Revisiting police reform: Rank-Neutral Space as resistance and conformity
| Author | Claire Davis |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211073694 |
| Published date | 01 February 2023 |
| Date | 01 February 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Revisiting police reform: Rank-
Neutral Space as resistance and
conformity
Claire Davis
University of Leicester, UK
Abstract
The contemporary policing landscape is challenging traditional, hierarchical working
arrangements as the police respond to new and more complex demands. Scholars
have long recognized police occupational culture as a barrier to organizational change.
Rank-centric cultural conventions conflict with alternative, democratic forms of work-
ing. This article introduces the concept of Rank-Neutral Space to describe an emerging
practice where police officers navigate the hierarchical-laden culture to bring about
change. In theorizing Rank-Neutral Space, I bring together perspectives from the soci-
ology of space and findings from a qualitative study of police leadership, to define the
space as a site of resistance and conformity, to capture the complexity of reform in
the police as both processes of change and continuity.
Keywords
Police culture, police leadership, police reform, rank, Thirdspace
Introduction
The contemporary policing environment is characterized by unprecedented global
change. The expansion of the police mission into social work and public health fields
heightens the complexity of demand on the police (Brogden and Eillison, 2013; Millie,
2013). The professionalization agenda in England and Wales has transformed the
nature of recruitment, and this requires police leaders to manage an increasingly
Corresponding author:
Claire Davis, School of Criminology,University of Leicester, Fielding Johnson Building, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK.
Email: claire.davis@leicester.ac.uk
Article
Theoretical Criminology
2023, Vol. 27(1) 126–146
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13624806211073694
journals.sagepub.com/home/tcr
diverse and educated workforce (Paoline et al., 2015). In complex times, ‘custom ways of
orienting oneself are revealed and contested’(Campeau, 2015: 674). In this context, hier-
archical working practices are no longer fit for purpose (Crawford and Cunningham,
2014). The police are now required to develop new configurations of working that
foster greater inclusivity, collaboration and transparency in decision making (Bradford
and Quinton, 2014; Campeau, 2019; Marks and Sklansky, 2008).
Studies of the police have documented the rank-centric norms and values as inherent
features of police occupational culture (Manning, 1977; Reuss-Ianni, 1983). The rank
structure in England and Wales symbolizes a clear division of accountability, and is
powerful in shaping expectations and understandings (Herrington and Colvin, 2016).
Despite various initiatives to flatten the hierarchy, there remains a strong occupational
cultural attachment to hierarchical working practices, relations between senior and
junior officers defined as hierarchical-laden (Cowper, 2000; Shearing and Ericson,
1991). Research on police occupational culture documents the fear, blame and lack of
trust between senior and junior officers, and reveals strong in-group loyalties, isolation-
ism and secrecy between ranks (Fielding, 1988; Punch, 1983; Van Maanen, 1975). These
practices are highly resistant to change; there continues to be strong deference to rank
(Manning, 2007; Paoline, 2003). This reveals a working environment where the experi-
ences of police officers are influenced by the underlying assumptions associated with the
structure and authority of rank (Davis, 2019).
The literature on democracy in policing further problematizes rank-centric working
practices. This work associates democracy with a set of ideals, values and principles,
and in a democratic society, institutions ought to represent these ideals (Jones et al.,
1994; Manning, 2010; Muir, 2008). Democracy in policing has typically focused on
external policing practices, where principles such as procedural regularity and rule of
law, the respect for substantive rights of citizens and equity of treatment, are indicative
of democratic practices (Bayley, 2006; Bonner, 2020; Loader, 2006; Reiner, 2013;
Sklansky, 2008). Democratic policing externally, scholars observe, can be influenced
by democracy within the workplace, and participation is a characteristic feature of demo-
cratic practice (Aitchison and Blaustein, 2013; Manning, 2010). Indeed, the early works
of Muir (1979) and Westley (1970) reveal the value of the participation of frontline offi-
cers in decision making as a mechanism to address abuse of authority, and more recently,
the literature on police unions documents the transformative capacity of strong unioniza-
tion (Marks, 2007; Marks and Sklansky, 2008; O’Neill and Holdaway, 2007). Scholars
draw attention therefore to the institutional mechanisms that facilitate democracy of par-
ticipation in the police workplace. This work conceptualizes democracy in the police
workplace through processes that challenge patterns of hierarchy and emphasize inclusiv-
ity and equality (Bayley, 2006; Jones et al., 1994; Manning, 2010). Within this context,
Sklansky (2006) calls for an examination of institutional structures, and in particular,
internal decision-making processes, chains of command and rank-based hierarchy.
Shared leadership is a challenge to hierarchical working practices. Based on the demo-
cratic principles of cooperation and participation, shared leadership considers leadership
as an activity that can be dispersed across an organization where knowledge and expertise
are prioritized over hierarchical rank (Gronn, 2002; Pearce and Conger, 2003). Recent
work suggests shared leadership is an effective challenge to the centralization of
Davis 127
To continue reading
Request your trial