Tensiones sociales en el sector de los cosecheros de añil

The police service, anonymised as ‘BlueCorp’, sampled within this study serves a

population of nearly three million people and covers various areas safeguarding 5,000 square miles. It currently employs approximately 8,000 police constables, 500 special constables and 800 police community support officers as well as nearly 2,000 non- uniformed roles. The area that it polices is split into twelve geographical divisions, with each borough allocated an integrated neighbourhood policing team (INPT) with the exception of the city centre which has three divisions covered by one large INPT due to its size and higher levels of criminal activity.

The INPT that covers the city centre is, unsurprisingly, much larger in staff numbers to accommodate the size of the area and levels of crime it polices. However, while BlueCorp enjoyed a reduction in crime for a decade, rates have been gradually increasing since 2013, and the Crime Commissioner for BlueCorp recently expressed his alarm at the increase and

blamed the government’s ‘reckless cuts’. Since 2010, the budget for BlueCorp has been

lowered by a quarter and as a consequence, BlueCorp has lost more than 1,200 police officers, and yet the areas the INPTs cover are increasing in size. Each division houses a

77

grouping of neighbourhood policing units which all have specific roles and responsibilities depending on the area and within these, contain smaller, focused integrated neighbourhood policing teams (INPTs) which include local police constables (PCs) and police community support officers (PCSOs). This study focused on three INPTs (identified for the purpose of this study as Areas A, B and C), though within the city centre INPT (Area B) which is split into six different areas, I observed two areas out of six. It also focuses on the Police Training College for BlueCorp, identified as Area D.

The distribution of PCs and PCSOs across the twelve divisions within BlueCorp is largely unequal, ranging from between two and fourteen PCSOs, and four and twenty PCs (including neighbourhood beat officers (NBOs), neighbourhood police officers (NPOs) and response PCs) essentially dependent on the nature and extent of crime and disorder troubles within each area. Whilst one area chose to place their entire allocation of PCSOs within one sector (Area A), another chose to target PCSOs within smaller teams throughout (in Area B) to cover smaller townships. These allocations are by no means static and are flexible to change in line with local priorities and current operational needs. Note: The ranks of neighbourhood beat officers (NBOs), neighbourhood police officers (NPOs) and PCs were used interchangeably between areas, though their roles are rather similar (though PCs patrolled primarily by panda car). A neighbourhood beat officer (NBO) is responsible for a specific geographical area and community tensions. They routinely patrol the small area, attend community meetings, and investigate crime in that area once recorded, offering reassurance. They work alongside the council, anti-social behaviour officers and social services to protect vulnerable people who live in that catchment. They represent in northern parlance 'the local bobby who knows everyone'. Neighbourhood police officers (NPOs) on the other hand, look after a collection of areas grouped together (for example, a city centre may have several 'beats'/patches but is one neighbourhood) and they deal with non-emergency crimes and enquiries. They also conduct warrants at addresses and often do pro-active police operations in plain clothes to counter problem crime in areas.

These men and women, along with PCSOs, make up the heart of neighbourhood policing and are assigned to a designated neighbourhood for up to three years and thus spend most of their shifts on foot. They are not generally required to answer radio dispatch calls to

78

their areas; rather, they are permanently posted there to react to local needs and build relationships with their ‘patch’, along with crime-fighting and prevention.

5.2 Negotiating Access

Obtaining access to research sites in order to conduct interviews and observations is often difficult. Issues arising with negotiating access is not limited to the social sciences, because whatever is being studied researchers have to get to a physical position from which they can observe and interview the research subjects and this usually involves being allowed access into a group; particularly difficult with the police who tend to be suspicious of

‘outsiders’. It is the norm within these realms that there is a gatekeeper (and often more

than one) who regulates and controls what the researcher is allowed to access. This issue has been extensively documented by police researchers (Skolnick, 1966; Punch, 1979) who noted that access and cooperation only tends to increase the longer is spent in the field.

But that does not assist in acquiring the access in the first place; ‘for ethnographic

research in particular, it remains an issue throughout data collection as entry to sub- settings [in this case, various INPTs] within the overall setting [BlueCorp] has to be

continually negotiated, and sometimes renegotiated, as the research progresses’ (Foster,

1996: 64).

Initial contact with BlueCorp was facilitated via professional associates at the University of Salford. Once initial contact was made and emails were exchanged verifying the scope of the research, the proposal was taken to a senior management meeting for BlueCorp to discuss the potential merits of the proposal. After the research proposal was approved, a meeting between me, the thesis supervisors and two senior policing staff was organised to discuss in detail what the research would entail in terms of observations, interviews and confidentiality. Before fieldwork commenced a copy of the informed consent form and information sheet was sent to the research administrator of BlueCorp to ensure that they were fully aware of scope of the research planned. This is not unusual as ‘top managers

need to know what the project will require and how the agency will be asked to depart

from its routines’ (Matrosfski et al., 1998: 14). This allowed them the opportunity to

79

inappropriate in any way. A confidentiality agreement was also signed and dated to acknowledge the responsibilities of the research and that any data obtained purposely or otherwise (by unintentionally overhearing conversations for example) would be kept confidential and anonymous (see Appendix C).

There is evidence to suggest that researchers, especially at the first meeting with the gatekeepers, use self-presentational techniques to fit in (Foster, 1996; see also Goffman, 1959). Both thesis supervisors accompanied me to the initial meeting with the force-wide neighbourhood sergeant (FWNS) and research facilitator from BlueCorp at the headquarters, where I was dismayed to discover they were both dressed professionally in formal suits. I had evidently been naïve to presume that this was an informal chat about my research and was dressed as such (I was not exactly dressed down but informally enough that it made me feel slightly uncomfortable); I had obviously read the situation incorrectly, and then spent most of the meeting trying to present myself in a way that attempted to rectify my mistake; the amusing irony being that I was researching the connotations and symbolic meaning of clothing, the way people dress and impression formation; the experience caused me to consider more carefully how I would dress for the actual fieldwork.

During the initial meeting it was negotiated that a combination of observation and interviews would be required. Initially only interviews were offered and it took a little convincing that observations were to be an integral part of the research. It was proposed to management that a combination of day and night shifts, and a mix between urban, rural and suburban areas was preferable but not essential. It was established that the gatekeeper would be gathering volunteers by distributing the invitation letter (see Appendix B) and willing participants would contact him (my email address was also provided should there be any additional questions).

It was therefore important to emphasise that the research plan was designed to target place, time and settings, not individual officers as the researcher must observe police work as it would be undertaken normally. Though the information sheet summarises the purpose of the project, it was crucial to not give away too much information, increasing the risk of a self-fulfilling/ self-negating prophecy and/or the Hawthorne Effect (Payne and Payne, 2004). This could give them reasons to behave or speak in a certain way in accordance to what they think the researcher wants to know:

80

‘On one hand I wanted to be as open as I could in order to earn the officer’s trust;

on the other hand, I did not want to be so specific about my expectations that I encouraged the officers simply to do what they thought I wanted and expected for

my benefit.’

(Pepinsky, 1980: 227) There is a significant difference between being allowed access to the subject matter of the research and being permitted access to the actual realities of the environment. As previously suggested, researchers have noted that access and cooperation tends to increase as more time is spent in the field and confidence and rapport is gained (Skolnick, 1966; Punch, 1979). However, this can consequently raise several ethical dilemmas (see Chapter 5.9). For example, police researchers in the past have allowed themselves to be introduced as police officers and even aided arrests (Skolnick, 1966; Punch, 1979). This forces the researcher into usually alien territory and compels the researcher to (re)consider their position within the research (see Chapter 5.6).

5.3 Self-Presentation

Advice on what to wear and how to present yourself in terms of identity in the field is not something that is widely discussed in research literature but is touched upon (see Whyte, 1943; Goffman, 1989), and yet these decisions may actually be quite significant if my discussion on clothing, impression formation and colour connotations are anything to go by (see Chapters 3 and 4). Delamont (1984: 25) ‘always wore a conservative outfit’ when

meeting the gatekeepers of her research in a high school. However, for her research

subjects (in this case, school pupils) she wore a dress or skirt ‘of mini-length to show the

pupils [she] knew what the fashion was’ (Delamont, 1984: 25). Davies suffered similar

issues in her research in a women’s prison;

‘“Lesser” concerns were related to a fear of the unknown: what to wear? What to take with me? Whether I should arrive on time? Whether [they] had been informed of my arrival and my business. Whether there would be any obstacles going in and getting on with the interviews. How I would manage to conduct

myself appropriately and credibly with the staff and [participants].’

81

While I believed I was dressed appropriately following my experience from the initial meeting at headquarters, one detective disagreed. I wore a similar outfit on every shift; smart shirt, trousers and boots. On reflection I was probably dressed more appropriately for an office environment (in wanting to appear professional), rather than police patrol, but what are you supposed to wear when not in a uniform? The detective fitted me into her stab vest forcefully and ignored my protestations reasoning that she ‘couldn’t be bothered with the paperwork’ if I were to get shot or stabbed on patrol. Though she scolded

me for not being clothed ‘appropriately’ as it ‘wasn’t a fashion show’, she did not elaborate

on the unsuitability of my clothes: ‘appropriate’ is of course, ambiguous and subjective,

and no one had commented previously. The motives behind her re-dressing me (by putting me in police clothing and admonishing me for wearing earrings and having my hair loose) can be speculated: there might have been significant gender issues at play, (mis)use of her

authoritative position, or even distaste toward what she perceived to be my ‘erotic ranking’ (Zetterberg, 166: 134, see Chapter 5.10 for further discussion). Similarly, O’Neill

(2002: 390), in her ethnography of Scottish football policing, found that female officers

either related to her as a woman and spoke about ‘lad culture’, or ‘would barely talk to me

at all and seemed resentful of my place among them and the attention I was getting from

the men’.

Performative identity work (Goffman, 1959) refers to the way that researchers must attempt to present themselves in a certain way, not just for the benefit of their

participants but also to themselves. Goffman (1979: 2) argues that individuals must ‘style

themselves so that others present can immediately know he social (and sometimes the personal) identity of he who is to be dealt with; and in turn he must be able to acquire this

information about those he thus informs’. Goffman (1979: 1-2) had earlier referred to these presentations in Gender Advertisements, and termed them ‘indicative events displays’ where ‘by intent or in effect… displays seem to be specialised… in the case of gender, hair style, clothing and tone of voice’. Researchers are, therefore, the audience to their own

display of identity (Butler, 1999) and within this are tasked with elements of ‘emotional labour’ (Hochschild, 2012: 7). It may be necessary for researchers to conjure feelings of

confidence, sociability and competence and minimise overt shyness, embarrassment and awkwardness in the research setting (Tangney and Fischer, 1995) thus performing emotional labour for the participants and themselves. This was evidenced in the field research upon entering each new research site:

82

‘I was pretty nervous during the first couple of hours and kept anxiously picking at a loose thread on my sleeve. But I knew I couldn’t show I was nervous, I wanted to look professional and competent. I smiled at everyone and recited the same paragraph I had memorised to everyone who asked what I was there for – less for consistency, more for a show of aptitude. There were always lots of homemade cakes, muffins and other delicious snacks around the office which I (perhaps quite cheekily) helped myself to when everyone else was. I thought that in doing so it would look like I felt at home and was trying to fit in. After a few shifts, I had, to my dismay (perhaps unsurprisingly), put on a couple of pounds.’

(Fieldnotes Excerpt: March, 2014) ‘It’s the start of the second shift and I’m feeling more confident. I walked into the hub and smiled and said hello to officers that I recognised from the other day. Some of them even know me by name now which is a nice feeling.’

(Fieldnotes Excerpt: March, 2014) As detailed by the above fieldnotes excerpts, I felt mostly awkward and uneasy on the first shift at each new research site. After maybe an hour or so, I began to feel considerably more relaxed, due to the fact that most officers were friendly and accommodating. However, after a couple of weeks of fieldwork, I found the many emotions and feelings I experienced (and the flitting back and forth between them) were exhausting and I remember wishing that I had selected just one research site to avoid

feeling ‘new’ repeatedly.

Figure 1: CRDC wearing Detective Silver’s stab vest. I found, even in partial uniform, that

wearing it was seductive, and taking the role of the police, however briefly, afforded me

83

did not necessarily crave ‘public acceptance’ in these situations, it made me feel that I

had more of a right to be there. Maas (1972: 58-9) documented something similar in

his research: ‘Serpico asked him if he could look at his [badge]. He managed to slip in

another room with it, and he held it up in front of his chest and posed in front of a mirror, experiencing a new sense of identity, thrilling to it’; a feeling I experienced myself.

5.4 Gatekeeper Relationships

Once the force-wide neighbourhood sergeant (FWNS) had contacted each area, an inspector or sergeant contacted me directly in order to organise fieldwork timescales. Below is a brief description of the relationship between myself and each gatekeeper at the different research sites.

Area A

After initial contact with Area A, it was arranged that I would accompany officers on three shifts the following week. I had not negotiated shifts further along than that as I was cautious not to overwhelm them with demands on their time. Once the three shifts had been completed I emailed the sergeant (gatekeeper) thanking him and the officers for their time and requested another three shifts. While my access had been unfettered whilst at Area A and they were more than accommodating, it was made very clear in his reply

that they had ‘fully fulfilled’ my original request and could not possibly arrange more

shifts unless headquarters ‘insisted’ upon it. I was disappointed and frustrated by his answer: their hospitality only stretched so far it seemed. Reluctantly, I moved onto Area B.

Area B

Area B was the largest research site that I observed. It was a large purpose-built building that housed a number of departments that other research sites did not have the space for. At Area A there was one large central room that housed the hub, but in Area B there were several hubs separating neighbourhood teams for each area and response PCs. On the second floor there were at least ten different neighbourhood teams (consisting of one sergeant, a few NBOs, NPOs or PCSOs (or a combination of both for each area). While this meant there were quite a few options available to me in terms of shift times, areas and accompanying staff, there was no main gatekeeper for this site. Once access had been

84

granted to Area B via the FWNS, an inspector’s contact details were given to arrange fieldwork. Upon arrival at the start of each shift the inspector introduced me to the relevant gatekeepers for the shift that day (Detective Silver, Sergeant Beige and Sergeant Indigo - Sergeant Beige was the gatekeeper for three of the shifts with response) and the respective gatekeepers would arrange who I would be accompanying on shift that day within their neighbourhood team).

Area C

Officers at Area B had conversationally queried what site I would be researching next. When I informed them I was going to Area C (a suburban division), they laughed and told me to be ‘prepared for a bore-fest’ as‘nothing happens there’. I thought their opinions were interesting; very much in line with what has been previously documented –that ‘action’ is

what is defined as ‘real police work’ (Holdaway, 1983) – these comments, perhaps tellingly, came from response PCs whose line of work is centred around adrenaline, action

and ‘blue light runs’. As before, original access was facilitated by the FWNS and contact

details were given for Inspector Lilac. Upon arrival I was introduced to the NPO Peach and NBO Grey who I would be accompanying on my two shifts there that week. Following the shifts, both provided me with personal contact details should I ever ‘need anything’ though I had not requested them.

Area D

Through a personal police contact at the university, access to the police training college