Face-Negotiation Theory 

is a theory conceived by Stella Ting-Toomey in 1985, to understand how

people from different cultures manage rapport and disagreements.[1] The theory posited "face", or
self-image when communicating with others,[1] as a universal phenomenon that pervades across
cultures. In conflicts, one's face is threatened; and thus the person tends to save or restore his or her
face. This set of communicative behaviors, according to the theory, is called "facework". Since
people frame the situated meaning of "face" and enact "facework" differently from one culture to the
next, the theory poses a cultural-general framework to examine facework negotiation. It is important
to note that the definition of face varies depending on the people and their culture and the same can
be said for the proficiency of facework.[2]

Ting-Toomey expanded this thinking and conceptualized face as an individual's claimed sense of
favorable social self-image in a relational and network context.[12] Facework is defined as clusters of
communicative behaviors that are used to enact self-face and to uphold, challenge/threaten, or
support the other person's face.[4]
With these concepts and frameworks, the face-negotiation theory investigated intercultural conflict
styles. The perceived or actual conflict differences revolved around three issues: content, relational,
and identity.[13] Content conflict refers to the substantive issues external to the individual involved.
Relational conflict refers to how individuals define, or would like to define, the particular relationship
in that particular conflict episode. The identity-based conflict concerns issues of identity confirmation-
rejection, respect-disrespect, and approval-disapproval.[14] In this way, identity issues are tided
closely to culture-based face-orientation factors. A face-threatening episode is an identity
expectancy violation episode. Thus, the face-negotiation theory views conflict, intercultural conflict in
particular, as a situation that demands active facework management from the two interdependent
conflict parties. It can also be noted that in face-negotiation, individuals negotiate face not only with
others but with themselves, as well.[11]

Assumptions[edit]
Face and facework are universal phenomena.[15] A Face-Negotiation Theory perspective stresses the
impact of culture on the situated meaning of face and the enactment of facework. Thus, the theory
assumes that:[14]

1. Communication in all cultures is based on maintaining and negotiating face.

2. Face is problematic when identities are questioned.

3. Differences in individualistic vs. collectivistic and small vs. large power distance cultures
profoundly shape face management.

4. Individualistic cultures prefer self-oriented facework, and collectivistic cultures prefer other-
oriented facework.

5. Small power distance cultures prefer an "individuals are equal" framework, whereas large
power distance cultures prefer a hierarchical framework.

6. Behavior is also influenced by cultural variances, individual, relational, and situational

factors.

7. Competence in intercultural communication is a culmination of knowledge and mindfulness.

Taxonomies[edit]
Face-negotiation theory primarily deals with five sets of themes: face orientation or concerns, face
movements, facework interaction strategies, conflict communication styles, and face content
domains.[4][12] In the 2005 version of theory, the five thematic clusters are referred as "core
taxonomies".[14]

Theoretical Lens

This study is primarily anchored on Stella Ting-Toomey’s Facework/Face Negotiation Theory which was
first encapsulated by Erving Goffman in the late 1950’s. Ting-Toomey made further studies on this
theory since 1988 and had come up with the conflict Face-Negotiation Theory (FNT) that had come out
in 2012, and published in 2015.

The seven core assumptions of the FNT which Ting-Toomey (2015) finalized are as follows: (1) people in
all cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations; (2) the concept of face is
especially problematic in emotionally-threatening or identity vulnerable situations when the situated
identities of the communicators are called into question; (3) the cultural value spectrums of
individualism-collectivism and small/large power distance shape facework concerns and styles; (4)
individualism and collectivism value patterns shape members’ preferences for self-oriented face concern
versus other-oriented or mutual-oriented concern; (5) small and large power distance value patterns
shape members’ preferences for horizontal-based facework versus vertical-based facework; (6) the
value dimensions, in conjunction with individual, relational, and situational factors influence the use of
particular facework behaviors in particular cultural scenes; and (7) intercultural facework competence
refers to the optimal integration of knowledge, mindfulness, and communication skills in managing
vulnerable identity-based conflict situations appropriately, effectively, and adaptively.

Among the core assumptions mentioned above, I would like to focus on the intercultural facework
competence or Facework Communication Competence (Ting-Toomey, 2015). Accordingly, a competent
facework negotiator would need to increase his or her awareness concerning self’s and others’ cultural
and individual facework conditioning process. An optimal degree of facework competence emphasizes
the integration of culture-sensitive knowledge, mindfulness, and adaptive communication skills.

Culture-sensitive knowledge is considered as the most important component that underscores the other
components of facework competence. Without culture-sensitive knowledge, conflict parties cannot
learn to uncover the implicit “ethnocentric lenses” they use to evaluate behaviors in an intercultural
conflict situation. Without knowledge, negotiators cannot reframe their interpretation of a conflict
situation accurately from the other's cultural frame of reference.

The mindfulness competence component means attending to one’s internal assumptions, cognitions,
and emotions and, at the same time, becoming attuned to the other’s conflict assumptions, cognitions,
and emotions. To be mindful of intercultural differences, individuals have to learn to see the unfamiliar
behavior from a multiple-layered, 360 degree differentiating angle. Mindfulness can be practiced
through a deep state of mindful listening with an uncluttered mind.

To cultivate competent facework practice, the intentional practice of communication skills such as de-
centering skills, face validation, empathetic resonance, artful reframing, productive power balancing,
adaptive code-switching, dialogue bridging, and common ground seeking skills would be useful.
Adaptive communication skills involve the criteria of perceived appropriateness and effectiveness.
"Appropriateness" refers to the degree to which the exchanged behaviors are regarded as proper and
match the expectations generated by the insiders of the culture. "Effectiveness" refers to the degree to
which communicators achieve mutually shared meaning and integrative goal-related outcomes.
Culturally intelligent communicators can use adaptive communication skills to manage the conflict
process appropriately and integrate divergent interaction goals effectively.

This study will focus on how the policemen manage rapport, agreements or disagreements during
his/her interrogations with the suspects in a police station. It is in this theory that would view best the
policemen’s way of handling suspects in their most difficult time, after the apprehension.

Title: Facework Competencies of Police Force vis-à-vis Persons on Hold

RQs

1. What are the facework competencies of the policemen during their interrogation with
the suspects?
2. What are the perceptions of the suspects about the way they are interrogated by the
policemen?
3. How do these competencies contribute to the policemen’s way of handling suspects
during the interrogation?
Or…

1. What facework competencies do policemen employ during interrogation with the suspects?
2. How do the suspects perceive the facework competencies of the policemen during the interrogation?
3. How do these perceptions contribute to the policemen’s way of handling suspects during the
interrogation?

Interrogation to mean, “the systematic process of using approved interrogation approaches to question
a captured or detained person to obtain reliable information to satisfy intelligence requirements,
consistent with applicable law and policy” (AFM, 2006, 1-20).

Introduction

“Understanding the correct processes and legal parameters for interviewing, questioning, and
interrogation, can make the difference between having a suspect’s confession accepted as evidence by
the court or not.” (Gehl & Plecas, 2016)

Interrogation technique (global or in nearby countries)

Philippine
Gensan

Problematic situation – focus on the linguistic competence of policemen.

Significance of the Study

PNP

Linguists

Future Researchers

Definition of Term: (title)

Facework Competencies

Police Force - policemen

Persons on Hold – suspects

Scope and Limitations

Police precincts in Gensan, particular barangay, number of respondents, time and date of
observation.

RRL: PLEASE FOCUS ON

Intercultural facework competence or Facework Communication Competence

Culture-sensitive knowledge (“ethnocentric lenses” they use to evaluate behaviors in an intercultural

conflict situation.)

mindfulness competence (internal assumptions, cognitions, and emotions and, at the same time,
becoming attuned to the other’s conflict assumptions, cognitions, and emotions.)

communication skills (de-centering skills, face validation, empathetic resonance, artful reframing,
productive power balancing, adaptive code-switching, dialogue bridging, and common ground seeking
skills)

Interrogating Skills of Policemen

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

Qualitative Research

Phenomenology

Constructivism and Interpretivism

Qualitative research is often guided by a different, interpretivist philosophy. Interpretive social

scientists believe that social reality is socially constructed and that the goal of social scientists is to
understand what meanings people give to reality, not to determine how reality works apart from these
interpretations. This philosophy rejects the positivist belief that there is a concrete, objective reality that
scientific methods help us understand (Lynch and Bogen, 1997); instead, interpretivists believe that
scientists construct an image of reality based on their own preferences and prejudices and their
interactions with others.

The constructivist paradigm extends interpretivist philosophy by emphasizing the importance of

exploring how different stakeholders in a social setting construct their beliefs (Guba and Lincoln, 1989).
It gives particular attention to the different goals of researchers and other participants in a research
setting and seeks to develop a consensus among participants about how to understand the focus of
inquiry.

It is in the paradigms of Interpretivism and Constructivism, wherein a consideration of the subjects as

living in a social world and not in a natural world, and as well as their cultural inclination will be given a
focus.

It is the aim of Interpretivism to understand the subjective experiences of those being studied, how they
think and feel and how they act or react in their habitual contexts (Blaike, 2009). While Baxter and Jack
(2008) said that the aim of Constructivism is to bring this supposed “social reality” and relate them in
the objectivity of the theories of language acquisition.

Research Participants

10 policemen (5 male & 5 female)

10 random picked suspects (gender not necessary) – depending on the date and time of
observation

Data Collection

Capturing the subjective interactions between the policeman and suspects was an important
part of my study. Therefore, the interpretivist paradigm was used, to focus on the meaning of
experiences and behaviors, which are context dependent. The use of multiple data collection methods,
provide a more ‘convincing and accurate’ case study (Yin 1994).
Data Analysis
Elo and Kyngäs (2008) said that a content analysis is a research method for making replicable
and valid inferences from data to their context, with the purpose of providing knowledge, new insights,
a representation of facts and a practical guide to action. The aim of content analysis is to attain a
condensed and broad description of the phenomenon and the outcome of the analysis is concepts or
categories describing the phenomenon.