Suspicious minds and suspicioning: constructing suspicion during policework

IF 0.9 Q4 MANAGEMENT
Ross E Hendy
{"title":"Suspicious minds and suspicioning: constructing suspicion during policework","authors":"Ross E Hendy","doi":"10.1108/JOE-12-2020-0056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis article explores officer use of suspicion before informal police-citizen encounters as a method to further understand police officer decision-making. There is a body of research focused on officer decision-making before formal “stop and search” encounters, yet, while the more informal “stop and chat” encounters are ubiquitous, they are a comparatively under-researched part of policework.Design/methodology/approachThe research takes an ethnographic approach to explore police decision-making. It used participant observation (800 h over 93 patrol shifts) of front-line first response officers from New Zealand (n = 45) and South Australia (n = 48). Field observations were complemented with informal discussion in the field and 27 semi-structured interviews.FindingsIt reveals that officers applied three situational “tests” to assess the circumstances or actions observed before initiating an informal encounter. Officers then weighed up whether the circumstances were harmful, contrary to law, or socially acceptable to determine the necessity of initiating a police-citizen encounter. This process is conceived as suspicioning: deciding whether circumstances appear prima facie suspicious, how an officer goes about collecting more information to corroborate suspicion to ultimately inform a course of action.Originality/valueThe findings present a new perspective to understanding how and why police officers decide to initiate encounters with members of the public. Moreover, as the first ethnographic cross-national research of officers from New Zealand and South Australia, it provides a rare comparative glimpse of Antipodean policing.","PeriodicalId":44924,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Organizational Ethnography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Organizational Ethnography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-12-2020-0056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

PurposeThis article explores officer use of suspicion before informal police-citizen encounters as a method to further understand police officer decision-making. There is a body of research focused on officer decision-making before formal “stop and search” encounters, yet, while the more informal “stop and chat” encounters are ubiquitous, they are a comparatively under-researched part of policework.Design/methodology/approachThe research takes an ethnographic approach to explore police decision-making. It used participant observation (800 h over 93 patrol shifts) of front-line first response officers from New Zealand (n = 45) and South Australia (n = 48). Field observations were complemented with informal discussion in the field and 27 semi-structured interviews.FindingsIt reveals that officers applied three situational “tests” to assess the circumstances or actions observed before initiating an informal encounter. Officers then weighed up whether the circumstances were harmful, contrary to law, or socially acceptable to determine the necessity of initiating a police-citizen encounter. This process is conceived as suspicioning: deciding whether circumstances appear prima facie suspicious, how an officer goes about collecting more information to corroborate suspicion to ultimately inform a course of action.Originality/valueThe findings present a new perspective to understanding how and why police officers decide to initiate encounters with members of the public. Moreover, as the first ethnographic cross-national research of officers from New Zealand and South Australia, it provides a rare comparative glimpse of Antipodean policing.
怀疑心理与怀疑心理:构建警察工作中的怀疑
本文探讨警察在与公民非正式接触前使用怀疑作为进一步理解警察决策的一种方法。有大量的研究集中在正式的“拦截和搜查”遭遇之前的警官决策,然而,尽管更非正式的“拦截和交谈”遭遇无处不在,但它们是警察工作中相对较少研究的一部分。设计/方法/方法本研究采用民族志方法来探讨警察的决策。它采用参与式观察(800小时,93个巡逻班次),对来自新西兰(n = 45)和南澳大利亚(n = 48)的一线第一反应官员进行观察。实地观察得到实地非正式讨论和27次半结构化访谈的补充。调查结果显示,在开始非正式接触之前,警官采用了三种情境"测试"来评估观察到的情况或行为。然后,警察会权衡当时的情况是否有害、是否违反法律或是否为社会所接受,以决定是否有必要发起一场警察与公民的冲突。这个过程被认为是怀疑:决定情况是否表面上看起来可疑,官员如何收集更多的信息来证实怀疑,最终为行动提供信息。原创性/价值这些发现为理解警察如何以及为什么决定主动与公众接触提供了一个新的视角。此外,作为第一个对来自新西兰和南澳大利亚的警察进行的民族志跨国研究,它提供了一个罕见的对澳大利亚警察的比较一瞥。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
37.50%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Journal of Organizational Ethnography (JOE) has been launched to provide an opportunity for scholars, from all social and management science disciplines, to publish over two issues: -high-quality articles from original ethnographic research that contribute to the current and future development of qualitative intellectual knowledge and understanding of the nature of public and private sector work, organization and management -review articles examining the history and development of the contribution of ethnography to qualitative research in social, organization and management studies -articles examining the intellectual, pedagogical and practical use-value of ethnography in organization and management research, management education and management practice, or which extend, critique or challenge past and current theoretical and empirical knowledge claims within one or more of these areas of interest -articles on ethnographically informed research relating to the concepts of organization and organizing in any other wider social and cultural contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信