Logics of stop-and-check : exploring the social dynamics of police officers' decision-making in a large Dutch city

(1)

Logics of stop-and-check: Exploring the social

dynamics of police officers’ decision-making in

a large Dutch city.

Nathalie van Eijk

10074724

University of Amsterdam Master Thesis

MSc. Sociology: Social Problems and Social Policy

Nathalie_vaneijk@hotmail.com

Supervisor: Dhr. dr. Patrick Brown Second reader: Dhr. dr. Paul Mepschen

Date of submission: 24th_{of July, 2017} Wordcount: 25769

(2)

1. Introduction

Changes within public policies related to public safety in the Netherlands have changed considerably during the past decades with a shift towards a more preventative approach in policing (Downes 2007:115). Important legal developments involve changes in the judicial system and governmental policy frameworks where there is “an increasing pressure to perform preventive crime strategies” (Cankaya 2015:3) The introduction of pro-active, preventative crime strategies include preventative stop-and-check practices that were introduced in 2002, which have empowered the police to stop and check any citizen as well as vehicles (ibid.).

Since 2005, it is legally obliged that all citizens carry ID and must be able to present a valid identity document when stopped by a police officer (Eijkman 2010: 15).

It is understood that police officers play a powerful role in society as their line of work demands that they make discretionary decisions resulting in relative autonomy protecting citizens’ rights and lives (Smith 2005). However, this degree of discretion also makes them vulnerable, as they are required to make daily assessments of risk and uncertainty under varying degrees of pressure (Horlick-Jones 2005). These pressures can manifest themselves in multiple ways varying from micro-level complexities such as individual experiences of vulnerability and uncertainty as a result of personal and past experiences to macro-level complexities such as organisational

pressures and responsibilities to maintain order in society (Schutz 1967; Zinn 2008; Perri 6 2005; Goldstein 1990).

Police officers have a specific responsibility to protect society and its citizens from deviance, criminality and (as is increasingly argued within current policy discourses) terrorism (Spalek 2012; Goldstein 1990). However, the introduction of stop-and-check practices has resulted in controversies, leading in particular to discussions surrounding ethnic profiling in which stop-and-checks are argued to promote and result in, discriminatory and exclusionary practices (Amnesty International 2013; Goodey 2006; Parmar 2011, Weber & Bowling 2013).

This research is not a study of ethnic profiling, nor does it assume that ethnicity will be the primary factor in police decision-making in regards to stop-and-checks. Rather, this study will cover a broad spectrum of factors influencing the logics of decision-making when police officers conduct stop-and-checks. In order to better analyse the way police use their discretionary

powers, and to better understand the decision-making process, we need to understand their handling of uncertainty amid various degrees of pressures and vulnerabilities that they face

(5)

(Douglas 1996:27). By including broader social and cultural categories, this study will reveal the deeper complexities that influence the decision-making process (Perri 6 2005: 92), in which special attention will be paid to the vulnerabilities and uncertainties faced by police officers in terms of pressures (Douglas 1996). In pursuing this line of inquiry, the thesis is structured as follows:

The main aim of chapter two is to connect the practice of stop-and-checks to organisational and wider societal vulnerabilities and uncertainties by addressing some prevalent issues that the police organisation is currently faced with, thereby creating the context in which police officers conduct stop-and-checks. The relevance of this study will be further clarified in this chapter through which I describe the importance of including broader social and cultural categories in order to reveal the deeper complexities of the logics of decision-making when police officers conduct stop-and-checks.

Chapter three will focus upon the main theoretical concepts that are useful to gain insight into the logics of decision-making. Firstly, I will consider the problems of vulnerability and uncertainty faced by police officers by sketching the context in which police-decision-making takes places. Next, an analysis of the different logics of dealing with these vulnerabilities and uncertainties will be given. Here, I will use a framework developed by Zinn (2008) regarding the multiple logics of decision-making when making assessments of risk and uncertainty. I will argue the importance of including and combining various non-orthodox approaches to decision-making. Additionally, I will reflect upon in between strategies that are influenced by gut feelings and heuristics (Gigerenzer 2007). Finally, I will locate these vulnerabilities and uncertainties within wider social and cultural processes.

Chapter four will discuss the methodology of this qualitative case study, addressing: the sampling process, data collection and analysis and ethical considerations relevant for this study. Thereafter, the data chapters will follow which are structured according to the theory chapter: an extensive analysis of the vulnerabilities and uncertainties faced by participants (chapter five); the multiple logics of decision-making that are of particular relevance when participants conducted stop-and-checks (chapter six); the broader social and cultural categories influencing the logics of decision-making (chapter seven). Finally, chapter eight will connect the theoretical concepts to the

outcomes of the data chapters and I will consider the implications and limitations of this study, before making recommendations for future research.

(6)

2. Context

Introduction

The main aim of this chapter is to place the practices of stop-and-checks, as carried out by police officers, within their wider societal and organisational context.

This chapter will begin by explaining why stop-and-checks are implemented and clarify why this research is relevant. Next, I will briefly address the controversies surrounding stop-and-checks that have led to the growing discussion of ethnic profiling. Here, I will refer to previous research as well as the role of the media and how they raised public interest into the specific practice of stop-and-checks. I will then elaborate on the policies and related dynamics within the police organisation and how internal tensions might influence the logics of decision-making when police officers conduct stop-and-checks. Finally, I will outline an operational framework designed by the police organisation that was initiated to better control the vulnerabilities and uncertainties experienced by police officers in the process of stop-and-checks. This operational framework was a result of the mounting pressures faced by police officers in relation to the discussions concerning ethnic profiling and should be seen in terms of a general protocol aimed to maximize a successful stop-and-check and simultaneously to minimize a stop-and-check from escalating. Although is it unsure to what extent this framework is currently being applied by police officers in the Netherlands, the framework does suggest a certain awareness of the pressures faced by police officers in regards to stop-and-checks.

2.1 Stop-and-check practices

Introduction and meaning of stop-and-checks

It is important to note that stop-and-checks are conducted on two different legal bases in the Netherlands: Police officers can conduct:

1) dynamic traffic checks 2) pro-active checks.

Dynamic traffic checks are used to enforce traffic laws whereas pro-active police checks are not merely aimed at road users but include all situations in which police officers interact and

intervene with citizens (Landman 2016:13).

One of the main differences between preventative stop-and-check practices and other police work such as responding to calls, is that police officers primarily act upon their own initiative when conducting stop-and-checks, as opposed to following direct, specific orders or protocols (Smith 2005:325). It is therefore interesting to research the logics of decision-making when police

(7)

officers conduct stop-and-checks as this involves a practice in which police officers are required to make decisions with relative autonomy, self-motivation and little direct supervision (Goldstein 1960).

Importance of studying the logics of decision-making in relation to stop-and-checks

Due to the conditions in which decisions are made as outlined above, police officers are required to use discretion on a daily basis in their decision-making process (Smith 2005:325). In Dutch, this is termed ‘discretionary space’1

which translates into the margin of manoeuvre that is granted to professionals (ibid.:14). Within this discretionary space, a range of factors (including broader social and cultural categories and organisational logics) influenced police officers’ decisions (Lipsky 1980). It is therefore crucial to gain a deeper understanding of the way police officers behave within this ‘discretionary space’. By researching their logics of decision-making during stop-and-checks, the ways in which police officers use their discretion should become clearer. Such research could potentially inform improved policy and procedures.

Vulnerabilities and uncertainties facing police officers in terms of pressures and risk in relation to stop-and-checks

The practice of stop-and-checks should not be explained solely in terms of the discretion granted to police officers since police officers are obliged to act within the boundaries of the law.

Consequently, research regarding stop-and-checks should also consider the pressures, vulnerabilities and uncertainties that feed into the logics of decision-making (as explained in chapter 3; c.f. Perri 6 2005; Douglas 1966, 1970; Zinn 2008, Gigerenzer 2007). It is essential to understand stop-and-checks as part of a larger system that goes beyond the discretion of police officers or the police organisation as cases can reach the Public Prosecution Service2_.

A standard police-protocol is that police officers are required to submit a police report after every violation providing a factual account of what transpired. These reports are then shared with the Public Prosecution Service who checks whether the factual information is legitimate and

determines if there is a strong enough ‘case’ for a possible arrest. When police officers are unable to report objective and legitimate justification for their actions, reports are dismissed. The

restriction of the law can therefore feed into the vulnerabilities and uncertainties experienced by police officers as they are pressured to act upon objective and observable factors when they conduct stop-and-checks which in some instances, are not possible (Bockstaele 2005; Politie,

1_{Translation in Dutch: ‘discretionaire ruimte’.} 2_{Translation in Dutch: ‘Openbaar Ministerie’.}

(8)

n.d.)Additionally, vulnerabilities and uncertainties can be explained in terms of the complaint-forms that citizens can file. Police officers are subsequently notified regarding a citizen’s complaint. In extreme or difficult cases, the mayor and chief prosecutor are included. Arguably, these vulnerabilities and uncertainties in terms of pressures and risk have increased since the practice of stop-and-checks is intertwined with the public debate regarding ethnic profiling (Amnesty International 2013; Open Society Foundation 2009).

Although this research is not a study of ethnic profiling3

, nor does it assume that ethnicity will be the primary factor in police decision-making in regards to stop-and-checks, it is essential to discuss how controversies surrounding stop-and-checks have resulted in wider debates of the logics of stop-and-check, centring upon ethnic profiling. This prominence may influence and shape the experiences and narratives of police officer participants with regards to stop-and-checks, and can contribute to the vulnerabilities and uncertainties experienced by police officers.

2.2 Issues related to ethnicity

The Open Society Justice Initiative in 2009 and Amnesty International in 2013 have been key actors initiating a discussion in relation to ethnic profiling in the Netherlands. Amnesty

International has addressed the problem of ethnic profiling by claiming it violates human rights such as privacy and equal treatment (Amnesty International, 2013). The Dutch non-profit organisation Control Alt Delete4

has also played an active role in the discussion, hosting meetings to discuss the prevalence of ethnic profiling in the Netherlands.

International research regarding stop-and-checks

With the introduction of preventative crime strategies such as stop-and-checks came a renewed emphasis on the concept of ethnic profiling. This emphasis on ethnic profiling is prominent within both academic literature and media coverage and has been an international concern for several decades. According to Goodey (2006), the practice of ethnic profiling has a long history yet has only been challenged since the 1980’s in the United States and United Kingdom (Goodey 2006:208). He argued that the “policy focus has developed in response to [attention to] the

problem. For instance, according to Staples, the practice of ethnic profiling was prevalent as early as 1693 as court officials in Philadelphia authorized police officers to bring in any slave without

3_{Initially, I decided to research ethnic profiling in this thesis. However, discussions with my supervisor led me to}

consider the problems this central focus would bring up in terms of accessibility and ethical issues. For ethical, practical and analytical reasons, I decided to broaden the scope of this thesis.

(9)

having a pass from his or her master (Staples, 2011:2). Moreover, research of ethnic profiling in the United States showed how African Americans in the 1960’s experienced grievances regarding police treatment (Harris 2006). However, these disturbances were considered to affect only African Americans and were generally ignored, as they were deemed to be irrelevant for the general public (ibid.).

By contrast, in many European countries ethnic profiling has received either no or very little dedicated research attention, let alone a policy focus” (ibid.).

It is unclear to what extent the public debate in the Netherlands was sparked by previous

international attention on ethnic profiling, however ethnic profiling as a social problem is neither novel nor merely restricted to the Dutch police organisation, even if it has come to prominence comparatively recently as a policy issue (Cankaya 2012).

Dutch research regarding stop-and-checks

Within academic discussions, the possibility of ethnic profiling is argued to be a result of

stereotypes at an implicit, taken-for-granted level (Eijkman 2011; Van der Leun&Van der Woude 2014; Cankaya, 2012; Landman 2005). These stereotypes could result from previous experiences with people from ethnic minority backgrounds, institutionalised practices and norms within police organisations and/or by automatically assuming that people from ethnic backgrounds are more prone to ‘deviance’ ((Cuijpers&Brown 2016; Mepschen 2016:272;Van der Leun 2011)

Van der Leun (2011) argued that the issue of ethnic profiling should be understood amid the changing social, political and legal developments (Van der Leun 2011: 444. In particular, the 9/11 attacks, the murder of Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn have raised “issues of immigration, integration and the over- representation of non-western ethnic minorities” (ibid.:445) and has led to rising feelings of islamophobia in the Netherlands (Çankaya 2015), which in turn may have contributed to the increase in ethnic profiling (ibid.). In this way, certain ethnicities have become associated with social problems (Cuijpers&Brown 2016; Mepschen 2016:272;), which can be understood to have further intensified in the last six years since Van der Leun published this article. According to Mepschen (2016), the dichotomy between ‘autochthonous’ Dutch citizens and ‘allochthonous’ (post) migrants has normalized in the political and social sphere, which has led to the construction of ‘ethnicized and racialized’ groups as “cultural Others” (ibid.:22). Additionally, Eijkman argues that due to the perceived link between certain ethnicities and social problems, ethnic profiling is seen as a means to solve the ‘problem’ of “terrorism, radicalisation, integration, violent crime, serious public nuisance or public safety” (Eijkman 2010: 1).

(10)

Although the ethical issues surrounding ethnic profiling have received increased attention in the Netherlands, there are still many gaps within academic literature which make it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the prevalence and the extent of ethnic profiling, as this is not supported by existing research (Van der Leun&Van der Woude 2014:23; Bonnet&Caillault 2015).

Increasing pressures to improve credibility of Dutch Police organisation

Although the Dutch police organisation has been increasingly criticised in relation to ethnic profiling in which stop-and-checks are argued to result in discriminatory, exclusionary practices (Amnesty International 2012, Open Society 2012), this is not the only issue related to ethnicity that the police are currently facing. Additionally, the Dutch police organisation is being criticized for its own lack of diversity and representation of different ethnic minority backgrounds

(Cankaya 2011). Although this issue will not be researched in this thesis, it is important to note this problem, along with the issue of ethnic profiling, has impacted and contributed to the current state in which police officers currently find themselves working in (Cankaya 2011, 2012). Since it cannot be ruled out as having influence into the logics of decision-making when police officers conduct stop-and-checks, it is necessary to briefly discuss the scope of this problem and how it might feed into the pressures, vulnerabilities and uncertainties faced by police officers.

The current rather homogenous composition of the police force reflects strongly an ‘us versus them’ politics as an organisation in its entirety, which can further exacerbate the controversy around the public discussion of ethnic profiling. There is an assumption that the diversification of the police organisation could minimize the issue of ethnic profiling as employees from different ethnic minorities would use their cultural capital, which in turn could improve the quality of police work (Cankaya 2012:13). For instance, employees with an ethnic minority background could function as mediators within their ‘own’ groups (Cankaya 2012: 14).

However, the aim to make the police organisation more diverse has not been without its challenges. According to the director of police Max Daniel, police officers with ethnic backgrounds do not feel accepted by their colleagues and feel pessimistic about promotion opportunities (NOS, 2017). Consequently, the police organisation has remained “too white” (Volkskrant, 2017), as police officers with ethnic backgrounds are more likely to leave the organisation and resulted in critique in relation to the limited and inaccurate reflection of today’s multi-cultural society. In turn, this has raised questions as to what extent the police organisation

(11)

as a whole is trusted within various demographic groups in Dutch society (ibid.), thereby

damaging the credibility and legitimacy of the organisation. Although both problems are argued to be a result of polarisation impacting Dutch society (Volkskrant, 2017), it has affected the day-to-day experiences of police officers directly in the sense that an increasing number of citizens are accusing police officers of racist and discriminatory practices (ibid.), and has contributed to the potentially volatile dynamics and increased challenges experienced by police officers when they conduct stop-and-checks.

Ethnic profiling framed by the media

The way the police as an organisation has been portrayed in the media was likely to have significantly shaped the debate regarding how police officers perform their duties. Newspaper articles such as: ‘Ethnic profiling exists, it is not paranoia’5

(Volkskrant, 2017), ‘Skin colour should not influence treatment’6

(Volkskrant, 2016), ‘Police officers legitimate ethnic profiling’7 (De Trouw, 2016), ‘The Dutch police discriminate’8

(Algemeen Dagblad, 2015) and ‘Police hunt Moroccan robbers on scooters’9_{(De Elsevier, 2008) suggested a clear-cut critical view of the} police organisation and their practices.

Additionally, social media plays a significant role, as this has become a platform for citizens to share their personal encounters with the police. One recent example that sparked the public debate was the stop-and-check of the Dutch rapper Typhoon. He aimed to raise awareness by sharing his most recent experience on Instagram:

“I was just stopped by the police in Zwolle. Not because I violated the traffic laws, but because my new car was not matching my profile. Read: suspicious that a man of my colour can drive a nice car. The cop (friendly nevertheless) admitted he thought it could be drug money. Unfortunately, this is not the first time this has happened to me. My ‘reputation helps because the atmosphere often cools down when police officers realise I’m ‘famous’, but many people do not have this privilege. It’s sad.”10

This message led to widespread public attention, resulting in an official statement from the police admitting Typhoon was stopped because they thought “the combination of his age, his expensive

5_{Translation in Dutch: ‘Etnische profilering bestaat, het is geen paranoia’.} 6_{Translation in Dutch: “Huidskleur mag behandeling niet beïnvloeden’.} 7_{Translation in Dutch: ‘Agenten vinden het terecht dat ze etnisch profileren’.} 8_{Translation in Dutch: ‘Nederlandse politie discrimineert’.}

9_{Translation in Dutch: ‘Politie jaagt op Marokkaanse rovers op scooters’.}

(12)

car and his skin colour” (ibid.) was suspicious. In turn, this led to increased negative attention, contributing to the vulnerabilities and uncertainties that police officers are faced with – both in terms of an increased reflexivity around decision-making practices as well as increased potential tensions when carrying out some stop-and-checks. Consequently, the police organisation has published a revised operational framework in relation to stop-and-checks in an attempt to

maximize the amount of successful stop-and-checks and minimize unnecessary stops and reduce possible escalation.

2.3 Operational framework

This section will describe the ways in which police officers were recently informed about the practice of stop-and-checks. Although it cannot be assumed that each police officer acts in exact accordance with this operational framework, it provides a glimpse into the way the police organisation attempts to establish a successful stop-and-check. The framework consists of four criteria that will briefly be considered below:

The first criterion advises police officers how to select citizens for a stop-and-check. According to the Road Traffic Act, police officers have the right to stop every road user. Furthermore, the most important principles of this criterion is that all stop-and-checks should be based upon the first article of the constitution11

: all should be treated equally, and the statement of the Supreme Court 12

in which they report that selection that is based exclusively on ethnic or religious marks should be condemned as illegal (see Appendix A, section 1). Within the selection of citizens, police officers are advised to investigate from a neutral perspective. If and when their gut feelings are the only trigger, they are advised to wait until they have more facts in order to avoid decision-making influenced by personal bias, stereotypes or judgments. Therefore, police officers should only stop-and-check citizens when they have an objective and legitimate justification. An objective justification can only be realized when police officers select citizens based on visible deviant behaviour, facts, circumstances and/or a specific suspect profile (Operation Framework 2017:1). Moreover, the framework shows that criminals can only be prosecuted if the police report provides sufficient objective justification. This approach would then increase correct and legitimate arrests and decrease unnecessary checks (ibid.).

The second criterion emphasises the importance of communication. In order to reduce negative impact of the stop-and-check on citizens it is of crucial importance that police officers give a

(13)

clear and elaborate explanation of their motives for stopping someone (see Appendix A, section 2). They are advised to be transparent. The ability to provide a clear explanation builds on the first criteria: if the first criterion is not founded on visible deviant behaviour, facts/circumstances and/or a specific suspect profile, it is likely that the police officer will not be able to explain his reasons adequately which in turn will result in decreased understanding from the person being stopped. Consequently, this will increase the chance of a negative interaction and escalation (Operational Framework 2017, 1).

Thirdly, police officers are given advice regarding their own (professional) attitude. (see

Appendix A, section 3). Despite having a legitimate reason to select someone and explaining this transparently and correctly, citizens can still experience a form of injustice. There are situations in which police officers are unable to modify or eradicate this feeling. In these circumstances, police officers should ensure that the stop-and-check remains professional. They should be respectful and honest, which will increase the chance of having a good interaction with citizens (Operational Framework 2017, 2).

Lastly, police officers are advised to reflect together about the way they act on the street (see Appendix A, section 4). This is important to improve the ‘craftsmanship13

’ of the police organisation. Police officers should be reflective and critical about their role. What went well? How can they improve their skills? They are told that it is only natural to make mistakes but that it is their own responsibility to learn from them (Operational Framework 2017, 2).

This framework is aimed to be useful for police officers as it builds upon criteria and principles that are useful to make a stop-and-check as effective as possible, thereby minimizing the vulnerabilities and uncertainties experienced by police officers in relation to stop-and-checks. These vulnerabilities and uncertainties should be understood amid the power granted to police officers within their logics of decision-making while still having to act within the boundaries of the law.

(14)

2.4 Conclusion

The existence of the report and policy approach, directly above, shows recognition of the

uncertainty and pressures facing police officers, especially in relation to public critiques of ethnic profiling. As briefly noted above and explored in the data sections, this is just one of the several dilemmas and complexities facing police officers in working within their discretionary space. Although it may be unusual to render police officers as being vulnerable as their discretionary power often leads to the perception of their roles to be perceived as powerful, this study will research how increasing pressures in terms of accountability – both formally within the

organisation and informally to the public within everyday interactions – alongside more deeply embedded norms (influenced by broader cultural and social categories) render police officers as vulnerable. By shedding light on the way police officers are caught up amid various

organisational pressures and by looking beyond the assumption that police officers are merely powerful, this study will show that the logics of decision-making when police officers conduct stop-and-checks reveal deeper complexities that have not been fully addressed in the police department’s operational framework and the existing literature.

To do this the thesis will go beyond the idea that stop-and-checks should be understood in

relation to ethnic profiling in which ethnicity and race are the main triggers influencing the logics of decision-making (c.f. Van der Leun &Van der Woude 2011; Cankaya 2012). Consequently, this thesis will consider a broad spectrum of factors influencing the logics of decision-making to provide a more in depth understanding of the way police officers conduct stop-and-checks.

2.5 Research Questions

The main research question in this thesis is: What are the logics of decision-making when police

officers working in a large Dutch city conduct stop-and-checks? The aim of this broad question is

to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying modes of reasoning and the day-to-day experiences when police officers conduct stop-and-checks across diverse forms of urban space and populations. To address this question, three sub-questions were formulated:

1) What are the multiple underlying logics of decision-making when police officers conduct stop-and-checks and how do these different logics relate to one another?

This broad question focuses on the dynamics influencing the decision-making process of police officers while taking into account the vulnerabilities and uncertainties faced by police officers when they make assessments of risk. Through a framework set up by Zinn (2008), this question

(15)

will consider the multiple logics of reasoning that are relevant within the context of stop-and-checks and how these are combined (Horlick-Jones 2005).

2) How do organisational hierarchies and structures influence the decision-making process when police officers conduct stop-and-checks?

This question focuses on the dynamics within the organisation and how set structures and hierarchies might influence the practice of stop-and-checks. It will consider how information shared within the organisation regarding risk factors or target groups might influence the practice of stop-and-checks, alongside the way partners or team managers might influence this practice. How are police officers instructed to conduct stop-and-checks?

3) How are the multiple underlying logics of decision-making influenced by broader, cultural and social categories?

This question addresses the broader structures that influence the decision-making process of police officers. It will bring attention to the way broader categories (influenced by cultural and social categories) such as race, ethnicity, gender and social class influence the logics of decision-making within the practice of stop-and-checks. It will consider how social and cultural categories that go beyond the police organisation might influence the multiple logics of decision-making.

(16)

3. Theoretical framework

Introduction

In this chapter I will consider the main theoretical concepts that are relevant to gain insight into the logics of decision-making by drawing on existing literature and research.

Police officers occupy a “unique and powerful role” (Smith 2005:325) as they are given the power and authority to “engage in activities that deprive citizens of property, liberty and, in extreme cases, even their lives” (ibid.), yet they are also vulnerable as duty requires them to manage risk and uncertainties on a daily basis (Horlick-Jones 2005). Therefore, at the heart of this theoretical framework, this study will be an examination of how police officers deal with risk and uncertainty in their daily work and the different strategies that are used (ibid.), to better understand the logics of decision-making involved with in stop-and-check practices. By drawing on Zinn’s (2008) framework regarding strategies for managing risk and uncertainty, a multi-faceted framework will be developed that goes beyond the (orthodox) rational mode of reasoning.

I will start by theoretically framing the contexts in which police officers make decisions in terms of the power and vulnerabilities they experience. Within this section, I will discuss police

officers’ power to use discretion as they are granted relative autonomy while having little direct supervision (Goldstein 1960 as cited in Smith 2005:325) and having to make decisions in a limited timeframe. This will lead to a discussion of risk and uncertainty as “important or ‘fateful’ decisions are made in an almost reflex-like manner, without enough time or knowledge

available” (Zinn 2008:443). The following sections will overview Zinn’s different forms of making, thereby focusing on the particular concept of multiple logics of decision-making brought together when people act amid uncertainty and risk. Finally, I will consider how these processes are embedded in broader cultural and social categories and how this relates within the context of police work.

3.1 Problems of vulnerability and uncertainty

Before I consider the theoretical concepts that influence the decision-making process of police officers, it is relevant to understand the context in which police decision-making takes places. By pointing out the ways in which police officers deal with pressures and face vulnerability and uncertainty, the need for a framework of multiple logics of decision-making will become clearer.

Two crucial aspects in this section are the discretion granted to police officers to make decisions, and the limited timeframe in which they have to make these decisions. That said, Lipsky’s

(17)

analysis of the ways in which street-level bureaucrats experience face-to-face encounters with citizens, thereby representing government to the people (Lipsky 1969), is a useful starting point to show how these factors contribute to the vulnerabilities and uncertainties within the logics of decision-making in making assessments of risk and uncertainty. According to Lipsky, street-level bureaucrats are public employees who are defined by three conditions:

“(1) He is called upon to interact constantly with citizens in the regular course of his job… (2) his independence on the job is fairly extensive, one component of this

independence is discretion in making decisions; but independence in job performance is not limited to discretion… (3) the potential impact on citizens with whom he deals is fairly extensive” (Lipsky 1969:2).

It should be noted that the following theoretical concept of discretionary decision-making is only relevant in police work when police officers are not actively responding to official calls for service (Alfert et al. 2005:326) since police officers are given strict orders of where to go and consequently act according to specific protocols14

. Therefore, the following concept is significant when applied to the practices of police officers when they are confronted with citizens but have no specific orders and/or protocols, as with stop-and-checks.

According to Walker (1993), “the majority of police-citizen encounters occur in the absence of any outside supervision, and police officers therefore have a great deal of discretion throughout the decision-making process (Walker 1993 as cited in Alpert et al. 2005:408). However, this also means that police officers are vulnerable as they are required to make individual ascriptions of risk and uncertainty without being able to rely on a specific (rational) protocol. Additionally, results from studies related to street-level bureaucracy demonstrate how discretion is influenced by stereotypes, personal values, identities, lifestyles, perceptions of normality and social

categories (Harrits & Møller 2014:450) thereby shaping the way professionals make use of stereotypes and social categorization of citizens. By placing the use of discretion in a framework in which broader processes are included (stereotypes, personal values etc.), the influence of wider social and cultural categories are taken into account.

How police officers handle uncertainty, in going forward despite the unknown is central to grasping their decision-making logics (Zinn 2008: 439).

14_{Although the use of discretion could also be prevalent in the interpretation of protocols, this lies outside the remit}

(18)

Moreover, Zinn argued how “people have to make important and ‘fateful’ decisions in an almost reflex-like manner, without enough time or knowledge available” (Zinn 2008:443).

Consequently, the limited timeframe in which police officers have to make decisions can

contribute to vulnerabilities and uncertainties as this can result in the “development of short cuts or heuristics to identify salient information” (ibid.:444).

3.2 Different logics of dealing with vulnerability and uncertainty Multiple logics of decision-making

According to Zinn, the (orthodox) distinction between rational and irrational decision-making “neglects a whole range of everyday approaches to risk that are neither completely rational nor irrational as they may involve the use of prior knowledge and experience” (ibid.:439).

Consequently, he challenges the rational approach by arguing that no “expert can make a

decision purely through calculative and technical/probabilistic means” (Brown 2016:336) as this mode or reasoning is mostly based on the idea that “one can, in principle, manage all things by calculation” (Weber 1945 as cited in Zinn 2008:440).

As we have established in the section above, police officers have the power to use discretion when making discussions and often have to make these decisions in a limited timeframe. “In everyday life, there is rarely enough time and knowledge available for fully rational decision-making. Therefore, strategies such as trust, intuition are of central importance to individuals’ risk-balancing activities” (ibid.:446). Zinn conceptualises, intuition, trust and emotions as ‘in

between’ strategies for managing risk and uncertainty, in that they are neither fully rational nor

irrational, but used by experts drawing on sources of tacit or experiential knowledge (Zinn 2016:348).

It should be emphasized that most individuals tend not to use merely one strategy but rather combine multiple forms of reasoning when decisions need to be made under uncertain conditions (Brown 2016:336). By combining multiple logics of decision-making, strategies including the use of trust and intuition (Zinn 2008:442) are together taken into account, which is a useful starting point for conceptualising the logics of police-decision-making within stop-and-checks. Before I consider the use of trust and intuition within in between strategies, it should be noted that both trust and intuition include emotions and feelings. These feelings and emotions are often analysed as being instinctive and uncontrollable and therefore not governed by social rules (Hochschild 1979:551). However, according to Hochschild, emotions are not entirely

(19)

subconscious and uncontrollable as she analysed a distinct pattern in the ways social actors order their emotions and act accordingly: e.g. why do people smile at parties and cry at funerals? Her theory is mainly based on the idea that social actors and their according feelings and emotions are often appropriated to the situations they experience; thereby suggesting emotions and feelings are influenced by social rules.

Therefore, these factors (trust, intuition and heuristics influenced by emotions and feelings) are socially constructed and “embedded in specific social relations (ibid.:445). They are influenced by thought and reflection, but also draw on feelings and personal preference or taste”, thus reflecting broader cultural understanding and norms and values (Zinn 2008; Douglas &

Wildavsky, 1983). The next sections will exemplify how in between strategies can be used within police decision-making.

Trust based on stereotyping

Luhmann emphasized the importance of trust by arguing this can simplify the decision-making process as trust can be used to manage uncertainty (ibid.). This in between strategy combines both rational and irrational modes of reasoning as trust is often based on some form of knowledge yet can also be influenced by personal experiences (ibid.). “Trust refers to tacit knowledge and pre-conscious awareness of reality. Intuition seems close to the kind of embodied (or even innate) knowledge high-risk takers use. Trust and intuition both involve feelings and emotion”(ibid.) How police officers make ascriptions of trust is complicated as “the primary problem of trust lies in the truster’s uncertainty as to the trustee’s payoffs” (Gambetta 2005:193).

A relevant example of this in between strategy within police work is trust based on stereotyping. As police officers often lack the time and knowledge to rationally decide whom they can and cannot trust, stereotypes come to play a role to reduce the complexities of the decision-making process. In this section, the use of stereotypes should be understood in terms of ascriptions of trust to simplify the logics of decision-making.

The use of stereotypes within police work has been criticised for resulting in exclusionary and discriminatory practices (Amnesty International 2013, Control Alt Delete 2016) and the word ‘stereotype’ is generally used as a term of abuse (Dyer 1999:1). Nevertheless, when Walter Lippmann introduced this term in 1922 he did not “intend it to have a wholly and necessarily pejorative meaning” (ibid.). Since then, the concept of stereotypes has a variety of meanings, yet there are two important elements of stereotyping that are useful for this research. First from a

(20)

sociological perspective: stereotypes are used as an ordering process in which human beings use social categorizations to make sense of the social world (Ryan 1999; Harrits 2014; Lipsky 1969). Additionally, Lipsky argued that “mass processing of a severe amount of cases creates a

dysfunctional cross-pressure, leading to a suppression of genuine and individual reasoning, and giving in to routinizing and stereotyping of discretions (Lipsky 2010: xii as cited in Harrits 2014). In this sense, stereotypes are reductive and a generalized representation to “simplify a complex environment” (Dovidio et al. 2010:5). In this sense, stereotypes are an inherent part of social life (Berger and Luckmann 1966; Schutz 1967; Lippmann 1922; Ryan 1999) and a process that is basic to all human beings.

Secondly, stereotypes can be used as shortcuts (Lipsky 1969:12; Zinn 2008). In line with Zinn, Glaser (2015) argued that people are “continuously bombarded with massive amounts of

information through our various senses. To manage all of this information with our finite mental resources, we behave as ‘cognitive misers’, processing information efficiently and conserving our capacity for crucial decisions” (ibid.:56). This is primarily because stereotypes can imply that a “substantial amount of information about people beyond their immediately apparent surface qualities and can generate expectations about group members’ anticipated behaviour in new situations” (Oakes and Turner 1990) hereby enriching their line of expertise (ibid.). This indicates that the use of stereotypes can be functional to “estimate what we can expect from the situations that we encounter in our day-to-day lives (Ryan 1999:97). This is what Schutz (1967) calls ‘typification’ in which he refers to the way people adjust their behaviour to their past experiences and memories (Schutz 1967 as cited in Ryan 1999:97).

Although much sociological analysis of the influence of stereotypes on the decision-making process emphasizes stereotypes as being a cognitive process, there are other processes involved such as intuition, emotions and feelings (Zinn 2008:444), which will be discussed in the next section.

Intuition (gut feelings) and heuristics influencing the logics of decision-making

A relevant in between strategy for managing risk and uncertainty is decision-making based on intuition. As argued by Gigerenzer (2007): “we think of intelligence as a deliberate, conscious activity guided by the laws of logic. Yet much of our mental life is unconscious, bsed on processes alien to logic: gut feelings, or intuitions” (Gigerenzer 2007:3). According to

(21)

judgement: (1) that appears quickly in consciousness, (2) whose underlying reasons we are not fully aware of, and (3) is strong enough to act upon” (ibid.).

In line with Gigerenzer, Zinn (2008) argues that these processes should be seen as

“complementing and overcoming some of the limitations of instrumental and calculative forms of risk and uncertainty management and therefore in combination they facilitate more effective control over the future” (Zinn 2008:439). According to Zinn, intuition plays a particular role when decisions have to be made under uncertainty and can therefore be used to manage

uncertainty (ibid.:447). Moreover, and as mentioned in the section above, intuition is embedded in culture and social relations (ibid.:445). It is important to note that there is variation based on the characteristics of the person making the decision. For instance, Finucane et al. argued that risk tends to be judged differently across gender and ethnicity (Finucane et al. 2000:159). It is argued that each individual police officer will perceive risk as connected to factors they personally believe to be ‘outside the norm’ (Cankaya 2012:80). Therefore, how people make assessments of risk tends to vary across individuals and their assumptions and habitus around particular norms, echoing Zinn’s argument that approaches to uncertainty vary based on social relations and culture (Zinn 2008:445; Douglas 1970:54,55).

By considering Zinn’s multiple logics of decision-making, in which in between strategies are useful to overcome some of the weaknesses of the rational mode of reasoning, I have shown how trust, emotions and heuristics feed into the logics of decision-making. However, according to Perri 6 (2005), there is variation in making assessments of risk, which is based on a limited number of different (cognitive) frameworks enabling social actors to move between frames (Perri 6 2005:112), which suggests there is no indefinite variety of decision-making when assessing risk and uncertainty. An important contribution demonstrates how uncertainty and risk are handled alongside some core patterns that can be discerned by the use of categories (Douglas 1992), which will be discussed in the next section.

3.3 Locating vulnerabilities and uncertainties within wider social and cultural processes Assessments of risk using categories

Drawing on Douglas’ classification theory, classifications of society are made to make sense of a range of problems that are a product of social relations (Douglas 1996:22). Central in Douglas’ argument is the way institutional forms of social organization influence the way social actors

(22)

appropriate ‘thought styles’ by which she means the different modes through which actors classify the social world around them and experience feelings (Perri 6 & Richards 2017:10).

“For us, in fact, to classify things is to arrange them in groups, which are distinct from each other and are separated by clearly determined lines of demarcation…. At the bottom of our conception of class there is the idea of a circumscription with fixed and definite outlines” (Durkheim and Mauss 1903:5 as cited in Douglas 1996:58).

Cankaya’s (2015) research showed how the use of various categories such as gender, age, ethnicity, behaviour, vehicle type and attitude to the police, played a role in the decision-making process of police officers when they conducted stop-and-checks (Cankaya 2015:5). Since these categories are influenced by broader social, cultural and organizational categories, it should be noted that social pressures influence which categories have a stronger influence than others. When there is a strong pressure on a set of categories, it is more likely that these will be reinforced (Cankaya 2015:5; Perri 6 2005; Douglas 1970:59, Harrits 2014). For instance,

Cankaya’s research indicated that women are rarely associated with crime and deviant behaviour as well as senior citizens (ibid.:52).

There is a general theory regarding the use of these categories that can be related to Douglas’s argument that something is perceived as a risk when it is ‘matter out of place’ (Douglas 1966, Campkin, 2013). These categoris should be interpreted as a product of social, institutional and cultural scripts (Perri 6 & Richards 2017:10). This will be further explained in the next section.

Combinations of categories resulting in a ‘matter out-of-place’

Conflicting or contradictory combinations of categories can produce a loss of coherence between categories resulting in an out-of-place perception (Douglas 1966,1970). How people (police officers) assess risk (by judging whether someone is a potential suspect or criminal), usually includes norms and values through which risk is assessed. These norms and values are influenced by past experiences, personal preferences yet also include broader cultural and social categories. As argued in the section above, pressures should also be taken into account as they feed into the way certain combinations of categories, associated with risk, are reinforced and reproduced (c.f. Perri 6 2005; Douglas 1970).

For example, Cankaya’s research shows that police officers perceive risk when conflicting, contradicting or uncoordinated combinations between the categories vehicle and age are

(23)

apparent. For example, a young male in an expensive car is likely to be considered more

‘suspicious’ due to a common perception that being wealthy is not the ‘norm’ for young people, which in turn raises questions about the source of their wealth (Cankaya 2012:90).

Location plays a significant role in the sense that “police officers stop and search people who do not fit into their image of streets and neighbourhoods (Bayley&Mendelsohn 1969 as cited in Cankaya 2015:7). Cankaya’s research showed that police officers are more likely to stop a person with an ethnic minority background in a ‘white’ neighbourhood as this person is perceived to be ‘out of place’ and therefore raises suspicion (ibid.:84).

In the context of policing within a city, it is important to be aware that what is perceived as ‘out of place’ changes over time. For example, a municipality’s urban planning policy can contribute to the gentrification of a certain neighbourhood (Van den Berg 2014, Harvey 2017), meaning that certain characteristics (e.g.: social class, age, ethnicity) may come to be perceived as ‘out of place’ in that neighbourhood when they previously had not. Mepschen argues how the renewal of certain areas can change the population of specific neighbourhoods as urban policies eradicate low-rent-public housing and replace them with owner-occupied and high-rent apartments (Mepschen 2016:60) that can influence the demographics of a neighbourhood. These demographics can influence whether someone is perceived as ‘out of place’ and therefore a potential risk.

In sum, there is variation in how people make assessments of risk, yet this variation is not indefinite (Perri 6, 2005) which suggests that how police officers make assessments of risk can vary across individuals (as it is influenced by broader social and cultural categories) yet can nevertheless be analysed within a ‘defined number of mutually dependent alternatives’ (ibid.:92) as these relate to wider organisation and socio-cultural structures and pressures. Consequently, pressures on specific classifications allow for the reinforcement and reproduction of a set of classification, which should also be understood in terms of broader categories (Harrits 2014: 449).

Evidently, gut feelings and emotions are integrated when police officers make assessments of risk using categories. Locating these in between factors in socio-cultural categories is tricky in the sense that both emotions and gut feelings are complex processes that make it difficult to account for. As mentioned before, emotions and feelings are often portrayed as uncontrollable

(24)

subconscious processes. However by following Hochschild’s interpretation of emotions and feelings as not entirely subconscious and moreover influenced by social rules, and by focusing on the outcomes of these processes when police officers conduct stop-and-checks, the ways in which gut feelings and emotions influence the process of decision-making can give rise to the way in which both gut feelings and emotions are embedded in broader categorical ways of thinking and understanding risk.

3.4 Conclusion

In this chapter, I have shown how police decision-making should be understood in terms of multiple modes of reasoning, which allows room for perspectives that reach beyond the idea of the rational, calculative approach. By including heuristics, trust and gut feelings, that are

influenced by broader social and cultural categories such as norms and values, I have suggested how the logics of decision-making is a product of social relations resulting in variation between the way people make assessments of risk and uncertainty. This framework is useful for

understanding the data chapters as it will help to understand the way police officers make assessments of risk and that uncertainty can vary dependent upon background, modes of reasoning, norms and values which will become clearer in the data chapters. Nevertheless, this chapter also distinguished a basis for analysing risk assessments within the practice of stop-and-checks by referring to Douglas’s classification system, exemplified by introducing the use of different bases of categorisations. Additionally, I have shown there is a general tendency to perceive something or someone as ‘out of place’ when they do not fit a certain norm, which I have referred to as conflicting or contradictory combinations of categories. Considering how processes of categorisation are embedded within wider socio-cultural structures and related pressures and vulnerabilities is vital to developing a sociological analysis of police officers’ decision-making.

(25)

4. Methodology

4.1 Philosophical assumptions and researcher position

This study will reveal the deeper complexities of the logics of decision-making when police officers conduct stop-and-checks. It will go beyond the notion that police officers merely occupy a powerful role by showing they are also vulnerable due to the uncertainties and pressures they face in their line of work.

Consequently, this study will reflect a constructionist belief acknowledging the existence of a plurality of possible interpretations and therefore no single truth (Kratochwil as cited in

Porta&Keating 2008). Additionally, this research is a qualitative case study, which has provided the “exploration of a phenomenon within its context with a variety of lenses which allows for multiple facets of the phenomenon,” (Baxter&Jack 2008:544), however; this calls for a reflection upon my own positionality as my personal lens will have undoubtedly influenced this study.

Social research is argued to include value-laden judgments that are “inextricably bound up with our own philosophical, cultural and religious positions (Lipsky 1982:5; Carr 2000). In Bourdieu’s terms: “If the sociologist manages to produce any truth, he does so not despite the interest he has in producing that truth but because he has an interest in doing so- which is the exact opposite of the usual somewhat fatuous discourse about neutrality” (Bourdieu 1993:11). My own personal background and values will have influenced the scope of this research in terms of how the research questions were framed and proposed, how the data was analysed and influenced the outcomes of the research. This calls for reflexivity in relation to my own position. The fixed aspect of being a young-adult Dutch-born female with a mixed ethnic background

(Canadian/Chinese and Dutch) will have influenced the way I was perceived by the participants, thereby influencing the way they chose to share their experiences. Also, as I was born and raised close to where the research was conducted, my familiarity with and knowledge of this city could have influenced the scope of the conversations in terms of what was said and, more importantly, what was not said (as assumed to be obvious).

4.2 Research design

By conducting qualitative research, this study allowed me to gain a deeper insight into the logics of decision-making when police officers conducted stop-and-checks, and had scope to investigate a range of factors that influenced the practice of stop-and-search such as gender, age, social class, location, ethnicity, and took into account some broader cultural and political structures that arose

(26)

during the data collection that influenced the practice of stop-and-checks.

This qualitative case study was undertaken in a large city in the Netherlands that will remain unnamed for anonymity reasons. The police organisation within this city is divided into a number of main districts. Each district has different numbers of police stations.

I aimed to follow purposive sampling - in which sample units are selected on the basis of specific characteristics (Ritchie et al. 2003:144) – in relation to ethnicity, gender and length of experience in the organisation, which would have allowed me to compare experiences between these groups. However, due to the limited access I was granted within the police organisation, it was not possible to create a sample based systematically on these variations. Moreover, because of the timing of the sampling (which was between April and May 2017), the majority of police officers worked different shifts as a result of several football matches required extra surveillance, and national holidays such as Easter, Kings Day15

, and Liberation Day16

. This resulted in the limited availability of police officers as they were either given the day off or were working extra shifts.

By adjusting (and simplifying) the initial characteristics of my sample, thereby merely seeking to get into contact with police officers having experiences in conducting stop-and-checks, I was able to collect participants for this study through purposive-, snowball- and convenience sampling. This last method was meaningful as I was hired as a trainee, allowing me access to every police station in the city that was researched.

4.3 Methods

The main aim of this thesis is to gain more in-depth insight into the practice of stop-and-checks by investigating how police officers experience their work and moreover, how they make their decisions when conducting stop-and-searches. Therefore, interviews were the main source to collect data as “interviews yield rich insights into people’s experiences, opinions, aspirations, attitudes and feelings (May 1998:109). Another reason for conducting interviews is that it gave me the opportunity to provide “a means of analysing the ways in which people (in this thesis: police officers) consider events and relationships and the reasons they offer for doing so” (ibid.:130). As the practice of stop-and-checks is currently a highly contested and criticized phenomenon, the decision-making process cannot be discussed by solely focusing on the practice

15_{Kingsday is a national holiday in the Netherlands in which the birthday of the Dutch King Willem-Alexander is}

(27)

of ethnic profiling as ethnicity is likely to be one of many elements, and the controversial nature of ethnic profiling means these questions may narrow the focus. However, due to the sensitivity and controversies of the practice of ethnic profiling I paid extra attention to the formulation of the questions by being aware of not putting the participant in a defensive situation in which he/she felt the need to justify his logics of decision-making in relation to stop-and-checks. In order to avoid conversations in which “a person is hostile to the line of questioning or becomes

embarrassed for one reason or another” (ibid.:117), probing was used as a means to encourage the participant to answer the questions.

In-depth qualitative interviews were undertaken with 17 police officers working in different districts and stations within the city. The interviews were semi-structured meaning they followed a similar format by which set questions were asked in relation to the research questions allowing me the opportunity to “be free to probe beyond the answers and enter a dialogue with the

interviewee” (Anyan 2013:111), therefore allowing me certain freedom to expand on pertinent issues raised during the interview (Fielding 1988:212 as cited in ibid.). Participants were encouraged to move back and forth between the specifics of conducting stop-and-checks and more general experiences and understandings of their line of work, in order to tease out more taken for granted understandings and specific contextual dynamics (Brown et al. 2016:93).

The timing of the interviews should be noted. As the practice of ethnic profiling is currently a main topic in both public discourse as within the organisation, the majority of the participants spoke about the logics of decision-making during stop-and-check often referring to ethnicity. Although I intentionally avoided direct questions in relation to the subject of ethnicity and how it feeds into the logics of decision-making – so as not to lead participants to discussing this topic – participants raised this topic on their own initiative.

The limitations of using interviews to understand specific social interactions is that while

“accounts may be a genuine reflection of a person’s experience, there might be circumstances or events which surrounds these of which the person was not aware” (ibid.). Fortunately, the internship, in which I was hired as a trainee, allowed me to collect data through participant observation resulting in several ride-alongs, access to briefings and several official meetings arranged by The National Police. As it was not possible to write field notes during these situations, I wrote my field notes afterwards.

(28)

During the ride-alongs, I paid special attention to the ways in which the participant perceived and categorised the social world (Douglas 1966, 1970; Lipsky 1969). As I was not able to apply the same logics (due to inexperience) it was fascinating to observe how participants made

assessments of risk and allowed me to witness how gut feelings fed into the practice of stop-and-checks, as well as more rational modes of reasoning (see data chapters). The briefings were useful to gain insight into the organisational aspects, stereotypes and pressures of policing. Field notes in these meetings paid special attention to the way suspects were framed by the chief of police leading the briefing, and to learn about the formation of target groups. Lastly, I was allowed to join important meetings (with Amnesty International, Control Alt Delete and The National Police also in attendance) to discuss the way stop-and-checks were conducted. In these meetings, special attention was paid to the discussion of ethnic profiling aiming to make this practice more effective. These field notes were useful to gain direct information about the complexities of stop-and-checks as every meeting always ended in a tense yet unfinished discussion: Amnesty International argued the police should change their policy of stop-and-checks to prevent ethnic profiling while the police organisation argued the importance of this practice to prevent crime.

Additionally, my positionality in relation to participant observation should not be neglected as my position as a young female, non-police student may have impacted how police officers behaved in practice. Therefore, data retrieved through participant observation should be interpreted in a critical constructivist manner (Burr 2015; Bryman 2012).

4.4 Analysis

Grounded theory has become a dominant data-analytical approach but in spite of its popularity, it has been critiqued for being unable to produce new ideas based on empirical research

(Timmermans&Tavory 2012:168) Critical scholars have also criticised the strong focus on inductive analysis, which results in the emergence of new theory from data without theoretical preconceptions (ibid.). In addition, deductive analysis has been critiqued for its lack of iterativity as this type of analysis forces the researcher to “compare the data between the initial theoretical framework” (Meyer&Lunnay, 2012). This has its limitations as data that does not fit into the initial framework is often excluded from the analysis (ibid.) In order to avoid this, and as a means to take unexpected or unintended data and insights into account, abductive analysis was used as a main analytical tool in this research. This approach enabled me to formulate and discover new ideas and theories derived from the data as “abduction is a means of forming associations that

(29)

enable the researcher to discern relations and connections that are not otherwise evident or obvious” (Meyer&Lunnay, 2012).

The aim of this type of analysis is to retrieve data that goes beyond the initial theoretical premise (ibid.), which is argued to be one of the crucial differences between abductive and deductive analysis. Therefore, the strength of abductive analysis is that it allowed me to expand “the initial theoretical assumptions and extend the research beyond a deductive analysis” (ibid.) This is mainly because of the iterative process, which entails moving back and forth between data and theory (Timmermans&Tavory 2012:168).

As interviews were the main source of data in this research, abductive analysis was as follows. The first strategy was to ‘revisit the phenomenon’ which entails the ability to research the

phenomenon in its theoretical settings (ibid.: 176). The aim of this strategy was that it allowed me to “position its perception in new relations to other phenomena” (ibid.:176). For instance, by re-reading the transcripts and field notes and revisiting the codes and memo’s repeatedly, I was able to discover relevant overlapping themes and patterns within the data. Secondly,

‘defamiliarization’ and inscription were used to look back at the data to find something new. These main themes were further interrogated in light of the field notes retrieved via participant observation. Through triangulation between interviews and observations, and moreover my immersion as an outsider within the stop-and-check contexts as a semi-participating observer, I was able to shed light upon the taken-for granted (Brown et al. 2016) which was especially useful when discussing in between strategies influenced by gut feelings and heuristics (Zinn 2008). This will become clearer in the following data chapters.

All interviews were held and transcribed in Dutch. Excerpts or quotes retrieved from interviews were only translated when found relevant “as translation is an interpretive act and meaning may get lost in translation process” (Ness et al. 2010:313). This raised challenges as it was difficult to translate concepts for “specific culturally bound words” (ibid.:315). For example, the quote: ‘het

klopt gewoon niet’ was used commonly by police officers and translated as ‘it’s just not right’

thereby reducing meaning due to the inability to literally translate the phrase. In order to minimize the loss of meaning, I used footnotes including the original Dutch phrases.

4.5 Ethical considerations Beauchamp and Childress distinguished four basic principles namely non-maleficence,

(30)

function as an “analytical framework that expresses the general values underlying rules in the common morality” (Beauchamp&Childress 2001:12). This framework was used as means to identify and reflect on moral problems that could possibly arise during the research and which are inextricably linked to methodological and analytical issues (Bourdieu 1999).

Non-maleficence involves the obligation not to inflict harm on anyone (ibid:113). Within this principle, the researcher should be aware of the parties that can be harmed during action and what steps to take to minimise this harm (Beauchamp&Childress, 2001). In line with Beauchamp and Childress, Bourdieu argued that researchers have the responsibility to reduce the symbolic violence exerted through the relationship between the interviewer and the participant (Bourdieu 1993:609) In this case, there was a possibility to cause harm to the participants, as I sought to question whether police officers base their decisions on their gut feeling that can be influenced by subconscious stereotypes. In this sense, it was possible that the participants could feel attacked for being racist or for behaving unprofessionally which could have caused them to react defensively. As argued by Bourdieu, “it is the investigator who starts the game and sets up its rules, and it is usually the one who, unilaterally and without any preliminary negotiations, assigns the interview its objectives and uses”(ibid.). Therefore, it was my responsibility to minimise the chances of causing harm by thinking carefully and tactfully about the questions that I asked the participants. In practice, I noticed I adopted a neutral attitude by not revealing any personal bias regarding the way police officers discussed their own logics of decision-making when conducting stop-and-checks. This possibly fed into the relative openness of most conversations, as some police officers were remarkably at ease and frank and even made racist jokes (“when I have to work with a black colleague in the evening, I tell him to smile so I can at least see him”). As an interviewer, these situations made me aware of the need to conceal my personal opinions. I remained open and neutral in order to gain a deeper understanding of the meaning of these jokes as an attempt to find out what they were product of. As argued by Bourdieu, this tactic, in which I tried to situate myself in the social space of my participant and perhaps by some degree took part in this social space, allowed me to gain a fuller comprehension of these remarks (Bourdieu 1993:613).

Additionally, Beauchamp and Childress argue the principle of beneficence, which is based on the idea of acting with the best interest of the other in mind. This principle focuses on the ways participants can benefit from this specific research. As the police organisation has been highly critiqued for the practice of ethnic profiling, I sensed that the interviews were not only useful for

Logics of stop-and-check : exploring the social dynamics of police officers' decision-making in a large Dutch city