpetrator
(Goffman, 1963, p.219-220). While it is not within the scope of the research to
consider the specific motivations of situationally improper persons during patrol,
something can be said about the interpretations those in their presence can make
about their improper conduct. This is especially relevant given that whenever a
person comes into the ‘immediate presence of a representative of a social
organization’, in this case a PCSO, they will inevitably ‘communicate something about
[their] relationship to this organization’ (Goffman, 1963, p.246).

Situational improprieties can highlight information about the offending person’s

‘relationship to a community, a social establishment, a kinship network […] and any
other unit of social organization (Goffman, 1963, p.246). Therefore, thinking broadly
about the institution of public policing which the auxiliaries represent, some of the
situational improprieties experienced by the PCSOs may be exercised by a person as
a means of showing their resentment to what the auxiliaries symbolise and exhibiting
some distance from it (Goffman, 1963, p.223 and p.225). Relatedly, ‘acts of
interpersonal defiance’ may be employed by a person who perceives that they are
being prohibited as a result of the rulings of the policing institution, for example in
fieldnote C the male is aggrieved by Adriana who, in keeping with the powers and

183
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

function of her role, attempts to direct and question him (Goffman, 1963, p.228). In
such circumstances, the offense can be a way for the perpetrator to ‘test the limits’
of the relationship (Goffman, 1963, p.228); to what extent can the PCSO be pressured
to change or cease their initial course of action? At the same time, what may
contribute to most of the acts of impropriety described is the degree of regard
persons have for the PCSO role itself.

The auxiliaries are largely known to possess limited policing powers which may
inform the extent of interpersonal respect persons bestow the role and the level of
formality, or ‘tightness’ as Goffman terms it, in their conduct towards the PCSOs
(Goffman, 1963, p.228). Accordingly, people may use ‘extreme expressions of
looseness’ in the presence of the auxiliaries to communicate their knowledge of the
PCSOs’ restricted powers and possibly the subsequent unimportance they associate
with their role (Goffman, 1963, p.228). The understanding that the PCSO role may be
the target of the offense is reinforced by some PCSOs, including Adriana in fieldnote
A, disclosing times when persons who had acted offensively later behaved
appropriately when in the presence of police officers. In comparison it seems that
some persons considered police officers to be owed tighter conduct. Nevertheless, a
lot of the improprieties the PCSOs experienced, including most described in this
section, involved the offending persons engaging in some form of focused interaction
with them. In doing so, they were affording the auxiliaries enough attention to
acknowledge their existence which goes some way towards them legitimising the
PCSO presence as opposed to showing the auxiliaries no visual or verbal
consideration at all (Goffman, 1963, p.109).

Whatever the target of the individual’s actual or ostensible alienation, the situational
impropriety through which it is conveyed will be first and foremost expressed as
alienation from the gathering (Goffman, 1963, p. 231). Consequently, whether
intended or not, it is only the persons present, in this case the PCSOs, who receive
the offense with all the offending person’s subsequent actions being ‘superimposed
on these original situational meanings’ (Goffman, 1963, p.231). Therefore, to look
beyond the situation and recognise that the impropriety was not directed at the

184
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

gathering requires the PCSOs to be willing to adopt a sympathetic understanding.

However, taking such a position is not ‘automatic’ and is reliant on ‘special
information’ and a ‘special effort at interpretation’ (Goffman, 1963, p.246). The
open-mindedness, willingness and knowledge required for a sympathetic
understanding was visible in some of the PCSOs face encounters where slight forms
of impropriety were displayed by participants, as illustrated below.

Adriana and Furio approach a group of four boys on bikes circling a small green
space next to a primary school. Adriana greets a couple of the boys by name and
asks them how they are. The oldest looking boy tries to shush another from
answering her questions. One of them mentions doing wheelies in the street
and Adriana warns him that it is not safe. The older one then admits that he is
due in court for an ASB related offence which he goes on to give details about.
Adriana advises the boys that they don’t want to be going to Prison, and the
youngest looking boy starts asking questions about prison; ‘what’s the food
like?’ Adriana suggests it isn’t nice, and the boy requests other details. The older
boy seems a bit more engaged in the conversation, and Adriana asks him about
his bike. The exchange concludes with Adriana advising the boys to be careful
cycling on the road. Afterwards Adriana tells me about the older boy, his family
circumstances and the group dynamics with the youngest boy often
accompanying the others despite not always wanting to join in with them. (Obs
4 – 27/09/17)

In the fieldnote, it appears that Adriana’s insight and familiarity with the boys informs
her management of the face encounter. She is able to overlook the older boy’s initial
resistance and maintain talk with the rest of the group which leads to the boy’s
integration into the conversation. It can be considered a positive face engagement in
that Adriana was able to build rapport with the boys, add to her knowledge of them
and impart some general safety and crime prevention messages potentially
influencing their behaviour and encouraging future contact.

185
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

PCSO Inaccessibility

Occasionally during periods of foot patrol, the auxiliaries participated in minimal

focused interaction with the public, for example affording civil inattention to a few
persons in passing or only communicating with people when they were completing a
specific task that purposely involved a conversational encounter, for instance a home
visit. The resulting communication deficit in their patrol appeared to be related to
the locations the PCSOs frequented sometimes occupying few, if any, people; the
auxiliaries from time to time not making the best use of their communication position
in public; and organisational changes that had taken place under austerity to adapt
to reduced resources. Taking each of these circumstances, ‘low footfall of people’,
‘missed interactional opportunities’ and ‘organisational changes’, this section will
consider the range of factors, including external constraints, supervisory influences
and individual dispositions, that appeared to contribute to PCSO inaccessibility.
Accordingly, the aspects of foot patrol that are within the control of the NPTs and
auxiliaries will be highlighted to indicate how they can be managed so as to maximise
PCSOs visibility in public and thus increase their reach to develop their community
engagement practice.

Low Footfall of People

At 1015, Germani heads out on foot patrol to a residential area to follow-up on

three unrelated neighbour disputes. After forty minutes of walking through
terraced streets and crossing a busy bypass, we reach the first address and
Germani knocks forcefully on the front door. After another attempt, there’s no
answer and Germani posts a note informing the resident of his visit. At the
second address a few streets away, Germani knocks on the door a couple of
times before posting a note. Walking away, he describes how daytime is the
ideal period for the PCSOs to do home visits, but it is often the time when most
people are not available which makes it difficult to contact people. A short
distance around the corner, we reach the final address. Nobody is in and
Germani posts a note. Germani asks me about my fieldwork, and I mention

186
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

observing a lot of HVP and link it to the ongoing public demand for ‘more
bobbies on the beat’. Germani comments that there will always be an issue with
patrol because it is not possible for everyone to see the police all of the time.
He describes how the police can patrol a street, but if the residents are not in
and looking out of their window at the exact moment the police officers and
staff pass, they will never know about it and assume there is no police presence.
We walk back to the town centre and reach the shopping area at 1150 [A]. (Obs
11 – 28/11/17)

The walking routes and locations the PCSOs frequented were sometimes only
occupied by a small number, if any, pedestrians, residents or customers. Indeed,
there were a lot of unpredictable and uncontrollable external influences, from the
type of weather through to the variable daily routines of residents, that impacted
upon the presence and absence of persons at particular times of day in certain places.
Moreover, the auxiliaries could be restricted by the type of shift they were working
and the allocated activities or tasks they were required to complete. Take for
example Germani in fieldnote A, he has to follow-up with a number of persons in one
neighbourhood, but he is working a daytime shift, and nobody is at home, most likely
related to the time of day. This set of circumstances is, as he describes, a frustrating
and common part of the job which both hinders his completion of specific duties and,
with few other residents around, his general capacity to be seen by and potentially
have social contact with people. Accordingly, the conflict between the PCSOs’ shift
patterns and the daily lives of people often made it difficult for them to be
consistently visible. One possible consequence, identified by Germani, is that the
public are more likely to conclude that the police do not patrol an area rather than
consider that it is a matter of they themselves having not been there to see the police
in attendance.

Furio acknowledges a young girl as we enter the library at around 1600. Inside,
Furio greets one of the staff members at the reception desk and asks if they’ve
experienced any issues. She explains that a group of young people have been
misbehaving recently, one of whom is sat with a group using the computers
now, but there have been no problems today. We go to join Adriana in the

187
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

seating area, and she states that she made an announcement when she arrived
to inform people of her presence, but nobody has come over. Aside from the
small group at the computers, I notice that there’s only a few people pottering
around and mulling over books. During the conversation that follows, Adriana
describes how when she started in the role there were more support
organisations and venues, especially where young people could socialise, in the
neighbourhood which enabled them to visit different clubs and agencies on
patrol. She details how over the years many of these places have closed due to
funding cuts leaving few locations, except for the library, for people to go and
for them [PCSOs] to patrol [B]. (Obs 7 – 24/10/17)

Relatedly, the potential sense that the police are not present in localities is possibly
aggravated by there being fewer locations that create opportunities for PCSOs and
the public to come into contact with each other during their patrol. Over time the
landscape of neighbourhoods, as Adriana points out in field excerpt B, has altered to
the extent that a lot of organisations have either closed or relocated. The gap in
service provision not only impacts on the support available to residents but reduces
the shared spaces that they have use of. Consequently, outside of the traditional high
footfall areas, for example shops, there are fewer sites in neighbourhoods where
PCSOs can be regularly visible and accessible to residents.

At 1445 Carmine heads out to patrol an area that is around 4 miles away. He
expresses his preference for walking over public transport. Aside from a small
group of schoolchildren and an elderly male on a scooter, there are few
pedestrians on our walking route along the main roads. It's getting dark and
after around 45 minutes, Carmine turns into a quiet housing estate and he is
stopped by a male he knows for a quick chat. At 1600, we arrive at an address
where Carmine briefly follows up with a female about the theft of her child’s
bike on school premises. As we leave it starts to rain heavily and Carmine
suggests going to a nearby residential home he often frequents. Once there, he
obtains access to a building that houses a communal dining area. We are the
only ones around and Carmine makes us each a drink before spending some
time doing work on his handheld device. At 1700, we set out again into the
drizzle and make our way through a quiet housing estate that leads onto a vast

188
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

area of open parkland. As we walk across the dimly lit park dodging large
puddles, a dogwalker and a short time later a female talking on her mobile pass
us. On exiting the park, Carmine directs us back to the station through some
quiet residential areas and we arrive at 1820 [C]. (Obs 13 – 07/12/17)

While there were obstacles outside of the auxiliaries’ control that impacted upon the
presence of people during their patrol, there equally appeared to be organisational
and personal influences informing their practice that contributed to the amount of
people they encountered. Individually, the PCSOs exercised some discretion over
how and where they conducted their patrol within their neighbourhoods, especially
during periods when they had no allocated jobs or time available between tasks
which, as illustrated in fieldnote A, could easily occur if people were not at home. It
was in these circumstances that the choices the auxiliaries sometimes made in
relation to how and where to patrol seemed disadvantageous to their community
engagement remit. In particular, the PCSOs’ patrol decisions sometimes appeared to
be based on convenience and habit as opposed to maximising their visibility.

Take for example Carmine in field excerpt C, he not only chooses to walk the lengthy
distance to his dedicated neighbourhood, but he takes routes where there are low
footfalls of people and he spends a period of time in a place where no one is present.
Of course, the time of year, time of day and weather will have impacted upon the
numbers of people in attendance. Nevertheless, there were alternative options
available to him that may have increased the number of people he encountered
during at least three hours of his walking patrol. Firstly, Carmine could have used
public transport to travel to his neighbourhood which, at that time of day and in
those particular weather conditions, is likely to have been busy. Secondly, he could
have incorporated the high streets and retail areas into his walking routes, especially
as they were in the vicinity of where he patrolled. Together these choices would have
increased the likelihood of him being visible to more people and engaging in
unfocused and focused interaction with them.

189
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

At the start of the shift, the Sgt informs me that I will be observing Carlo and
Salvatore in Raycliff. The Sgt recalls how in the past the police couldn’t enter the
main council estate due to the level of antipathy towards them, but in an effort
to address crime and improve community relations, the police ‘flooded’ the area
and established a presence. The team now have a satellite office situated in the
building of a partner agency on the estate. The Sgt adds that relations with
residents have generally improved although officers still experience some
hostility which, she says, I’ll probably get a sense of when I’m there [...]

Towards the end of the shift at around 1600 when we’re walking through the
estate, I comment to the PCSOs that the estate itself has seemed deserted
today. Up ahead I see a male doing some construction work in a backyard, and
I think to myself that this is only the third time I’ve seen people outside on the
estate today. Salvatore responds jokingly, ‘they’re getting ready’, suggesting
that they’ll be more residents around and issues to deal with in the evening. [D].
(Obs 6 – 16/10/17)

In addition to PCSOs’ patrol decisions, there was a sense that organisational decisions
structuring PCSO patrol practice were, in some instances, not being consistently
updated to adapt to changes in circumstances. This appeared to contribute to some
of the auxiliaries becoming fixed in patrol routines that were potentially
counterproductive. Field extract D illustrates one such instance where the PCSOs
continued to be based on an estate conducting regular patrols, in line with a strategy
implemented by the NPT, despite some acknowledgement that the situation had
improved and, at least during the time of the fieldwork, it was achieving little in the
way of community engagement. Therefore, it questioned the extent to which the
perceived overdose of PCSO patrol in that area of the neighbourhood continued to
be a constructive policing strategy.

Aside from considerations around whether ‘flooding’ an area with police officers and
staff is a productive means of dealing with police tensions and improving community
engagement in the first instance, it could be argued that the NPT maintaining a visible
presence where there is little to no footfall of people for interaction is problematic.

190
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

Operationally, the stationing of PCSOs in an area where there are few people or
issues, at least at certain times of the day, is an inefficient allocation of resources.
Even if it is considered that there is a need for a sustained police presence, such an
assessment should be dynamic in that it should reflect the changing particularities of
the area to update the times, places and ways patrol can be best utilised. In fieldnote
D, there was a sense from the Sgt’s description of the improved police relations with
residents and Salvatore’s assessment, albeit light-heartedly expressed, of when
residents were likely to be around that the PCSO patrol could be more effectively
delivered there. Otherwise, at least from a dramaturgical perspective, there is the
potential for the PCSOs’ visibility to achieve very little in relation to community
engagement and, in some instances, facilitate community disengagement.

A foot patrol that involves little to no focused interaction with residents due to their
absence at the time, as Germani highlighted in fieldnote A, can limit what the
auxiliaries can do practically and potentially generate the belief that the police have
no presence in the area. Alternatively, if residents continually observe a PCSO patrol
through unfocused interaction and in the absence of any understanding of their work
in the area, they may be more inclined to hold the view that they are being unfairly
targeted by the police. Especially in housing areas, similar to the council estate in
field extract D, where residents had experienced an intense period of police
intervention involving enforcement activity followed by an ongoing police presence.
Here, the sustained police visibility through PCSO patrol might be viewed as an
extension of the initial enforcement action, as opposed to a separate form of
intervention with a community engagement purpose. In these circumstances, the
visibility of the PCSOs can create negative connotations and symbolise a type of
security that does not bring the residents a sense of safety and comfort.
Subsequently, in the event that residents are co-present with the auxiliaries in the
public space, they may be more likely to avoid the PCSOs or engage in some form of
impropriety in their focused interaction with them.

All of the PCSOs had knowledge of the different methods of accessing people in their
localities, for example linking in with the meetings and events of partner agencies or

191
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

setting up opportunities to talk with different groups like school children or elderly
people, and they demonstrated using them. However, in some instances, it appeared
that their application of these approaches had become centred on specific locations
or gradually stopped, in part related to not adapting to changes in the service
provision within areas. Therefore, repeated attention to where PCSOs are focusing
their patrol efforts, what this entails and the extent to which it is perceptible to the
public could enhance the interaction facility of the auxiliaries. It is important to point
out that the analysis is not suggesting that PCSOs require more oversight to conduct
their patrol per se, it is outlining the potential advantage of a more joined up
approach between the supervisory ranks and the auxiliaries within NPTs to ensure
more structure and consistency in foot patrol practice.

The preceding assessment of how PCSO patrol can be counterproductive to

community engagement highlights the potential double-edged nature of police
visibility and the importance of NPTs generally, and PCSOs specifically, tailoring their
communicative mechanisms to the individualities of their neighbourhoods. The
presence of PCSOs will not, for every neighbourhood area, straightforwardly lead to
and fulfil a community engagement purpose. Instead, there is the potential for PCSO
patrol to be invisible to localities or convey messages that unnerve residents and
have a damaging impact upon their understandings and experiences of policing. In
particular, the potential for patrol work to represent danger and insecurity can lead
to it being interpreted as a destructive intervention in some communities. Overall,
the understandings generated from the analysis of low footfall draws attention to
the value of NPTs continually reviewing patrol practice, including an appraisal of what
the presence of the auxiliaries is potentially communicating to residents and its
effectiveness in fulfilling a community engagement function, to inform the ways in
which PCSOs are deployed to conduct their patrol. Over time it could be seen how
PCSOs making choices about how and where to patrol based on personal preferences
and conveniences in combination with outdated management oversight could create
static and unconstructive patrol routines in some neighbourhood areas.

192
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

Missed Interactional Opportunities

The lack of focused interaction with the public during foot patrol in many of the
instances observed during the fieldwork appeared to be related to the ‘body symbols’
expressed by the PCSOs potentially signalling to persons in their immediate
surroundings that they were inaccessible for social contact (Goffman, 1963, p.35).
These symbols were specific aspects of the auxiliaries’ appearance and actions, what
Goffman terms ‘body idiom’, which formed the unfocused interaction available to all
those present to perceive (Goffman, 1963, p.34). A person, whether they are in talk
or not, cannot stop communicating through body idiom. Accordingly, there is an
anticipation that people will present themselves in certain ways in front of others,
specifically that their body idiom will communicate the ‘right thing’, so as to convey
‘the behaviours that ought to be shown’ (Goffman, 1963, p.35).

For PCSOs conducting foot patrol in public they can be seen to be acting as police
representatives are expected to act – they ‘fit in’ (Goffman, 1963, p.35). On the
surface, their situational presence on patrol shows them to be appropriately engaged
in an occasioned main involvement, that is an activity that is the principal focus of
their attention and is ‘an intrinsic part of the social occasion [their work shift] in which
the situation occurs’ (Goffman, 1963, p.50). However, examining closer the allocation
of the auxiliaries’ involvement during their patrol through making inferences from
their body idiom suggested at times that they were unavailable for everyday social
contact with bystanders (Goffman, 1963, p.37). Specifically, the PCSOs use of
handheld devices and engagement in conversational encounters with each other
appeared to act as barriers to perception that in turn could reduce opportunities for
interaction with the passing public. These two portable involvement shields will be
discussed separately below to show how they could enable the auxiliaries to
‘maintain the impression of proper involvement’ in their work at the same time as
potentially causing them to be neglectful of their ‘situational obligations’, in this case
their availability for focused interaction with those around them (Goffman, 1963,
p.41).

193
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

All the PCSOs had been issued with compact digital devices, formally named Prontos,
to access the police systems and complete work tasks outside the station, including
finding out the details of jobs, updating records and accessing emails. In light of the
auxiliaries covering large geographical areas and, in most instances, no longer having
convenient access to satellite offices to use the computers, the handheld devices
offered an efficient means for them to keep up to date with their work on the go
reducing, in theory, the time spent away from their neighbourhood in the main
station. Nevertheless, from time to time, it seemed that the PCSOs use of Prontos in
the public space absorbed an unnecessary amount of their attention, especially when
on the majority of occasions, they were still allocating themselves time to use the
office-based computers to complete work before, during and/or after their time on
patrol. Furthermore, the physical action of using the Prontos situated the auxiliaries’
bodies away from the public.

The PCSOs were usually seated with one hand holding the Pronto; the other hand
holding a stylus to aid operation of the device; their upper body leaning forward; and
their eyes looking down at the Pronto screen in front of them. Consequently, their
positioning significantly reduced the amount of eye contact the auxiliaries could
engage in with those around them. Given that ‘eye contact opens one up for face
engagement’ (Goffman, 1963, p.95), the PCSOs in concentrating their eyes away from
their surroundings were impeding their capacity to communicate in the natural and
unplanned ways illustrated in Chapter 4. While the auxiliaries could still be
approached, their bodily arrangement facilitated the appearance that they were
occupied with work activity suggesting that they were temporarily unavailable, at
least for everyday social contact. A similar inaccessibility could be observed in the
action of the auxiliaries being engaged in conversational encounters with each other
during patrol.

Generally, the PCSOs conducted patrol in pairs. Given that the auxiliaries were in the
company of one another completing the same tasks, it was understandable that they
occupied a lot of their time walking around the public space in talk with each other.

194
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

Whether the resulting ‘conversational cluster’ involved talk relating to work or

personal matters, the content of the exchange in the open space could be concealed
through their ‘control of facial and bodily expression’ (Goffman, 1963, p.176). The
ability to shield the conversation suggests that it causes little disruption to the
auxiliaries’ work activity and still allows them to continue fulfilling their
responsibilities. In this way, it might be considered to be a ‘subordinate side
involvement’ in that it is an activity that the PCSOs can carry out at times when their
full attention is not required by the overarching task that dominates them (Goffman,
1963, p.44). Accordingly, the conversational byplay allows the auxiliaries to ‘drain off
some unusable involvement capacity’ when they perceive nothing to be occurring
around them (Goffman, 1963, p.52). However, the chance to engage in a shielded
conversation without appearing to be deviating from the task in hand or causing
offense to those around them simultaneously creates ‘one of the most significant
involvement shields’ (Goffman, 1963, p.176).

The concealed conversation allows the PCSOs to convey appropriate involvement

within the situation even if they are not strictly focused on their main work task.
Furthermore, the ease with which this type of activity can be sustained can
progressively attract more of the auxiliaries’ attention taking them away from their
concern for the passing public (Goffman, 1963, p.45). While a conversation, in this
context, may be considered ‘minor in everyday terms’ with it being expected to only
occupy the PCSOs’ ‘lesser and unimportant’ selves, it is precisely this type of routine
and accepted subordinate side involvement that poses a ‘constant threat to
obligatory behaviour, ever ready to absorb more of the individual’s concern that is
felt proper’ (Goffman, 1963, p.45). Consequently, it highlights the potential for the
auxiliaries to unknowingly give more weight to conversation with each other during
patrol resulting in it becoming an ‘overdemanding subordinate involvement’ that can
distract them from ordinary opportunities to interact with the public (Goffman, 1963,
p.64).

Aside from conversing PCSOs creating conditions that can divert their attention away
from the public, the performance of the act itself can discourage passing persons

195
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

from affording the auxiliaries consideration. Two uniformed PCSOs walking and
talking together are in a ‘with’, namely they are ‘a party of more than one whose
members are perceived to be together’, and this is visibly perceptible to those around
them through unfocused interaction (Goffman, 2010, p.19). Accordingly, the
appearance of the on-duty auxiliaries in conversation can generate an obligation in
the surrounding bystanders to act as if the encounter is ‘physically cut off from the
rest of the situation’ (Goffman, 1963, p.156). This set of circumstances was previously
highlighted from the perspective of the PCSOs to illustrate their actions to maintain
conventional engagement closure when participating in face engagements with the
public. However, it can still apply to the auxiliaries talking to each other alone as their
actions show them to be engaged in a conversational encounter. While it was
previously pointed out that bystanders did at times intrude on the auxiliaries’ face
engagements, they can, in perceiving the PCSOs to be occupied, also cooperate in
maintaining the conventional engagement closure. This can take the form of
bystanders extending ‘a type of civil inattention […] designed for encounters’ to
express that they are concentrating their attention elsewhere and considerately
distancing themselves in the available space (Goffman, 1963, p.156 and 161). The
potential for conventional engagement closure to occur highlights how the apparent
accessibility of the PCSOs can be unknowingly concealed by persons around them,
which again obstructs focused interaction from taking place with the public.

The PCSOs use of Prontos and conversation with each other during foot patrol
highlights how their outward expression of accessibility can be concealed. In both
instances, the auxiliaries facial and bodily gestures showed them to be engrossed in
activity and unavailable for focused interaction with the public. To a certain extent,
these activities allowed the PCSOs to control bystanders’ access to them because
they justified the auxiliaries diverting their eyes elsewhere which stopped them from
‘meeting other’s eyes and thus avoid[ing] cooperative claims’ (Goffman, 1963, p.94).
Certainly, the prospect of being unapproachable will be, at times, appealing for some
PCSOs, as Goffman (1963, p.106) suggests, ‘the obligation to be properly accessible
often covers a desire to be selectively quite unavailable.’ This also highlights how the
auxiliaries did not always fully realise their communication position in the public

196
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

space and the opportunities it created for positive unfocused and focused interaction
with anyone in passing. Consequently, they were less likely to appreciate the subtle
ways in which they could communicate with the people around them, for example
glancing, smiling and passing greetings. This rationale seemed increasingly probable
given the amount of time the PCSOs had available to them in the office to complete
computer-based tasks and the casual content of their conversational encounters
indicating that using Prontos and engaging in talk with each other were not always
essential activities. Therefore, it appeared that they engaged in these undertakings
to maintain the impression of appropriate involvement to possibly sustain a level of
activity, particularly at times when they perceived that there was little happening or
few people around on their patrol. In effect, the acts could be perceived as forming
‘portable sources of involvement’ that could be utilised by the PCSOs to give the
appearance of activity during periods of supposed inactivity on patrol (Goffman,
1963, p.51).

Organisational Change

At 1024 Livia and Parisi leave the station to conduct vehicle patrol. As we drive
along, I ask if they prefer using the car and they agree that it makes it easier to
get around. Parisi explains that the restructuring of the NPTs resulted in them
dealing with jobs across the whole neighbourhood region, including areas they
are unfamiliar with, in addition to being dedicated to larger ‘beats’.
Consequently, if they have a number of jobs to complete, they can be located
far apart, and it is more difficult and time consuming to attend them on foot or
using public transport. I ask if they notice any differences between foot and
vehicle patrol. Parisi states that when they pass a location, they can often miss
a lot of what is going on, and Livia adds that they are not able to investigate an
area, like smell or look around, in the same way as they would on foot. Livia
goes on to describe people not stopping them when they’re in a vehicle and she
compares it to a foot patrol on a previous shift where they struggled to make
their way up the street due to the number of people approaching them.

197
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

Parisi pulls up outside an address where Livia is following up with the

complainant of an attempted burglary. No one is at home and Livia leaves a note
with her details. The PCSOs have no other allocated jobs this morning and Parisi
indicates that they’ll drive around. We travel to some of the rural areas on the
outskirts of Seabarrow which are quiet with few people around. Parisi
comments that they don't get chance to cover these areas usually because of
how far away they are and few issues directing them here. Livia points out that
it’s good for the residents to see a police car at least. Parisi talks about how
when she was assigned a smaller beat, she knew everything that was going on
in the area and was known to a lot of the local people. Now, she has less chance
to spend time in her dedicated area and when she does attend, residents tend
to comment that they’d thought she’d left because they rarely see her. Parisi
suggests that staffing is complicated by the other demands on the NPT. She
explains that they have days, like today, where most of the staff have been
deployed to conduct a land search for weapons and so whoever else is on shift
has to pick up the remaining work. We drive through some housing estates and
pass a shopping parade. We arrive back at the station for 1235. (Obs 17 –
31/01/18)

The geographic boundaries of the NPTs were restructured to create fewer larger NPT
areas, in line with the metropolitan boroughs of the county, to adapt to the reduction
in resources brought about by austerity. The move included the amalgamation of a
number of the NPTs to the newly mapped neighbourhoods and the relocation of all
staff from satellite offices to one or two larger police stations in each NPT area. From
fieldwork discussions, it appeared that the rationale for centrally locating all staff in
each NPT related to saving money from no longer having to finance lots of different
premises and making it easier, given the larger geographical areas, to manage and
deploy staff. Several of the satellite offices remained in use, however given that all
staff were primarily based at the police stations, they functioned less as points of
contact for the public. This restructure of the NPTs, as the fieldnote highlights,
impacted upon how the PCSOs completed their work in two significant ways.

198
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

Firstly, PCSOs were authorised to drive the police vehicles to assist them in travelling
around their larger NPT areas and completing their routine work tasks. In some
instances, it was too time consuming for them to walk or use public transport to cover
the distances required to complete their allocated jobs, and police officers were not
always available to chauffeur them around. However, PCSOs use of vehicles to
complete specific work tasks merged with their patrol function to the extent that
they did not conduct foot patrol when they had use of a vehicle. The above fieldnote
illustrates how PCSOs in vehicles can be seen to replicate the same communicative
behaviours as police officers in vehicles as outlined in Chapter 4. Essentially, the
auxiliaries inside the bounded space of the vehicle experience restricted unfocused
and focused interaction with the public which questions the extent to which they can
fulfil an engagement function. On the one hand, PCSOs use of vehicles could be
considered less of an issue due to a general shortage of police vehicles in the NPTs
and police officers taking priority in using them resulting in fewer opportunities for
them to drive. On the other hand, the regularity with which PCSOs needed to drive
the vehicles to complete specific jobs or were able to because vehicles were available
to them was sufficient to raise concerns about the use of foot patrol in the long term.

There is a risk with increasing PCSOs dependence on using vehicles that the auxiliaries
will accord less value to foot patrol and the practice will diminish over time, especially
given that the organisational conditions have been created for PCSOs to develop a
preference for using vehicles over walking. This was partly evidenced by some PCSOs
asking about vehicle availability during their shifts when they did not necessarily
require one for the tasks they had planned or the distances they were intending to
travel. The potential for PCSOs to increasingly develop an affinity to using vehicles
will possibly feed into how they construct their cultural identity within the
organisation as it reduces the occupational differences between them and police
officers. While it is not within the scope of the study to explore PCSOs’ individual
motivations for preferring the vehicle and the cultural implications, from a
dramaturgical perspective a vehicle can, at least through unfocused interaction,
conceal the role identity of a PCSO and give the impression to the passing public that
they are a police officer. For some PCSOs, the potential for the vehicle to disguise

199
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

their identity and increase their occupational alignment with their PC colleagues
might make it an attractive device to incorporate into their everyday work.

With the potential preference for conducting vehicle patrol, it is likely that PCSOs,
similar to police officers, will not adapt their use of the vehicles to increase social
contact with the public, such as spending some time outside the vehicle walking
around an area. This possibility is, in part, illustrated by Parisi and Livia who, despite
acknowledging the communicative shortcomings of the vehicle, continue to conduct
their patrol in the vehicle and assume the notion that the presence of the vehicle
will, at the very least, provide a reassurance function. In the event that the worth and
use of foot patrol by PCSOs does decline, it has the potential to challenge the
necessity of their role, particularly as they were originally introduced to deliver a
visible police presence on foot.

Secondly, PCSOs were essentially spread across the whole of the NPT area to
accommodate the shortfall in resources. The auxiliaries were still dedicated to
specific localities within the NPT area and they endeavoured to spend their time
patrolling them. However, as Parisi describes, their dedicated beats had increased in
size, and for some PCSOs had changed altogether with the amalgamation of teams.
Moreover, there was an expectation that the auxiliaries would complete jobs and
patrols in other parts of the NPT area to fulfil overarching priorities when reduced
staffing and increased demand required. Consequently, the PCSOs were unable to
consistently cover the whole territory of their dedicated beats and had less time to
commit to them. Instead, they often spent small amounts of time in unfamiliar areas
and/or completing tasks that removed them altogether from providing an
engagement function. This was complicated by the PCSOs frequently not being able
to plan their time strategically as they often only became aware of the NPT’s
priorities or jobs unrelated to their dedicated localities on the day of their shift.

Taken together, the changes to how PCSOs were deployed could be seen to reduce
their ability to deliver a consistent communicative influence making it difficult for
them to maintain an interactional presence in their dedicated areas and establish

200
 Findings and Analysis – Part 3

one in the short periods they spent in unfamiliar areas. If PCSOs are not regularly
visible for unfocused and focused interaction with unacquainted and acquainted
persons they can struggle to create or maintain positive perceptions of local policing,
a dialogue with people and an understanding of communities. Moreover, if the
auxiliaries are positioned in unfamiliar areas for short periods, they may lack or not
have time to develop the knowledge required to deliver the most communicative
impact on their patrol, such as having an awareness of the times and places where
there are high footfalls of people or the community organisations where they can
access different groups of people. These issues highlight the importance of PCSOs
being allocated the time to be sufficiently dedicated to their beats to establish and
sustain a visibility that can deliver community engagement effectively. By exploring
visibility from the perspective of what it looks like when it is impaired, the chapter
has aimed to emphasise the strengths attached to what it means when there is high
visibility in PCSO foot patrol, as set out in Chapter 5, and provide a more informed
appreciation of what it can contribute to community engagement work.

201
 Discussion

Chapter 7
Distinguishing Police Visibility

The chapter will firstly summarise the findings and analysis presented in Chapters 4
- 6 to answer the research questions set out below to show how an interactional
understanding of police visibility is constructed. The second section will consider how
this perspective of police visibility complements, adds to and develops existing
knowledge about police patrol and community engagement.

• What is a visible police presence in the day-to-day work of NPTs?

• In what ways does police visibility, particularly PCSO visibility, contribute to
community engagement?

Summary of Findings

The Goffmanian analysis of the findings shows that a visible police presence in the
day-to-day work of NPTs is created by the interactional accessibility of police officers
and staff on patrol. The interactional accessibility of police officers and staff is
structured by the boundedness, proximity and openness of the patrol spaces they
occupy. The vehicle is a closed bounded space moving on the road at a distance from
others that can restrict and disguise the physical accessibility of police officers. In
contrast, the open unbounded space of walking on the street in close proximity to
others can expose and amplify the physical accessibility of PCSOs. The variation in
the interactional accessibility of vehicle and foot patrol spaces produces different
types of police-public contact and conveys different messages about policing activity.
Taken together, these differences can be used to highlight the compatibility of each
patrol method to delivering a community engagement function. Vehicle patrol can
create the potential conditions for minimal formal police-public contact and produce
information about the activity of officers that is inconducive to establishing a visible
presence to engage communities. In comparison, foot patrol can create the potential
conditions for increased informal eye-to-eye and verbal police-public contact capable

202
 Discussion

of facilitating a reciprocal expressive connection and developing relations conducive

to establishing a visible presence to engage communities.

Examining the communicative gains of PCSO foot patrol in more detail to understand
how they can contribute to the development of two-way dialogue with the public
and a better understanding of communities, PCSOs utilising eye contact with the
public, ranging from glancing to more prolonged visual attention, is identified as a
fundamental and important interactional tool. At the outset, it is a means by which
the auxiliaries can integrate into the public space to acknowledge and be
acknowledged by others and potentially participate in creating a shared sense of
calm and unity with those around them. At the same time, it can also serve a number
of distinctive communicative functions. Firstly, a protracted gaze by a PCSO can
facilitate orderliness by acting as a subtle negative sanction against improper
behaviour and offering the opportunity for those involved to alter their conduct.
Secondly, eye-to-eye contact between PCSOs and the public, whether that be in the
course of the PCSOs walking around or responding to an incident, can signal
information that reduces a sense of alarm, creates a perception of protection and
safety and informs positive assessments of the auxiliaries and policing. Thirdly, these
unplanned, reciprocal and tacit forms of eye contact can create an openness
between PCSOs and the public that initiates unplanned face encounters.

Face engagements typically arise from greeting behaviours and can affirm and
support the social relationship between PCSOs and the public and open the lines of
communication for dialogue. Greetings involve to different degrees positive
expressions of social recognition, such as smiles, and/or physical gestures, for
instance waving or nodding, and are usually accompanied by verbal salutations.
These welcoming exchanges can assist the PCSOs in communicating good intentions,
social recognition and approval or provide an opportunity to intervene if something
is wrong; all of which can result in them building relations in a civil way with
unacquainted persons or maintaining relations in a considerate manner with
acquainted persons. Nevertheless, greeting practices require some skilful manoeuvre
by PCSOs, including applying caution when approaching others and managing the

203
 Discussion

expectations that can arise from increased verbal contact, to avoid potentially
alienating themselves or the persons involved or creating anticipations they are
unable to fulfil.

The opportunity for and willingness of PCSOs to enter into talk can lead to unplanned
face encounters that have the potential to allow them to demonstrate social
closeness and relatedness; provide support and assistance; gather intelligence; or
prevent and address low-level crime and disorder; all of which offer information
about people and places that can build an understanding of areas. Underpinning all
these impromptu contacts in most instances is a degree of social intimacy and
sociability that can enable PCSOs to establish or maintain rapport with others
through which they can form, accept or sustain personal relationships with them. It
is this which is not only likely to stimulate dialogue between the PCSOs and public
but create the relationships for ongoing dialogue. Important to the dialogic process
is the influence PCSOs can exert over the structure of face engagements, particularly
in regard to the speaking and leave-taking rights of participants. PCSOs are required
to regulate their needs and expectations with those of the people involved to provide
everyone with equal opportunity to contribute to the content of the talk and prevent
the face engagement from losing focus or becoming unmanageable. An equally
important and related aspect to face engagements are the farewell displays that
PCSOs can perform which imply or encourage future contact. These closing gestures
can allow people to feel considered by and familiar with the PCSOs and leave a
positive impression of the relationship and interaction without creating burdensome
expectations.

Two important elements of PCSO face engagements are accessibility and

acquaintanceship. The accessibility of PCSOs in the public space facilitates their
heightened readiness for and responsiveness to social contact with the public and
contributes to them establishing a situational presence that can be experienced by
all those around them both implicitly and explicitly. Persons in their presence can
indirectly observe PCSOs’ gestures and face encounters with others or directly enter
into face engagements with them. In both of these occurrences, information is being

204
 Discussion

communicated about the characterological traits of the PCSO role, the type of work
they perform and/or the specific task they are undertaking which provides a basis for
PCSOs to develop familiarity and relationships with people while simultaneously
extending the reach of their work in communities. To manage their communicative
accessibility in the public space, when PCSOs enter into face encounters they modify
their positioning, spacing and conduct to make some effort to maintain its integrity,
boundaries and privacy in the presence of others.

Acquaintanceship is identifiable in all relations between PCSOs and the public. From
distinguishing their general status as uniformed policing representatives, accepting
greetings through to knowing exclusive information, such as names, the public and
PCSOs can always mutually identify each other. The regular presence of PCSOs in
localities can develop the acquaintanceships they share with members of the public
both informally and formally. Attending the same places and coming across the same
people allows the PCSOs to informally build on their previous ‘seeings’ of said
persons to learn more about them and the locality. Alternatively, PCSOs can develop
acquaintanceships formally when they are introduced to people through a policing
related matter, participation in a specific intervention or a third party. The
progression of acquaintanceships brings about a social bondedness that increases
the access between PCSOs and the public for face engagements with each other in
passing or as part of unplanned visits or planned meetings in both public and private
spaces. It is this aspect of PCSO acquaintanceships that can facilitate ongoing two-
way dialogue and contribute to them providing support and reassurance; receiving
updated information about an area’s needs, risks and threats; and involving people
in local policing.

The co-presence of PCSOs in the public space and their utilisation of a range of
interactional devices create communicative opportunities, some of which do not
require direct face-to-face contact, with all those around them. It can facilitate PCSOs
developing a sense of belonging, trust, reassurance and familiarity with people they
come across at the same time as enabling them to enter into face engagements,
convey information directly and indirectly about their role and work, and foster

205
 Discussion

lasting acquaintanceships with local people. All of these communicative contacts

initiated or received by PCSOs are influential in developing a two-way dialogue with
the public and a better understanding of localities. They allow the PCSOs to connect
with people and places to provide a type of support, gain a type of insight and
cultivate a type of relationship that would be hard to gauge and develop from the
position of the vehicle. However, there were four identifiable features of the patrol
practices observed that could be seen to hinder the interactional accessibility of
police officers and staff in engaging communities.

Firstly, the extensive use of vehicle patrol significantly restricted the amount and type
of communication between the police and public. Police officers predominantly used
vehicles to conduct all their patrol work and PCSOs increasingly started to
incorporate vehicles into their patrol practice, despite some recognition of the
communicative obstacles it could create. The physical boundaries of a police vehicle
can reduce or inhibit altogether direct and indirect forms of contact between the
police and public. Furthermore, it is likely when the police make claims of others from
inside the vehicle or others makes claims of the police from outside the vehicle that
the contact between them will be limited to formal verbal exchanges. The positioning
of police officers and staff in a moving vehicle can also suggest that they are occupied
with a policing related task in hand and/or are unapproachable for everyday
communication or a non-urgent matter. The lack of opportunity for informal types of
interaction combined with the impression the vehicle can create around the work
and availability of police officers and staff is likely to make it difficult for them to
affect a presence capable of developing a dialogue with local people and an
understanding of the locality.

Secondly, individual PCSO and supervisory decisions around the walking routes and
locations for foot patrol sometimes led to the auxiliaries having little to no contact
with the public and/or could potentially create the conditions for community
disengagement. In terms of the discretion PCSOs exercised over their patrol, there
were occasions where their decisions seemed informed by personal habits,
preferences or conveniences as opposed to maximising the number of people they

206
 Discussion

were actively encountering. A lack of PCSO proactivity in accessing areas of high

footfall is likely to make it difficult for them to establish a consistent presence in
localities in turn impacting upon their communicative reach. There is also the
potential, as one PCSO recognised, that people will conclude police invisibility is
down to police officers and staff not patrolling an area rather than consider it is
related to them not having been present at the time the auxiliaries were in
attendance. This type of assumption is likely to feed into negative public impressions
of local policing.

There were also times when supervisors’ decisions about PCSO patrol appeared to
contribute to the auxiliaries becoming fixed in patrol routines where they were
having little indirect or direct contact with the public. This was particularly evident in
residential areas where it was assessed police visibility was necessary, usually related
to the NPT having identified the need for or previously executed enforcement action
against crime and disorder issues. However, these assessments did not appear to
consider the communicative influence of PCSOs on foot, both in relation to ensuring
the auxiliaries were interactionally accessible to residents and in terms of what their
policing presence could represent. PCSOs patrolling an area at times and/or places
where they do not come into contact with residents, particularly in those areas
where police enforcement has occurred, reduces the opportunity for them to foster
a supportive dialogue and acquaintanceships. In turn, this can create the impression
that the PCSO presence is an extension of the previous enforcement action and
impact upon residents’ willingness to engage in any type of contact with them.

Thirdly, aspects of PCSOs’ appearances and actions, such as using handheld devices
and engaging in conversational encounters with each other, potentially signalled to
persons in their presence that they were inaccessible for everyday social contact.
While the handheld devices allowed PCSOs to keep up to date with their work on the
go, they consumed a lot of their attention, especially as the auxiliaries still tended to
allocate themselves time to use the office-based computers. The physical action of
using handheld devices positioned PCSOs’ bodies away from the public reducing the
amount of eye contact they experienced with bystanders making it difficult for them

207
 Discussion

to communicate their approachability for contact. Similarly, PCSOs patrolling in pairs

increasingly engaged in conversations with each other which, again, could divert their
attention away from people around them and discourage passing persons from
affording them any consideration. On the surface, a conversation seems a minor
distraction and does not physically impede the PCSOs from completing their patrol.
However, it is this type of seemingly innocent byplay that can absorb more of their
attention at the same time as creating an obligation in those around them to not
intrude on the face engagement. Together these occurrences could disconnect the
auxiliaries from everyday opportunities to communicate with the public during their
patrol.

Finally, organisational influences on how PCSOs were deployed could make it hard
for them to establish or maintain a consistent interactionally accessible presence in
localities. The structure of the force region had changed resulting in NPTs occupying
larger geographical areas with few, if any, satellite offices available for use. This
adjustment was accompanied with an expectation that PCSOs would complete work
tasks across the whole NPT area, and in some instances force area, to accommodate
any shortfalls in staffing or respond to any operational demands. It created a
situation where PCSOs were stretched thinly across the whole NPT area making it
difficult for them to establish or maintain their dedication to their assigned beats and
increased their reliance on vehicles to travel around and complete work tasks more
efficiently. Consequently, it potentially hindered the auxiliaries from building
dialogue and acquaintanceships to develop the knowledge required to have the most
communicative impact, especially in regard to developing their awareness of the
times and places where they can access high footfalls of people or different groups
and services, and to foster a better understanding of places.

The identified situational, dispositional and organisational occurrences, factors and

decisions highlight the subtle ways the interactional accessibility of police officers
and staff on patrol can be reduced or obstructed altogether potentially making it
difficult for the NPTs to develop community engagement. By drawing attention to
potential interactional deficits in NPTs’ patrol work, the research is seeking to show

208
 Discussion

the value in police officers and staff developing their awareness and use of the
identified interactional devices to make, where possible, small changes to how they
conduct patrol and make sense of communities.

It is important to note that there were external influences, including weather

conditions, the nature of residents’ routines and the lack of shared public spaces,
which were outside the control of police officers and staff and impacted upon the
presence and absence of people at particular times of day in certain places. Similarly,
there were times when members of the public acted improperly, particularly towards
the PCSOs, either as part of acknowledging in some way their presence or from the
outset of a face engagement. For the individual/s involved, the incivility signalled in
different ways their alienation from contact with the PCSOs which made it difficult
for the auxiliaries to cultivate a positive interaction. While such impropriety could
create challenging conditions for the PCSOs to develop community engagement, it
was not necessarily irreparable. Taking a sympathetic approach that incorporated an
open-mindedness and willingness to interact with others could allow the PCSOs to
look beyond the incivility and attempt to build some rapport to foster a positive and
supportive exchange.

Bringing together the aforementioned ideas around the different interactional

spaces of vehicle and foot patrol and the distinctive types of contact and messages
that can be created from them, an interactional understanding of police visibility is
constructed. Applying this perspective to community engagement work takes the
conceptualisation of a visible police presence beyond police officers and staff simply
being observable on patrol and emphasises all the communicative processes that
need to take place for police visibility to contribute to community engagement.

Examining an Interactional Understanding of Police Visibility

The literature review in Chapter 2 highlighted that, contrary to what is assumed in

policing policy, all citizens will not willingly and capably engage with police officers

209
 Discussion

and staff on patrol; that police officers and staff in a lot of instances will not routinely
be instructed to, motivated to or have the necessary learning and skills to provide an
engagement function on patrol; and that communities are not neatly packaged social
units visible to patrolling police officers and staff. Taking each of these considerations
about citizens, policing and communities and referring back to the literature, this
section will show how an interactional understanding of police visibility
complements, adds to and develops existing knowledge about community
engagement in policing.

Citizen Engagement with Police on Patrol

An interactional understanding of police visibility supports existing research by

showing that the type of patrol, the amount and nature of contact with the police on
patrol and the approachability of patrolling police officers and staff is influential in
developing engagement with citizens (Cowell and Kringen 2016; Kelling et al. 1974;
Police Foundation, 1981; Vernon and Lasley, 1992). It reinforces the identified
importance of the public seeing police officers and staff and having informal
exchanges with them to develop familiarity, build police-public relationships and
generate positive assessments of policing and community engagement (Cooper et al.
2006; Bradford, Jackson and Stanko, 2009; Paskell, 2007). This perspective also
expands on these studies’ findings by describing what citizens can experience when
they see patrolling police officers and staff, either in vehicles or on foot; how this can
facilitate or restrict contact between them; and how it can lead to community
engagement as envisaged in the College of Policing (2018a) guidelines. Specifically, it
outlines what it is about vehicle patrol that can make it less noticeable, the types of
direct and indirect contact that can occur and what makes police officers and staff
approachable. Accordingly, in terms of foot patrol, it offers an explanation for why in
Foster and Jones’ (2010) action research a PCSO only spoke to two people during
their shift patrolling an estate; why in Crawford et al.’s (2005, p.57) study two
conversing PCSOs on patrol can convey the message that ‘we do not wish to be
disturbed’ and how they can, as the authors recommend, ‘engage outwardly with

210
 Discussion

their surroundings’; and how in Vernon and Lasley’s (1992) study police officers
actively engaging in informal positive contacts with citizens on patrol could build and
enhance police-public partnerships. Equally, in relation to vehicle patrol, it explains
why in Cowell and Kringen’s (2016, p.19) study ‘when officers got into the squad cars,
it really provided a physical barrier and it eliminated a lot of that interaction’; how in
Wood et al.’s (2014) research it was not possible for police officers on vehicle patrol
to glean the knowledge of communities that foot patrol achieved; and why in
Simpson’s (2017) study police officers presented in a vehicle can be perceived as less
approachable compared to those on foot.

By providing more theoretical detail about the individualities of citizen engagement

with patrol, an interactional understanding of police visibility can be used to develop
the SCP. It shows the nature of police symbolic communications and impression
management on patrol in the public space, and how these communicative features
of police visibility can become part of the interpretative processes of the public. In
doing so, it can be seen to contribute to developing understanding around a number
of understated aspects of the SCP. To begin with, it draws out the indirect forms of
communication from police co-presence in the public space that can deliver signals
about policing and safety. These are the ‘organically derived’ elements of police
patrol that Innes (2014, p.137) describes when referencing the way in which a police
presence can have an impact without police officers and staff intentionally doing
anything. In doing so, it challenges critiques of the SCP, such as that outlined by
Barker (2017), that dispute the extent to which police officers and staff by their ‘mere
presence’ can have a communicative impact by highlighting how police officers and
staff are always communicating something about themselves and the task that
occupies them, which can be influential in a citizen’s perception of their surroundings
and policing.

Secondly, an interactional understanding of police visibility adds more insight into,

what Innes (2014, p.134) terms, the ‘doseage’ effect of police visibility. Along with
academic studies revealing that a heavy police presence can have a deleterious
influence on public perception (Barker, 2014; Crawford et al. 2004; Foster and Jones,

211
 Discussion

2010; Innes, 2014), this research shows how the frequency of police patrol can also
be counterproductive, particularly in localities where there has been a prolonged
police presence related to enforcement action and police patrol remains in place. It
evidences the importance of explaining the purpose of police visibility to local
residents and reviewing patrol routes regularly so that they are being conducted in a
way that maximises positive communication with people.

Thirdly, an interactional understanding of police visibility describes the mechanics of

how a police presence can communicate messages to a wider social audience;
something Innes (2014) identifies as part of the inner workings of control signals but
does not elaborate on. The perspective shows how citizens, either from directly or
indirectly encountering patrolling police officers and staff, can use the information
they have received or perceived about policing activity in further interactional
situations with others. The potential spread of information, particularly when it
occurs through indirect means, shows how police visibility can be ‘vicariously
experienced’ by citizens (Henry, 2020, p.7). This type of experience, as Cowell and
Kringen (2016) acknowledged in their research when they referred to an individual
approaching foot patrol officers for help after observing them interacting with a
group of people in a positive manner, is equally important to citizen perception and
willingness to engage with the police.

Finally, this research brings together the signification aspect of the SCP and academic
insights about the symbolism attached to the police uniform. An interactional
understanding of police visibility draws on the cultural and symbolic power of the
uniform and its significance in the first impressions generated of police officers and
staff to provide the context for exploring the interactional spaces of patrol (de
Camargo, 2016). It is the visible presence of the uniform in the first instance that can
provide citizens with identificatory information that allows a clear distinction to be
made between the police and public and conveys some implicit information about
what the role represents; both of which can open up police officers and staff for
contact. At the same time, this research can be seen to build on the role of the
uniform in the image created of the police by exploring in more detail the other

212
 Discussion

communicative aspects of their appearance and behaviour that can contribute to

public impressions of and contact with visible police officers and staff.

An interactional understanding of police visibility not only builds on the finer

distinctions made in the SCP, but it shows how the processes of signification can be
applied to developing community engagement in policing. Nevertheless, an equally
important part of sensemaking that the SCP identifies is that ‘individual control
signals interact and intermingle with range of other influences upon public
experiences, perceptions and judgements about safety and security’ (Innes, 2014,
p.130). These influences, as the findings from the Community Policing programmes
examined in Chapter 2 emphasised, can be negative in nature and related to distrust
of the police, historic poor police-public relations and/or the experience of being
placed at a disadvantage by policing, particularly for those citizens who reside in
socially deprived and minority neighbourhoods (Herbert, 2005 and Rosenbaum and
Lurigio, 1994). This is something that is equally significant to thinking about the
process of signification in police visibility. In putting forward a perspective that
describes types of direct and indirect police communication capable of conveying
positive information about policing; promoting feelings of safety and protection;
initiating positive face engagements; and building acquaintanceships, this research is
not intending to overlook the complex relationship that exists between the police
and public and how this can negatively influence citizen engagement with patrol.

The role, function and purpose of public policing is embedded in a history of political
conflict and controversy and beset by structural inequalities that has contributed to
issues of discrimination, corruption and abuse (Reiner, 2010). It is against this
backdrop that policing scandals, injustices and dilemmas have contributed to a
contemporary understanding of policing as a system of surveillance and social
control, specifically in terms of monitoring and containing the poorest and most
marginalised in society (O’Neill and Loftus, 2013; Reiner, 2010, p.5). This is most
discernible in the policing of the public space where research shows the
disproportionate and discriminate use of regulatory powers, such as the power to
‘stop and search’, against young people and non-white ethnicities which, in turn, has

213
 Discussion

contributed to police visibility signifying danger and alarm for some sections of the
population (Reiner, 2010, p.5; 2015; StopWatch, 2020). Therefore, from the outset,
it is evident that the social control function that has become part of the construction
of police patrol is at odds with the idea of it being a mechanism for engaging citizens.
This is particularly problematic when thinking about how police officers and staff
through their interactional presence on patrol can have a positive communicative
impact. Goffman (2010, p.330) captures this sentiment when he surmises, ‘there
always have been groupings in society which feel considerable need for protection
from the police, not merely protection by them.’ At the same time, however, it could
be argued that to disregard an interactional understanding of police visibility on
these grounds reinforces a misleading narrative about policing that neglects what it
symbolises and how it can be developed to be more democratic.

To only represent police patrol as a form of social control, surveillance and law
enforcement plays into an imaginary characterisation of policing as essentially crime-
fighting. This is an equally challenging and mythical conception of policing and the
public police because it does not embody all of what policing actually entails and the
reality of what the police do (Loader, 2016; Manning, 1997). Time and time again, it
has been shown in research over the last forty years that a lot of what the police do
is not crime related, and what is more meaningful to understanding policing is what
the police symbolise (Loader, 2016). Police patrol is an area of work that is strongly
symbolic in past and present conceptualisations of English policing. The iconic
portrayal of PC George Dixon – the friendly local ‘bobby on the beat’ committed to
the community and upholding order - is a symbolic representation of policing that is
strongly linked to a sense of community and belonging (Loader and Mulcahy, 2003;
McLaughlin, 2007; Reiner, 2010). It speaks to a vision of cohesion, safety and order
in communities that is associated with the post-war period (Reiner, 2010). In this
way, police patrol is a practice that can be seen to emphasise the cultural symbolism
of policing. However, often when the public demands more police visibility, it is
uncritically accepted as a well-intentioned request that fulfils the needs of all the
community and it becomes wrapped up in the policy assumptions identified and
explored in Chapters 1 and 2 (Loader, 2006). Accordingly, the police are used as a

214
 Discussion

symbol for shaping and validating a ‘shared identification with a ‘national’

community’ which is liable to cultivate a sense of rejection for many people from
minority populations and risks making security pervasive to the extent that it creates
insecurity (Loader, 2006, p.209 and p.212). While the symbolism the public attach to
police patrol and the policy neglect of the cultural dimension to this practice can be
damaging to how it is delivered, an interactional understanding in drawing attention
to the ‘cultural institution and performance’ of a police presence offers a means to
rethink how police patrol is constructed in the public and political discourse (Loader
and Mulcahy, p.39; Loader, 2006).

In this research, the focus on individual police-citizen contacts and the police
developing personalised connections with all those around them shows how police
visibility can build a more inclusive narrative around patrol work. All police talk and
action conveys information about ‘society’s conflicts, cleavages and hierarches,
about whose claims are legitimate within it, about whose status identity is to be
affirmed or denied as part of it […]; essentially, the police are ‘a producer of
significant messages about the kind of place that community is or aspires to be’
(Loader, 2006, p.211). An interactional understanding of police visibility recognises
the significance of police symbolism and illustrates how it can be channelled to start
to contribute positively to securing a sense of security for all. By increasing police
awareness of the cultural symbolism of policing and underlining the communicative
properties and potential of police visibility in developing the cultural work of policing
to engage individuals, an interactional understanding of police visibility can add to
learning and development in Neighbourhood Policing by showing how police patrol
can be made more inclusive, which is discussed in more detail in the final section.

Police Engagement with Citizens on Patrol

The communicative function of a police presence pinpointed in research, particularly

in relation to PCSOs, and how it can be used to provide an engagement function is
expanded upon by an interactional understanding of police visibility in three ways.

215
 Discussion

Firstly, this perspective provides a more nuanced consideration of what it means for
the police to be both visible and present on patrol, which are two aspects of patrol
that do not automatically transpire from police officers and staff being observable to
the public. Innes (2014) explains this point when he uses a participant’s description
of the police being ‘like this invisible thing that fly around in cars’ to show the
negative perceptual impact visible police action can generate. This research both
grasps and develops this particularity of police patrol to show that a visible police
presence is not simply being seen but is created by police officers and staff being
interactionally accessible in the public space. While on the surface these
communicative distinctions might seem insignificant, it is these types of ‘fairly subtle
shifts in the public presentation of policing’, as Innes (2014, p.133) identifies, that the
public are very aware of and responsive to. Therefore, in expanding existing insights
into police visibility at the micro-level, this research is providing a more rounded
perspective of a consequential part of police patrol practice.

Secondly, an interactional understanding of police visibility offers insights into the

ways in which police officers and staff can develop their use of informal forms of
communication on their day-to-day patrol, which is a factor that is identified as an
intrinsic element of police-community relations (Jones and Newburn, 2001). Studies
show that informal communication, including people seeing police officers and
having a personal contact with them on patrol, increases awareness of a local policing
presence (Crawford et al. 2004; Vernon and Lasley, 1992); improves evaluations of
the police service (Bennett, 1991; Pate et al. 1986; Skogan and Hartnett, 1997); and
encourages people to report crime and become involved in crime prevention
(Bennett, 1991; Trojanowicz, 1982). However, as Cosgrove and Ramshaw (2015,
p.86) point out, contact on its own does not bring about engagement, ‘it is the quality
and nature of contact (or the behaviour and the conduct of individual officers during
encounters) that shapes confidence and willingness to engage with the police.’
Therefore, by specifying what police officers and staff can do in their everyday patrols
to foster positive informal contact, this research is highlighting how the quality of
police-public interaction can be improved in ways identified in the literature as
impactful. Specifically, an interactional understanding of police visibility shows how

216
 Discussion

police officers and staff can adopt a style of communication that facilitates people
feeling more informed about policing activity; encourages police officers and staff to
use social etiquette and be more receptive and responsive to the public; and
develops familiarity with people. These types of communicative properties are
identified in studies to be linked to higher opinions of police effectiveness and
community engagement (Bradford, Jackson and Stanko, 2009; Brown and Wycoff,
1987; Pate et al. 1985); perceptions of procedural justice (Posick and Hatfield, 2017;
Rosenbaum et al. 2017); and increased public confidence in policing (Merry et al.
2012; Rosenbaum et al. 2017). Furthermore, this focus on developing and improving
police-public relationships is, as Pattavina, Bryne and Garcia (2006) found, more
significant to citizen involvement in policing than perception of Community Policing.

Thirdly, an interactional understanding of police visibility adds to research that

identifies the types of skills and behaviours police officers and staff should seek to
develop and utilise in their community engagement work. In particular, it builds on
studies that show the importance of PCSOs valuing and having communication,
observation and intelligence gathering skills to develop their approachability,
familiarity and local knowledge by showing what these skills can look like and how
they can be performed in the practice context to achieve these outcomes (Cooper et
al. 2006; Cosgrove and Ramshaw, 2015; Long, Robinson and Senior, 2006; O’Neill,
2014a; Paskell, 2007). By detailing the subtle aspects of interaction, this perspective
provides a more rounded consideration of what having communication, observation
and intelligence gathering skills can entail. Other studies draw attention to the
significance of PCSOs being able to talk to a diverse range of people in a diverse range
of situations, including approaching, negotiating and befriending ‘harder to reach’
persons, and using their knowledge to navigate challenging situations (Cosgrove and
Ramshaw, 2015; O’Neill, 2014a, p.21). This research suggests that an integral part of
these identified attributes is PCSOs having an awareness of and actively maximising
their physical accessibility in the public space. It shows how police staff being mindful
of their bodily gestures and positioning, utilising different forms of informal eye and
verbal contact and structuring interactions in ways that include people can convey
positive messages, build knowledge and foster supportive relations that can in turn

217
 Discussion

involve those people in policing. Accordingly, an interactional understanding of

police visibility adds more detail to some of the overarching descriptions used in
research to describe the distinctive nature of the ‘tools in the PCSO toolbox’ (O’Neil,
2014a, p.21), such as their ‘interactional street skills’ (Long, Robinson and Senior,
2006, p.20) and general ‘craft skills’ (Cosgrove and Ramshaw, 2015, p.86). At the
same time, this research reaffirms the value of the PCSO role in community
engagement work highlighted in other studies (Cosgrove and Ramshaw, 2015;
O’Neill, 2014b).

Finally, an interactional understanding of police visibility builds on existing insights

by bringing police officers into discussions around patrol and community
engagement in the context of Neighbourhood Policing and showing how they can
develop their engagement function. The examination of vehicle patrol in this
research not only emphasises the implicit division between police officer and PCSO
roles in community engagement work, as other studies have demonstrated
(Cosgrove and Ramshaw, 2015), but explains the way in which police officers in
particular are potentially perpetuating a false sense of what their visible presence is
achieving in relation to their community engagement remit. An interactional
understanding of police visibility draws attention to the communicative properties of
vehicle patrol and highlights how the appearance and actions of police officers
travelling in vehicles can be perceived and experienced in ways that are unsupportive
of developing citizen engagement. It explains why, as a police sergeant in Cowell and
Kringen’s (2016, p.20) research commented, ‘people are more comfortable going up
to an officer walking by them, shoulder to shoulder on the street, than they are to
approach a cruiser.’ This research goes further than providing an explanation and
offers a means for police officers to develop this engagement deficit by showing the
indirect and direct communicative devices they can utilise to gesture their
connectedness to persons around them and open themselves up for contact.

218
 Discussion

Identifying Communities to Engage on Patrol

An interactional understanding of police visibility reinforces the arguments in existing

research that demonstrate communities are not simple, static and homogenous
organisational units that police officers and staff can readily see and access on place-
based patrol (Bullock, 2014; Crawford, 1999; Fielding, 2009). To overcome the
challenges police officers and staff face in trying to make sense of the diversity,
fluidity and complexity of contemporary life, this research looks at how the police
approach identifying and understanding communities through optimising their
contact with the people and places already available to them on patrol. An
interactional understanding of police visibility centres on police officers and staff
gaining an awareness of the composition of communities and developing
relationships with them through individual contacts with all citizens they come across
in their neighbourhood areas. Consequently, instead of attempting to have prior
knowledge of the social make-up and functioning of a place to identify types of
communities to engage on patrol, this research sets out a bottom-up approach to
community engagement. It focuses on police officers and staff using direct and
indirect forms of communication with all citizens they encounter on patrol in the first
instance to develop familiarity and build acquaintanceships over time. This can
enable police officers and staff to understand better how those citizens identify with
the people and places around them which in turn facilitates police officers and staff
gaining knowledge about communities, as Fielding (2009) recommends, from those
people in a position to know. Similar to what Wood et al. (2014, p.374) illustrated in
their research, this perspective moves away from the police applying distinct labels
to sections of the community and gives rise to their understanding of communities
as ‘a series of tiny urban segments with their distinct fabrics and textures’.

By concentrating on gaining knowledge from citizens in the street, this perspective

can allow police officers and staff to see the communities around them in a way that
the citizens belonging to those communities want to be seen. Moreover, the
informality attached to everyday police-public contacts can facilitate police officers

219
 Discussion

and staff engaging with persons who might not ordinarily be willing or able to
participate in more formal police community engagement mechanisms, such as
planned public meetings. Accordingly, an interactional understanding of police
visibility reinforces the importance of informal engagement, as Jones and Newburn
(2001) conclude, to better suit the needs of different community groups and increase
the representativeness of the wider population in policing. The potential to increase
the reach of policing offered by an interactional understanding of police visibility can
assist the police in developing more inclusive engagement practice.

The shift in thinking about how police officers and staff identify communities to
engage with on patrol shows how the police can foster some of the principles of a
more democratic style of policing, similar to that described by Loader (2006), which
works towards creating a sense of security and belonging for all individuals. By giving
emphasis to police officers and staff using the communicative opportunities available
to them on the street to have some form of contact with all citizens they come across,
this perspective shows the potential for them to maximise their contact with
individuals of different ages, genders and religions from different racial, ethnic,
socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, each with different lifestyles, experiences
and interests. In this research, the diverse range of persons the PCSOs interacted with
included those experiencing personal issues, such as homelessness and substance
misuse; those dealing with crime and disorder problems; and those from traditionally
harder to reach minority groups, which in the context of the NPTs studied, were
young people, the elderly and travellers. This contrasts from the general propensity
noted in some research for police officers and staff in Community Policing roles to
spend less ‘facetime’ with citizens and target people who are economically
advantaged, regard public policing positively and/or are in a relatively stable position
in that they are not experiencing some type of personal crisis (Barnes and Eagle,
2007; Cosgrove and Ramshaw, 2015; Parks et al. 1999, p.484; Skogan, 1998). Instead,
it supports the findings of studies which show police visibility when focused on
developing personal contact with individuals can improve police relations with
people from socially deprived minority neighbourhoods where crime, lack of

220
 Discussion

community presence and distrust of the police exists (Trojanowicz and Banas, 1985;
Skogan and Harnett, 1997; Vernon and Lasley, 1992).

The refocusing of community engagement on personal interactions to generate

social inclusion and a sense of belonging, particularly among minority populations,
also aligns with Bradford’s (2014) work. Bradford (2014) argues that instead of
seeking to build relations and engagement with different groups through community
leaders, as is often the case, the police making use of the daily contact they have with
the people represented by such leaders can be more influential in those persons’
constructions of their social identity and assessments of their commitment to the
wider community. The attention given to individual encounters between the police
and public in an interactional understanding of police visibility, and its parallels with
the literature around procedural justice, also shows how police officers and staff can
be encouraged to be more reflective about their relations with all members of the
community to consider what they are and are not doing to treat citizens fairly
(Loader, 2006). In this way, an interactional understanding of police visibility has the
potential to develop the essence of, what Barker (2017) conceptualises as, ‘mediated
conviviality’; a perspective that looks to reframe the way in which regulators, like the
police, interact with people in the public space by promoting practices that are
responsive to the context/situation and facilitate co-mingling and mediation
between the diverse users of these areas.

221
 Conclusion

Chapter 8
Concluding Police Visibility

Police visibility, characterised by the patrol presence of police officers and staff, and
its contribution to community engagement, specifically providing ongoing two-way
dialogue with the public and developing a better understanding of communities, was
the main focus of this thesis. Drawing on the symbolic capital and cultural significance
attached to uniformed patrol, its prominence in public expectations of policing and
its assimilation into Community Policing programmes, including most recently
Neighbourhood Policing, this research asked two questions:

• What is a visible police presence in the day-to-day work of NPTs?

• In what ways does police visibility, particularly PCSO visibility, contribute to
community engagement?

A Goffmanian analysis of fieldnotes taken from observations and unstructured

interviews with police officers and staff in two NPTs in one urban constabulary
highlighted that a visible police presence in the day-to-day work of NPTs is created
by the interactional accessibility of police officers and staff on patrol. It showed that
the communicative opportunities arising from this interactional accessibility of police
officers and staff, namely the different types of direct and indirect contacts they can
experience with the public, is what can bring about community engagement on
patrol. Using this frame of reference, the closed bounded space of vehicle patrol was
identified as restricting the interactional accessibility of police officers and creating
communicative barriers to developing citizen engagement. In contrast, the open
unbounded space of foot patrol was identified as supporting the interactional
accessibility of PCSOs and facilitating communicative opportunities to develop citizen
engagement.

Bringing together the research insights into the different interactional spaces and
communicative elements of vehicle and foot patrol, an interactional understanding

222
 Conclusion

of police visibility was developed. In addition to providing a way to make theoretical

sense of how police visibility can contribute to community engagement and
emphasising the value of ethnography in patrol research, this perspective was shown
to offer practical benefits to policing to support police officers and staff in improving
their understanding of citizen engagement with patrol, enhancing their patrol
practices and developing their approach to making sense of communities. This
chapter will firstly document the research journey that led to developing these
understandings of police visibility and its contribution to community engagement by
summarising the different phases of the study. It will be followed by a review of the
theoretical, practical and methodological contribution of the thesis in the second
section before making suggestions for future research in the final section.

Researching Police Visibility in Community Engagement

The initial impetus for studying police visibility in community engagement arose from
identifying a limited understanding of this area of work in the practice context, a
theoretical gap in the literature examining police presence and a renewed emphasis
on patrol in Neighbourhood Policing. In my Masters research, I found that police
officers and staff were familiar with the reassurance function the public attach to a
police presence, but they struggled to articulate what it was about what they were
doing on patrol that contributed to community engagement. Referring to academic
work, specifically that concerned with the semiotic and symbolic qualities of visible
policing, I discerned that there was a lack of theoretical understanding about the
nature of police communications on patrol to both convey safety and security and
deliver community engagement. In particular, the SCP while emphasising the
communicative significance of police visibility was focused on how the public come
to make sense of crime and disorder and lacked more detailed insight into what the
police should be seen to be doing on patrol to convey reassurance. This made the
perspective equally limiting for thinking about the nature of police symbolic
communications in the delivery of community engagement.

223
 Conclusion

The relevance of making sense of this lack of insight into police visibility was
emphasised by changes in policing. Amid financial cuts in local policing functions,
increasing pressures on service delivery and the changing nature of crime, police
visibility had reduced and the need for a PCSO role had been called into question.
Against this backdrop, the College of Policing (2018a) devised Neighbourhood
Policing Guidelines which set out police visibility as an essential element of engaging
communities. The government also made a commitment to increase police funding
to put more ‘bobbies on the beat’. These practice and academic discoveries
combined with policy changes in policing highlighted the relevance of exploring
police visibility in community engagement, specifically within the context of
Neighbourhood Policing, and provided the primary motivation for the PhD research.

To provide context to the literature review, an examination of how police visibility as

an aspect of community engagement had been presented in policy over recent
decades was completed. Policing policy reforms were identified as having centred on
visible, accessible and familiar styles of Community Policing that had formed part of
policing responses to the Brixton Disorders, the ‘reassurance gap’ and embedding a
citizen-focused policing philosophy, to reconnect with communities; reduce fear of
crime and increase feelings of safety; better understand local crime and disorder
problems important to communities; and involve citizens in policing. The policy
portrayal of police visibility that took shape in Community Policing programmes,
including the Reassurance Policing programme and Neighbourhood Policing
programme, and creation of the PCSO role showed that it was structured around
descriptions of the police delivering a service responsive to the community. This
articulation of a ‘visible, locally responsive policing’ function provided by NPTs
remained in policing priorities and was reflected in the most recent formulation of
Neighbourhood Policing in the College of Policing (2018a) guidelines (Independent
Police Commission, 2013, p.13-16). The policy commitment to police visibility and
community engagement, and its repeated construction around the themes of
service, responsiveness and community were interpreted as creating a number of
assumptions, namely citizens will engage with police officers and staff on patrol; a

224
 Conclusion

police presence will provide an engagement function; and communities will be

identifiable to police officers and staff on patrol.

Turning to the academic literature, research highlighted discrepancies between each

of the identified policy assumptions and the practice reality of policing communities.
Firstly, research into citizen participation in Community Policing and citizen
perception of patrol showed that a multitude of interrelated factors can impact on
the willingness and ability of citizens to engage with police officers and staff.
Secondly, research highlighted how cultural and organisational influences on police
officers and staff can impact the extent to which they are motivated, supported and
equipped to deliver community engagement work. Thirdly, studies showed how
romanticised imagery of a united geographic community policed by a place-based
patrol presented in policy was incompatible with the diversity, fluidity and
complexity of contemporary life. Taken together, this academic review of the policy
assumptions emphasised that all citizens will not engage with police officers and staff
on patrol; that all patrolling police officers and staff will not be instructed to,
motivated to or have the required knowledge to provide an engagement function;
and that communities are not standardised geographic units visible to police officers
and staff on patrol.

The examination of the policy assumptions revealed gaps in existing academic

knowledge about police visibility in community engagement. It showed a lack of
qualitative exploration from a policing perspective into what citizens experience
when they come into contact with police officers and staff on patrol; what police
officers and staff do on patrol, especially in the context of Neighbourhood Policing,
to engage citizens; and the way in which police officers and staff make sense of
contemporary communities to engage on patrol. These identified gaps were used to
formulate the research questions set out at the start of this chapter and an
ethnographic research method was chosen to answer them. By deciding to observe
police patrol as experienced by police officers and staff in NPTs, I was aware that I
would be observing policing practice informed by the romanticised policy narrative
that I had critiqued and found to be disconnected from the reality of policing and the

225
 Conclusion

nature of contemporary communities. I reconciled this conflict between my policy

critique and the focus of my research through my emphasis on learning about police
patrol at the micro-level. I was interested in what this policy looked like on the ground
in the practice context and how it was operationalised by police officers and staff in
their day-to-day community engagement work. Accordingly, I knew that by
grounding my findings in the patrol realities of police officers and staff, I would be
providing insights about how they made sense of and shaped the delivery of policy,
flawed as it might be, in their everyday practice to provide an engagement function
to present-day communities.

Ethnography was considered the most appropriate method because it offered a way
of seeing and gaining insights at the micro-level to diversify the largely quantitative
focused evidence-base informing patrol practice. At the same time, it was identified
as a method that suited the study of policing as it provided a lens for seeing the
nature, meaning and impact of police behaviours as they unfolded, and capturing the
tacit subtleties of police settings, interactions and tasks. This way of making sense of
police visibility in community engagement drew attention to interpretivism in the
design and execution of the research. Specifically, a symbolic interactionist
perspective was taken to emphasise the importance of communication (and
interaction through communication) in the construction of social action.

Wildebay Police, where my Masters research had been conducted, was the pre-
selected research site. While I had followed the University ethical procedures, I
highlighted my awareness that ethical considerations extended beyond standard
guidelines and, as an ethnographer, I faced ethical dilemmas at all stages of the
research process from recruiting participants, building relationships to develop
insights through to recording and presenting fieldwork data. To navigate these
ethical challenges, I outlined how I incorporated considerations of honesty and
fairness; anonymity and confidentiality; and integrity and carefulness in my research
practice; and adopted a reflexive approach that took a realistic view of human
relations and what was required of participants to be involved in the fieldwork. The
fieldwork was carried out between July 2017 and February 2018 and comprised

226
 Conclusion

twenty observations of police officers and staff for 15 ‘day’ shifts (0800 until 1600 or
1800) and 5 ‘late’ shifts (1400 or 1500 until 2200 or 0000) across two NPTs. It involved
accompanying participants in the course of their routine work across private and
public spaces, including police stations, police vehicles and private residences, to
observe first-hand their patrol presence and talk to them about their perspectives
and experiences of patrol and delivering community engagement. Reviewing my
experience and management of the fieldwork, gaining access to participants, thinking
about my presentation and considering how I engaged with participants to maintain
access and develop relationships were all identified as important aspects that I had
to continually negotiate. In particular, my identity, positionality and research persona
were highlighted as important influences on how I experienced and how I was
experienced by others in the field. It was illustrated how personal reflection formed
a valuable research practice to work through my thoughts and feelings and separate
my ‘researcher self’ from my ‘private self’.

The analytical process was described as starting from the point of producing
electronic fieldnotes after each observation and involving a dialogue between the
data and ideas to find concepts to understand what I was seeing. It was at this point
that the symbolic interactionist perspective adopted at the start of the research was
developed through the identification of Erving Goffman’s work as a useful theoretical
framework. Goffman’s concepts on face-to-face interaction were pinpointed as
capturing the expressive, communicative, perceptual and physical elements of social
interaction. These concepts were shown to offer a way to make sense of the ideas
around ‘presence’ and ‘interactional spaces’ that had been isolated as significant
aspects of patrol in early observations and were developed into a coding structure
that was used to thematically analyse the fieldnotes. By showing this process of
theoretical development from a symbolic interactionist perspective in the earlier
phases of the research through to a Goffmanian analysis in the latter stages, the
thesis also acts as a narrative of my conceptual thinking.

The analysis illustrated the interactional features of police officers in vehicles and
contrasted them with that of PCSOs on foot. The interactional space of vehicle patrol

227
 Conclusion

was shown to limit the amount and type of interaction police officers experience with
the public and convey the message that they are unavailable for informal contact. In
comparison, the interactional space of foot patrol was shown to increase the
opportunity for different types of informal eye-eye contact and verbal exchanges
between PCSOs and the public capable of facilitating orderliness, signalling positive
information about safety, security and policing and initiating unplanned face
engagements. Examining the unplanned face encounters in more detail revealed that
welcoming exchanges could communicate good intentions, social recognition and
provide an opportunity for assistance; and more focused conversations could
demonstrate social closeness and relatedness, provide support and assistance,
gather intelligence, or prevent and address low-level crime and disorder. All of these
instances were described as offering PCSOs a way to establish, maintain and develop
dialogue with acquainted and unacquainted persons, and build an understanding of
people and places in their localities. A number of features were identified as
important to PCSO management of the dialogic process, including applying caution
and managing expectations when entering into talk; regulating the speaking and
leave-taking rights of all those engaged in talk; and performing farewell displays to
imply or encourage future contact.

Accessibility and acquaintanceships were isolated as two important elements of

PCSO face engagements. The accessibility of PCSOs in the public space was shown to
facilitate their increased readiness for and receptiveness to contact with the public
and contribute to them establishing a situational presence that could be experienced
by all those around them both implicitly and explicitly. From observation of PCSOs’
gestures and face encounters with others to experiencing the PCSOs in a face
engagement, it was illustrated that information could be conveyed directly and
indirectly about the characterological traits of the PCSO role, the type of work they
complete and the specific task they are undertaking to show the potential reach of
their work and how it could develop familiarity and relations with people. At the
same time, it was established that the PCSOs modify their positioning, spacing and
conduct when engaged in face encounters to maintain its integrity, boundaries and
privacy. PCSOs were identified as developing acquaintanceships with all those they

228
 Conclusion

came in to contact with. The development of these acquaintanceships beyond PCSOs

being recognised as uniformed policing representatives to being personally
identifiable could create a social bondedness between them and the persons
involved capable of increasing access between them for future face engagements. It
was this aspect of acquaintanceships that was shown to facilitate ongoing two-way
dialogue and contribute to PCSOs providing support and reassurance, receiving
updated information about people and places and involving people in policing.

Overall, the interactional accessibility of PCSOs on foot patrol was identified as

creating the communicative opportunities, that is direct and indirect forms of contact
with the public, that could allow them to develop social intimacy, sociability and
familiarity with all persons they encountered, convey information about their role
and work, and establish lasting acquaintanceships. It was these communicative
contacts that were pinpointed as influential in fulfilling a community engagement
function, specifically developing two-way dialogue with people and a better
understanding of communities. At the same time, it was recognised that positioning
PCSOs on foot patrol did not automatically lead to them establishing a visible
presence that could engage people. Impropriety in face engagements and different
types of PCSO inaccessibility brought about by low footfall of people, missed
interactional opportunities and organisational changes were highlighted to consider
how they had impaired PCSO visibility and in turn weakened their community
engagement function. The way some of these situational, dispositional and
organisational occurrences, factors and decisions could be resolved was also
presented.

An interactional understanding of police visibility was set out as a way to bring

together the ideas around the interactional spaces of patrol and the types of indirect
and direct communicative contact that can be created from them that were
illustrated in the findings and analysis. Taking this perspective and returning to the
considerations about citizens, policing and communities highlighted in the literature
review, the way in which it complemented, developed or added to existing
knowledge about police patrol and community engagement in policing was explored.

229
 Conclusion

Firstly, in relation to citizen engagement with police on patrol, the perspective was
considered to support research findings that showed the type of patrol, the amount
and nature of contact with the police on patrol and the approachability of patrolling
police officers and staff as influential in engaging citizens. It was seen as offering an
explanation for why the actions of police officers and staff on foot patrol or the
presence of the vehicle in some studies had resulted in assessments of citizen
engagement or disengagement. In addition, it was identified as expanding on
research by illustrating what citizens can experience when they see and come into
contact with police officers and staff on vehicle or foot patrol, and how it can lead to
two-way dialogue and a better understanding of people and places.

Secondly, on the subject of police engagement with citizens on patrol, an

interactional understanding of police visibility was seen as providing additional
insights around how the police can foster positive informal contact in their everyday
patrols in a way that has been shown to influence public confidence and views of
policing and community engagement. Similarly, it was identified as illustrating the
craft of patrol work, that is the skills and behaviours that support police officers and
staff developing a familiar, accessible and approachable style of policing in the public
space, to contribute to learning and development in this area of work. Also, it was
highlighted how an interactional understanding of police visibility included police
officers in considerations of police patrol to reinforce and develop their role in
community engagement.

Finally, in relation to identifying communities on patrol, an interactional

understanding of police visibility was identified as embodying a bottom-up approach
to community engagement where police officers and staff start with establishing
contact with persons they come across, understand the communities they identify
with and access them through the acquaintanceships they develop with those
persons. This was shown to contrast with what is a common top-down approach in
policing where police officers and staff use prior knowledge of the social make-up of
an area to identify communities and find representatives of those communities to
gain access to them. By focusing on informal contacts with individuals in the first

230
 Conclusion

instance, an interactional understanding of police visibility was pinpointed as a way

to not only better meet the needs of more people, especially those who ordinarily
might not be willing or able to participate in formal Community Policing
interventions, but also maximise contact with a diverse range of people. However, in
characterising an interactional understanding of police visibility as a bottom-up
approach, this research was not dismissing the necessity and importance of involving
a range of professionals and organisations in policing to develop engagement tools
and strategies, and gain access to citizens and communities, including those that do
not occupy the public space. Indeed, multi-agency working, and partnership
initiatives formed part of the community engagement work in the NPTs observed.
Instead, an interactional understanding of police visibility was presented as offering
one way to make patrol, in particular, more inclusive and showing a potential starting
point for developing a more democratic style of policing that is discussed in existing
research.

Contributions to Knowledge

Taking the aforementioned overview into consideration, this research can be

identified as making some key theoretical, practical and methodological
contributions to knowledge.

Theoretical

The focus in this research on the mechanics of police visibility at the micro-level
provides a theoretical understanding of what it is about what police officers and staff
are or are not doing on patrol that can be influential in citizen engagement. This focus
on the individualities of citizen engagement with patrol develops a number of aspects
of the SCP. It offers a more nuanced understanding of what it means for the police
to be both visible and present when they are conducting patrol, pinpoints the indirect
forms of communication from police co-presence in the public space and specifies
how they can feed into citizen perceptions, assessments and understandings of

231
 Conclusion

policing and safety. Building on this, it shows how direct or indirect contact with
police officers and staff can be communicated to a wider social audience, and how it
can influence citizen interpretation and willingness to engage with the police. This
perspective also offers a way to explain why in certain instances the frequency of
police patrol can be counterproductive to establishing a presence to engage with
citizens. In emphasising the communicative features of a police presence, an
interactional understanding of police visibility can show how the symbolism of the
police uniform forms part of the processes of signification at the same time as
pointing out the other aspects of appearance and behaviour that can feed into public
impressions of and contact with police officers and staff.

Bringing together the highlighted points, an interactional understanding of police

visibility can set out in more depth the nature of police symbolic communications
and impression management on patrol, how they can play a part in citizen
interpretations and lead to engagement with police officers and staff. At the same
time, however, it is important to recognise that a police presence does not symbolise
safety and protection to all persons, particularly young people and those from non-
white ethnic groups, which can impact upon the extent to which all citizens will
perceive patrol positively and as a mechanism for engagement with the police. With
this in mind, this perspective offers a way to start to rethink how police visibility is
constructed in the public and political discourse through its emphasis on police
officers and staff having an awareness of their symbolic communications and
developing personalised connections with all those around them.

Practical

An interactional understanding of police visibility can inform and develop patrol

practice in community engagement. The research emphasised in a number of ways
in which police officers and staff and police managers can make changes to increase
the interactional accessibility of patrol and overcome communicative obstacles.
From consistently making an effort to enter spaces with footfalls of people;

232
 Conclusion

proactively exchanging eye contact and greetings with the passing public; exiting the
vehicle and spending some time on foot in public spaces; through to advertising their
availability for talk, especially at times when they may appear otherwise engaged,
many straightforward ways police officers and staff can alter their patrol practice
were presented. It was also identified that there is a role for managers to regularly
review the patrol routines of their team to ensure the interactional presence of police
officers and staff in different localities is maximising positive contact with the public
to facilitate community engagement. Relatedly, managerial oversight over the
amount of time police officers and staff, particularly PCSOs, are allocated to their
dedicated beats was highlighted as important to ensure they are able to consistently
devote a certain amount of their time to patrol. Together these suggested changes
highlight how police officers and staff can realise and tailor their communicative
position on patrol in the public space to reduce the likelihood of static and inefficient
patrol routines and/or delivering a police presence that conveys messages capable
of bringing about community disengagement.

On the surface, identifying the communicative properties of foot and vehicle patrol
may appear a futile undertaking. It might seem obvious to some that being
positioned on foot actively participating in eye-to-eye contact, engaging in greeting
behaviours with a willingness to initiate and receive unplanned face engagements,
and building acquaintanceships in localities is not only influential in developing
community engagement, but more constructive than surveying an area from a
moving vehicle. However, these subtleties of communication and their role in the
daily routines of people moving around the public space are taken for granted
aspects of interaction, particularly as this research indicated, in the considerations of
police officers and staff on patrol. The utility of this perspective to Neighbourhood
Policing and the benefits it can bring to learning and development in patrol and
community engagement work can be summarised in the following points:

• It draws attention to the understated ways police officers and staff on foot
patrol can maximise their presence, most of which involve forms of
demonstrating civility and developing expressive connections with those

233
 Conclusion

around them, that add to or complement the existing work skills and
experiences of police officers and staff.

• The organisational costs, in terms of time and resources, involved in using the
interactional devices identified to develop connections and relations with
people are minimal. They take place in the course of the daily foot patrol
practices of police officers and staff in line with their workload demands and
the NPTs’ priorities and can be structured in such a way that they do not
create additional work or burdensome expectations that they are unable to
satisfy.

• It involves forms of interaction that require little effort or personal

investment from members of the public as it occurs informally within their
day-to-day routines with no specific obligations. Accordingly, the fortuitous
low-cost circumstances can increase the likelihood and potential frequency
of a diverse range of people participating in contact with police officers and
staff. More contacts with a variety of people over time increases the ability of
the police to foster a dialogue with different groups and enhance their
knowledge of communities.

• It emphasises how a lot of the information communicated to the public about

a police presence is indirect and can contribute to public assessments of how
individual police officers and staff members perceive themselves and others,
and the general nature of local policing. The subsequent impressions formed
can influence the extent to which the public are willing to engage with the
police, either at that moment in time or at a later date. Accordingly, it
highlights the importance of police officers and staff being aware that they
are always communicating something about themselves and the work they
are doing to those around them.

234
 Conclusion

• The scope of influence police officers and staff can possess when they employ
indirect and direct forms of communication in their foot patrol practice can
be wide-ranging as it offers the potential for them to communicate to people
both visible and not visible to them. By the same token, it highlights the
potential lack of reach police officers and staff can have when they do not
actively engage in direct and indirect forms of communication with those
around them during patrol.

• It provides insights that are applicable to police officers as well as police staff.
The overwhelming focus is on PCSOs because they do the majority, and in the
case of this research, all of the foot patrol in NPTs. However, some of the
informal direct and indirect communication identified can be conducted from
inside the vehicle or across the boundary of the vehicle and all of it is available
to police officers when they alight the vehicle and are passing through the
public space. Moreover, it encourages police officers to spend some of their
time during vehicle patrol on foot to maximise their opportunity to have
contact with the public and develop their community engagement facility.

• It offers a way of redefining community in policing by focusing on police

officers and staff having contact with individuals. This in turn can change how
NPTs make sense of communities and how they go about gaining access to
them.

Rooted in the patrol realities of police officers and staff and showing what is possible
within the confines of the cultural and organisational context, this perspective can
be used as a learning resource to develop the communicative work of patrol while
elevating the status of this practice. By showing what the interactional devices
available to police officers and staff on patrol are and how they can be maximised to
achieve community engagement, it can increase the acceptance, understanding and
willingness to actively support this type of work at all levels of policing. In turn, this
can increase the importance and value attached to foot patrol, community
engagement and the PCSO role in the organisational structures and occupational
235
 Conclusion

orientations of police officers and staff. This is particularly important in the current
climate of reduced resources where there is a risk that vehicle patrol will overshadow
the utility of foot patrol, and even the need for the PCSO role. Overall, an
interactional understanding of police visibility can provide the foundation for
developing clarity, capacity and culture in citizen and community engagement which,
as Simmonds (2015, p.4) identifies, are the elements required to bring about positive
change in police engagement practice.

Methodological

Using an ethnographic lens and a Goffmanian theoretical framework, this research

has: developed an interactional understanding of police visibility which provides a
way to make sense of the communicative function of patrol identified in the
literature; consolidated existing insights around the engagement skills and practices
of police officers and staff on patrol; and filled the gap in knowledge about what
police officers and staff do on patrol to engage citizens. In doing so, this research
supports academic commentary that identifies the importance of exploring the ‘craft
of policing’ qualitatively from the perspective of police officers and staff to provide a
fuller understanding of patrol work and reinforces the value of Goffman’s work to
policing studies. It also strengthens existing policing research by emphasising the
particular value of using Goffman’s concepts on face-to-face interaction in the
analysis of policing practice to provide a more nuanced understanding of police
communication. The ongoing importance of physical forms of communication in all
areas of policing shows how this type of Goffmanian analysis is both relevant and
meaningful to developing practice insights. While this research confirms the
suitability of ethnography and Goffman’s work on face-to-face interaction to the
study of police officers and staff on patrol, it is not without its limitations, especially
in thinking about the wider applicability of the research findings.

An interactional understanding of police visibility was constructed from one

ethnographic study of two NPTs in one urban police force during a specific time

236
 Conclusion

period. It was pointed out that there were no minority ethnic participants involved
in the research which reflected the ethnic composition of the wider force and
neighbourhood areas studied. Taken together, the research does not consider the
potential differences in policing environments, such as rural contexts; the possible
variations in organisational structures and priorities across police forces and policing
teams in the UK; and the range of racial and ethnic differences in both the staff
population and the wider population, and their potential to influence police-public
contact and relationships in different ways. Additionally, the study did not set out to
explore the communicative properties of patrol and consequently there is no
evidence that police officers and staff on patrol were being interpreted and
experienced by citizens in the ways illustrated in an interactional understanding of
police visibility, and if it was improving community engagement in those
neighbourhoods. These constraints highlight the aspects of the study which would
benefit from further exploration.

Suggestions for Future Research

Taking into consideration the identified limitations, future research could specifically
focus on the application of an interactional understanding of patrol in
Neighbourhood Policing in different policing environments, employed by a number
of different NPTs across a range of police forces in the UK and involving populations
with a variety of demographics. It would be useful to understand how this
perspective is applied by police officers and staff, how it is interpreted by the public
and the type and nature of the impact it has on developing citizen and community
engagement.

237
 Appendix

Appendix 1
Participant Information and Consent Forms

To protect the anonymity of the police force studied in the presented copies of the
participant information and consent forms, the name of the constabulary is replaced
with the pseudonym ‘Wildebay’ and the names of the specific points of contact in
the force are deleted (only their rank is referenced). Phone numbers and email
addresses have also been removed.

Participant Information Form – Community Engagement in Policing

You are being invited to participate in a research study led by the University of
Liverpool. Before you decide whether to participate, please ensure that you
understand the purpose of the research and what it will involve. Please read the
following information carefully and feel free to request any further information or
clarification. Please also take time to discuss it with your fellow officers. You do not
have to accept this invitation and should only agree to take part if you want to.
Thank you for reading this.

Research Purpose: The practice of ‘community engagement’ in policing is wide-

ranging and a lack of understanding exists around how police officers and staff
structure the approach in their work. The project is seeking to explore the ways police
officers, Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) and other relevant police staff
understand and deliver ‘community engagement’ in their day-to-day work. I am
interested in the routine practices and targeted interventions adopted by police
officers and staff with the many different types of communities they interact with. I
wish to observe police officers and staff in the course of their duties and, at a later
date, interview them to gain insight into their experiences of ‘community
engagement’ and to reflect on their practice.

238
 Appendix

Research Participants: I wish to observe police officers, PCSOs and other relevant
police staff in Neighbourhood Policing Teams across Wildebay Police.

Do I have to take part? Participation is voluntary. Should you choose not to be

observed or to be interviewed, this will not be recorded in the research. Should you
agree to participate, you can, at a later stage, withdraw your consent during the
observations or interviews. Any data gathered will be anonymised and you can
request destruction of that data up to 3 months after an observation or interview.

What does participation involve? I will observe you during the course of your duties
on full day and late shifts and make written notes of the observations at the time and
immediately after the end of each observation. Where possible and appropriate, I
wish to discuss how you are going about your work during the course of the
observations. At a later stage, I will interview you to further discuss and understand
your views and experiences in relation to working with the community. These
interviews will be recorded, with your consent, or handwritten notes will be taken.
Interviews will last for about one hour and will take place in working hours with the
consent of your supervisory officers. However, they will not be informed about the
content of observations or the discussion in interviews. The data will be retained for
the purposes of this study.

How will you benefit from participation? Participation will provide the opportunity
to think about and reflect on the ways in which you work with the public during the
course of your duties. The opportunity to reflect and discuss the ways in which you
operate will be a valuable one. At the same time, it will be an opportunity to engage
with and influence aspects of training and development available to officers in the
force. In this context, it is also an opportunity to speak directly to senior officers
about your role and the way you operate in an anonymised and 'safe' manner.

Confidentiality: Your name will not be recorded alongside notes of observations or

records of interviews. I will record your rank and role, but not your
station/command/team and no other identifying information. I will record the date

239
 Appendix

of the interview and the observations to which it is connected. All data will be stored
securely on University servers and will be destroyed five years after the completion
of this study. Where material you provide is used in subsequent reports or
publications, a pseudonym will be used. Your rank will not be referred to in a way
that might compromise your anonymity. Should you wish, you may have a copy of
the transcript of your interview. I will not report individual actions unless they
constitute a serious criminal offence.

How will the results be used? The research has been commissioned by Wildebay
Police and approved by the Chief Officers’ Group, the Police Federation and other
relevant staff associations. I will report to Steering Groups chaired by the Chief
Inspector of Wildebay Police. Any reports will inform discussions about the way
police officers and staff work with communities and potential training or
development in this area. Data will also be used in academic publications.

Further information and contact: Should you have any queries or require further
information, please contact Lisa Weston or the Principal Investigator, Dr Mike Rowe.

If you are unhappy, or if there is a problem, please feel free to contact Lisa Weston
or the Principal Investigator, Dr Mike Rowe. If you remain unhappy or have a
complaint which you feel you cannot come to us with then you should contact the
University of Liverpool’s Research Governance Officer. When contacting the
Research Governance Officer, please provide details of the name or description of
the study (so that it can be identified), the researcher(s) involved, and the details
of the complaint you wish to make.

240
 Appendix

Participant Consent Form

Title of Research Project: Community Engagement in Policing

Researcher: Lisa Weston, University of Liverpool

I confirm that I have read and have understood the Participant

Information Sheet for the above research project. I have had the
opportunity to consider the information, ask questions and have had
these answered satisfactorily.
I understand that my participation is voluntary, and it has been explained
to me that I am free to withdraw at any time without giving any reason,
without my rights being affected.
I understand that a written record will be kept of the interview. I will be
asked for permission to record the interview by Dictaphone, but I am
aware I do not have to agree.
I understand that, under the Data Protection Act, I can at any time ask for
access to any information I provide, and I can also request the destruction
of that information if I wish up to 3 months after an observation or
interview.
I agree to take part in the above study.

……………………………………………………. …………………. …………………………

Participant Name Date Signature

……………………………………………………. …………………… …………………………

Name of Person Taking Consent Date Signature

……………………………………………………. …………………… ………………………..

Name of Researcher Date Signature

241
 Bibliography

Bibliography

ACPO (2007) Guidance on Police Community Support Officers. London: ACPO.

APCC and NPCC (2016) ‘Policing Vision 2025’ [Online]. Available at:
https://www.npcc.police.uk/documents/Policing%20Vision.pdf (Accessed: 16
October 2019).

Atkinson, P. (2017) Thinking Ethnographically. London: Sage.

Bacon, M. (2014) ‘Police Culture and the New Policing Context’. In: Brown, J.M.
(ed.) The Future of Policing. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 103-119.

Bahn, C. (1974) ‘The Reassurance Factor in Police Patrol’. Criminology, 12(3), pp.
338–345.

Banton, M. (1964) The Policeman in the Community. London: Tavistock.

Barker, A. (2014) ‘Communicating Security? Policing Urban Spaces and Control

Signals’. Urban Studies, 51(14), pp. 3046-3061.

Barker, A. (2017) ‘Mediated Conviviality and the Urban Social Order: Reframing the
Regulation of Public Space’. Brit. J. Criminology, 57, pp. 848-866.

Barnes, I. and Eagle, T. (2007) ‘The Role of Community Engagement in

Neighbourhood Policing’, Policing, 1(2), pp. 161-172.

Bauman, Z. (2001) Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Cambridge:

Polity Press.

242
 Bibliography

BBC (2016) ‘Third of People Have Not Seen a Bobby on the Beat’ [Online News
Article]. BBC, 31 August 2016. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
37224246 (Accessed: 12 January 2019).

BBC News (2017) ‘Norfolk Police Could Axe All PCSOs’. 19 October 2017. [Online].
Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-41678177 (Accessed:
19 November 2017).

Becker, H.S. (1967) ‘Whose Side Are We On?’ Social Problems, 14(3), pp. 239-247.

Beech, N. and Johnson, P. (2005) ‘Discourses of Disrupted Identities in the Practice

of Strategic Change. The Mayor, The Street-Fighter and The Insider-Out’. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 18(1), pp. 31-47.

Bell, C. (1977) Reflections on the Banbury Restudy. In: Bell, C. and Newby, H. (eds.)
Doing Sociological Research. London: Allen and Unwin.

Bellair, P.E. (2000) ‘Informal Surveillance and Street Crime: A Complex

Relationship’. Criminology, 38(1), pp. 137-170.

Bennett, T. (1991) ‘The Effectiveness of a Police-Initiated Fear-Reducing Strategy’,

The British Journal of Criminology, 31(1), pp. 1-14.

Bennett, T. and Lupton, R. (1992) ‘A Survey of the Allocation and Use of Community
Constables in England and Wales’. British Journal of Criminology, 32(2), pp. 167-
182.

Bennett, T.H. (1993) ‘Current Forms of Community Policing in Britain’ In: Dolling, D.
and Feltes, T. (eds) Community Policing - Comparative Aspects of Community-
Oriented Police Work. Holzkirchen: Felix-Verlag.

Bennett, T.H. (1994) 'Community Policing on the Ground: Developments in Britain'.

243
 Bibliography

In: Rosenbaum, D. (ed) The Challenge of Community Policing. Testing the Promises.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bobov (1999) Neighbourhood Policing: Caressing the Community with an Iron Fist.
Montreal, Quebec: Citizens Opposed to Police Brutality.

Bradley, R. (1998) Public Expectations and Perceptions of Policing. Police Research

Series Paper 96. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics
Directorate.

Bittner, E. (1967) ‘The Police on Skid-Row: A Study of Peace Keeping’. American

Sociological Review, 32(5), pp. 699-715.

Bittner, E. (1970) The Functions of the Police in Modern Society: A Review of

Background Factors, Current Practices and Possible Role Models. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Mental Health.

Blaikie, N. (2010) Designing Social Research: The Logic of Anticipation. 2nd Edition.
Cambridge: Polity Press.

Blix, S.B. and Wettergren, A. (2015) ‘The Emotional Labour of Gaining and
Maintaining Access to the Field’. Qualitative Research, 15(6), pp. 688-704.

Blumer, H. (1962) ‘Society as Symbolic Interaction’. In: Rose, A. (ed.) Human

Behavior and Social Processes. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and Method. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.

Bourke, B. (2014) ‘Positionality: Reflecting on the Research Process’. The Qualitative

Report, 19(33), pp. 1-9.

244
 Bibliography

Bowling, B. (1999) ‘The Rise and Fall of New York Murder: Zero Tolerance or Crack’s
Decline?’ British Journal of Criminology, 39(4), pp.531-554.

Bowling, B. (2006) ‘Quantity and Quality in Police Research: Making the Case for
Case Studies’ [Online]. Unpublished paper presented at Cambridge Symposium on
Research Methods, March 2006. Available at: https://www.canterbury.ac.uk/social-
and-applied-sciences/law-criminal-justice-and-computing/canterbury-centre-for-
police-research/docs/Quantity-and-quality-in-police-research.doc (Accessed: 12
August 2017).

Bradford, B. (2014) ‘Policing and Social Identity: Procedural Justice, Inclusion and
Cooperation between Police and Public’. Policing and Society, 21(1), pp. 22-43.

Bradford, B., Jackson, J. and Stanko, B. (2009) ‘Contact and Confidence: Revisiting
the Impact of Public Encounters with the Police’. Policing and Society, 19(1), pp. 20-
46.

Brainard, L.A. and McNutt, J.G. (2010) ‘Virtual Government – Citizen Relations:
Informational, Transactional, or Collaborative?’ Administration and Society, 42(7),
pp. 836 – 858.

Brent, J. (1997) ‘Community without Unity’. In: Hoggett, P. (ed.) Contested

Communities: Experiences, Struggles, Policies. Bristol: Policy Press.

Brettell, C.B. (1993) Introduction: Fieldwork, Text and Audience. In: Brettell, C.B.
(ed.) When They Read What We Write. The Politics of Ethnography. Westport, CT:
Bergin and Garvey.

Brittan, A. (1973) Meanings and Situations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Brodie et al. (2009) Understanding Participation: A Literature Review. London:

NCVO.

245
 Bibliography

Brown, J. (1996) ‘Police Research: Some Critical Issues’. In: Leishman, F., Loveday, B.
and Savage, S. (eds.) Core Issues in Policing. New York: Longman.

Brown, J. M. (2014) ‘Introduction: Third Wave Policing Reform’. In: Brown, J. M.

(ed.) The Future of Policing. Oxon: Routledge.

Brown, L.P. and Wycoff, M.A. (1987) ‘Policing Houston: Reducing Fear and
Improving Service’, Crime and Delinquency, 33(1), pp. 71-89.

Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods. 4th Edition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Buchanan, A.E. (1989) ‘Assessing the Communitarian Critique of Liberalism’. Ethics,

99(4), pp. 852-882.

Bullock, K. (2014) Citizens, Community and Crime Control. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Bullock, K. (2018) ‘The Police Use of Social Media: Transformation or

Normalisation?’ Social Policy and Society, 17(2), pp. 245-258.

Bullock, K. and Johnson, P. (2017) ‘Police Engagement with Muslim Communities:

Breaking Out, Breaking In and Breaking Through’. Policing and Society, DOI:
10.1080/10439463.2017.1339706

Bullock, K. and Sindall, K. (2014) ‘Examining the Nature and Extent of Public
Participation in Neighbourhood Policing’. Policing and Society, 24(4), pp. 385-404.

Cain, M. (1973) Society and the Policeman’s Role. London: Routledge.

de Camargo, C. (2019) ‘They Wanna be Us; PCSO Performances, Uniforms and

246
 Bibliography

Struggles for Acceptance’. Policing and Society, pp. 1-16 [Online]. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2019.1598998 (Accessed: 10 July 2019).

Carr, P.J. (2003) ‘The New Parochialism: The Implications of the Beltway Case for
Arguments Concerning Informal Social Control’. Americal Journal of Sociology,
108(6), pp. 1249-1291.

Casey, L. (2008) Engaging Communities in Fighting Crime. London: Cabinet Office.

Charlton, J. and Hertz, R. (1989) ‘Guarding Against Boredom. Security Specialists in

the US Air Force’. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 18(3), pp. 299-326.

Chase, S. (1996) Personal Vulnerability and Interpretative Authority in Narrative

Research. In: Josselson, R. (ed.) Ethics and Process in the Narrative Study of Lives.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clarke, R. V. G. (1997) ‘Introduction’. In: Clarke, R. V. G. (ed.) Situational Crime

Prevention: Successful Case Studies. 2nd edn. Guilderland, N.Y: Harrow and Heston.

Colover, S. and Quinton, P. (2018) Neighbourhood Policing: Impact and

Implementation. Summary Findings From a Rapid Evidence Assessment. London:
College of Policing.

College of Policing (2012) What Works Briefing: The Effectiveness of Visible Police
Patrol [Online]. Available at:
https://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/overview/Pages/default.aspx
(Accessed: 05 March 2020).

College of Policing (2013) What Works Briefing: The Effects of Hot-Spot Policing on
Crime [Online]. Available at: http://library.college.police.uk/docs/what-
works/What-works-briefing-hotspot-policing-2013.pdf (Accessed: 13 March 2020).

247
 Bibliography

College of Policing (2017) The Effectiveness of Visible Police Patrol [Online].

Available at:
https://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/overview/Pages/more.aspx
(Accessed: 02 September 2020).

College of Policing (2018a) Neighbourhood Policing Guidelines. Ryton-on-Dunsmore:

College of Policing.

College of Policing (2018b) Modernising Neighbourhood Policing Guidelines.

Supporting Material for Frontline Officers, Staff and Volunteers. Ryton-on-
Dunsmore: College of Policing

College of Policing (2020) What is Evidence-Based Policing? [Online]. Available at:

https://whatworks.college.police.uk/About/Pages/What-is-EBP.aspx (Accessed: 12
March 2020).

Cooke, C.A. (2005) ‘Issues Concerning Visibility and Reassurance Provided by the
New ‘Policing Family’’. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 15, pp.
229-240.

Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (2001) ‘The Case for Participation as Tyranny’. In: Cooke,
B. and Kothari, U. (eds.) Participation – The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books.

Cooper et al. (2006) A National Evaluation of Community Support Officers. Home

Office Research Study 297. London: Home Office.

Cosgrove, F. (2010) An Appreciative Ethnography of PCSOs in a Northern City (PhD),

Northumbria University.

Cosgrove, F. (2016) ‘’I wannabe a copper’: The engagement of Police Community

Support Officers with the Dominant Police Occupational Culture’. Criminology and
Criminal Justice, 16(1), pp.119-138.

248
 Bibliography

Cosgrove, F. and Ramshaw, P. (2015) ‘It Is What You Do as Well as The Way That
You Do It: The Value and Deployment of PCSOs in Achieving Public Engagement’.
Policing and Society, 25(1), pp. 77-96.

Cowell, B.M. and Kringen, A.L. (2016) Engaging Communities One Step at a Time.
Policing’s Tradition of Foot Patrol as an Innovative Community Engagement
Strategy. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

Crawford, A. (1999) The Local Governance of Crime Control: Appeals to Community

and Partnerships. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crawford, A. and Evans, K. (2017) ‘Crime Prevention and Community Safety’. In:
Liebling, A., Maruna, S. and McAra, L. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology.
Sixth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 797-824.

Crawford, A., Lister, S. and Wall, D. (2003) Great Expectations. Contracted

Community Policing in New Earswick. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Crawford, A. et al. (2004) Patrolling with a Purpose: An Evaluation of Police

Community Support Officers in Leeds and Bradford City Centres. Leeds: Centre for
Criminal Justice Studies, University of Leeds.

Crawford et al. (2005) Plural Policing. The Mixed Economy of Visible Patrols in
England and Wales. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Crow, G. and Allan, G. A. (1994) Community Life: An Introduction to Local Social

Relations. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Crump, J. (2011) ‘What Are the Police Doing on Twitter? Social Media, the Police and
the Public’. Policy and Internet, 3(4), pp. 1-27.

249
 Bibliography

Cunliffe, A.L. (2010) ‘Retelling Tales of the Field: In Search of Organizational

Ethnography 20 Years On’. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), pp. 224-239.

Cunliffe, A.L. and Alcadipani, R. (2016) ‘The Politics of Access in Fieldwork:

Immersion, Backstage Dramas, and Deception’. Organizational Research Methods,
19(4), pp. 535-561.

Davies, A. and Thomas, R. (2008) ‘Dixon of Dock Green Got Shot! Policing Identity
Work and Organizational Change’. Public Administration, 86(3), pp. 627-642.

Davis, D.L. (1993) Unintended Consequences: The Myth of ‘The Return’ in

Anthropological Fieldwork. In: Brettell, C.B. (ed.) When They Read What We Write.
The Politics of Ethnography. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

De Man, C. (2017) ‘Interaction Practices of Patrol and District Police Officers in

Contact with the Population’. European Journal of Policing Studies, 4(4) – 5(1), pp.
97-118.

Dearden, L. (2019) ‘Bobbies on the Beat’ being Eradicated by Police Cuts,

Government Warned [Online News Article]. Available From:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-cuts-uk-budget-
crime-rise-neighbourhood-austerity-federation-survey-a8775826.html (Accessed:
03 April 2020).

DeFilippis, J., Fisher, R. and Shragge, E. (2010) Contesting Community. The Limits
and Potential of Local Organizing. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Delanty, G. (2003) Community. Key Ideas. London: Routledge.

Denzin, N.K. (1969) ‘Symbolic Interactionism and Ethnomethodology: A Proposed

Synthesis’. American Sociological Review, 34(6), pp. 922-934.

250
 Bibliography

van Dijk, A., Hoogewoning, F. and Punch, M. (2015) What Matters in Policing?
Change Values and Leadership in Turbulent Times. Policy Press: Bristol.

Durkheim, É. (1964) The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.

Durkheim, É., Cosman, C. and Cladis, M.S. (2001) The Elementary Forms of Religious
Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eck, J.E. and Rosenbaum, D.P. (1994) ‘The New Police Order. Effectiveness, Equity,
and Efficiency in Community Policing’. In: Rosenbaum, D.P. (ed) The Challenge of
Community Policing. Testing the Promises. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Elliott, T. and Fleetwood, J. (2017) ‘Law for Ethnographers’. Methodologcal

Innovations, 10(1), pp. 1-13.

Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I. and Shaw, L.L. (2001) ‘ Participant Observation and
Notes’. In: Atkinson et al. (eds.) The Handbook of Ethnography. London: Sage.

Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I. and Shaw, L.L. (2011) Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. 2nd
Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Emsley, C. (1996) The English Police: A Political and Social History. London:
Longman.

Ericson, R.V. (1982) Reproducing Order: A Study of Patrol Work. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press.

Etzioni, A. (1993) The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities and the

communitarian Agenda. New York: London: Fontana.

Etzioni, A. (1995) New Communitarian Thinking: Persons, Virtues, Institutions and

251
 Bibliography

Communities. London: University of Virginia Press.

Etzioni, A. (1998) The Essential Communitarian Reader. Oxford: Rowman &

Littlefield Publishers.

Evans, K. (1997) ‘It's all right round here if you're local: Community in the Inner
City’. In: Hoggett, P. (ed.) Contested Communities: Experiences, Struggles, Policies.
Bristol: Policy Press.

Farrington, D.P. et al. (2006) The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale. In: Sherman,
L.W. et al. eds. Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. Revised Edition. London:
Routledge.

Fassin, D. (2017) ‘Accounting for the Ordinary in the Work of Policing (France)’. In:
Fassin, D. (ed) Writing the World of Policing: The Difference Ethnography Makes.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Fielding, N. (1995) Community Policing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fielding, N. (2005) ‘Concepts and Theory in Community Policing’. The Howard

Journal, 44(5), pp. 460-472.

Fielding, N. (2006) ‘Fieldwork and Policework’. In: Hobbs, D. and Wright, R. (eds.)
The SAGE Handbook of Fieldwork [Online]. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608085 (Accessed: 10 April 2018).

Fielding, N. (2009) Getting the Best Out of Community Policing. London: The Police
Foundation.

Fielding, N. and Innes, M. (2006) ‘Reassuring Policing, Community Policing and

Measuring Police Performance’. Policing and Society, 16(2), pp. 127-145.

252
 Bibliography

Fink, E.L. (2016) ‘Symbolic Interactionalism’. In: Berger, C.R. and Roloff, M.E. (eds.)
The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication. 1st Edition [Online].
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic266 (Accessed: 10
September 2020).

Fitzgerald, M. (2010) ‘A Confidence Trick?’ Policing, 4(3), pp. 298-301.

Fitzgerald, M., Hough, M. and Joseph, I. (2002) Policing for London. Cullompton:
Willan Publishing.

Flanagan, R. (2008) The Review of Policing. Final Report. London: Home Office.

Foster, J. (1995) ‘Informal Social Control and Community Crime Prevention’. British
Journal of Criminology, 35(4), pp. 563–583.

Foster, J. and Jones, C. (2010) ‘Nice to do and Essential: Improving Neighbourhood

Policing in an English Police Force’. Policing, 4(4), pp. 395-402.

Frank et al. (1996) ‘Citizen Involvement in the Co-Production of Police Outputs’.

Journal of Crime and Justice, 19(2), pp. 1-30.

Fyfe, N.R. and Wilson, P. (2012) ‘Knowledge Exchange and Police Practice:
Broadening and Deepening the Debate Around Researcher-Practitioner
Collaborations’. Police Practice and Research, 13(4), pp. 306-314.

Garcia, L. (2002) Determinants of Citizen and Police Involvement in Community

Policing. Rockville, MD: National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

Garland, D. W. (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in

253
 Bibliography

Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gergen, K.J. (1991) The Saturated Self. Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life.
New York: Basic Books.

Giddens, A. (1999) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge:
Polity Press.

Girling, E., Loader, I. and Sparks, R. (2000) Crime and Social Control in Middle
England: Questions of Order in an English Town. London: Routledge.

Glazier, S.D. (1993) Responding to the Anthropologist: When the Spiritual Baptists
of Trinidad Read What I Write About Them. In: Brettell, C.B. (ed.) When They Read
What We Write. The Politics of Ethnography. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1963) Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of

Gatherings. New York: Free Press.

Goffman, E. (1983) ‘The Interaction Order: American Sociological Association, 1982

Presidential Address’. American Sociological Review, 48(1), pp. 1-17.

Goffman, E. (2010) Relations in Public. Microstudies of the Public Order. New

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Gouldner, A. (1970) The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York: Basic Books.

GOV.UK (2019) Policing Gets Biggest Funding Boost in Decade to Put More Bobbies
on the Beat [Online News Article]. Available From:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/policing-gets-biggest-funding-boost-in-
decade-to-put-more-bobbies-on-the-beat (Accessed: 03 April 2020).

254
 Bibliography

Greig-Midlane, J. (2014) Changing the Beat? The Impact of Austerity on the

Neighbourhood Policing Workforce. Cardiff: UPSI.

Grimmelikhuijsen, S.G. and Meijer, A.J. (2015) ‘Does Twitter Increase Perceived
Police Legitimacy?’ Public Administration Review, 75(4), pp. 598-607.

Grinc, R.M. (1994) ‘“Angels in Marble”: Problems in Stimulating Community

Involvement in Community Policing’. Crime and Delinquency, 40(3), pp. 437-468.

Guardian (2017) ‘Norfolk Police Plan to Axe all Police Community Support Officers’.
20 October 2017 [Online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2017/oct/19/norfolk-police-plan-to-axe-all-community-support-officers
(Accessed: 19 November 2017).

Hail, Y., Aston, L. and O’Neill, M. (2018) Review of Evidence: What Effect Do
Enforcement-Orientated and Engagement-Orientated Methods of Visible Policing
Have on Public Confidence? [Online]. The Scottish Institute for Policing Research.
Available at:
http://www.sipr.ac.uk/Plugin/Publications/assets/files/Review_methods_of_visible
_policing_and_public_confidence_Hail_%20Aston_%20O'Neill.pdf (Accessed: 22
November 2020).

Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (2007) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. 3rd

Edition. London: Routledge.

HASC (2018) Policing for the Future – Tenth Report of Session 2017-2019 [Online].
Available at:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmhaff/515/515.pdf
(Accessed: 11 October 2019).

Hattersley, R. In: HC Deb (10 December 1981) Vol. 14, cc1001-80 [Online]. Available

255
 Bibliography

at: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1981/dec/10/scarman-
report (Accessed: 30 September 2019).

Henry, A. (2020) ‘Interaction Rituals and ‘Police’ Encounters: New Challenges for
Interactionist Police Sociology’. Policing and Society,
DOI: 10.1080/10439463.2020.1791861

Herbert, S. (2005) ‘The Trapdoor of Community’. Annals of the Association of

American Geographers, 95(4), pp. 850-865.

Hill, R. (2010) ‘Do the Public Want More or Fewer Police Community Support
Officers?’ Safer Communities, 9(1), pp. 20-26.

Hinton, M.S. and Newburn, T. (eds.) (2009) Policing Developing Democracies.

Routledge: Abingdon.

HM Treasury (2010) Spending Review 2010. London: The Stationary Office.

HMIC (2004) Modernising the Police Service: A Thematic Inspection of Workforce

Modernisation – The Role, Management and Deployment of Police Staff in the
Police Service of England and Wales. London: HMIC.

HMIC (2010) Policing in the 21st Century: Reconnecting Police and the People.
London: The Stationary Office.

HMIC (2016) PEEL: Police Effectiveness 2016. A National Overview. London: HMIC.

Hoggett, P. (1997) ‘Contested Communities’. In: Hoggett, P. (ed.) Contested

Communities: Experiences, Struggles, Policies. Bristol: Policy Press.

Holdaway, S. (1980) ‘The Police Station’. Urban Life, 9(1), pp. 79-100.

256
 Bibliography

Holdaway, S. (1983) Inside the British Police - A Force at Work. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell Publisher Limited.

Hollis, M.E. (2014) ‘Accessing the Experiences of Female and Minority Police
Officers: Observations From an Ethnographic Researcher’. In: Lumsden, K. and
Winter, A. (eds.) Reflexivity in Criminological Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Home Office (1984) Crime Prevention. Home Office Circular 8/1984. London: Home
Office.

Home Office (2003) Policing: Building Safer Communities Together. London: Home
Office.

Home Office (2004a) Policing: Modernising Police Powers to Meet Community

Needs. London: Home Office.

Home Office (2004b) Building Communities, Beating Crime: A Better Police Service
for the 21st Century. Norwich: The Stationary Office.

Home Office (2005) Neighbourhood Policing: Your Police; Your Community; Our
Committment. London: Home Office.

Home Office (2006) Citizen Focus. Good Practice Guide. London: Home Office.

Home Office (2008) From the Neighbourhood to the National: Policing Our
Communities Together. London: The Stationary Office.

Home Office (2010) Policing in the 21st Century: Reconnecting Police and the People.
Summary of Consultation Responses and Next Steps. London: Home Office.

Home Office (2014) Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Explanatory

257
 Bibliography

Notes. Chapter 12. London: The Stationary Office.

Home Office (2019) Policing for the Future. London: The Stationary Office.

Hough, J. M., Clarke, R. V. G. and Mayhew, P. (1980) ‘Introduction’. In: Clarke, R. V.

G. and Mayhew, P. (eds.) Designing Out Crime. London: H.M.S.O.

Hough, M. (2004) ‘Modernization, Scientific Rationalism and the Crime Reduction

Programme’. Criminal Justice, 4(3), pp. 239-253.

Hough et al. (2010) ‘Procedural Justice, Trust and Institutional Legitimacy’. Policing,
4(3), pp. 203-210.

Hughes, G. (1998) Understanding Crime Prevention: Social control, Risk and Late
Modernity. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Hymas, C. (2019) A Third of People Have Not Seen Any Bobbies on the Beat in the
Last Year and Say the Situation is Getting Worse, Police Inspectorate Survey Finds
[Online News Article]. Telegraph, 10 January 2019. Available from:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/10/third-people-have-not-seen-
bobbies-beat-last-year-say-situation/ (Accessed: 12 January 2019).

Innes, M. (1999) ‘An Iron Fist in an Iron Glove? The Zero-Tolerance Policing Debate’.
The Howard Journal, 38(4), pp. 397-410.

Innes, M. (2004a) ‘Reinventing Tradition? Reassurance, Neighbourhood Security

and Policing’. Criminal Justice, 4(2), pp. 151–171.

Innes, M. (2004b) ‘Signal Crimes and Signal Disorders: Notes on Deviance as

Communicative Action’. The British Journal of Sociology, 55(3), pp. 335-355.

Innes, M. (2005) ‘Why “Soft” Policing is Hard: On the Curious Development of

258
 Bibliography

Reassurance Policing, How it Became Neighbourhood Policing and What This

Signifies About the Politics of Police Reform’. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 15, pp. 156–169.

Innes, M. (2006) ‘Introduction Reassurance and the ‘New’ Community Policing’.

Policing and Society, 16(2), pp. 95-98.

Innes, M. (2007) ‘The Reassurance Function’. Policing, 1(2), pp. 132–141.

Innes, M. (2014) Signal Crimes: Social Reactions to Crime, Disorder and Control.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Innes, M. and Fielding, N. (2002) ‘From Community To Communicative Policing:

“Signal Crimes” And The Problem Of Public Reassurance’. Sociological Research
Online. Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/7/2/innes.html (Accessed: 09
July 2019).

Jackson, J. and Bradford, B. (2009) ‘Crime, Policing and Social Order: On the
Expressive Nature of Public Confidence in Policing’. The British Journal of Sociology,
pp. 493-521.

Jacobsen, M.H. (2017) ‘Introduction: Instigators to Interactionism – A Short

Introduction to Interactionism in Sociology’. In: Jacobsen, M.H. (ed.) The
Interactionist Imagination. Studying Meaning, Situation and Micro-Social Order.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jacobson et al. (2014) Exploring the Scope for Community Involvement in Criminal
Justice. London: Institute for Criminal Policy Research, Birkbeck, University of
London.

259
 Bibliography

Jaffe, A. (1993) Involvement, Detachment, and Representation on Corsica. In:

Brettell, C.B. (ed.) When They Read What We Write. The Politics of Ethnography.
Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

Johnston, L. (2005) ‘From ‘Community’ to ‘Neighbourhood’ Policing: Police

Community Support Officers and the ‘Police Extended Family’ in London’. Journal of
Community and Applied Social Psychology, 15, pp. 241-254.

Johnston, L. (2006) ‘Diversifying Police Recruitment? The Deployment of Police

Community Support Officers in London’. The Howard Journal, 45(4), pp. 388-402.

Jones, T. and Newburn, T. (2001) Widening Access: Improving Police Relations with
Hard to Reach Groups. Police Research Series Paper 138. London: Home Office.

Josselson, R. (1996) On Writing Other Peoples’ Lives: Self-Analytic Reflections of a

Narrative Researcher. In: Josselson, R. (ed.) Ethics and Process in the Narrative
Study of Lives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kelling, G.L. and Moore, M.H. (1988) The Evolving Strategy of Policing. Perspectives
on Policing No.4 (November). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S.
Department of Justice, and the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management,
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Kelling, G.L. and Wilson, J.Q. (1982) ‘Broken Windows. The Police and
Neighbourhood Safety’. The Atlantic [Online]. Available at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/
(Accessed: 09 July 2019).

Kelling, G.L et al. (1974) The Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment. A Summary
Report. Washington, DC: The Police Foundation.

Kelling et al. (1981) The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment. Washington, DC: The Police

260
 Bibliography

Foundation.

Kilgallon, A. (2020) ‘Police Interaction and Nottinghill Carnival’. Policing and Society,
30(1), pp. 28-46.

Kornhauser, R. R. (1978) Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appraisal of Analytic

Models. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Independent Police Commission (2013) Policing for a Better Britain. Report of the
Independent Police Commission. Laindon: Anton Group.

LeCompte, M.D. and Goetz, J.P. (1982) ‘Problems of Reliability and Validity in
Ethnographic Research’. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), pp.31-60.

Lieberman, J.D., Koetzle, D. and Sakiyama, M. (2013) ‘Police Departments’ Use of

Facebook: Patterns and Policy Issues’. Policy Quarterly, 16(4), pp. 438-462.

Lindberg, A. and Eule, T.G. (2020) ‘Editorial. Passing the Test in Organizational
Ethnography’. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 9(2), pp. 125-128.

Loader, I. (2006) ‘Policing, Recognition and Belonging’. ANNALS, AAPSS, 605(1), pp.
201-221.

Loader, I. (2016) ‘In Search of Civic Policing: Recasting the Peelian Principles’. Crim
Law and Philos, 10, pp. 427-440.

Loader, I. and Mulcahy, A. (2003) Policing and the Condition of England. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Loftus, B. (2009) Police Culture in a Changing World. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

261
 Bibliography

Loftus, B. (2010) ‘Police Occupational Culture: Classic Themes, Altered Times’.

Policing and Society, 20(1), pp. 1-20.

Long, M., Robinson, A. and Senior, P. (2006) A Visible Difference: An Evaluation of

the Second Phase of the Police Community Support Officers in West Yorkshire.
Sheffield Hallam University: Hallam Centre for Community Justice.

Loveday, B. and Smith, R. (2015) ‘A Critical Evaluation of Current and Future Roles
of Police Community Support Officers and Neighbourhood Wardens within the
Metropolitan Police Service and London Boroughs: Utilising ‘Low-Cost High-Value’
Support Services in a Period of Financial Austerity’. International Journal of Police
Science and Management, 17(2), pp. 74-80.

Lloyd, K. and Foster, J. (2009) Citizen Focus and Community Engagement. A Review
of the Literature. London: Police Foundation.

Lumsden, K. and Black, A. (2018) ‘Austerity Policing, Emotional Labour and the
Boundaries of Police Work: An Ethnography of a Police Force Control Room in
England’. British Journal of Criminology, 58(3), pp. 606-623.

Manning, P. (1984) ‘Community Policing’. American Journal of Police, 3(2), pp. 205-
228.

Manning, P. (1997) Police Work. The Social Organization of Policing. 2nd Ed.
Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press.

Manning, P. (2001) ‘Theorizing Policing. The Drama and Myth of Crime Control in
the NYPD’. Theoretical Criminology, 5(3), pp. 315-344.

Manning, P. (2014) Ethnographies of Policing. In: Reisig, M.D. and Kane, R.J. (eds.)
The Oxford Handbook of Police and Policing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

262
 Bibliography

Marks, M. (2004) ‘Researching Police Transformation. The Ethnographic

Imperative’. British Journal of Criminology, 44, pp. 866-888.

Mawby, R.C. (2014) ‘The Presentation of Police in Everyday Life: Police – Press
Relations, Impression Management and the Leveson Inquiry’. Crime Media Culture,
10(3), pp. 239-257.

May, T. (1993) ‘Feelings Matter: Inverting the Hidden Equation’. In: Hobbs, D. and
May, T. (eds.) Interpreting the Field. Accounts of Ethnography. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.

May, T. (1997) Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process. 2nd Edition.
Buckingham: Open University Press.

McConville, M. and Shepherd, D. (1992) Watching Police Watching Communities.

Oxon: Routledge.

McLaughlin, E. (2007) The New Policing. London: Sage.

Merritt, J. (2009) ‘Pluralist Models of Policing – Legislating for Police Powers, A

Cautionary Note from England and Wales’. Policing: An International Journal of
Police Strategies and Management, 32(2), pp. 377-394.

Merritt, J. (2010) ‘W(h)ither the PCSO: Police Perceptions of the Police Community
Support Officer’s Role, Powers and Future Directions’. Policing: An International
Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 33(4), pp. 731-749.

Merry et al. (2012) ‘Drivers of Public Trust and Confidence in Police in the UK’,
International Journal of Police Science and Management, 14(2), pp. 118-135.

Millie, A. (2014) ‘Reassurance Policing and Signal Crimes’. In: Bruinsma, G. and
Weisburd, D. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York:

263
 Bibliography

Springer, pp. 4327–4335.

Millner, S. (2008) A Review of the Civic Renewal and Active Citizenship Debate.
London: NCVO.

Muir, W.K. (1977) Police: Streetcorner Politicians. Chicago, IL: Chicago University
Press.

Murphy, E. and Dingwall, R. (2001) The Ethics of Ethnography. In: Atkinson et al.
(eds.) The Handbook of Ethnography. London: Sage.

Myhill, A. (2012) Community Engagement in Policing. Lessons from the literature.

London: NPIA.

NCJRS (1974) Police Low Visibility Patrol Operations. Washington, DC: NCJRS.

Newman, O. (1973) Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City. London:
Architectural Press.

Norris, C. (1993) ‘Some Ethical Considerations on Field-Work with the Police’. In:
Hobbs, D. and May, T. (eds.) Interpreting the Field. Accounts of Ethnography.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.

O’Neill, M. (2002) Social Interaction in the Policing of Scottish Football. PhD Thesis.
University of Aberdeen.

O’Neill, M. (2005) Policing Football. Social Interaction and Negotiated Disorder.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

O’Neill, M. (2014a) PCSOs as the Paraprofessionals of Policing: Findings and

Recommendations from a Research Project. Dundee: University of Dundee.

264
 Bibliography

O’Neill, M. (2014b) ‘Ripe for the Chop or the Public Face of Policing? PCSOs and
Neighbourhood Policing in Austerity’. Policing, 8(3), pp. 265-273.

O’Neill, M. (2017) ‘Police Community Support Officers in England: A Dramaturgical

Analysis’. Policing and Society, 27(1), pp.21-39.

O’Neill, M. (2018) ‘Is This the End of the PCSO?’ BSC Policing Network [Online].
Available from: https://bscpolicingnetwork.com/2018/04/27/is-this-the-end-of-the-
pcso/ (Accessed: 10 July 2019).

O’Neill, M. (2019) Police Community Support Officers. Cultures and Identities within
Pluralized Policing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

O’Neill, M. and Loftus, B. (2013) ‘Policing and the Surveillance of the Marginal:
Everyday Contexts of Social Control’. Theoretical Criminology, 17(4), pp. 437-454.

O’Neill, M. and McCarthy, D.J. (2014) ‘(Re) Negotiating Police Culture through
Partnership Working: Trust, Compromise, and the ‘New’ Pragmatism’, Criminology
and Criminal Justice, 14(2), pp. 143-159.

O’Reilly, K. (2009) Key Concepts in Ethnography. London: Sage.

Pamment, N. (2009) ‘We Can Terrorise Them! Young Offender Perceptions of Police
Community Support Officers’. The Police Journal, 82, pp. 171-182.

Parks et al. (1999) ‘How Officers Spend Their Time with the Community’. Justice
Quarterly, 16(3), pp. 483-518.

Paskell, C. (2007) ‘‘Plastic Police’ or ‘Community Support’? The Role of Police

Community Support Officers in Low-Income Neighbourhoods’. European Urban and
Regional Studies, 14(4), pp. 349-361.

265
 Bibliography

Pate, A.M. et al. (1986) Reducing Fear of Crime in Houston and Newark: A Summary
Report. Washington D.C: Police Foundation.

Pate et al. (1985) Coordinated Community Policing: The Newark Experience.

Executive Summary. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

Pattavina, A., Bryne, J.M. and Garcia, L. (2006) ‘An Examination of Citizen
Involvement in Crime Prevention in High-Risk Versus Low- to Moderate-Risk
Neighbourhoods’. Crime and Delinquency, 52(2), pp. 203-231.

Pearson, G. (1993) ‘Foreword. Talking a Good Fight: Authenticity and Distance in

the Ethnographer’s Craft’. In: Hobbs, D. and May, T. (eds.) Interpreting the Field.
Accounts of Ethnography. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Peterson, (2008) ‘Who ‘Owns’ the Streets? Ritual Performances of Respect and
Authority in Interactions Between Young Men and Police Officers’. Journal of
Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 9, pp. 97-118.

Policing and Crime Act 2017. (Pt. 3, Ch.1), London: HMSO.

Police Foundation (1981) The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment. Washington, DC:
Police Foundation.

Posick, C. and Hatfield, H. (2017) ‘Putting H.E.A.R.T. into Policing: A 21 st Century

Model for Effective and Fair Policing’, Policing: An International Journal, 40(1), pp.
128-140.

Povey, K. (2001) Open All Hours: A Thematic Inspection Report on the Role of Police
Visibility and Accessibility in Public Reassurance. London: HMIC.

Punch, M. (1978) ‘Fieldwork: The World of the Warmoesstraat’. Urban Life, 7(3), pp.
315-335.

266
 Bibliography

Punch, M. (1986) The Politics and Ethics of Fieldwork. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage.

Punch, M. (2015) ‘What Really Matters in Policing?’ European Police Science and
Research Bulletin Winter 2015/16, Issue 13, pp. 9-18.

Purdy, L. and Jones, R. (2013) ‘Changing Personas and Evolving Identities: The
Contestation and Renegotiation of Researcher Roles in Fieldwork’. Sport, Education
and Society, 18(3), pp. 292-310.

Putnam, R. (1993) ‘The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life’, The
American Prospect [Online]. Available at: http://prospect.org/article/prosperous-
community-social-capital-and-public-life.

Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American

Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Quinton, P. (2020) ‘Officer Strategies for Managing Interactions During Police

Stops’. Policing and Society, 30(1), pp. 11-27.

Quinton, P. and Morris, J. (2008) Neighbourhood Policing: The Impact of Piloting

and Early National Implementation. Home Office Online Report 01/08. London:
Home Office.

Raffel, S. (2013) ‘The Everyday Life of the Self: Reworking Early Goffman’. Journal of
Classical Sociology, 13(1), pp. 163-178.

Ramshaw, P. (2012) ‘On the Beat: Variations in the Patrolling Style of the Police
Officer’. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 1(2), pp. 213-233.

Reiner, R. (1978) The Blue-Coated Worker: A Sociological Study of Police Unionism.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

267
 Bibliography

Reiner, R. (2000) The Politics of the Police. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reiner, R. (2010) The Politics of the Police. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reiner, R. (2015) ‘Revisiting the Classics: Three Seminal Founders of the Study of
Policing: Michael Banton, Jerome Skolnick and Egon Bittner’. Policing and Society,
25(3), pp. 308-327.

Reiner, R. and Newburn, T. (2008) ‘Police Research’. In: King, R.D. and Wincup, E.
(eds.) Doing Research on Crime and Justice. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 343-374.

Reisig, M.D. (2007) ‘Procedural Justice and Community Policing—What Shapes

Residents’ Willingness to Participate in Crime Prevention Programs?’ Policing, 1(3),
pp. 356-369.

Reyes, V. (2020) ‘Ethnographic Toolkit: Strategic Positionality and Researchers’

Visible and Invisible Tools in Field Research’. Ethnography, 21(2), pp. 220-240.

Rock, P. (2001) ‘Symbolic Interactionalism and Ethnography’. In: Atkinson et al.

(eds.) Handbook of Ethnography. London: Sage.

Rose, N. S. (1999) Powers of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosenbaum, D.P. and Lurigio, A.J. (1994) ‘An Inside Look at Community Policing
Reform: Definitions, Organizational Changes, and Evaluation Findings’. Crime and
Delinquency, 40(3), pp. 299-314.

Rosenbaum et al. (2017) ‘The Police-Community Interaction Survey: Measuring

Police Performance in New Ways’, Policing: An International Journal, 40(1), pp. 112-
127.

268
 Bibliography

Rowland, R. and Coupe, T. (2014) ‘Patrol Officers and Public Reassurance: A

Comparative Evaluation of Police Officers, PCSOs, ACSOs and Private Security
Guards’. Policing and Society, 24(3), pp. 265-284.

Rutherford, J. (1990) ‘A Place Called Home: Identity and the Cultural Politics of
Difference’. In: Rutherford, J. (ed.) Identity: Community, Culture, Difference.
London: Lawrence & Wishart.

Sadd, S. and Grinc, R. (1994) ‘Innovative Neighbourhood Oriented Policing: An

Evaluation of Community Policing Programmes in Eight Cities’. In: Rosenbaum, D.
(ed) The Challenge of Community Policing. Testing the Promises. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Sampson, R.J. (2002) ‘Transcending Tradition: New Directions in Community

Research, Chicago Style’. Criminology, 40(2), pp. 213-230.

Sampson, R.J. (2010) ‘Gold Standard Myths: Observations on the Experimental Turn
in Quantitative Criminology’. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(4), pp. 489-
500.

Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W. and Earls, F. (1997) ‘Neighborhoods and Violent
Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.’ Science, 277(5328), pp.918-924.

Sanders, W.B. (1979) ‘Police Occasions: A study of Interaction Contexts’. Criminal

Justice Review, 4(1), pp. 1-13.

Sausdal, D. (2020) ‘Everyday Policing: Toward a Greater Analytical Appreciation of

the Ordinary in Police Research’. Policing and Society, DOI:
10.1080/10439463.2020.1798955

Scarman, L. (1981) The Scarman Report. London: The Stationery Office.

269
 Bibliography

Scott, S. (2009) Making Sense of Everyday Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Scott, S. (2015) Negotiating Identity: Symbolic Interactionist Approaches to Social

Identity. Cambridge: Polity.

Scott, S. (2018) ‘A Sociology of Nothing: Understanding the Unmarked’. Sociology,

52(1), pp. 3-19.

Shapland, J. and Vagg, J. (1987) ‘Using the Police’. British Journal of Criminology, 27
(1), pp. 54-63.

Shaw, I. (2010) Ethics and the Practice of Qualitative Research. In: Atkinson, P. and
Delamont, S. (eds.) SAGE Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sherman, L.W. (1998a) ‘Evidence-Based Policing’. Ideas in American Policing, July.

Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

Sherman, L.W. (1998b) ‘Policing for Crime Prevention’. In: Sherman et al. (eds.)
Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t Work, What’s Promising. A Report To
The United States Congress [Online]. Available at:
https://scarp.ubc.ca/sites/scarp.ubc.ca/files/Preventing%20Crime%20what%20wor
ks%2C%20what%20doesn%27t%2C%20what%27s%20promising.pdf (Accessed: 10
December 2019).

Sherman, L.W. (2013) ‘The Rise of Evidence-Based Policing: Targeting, Testing and
Tracking’. Crime and Justice, 21(1), pp. 377-451.

Sherman, L.W. and Berk, R.A. (1984) ‘The Specific Deterrent Effects of Arrest for
Domestic Assault.’ American Sociological Review, 49(2), pp. 261-272.

270
 Bibliography

Sherman, L.W. and Eck, J.E. (2006) Policing for Crime Prevention. In: Sherman, L.W.
et al. (eds.) Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. Revised Edition. London: Routledge.

Silk, P.D., Spalek, B. and O’Rawe, M. (eds.) (2013) Preventing Ideological Violence:
Communities, Police and Case Studies of “Success”. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Simmonds, D. (2015) Why is the Clutch Slipping? Developing Clarity, Capacity and
Culture for Citizen and Community Engagement. Ryton-on-Dunsmore: College of
Policing.

Simpson, R. (2017) ‘The Police Officer Perception Project (POPP): An Experimental

Evaluation of Factors that Impact Perceptions of the Police’, Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 13, pp. 393-415.

Skogan, W.G. (1989) ‘Communities, Crime, and Neighborhood Organization’. Crime

and Delinquency, 35(3), pp. 437-457.

Skogan, W.G. (1998) ‘Community Participation and Community Policing’. In:

Brodeur, J.P. (ed.) How to Recognize Good Policing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Skogan, W.G. (1994) ‘The Impact of Community Policing on Neighbourhood

Residents – A Cross Site Analysis’. In: Rosenbaum, D. (ed) The Challenge of
Community Policing. Testing the Promises. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Skogan, W.G. and Hartnett, S.M. (1997) Community Policing, Chicago Style. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Skogan et al. (1999) On The Beat: Police and Community Problem Solving. Colorado:
West View Press.

Skogan, W. G. and Steiner, L. (2004) Community Policing in Chicago Year Ten: An

Evaluation of Chicago’s Alternative Policing Strategy. Chicago: Illinois Criminal

271
 Bibliography

Justice Information Services.

Skolnick, J.H. (1966) Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society.
New York: Wiley.

Southgate, P. (1987) ‘Behaviour in Police-Public Encounters’. Howard Journal of

Criminal Justice, 26(2), pp. 153-163.

Stacey, M. (1969) ‘The Myth of Community Studies’. The British Journal of

Sociology, 20(2), pp. 134–147.

Statista (2017) ‘Number of Police Community Support Officers in England and

Wales from 2003 to 2017’ [Online]. Available at: https://www-statista-
com.liverpool.idm.oclc.org/statistics/382512/number-of-police-community-
support-officers-in-england-and-wales-yearly/ (Accessed: 18 November 2017).

Stockdale, K.J. (2017) ‘Insider? Outsider? Reflections on Navigating Positionality

When Researching Restorative Justice Policing’. In: Armstrong, S., Blaustein, J. and
Henry, A. (eds.) Reflexivity and Criminal Justice, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.
315-333.

StopWatch (2020) Experiences. Stop and Search – Your Stories [Online]. Available
From: https://www.stop-watch.org/experiences/ (Accessed: 20 August 2020).

Strudwick, K., Jameson, J. and Rowe, J. (2017) ‘Developing Volunteers in Policing:

Assessing the Potential Volunteer Police Community Support Officer’. Policing, pp.
1-14.

Telegraph Reporters (2017) ‘Where are All the Bobbies on the Beat? Just One in
Five People Say They Feel Officers are ‘Highly Visible’’ [Online News Article].
Telegraph, 16 August 2017. Available from:

272
 Bibliography

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/16/bobbies-beat-plummet-public-say-
number-people-believe-police/ (Accessed: 12 January 2019).

Thacher, D. (2001) ‘Policing is Not a Treatment: Alternatives to the Medical Model

of Research’. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), pp. 387-415.

Tilley, N. (2003) ‘Community Policing, Problem-Oriented Policing and Intelligence-

Led Policing’. In: Newburn, T. (ed.) Handbook of Policing. Cullompton: Willan
Publishing.

Tilley, N. (2009) ‘Sherman vs Sherman: Realism vs Rhetoric’. Criminology and

Criminal Justice, 9(2), pp. 135-144.

Tönnies, F. and Loomis, C. P. (1955) Community and Association (Gemeinschaft und

Gesellschaft). International Library of Sociology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Trojanowicz, R. (1982) An Evaluation of the Neighbourhorhood Foot Patrol Program

in Flint, Michigan. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University.

Trojanowicz, R. and Banas, D.W. (1985) The Impact of Foot Patrol on Black and
White Perceptions of Policing. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University.

Trujillo, N. and Dionisopoulos, G. (1987) ‘Cop Talk, Police Stories, and the Social
Construction of Organizational Drama’. Central States Speech Journal, 38(3-4), pp.
196-209.

Tuffin, R., Morris, J. and Poole, A. (2006) An Evaluation of the Impact of the National
Reassurance Policing Programme. Home Office Research Study 296. London: Home
Office.

273
 Bibliography

Tyler, T.R. and Fagan, J. (2008) ‘Legitimacy and Cooperation: Why Do People Help
the Police Fight Crime in their Communities?’ Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6,
pp. 231-275.

Tyler, T.R. and Jackson, J. (2014) ‘Popular Legitimacy and the Exercise of Legal
Authority: Motivating Compliance, Cooperation and Engagement’. Psychology,
Public Policy and Law, 20, pp. 78-95.

Unison (2016) ‘No Time for Community Policing Anymore’. PCSO Cuts Report No.3
[Online]. Available at:
https://www.unison.org.uk/news/article/2016/04/community-policing-is-worth-
protecting-and-worth-voting-for/ (Accessed: 18 November 2017).

Van Hulst, M. (2013) ‘Storytelling at the Police Station. The Canteen Culture
Revisited’. The British Journal of Criminology, 53, pp. 624-642.

Van Maanen, J. (1973) ‘Observations on the Making of Policemen’. Human

Organization, 32, pp. 407-418.

Van Maanen, J. (1974) ‘Working the Street: A Developmental View of Police

Behavior’. In: Jacob, H. (ed.) The Potential for Reform of Criminal Justice. Sage
Criminal Justice System Annual Review. Volume 3. California: Sage.

Van Maanen, J. (1978) ‘Watching the Watchers’. In: Manning, P.K. and Van
Mannen, J. (eds.) Policing. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Van Maanen, J. (1981) ‘The Informant Game: Selected Aspects of Ethnographic

Research in Police Organizations’. Urban Life, 9(4), pp. 469-494.

Vernon, R.L. and Lasley, J.R. (1992) ‘Police/Citizen Partnerships in the Inner City’.
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, pp. 18-22.

274
 Bibliography

Waddington, P.A.J. (1999) ‘Police (Canteen) Sub-Culture. An Appreciation’. British

Journal of Criminology, 39(2), pp. 287-309.
Warren, C.A.B. and Hackney, J.K. (2000) Gender Issues in Ethnography. 2nd Edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wells et al. (2006) ‘Neighborhood Residents’ Production of Order: The Effects of

Collective Efficacy on Responses to Neighborhood Problems’. Crime and
Delinquency, 52(4), pp. 523-550.

Westmarland, L. (2011) Gender and Policing. Sex, Power and Police Culture. London:
Routledge.

Westley, W.A. (1970) Violence and the Police: A Sociological Study of Law, Custom
and Morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Weston, L. (2016) “The Police are the Public and the Public are the Police” – An
Insight into the Construction of Community Engagement in one UK Police Force
(MRES Dissertation), University of Liverpool.

Wikstrom, P. (1998) ‘Communities and Crime’. In: Tonry, M. (ed.) The Handbook of
Crime and Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilcox, D. (1994) The Guide to Effective Participation. Brighton: Delta Press.

Wilcox, P., Cullen, F.T. and Feldmeyer, B. (2018) Communities and Crime. An
Enduring American Challenge. Philadephia: Temple University Press.

Williams, S.H. (1976) ‘Citizen Participation in City and Regional Planning: An

Effective American Methodology’. The Town Planning Review, 47(4), pp. 349-358.

Willis, J.J. and Mastrofski, S.D. (2018) ‘Improving Policing By Integrating Craft and

275
 Bibliography

Science: What Can Patrol Officers Teach Us About Good Police Work’. Policing and
Society, 28(1), pp. 27-44.

Wood, J. et al. (2014) ‘Cops as Treatment Providers: Realities and Ironies of Police
Work in a Foot Patrol Experiment’. Policing and Society, 24(3), pp. 362-379.

Wolf, D. (1996) Situating Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork. In: Wolf, D. (ed.) Feminist
Dilemmas in Fieldwork. Oxford: Westview Press.

Wolf, M. (1996) Afterword: Musings from An Old Gray Wolf. In: Wolf, D. (ed.)
Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork. Oxford: Westview Press.

Wycoff, M.A. (2004) ‘The Best Community Policing Practice May Be Invisible’. In:
Fridell,L. and Wycoff, M.A. (eds.) Community Policing: The Past, Present and Future.
Washington, D.C: Police Executive Research Forum.

Young, M. (1991) An Inside Job: Policing and Police Sub-Culture in Britain. Oxford:
Clarendon.

Zickar, M.J. and Carter, N.T. (2010) ‘Reconnecting with the Spirit of Workplace
Ethnography. A Historical Review’. Organisational Research Methods, 13(2), pp.
304-319.

276