Declining to help: Rejections in service requests to the police

Abstract

A major part of police work consists in providing services and information to the general public. A stated goal of such police work is to be service-minded and contribute to a positive encounter. This article analyses service requests in calls to the duty desk of a large police station and focuses on how officers deal with requests that have to be rejected. It reveals a general pattern in which officers produce the rejection in a dispreferred format and include displays of empathy, accounts for the rejection and suggestions for alternative solutions. However, in certain types of requests the rejections are not infrequently produced in a direct and unmitigated fashion, without accounts or explanations.This is especially notable in requests that touch upon institutional constraints, such as professional secrecy. And in certain cases the rejections are even delivered in an aggravated form, involving an explicit or implicit challenge to the legitimacy of the request. These rejections cast the caller in an oppositional role, infringing the professional constraints of the police. However, the constraints in question may not be accessible to the callers. The officers will consequently be experienced as hostile and will subvert their own objectives of showing service-mindedness.

Keywords

conflict police communication preference organization rejections requests service interaction service-mindedness telephone calls

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bolden, G. (2009) ‘ Beyond Answering : Repeat-prefaced Responses in Conversation’ , Communication Monographs 76: 121-43.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. ( 2009) ‘A Sequential Approach to Affect: The Case of ‘Disappointment’ , in M. Haakana , M. Laakso and J. Lindström (eds) Talk in Interaction - Comparative Dimensions, pp. 94-123. Helsinki : Finnish Literature Society (SKS).

Curl, T. and Drew, P. ( 2008) ‘Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting’, Research on Language and Social Interaction 41: 129-53.

Drew, P. and Heritage, J. ( 1992) ‘Analysing Talk at Work: An Introduction’ , in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 3-65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gibbons, J. ( 2003) Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Goffman, E. ( 1981) ‘Footing’, in E. Goffman (ed.) Forms of Talk, pp. 124-59. Oxford : Blackwell.

Heinemann, T. ( 2006) ‘"Will You or Can’t You?": Displaying Entitlement in Interrogative Requests’, Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1081-104.

Jefferson, G. and Lee, J.R.E. ( 1992) ‘The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a ‘Troubles-telling’ and a ‘Service Encounter’ , in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 521-48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jönsson, L. ( 1988) Polisförhöret som kommunikationssituation [The Police Interview as Communicative Situation]. Linköping : Linköping University.

10.

Jönsson, L. and Linell, P. ( 1996) ‘Misstroendesekvenser i polisförhör’ [‘Misbelief sequences in police interviews’], in M. Thelander et al. (eds) Samspel och variation: Språkliga studier tillägnade Bengt Nordberg på 60-årsdagen , pp. 199-208. Uppsala: Uppsala University.

11.

Lindström, A. ( 1999) ‘Language as Social Action: Grammar, Prosody, and Interaction in Swedish Conversation’, Dissertation, Uppsala University.

12.

Linell, P. ( 1998) Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

13.

Manning, P.K. ( 1988) Symbolic Communication: Signifying Calls and the Police Response. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

14.

Pomerantz, A. ( 1984) ‘Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/ dispreferred Turn Shapes’, in P. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 57-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Rønneberg, K. ( 2009) Politisamtaler med publikum. Språkbruk som hemmer eller fremmer god kommunikasjon [Police Conversations with the Public. Linguistic Features which May Help or Hamper the Communication Process]. Acta Humaniora No. 378, University of Oslo.

16.

Sacks, H. ( 1987) ‘On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation’, in G. Button and J.R. Lee (eds) Talk and Social Organisation, pp. 54-69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

17.

Schegloff, E.A. ( 1997) ‘Practices and Actions: Boundary Cases of Other-initiated Repair’, Discourse Processes 23: 499-547.

18.

Schegloff, E.A. ( 2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

19.

Svennevig, J. ( 2001) ‘Institutional and Conversational Modes of Talk in Bureaucratic Consultations’, in A. Hvenekilde and J. Nortier (eds) Meetings at the Crossroads: Studies of Multiculturalism and Multilingualism in Oslo and Utrecht, pp. 106-35. Oslo: Novus.

20.

Svennevig, J. ( 2003) ‘Echo Answers in Native/non-native Interaction’ , Pragmatics 13(2): 285-309.

21.

Svennevig, J. ( 2004) ‘Other-repetition as Display of Hearing, Understanding and Emotional Stance’, Discourse Studies 6(4): 489-517.

22.

Ten Have, P. ( 1999) Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage.

23.

Tyler, T.R. ( 2006) Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

24.

Tyler, T.R. and Huo, Y.J. ( 2002) Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. New York: Russell Sage.

25.

Vinkhuyzen, E. and Szymanski, M.H. ( 2005) ‘"Would You Like to Do it Yourself?": Service Requests and their Non-granting Responses’, in K. Richards and P. Seedhouse (eds) Applying Conversation Analysis, pp. 91-106. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

26.

Waddington, P.A.J. ( 1999) Policing Citizens: Authority and Rights. London: UCL Press.

27.

Whalen, M.R. and Zimmerman, D.H. ( 1987) ‘Sequential and Institutional Contexts in Calls for Help’, Social Psychology Quarterly 50(2): 172-85.

28.

Whalen, M.R. and Zimmerman, D.H. ( 1990) ‘Describing Trouble: Practical Epistemology in Citizen Calls to the Police’, Language in Society 19: 465-92.

29.

Zimmerman, D.H. ( 1992) ‘The Interactional Organization of Calls for Emergency Assistance’, in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 418-69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.