El carnaval como expresión de la cultura popular tradicional.

At the beginning of the first PDU placement, legitimacy seekers brought with them the values celebrated at the academy, that is, precise grasp of legislation and perfect practicing of work ethics. Therefore, they entered this context with the assumption that PDU tutors and reference teams would evaluate them using these principles as the criteria. Consequently, many recalled feeling daunted and even ashamed at being unable to meet these anticipated standards. What PDU tutors actually considered most important for the job but unfortunately missing from the new recruits was experience in the role. Conceiving it their own responsibility, tutors spent considerable time and effort teaching ‘inexperienced’ recruits what real policing was like and how to do various jobs ‘properly’. The close mentorship and daily inculcations of tutors soon prompted recruits to recognise and earn ‘legitimacy’ in this local context, which is recorded in the following narrative.

‘I felt frustrated at the beginning of the PDU as I wanted to know all the processes so I could get on with the job and not have to ask questions… Initially, trying to learn all the little tasks needed to complete for every job was confusing, and I needed a lot of reminding. However, after only a couple of days I felt more confident in knowing what is expected of me and how to go about things.’ (Officer 12)

Apart from being a trigger for short-term adaptation, the PDU experience also caused legitimacy seekers to reflect on how to engage with the two conflicting and competing sets of discourses together, and how to position themselves around them and/or within them. PDU tutors were influential in this process, as they often claimed the knowledge and values in the practical sector were grounded in long-term, front- line, highly engaging policing experiences, but the formal discourses were derived from arbitrary, fragmented and decontextualised management ideas. Under these influences, recruits realised that the legitimacy stipulated by formal training would hardly be sustainable in the real setting. They consequently shifted the anchor of identity construction from the formal regime to the practical regime. The following

comment manifests the shift of identifying regime among legitimacy seekers during PDU phase.

‘There were plenty of positive influences on PDU with people talking to me and teaching me about certain things … My tutor was very helpful in showing me everything I needed to know and where some things differ from what you are taught in (the police academy). It also helped to go to fairly straightforward jobs to start off with and build up to more complicated jobs.’ (Officer 12)

Furthermore, in contrast with the elusive and idealistic expectations advocated in formal prescriptions and broader societal discourses (Down and Reveley, 2009; Thornborrow and Brown, 2009; Ybema et al., 2009), the behavioural standards in the PDU sector were closely based on concrete working realities, and thus much more realistic and achievable. Besides, the one-on-one mentorship offered exemplification of what a legitimate identity was like in even ‘subtle, tacit and noncodifiable’ aspects (Covelaski et al., 1998; Townley, 1994), such as how to approach, persuade and make suggestions to members of the public during a stop and search incident. Recruits could also get immediate verification of their behavioural appropriateness through the attitudes and feedback of tutors (Burke and Stets, 1999; Down and Reveley, 2009; Mead, 1934; Pratt et al., 2006). In short, the PDU context afforded concrete definitions and easy access to ‘legitimacy’, as well as solid social validation for one’s acquired legitimacy, which jointly granted legitimacy seekers a real sense of being a police officer (Down and Reveley, 2009; Dutton and Dukerich, 1991; Pratt et al., 2006). The quote below strongly echoes these observations.

‘I clearly had lots to learn but I didn’t feel patronized. I felt guided but not forced into actions. After a large fight involving many people where uninstructed by my tutor, I got involved and acted productively, I felt my tutor knew I wouldn’t freeze and I was competent. Following this, (I) felt our relationship further improved … I showed myself to be competent and knowledgeable and finally felt like a police officer, not just a person pretending to be a police officer.’ (Officer 05)

Nevertheless, as also indicated by the above narrative, although they were allowed more initiative and autonomy in practices, legitimacy seekers’ sense of

identity was primarily conditioned by confirmation from significant others. That is, their own performances and themselves were understood via tutors’ judgement and evaluation (Covaleski, et al., 1998), driven by the underlying aim of finding the universal norms and shaping oneself into a normal subject (Foucault, 1977), or ‘social self’ (Mead, 1934). Given this, they were more likely than other newcomers to perceive tutors as possessing the entire knowledge and authority, and tutors’ own working patterns and what they approved of was trustfully considered as the parameter of legitimate behaviours in the practical sector.

‘You are guided in PDU 1 a lot at the start as you don’t get much say into what jobs you go to. But the tutor will know what jobs are most appropriate for us and what we can handle. The tutor gave me instructions on what to do at each job. Towards the end of the PDU when I had learnt the processes I started to work more independently and do things without being asked. You do spend the time under protective support but this is needed because policing is such an important role, I felt more comfortable having an experienced tutor there just in case things went wrong or they can make sure everything I did was lawful.’ (Officer 12) (My emphases)

Another dimension of PDU 1 vitally influencing legitimacy seekers came from the vicarious backstage socialisation. Before PDU placement, their aspired identity was constituted by the attributes espoused in the formal, dogmatic discourses, which was a well-rounded and completely rational identity. However, PDU apprenticeship involved numerous relatively informal and relaxed debriefs as well as patrol- car/canteen socialisation between tutors and newcomers, whereby recruits were encouraged to verbalise their worries, concerns or other feelings regarding jobs, such as embarrassment caused by not understanding what a member of the public was talking about, or anger fuelled by offensive drunk people.

While these aspects tended to be ignored, if not implicitly opposed to, in formal discourses and societal expectations, and thus intentionally suppressed and withheld by the conformity oriented legitimacy seekers, backstage communications incited them to disclose, acknowledge and not feel guilty about those aspects. These conversations were imperative as they appreciated and, more importantly, legitimised the wholeness and authenticity of each police officer, instead of only tolerating and granting legitimacy to the front-stage role that well embodied formal standards and

societal expectations (Van Maanen, 2010). Therefore, these informal interactions not only fostered recruits’ relatedness, sense of belonging and loyalty (Dick, 2005; Townley, 1994; Waddington, 1999), but also enhanced their self-perceived personal value, as they were still recognised as worthy even if they were not perfect.

Besides, the social inclusion (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979) also heightened legitimacy seekers’ sense of their police membership. While the training awarded official membership only until after the hardship had been overcome and regimented tests had been passed, the PDU community’s welcoming acceptance and equal treatment constituted endorsement from the authority in the practical sector, thus significantly elevating recruits’ position in the organisation.

Both these factors explained why many recruits felt that the rapport with local teams during PDU made them feel more valuable as a person. As a result, these affective factors in the practical sector rendered it more attractive and appealing (Alvesson et al., 2008b; Ibarra, 1999) for legitimacy seekers compared with the discipline-prone training regime

‘(I) was treated well and felt respected. I didn’t always feel just like a student… I felt like a normal officer, part of the team … After a pretty diabolical end to the end of the term at (the Academy), I entered PDU feeling unmotivated and unvalued. PDU turned this around for me.’ (Officer 05)