HAVE YOU BEEN IDENTIFIED? Hidden boundary work in emergency services classifications

Abstract

Information technologies, such as the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system, have fundamentally changed workplace protocols. This paper examines the impacts that the standardized processes associated with the CAD system have on the labour of 9-1-1/police call-takers. Through an analysis of the labour of 9-1-1/police call-takers and their processes for classifying emergency call(er)s, we are able to uncover the negotiated labour between human and machine. It is argued throughout the paper that the standardized processes of the CAD system do not remove the social from call-taking but instead emphasize the use of the social as a resource for classifying call(er)s. The present analysis illustrates how emergency classification is not a standardized process but instead an actively constructed virtual image performed in real space and time by call-takers. It is the call-takers' tacit knowledge and ability to work across the virtual, abstract and material worlds that makes them essential players in emergency response.

Keywords:

• Emergency response
• information technology
• standardization
• classification and boundary work

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at meetings of the North Central Sociological Association in 2004. The author would like to express appreciation to Rob Shields and Janet Siltanen for their help during the data collection and analysis phase. She also wishes to acknowledge Carl Cuneo and Karen Kusch for their substantive as well as generous editorial contributions. Thanks also to comments and suggestions made by the anonymous reviewers of this article. Lastly, thanks are offered to Matthew Gardner for insightful comments, questions and ongoing encouragement throughout the entire research process.

Notes

1. In order to maintain the anonymity and confidentiality of the officials and workers who generously cooperated, the name of the case-study city has been changed to Adacan.

2. ANI/ALI works only for landline numbers and where the address associated with these phone numbers is the billing address for that phone number. This means that cellular phones are not accompanied by an ANI/ALI; however, new legislation is being sought to rectify this problem. For an interesting analysis of digital mapping, geodemographic and other profiling systems see Curry et al. (2004).

3. The bold lettering represents the organization, while the italics represent the people interviewed within the organization.

4. The call(er) priority is determined by the circumstances and information obtained from the caller. For example, police have three levels of priority when dealing with call(er)s. A Priority 3 includes no physical evidence to collect, no injuries or potential injuries and the suspect is not a threat (OCRPS, Call Response Protocol). A Priority 2 call(er) represents an increased threat and response time. Priority 2s include situations where a crime is no longer occurring but there may be witnesses on the scene who could fill out reports. Priority 1s are situations that have immediate potential for bodily injury.

5. While only brief attention is paid to the debates on labour process, deskilling and technology much could be said about this in reference to emergency call-takers. However, this paper does not attempt to begin engaging such theoretical debates. For interesting pieces of work in this field see Berg (1997); Korczynski (2002); Lively (2002); and Reimer (1995).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Carrie Sanders

Carrie Sanders is a PhD candidate at McMaster University. Her research areas of interest include: social construction of technology; sociology of work and technological change; and sociology of health. Theoretical areas include social constructionism, symbolic interactionism and science, technology and society (STS).