Business, Sauder School of
DSpace
UBCV
Alonso, Natalya Mariel
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
Like many occupations, police officers are facing rising public distrust of their occupation, a trend that has recently significantly worsened due to allegations of misconduct and widespread protests against police practices. Past research suggests occupational members respond uniformly and defensively to these types of external threats. However, in practice, we also see examples of occupational members acknowledging the validity of public distrust and the need for change. The current research explains these divergent responses, revealing why some members are more responsive to external threats from the public. Drawing on qualitative field data including interviews, observation, and archival documents, the findings demonstrate that police officers respond differently to felt public distrust depending on the type of relational frame they apply to understand their relationship as an officer to the public: the autonomous frame or the cooperative frame. The autonomous frame was associated with the occupation’s past, while the cooperative frame represented a new way of relating to the public. Officers’ relational frames were informed by the extent to which some officers experienced “occupational misfit.” Occupational (mis)fit describes a feeling of (mis)alignment based on the felt overlap between the individual’s own social identities (e.g., male, heterosexual, white, etc.) and the social identities figuratively associated with the occupation. Officers’ relational frames in turn served as a lens guiding their cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to rising felt public distrust with implications for the ongoing relationship between the occupation and the public. This study contributes to the literature on occupational identity, diversity, and fit.
IDENTITY ON TRIAL: OCCUPATIONAL MISFIT AND RESPONSES TO FELT PUBLIC DISTRUST by Natalya Mariel Alonso A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Business Administration) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) December 2020 © Natalya Mariel Alonso, 2020 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: Identity on trial: Occupational misfit and responses to felt public distrust submitted by Natalya Mariel Alonso in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Business Administration Examining Committee: Jennifer L. Berdahl, Sociology Supervisor Sandra Robinson, Business Administration Supervisory Committee Member Lakshmi Ramarajan, Business Administration Supervisory Committee Member Toni Schmader, Psychology University Examiner Sinikka Elliott, Sociology University Examiner Tracy Dumas, Business Administration External Examiner iii Abstract Like many occupations, police officers are facing rising public distrust of their occupation, a trend that has recently significantly worsened due to allegations of misconduct and widespread protests against police practices. Past research suggests occupational members respond uniformly and defensively to these types of external threats. However, in practice, we also see examples of occupational members acknowledging the validity of public distrust and the need for change. The current research explains these divergent responses, revealing why some members are more responsive to external threats from the public. Drawing on qualitative field data including interviews, observation, and archival documents, the findings demonstrate that police officers respond differently to felt public distrust depending on the type of relational frame they apply to understand their relationship as an officer to the public: the autonomous frame or the cooperative frame. The autonomous frame was associated with the occupation’s past, while the cooperative frame represented a new way of relating to the public. Officers’ relational frames were informed by the extent to which some officers experienced “occupational misfit.” Occupational (mis)fit describes a feeling of (mis)alignment based on the felt overlap between the individual’s own social identities (e.g., male, heterosexual, white, etc.) and the social identities figuratively associated with the occupation. Officers’ relational frames in turn served as a lens guiding their cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to rising felt public distrust with implications for the ongoing relationship between the occupation and the public. This study contributes to the literature on occupational identity, diversity, and fit. iv Lay Summary This dissertation aims to explain occupational members’ responses to threats to their ability to perform their work, such as rising public distrust. The findings demonstrate that occupational members respond differently to rising felt public distrust depending on their relational frame. Relational frames describe the shared cognitive schemas that members apply to understand their relationship as an occupational member to the public. Rising public distrust destabilized the long-established relational frame and promoted a new relational frame aimed at repairing public distrust. Occupational misfits, occupational members who felt their social identities (e.g., woman, Black, homosexual) were misaligned with those stereotypically associated with the occupation, were more open to adopting the new relational frame, while those experiencing a high degree of alignment resisted the new relational frame. In turn, the relational frame adopted had implications for occupational members’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to rising felt public distrust. v Preface This dissertation was developed, designed, collected and analyzed by Natalya Mariel Alonso under the supervision of Professors Jennifer L. Berdahl and Sandra Robinson at the University of British Columbia and Lakshmi Ramarajan at Harvard University, with initial guidance from Professor Erin Reid at McMaster University. The research is original and unpublished. Data was collected under UBC Human Ethics Certificate H17-02683. vi Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface .............................................................................................................................................v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Figures .................................................................................................................................x Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... xi Dedication .................................................................................................................................... xii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1 1.1 Occupational Identity and Defensive Reactions to Threat ............................................. 4 1.2 Multiple Identities and Relational Understandings of Outsiders .................................... 7 1.3 The Context of Policing .................................................................................................. 9 Chapter 2: Method .......................................................................................................................12 2.1 Data Site ........................................................................................................................ 12 2.2 Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 13 2.2.1 Interviews .................................................................................................................. 14 2.2.1.1 Interview Sample .............................................................................................. 15 2.2.2 Participant Observation ............................................................................................. 15 2.2.3 Documents ................................................................................................................ 16 2.3 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 17 Chapter 3: Findings .....................................................................................................................20 vii 3.1 Rising Felt Public Distrust ............................................................................................ 21 3.2 Divergent Frames and Rising Felt Public Distrust ....................................................... 24 3.2.1 Autonomous Frame ................................................................................................... 24 3.2.1.1 Ideals and Celebrated Practices ........................................................................ 25 3.2.1.2 Valued Orientation Towards the Public ............................................................ 26 3.2.1.3 Beliefs about the Basis of Trust and Respect in the Occupation ...................... 27 3.2.2 Cooperative Frame .................................................................................................... 28 3.2.2.1 Ideals and Celebrated Practices ........................................................................ 28 3.2.2.2 Valued Orientation Towards the Public ............................................................ 30 3.2.2.3 Beliefs about the Basis of Trust and Respect in the Occupation ...................... 31 3.2.3 Divisions Between Officers Adopting Each Frame .................................................. 32 3.2.4 Ambivalent Officers.................................................................................................. 35 3.2.5 Officer Demographics by Relational Frame ............................................................. 36 3.3 Occupational Misfit ...................................................................................................... 36 3.3.1 Recognized Demographic Rarity .............................................................................. 37 3.3.2 Exclusion and Mistreatment from other Members ................................................... 38 3.3.3 Identity Salient Interactions with the Public ............................................................. 39 3.4 Differing Understandings of and Responses to Rising Felt Public Distrust ................. 42 3.4.1 Autonomous Frame ................................................................................................... 43 3.4.1.1 Cognitive Responses ......................................................................................... 43 3.4.1.2 Affective Responses.......................................................................................... 44 3.4.1.3 Reported Behavioral Responses ....................................................................... 45 3.4.2 Ambivalent Frame .................................................................................................... 46 viii 3.4.2.1 Cognitive Responses ......................................................................................... 46 3.4.2.2 Affective Responses.......................................................................................... 47 3.4.2.3 Reported Behavioral Responses ....................................................................... 48 3.4.3 Cooperative Frame .................................................................................................... 49 3.4.3.1 Cognitive Responses ......................................................................................... 49 3.4.3.2 Affective Responses.......................................................................................... 51 3.4.3.3 Reported Behavioral Responses ....................................................................... 52 3.5 A Model of Divergent Occupational Responses to External Threat from Relational Partners ..................................................................................................................................... 53 Chapter 4: Discussion and Conclusion ......................................................................................58 4.1 Limitations and Future Directions ................................................................................ 60 4.2 Practical Implications.................................................................................................... 62 4.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 63 Tables ............................................................................................................................................65 Figures ...........................................................................................................................................74 References .....................................................................................................................................75 Appendices ....................................................................................................................................87 Appendix A Interview Guide .................................................................................................... 87 Appendix B Demographic Supplement .................................................................................... 88 ix List of Tables Table 1. Evidence of Growing Felt Public Distrust ...................................................................... 65 Table 2. Summary of Autonomous and Cooperative Relational Frames ..................................... 66 Table 3. Evidence of Autonomous and Cooperative Relational Frames ...................................... 66 Table 4. Informant Demographics by Relational Frame .............................................................. 69 Table 5. Evidence of Occupational Misfit Experiences................................................................ 70 Table 6. Evidence of the Autonomous Response to Rising Felt Public Distrust .......................... 71 Table 7. Evidence of the Ambivalent Response to Rising Felt Public Distrust ........................... 72 Table 8. Evidence of the Cooperative Response to Rising Felt Public Distrust ........................... 73 x List of Figures Figure 1. A Model of Divergent Occupational Responses to External Threat ............................. 74 xi Acknowledgements I am eternally grateful to Jennifer Berdahl, who has sharpened my feminist thinking while allowing me the freedom to develop my own perspective, and most of all, for leading by example of speaking truth to power. I extend my sincerest thanks to Sandra Robinson, who worked tirelessly to help shape this project, devoting her time and consistently razor-sharp insight to its development. I am also indebted to Lakshmi Ramarajan, whose theoretical knowledge and qualitative expertise has been invaluable in strengthening this project. I thank Tracy Dumas, Toni Schmader, and Sinikka Elliott for their insightful comments and questions during my defense and Sheila Woody for taking the time to steward my defense as Chair. Thank you to Kira Schabram and Brent Lyons for mentoring and advocating for me since even before I began the PhD. I thank Mandy O’Neill for supporting my development as a scholar and helping steward my career. I am also grateful to Erin Reid for her helpful feedback and direction on this research project. Thank you to Danielle van Jaarsveld for always making time and giving much needed support and advice. I also want to thank Sima Sajjadiani and Becky Paluch for their guidance during my academic job search. I am further thankful to the rest of the UBC OBHR faculty and to my fellow PhD students, especially Barnini and Pascale, all of whom have been instrumental in making my time at UBC a positive experience. Lastly, I feel a deep sense of gratitude to the informants who made this research possible by sharing their perspectives. xii Dedication This research is dedicated to my partner, family, and friends, who remind me not to take life too seriously. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Cooperative relations between occupational members and outsiders are critical to the functioning of occupations (Anteby et al., 2016; DiBenigno, 2018; DiBenigno & Kellogg, 2014). Indeed, many, if not most, occupational members cannot perform their work without the complicity of relational partners, such as members of the public. Tacit acceptance of vulnerability underpins many of these relationships, enabling nurses to draw blood (Vough et al., 2012), TSA agents to perform searches (Anteby & Chan, 2018), and management consultants to advise clients (Ibarra, 1999). Distrust, negative expectations of conduct and an unwillingness to be vulnerable (Lewicki et al., 1998; Rousseau et al., 1998), severely undermines these relations. Troublingly, public distrust in many occupations is rising (Cohn et al., 2014; Gauchat, 2012; Voigt et al., 2017), threatening occupational members’ ability to effectively provide essential services like healthcare, safety, and education. Thus, remedying public distrust is not only critical to the fate of these occupations, but also to that of society. As direct points of contact between the occupation and the public, how occupational members react to rising felt public distrust has implications for whether distrust is repaired. Yet, at present, we have only limited insight into how occupational members interpret and respond to external threats from relational partners, such as rising felt public distrust against their occupation. Past research taking an identity lens to the study of occupations suggests occupational members tend to react uniformly and defensively to external threats from relational partners (Ashcraft, 2005; Fiol et al., 2009; Glynn, 2000). This scholarship is rooted in the recognition that occupations are an important source of identity for many individuals (Leavitt et al., 2012; Obodaru, 2017; Pratt et al., 2006; Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). This means that members are likely to see themselves as part of an occupationally-defined group and act in service of group 2 interests (DiBenigno, 2018; Truelove & Kellogg, 2016). Because of the implications for the self, challenges to the value or enactment of an identity, such as an external threat from relational partners, are painful and are typically met with tactics aimed at minimizing injury (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996; Petriglieri, 2011). These efforts extend beyond the focal individual, reflecting a desire to defend other members sharing the identity and to see them positively (Brewer, 1979; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Especially when external threats can be attributed to a particular outgroup (i.e., factions of the public), these strategies often center on derogating the source of the threat (Branscombe et al., 1999). Accordingly, past research has emphasized how external threats from relational partners lead to defensive reactions by occupational members, inciting further conflict with these outsiders (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015; Fiol et al., 2009; Glynn, 2000). In contrast to the defensive reactions detailed in past research, recent public press accounts demonstrate that some occupational members recognize the validity of challenges to their work from relational partners (Carroll, 2019; Goldstein, 2016; Owens, 2018). For example, select occupational members facing rising public distrust have acknowledged the legitimacy of public distrust and the need for change (Goldstein, 2016). These disparate responses have significant implications for whether public distrust is repaired, or further conflict ensues. Indeed, defensive attitudes towards distrustful outsiders are a central mechanism through which reciprocal distrust spirals operate, determining whether self-amplifying cycles of distrust and conflict do, or do not, develop (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015). Unabated, these types of conflicts could interrupt the provision of important social goods that occupational members are responsible for delivering. By revealing the mechanisms underlying these different responses by occupational members, we can better understand how to upend these harmful dynamics. However, what explains these opposing reactions, is not yet clear from the literature. 3 To develop theory on how occupational members respond to external threats from relational partners, I conducted an inductive, qualitative study of police officers. Police officers are currently facing unprecedented levels of public distrust, particularly from people of color and the LGBTQ community (Levin, 2019; Lowery, 2017). Drawing on this data, I reveal the role of relational frames—relatively stable cognitive schemas occupational members apply to understand their relationship to the public—in driving divergent occupational responses to an external threat—rising felt public distrust. I elaborate a theoretical model detailing how rising public distrust called into question the legacy relational frame associated with the occupation’s past and put pressure on organizational leadership to promote a new relational frame. Officers who remained entrenched in the legacy relational frame responded to rising public distrust in a manner that likely exacerbated the public’s distrust, while those who adopted the nascent relational frame responded in ways that served to attenuate public distrust. Occupational members who experienced “occupational misfit,” a sense of misalignment between their own social identities (e.g., woman, person of color, homosexual) and those figuratively associated with the occupation, were more likely to adopt the nascent relational frame. My analysis is grounded in the literature on multiple identities (Ramarajan, 2014). Research in this vein recognizes that members differentially relate to their occupations depending on their “non-work” social identities, like gender, race, and sexual orientation (Ashcraft, 2013; Kelly et al., 2010; Ramarajan & Reid, 2013). These arguments rest on the insight that many occupations are associated with clear prototypes, a figurative set of social identities associated with the work. In turn, the meanings associated with members’ social identities may conflict, align, or be unrelated to the occupational prototype (Kellogg, 2009; Ramarajan, 2014), suggesting members may experience varying degrees of occupational (mis)fit. 4 To date, research has largely focused on the negative consequences of feeling misfit at work (Follmer et al., 2018; Hewlin, 2003). However, what scant research addresses the possible benefits of this experience suggests it provides a unique perspective (Collins, 1986), useful in seeding change (Creed et al., 2010; Meyerson & Scully, 1995). Since this research has emphasized how occupational misfit informs individual experiences within occupations, we have little insight into how this sense of difference informs relations across occupational boundaries, such as with members of the public. Yet, this understanding may be fruitful in explaining critical differences in occupational members’ responses to external threats from relational partners. Below, I provide a summary of the relevant literatures on occupational identity, reactions to threat, and on multiple identities, as a foundation for the current research. 1.1 Occupational Identity and Defensive Reactions to Threat Occupations are an important source of group membership and identity for many individuals (Leavitt et al., 2012; Pratt et al., 2006; Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). Occupational identity can be understood as the combination of the meanings associated with the work and who performs the work (Ashcraft, 2013). Like all sources of identity, occupational members can identify with these meanings to varying degrees. Accordingly, identification refers to the extent to which an individual internalizes the meanings associated with a particular identity, such as occupational identity, seeing these meanings as self-defining (Ashforth et al., 2008). Different forms of identification are possible, including disidentification in which the individual defines themselves in contrast to the meanings related to the identity (Elsbach, 1999; Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001). Thus, identification varies in strength and form. With the rise of contract work and other trends weakening the links to other sources of identity, like organizational identity, scholars have argued that workers are becoming 5 increasingly identified with their occupations (Anteby et al., 2016). In line with this, occupational membership is a powerful basis for self-categorization, leading members to see their interests as intertwined with those of other occupational members and to defend against threats to these collective interests (Ashforth et al., 2008, 2013). Indeed, perceived threats to the value, meanings, or enactment of an identity or to group interests, are typically met with hostility, especially when the threat is attributable to a particular outgroup (Branscombe et al., 1999; Brewer, 1979; Petriglieri, 2011; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Under these conditions, occupational members tend exhibit group-like behavior, rallying together to defend against the common enemy (Anteby et al., 2016). Although these psychological processes ease intra-occupational coordination, providing a shared perspective and sense of unity among members, strong occupational identities can also lead occupational members to react defensively to relational partners that threaten their interests (Ashcraft, 2005; DiBenigno, 2018; Fiol et al., 2009). For example, DiBenigno (2018) described clashes between military commanders and mental health providers working together on a U.S. Army base. Among two of the brigades she studied, perceptions of mutual threat across occupational lines led to reciprocal stereotyping, animosity, and thwarted cooperation. Similarly, Bijlsma-Frankema and colleagues (2015) revealed how judges and administrators working in a court of law each felt threatened by the other occupation, leading to a self-amplifying cycle of reciprocated distrust and conflict. In both cases, occupational members’ defensive reactions led to hostile counter tactics by relational partners and escalating tensions. Thus, past research demonstrates that defensive reactions by occupational members tend to exacerbate, not attenuate, the initial threat and lead to rising conflict with relational partners. 6 While most research exploring defensive behavior by occupational members towards outsiders has focused on members of different occupations working for the same organization (Battilana & Dorado, 2010; DiBenigno, 2018; Glynn, 2000), occupations must also interact and may be threatened by the general public. Indeed, relations between the public and occupational members may be especially fraught given the lack of organizational mechanisms supporting coordination, such as a superordinate organizational identity, shared goals, routines, incentives, or routine contact (DiBenigno, 2018; Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009). Under these conditions, initial threats may be particularly likely to devolve into defensive behavior and further conflict. Rising public distrust represents a significant external threat to occupational members. Firstly, public distrust threatens occupational members’ ability to maintain purchase over a domain of work and to have their practices be seen as necessary and appropriate by the public (Anteby et al., 2016). This is problematic given occupational members’ authority and their ability to elicit the public’s cooperation is not only formally conferred, but must be achieved (Huising, 2015). For example, a police officer may have the legal authority to question a witness, but they are limited in their ability to force that person to divulge truthful information. Thus, public distrust threatens occupational members’ ability to perform their work. What’s more, by implying that the occupation, and by extension occupational members, are untrustworthy, rising public distrust threatens the positive value associated with occupational membership. Thus, rising public distrust poses a threat both to occupational members’ ability to operate effectively and to their occupational identity. In line with the significant nature of external threats from the public, past research has demonstrated that occupational members suffer negative consequences from fraught relations with the public (Patil, 2018; Vough et al., 2012). For example, Vough and colleagues (2012) 7 found that occupational members suffered negative performance and emotional costs when they experienced a role-based image discrepancy, a feeling that the public does not understand their work. Patil (2018) extended this research, demonstrating that only some occupational members encountered negative consequences when they felt misunderstood by the public. These findings suggest that there may be important differences in how occupational members relate to the public and perceive external threats from this group, such as rising public distrust. Yet, the focus of prior scholarship on explaining commonalities between members has limited our understanding of the forces driving members’ potentially differing responses to these types of threats. 1.2 Multiple Identities and Relational Understandings of Outsiders Taking a multiple identities perspective on occupations may illuminate possible sources of difference in response to threat between members. Although much of the occupations literature has left members’ other social identities unexplored, limited scholarship recognizes the ways that occupational meanings are intimately entwined with the social identities of those seen as prototypical of the occupation (Ashcraft, 2013; Ely & Meyerson, 2010; Ramarajan & Reid, 2013). In line with occupational segregation based on sex, race, and other demographic variables, this research explains how the meanings associated with the social identities of the majority of individuals performing a certain type of work tend to fuse with the meanings associated with the work itself, creating the impression that the work is “natural” for some and not others (Acker, 1990; Ashcraft, 2013, p. 16). For example, it is through this process that kindergarten teachers come to be associated with kindly white women and police officers with heterosexual burley men. This fusion is not simply based on the occupation’s actual demography however, but on the prototypes discursively associated with the work (Ashcraft, 2013). 8 Occupational prototypes produce an identity standard against which individual occupational members may experience varying degrees of fit or misfit depending on their own social identities (Ashcraft, 2013; Cardador, 2017; Settles, 2004). To date, research has largely examined the negative consequences of experiencing this form of misfit. The negative outcomes studied in this vein typically stem from others’ unfavorable perceptions of occupational misfits and mistreatment by occupational peers. For example, Settles (2004) described the challenges associated with being both a woman and a scientist, two seemingly incompatible identities. Female scientists in her study reported a number of negative behaviors from other scientists including not being taken seriously as a scientist because of their gender and difficulties fitting the definition of a scientist because of being a woman. Similarly, Reid (2015) documented the challenges women faced being seen as dedicated because of the incongruence between their identity as women and the ideals of 24/7 commitment associated with their profession. Because much of this research has focused on how these dynamics inform others’ perceptions of occupational misfits, we have little insight into the opposite relationship, how the experience of occupational misfit might inform workers’ perceptions of others. What’s more, the possibility that the experience of occupational misfit may have benefits has been insufficiently explored. Limited research suggests that the experience of occupational misfit may confer individual and organizational benefits (Collins, 1986; Creed et al., 2010; Meyerson & Scully, 1995). While this research does not directly address how feeling different from an occupational prototype may inform responses to external threats, it highlights the role of self-perceived misfits in providing a unique perspective and spurring positive change. For example, Meyerson and Scully (1995) theorized how tempered radicals, “individuals who identify with and are committed to their organizations, and are also committed to a cause, community, or ideology that 9 is fundamentally different from, and possibly at odds with the dominant culture of their organization,” act as drivers of change (p. 586). Beyond their role as change agents, it seems likely that occupational misfits may also relate differently to external parties, given these members’ “outsider within” status (Collins, 1986). This alternate perspective may help explain differential responses to external threats from relational partners but has not been examined. Past research exploring the relational understandings occupational members hold of outsiders demonstrates that these meanings are consequential. For example, the labeling literature has documented how occupational members categorize those they serve, labeling certain classes of individuals as “inappropriate” and treating them accordingly (Heimer & Staffen, 1995). Similarly, Van Maanen (1978) described how police officers labeled and subsequently treated the public as “know nothings,” “suspicious persons,” or “as*holes.” Thus, these relational understandings, what I define as relational frames, inform how occupational members perceive and behave towards different groups of outsiders. However, since this literature has focused on explaining commonalities between occupational members, we do not understand the source of potentially divergent relational frames between members, nor their consequences. In the current research, I examine the possibility of differing relational frames and how they guide occupational members’ responses to external threats from relational partners, such as rising felt public distrust. I explore these dynamics in the context of policing, an occupation facing widespread public distrust, particularly from people of color and the LGBTQ community (Levin, 2019; Lowery, 2017) 1.3 The Context of Policing Over the past decade, rising social movements against the police led by people of color and other historically marginalized groups, such as LGBTQ individuals (Lopez, 2018; O’Neill & 10 McCarthy, 2014), suggest police officers are facing significant external threats from the public. Indeed, widespread demonstrations against police along with calls to “defund” the occupation reflect unprecedented levels of public distrust against police (Reuters, 2016; Weitzer, 2015). These protests center on claims of police brutality against people of color and the LGBTQ community, as well as allegations of both over and under policing of these communities (Alexander, 2012; Cole, 2020; Hooper, 2018). These demonstrations and social movements have called into question the occupation’s ability to effectively enact their mandate, to serve and protect, and threaten to upend favored occupational practices, limit police authority, and curtail their jurisdiction over certain tasks (Lopez, 2018; Weitzer, 2015). Thus, rising public distrust against the police represents a substantial threat to police officers and to their operations. Tensions between the police and the public are highly salient in the United States where these movements originated but are also active in other western nations, including Canada (Kirby, 2020; Levinson-King, 2017), where the research was conducted. For example, in the years preceding data collection, Black Lives Matter, an activist organization advocating for police reform, successfully lobbied the Pride Parade organizers across multiple Canadian cities to ban uniformed police officers from marching in the parade (Levinson-King, 2017). Further, indigenous groups have long criticized the Canadian police for insufficiently investigating the cases of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and for other race-related misconduct (Geraldine Malone, 2020). At the time of data collection, distrust from the LGBTQ community was similarly heightened in Canada, especially after it was revealed that the police failed to investigate multiple reports of missing gay men, enabling a serial killer to continue targeting the community for years unabated (Graham, 2018). In sum, during and preceding data collection, the Canadian police were facing high levels of rising public distrust, both from the 11 general public and from particular factions within the public, making it an ideal setting for the current research project. 12 Chapter 2: Method I take an inductive approach and draw on multi-source qualitative data to address the proposed research question through an interpretive lens (Gephart, 2004). An interpretive perspective privileges the individual’s inner lived experience, making it ideal for examining questions of identity and threat (Eisenhardt et al., 2016). These “hard-to-measure” constructs are more easily accessed using qualitative methods grounded in informants’ own words, social interactions, and naturally occurring text (Eisenhardt et al., 2016). The research draws primarily on in-depth interviews but also on participant observation, and organizational and union association documents. 2.1 Data Site The research was conducted over a month-long period in a large division of a Canadian police service (henceforth sometimes referred to as “service” for short) comprised of multiple divisions in charge of different geographic regions. At the time of data collection, the service was engaged in a number of community outreach activities aimed at addressing public distrust and building relationships with groups historically marginalized by the police. For example, the organization had recently introduced a number of organizational symbols, like police cruisers with special decals, communicating their support for different groups such as the Black and LGBTQ communities. The service was also undergoing efforts to hire more officers from underrepresented backgrounds and was providing funding for officer-led community outreach initiatives targeting these groups. The particular division where the research was conducted employed approximately 150 sworn officers at the time of data collection, with the majority of officers working in the uniformed patrol department responsible for responding to civilian calls for service and 13 emergencies. The division serves an urban area populated by roughly 200,000 ethnically diverse residents. In part because of the diverse population served, the division has been the focus of many of the organization’s initiatives aimed at strengthening relations with historically marginalized groups. For example, the division was the recipient of many of the organization’s efforts to hire more officers from underrepresented backgrounds, with relatively higher numbers of police officers of color being assigned to the division. The division was selected for data collection as leaders identified rising public distrust as relevant to the region. 2.2 Data Collection I conducted the research according to established inductive theory-building techniques, theoretically sampling my informants and setting and analyzing my data as it was collected (Charmaz, 2006). Before starting formal data collection, I began by familiarizing myself with the context. I gathered news articles, books, and other publicly available information about police-public relations in general and about the specific police organization and the division in particular. I also tracked public reports and other types of corporate publications from the organization, with a particular eye to those discussing community relations and initiatives. These documents clarified current organizational efforts at addressing public distrust and provided useful background information. Prior to beginning formal data collection, I also conducted several pilot interviews with police officers from different police services. I used these pilot interviews to understand the language of policing, test out potential interview questions for understandability and get initial insights into possible themes and points of interest. During this time, I had multiple conversations with organizational leadership which affirmed the relevance of the context to my 14 research question. These documents, conversations, and interviews provided the basis for my initial interview guide (see Appendix A). During formal data collection, I spent five to 16 hours a day, six days a week, for a month in the division station house, conducting formal interviews, attending morning and evening briefings, having casual conversations with officers and staff, sitting at the front desk, and working out of one of the division’s offices. While much of this time was spent formally interviewing officers, I was able to supplement this interview data with participant observations and archival records, described below. 2.2.1 Interviews The primary data are semi-structured in-depth interviews (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2016). Semi-structured interviews are ideal for understanding informants’ subjective experiences and perceptions, and hence are well suited for understanding identity as subjective-self meanings (Lamont & Swidler, 2014). The semi-structured format includes a set of required questions but allows for elaboration on relevant points, enabling the development of ideas spontaneously raised by the informant (see Appendix A. for the interview guide; Ritchie and Lewis, 2003). In total, 64 semi-structured interviews were conducted, 3 informants did not want to be recorded so I took notes and typed up the interaction from memory immediately following the interview. Most interviews were conducted in person apart for nine which were conducted over the phone after the I left the research site. The interviews ranged from just under half an hour to almost two hours in length, most lasted between 45 minutes to an hour. Each recorded interview was transcribed verbatim. 15 2.2.1.1 Interview Sample Interview informants were purposively sampled from select positions within the organization and across departments and ranks within the division to allow for variation in how issues of identity may differ across officers in uniform and non-uniform capacity as well as at different stages in their career and officer demographics (Charmaz, 2006). Demographic and family information was collected in a supplemental form following the interview (see Appendix B for Demographic Supplement). Twenty-five percent of interview informants were female and 28% identified with under-represented ethnic groups within the service1, the average age was 38 and average organizational tenure was 12 years. Within the division, 45 uniformed patrol officers, 10 officers operating in non-uniform capacity (i.e., conducting investigations or in division leadership) were interviewed. Nine individuals from a variety of departments outside of the division and across ranks were also interviewed due to their involvement with the initiatives aimed at improving relations with the community or affiliation with the union, the Police Association. The majority of informants were Constables (47), but four Sergeants, seven Staff Sergeants, four Inspectors, and two civilians (in Human Resources) were also interviewed. 2.2.2 Participant Observation Interview data was supplemented by participant observation. On eleven occasions I was able to patrol with the uniform patrol officers during their day shifts. Each observation ranged from an hour and a half to three hours. This involved wearing a bullet proof vest, sitting in the passenger seat of the police cruiser, and attending calls deemed by dispatchers to be non- 1 Women and people of color were oversampled relative to their proportion in the organization to ensure an adequate representation of these individuals to compare how officers’ experiences may differ based on these dimensions. 16 dangerous. I was also able to attend two organizationally sanctioned events aimed at improving relations between the public and the service. The first was a meeting with a community advisory committee, a group of civilians identified as leaders in their communities, mostly from diverse backgrounds, who meet regularly with service leadership to discuss issues relevant to the police and diversity. The second was a volunteer activity organized by several female police officers aimed at improving relations with LGBTQ youth. I took notes by hand about each of these encounters and typed them up immediately following the event. These experiences enabled insights into how occupational members interacted with the public and each other as well as firsthand knowledge of how the public related to police officers. 2.2.3 Documents Eleven issues of a monthly organizational newsletter that is circulated to members for the months leading up to data collection and four quarterly-issued union newsletters also covering the year leading up to data collection were retrieved during data collection. These documents contain messages from leadership and information about organizational and occupational news, events, and initiatives. Importantly, they provide insight into the organization’s and union’s priorities and favored approaches to community-policing relations. Since these communications are internal rather than external to the organization and directly targeted towards members, they communicate the perspective the union and organization would like officers to take. These documents also contain sections commending officers for various acts of service, providing insight into the types of behaviors that are celebrated from each perspective. Pictures were also taken of station house cork boards exhibiting letters from civilians and organizational leaders thanking particular officers for exemplary behavior. Due to legal concerns, text from these 17 documents cannot be directly reproduced but this information provided important insights useful during data analysis. 2.3 Data Analysis Data analysis began during data collection and unfolded in a series of iterative steps following recommended grounded theory techniques (Charmaz, 2006), described here as three phases for clarity. In phase one, I read through my observation notes and archival documents and listened to the recorded interviews while simultaneously reading the transcripts, noting informant affect and tone in the text where appropriate. Throughout this process, I updated analytical memos made during data collection and wrote new memos, tracking insights regarding relations between informants and the public and perceived threats to this relationship. Following this first reading, I began in-depth initial coding, analyzing the materials line-by-line and staying close to the data, using informants’ own words as codes where possible. Example codes at this level included “Criticism from the LBGTQ community,” “Acknowledging problems with the police and racism,” and “The public playing the race card.” I paid special attention to informants’ perceptions of their work, the public’s distrust, and informants’ reported efforts to repair this distrust, but maintained open to new insights and interpretations. Iterating on these initial codes, in the second phase I moved towards more focused coding (Charmaz, 2006), comparing across codes to identify commonalties, parsing complex codes into multiple components, collapsing across related codes, and abandoning others. For example, through this process, it became apparent that although informants widely perceived rising public distrust of their occupation, they held divergent perceptions of this external threat. Specifically, some officers widely dismissed and in some cases, condemned the distrustful public, while others appeared more empathetic towards the distrustful public, acknowledging their concerns. 18 These two reactions were subsequently coded as “Deny and condemn” and “Acknowledge and accept.” Through further analysis however, it became apparent that “Deny and condemn” was linked with multiple distinct behavioral and affective reactions to the distrustful public and could be further delineated. Specifically, the single code “Deny and condemn,” was split into two codes, highly emotionally activated condemnations of the distrustful public, “Deny and condemn,” and less emotionally activated responses that did not condemn the distrustful public but nonetheless failed to engage with their concerns, “Deny and deflect.” In turn, each of these three cognitive responses were related to distinct behavioral and affective reactions and were subsequently conceptualized as threat response paths. Given the nature of public distrust in this context, as specifically linked to certain demographic segments of the public, specifically people of color, the LGBTQ community, and their allies, I compared codes across informant demographic variables, specifically race, sexual orientation, and gender2. I explored whether informants’ perceptions of and responses to the distrustful public differed across these characteristics. While there appeared to be a relationship between these demographic variables and informants’ understandings of the distrustful public, demographics alone could not explain these patterns. This prompted me to revisit the three response paths. Specifically, I examined those in each path as a group, contrasting and comparing the initial codes. Through this process, I recognized that members in each response path held different perspectives on their relationship to the public. Returning to the literature on 2 I also compared codes across informant rank and role to consider whether these characteristics informed officers’ perceptions of the distrustful public. Although there was some evidence that public distrust was especially salient to uniform patrol officers (compared to those in non-uniform capacity) likely because they had more direct contact with the public and were visible as officers during patrol, all officers were aware of the public’s distrust. Further, these dimensions did not appear to be related to officers’ response paths to felt public distrust. 19 occupational members’ relational understandings of the public (Carlson, 2020; Heimer & Staffen, 1995; Van Maanen, 1978) and comparing this past research with the data, I came to see that informants held divergent cognitive schemas for understanding their work and the public that explained their response path. Recognizing that these understandings acted as a lens through which to interpret public distrust, I labeled these schemas “Relational frames,” in reference to frames as “schemata of interpretation” that allow individuals to ascribe meaning to their interactions (Goffman, 1974, p. 21). Seeking to understand the relationships between identified concepts, in the last phase of my analysis I experimented with different ways of organizing these emergent constructs, testing my insights by comparing possible configurations against the data and vice versa. For example, subsequent engagement with the data revealed that informant demographics were indeed associated with informants’ response paths, but only indirectly through the adoption of certain relational frames. What’s more, it was not simply informants’ demographics that explained this adoption, but how they related to the link between their own demographics and those figuratively associated with the occupation. Returning to the literature on multiple identities (Ashcraft, 2013; Ramarajan, 2014), I recognized these links as based in social identity and labeled informant experiences of misalignment as “occupational misfit.” The analysis culminated in a model of divergent occupational responses to external threats from relational partners. 20 Chapter 3: Findings In contrast to past research suggesting external threats from relational partners, especially from particular outgroups, are met by unified and defensive counter-responses (Abbott, 1988; Ashcraft, 2005; Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015; Glynn, 2000), my findings reveal that rising felt public distrust against an occupation can lead to disparate reactions from occupational members, deepening divisions between them. Specifically, occupational members responded to rising felt public distrust differently depending on the relational frame they applied to understand their relationship to the public, resulting in tensions between members. Two dominant relational frames presided: the autonomous frame, associated with the occupation’s past and legacy, that was called into question by public distrust, and the cooperative frame, associated with the occupation’s present and future and seen by some as a potential remedy to public distrust. Occupational members either defended the autonomous frame, championed the cooperative frame, or maintained ambivalence by drawing on elements of each frame. Those experiencing occupational misfit—a self-perceived incongruence between the social identities figuratively associated with the occupation and the member’s own social identities—were more likely to adopt the cooperative frame. Occupational members who experienced a high degree of alignment between their own social identities and those figuratively associated with the occupation, on the other hand, were more likely to adopt the autonomous frame. These relational frames provided a lens through which occupational members interpreted felt public distrust. Occupational members responded to felt public distrust along three pathways according to whether they applied the autonomous, ambivalent, or cooperative frame. These pathways reflected distinct cognitive orientations towards the distrustful public, affective 21 outlooks towards the future relationship between the police and the public, and finally, stated behavioral efforts to repair public distrust. Throughout the findings3, informants are identified by a pseudonym preceded by the informant’s relational frame (Au for autonomous, Am for ambivalent, and Co for cooperative), along with demographic identifiers including race (Wh for white, PoC for person of color), and for white informants only, sex (M for male, F for female; e.g., Sandy, CoWhF). This approach was taken to protect the identities of women of color due to their severe underrepresentation in the organization and the data.4 Similarly, although some informants of color had names specific to their ethnic heritage, all informants of color are given “white-sounding” and gender-neutral names to avoid identifying these individuals. For this same reason, informants are not further identified by specific racial or ethnic category. 3.1 Rising Felt Public Distrust Regardless of their relational frame, officers recognized worsening public distrust as a significant trend facing their occupation. This sentiment was evident in officers’ meta-perceptions of their role—how they believed the public saw the police—and in officers’ accounts of salient public interactions. Indeed, officers frequently described tensions between the public and the police, often using the term “distrust” directly. For example, when asked how they believed the public viewed the police overall, one officer responded simply, “I think they have a distrust for the police.” (Andy, CoPoC). The current level of felt public distrust was often 3 In a few select cases, the identifier is omitted when the content of the quote or observation could identify the informant due to being highly distinctive. This was done to ensure the informant’s quote cannot be traced to their other comments, thus maintaining the anonymity of these further quotes. 4 Race was chosen as the critical characteristic to identify informants by (instead of for example, sex) because of the relevance of race to the distrust dynamics with the public. 22 compared unfavorably to previous levels and framed as a significant “shift” or “change.” For example, one officer noted a “shift” in the dynamics between the public and the police over time: When I first started, I think for the most part the public perceived us well. We commanded a little more respect. There were more people that shared positive stories and opinions of us than I feel we're experiencing now. There's been a shift. (Rick, AmWhM) Informants further identified certain segments of the public, specifically people of color and to a lesser extent, the LGBTQ community, as particularly distrustful of the police. For example, when asked whether there were certain groups within the community that were more critical of the police, the officer above responded “Yeah, probably racialized populations. That's based on [personal] experience. There's a distrust.” (Rick, AmWhM). Although distrust from members of the LGBTQ community were not as uniformly salient to officers, some officers highlighted this group as especially distrustful of the police as well. Public accounts provided further evidence of heightened distrust between this community and the police. For example, a local newspaper reported on the community’s outrage in response to allowing uniformed police to march in the regional pride parade. Local activists cited in the article condemned the decision, arguing, “I think we have resounding statements from our community…. saying they don’t feel safe around police.” In line with this, many of the service’s efforts to address distrust included outreach to both communities of color and the LGBTQ community. Consistent with past research on distrust (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015), officers reported a number of manifestations of rising felt public distrust including stereotyping and allegations against officers, displays of animosity and aggression from the public, and reduced public cooperation. In particular, many officers described being stereotyped as racist and facing frequent allegations of racism. For example, one officer lamented “People just assume the police are racist thugs. I hear it all the time.” (John, AuWhM). Similarly, another officer explained 23 “There is a large population of Blacks in [region] and I find that I'm accused of being racist anytime I'm dealing with a Black youth who has broken the law.” (Sharon, AmWhF). Officers also described displays of animosity and aggression from the public, such as children pointing “finger guns,” members of the public giving officers “dirty looks” and yelling obscenities at them, and being filmed with cellphone cameras during public encounters. Officers’ encounters with people of color and the LGBTQ community were reported to be especially fraught. For example, an officer recounted seeing a recent newspaper cover displaying a picture of a man holding a sign saying “I’m not gay as in happy … I’m queer as f*ck the police.” (Dallas, AmWhF). Similarly, an officer (Ethan, CoWhM) described reading a recent post on social media discussing a local march for transgender rights. The individuals commenting on the post described how they yelled “shame” and “boo” at officers during the march. Another officer recalled attending a call to arrest someone at a largely Black housing complex “And they're just chirping at him and me and saying, "F*ck the police," and, "You guys are always here harassing us and all you guys just harassing Black people and only Black," and this that.”[Identifier omitted due to potentially identifying event]. The final way growing public distrust reportedly manifested was through reduced public cooperation. For example, one officer illustrated mounting public distrust with the following story from early in his career. He recounted stopping a car and realizing the driver was wanted, then struggling in the street to arrest him: There were probably at least half a dozen people that came running to help me get and gain control of this individual. They had no idea why I was arresting him. No clue whatsoever. He wasn't armed. They just knew I was arresting him, and they knew I was having trouble, and they came and helped me…. Today, I guarantee that wouldn't happen. It just, it's not going to happen. What you're going to have is probably half a dozen people running out with cell phones. (Ben, CoWhM) 24 Similarly, another officer described waning cooperation from the public during investigations “So nobody is coming forward anymore. No one's talking because there's a bit of mistrust with police.” (Adam, AmWhM). Thus, in line with prior literature, rising felt public distrust was problematic for officers, exposing them to stereotyping and allegations from the public, public animosity and aggression, and impeding their work by threatening public cooperation. Table 1 highlights further evidence of growing felt public distrust and its manifestations. ---INSERT TABLE 1--- 3.2 Divergent Frames and Rising Felt Public Distrust Although informants mutually recognized the public’s growing distrust in the occupation, officers differed in how they interpreted and responded to this shift depending on the relational frame they applied to understand their relationship as an officer to the public. Two dominant relational frames, relatively stable interpretative schemas (Goffman, 1974), guided officers’ interpretations of their role and provided a lens through which they understood their interactions with the public: (1) the autonomous frame and (2) the cooperative frame. These frames in turn, diverged along three dimensions representing occupational practices, values, and beliefs: ideals and celebrated practices, valued orientation towards the public, and beliefs about the basis of trust and respect in the occupation. Table 2 summarizes the differences between the autonomous and cooperative frames along each dimension. ---INSERT TABLE 2 HERE--- 3.2.1 Autonomous Frame The autonomous frame was associated with the occupation’s past and legacy, with officers referring to the elements under this frame as “traditional,” and “old school.” 25 3.2.1.1 Ideals and Celebrated Practices Firstly, this frame celebrated ideals and practices centered on finding and punishing “bad guys” to keep safe the “real people.” For example, in cursive script covering a moderate section of his arm, one officer’s tattoo read “You sleep safe in your bed because men of honor stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm you.” (Austin, AuWhM). As illustrated by this quote, the ideals and practices valorized under this frame were supported by a view of the world as a dangerous and hostile place representing an ongoing struggle between good and evil. Consistent with the labeling literature and past research on policing (Carlson, 2020; Van Maanen, 1978), the autonomous frame thus rested on categorizing the public into good (or “real”) people and bad people. In line with this, another officer described the most important part of their job as to “Stop bad guys. Make sure the good people in society live their normal lives without having a care in the world about what's really happening underneath the surface of what society looks like.” (Logan, AuPoC). Similarly, describing what he liked about his current role, another officer noted “I like to arrest bad guys. I like to deal with bad people. I find I'm good at it and I enjoy it.” (Doug, AuWhM). As evidenced by the preceding quote, the practice of “proactive policing,” defined as actively searching out and arresting “criminals,” was core to the autonomous frame, elevating related traits such as “good instincts” and “work ethic” defined in terms of having high “stats” (arrest statistics). Illustratively, another officer (James, AuWhM) wistfully recalled a forgone time in which the staff sergeant would begin each shift with, “Let’s fill up the cells!” This officer highlighted “working like crazy” during this period and “going after very bad people.” He lamented the recent shift towards “community-based initiatives” and away from the “constant pursuit of going after the worst criminals.” 26 3.2.1.2 Valued Orientation Towards the Public Second, the autonomous frame promoted an orientation towards the public that focused on maintaining clear boundaries between the occupation and the public. In line with ideals valorizing police as the “thin blue line” separating good and evil, the police were seen as wholly differentiated from the public. One officer articulated this perspective in describing why they favored the term police force over police service, “It's a unit. Everybody's together and we're the force that stops evil from tarnishing the good side.” (Logan, AuPoC). Similarly, maintaining clear divisions between the police and the public, another officer explained: Yes, the police have to be part of the community, and they're made of community members, but I still think there has to be... there is a line where the police are the police, and we police the community. (Ray, AuWhM) In line with the fact that police work was viewed as done independently from the public under this frame, efforts to build connections between the police and the public or “community policing” were not considered “real policing.” For example, one officer lamented the fact that certain officers spent their time attending community events, arguing that they would be better used on patrol, “Put them on the road instead of, we have one that does community events all summer. One that bikes around all summer doing nothing.” (Tyler, AuWhM). Similarly, these officers were skeptical of attempts to promote the service’s community building efforts through social media or other channels, deriding this behavior as disingenuous. Describing his volunteer work, one officer articulated this perspective, emphasizing “I don't put it on Twitter, I don't put it on "Hey nice, look at this."” [mocking voice]. (Ken, AuWhM). Real policing in contrast, was defined by “action,” “excitement,” and proximity to danger. For example, an officer described wrestling an individual, who was trying to commit suicide, off of a thin overhang as one of the proudest moments of their career: 27 We wrestled [them] and eventually with the help, you look up on the bridge and it was lined with police. They couldn't come down, but they were looking over top, and then we got [them] back over, so that felt cool because that felt like real police work. That's what you signed up for versus the everyday crap. [Identifier omitted due to potentially identifying event] 3.2.1.3 Beliefs about the Basis of Trust and Respect in the Occupation Lastly, the autonomous frame consisted of certain beliefs about the basis of trust and respect in the occupation, specifically as founded on fear and intimidation. Officers in this frame lamented the “softening” of policing and attributed what they saw as declining respect for the occupation to this trend. For example, an officer described his concerns: I just feel the way policing is going, it's evolving, obviously. I don't know if it's evolving properly. We are a service to our community now, more where ... When I was growing up, me, my friends, you were scared, you were intimidated by the police. It was like, to say the least, you were scared of the police. You didn't want to talk to the police, you didn't want to interact with the police because... there was always stories where these cops would grab you, beat you up, do whatever. So, you were scared, but it kept you in line at the same time. I'm finding now, especially with the youth, that respect element is fading away, if not completely gone. (Ray, AuWhM) There was a strong emphasis on appearing “professional,” defined in terms of a militaristic-type attention to cleanliness, uniformity, and physical size and fitness. For example, one officer mourned the loss of a practice in which officers would stand in a line before each shift so that the sergeant could inspect their appearance (Observation notes, patrol with Alan, AuWhM). Similarly, another officer emphasized the importance of appearance and demeanor: I think from the way you look, from being in shape, the way you look, the way your equipment looks, all that kind of stuff, and then when you deal with people. You're dealing with someone that's a true street criminal…. If you're professional enough, and assertive enough, and you get your point across. I've been in relatively few physical confrontations in my career and I think a lot of it has to do with the way I look. With my size and with the way that I present myself. I don't look like a slob, I don't talk like a slob. (Dennis, AuWhM) 28 In line with the militaristic focus on uniformity, appearing “professional” was undergirded by an identity-blind logic (Leslie et al., 2020), focused on minimizing differences between officers and reducing them to an undifferentiated mass. For example, an officer explained: Uniform comes from the word uniformity. When you wear your uniform, I think we should all be dressed the same. I'm of the old culture. Like, my hair should be certain way, you should look a certain way, all the cars have to look the same. (Ken, AuWhM) Public distrust put pressure on management to shift away from legacy elements under the autonomous frame, towards a new lens for understanding the relationship between police and the public, the cooperative frame. 3.2.2 Cooperative Frame In contrast to the autonomous frame, the ideals and celebrated practices, valued orientation towards the public, and beliefs about the basis of trust and respect in the occupation under the cooperative frame were described as “the way things are going” and seen as related to the present, and potential future, of policing. In line with this future-orientation, some officers highlighted elements under this frame as a potential remedy to rising public distrust. 3.2.2.1 Ideals and Celebrated Practices Firstly, in contrast to the autonomous frame, the cooperative frame promoted ideals and practices that were less focused on “arresting bad guys” and more targeted towards being caring and empathetic with the public. This perspective rested on a worldview that was markedly less hostile than that of the officers adopting the autonomous frame and favored qualities like “emotional intelligence,” “compassionate,” and “good communicator.” For example, one officer described what it means to be a good officer: Have compassion with everything. We see a lot of bad stuff and we deal with a lot of people at their worst, but as long as you can still have compassion for them, I think that's what will make a good officer. (Sophie, CoWhF) 29 Another officer echoed this sentiment, “I have to remember that even though I've dealt with that sort of situation 100 times, it's their worst day. So, I try to show them as much respect and compassion as I can.” (Chad, AmWhM). Highlighting the need for empathy in making a difference in others’ lives, another officer proudly described interacting with a survivor of domestic abuse: As I started talking to the lady, I started to kind of empathize. I started to see what she was experiencing, and you kind of build a rapport with them. As I was talking to her, she just generally opened up, and we were able to go in and deal with the guy. It was something that was maybe like a five-minute conversation I had with her, but in that five minutes, we connected so much. (Kieran, CoPoC) Included in this more empathetic perspective, was considering the underlying causes of criminal behavior instead of simply labeling members of the public as either good or bad. For example, one officer explained how his past experiences informed his perceptions of the public: I've worked with people from all walks of life. I've worked with guys that had addiction issues. I've worked with guys that had... I've known guys that they had a life of crime in a sense.... It wasn't the path I took, but then it didn't make them evil people. That was the way they made money. I can draw from my past experiences of people that I've met. For the most part, everyone you meet is a good person. (Lucas, CoWhM) Consistent with the focus on dealing empathetically with the public, officers in the cooperative frame disavowed counting arrests as a favored practice, focusing on the “big picture” of the what the police are trying to achieve instead. For example, one officer explained: I don't love arresting people if that makes sense…. my goal is as much as possible, is to do the most appropriate thing and the best thing, considering everything, considering the bigger picture…. We have to consider a number of factors, community safety being one, the highest one on the list. But yeah, I'm not looking to just get arrests and put people in positions where their lives are going to fall apart or they're going to have issues. (Cameron, CoPoC) 30 3.2.2.2 Valued Orientation Towards the Public Secondly, the cooperative frame further consisted of a valued orientation towards the public that diverged significantly from that of the autonomous frame. Specifically, policing work was seen as done interdependently with the public. In line with this, this frame promoted forming deep connections with the public. For example, describing what it means to be a good officer: To me, it's, as cliché as it sounds, creating valuable relationships with your community, and working in the collaborative effort to keep your community safe. A lot of people, not a lot of people, but I've heard people saying, "Oh, police are police and the people, you know are the people." But if we're all safe... in my opinion, I mean if you look at the very core values of policing, Sir Robert Peel himself said, "The people are the police and the police are the people." (Avery, CoPoC) Similarly, another officer described the police’s role in society, “I see it as completely intertwined, that, we are a piece. We perform a very, obviously specific role. However, it doesn't... We can't do it alone, so we're completely intertwined with all of our community members.” (Ben, CoWhM). In line with emphasizing the importance of public support for police, efforts at community building were seen as core to policing. For example, one officer explained the move away from “traditional policing” and the need to build connections with the public: Traditional policing method is, go out there, you arrest people. You just put bad guys in jail type of thing. This is more like building the relationship, building relationships and getting into diverse communities in order to gain that trust for the police. It's just about enhancing your diversity competence. Some people don't believe these things are important, but those people, I don't think, see the bigger picture that when you do that, that's how you're going to build better relationships with the community, in turn gain public trust and legitimacy. (Cheryl, CoWhF) As evidenced by the above quote, building connections with members of the public was framed as a potential remedy for the public’s distrust, particularly with “diverse communities” who were known to be especially distrustful of the police. Similarly, a member of leadership articulated the 31 perceived link between community building and public (dis)trust, “Trust is based on relationships, in my opinion, and those relationships are established when you go out and you have positive contact with various populations and communities.” (Quinn, CoPoC). 3.2.2.3 Beliefs about the Basis of Trust and Respect in the Occupation Finally, the cooperative frame promoted beliefs about the basis of trust and respect in the occupation that diverged from those held under the autonomous frame. Under the cooperative frame, trust and respect for the occupation was seen as built by being more relatable and less intimidating. This approach was partly characterized by efforts to “humanize” the badge, displaying a more “human” and broader perspective on policing. For example, one officer explained their approach to policing, “I think the public needs to see a lighter side and see that ... I call it humanizing.” [Identifier omitted due to distinctive role]. This officer led social media efforts to this effect, creating and posting short humorous photos and videos of himself and another police officer in uniform on social media, tagging these posts with “#HumanizeTheBadge,” “BeyondTheBadge,” and other similar slogans. He had been recently commended in the press and by some members of leadership for his response to a call in which he built a connection with a group of teens. The encounter was filmed and spread on social media. As illustrated by this event, the cooperative frame celebrated building relationships with the public using police officers’ unique qualities. Another officer noted: It's about the white dude showing up with tattoos, that if I call the cops and that 25-year-old copper covered in tats shows up to my house, like, "All right," a little more relatable. I'm going to talk to him like this. But the 40-year-old cop with the fucking mustache, it's like, "Oh, so tell me what happened, sir." I mean, like, f*ck, man. (Ethan, CoWhM) In line with this more inclusive perspective, there was less emphasis on uniformity and more attention to celebrating difference under the cooperative frame. 32 Table 3 provides further evidence illustrating the autonomous and cooperative frames. ---INSERT TABLE 3 HERE--- 3.2.3 Divisions Between Officers Adopting Each Frame Viewing it as a potential remedy for public distrust, leadership tended to promote the cooperative frame. Organizational support for the cooperative frame was evident in internal communications that frequently commended officers for engaging in community building activities and other artifacts observed around the station house. For example, in the parade room where officers were briefed at the beginning of each shift, beside the gun rack, there was a large set of shelves displaying pamphlets for various community organizations (e.g., halfway homes, shelters, mental health resources, etc.), promoting connections between officers and these community resources. Officers similarly noted leadership’s support for the cooperative frame. For example, an officer explained the recent trend towards greater community building: I think when I first started it was more of a police force, um I think things have changed dramatically, within the last [multiple] years I've been on this job, I think now it's definitely become more of a service. We as a service seem to be doing a lot more outreach and community events, just being around the public. Where before when I first started it was enforcing, you're out looking for stuff, you're out enforcing and enforcing. Where now I think they want more community focus. (Emphasis added; Matt, AmWhM) Despite leadership’s endorsement, there appeared to be peer-related social costs associated with adopting the cooperative frame. For example, efforts towards community building and “humanizing the badge,” were met with skepticism and ridicule by other officers. Posted on multiple cork boards around the station house, there was a printed picture of an officer volunteering at a local soup kitchen, ladle in hand, with the words “Welcome to Chili’s” written across the top, comparing the officer to a low-status restaurant worker. Similarly, a member of leadership explained that an officer, known for her extensive outreach work (Sydney, CoWhF), 33 is “criticized for all the work she does with external groups because she is seen as not being able to do “real police work.”” (Quinn, CoPoC). In this same vein, a member of the police union (Roger, AuWhM) explained how the officer who had been celebrated by the public and leadership for the video of him interacting with the teens had been “pushed out” of his previous regional division because of the peer backlash from the incident. Describing another humorous video this same officer had created and posted in an effort “humanize the badge,” another officer lamented: I find that unbelievably offensive. Because it is so unprofessional to this uniform…. What I do know is that, again being a professional police officer wearing this uniform, I find it unbelievably offensive that people would do that and make us look that ridiculous. (Dennis, AuWhM) In line with this, describing the response to the video of him interacting with the teens, the officer in question explained [Identifier omitted due to distinctive role]: There was a lot of mixed views internally. The public loved it. The public for sure loved 100%. Like, "This is policing, blah, blah, blah." But internally, there's mixed opinions on it and a lot of the more senior guys, it's like, "That's an embarrassment," or it's seen as you're not doing your job. So, I think there's conflicting views internally, but I do get support from higher ups, like deputy chiefs and stuff. I've had them call me and thank me for what I do and stuff like that. Similarly, another officer described connecting with a member of the public as an opportunity for his partner to photograph and make fun of him: I think we sat there for about 20, 30 minutes just talking. And finding out what's going on in her life. She broke down and cried a few times and just being there with her helped I think and just listening to her story. And then I know another officer who took photos, because then by the end she was hugging me. And of course, that makes me feel good that I helped her. But that made my partner feel good, because they got incriminating photos of someone hugging me and could, they could make fun of me later for it. [Identifier omitted due to potentially identifying event] There was also evidence that adopting a cooperative stance towards arrests, considering “the big picture” instead of charging indiscriminately, was sanctioned by officers under the 34 autonomous frame. For example, talking with another officer (Riley, AmPoC) the researcher was observing, a female officer (who had refused to be interviewed) vented angrily about a case involving a teacher who had “a non-student spit in her face” at a school dance. She explained how the teacher had reported the behavior to another officer who was at the school but the attending officer "fluffed it off" by removing the individual without charging them. The teacher followed up again with the police to have the offender charged but the officer “fluffed it off again,” explaining that the offender “didn't have any priors.” The complaining officer derided this behavior, describing it as “laziness.” (Observation notes, patrol with Riley, AmPoC). Thus, although the cooperative frame was supported by leaders in the organization and seen by some as a potential remedy to rising public distrust, there were peer-driven social costs associated with adopting this frame for individual officers. No parallel social costs for adopting the autonomous frame were observed or raised by informants, perhaps reflecting the relative dominance of the autonomous frame among officers. However, officers in the cooperative frame did criticize what they termed the “tough guy” mentality, referring to those squarely in the autonomous frame as “dinosaurs” and citing “disagreement” and “conflict” over beliefs about how police work should be accomplished. It’s also possible that officers adopting the cooperative frame did not need to socially penalize those adopting the autonomous frame given formal efforts by leadership to move away from autonomous practices, values, and beliefs. Indeed, officers under the autonomous frame appeared concerned about other officers using formal channels, such as complaints, against them. For example, an officer noted: You have to operate under the assumption you're being videotaped and recorded all the time, everywhere, I mean even within this building, like supervisor to subordinate, I assume I'm being recorded because I know it's happened in the past, so it's probably 35 going to happen again. It's you hitting a button on your phone and nobody would know. It hasn't happened to me, but I know it's happened to other officers. (Wayne, AuWhM) Similarly, another officer protested a perceived increase in “member on member complaints,” lamenting that the police are “hated enough on the outside, it’s a disaster to be hating each other on the inside as well.” (James, AuWhM). Thus, differing relational frames created tensions between officers, dividing occupational members. 3.2.4 Ambivalent Officers While some officers clearly drew on either the autonomous or cooperative frame to understand their work and their relationship to the public, other officers fell between these two frames, drawing on elements of each. For example, one officer described what it means to be a good officer, elevating traits associated with the autonomous frame like “instinct” but also those associated with the cooperative frame like being “human:” Having that piece of, I look at some of the guys here that have a lot of years on, and they have that instinct about them, when people are lying or they believe that there's drugs in the vehicle, or just different things like that. So, there's an instinct piece that feels good, but also being very personable with people on the front line, being human, and we're not above the law, and letting people sometimes see that human side to you. (Emma, AmWhF) Similarly, another officer answered the same question, mixing elements from the two frames, both the need for physical and mental fitness but also looking at “the bigger picture:” I think being a good officer is believing in what you do, try to look at the bigger picture, which is hard for everybody. Try to look at the bigger picture of what we're doing, and obviously you have to be honest, there's no room for corruption or stuff like that. That's one aspect of it. I think you have to be strong physically and mentally, which means you need to be in good shape. If you want to be a police officer, you have to work out, you have to be in shape, you have to be able to deal with the stress and whatever situations you encounter out there. (Mason, AmWhM) Thus, officers under the ambivalent frame combined elements of the two relational frames. This vacillation may have partially stemmed from these officers’ relatively short tenure 36 (see Table 4 below for officer demographics by relational frame), reflecting the tension between the adoption of the two frames, most notably the fact that leadership tended to promote the cooperative frame but that officers suffered social penalties for adopting this frame. Over time, officers may become polarized, accepting the costs and benefits associated with adopting one. 3.2.5 Officer Demographics by Relational Frame Ambivalent officers on average, tended to have a shorter organizational tenure than those squarely drawing on the autonomous or cooperative frames who, despite claims by many that these perspectives were “generational,” had similar average tenures, with those under the cooperative frame having a slightly longer average tenure. Table 4 details officer demographics by those in the autonomous, ambivalent, or cooperative frame. ---INSERT TABLE 4 HERE--- As is evident from Table 4, although average age, tenure, and education, did not follow a discernable pattern across frames, higher proportions of women and people of color adopted the cooperative frame than the ambivalent frame, and the ambivalent frame compared to the autonomous frame. While there are likely many reasons officers gravitated towards one frame or the other, experiencing occupational misfit was related to adopting the cooperative frame. 3.3 Occupational Misfit Consistent with past research on police (Prokos & Padavic, 2002), policing was associated both figuratively in the minds of informants and literally in the service’s demography, with a clear occupational prototype, namely that of a heterosexual white man. Indeed, recent surveys of the service revealed the vast majority of non-civilian staff self-defined as white, heterosexual, and male, a demographic profile representative of national average statistics for police officers in Canada and the U.S. (Government of Canada, 2018; Pew Research Center, 37 2017). The service was reportedly becoming more demographically diverse but remained disproportionately white male dominated. For example, describing officer demographics, a member of leadership explained, “80% of them are white, heterosexual, and male.” (Quinn, CoPoC). Similarly, a member of Human Resources (HR) noted “If you look at the last recruit class, I think it was one Black female and I think it was all white males.” (Blake, CoPoC). Officers also mentioned this demographic association, describing the profession as “completely male dominated” and noting the occupation’s history as dominated by “white men.” The demographics associated with the occupation were most often verbalized by officers experiencing occupational misfit, a recognition that they did not fit the occupational prototype because of their other social identities like being a woman, a homosexual male, or a person of color. Not all members who did not fit this demographic profile reported feeling misfit, however. Despite their membership in these demographic categories, some individuals either did not experience, or did not recognize experiencing, occupational misfit. The sense of occupational misfit manifested in three interrelated experiences, recognized demographic rarity, exclusion from other members, and identity salient interactions with the public. 3.3.1 Recognized Demographic Rarity The first way occupational misfit was experienced was through identifying as a member of a social category that the officer viewed as underrepresented in the occupation and organization. For example, one officer described the surprise of seeing a police officer with the same demographic profile before starting policing: I remember the first time I saw a [same demographic] police officer. It was when I was in high school in [major city]. And it just really stuck with me. And I just thought to myself, "Why is this sticking with me so much?" It's probably because I didn't see that, so [they were] rare. (Taylor, CoPoC) 38 Similarly, another officer described themselves as “the only openly gay male officer in the service.” [Identifier omitted due to identifying information]5. In turn, expressions of demographic rarity were often accompanied by reports of social isolation and exclusion from other occupational members. 3.3.2 Exclusion and Mistreatment from other Members In line with past research on members of underrepresented groups at work (Ely, 1995; Kanter, 1977; Settles, 2004; Smith et al., 2019), the second way occupational misfit manifested was through accounts of exclusion or differential treatment by other officers. For example, one officer explained: I think for a female, the female still is trying to have to ... still trying to prove themselves, and I don't think that's ever going to change. I think, it's gotten better. I know [multiple] years ago when I started, I was looked at because I was a female and, "You're not driving, you're sitting in the passenger seat. You're not writing anything down until I tell you to." And "Just stand back there while I deal with this guy.” And stuff. And you have to prove yourself, and I think it's still like that. (Lisa, AmWhF) Differential treatment by peers was often informal, taking the form of joking and pranks. For example, before leaving on patrol, one of the officers (Sydney, CoWhF) could not find her car in the parking lot. Knowing that she was taking the researcher out on patrol, a large white male officer had hidden the cruiser in a garage. The officer spent over ten minutes searching for the vehicle while the officer who had hidden it snickered and played innocent. She tried to laugh off “the prank” saying “It will come back to you twofold,” but appeared embarrassed throughout the incident (Observation notes, patrol with Sydney, CoWhF). 5 Interestingly, another male officer later indicated that they were also openly homosexual, noting however that they were not as forthcoming about their sexuality as this other officer. 39 Similarly, the self-identified only openly gay male in the service described “vicious” behavior, including comments behind his back about not wanting to be “in the changing room with him." [Identifier omitted due to identifying information]. Another officer explained how other officers suggested she would be more suited to a stereotypically feminine occupation: I've always been told I should have been a social worker, I should have been a kindergarten teacher, how I police was not necessarily the accepted way of policing initially when I started, it was a lot more aggressive, it was a lot harder, it was a lot more of shut up because I'm telling you what to do. (Janet, CoWhF) Similarly, during morning “parade” (shift briefing), officers joked with a female officer “Where’s your apple?” a reference to her being more like a schoolteacher than an officer (Observation notes, parade 2). For many experiencing occupational misfit, differential treatment also extended to their public interactions. 3.3.3 Identity Salient Interactions with the Public The final way occupational misfit manifested was through experiences that suggested the public saw these officers differently than other officers due to their demographic identities, both in negative and positive ways. For example, one officer described being treated with less respect from the public “I've had people call me sweetheart and honey, and all that kind of stuff." (Lisa, AmWhF). This same officer went on to explain “The baiting is there. I've had people think that because I'm a female, that they can get away with more, and I'm not going to put up with crap.” Similarly, another officer described being initially discouraged from going into the profession by a family member who told her “if she was in trouble, she would not want a female officer coming to her aid because she didn't feel that they were strong enough.” (Emma, AmWhF). 40 Conversely, these officers also articulated positive interactions with the public, specifically owing to their demographic identities. For example, one officer described the benefit of being a person of color when interacting with members of that community: When we're dealing with people of color, I think it's easier for them to deal with somebody else of color. I feel like in the past and up to now, the police force has been very predominantly white male and like a certain cut and wool. I think [the public] seeing different people of different ethnicities, different shapes and sizes, they're starting to see a change and they're starting to be like, "Okay, I'm more comfortable with this." It's still predominantly white. But like for me personally, being [a person of color] definitely makes it easier talking to people of color. (Devon, AmPoC) Similarly, female officers and other officers of color described being approached or talked to by members of the public, who would not talk to other police officers, specifically because of their demographic background. The researcher, a young white woman, experienced this firsthand when during patrol, she responded to a suicide threat with a large white male officer. The researcher and the officer stood with the mother and female friends of the individual threatening suicide while another officer escorted the suicidal individual to the hospital. Despite the researcher not speaking during the entire interaction, the mother and friends were polite to the white male officer but continued to answer the officers’ questions by speaking to and making eye contact with the researcher (Observation notes, patrol with Alan, AuWhM). Table 5 lists additional evidence illustrating the experience of occupational misfit. ---INSERT TABLE 5 HERE--- In sum, occupational misfit, a self-perceived incongruence between members’ own social identities and those figuratively associated with the occupation, manifested through recognized demographic rarity, exclusion and mistreatment from other occupational members, and identity salient interactions with the public. Interestingly, not all officers who did not fit the dominant demographic profile highlighted these experiences. Thus, experiencing occupational misfit was 41 not simply a function of being demographically different but of occupational members’ recognition and understanding of that difference. For some officers experiencing occupational misfit, the combination of exclusion from their peers combined with differential treatment by the public culminated into a deep sense of disidentification from other officers marked by defining themselves in contrast to their peers. Although these officers appeared highly identified with one component of occupational identity, the work, they disidentified with the other half, who performs the work. This disidentification was marked by a strong affective and cognitive sense of separation from other occupational members who were often described in oppositional terms. For example, the officer who identified as the only openly gay male in the service, talked extensively about this unique position and about his personal journey to accepting and acknowledging this aspect of himself within the service. When asked about the proudest moment of his career, he recalled: I think my proudest moment was actually coming out, owning it. Coming back to the shift and not like, hiding, because I had the opportunity to stay in the admin role a little bit longer. And, yeah, truth be told, at the 10-year ceremony, bringing my boyfriend there. That was a really proud moment. I held his hand walking in. It was like, “F*ck you.” Everyone has to judge. [Identifier omitted due to identifying personal details] Similarly, emphasizing being different “from most” and accepting the social penalties incurred for embracing this difference, another officer explained: I told you, you'll get a very different interview from me compared to most. Because I kind of battle the internal pressures that most officers wouldn't, but I'm willing to stick my neck out for what I think the greater good is in terms of the bigger picture. (Avery, CoPoC) Disidentification from peers was related to adopting the cooperative frame, the frame associated with social penalties but that celebrated a broader, more inclusive understanding of policing. Indeed, the cooperative frame accommodated those experiencing occupational misfit, 42 who were misaligned with the rigid and narrowly defined ideals celebrated under the autonomous frame. Those experiencing occupational misfit but who were nonetheless identified with their peers aired towards ambivalence, perhaps because they were unwilling to face the social penalties associated with fully adopting the cooperative frame. In contrast, the autonomous frame tended to be adopted by heterosexual white men who were favored by this frame and its identity-blind logic. 3.4 Differing Understandings of and Responses to Rising Felt Public Distrust Although informants mutually recognized rising felt public distrust against their occupation, officers differed in their cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to this distrust depending on whether they applied the autonomous, ambivalent, or cooperative frame to understand their role and their relationship to the public. More specifically, depending on their relational frame, officers had distinct understandings of the distrustful public and the legitimacy of their distrust, affective outlooks towards the distrustful public, and differentially resisted or supported bridging symbols and behaviors introduced by the organization and some officers with the purpose of repairing public distrust. Bridging symbols included specialty vehicles wrapped with custom decals (e.g., one with Black historical figures, one with pride colors for the LGBTQ community), a special “Police” patch (also called a “tag,” worn across the chest or the back of the uniform) with the rainbow pride colors in the background, and a flag flying outside the station with the service’s crest over pride colors. Bridging behaviors included attending special events targeted towards building connections with members of these communities, such as LGBTQ youth or Black men. 43 3.4.1 Autonomous Frame 3.4.1.1 Cognitive Responses In line with their view of police work as done separately for, but not with, the public, those in the autonomous frame were able to dismiss the distrustful public, denying and condemning them as a “vocal minority” opportunistically seeking benefits for themselves. For example, in response to a question about how the public perceives the police, one officer explained: “I think the vast majority really appreciate the police, but I think that they're a silent majority and then it's a vocal minority that rules the police.” (Tyler, AuWhM). When asked to expand, he referred to recent efforts by Black Lives Matter to prevent police from marching in uniform in the pride parade, “I don't agree with pride, or the city, giving into domestic terrorists for lack of a better word, and an event that's about inclusion is now excluding the very people that keep it safe.” Following their tendency to label the public as either good or bad, these officers often conflated the distrustful public with those who commit crimes. An officer explained, “Without singling anybody or any group out, there's certain pockets within our culture, community, or society that just don't like us. Those are the ones that usually commit most of the crimes.” (Ken, AuWhM). When asked how he made sense of groups like Black Lives Matter, this officer elaborated “They're just waving a flag, looking for attention.” These officers usually did not raise discussions with members of the distrustful public, but when they did, they explained why they typically found these conversations futile. For example, one officer recounted: I'll be like “Why do you hate the police? What happened to you?” and if there's no personal experience it's usually “Well, I have a friend, you guys beat him up,” and “Well, what was your friend doing?” “Well, he stole a car.” “Okay, so if somebody stole your car how would you feel? What would you want the police to do if you called the police and someone stole your car? You would probably be upset right?” So, this is the kind of 44 language I use, the questions I'd ask them. I feel eventually, it's kind of just like, "Yeah I guess." Even if they do see a little bit of the point they disregard it because there's this online and this video and this video and what about that video... (Parker, AuPoC) In turn, these cognitive interpretations related to officers’ affective reactions. 3.4.1.2 Affective Responses In line with their view of the distrustful public as a vocal minority opportunistically seeking benefits for themselves to the detriment of the police, officers in the autonomous frame tended to hold a largely negative affective outlook towards the future of the relationship between the police and the distrustful public. In line with this, the autonomous frame was characterized by highly activated feelings of anger, frustration, and resentment. For example, expressing resentment about efforts to reach out to the distrustful public, an officer lamented, “If we don't do it, then we're the bad police guys. That's how society expects us now. We got to support everything even though everybody hates us.” (Logan, AuPoC). Similarly, expressing anger towards the distrustful public, another officer explained: I'll pull someone over now and if they are a Black person or a person of color, they're sticking their hands out the window and filming me or they're making a spectacle because they think it's going to be the next YouTube hit. (Tyler, AuWhM) Common to these affective reactions was a sense of escalated intergroup tension between the public and the police that some officers described as an “us vs. them” mentality and a reciprocal police distrust of the public. For example, an officer explained, “I guess the mentality that's out there right now for officers, is you're always out there feeling like somebody's watching, waiting for you to screw up.” (Ken, AuWhM). Relatedly, another officer described an aggrieved feeling of abandonment by leadership in favor attending to “specialty groups,” highlighting an us vs. them mentality with regards to the public: 45 I hear nothing from them [leadership]. I hear nothing about what's going on. If anything, they're just more concerned about public perception and calling specialty groups and special parades and special this and special that. But they're not concerned about the job we're doing daily. We're just the forgotten ones if that makes sense. (John, AuWhM) Arguing the perceived futility of efforts to repair distrust, this same officer later noted “You either like the police, you don't like the police. They think we're racist. They think we're not racist. They think we're fair. They think we're not.” Similarly, another officer echoed, “There's just some people that just, their views are their views, and it's not going to change.” (Ray, AuWhM). These negative emotions were associated with distinct behavioral responses. 3.4.1.3 Reported Behavioral Responses In line with their dismissal of the distrustful public as a “vocal minority” and their focus on maintaining “professionalism” and “uniformity,” those in the autonomous frame resisted the organization’s and other officers’ symbolic and behavioral efforts to build connections with members of the distrustful public and repair distrust. Officers in the autonomous frame tended to view these bridging symbols and behaviors as unfairly pandering to “special interest groups,” as “giving in” or “caving” to them, and as violating “impartiality.” In line with this, they refused to display these symbols and forcefully advocated against them. For example, referring to the specialty wrapped cruisers, these officers commonly exclaimed “Where is the St. Patrick’s Day cruiser?!” Similarly, one officer lamented: The way that [the public are] pressuring us and if you go into our parking lot right now, there's a Black history month car, there's an anti-bullying car, there's a LGBTQ car, all these specialty cars. I don't believe in that. I think the only one, if any, we should have is the anti-bullying. But we shouldn't cater to any groups where the police are supposed to be impartial. So, “You're a person, you're not anything else. You're a human being. Here's your ticket, here's your arrest, here's your warning,” and not, "Well, you're Black," or, "You're white, so..." Or whatever. (Tyler, AuWhM) 46 Another officer, wearing a pin with a blue line through the national flag (a symbol for Blue Lives Matter, a counter movement to Black Lives Matter), echoed this sentiment about the vehicles, “We don't have to get involved in every single organization that’s out there.” [Identifier omitted due to identifying pin]. These officers further resisted other bridging symbols. For example, none of the officers in the autonomous frame were wearing the pride police patch. With regards to the special flag for pride month, an officer explained: I think they've [management] given in far too much to trying to go over the top of appearing to be so inclusive. Once you've opened that door, you'll never close it. You open it up to... In any native celebration or then the gay pride stuff and then something else, and then an officer will come in going, "Well, what about St Patrick's day? Can we please put a green flag up the pole with a clover on it?" And then we say no to that? How do we say no to that? (Aaron, AuWhM) Further evidence detailing autonomous officers’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to felt public distrust is provided in Table 6. ---INSERT TABLE 6 HERE--- 3.4.2 Ambivalent Frame Officers in the ambivalent frame tended to take a more moderate view of the public’s distrust than those in the autonomous frame, responding with distinct cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses unique to this path. 3.4.2.1 Cognitive Responses Those in the ambivalent frame tended not to condemn the distrustful public as strongly as those officers under the autonomous frame. Instead, they were apt to deny and deflect the public’s distrust, dismissing the distrustful public as misinformed citizens who had been mislead by the media or events in other countries. Describing rising distrust, one officer explained “The biggest thing is in the media, they never ever highlight the good stuff or very rarely highlight the 47 good stuff, stuff that we do every day, day in, day out.” (Devon, AmPoC). Similarly, another officer echoed this perspective, “We're so affected by media and we can't control that. The media, the news outlets are going to put up there what they put up there.” (Terry, AmWhM). Another officer shared this view: I find it funny that those that have no [criminal] history, that have a clean record, think ill of the police when I feel as though they have no reason to think ill of police. If I was to guess anything, I just think it's what they see in the media. (Morgan, AmPoC) These cognitive responses were in turn reflected in ambivalent officers’ affective reactions to the distrustful public. 3.4.2.2 Affective Responses Officers in the ambivalent frame tended to express comparatively less activated, negative to neutral emotions about the future relationship between the police and the public. These affective responses correspond with their cognitive understanding of the public as misinformed citizens. Seeing the public as simply misled, they did not emote the same anger towards the distrustful public as those under the autonomous frame. At the same time, these officers expressed a lack of perceived agency in addressing the public’s distrust given that they attributed the distrust to external sources, fostering a sense of resignation, apathy, and feelings of anxiety. For example, expressing anxiety, one officer explained: But, it's not enjoyable to be... everything you do you're going to be questioned on all the time. And the problem is now is you're starting to think, "People may not do things because they're too worried about what someone may say afterwards." (Adam, AmWhM) Echoing this anxiety and highlighting the pressure officers feel to act appropriately according to a perceived overwhelming set of standards, another officer worried “There's cameras everywhere. There's training on being professional and how to speak with people and all 48 this racial awareness. And, and, sexual orientation awareness, and religion, and everyone's like walking on eggshells all the time.” (Terry, AmWhM). Other officers in the ambivalent frame expressed an apathetic perspective on their own or the police service’s ability to repair distrust. For example, an officer articulated: Of course, you're always going to go to calls where they're like, “You only stopped me because I'm Black." And I'm like, "No, I only stopped you because you ran the stop sign." …. There's only so much we can do, and then sometimes you just kind of throw your hands up and go, "Okay, whatever." (Lisa, AmWhF) These affective reactions in turn informed officers’ behavioral efforts at repairing distrust. 3.4.2.3 Reported Behavioral Responses Compared to those in the autonomous frame, officers in the ambivalent frame were more varied in their perspective and adoption of symbolic and behavioral bridging attempts. Specifically, they ranged from weakly resisting to equivocally embracing these efforts, sometimes displaying these symbols but without expressing knowledge of or passion for their purpose. Those weakly resisting tended to condemn these efforts less strongly than those in the autonomous frame but warned that these symbols should be used sparingly. For example, in discussing the wrapped cruisers, one officer explained: I don't think they should be used on patrol as much. Because, I think a lot of people look at them and wonder if it is a police car or not. I take out the Black History one, mainly because it's the cleanest vehicle and the lowest kilometers on it, it runs great. (Tim, AmWhM) As illustrated by the above quote, officers in the ambivalent frame did not seem personally invested in the purpose behind the symbols, typically expressing indifference, weak resistance or mild support for them. For example, describing a rainbow pin they were wearing, one officer said simply it’s “just the rainbow pin for pride.” [Identifier omitted due to identifying 49 pin]. This officer was not wearing the significantly larger pride patch. Similarly, discussing the wrapped vehicles, another officer explained: I think that's cool. I don't know if the community gives a sh*t to be honest. But I think it's, I drive them. I've driven them before and I don't, they look different, than the normal police car. But I think it's an... If I think that if it was my community, I would feel like, “Oh, they're making an effort to show that they care.” But I don't know because I don't, I can't say that I've ever felt marginalized. (Terry, AmWhM) As illustrated by the above quote, many officers in this frame appeared to feel they lacked “psychological standing” (Sherf et al., 2017) to understand these issues or how bridging symbols were viewed by the public. About the specialty cars, an officer explained: I think it's great. Personally, I don't feel as comfortable if I were to ride in the Black history car. [Because you’re?] I’m white right? And my fear is that I'm going to be approached by someone who's Black and they will criticize me. (Dallas, AmWhF) These officers sometimes reported attending events targeted towards connecting with members of the distrustful public, but similarly seemed equivocal towards these efforts. For example, in describing an event aimed at fostering positive relationships between LGBTQ youth and law enforcement, one officer reported flatly “I’ve been to some of them.” (Jerry, AmWhM). Table 7 details additional evidence explicating ambivalent officers’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to felt public distrust. ---INSERT TABLE 7 HERE--- 3.4.3 Cooperative Frame 3.4.3.1 Cognitive Responses In contrast to their peers, officers in the cooperative frame tended to acknowledge and accept the basis of the public’s distrust, seeing the distrustful public as citizens with legitimate concerns and empathizing with groups like Black Lives Matter and the concerns of the LGBTQ community. This approach aligned with their perspective on policing as done interdependently 50 with the public, making it more difficult for these individuals to dismiss the distrustful public outright. In line with the emphasis on empathy under the cooperative frame, these officers reported being open to discussions about these issues and understanding the perspective of those distrustful of the police. For example, one officer explained: I'm not trying to pat myself on the back, but I just think that people can see that I'm open to having discussions [about race and policing] and I'm willing to learn. Plus I have a lot of interracial family members and friends and I've had discussions with my family members and friends' partners who have been on the other side of the law or who have had really negative interactions [with police] and even talking to the officers here who are specifically Black males and some of their own personal experiences, it's very eye-opening if you're willing to have those discussions and be aware of what's actually happening out there. (Janet, CoWhF) When asked to give an example of one of these discussions, this officer recounted conversing with a Black friend: He's talked about being surrounded by the police, like at the bar, he gets out and gives his friends hugs, like back-pats, and the cops just surround him and want to search his vehicle and he's like “Yeah, they don't do that to the white guy doing the exact same thing right beside me.” He hates cops, it took a while for him to warm to me, I'm like "Hey, it's my job and it is wrong. That is not fair that that's happened to you and that's wrong." (Janet, CoWhF) These officers were informed about the distrustful public’s central concerns about the police, empathizing with their perspective. For example, with regards to distrust from the LGBTQ community, one heterosexual officer explained: I've been following the pride one. I know that there's a history there with how they believe police officers have treated them poorly in the 80s and there's a lot of documentation that supports that, so I can understand their argument of not trusting the police. (Taylor, CoPoC) Similarly, in describing the LGBTQ community’s distrust of the police, another heterosexual officer alluded to recent events in which the police failed to take seriously claims that gay men were disappearing. In the previous months, it had been revealed that a serial killer was indeed 51 targeting them. “You see the news, you see the history of... Like even with the serial killers out there now and the history of gay people. So, it's built up something and that's really amplified a lot of that as well.” (Gary, CoWhM). These divergent cognitive understandings of the distrustful public were, unsurprisingly, related to officers’ affective responses to the distrust. 3.4.3.2 Affective Responses Although they also worried about the future of the relationship between the police and the public, officers in the cooperative frame tended to have a more positive affective outlook towards their ability to impact public distrust. This emotional response aligns with their cognitive perceptions of the distrustful public as citizens with legitimate concerns. Paradoxically, seeing the police as a source of public distrust seemed to embolden officers towards addressing the issue. In line with this, officers under the cooperative frame tended to express emotions like hope and self-assurance about the relationship. For example, expressing self-assurance to address the public’s perception of police, one officer explained: Well I'm seeing some officers get really angry about how they're perceived by the public, not realizing that they have some impact and ability to influence that in a positive way as opposed to just get angry about it and carrying that anger around. (Janet, CoWhF) Another officer echoed this sentiment in explaining how she manages public distrust from members of the LGBTQ community who have had negative experiences with the police: What I do is I tell them what we're doing now, what initiatives we do now, how we're involved in that community now, how things have changed. Not excusing the behavior in the past, but what we have done since. (Cheryl, CoWhF) Similarly expressing hope, officers in this frame sometimes directly highlighted elements of the cooperative frame, such as building stronger community connections, as a remedy to public distrust. For example, in discussing the public’s distrust, an officer noted: 52 But so now that's why we're, I don't know if this is the reason why, I don't do studies, it's just complete speculation, but this is why I think you go towards community policing, so it'll render that kind of climate null. Or try to repair it at least. (Avery, CoPoC) Officers’ affective responses to growing felt public distrust in turn corresponded with their reported behavioral efforts to repair the relationship between the police and the public. 3.4.3.3 Reported Behavioral Responses Officers in the cooperative frame were outspoken advocates for, and even introduced and led, some of the bridging symbols and behaviors targeted towards addressing public distrust. For example, one of the officers in the cooperative frame conceived of and lobbied for the special police patches with the pride colors [Identifier omitted due to identifying role]. He explained how he argued for the rainbow patches with management: I think it's the greater expectation from the public that we are visibly representative of our community." And I argued, I said, "I'm an invisible minority until I put that on." And being a white male, I'm just another f*cking white male until I put that on. And my argument was that the rainbow within the LGBT circles, and everyone recognizes the rainbow as an LGBT symbolism now. I tried to articulate the fact that whether I'm being perceived as a gay man or an ally, it's never being perceived as a bad thing. These officers seemed highly personally invested in these efforts. For example, a heterosexual officer explained the pride patch, saying she “wears it on [her] back because [she has] their back, my partner wears it on his chest because the gay community is in his heart.” (Sydney, CoWhF). Similarly, an officer detailed the purpose of the specialty cruisers, contrasting their own perspective with other officers who they noted did not understand them: I understand why the Black history [cruiser] came in, and it was because it wasn't being taught in school, but it singled out a group. And I think that's what people don't like. They don't like when a group is singled out. And they think the same thing with gay pride. Once it's singled out, they have a problem with it, but I don't think they understand why it's singled out. (Taylor, CoPoC) 53 In addition to promoting bridging symbols, these officers led outreach behaviors specifically targeting members of the distrustful public. For example, starting a program aimed at connecting LGBTQ youth with police officers in a social setting, attending conferences or speaking engagements targeting Black men, or volunteering at events aimed at recruiting police officers of color and facilitating the hiring process. Further, these officers reported attempting to educate their coworkers on bridging behaviors. For example, an officer recalled: We had an incident where there's a trans community member, male to female, not fully transitioned, deal with her a lot, mental health issues. And it was over the radio, calls, "Yeah, I'm off with him. I'm off with him here. He's saying this.” I went over there. I'm like, "Where are you and the female?" And my phone lit up. There's two lesbians on this shift, and they're like, "Love the pronoun correction. Thank you." (Ethan, CoWhM) Additional evidence illustrating cooperative officers’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to felt public distrust is detailed in Table 8. ---INSERT TABLE 8 HERE--- In sum, officers differed in their cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to the public’s distrust, reconciling this distrust differently depending on their relational frame. 3.5 A Model of Divergent Occupational Responses to External Threat from Relational Partners Based on the above findings, I developed a process model of occupational members’ divergent responses to external threats, such as rising felt public distrust. The model, provided in Figure 1, elaborates on how the external threat, rising public distrust, unmoored established understandings of the relationship between the police and the public, the autonomous relational frame, promoting an alternate frame, the cooperative relational frame. This shift sparked divisions between occupational members and explained members’ divergent reactions to felt public distrust. Experiencing occupational misfit was associated with adopting the nascent 54 cooperative relational frame, resisting social pressures towards the autonomous frame. Below I detail each aspect of the model and how these elements collectively explain splits between members in response to external threats from relational partners. ---INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE--- In unsettling the legacy practices, values, and beliefs previously governing relations between the public and the occupation, rising public distrust threatened the autonomous relational frame, and promoted new practices, values, and beliefs under the cooperative relational frame. Examining the content of these relational frames in light of research on occupational prototypes (Ashcraft, 2013), the autonomous frame appears to privilege the legacy policing prototype, a heterosexual, white, man. The emphasis on highly masculine, authoritative, crime fighting practices combined with the flattening of individual differences through identity-blind ideals (Leslie et al., 2020), serve to define appropriate ways of interacting with the public that align with traditional notions of heterosexual, white, masculinity (Berdahl et al., 2018; Kimmel et al., 2004). In contrast, elements under the cooperative frame represent a departure from this prototype, broadening the acceptable ways of relating to the public. These dynamics therefore speak to the connections between relational frames and occupational prototypes, revealing sources of divergent and changing relational frames. Indeed, external threats from relational partners, like rising public distrust, can act as triggers, spurring a struggle over the definition of relational frames in ways that favor different types of occupational members. The experience of occupational misfit represented a felt incongruence between some members’ own social identities and those figuratively associated with the occupation. In line with identity-conscious diversity policies (Leslie et al., 2020), the cooperative frame embraced these members by celebrating difference and each individuals’ unique ability to connect with 55 different members of the public. In doing so, the cooperative frame loosened the rigid identity standard promoted under the autonomous relational frame. Prototypical, heterosexual, white, men who could embody this inflexible standard, tended to adopt and defend the autonomous frame focused on the notion of professionalism and emphasizing uniformity across officers. These officers further imposed social pressures on other members to adopt the autonomous frame, regardless of whether this frame benefited these members. Experiencing occupational misfit was related to resisting these pressures and adopting the cooperative frame. In turn, occupational members reconciled rising felt public distrust along three pathways of linked cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions according to whether they adopted the autonomous, ambivalent, or cooperative frame. Those adopting the autonomous frame tended to hold the most adversarial cognitive orientation towards the distrustful public, denying and condemning these individuals as bad faith actors opportunistically seeking benefits for themselves. This response aligns with research on dirty work occupations, suggesting one-way occupational members deflect external threats is by “condemning the condemners” (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, p. 424). Cognitive responses under this frame also represent indicators of rising intergroup conflict (Fiol et al., 2009), marked by disidentification with outsiders (i.e., an “us vs. them” mentality) and reciprocated animosity and stereotyping (i.e., conflating the distrustful public with “criminals”). In line with this hostile cognitive orientation, those in the autonomous frame held a highly activated and negative affective outlook towards the future relationship of the occupation and the public, expressing anger, frustration, and resentment. Finally, occupational members under the autonomous frame responded with behavioral efforts aimed at upholding current occupational practices, resisting organizational attempts to repair relations between the distrustful public and the occupation. Together, these elements highlight the 56 potentially perilous nature of the autonomous response path, suggesting those in this path may behave in ways that exacerbate the initial external threat and promotes further conflict. Those in the ambivalent frame held a relatively less hostile cognitive orientation towards the distrustful public but nonetheless denied and deflected their claims. Parallels can be made between this cognitive response and research on role-based image discrepancies (Vough et al., 2012). Indeed, officers in the ambivalent frame tended to deflect the public’s distrust by viewing the public as simply misinformed about their work. This suggests that perceiving a role-based image discrepancy may be a tactic for psychologically managing external threats from outsiders. Importantly, this perspective denies engaging with the public’s claims by placing blame outside of the occupation. In doing so, this cognitive response fostered a sense of powerlessness to address the public’s concerns. Consequentially, officers under this frame held a less activated, largely neutral to negative, affective outlook towards the public, characterized by feelings of apathy, resignation and anxiety. In turn, behavioral efforts to repair public distrust under this frame ranged from weak resistance to equivocal bridging behaviors, reflecting neither a strong desire to shift occupational practices to repair public distrust nor a forceful resistance to these efforts. In sum, the elements under the ambivalent frame suggest a passive response to external threat, one that does not attenuate or exacerbate tensions with the public. Finally, officers adopting the cooperative frame held an empathetic and understanding cognitive orientation towards the public, acknowledging and accepting the public’s claims. This cognitive response is the most surprising given occupational members in the cooperative frame appeared no less identified with their work than those under other frames. However, the cooperative frame constrained occupational members’ responses to the external threat in ways that made it difficult for these individuals to disregard public distrust. Occupational members 57 adopting the cooperative frame could not simply dismiss distrustful segments of the public by labeling them as “bad.” An expanded focus on serving all members of the public, even those engaging in illegal activities, and boundary-blurring conceptions of their work as done interdependently with the public, encouraged them to empathize with the distrustful public’s perspective. Attributing the external threat to the occupation in turn engendered a sense of self-efficacy about their ability to address public distrust. In line with this, occupational members adopting a cooperative frame tended to hold a more positive affective outlook towards the public characterized by feelings of self-assurance and hope. These members were further engaged in active behavioral efforts to repair public distrust, leading new bridging behaviors and symbols that communicate unity with the distrustful public. Together, these elements depict a potential pathway towards attenuating the external threat from the public. 58 Chapter 4: Discussion and Conclusion In contrast to past scholarship focused on commonalities between occupational members (Ashcraft, 2005; Fayard et al., 2017), the current research explicates how external threats from relational partners, such as rising felt public distrust, can create occupational divisions. In doing so, the findings challenge the assumption that threats from particular outgroups lead to unified and concerted counter responses from occupational members (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015; Glynn, 2000; Howard-Grenville et al., 2017). My model explains how and why occupational members responded differently to an external threat, rising felt public distrust, depending on the relational frame they applied. Two relational frames, the autonomous frame and the cooperative frame acted as a lens through which occupational members understood their relationship to the public. Officers either squarely applied the autonomous or the cooperative frame or maintained ambivalence by mixing elements of each frame. These frames further guided members’ interpretations of the public’s distrust, leading to three distinct pathways for reacting to this external threat, the autonomous, ambivalent, and cooperative paths. Experiencing occupational misfit, a felt misalignment between the individual’s social identities and those figuratively associated with the occupation, was associated with adopting the cooperative relational frame. These disparate reactions to external threats from relational partners hold important implications for the literature on relations between occupational members and outsiders, much of which has focused on how parties become embroiled in conflict (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015; Fiol et al., 2009; Glynn, 2000). While much of this research pertains to inter-occupational conflict within a single organization, the current scholarship explores the potential for intergroup conflict between an occupation and members of the public. Absent the coordinating mechanisms associated with shared organizational membership identified in previous research (DiBenigno, 59 2018; Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009), public threats towards occupational members may be particularly likely to devolve into reciprocal hostility and counter tactics. Yet, the current research highlights the potential for new relational frames to disrupt these dynamics, enabling occupational members to react less defensively and engage in relationship repair tactics instead. This finding underscores the importance of considering the meanings occupational members use to define their relationship to outsiders as guiding their interpretations of external threats from relational partners and explains previously unexplored splits in members’ responses. One explanation for why past research has largely overlooked divisions between occupational members, may be because the occupations literature has underexamined the interface between member’s multiple identities and the meanings associated with their occupation (Ashcraft, 2013). When occupational members’ multiple identities are taken into account, the focus is typically on explaining how a sense of incongruence between identities leads to negative workplace experiences for the focal individual (Cardador, 2017; Ely, 1995; Settles, 2004; See Ramarajan et al., (2016, 2016) for exceptions exploring a broader set of outcomes associated with multiple identity configurations). The current research builds on these insights to explore how these meanings translate across occupational boundaries. The findings expand our understanding of how workers’ multiple identities not only inform their own workplace experiences but how these dynamics guide responses to relational partners, like members of the public. In doing so, the current research reveals individual and organizational benefits associated with experiencing occupational misfit, a felt incongruence between held occupational and social identities. In theorizing the connection between occupational members’ relational frames and the experience of occupational misfit, the findings further elucidate the ways in which relational 60 frames are informed by occupational prototypes and vice versa. More specifically, the legacy relational frame, the autonomous frame, espoused practices, values, and beliefs that served the interests of prototypical members. The nascent relational frame, the cooperative frame, on the other hand, promoted elements that supported those experiencing occupational misfit. These relationships hint at a potential source of new relational frames, revealing how dominant relational frames may emerge, be contested, and change over time. This insight shifts the focus from previous research exploring occupational members’ interpretations of relational partners, which has taken a largely static and unidimensional perspective. This work has focused on explaining how relational frames operate to serve occupational goals. My findings reveal relational frames also serve sub-group goals within occupations, determining which groups are privileged or marginalized by these frames. 4.1 Limitations and Future Directions The current research presents opportunities for future research, some of which are informed by this study’s limitations. Firstly, this research was collected at one point in time. While informant language was used to construct temporal relationships, such as the association between the autonomous frame and the occupation’s past, these dynamics were not directly observed. Of particular interest for future research, is how the experience of occupational misfit may evolve over time. Specifically, there was some evidence that the experience of occupational misfit may shift with tenure in that some members spoke about their journey to accepting themselves as different and disidentifying from other occupational members. This progression over time would align with other research on reframing traditionally marginalized identities (Cross, 1971; Sellers et al., 1998). Given the role of these individuals in enabling change, future 61 scholarship should explore how the experience of occupational misfit develops over time and the individual and organizational conditions that promote or inhibit embracing this status. Secondly, a number of potential boundary conditions merit further investigation. The current research explored the proposed research question in an occupation with a strong and clear prototype based in associated social identities (Prokos & Padavic, 2002). While past research suggests these types of occupational prototypes are widespread and inform many occupations including entrepreneurs (Abraham, 2020), engineers (Cardador, 2017), and oil riggers (Ely & Meyerson, 2010), prototypes may not be as strong in all industries. Future research should explore whether occupational misfit experiences based on other characteristics, such as personality, might operate similarly in these other occupations. With regard to the specific occupation of policing, the research was conducted in Canada. Although the findings suggest public distrust was indeed salient to informants, the observed relationships may be altered in the United States where recent social movements against the police originated and tensions between the occupation and the public are arguably heightened. Future research should explore these potential boundary conditions and investigate whether the model is analytically generalizable under less salient occupational prototypes or heightened tensions between the public and the occupation. Lastly, although the research captured some behavioral measures, such as whether or not the individual displayed a bridging symbol on their uniform, the findings focused on occupational member’s internal interpretations of and responses to the public’s distrust. Past research highlights the role of intergroup attitudes and cognition as a critical mechanism linking initial threats with further conflict (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015). This suggests that understanding these cognitive and affective reactions and their antecedents is an important first 62 step in addressing conflictual dynamics between the public and occupational members. However, further research would benefit from observing occupational members interactions with the public in order to clarify the link between attitudes and behavior in these processes. 4.2 Practical Implications Beyond these theoretical contributions and opportunities for future research, the current study holds significant practical implications. Specifically, the research highlights how the relationship between occupational members and their constituents can become fractured and the forces hindering and supporting relationship repair. Occupational members require the public’s support in order to perform their work (Anteby et al., 2016; Gauchat, 2012; Nelsen & Barley, 1997). External threats from the public, such as rising public distrust, are therefore consequential for their ability to continue to work effectively. Ironically, the current research suggests that some occupational members, those adopting legacy relational frames that privilege the dominant occupational prototype, react to these types of threats in ways that may further exacerbate the initial threat. Indeed, the defensive reactions detailed in this study align with signs of escalating intergroup conflict, that, over time, become increasingly difficult to resolve (Fiol et al., 2009). Interrupting this cycle is therefore critical to the continued functioning of the occupation. The current research suggests that the availability and adoption of nascent relational frames are key to disrupting this spiraling conflict, providing occupational members with new ways of relating to the public and to external threats. Yet, the findings also demonstrate that those entrenched in legacy relational frames will resist the adoption of new relational frames even when faced with organizational pressures to do so. In revealing these members’ use of informal social tactics to discourage others from adopting nascent relational frames, the current research highlights the restrictions organizations face in encouraging the adoption of new frames. 63 This underscores the need for managers and leaders to identify ways of loosening occupational members’ dependence on legacy relational frames and take seriously the social processes between occupational members that may hinder the adoption of new relational frames. In addition to these more general considerations, the current research holds important practical insights specifically regarding challenges to occupations levied by traditionally marginalized groups such as people of color, women, and the LGBTQ community. Indeed, many occupations, including teachers, healthcare practitioners, and commuter programmers, are currently facing allegations of occupational misconduct towards marginalized groups (Ferguson, 2017; Mundy, 2017; Sakran et al., 2020). A commonly proposed solution to addressing these issues is to simply recruit more individuals from underrepresented backgrounds, yet, the current research suggests this approach is helpful but insufficient for supporting change and repairing relationships. The findings suggest newcomers from underrepresented backgrounds will not be able to drive change without the introduction of nascent relational frames enabling new ways of relating to the public. Indeed, all new recruits, regardless of their background, should be selected based on their willingness and ability to adopt new relational frames supporting change. 4.3 Conclusion Occupations that fail to adequately respond to external threats from the public risk losing status, legitimacy, and even the ability to continue to perform their work. This is not only troubling for these occupational members, but for the whole of society that relies on these vocations for essential services including healthcare, public safety, and education. By taking a multiple identities perspective on occupations, the current research reveals the mechanisms underlying occupational members’ responses to external threats. The findings demonstrate relational frames lie at the core of these dynamics, providing a lens through which occupational 64 members interpret and react to external threats. Occupational misfits are central to the adoption of new relational frames, those designed to address external threats from relational partners. 65 Tables Table 1. Evidence of Growing Felt Public Distrust Second-order Themes Illustrative Examples Officer meta-perceptions [On the whole, how do you think the public perceives the police?] I would say 50/50. I think 50% don't really care for... don't trust the police, I should say. Don't trust the police. That's what I would say. Some of them will be honest with me. They'll say, "I'm not trying to be difficult or anything, I'm just not trusting of the police." (Taylor, CoPoC) Going back to the relationship between the police and the public, the public often thinks, or a certain community within the public, the Black community, the gay community, whatever, lots of people say that it's strained, because if you go back to the beginning of policing and that sort of thing it was like a white male dominated profession, right? Robust male and whatever and you have to be six feet tall and good stature and that sort of thing. (Morgan, AmPoC) Stereotyping and allegations against officers I'm talking to kids every day and they're absolutely scared. A little kid, I think he was only five... I remember this. As I was walking through the park and his mom's like, "Oh, police officer, go talk to him." And he was absolutely... He's like, "No, he's going to kill me." (Avery, CoPoC) I've certainly had my share of people calling me racist or whatever, just from being there, not from anything that's come out of my mouth. So, I believe people will judge me because I wear a uniform as well. (Nancy, AuWhF) Displays of animosity and aggression from the public An officer recounted pulling over a Black woman for driving erratically and being told "Every time I see one of you [police officers] was killed on the news I celebrate." (Observation notes, patrol with Russell, AmPoC) I pulled out of the station, I was on [major road] turning left and there was a lady at the bus stop who had a tattoo of somebody on her arm, and she was giving me the finger. I put down my window and she was like, "You guys shot him." And I yelled at her, "I don't know what you're talking about." And then she turned around, pulled her dress up and mooned me. [Identifier omitted due to potentially identifying event] Reduced public cooperation And it’s amazing how many calls you're at, that people, instead of helping me, they'll have the cell phone out on you. Thinking you're going to do something horrific. (Liam, AmWhM) Get to know the variety of store owners, and the gas station owners, and introduce yourself. Find out whether they have video, and just talk to them, to find out what cultural background they have. Because they get robbed, and quite often, they may not even report it, because they have a very low trust for the police. (Ben, CoWhM) 66 Table 2. Summary of Autonomous and Cooperative Relational Frames Autonomous Cooperative Practices Find and stop bad guys, protect real people Be caring and empathetic with the public, understand the reason for bad behavior Values Maintain strict boundaries between the police and the public Blur boundaries between the police and the public Beliefs Trust and respect in the occupation based on uniformity and professionalism Trust and respect in the occupation based on relatability and interpersonal connection Table 3. Evidence of Autonomous and Cooperative Relational Frames 2nd-order Themes Illustrative Examples Autonomous Frame Cooperative Frame Ideals and celebrated practices I'm a very busy person. I'm very busy at work, I deal with a lot people. I actively go and seek to arrest a lot of people. That's what I do. I like to put bad guys in jail. (Dennis, AuWhM) Following a community tip about possible illegal activity in an outdoor shopping complex, officers conducted surveillance in the parking lot. A team member noted a “suspicious vehicle” over the radio, the officer followed the car out onto the road and “lit [them] up” [pulled the car over] for failing to completely stop when turning right at a red light. After asking for the driver’s license and registration, the officer returned to the car and checked the driver’s record, a number of previous charges were listed such as drag-racing and possession of an unregistered firearm. The officer returned to the driver then came back to the cruiser I’m not one of those officers that's constantly looking for an arrest. For me, I just let the calls take me as they will. I'm not looking for that arrest. I'm not going to avoid it either. But there's some that look for it. There's some that make it a game. Try to see how many arrests they can get, competitive stuff. (Taylor, CoPoC) Particularly with youth, I don't like sending anyone the wrong path. I don't like laying criminal charges to young offenders unless it's extreme circumstances. And first-time adult offenders, it's f*cking embarrassing. It is a process. It affects people's ego. It affects their jobs. Even like showing up to court, you're taking days off work and things like that. It affects people's families. (Ethan, CoWhM) 67 2nd-order Themes Illustrative Examples Autonomous Frame Cooperative Frame telling the researcher, “I didn’t give him a ticket, I don’t care about that kind of stuff” [failure to stop completely at a red light]. Then got on the radio to the other officers “He was a baaaad dude, good job spotting him. Nothing on him right now.” (Observation notes, patrol with Keith, AuWhM) Valued orientation towards the public As a service we're leaning more towards getting closer with the community. I feel like some officers are hardcore about that and some aren't, I kind of believe whatever reason, nobody's going to like us, it's just the way it is. We don't do pretty things. Firefighters do pretty things. They rescue people, save people, save houses, whatever, we don't. If some people call us it's for something bad, so just let it be. Many people don't like us. (Parker, AuPoC) We're a paramilitary organization, that’s what we are, recently there was a senior officer that went to the fresh recruit class…. They were telling kids with two seconds on the job that they're better than the old guys are because they have a better education. This job is not about education, it's about repetition, when someone comes at you with a weapon, you know how to deal with it from repetition, but this is part of the warm and fuzzy again so that the public can feel that We work collaboratively with a number of different community organizations, which is essentially like a hub process, where we look at where we fit into the kind of the social safety net for everyone. (Quinn, CoPoC46) But, if we have a good relationship with people and they believe that we are actually trying to solve a crime or whatever, I think they are more willing to talk to us…. We solve a majority of cases by talking to people, not by... Yeah, forensics and all that, they're very useful tools, but at the end of the day, it's just all talking to people and getting information from them. So that's in everything we do. If people didn't talk to us, we wouldn't be able to solve any crimes. (Mason, AmWhM) 68 2nd-order Themes Illustrative Examples Autonomous Frame Cooperative Frame we're the same as them but we're not, we're different. (Roger, AuWhM) Beliefs about the basis of trust and respect I think the police, in a good way actually, good and a bad way, I guess in a vulnerable way, I think the police back, were perceived as untouchables. I think that they were the, you know, the police that could slap somebody and there was no consequence. I've heard crazy stories where, you know, a teenage boy would be lipping off to his mom and the police officer would give him a wallop. Right? And you're just like, “Wow.” It's gone the other way where we're very, I think we're very transparent but to the point where I think the public sees us as less of an intimidation. And not that we want to be intimidating, but for a select few we do want to be intimidating. (Scott, AuWhM) We need to enforce things and we need to instill some level of not fear, but there's got to be some level of respect that still exists. And I feel like with us being 100% a service over a force, sometimes you lose that respect with the public. (Blair, AmPoC) It's when I get someone who absolutely hates the police, who's had really bad experiences with the police to form a relationship with them and for them to see the person behind the uniform when they realize that I'm the person behind the uniform and feeling that respect relationship where they know that I'm going to arrest you if I have to but if I don't have to let's figure out how we can fix this. (Janet, CoWhF) There's only one way around that [tension with the public], and that's get involved and talk to the community. Get out there and actually show your personality a little. Not just the fact that we're robots. (Kieran, CoPoC) 69 Table 4. Informant Demographics by Relational Frame Autonomous Ambivalent Cooperative Overall Women 3 6 4 13 People of color 4 6 6 16 Average age 38.89 36.38 38.69 37.85 Average org. tenure 11.22 8.19 13.85 10.65 Average education 2.35 2.64 2.38 2.47 Total informants 20 22 13 55 Notes. These statistics reflect the number of informants within the division (n = 55) in each path. Informants outside of the division (e.g., members of HR, etc.), most of whom were specifically interviewed because of their involvement in organizational initiatives associated with the cooperative frame, are not represented here in order to avoid misrepresenting the prevalence of the cooperative frame among front-line officers. Education represents highest level attained, measured on a scale from 1 (High school), 2 (College/Some University), 3 (University). 70 Table 5. Evidence of Occupational Misfit Experiences Second-order Themes Illustrative Examples Demographic rarity I mean, I personally am underrepresented, part of an underrepresented group. (Cheryl, CoWhF) I like to believe that I'm pretty worldly, experienced, in comparison to the average person here, so I think that on its own comes out in how I deal with people and my willingness to listen and understand people without judging. (Cameron, CoPoC) Exclusion and mistreatment from other members Following a surveillance effort, the team congregated in a parking lot to debrief. A new recruit (the only woman present apart from the researcher), who was not on the team but who had observed the surveillance, was standing with her “coach officer.” The sergeant immediately put her on the spot asking, "How was it?" She seemed flustered and responded lamely that “It was good,” the sergeant replied in a cutting tone, "Yea, what'd you learn?" There was a tension in the air while everyone waited for her to respond, she replied again very lamely saying “Just about keeping your eyes open and looking around you,” which you could tell was a weak response and he didn't follow up any more. He continued with a similar line of questioning to the only Black man in the group, who similarly responded lamely, before turning to the debriefing. (Observation notes, patrol with Keith, AuWhM) People laugh here because they say I'm always smiling or whatever. Sometimes I've had people say, "I don't know if you'll be an effective officer because you're too polite and you're too nice." (Emma, AmWhF) Identity salient interactions with the public An officer talked about how, as a woman, she is often requested for sexual assault cases. She explained how being a woman, she has a “common identity with victims” and is “a bit more soothing to talk to.” Although sometimes she is called "too nice" or "soft" by other officers, she is also a similar size to women, so she is “less threatening.” (Observation notes, patrol with Sydney, CoWhF) I think it [being an ethnic minority] just helps because people kind of think that they can relate to you better if they are from the same background or really even just being a person of a different ethnic origin. (Brett, AmPoC) 71 Table 6. Evidence of the Autonomous Response to Rising Felt Public Distrust Second-order Themes Illustrative Examples Autonomous Cognitive The people that are critical of the police tend to be that very vocal minority, like the 5% and they seem to garner all the attention from the politicians and because the other 95% are sitting at home doing their jobs, more or less oblivious to police interactions and they're happy, but that 5% seems to dictate policy. (Wayne, AuWhM) The public in general, I think is okay. I think the perception of the police is positive. But if you look at specific areas, if you talk about [region known for a high Black population]. [Specific area], the public does not like the police…. So [Specific area], we arrest a lot of guys in that area. There's a lot of single parent families and so we arrest people there and they just hate us, I guess. (Doug, AuWhM) Affective We are afraid of color now, to police it, to pull it over in a car. Doesn't matter what color, that's what I mean by it, any color that's not mine [white] of course. We're afraid to police it, we don't know how anymore, which is bad for people that are coming up in training because we honestly don't know how to talk to a criminal anymore. (Anthony, AuWhM) I know I remember coming to [region] in [date] and I was sick and tired of going to calls in [different location] where everyone had their cell phones up as soon as you arrived on scene to videotape you because everyone wanted to catch something and that. But I think that was the beginning of that of that mentality too. (Liz, AuWhF) Behavioral So, it's just that I'm so far beyond, like I said, just thinking that Black and whites need to be so separated. And the same with gays and lesbians. It's just, it's so beyond that I just feel like we should just have a generic police cruiser that just celebrates everything. (Scott, AuWhM) We're just driving and we see two kids walking, going the opposite way. 10 to 12, maximum. Two Black kids. And as we're driving by, I didn't even see this. They just do one of these [finger guns], both of them, to our cruiser. And we're going to an armed person call. Partner hits the brakes. I was like, "What the f*ck's going on?" He swings around and he's like, "Those guys are doing finger guns at us." So, we stopped and the same thing. That's what I was telling you about before. We're like, "Why are you guys doing this? What are you guys doing?" And they're like, "Oh, keep driving. Keep driving. We don't want to talk to you." And then my partner's like, "We can f*cking charge you with this, this..." We're just trying to... Because they obviously don't care. They were being more disrespectful than what I'm saying, right? And, yeah, they just walked away. And we could do nothing. [Identifier omitted due to potentially identifying event] 72 Table 7. Evidence of the Ambivalent Response to Rising Felt Public Distrust Second-order Themes Illustrative Examples Ambivalent Cognitive I'd probably still say, unfortunately just because of the media and in North America, more the States and stuff. I think a lot of Black people believe what they see on TV. (Liam, AmWhM) I just think the perception that maybe we're racist is there, it's ingrained in some of these groups. I don't know. I don't know how to… [Where do you think that's coming from?] I think a lot of it's come from the media. I think the media really propels a lot of it. (Elijah, AmWhM) Affective I think you just have to understand that you can't please everybody. Regardless, you have a job to do and we have to act under our authorities. (Tim, AmWhM) Or I might vent to my wife and say, "Look at this story." I don't get mad. [It doesn't make you angry?] It does make me angry, but I guess angry and being mad is a little different. It makes you angry that the story is out there, but it doesn't make me angry that my blood pressure goes up or I'm yelling and screaming. (Chad, AmWhM) Behavioral As far as Black History Month [cruiser], I feel like I can't really comment as much on it because they didn't have that kind of stuff when I was going through school. So, I don't know what is incorporated in it. I don't know what they talk about so I can't, I don't know enough about to speak about Black History Month. [So, you feel like you would need to know more to drive it or?] Oh no, I drive it if there's no other cruiser available. But I feel like the Black History cruiser, I get a little more judged or a white officer would be a little bit more judged driving it. Because I feel like a person might be like, "Why are you driving that car? It doesn't have anything to do with you specifically.” It's to support a specific ethnic group. (Sharon, AmWhF) I don't personally have an issue with those [the wrapped cruisers]. I think the only issue that I can see is... I think it's great that we're celebrating various milestones for people or whenever it might be, like Pride or the Black History Month. But, my only concern is where do we stop, and do we then have to do this for every group? Because then it really shows favoritism towards certain groups. So, it's kind of like an "All or nothing" type thing. (Jordan, AmPoC) 73 Table 8. Evidence of the Cooperative Response to Rising Felt Public Distrust Second-order Themes Illustrative Examples Cooperative Cognitive I think visible minority communities, they have a big distrust for the police right now. There's a barrier there. [What gives you that perception?] Just for stuff that’s happened…. And there's incidents here in [major city], and the [region] that happened that also fuels it too. (Andy, CoPoC) I try and look at it from both points of view because it's difficult to not. People don't just randomly make things up. I mean some people do, but I think that they're legitimate. People have legitimate reasons why they feel the way they feel towards the police. (Cheryl, CoWhF) Affective I think diversity, visible diversity, on our front lines is just going to break down all barriers, generally. (Ethan, CoWhM) I think there's a lot of pushback about being put under the microscope but the way I look at it is that you know, again, we're here to serve the community, we shouldn't, you know hopefully we're not questioned in such a way that it's assumed that we're doing the wrong thing all the time and I think sometimes that is the case, but the fact that people want us to be accountable for things I don't completely have a problem with that…We can't take the view that we shouldn't be questioned about our decisions to serve the community. (Cameron, CoPoC) Behavioral Well, it first started, a few members in our organization, members of color wanted to increase the numbers [of officers of color] within the police service because the numbers were really low, and we knew there was an organization in [major city] that mentors youth, and encourages them to pursue careers. So, a couple of us reached out to the organization, became members, and then tried to make a partnership with [region] to try to get [region] involved, and it's been going on for a couple of years now. [Identifier omitted due to distinctive role] I think people don't understand, "We're not hiring white males," that's not the message we're saying. We're hiring everybody. What we're doing is that there's equity when it comes to, we want to reflect our region [demographically]. We are prepared to go and do the extra steps to assist those from other backgrounds who aren't reflected to ensure that they have opportunity, and that's the equity of giving. We're setting up recruiting drives specific to those breakdowns that we see the gaps in and also some mentoring opportunities for those who have not had exposure to policing. (Katherine, CoWhF) 74 Figures Figure 1. A Model of Divergent Occupational Responses to External Threat 75 References Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. University of Chicago Press. Abraham, M. (2020). Gender-role incongruity and audience-based gender bias: An examination of networking among entrepreneurs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 151–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219832813 Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002002 Alexander, M. (2012). The new jim crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New Press. Anteby, M., & Chan, C. K. (2018). A self-fulfilling cycle of coercive surveillance: Worker’s invisibility practices and managerial justification. Organization Science, 29(2), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1175 Anteby, M., Chan, C. K., & DiBenigno, J. (2016). Three lenses on occupations and professions in organizations: Becoming, doing, and relating. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 183–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1120962 Ashcraft, K. L. (2005). Resistance through consent? Occupational identity, organizational form, and the maintenance of masculinity among commercial airline pilots. Management Communication Quarterly : McQ, 19(1), 67–90. Ashcraft, K. L. (2013). The glass slipper: “Incorporating” occupational identity in management studies. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 6–31. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0219 76 Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316059 Ashforth, B. E., Joshi, M., Anand, V., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2013). Extending the expanded model of organizational identification to occupations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(12), 2426–2448. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12190 Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). “How can you do it?”: Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 413–434. Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440. JSTOR. Berdahl, J. L., Cooper, M., Glick, P., Livingston, R. W., & Williams, J. C. (2018). Work as a masculinity contest. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 422–448. Bijlsma-Frankema, K., Sitkin, S. B., & Weibel, A. (2015). Distrust in the balance: The emergence and development of intergroup distrust in a court of law. Organization Science, 26(4), 1018–1039. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0977 Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35–58). Blackwell Science. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307 77 Cardador, M. T. (2017). Promoted up but also out? The unintended consequences of increasing women’s representation in managerial roles in engineering. Organization Science, 28(4), 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1132 Carlson, J. (2020). Police warriors and police guardians: Race, masculinity, and the construction of gun violence. Social Problems, 67(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spz020 Carroll, A. E. (2019, February 25). Doctors and racial bias: Still a long way to go. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/upshot/doctors-and-racial-bias-still-a-long-way-to-go.html Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Cohn, A., Fehr, E., & Maréchal, M. A. (2014). Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry. Nature, 516(7529), 86–89. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13977 Cole, D. (2020). The skin we’re in. Penguin Random House. Collins, P. H. (1986). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought. Social Problems, 33(6), S14–S32. https://doi.org/10.2307/800672 Creed, W. E. D., DeJordy, R., & Lok, J. (2010). Being the change: Resolving institutional contradiction through identity work. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1336–1364. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.57318357 Cross, W. E. (1971). Negro-to-Black conversion experience. Black World, 20, 13–27. DiBenigno, J. (2018). Anchored personalization in managing goal conflict between professional groups: The case of US Army mental health care. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(3), 526–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217714024 78 DiBenigno, J., & Kellogg, K. C. (2014). Beyond occupational differences: The importance of crosscutting demographics and dyadic toolkits for collaboration in a U.S. hospital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3), 375–408. Elsbach, K. D. (1999). An expanded model of organizational identification. In Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 21 (pp. 163–199). Elsevier Science/JAI Press. Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what you’re not: Organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organization Science, 12(4), 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.393.10638 Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 442–476. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393938 Ely, R. J. (1995). The power in demography: Women’s social constructions of gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 589–634. https://doi.org/10.2307/256740 Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2010). An organizational approach to undoing gender: The unlikely case of offshore oil platforms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.002 Fayard, A.-L., Stigliani, I., & Bechky, B. A. (2017). How nascent occupations construct a mandate: The case of service designers’ ethos. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2), 270–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216665805 Ferguson, D. (2017, November 21). Working-class children get less of everything in education—Including respect. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/nov/21/english-class-system-shaped-in-schools 79 Fiol, C. M., Pratt, M. G., & O’Connor, E. J. (2009). Managing intractable identity conflicts. The Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 32–55. JSTOR. Follmer, E. H., Talbot, D. L., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Astrove, S. L., & Billsberry, J. (2018). Resolution, relief, and resignation: A qualitative study of responses to misfit at work. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 440–465. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0566 Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412438225 Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2004.14438580 Geraldine Malone, K. (2020, September 7). “It is urgent:” Commissioner calls for Indigenous bodies to oversee police. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/aboriginal-civilian-oversight-police-1.5714912 Glynn, M. A. (2000). When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 11(3), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.3.285.12496 Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press. Goldstein, D. (2016, July 12). I’m a White cop and I support Black Lives Matter. VICE. https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/mvkjma/white-cop-black-lives-matter Government of Canada, S. C. (2018, March 28). Police resources in Canada, 2017. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2018001/article/54912-eng.htm 80 Graham, D. (2018, June 23). How alleged Toronto serial killer Bruce McArthur went unnoticed. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/23/bruce-mcarthur-toronto-gay-serial-killer Heimer, C. A., & Staffen, L. R. (1995). Interdependence and reintegrative social control: Labeling and reforming “inappropriate” parents in neonatal intensive care units. American Sociological Review, 60(5), 635–654. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096315 Hesse-Biber, S., & Leavy, P. (2016). In-depth interview. In The practice of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Hewlin, P. F. (2003). And the award for best actor goes to…: Facades of conformity in organizational settings. The Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040752 Hooper, T. (2018, April 16). The gay community has long been over-policed, under-protected. The McArthur case is the final straw. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/pride-police-1.4618663 Howard-Grenville, J., Nelson, A. J., Earle, A. G., Haack, J. A., & Young, D. M. (2017). “If chemists don’t do it, who is going to?” Peer-driven occupational change and the emergence of green chemistry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(3), 524–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217690530 Huising, R. (2015). To hive or to hold? Producing professional authority through scut work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2), 263–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214560743 81 Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764–791. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667055 Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books. Kellogg, K. C. (2009). Operating room: Relational spaces and microinstitutional change in surgery. American Journal of Sociology, 115(3), 657–711. https://doi.org/10.1086/603535 Kelly, E. L., Ammons, S. K., Chermack, K., & Moen, P. (2010). Gendered challenge, gendered response: Confronting the ideal worker norm in a white-collar organization. Gender and Society, 24(3), 281–303. JSTOR. Kimmel, M. S., Hearn, J., & Connell, R. W. (2004). Handbook of studies on men and masculinities. SAGE Publications. Kirby, J. (2020, June 12). “Black Lives Matter” has become a global rallying cry. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2020/6/12/21285244/black-lives-matter-global-protests-george-floyd-uk-belgium Lamont, M., & Swidler, A. (2014). Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology, 37(2), 153–171. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1007/s11133-014-9274-z Leavitt, K., Reynolds, S. J., Barnes, C. M., Schilpzand, P., & Hannah, S. T. (2012). Different hats, different obligations: Plural occupational identities and situated moral judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1316–1333. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.1023 82 Leslie, L. M., Bono, J. E., Kim, Y., & Beaver, G. R. (2020). On melting pots and salad bowls: A meta-analysis of the effects of identity-blind and identity-conscious diversity ideologies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(5), 453–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000446 Levin, S. (2019, June 14). “Police are a force of terror”: The LGBT activists who want cops out of Pride. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/13/cops-out-of-pride-lgbt-police Levinson-King, R. (2017, February 24). No room for police in Canada’s Pride parades? BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39056494 Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438–458. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/259288 Lopez, G. (2018). Police have to repair community trust to effectively do their jobs. Vox. https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/8/13/17938262/police-shootings-brutality-black-on-black-crime Lowery, W. (2017, January 17). Black Lives Matter: Birth of a movement. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/17/black-lives-matter-birth-of-a-movement Meyerson, D. E., & Scully, M. A. (1995). Tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 6(5), 585–600. JSTOR. Mundy, L. (2017, April). Why is Silicon Valley so awful to women? The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/ 83 Nelsen, B. J., & Barley, S. R. (1997). For love or money? Commodification and the construction of an occupational mandate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 619–653. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393652 Obodaru, O. (2017). Forgone, but not forgotten: Toward a theory of forgone professional identities. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 523–553. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0432 Okhuysen, G. A., & Bechky, B. A. (2009). Coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903047533 O’Neill, M., & McCarthy, D. J. (2014). (Re)negotiating police culture through partnership working: Trust, compromise and the ‘new’ pragmatism. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 14(2), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895812469381 Owens, B. (2018). Replication failures in psychology not due to differences in study populations. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07474-y Patil, S. V. (2018). “The public doesn’t understand”: The self-reinforcing interplay of image discrepancies and political ideologies in law enforcement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 0001839218783988. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839218783988 Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Under threat: Responses to the consequences of threats to individuals’ identities. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 641–662. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0087 Pew Research Center. (2017). Behind the badge: Amid protests and calls for reform, how police view their jobs, key issues and recent fatal encounters between blacks and police. Pew 84 Research Center. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/01/11/inside-americas-police-departments/ Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235–262. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786060 Prokos, A., & Padavic, I. (2002). ‘There oughtta be a law against bitches’: Masculinity lessons in police academy training. Gender, Work & Organization, 9(4), 439–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00168 Ramarajan, L. (2014). Past, present and future research on multiple identities: Toward an intrapersonal network approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 589–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.912379 Ramarajan, L., & Reid, E. (2013). Shattering the myth of separate worlds: Negotiating nonwork identities at work. Academy of Management Review, 38(4), 621–644. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0314 Ramarajan, L., Rothbard, N. P., & Wilk, S. L. (2016). Discordant vs. harmonious selves: The effects of identity conflict and enhancement on sales performance in employee-customer interactions. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2208–2238. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.1142 Reid, E. (2015). Embracing, passing, revealing, and the ideal worker image: How people navigate expected and experienced professional identities. Organization Science, 26(4), 997–1017. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0975 85 Reuters. (2016, July 31). Hundreds in Canada protest against police brutality after death of black man. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/31/hundreds-in-canada-protest-against-police-brutality-after-death-of-black-man Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617 Sakran, J., Jade Hilton, E., & Sathya, C. (2020, July 9). Racism in health care isn’t always obvious. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/racism-in-health-care-isnt-always-obvious/ Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N., Rowley, S. A. J., & Chavous, T. M. (1998). Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconceptualization of African American racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(1), 18–39. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_2 Settles, I. H. (2004). When multiple identities interfere: The role of identity centrality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203261885 Sherf, E. N., Tangirala, S., & Weber, K. C. (2017). It is not my place! Psychological standing and men’s voice and participation in gender-parity initiatives. Organization Science, 28(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1118 Smith, A. N., Watkins, M. B., Ladge, J. J., & Carlton, P. (2019). Making the invisible visible: Paradoxical effects of intersectional invisibility on the career experiences of executive 86 Black women. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1705–1734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1513 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall. Truelove, E., & Kellogg, K. C. (2016). The radical flank effect and cross-occupational collaboration for technology development during a power shift. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216647679 Van Maanen, J. (1978). The asshole. In Policing: A view from the street (pp. 221–238). Goodyear Publishing Co. Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 287–365). JAI Press. Voigt, R., Camp, N. P., Prabhakaran, V., Hamilton, W. L., Hetey, R. C., Griffiths, C. M., Jurgens, D., Jurafsky, D., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2017). Language from police body camera footage shows racial disparities in officer respect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(25), 6521–6526. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/26484921 Vough, H. C., Cardador, M. T., Bednar, J. S., Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2012). What clients don’t get about my profession: A model of perceived role-based image discrepancies. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1050–1080. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0490 Weitzer, R. (2015). American policing under fire: Misconduct and reform. Society, 52(5), 475–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-015-9931-1 87 Appendices Appendix A Interview Guide Job history: Let’s start by talking about what led you to the role of policing. 1. How did you first know you wanted to be an officer? a. What year and month did you start? b. What were you doing before you started with the police? 2. What’s your current rank? 3. Do you or have you ever worked in a specialty department? Police identity: I would like to understand how you think of your work as an officer. 1. I’ve heard policing described as a service or as a force, which of those two descriptions makes more sense to you? How come? Has that changed since you started? 2. What does it mean to you to be a good officer? Can you give me an example of what this would look like? 3. What is the most important part of your job? 4. Can you tell me about one of your proudest moments as a police officer? 5. Are you involved in any community outreach with the service? Stakeholder groups: I would like to discuss the different community stakeholders and your experiences with the public. 1. On the whole, how do you think the public perceives the police? 2. With the recent media attention on Black Lives Matter and the tensions with the pride parade, how do you make sense of these groups’ criticism towards the police? 3. Are there ways you try to counter these negative perceptions? What about what you’ve seen from other officers? 4. Are there ways you see the [] as an organization trying to counter these perceptions? What do you think of these initiatives? 5. What do you think of the black history month and pride cruisers? 6. Can you tell me about the last time you were confronted with a negative perception of the police, how did you react? 7. Have you ever received positive feedback from the public? Wrap up: We are almost at the end of our interview, I just have one more question: 1. What have I not asked, or have we not talked about, that you think is important for me to understand the way you perceive and manage pressure from the public and its impact on your well-being? 88 Appendix B Demographic Supplement 1. Age: ________________ 2. Gender: □ Male □ Female □ Other_____________ 3. Ethnicity: ________________ 4. Sexual orientation: □ Prefer not to say □ Heterosexual □ Bisexual or Pansexual □ Homosexual 5. Years with the [organization]: _________________________ 6. Current Rank: ____________________ 7. Are you in a specialized unit? If yes, please specify: ______________________ 8. Your mother or caregiver 1’s occupation: ____________________ 9. Your father or caregiver 2’s occupation: ____________________ 10. Your mother or caregiver 1’s highest level of education: ____________________ 11. Your father or caregiver 2’s highest level of education: ____________________ 12. Level of Education: □ High School □ Some University/College □ University Degree □ Other ________ 13. Marital status: □ Single □ In a serious relationship, not married □ Married □ Divorced 14. Spouse or partner’s occupation: ____________________ 15. Do you have children? □ Yes □ No a. If yes, how many: ______________________ 16. Have you ever had a complaint filed against you? □ Yes □ No a. If yes, how many and with which governing body: ______________________ 17. Who do you typically socialize with outside of work: □ Mostly police officers □ A mix of officers and civilians □ Mostly civilians Thank you!
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Business Administration - Organizational Behavior
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Identity on trial : occupational misfit and responses to felt public distrust
Text