Search

Hostage and crisis negotiation is one tactical option available to incident commanders when responding to critical incidents. Whilst several models of negotiation exist, there is limited research addressing negotiation from a United Kingdom perspective. This paper presents findings from semi-structured interviews with 15 negotiators from nine police forces in England. Data were analysed using grounded theory and 6 primary, 11 secondary, 19 tertiary, and 23 quaternary categories were identified to depict the procedural, operational and communicational aspects of negotiation. Findings indicate that negotiation takes place sequentially in three stages, with the core aspects being conceptualised using the D.I.A.M.O.N.D. mnemonic: 1) Deployment; 2) Information and intelligence gathering; 3) Assessment of risk and threat; 4) Methods of communication; 5) Open dialogue with subject; 6) Negotiator toolbox and repertoire, and 7) Debriefing procedures. The model represents the first attempt at modelling negotiation from an Anglo-centric perspective and provides insight into the entire critical incident management process, as opposed to focusing solely on the aspect of communication between negotiator and subject that has historically dominated the literature. The model highlights the breadth and complexity of the negotiator role and enables several recommendations to be made in relation to the training and operational support of negotiators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The following paper outlines the findings from an exploratory analysis of the hostage and crisis negotiator deployment database that was piloted within Norfolk and Suffolk Constabularies prior to national rollout of a centralised and standardised online recording mechanism for negotiator deployments across the majority of police forces within the UK. The research utilised a descriptive research design, whereby the secondary data from an initial 24-month recording period was analysed using descriptive statistics. The findings provide a descriptive representation of (1) the socio-demographic characteristics of the subjects encountered by negotiators, (2) the typical situational characteristics/circumstances in which subjects present and the most frequently encountered subject impact factors and (3) how hostage/crisis incidents are typically resolved. The findings are discussed with relevance to the implications for negotiator practice and policy. An emphasis is placed on identification of recommendations for improving the discipline of hostage and crisis negotiation via the standardisation of deployment recording and targeted/focused training and continuing professional development of negotiators based on the characteristics of deployments observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hostage and crisis negotiation is well established as a police tool, and there is a growing body of literature that provides academic insight into the phenomenon. Academics have developed a corpus of literature to explain the way negotiators operate or how they can resolve incidents successfully. Whilst research in this area has originated from various countries and addressed negotiation from a variety of perspectives, there is limited research that has focused specifically on negotiation from an Anglo‐centric perspective. This article presents the findings from a detailed academic examination of negotiator experiences in England, whereby semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 negotiators from nine forces. Analysis using grounded theory revealed 12 deployment categories, situated within a recurring context involving subjects experiencing personal, emotional, or psychological crisis. These categories can be used to enhance our understanding of negotiator deployment in England and are discussed with reference to the implications for negotiator training and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake in Figures 2 and 3 and the time frame for data collection was reported incorrectly. Thus, this erratum is presented to fix the errors, providing the correct images and time frame for data collection (i.e. 24 months). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]