896204

research-article2020
EUC0010.1177/1477370819896204European Journal of CriminologyDahl

Article

European Journal of Criminology

Chameleonizing: A
1­–17
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
microsociological study of sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1477370819896204
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370819896204
covert physical surveillance journals.sagepub.com/home/euc

Johanne Yttri Dahl

Norwegian Police University College, Norway

Abstract
This study empirically explores covert physical surveillance conducted by the police and proposes
the concept of chameleonizing in covert physical surveillance. Like the chameleon, police officers
conducting covert physical surveillance must blend into and mirror their surroundings by adapting
their appearance, in terms of both looks and behaviour, to resemble the people in the vicinity
to prevent detection. Thus, police officers conducting covert physical surveillance must be able
to read their surroundings and have great knowledge about social interactions. Accordingly,
this exploration of an extraordinary phenomenon, covert physical surveillance, sheds light on
something very ordinary: that is, social interactions in everyday life. Furthermore, the concept
of the chameleon gaze is proposed and discussed, because physical surveillance depends on a
multifaceted gaze enabling observation from different angles.

Keywords
Chameleonizing, chameleon gaze, covert physical surveillance, covert policing, policing,
surveillance

The essence of covert physical surveillance is to gather information about people without
their knowledge, which may require watching, following and listening to people without
them being aware of the fact that they are under police surveillance. This implies that a
police officer conducting covert physical surveillance must avoid being seen, noticed or
remembered – in that order. The first is often unavoidable, but the last two may be
avoided more often. Furthermore, it is possible to be seen without being noticed only a
limited amount of times. Therefore, officers involved in covert policing or officers who
conduct covert physical surveillance need to conceal their presence (Mac Giollabhuí
et al., 2016) or at least not be noticed. Like Loftus and Goold (2012: 275), I study how
officers ‘attempt to blend into their surroundings and render their work invisible’, which
requires that police officers transform their looks, movements and behaviour to blend in.

Corresponding author:
Johanne Yttri Dahl, Research Department, Norwegian Police University College, Postboks 2109 Vika, Oslo,
0125, Norway.
Email: johanne.yttri.dahl@phs.no
2 European Journal of Criminology 00(0)

These officers must aim to reflect – rather than disturb – the background expectations of
both the public and the targets of surveillance (Loftus and Goold, 2012). Covert policing
is a relatively unexplored field in the social sciences (Mac Giollabhuí et al., 2016). In this
article, I attempt to add to the scarce body of literature on covert policing, especially
physical surveillance, by empirically exploring and proposing the concept of chamele-
onizing. A chameleon can change colour or pattern to blend in by developing similarities
with its surroundings to appear less visible.1 Like the chameleon, police officers must
blend into their settings and mirror them in order not to be noticed. Accordingly, to be
able to chameleonize, officers must have great knowledge of what is expected of people
in settings when it comes to both looks and behaviour. Consequently, this article explores
how covert police ‘manipulate’ everyday norms of looks and behaviour in order to mirror
and blend into their surroundings so that they can watch without being seen.
This article is not like Marx’s (2016) new book Windows into the Soul: Surveillance
and Society in an Age of High Technology on what surveillance does to us, but more on
how surveillance is conducted. Physical surveillance by the police may be conducted in
several ways. The focus in this article is on how the police conduct covert physical sur-
veillance, primarily in public spaces. Accordingly, covert physical surveillance and cha-
meleonizing may be studied as a microsociological phenomenon. This article explores
something extraordinary, police covert physical surveillance, but also sheds light on a
very ordinary occurrence: that is, social interactions in everyday life, such as our behav-
iour in public places (Goffman, 1963) and the presentation of ourselves in everyday life
(Goffman, 1971). Studying social interaction by focusing on the extraordinary may also
provide new insights about ourselves in other surrounding. It is valuable to study every-
day life because it makes us attend to the routine and temporal aspects of social life.
Additionally, it makes us attentive to the seemingly unimportant aspects (Back, 2015).
More crimes are met by ‘high policing’ (Brodeur, 2011), and there has been an
increase in intelligence-led and proactive approaches to crime control (Maguire, 2000;
Ratcliffe, 2016). These approaches systematically target particular people, locations and
behaviours, and draw upon a number of advanced sources of intelligence and surveil-
lance techniques. There has been an expansion in the use of ‘exceptional methods’ in
ordinary crime cases (Fyfe et al., 2018; Larsson, 2018; Loftus, 2019), which may be seen
as function creep (Dahl and Sætnan, 2009) or normalization of the exceptional (Flyghed,
2002; Larsson, 2018; Loftus, 2019). Whereas covert physical surveillance was previ-
ously primarily a police method reserved for serious crimes, especially in relation to
drugs, it is now used for less serious criminal offences (Larsson, 2018; Loftus, 2019;
Mac Giollabhuí et al., 2016; O’Neill and Loftus, 2013; Sharpe, 2002) such as volume
crime. Consequently, there is a need for increased knowledge about the phenomenon
(Loftus et al., 2016). Another trend in policing is an increased focus on volume crime
such as theft and burglary. Both these elements of policing appear in my study of police
investigations of crime committed by mobile organized crime groups.
In this article, the following research question is explored: how do covert police offic-
ers chameleonize to conduct covert physical surveillance without being detected?
Empirical data are drawn from interviews with and observations of a Norwegian police
force specializing in crime conducted by mobile organized crime groups, who primarily
commit volume crime, such as theft from residences. The article is organized as follows:
Dahl 3

the relevant theory and previous research are presented in the next section, which is fol-
lowed by the Methodology section. The data are analysed in the fourth section, and the
final section discusses the significance of the findings.

Background
Marx (1988) distinguishes between four categories of police work. In this article, I focus
on covert physical surveillance by the police. This is not undercover policing; however,
it is what Marx (1988) would categorize as covert and non-deceptive because it focuses
on passive surveillance operations. The subjects do not know that they are under surveil-
lance, which may infringe on their privacy (Sharpe, 2002). According to Loftus (2019),
it is directed surveillance, because it is covert, but not intrusive and is usually undertaken
for a specific investigation or operation in order to obtain information about a particular
person. Such surveillance/covert investigations may also include forms of electronic
information gathering, such as telephone tapping, email monitoring, or video and audio
surveillance (Marx, 1988; Ross, 2007), but these aspects will not be covered in this arti-
cle, because my focus is on covert physical surveillance.
Some aspects of policing effectiveness depend on the secrecy of its methods (Clark,
2007), for example, covert physical surveillance. Hence, police covert physical surveil-
lance is an aspect of policing of which the general public has little knowledge. However,
Mac Giollabhuí et al. (2016) observed a pressing need for empirical research into the
day-to-day practices of covert police surveillance. What we know about the police is
primarily obtained from uniformed police (Fassin, 2017; Loftus, 2010), whose opera-
tions are clearly visible to the public (Loftus et al., 2016). Agreeing with the need to
research covert police surveillance, this study empirically explores covert physical sur-
veillance by the police. Nevertheless, as Harfield and Harfield (2005) observed, the dis-
cussion stops short of disclosing sensitive tactics and techniques for obvious reasons.
This article, however, aims to increase understanding of the phenomenon of police sur-
veillance, and more specifically the process of chameleonizing.
Visibility and invisibility are central to the policing and social control of public spaces
(Cook and Whowell, 2011). Loftus and Goold (2012: 275) demonstrate ‘how officers
attempt to blend into their surroundings and render their work invisible in order to intrude
into the daily lives of those people considered suspects’. In another text, Loftus et al.
(2016: 283) observed that appearing ‘natural’ was one of the main issues in the covert
operations they observed: ‘This basic concern to reflect, rather than disturb, backdrop
expectations was operationalized both in the context of the outward appearance of indi-
vidual officers and in the environments which they staged.’ This issue was also observed
in my data; therefore, this article explores this issue further by proposing the concept of
chameleonizing to examine how police officers blend in with their surroundings and
appear natural to ensure that their work is invisible. It is very important to underline that
this is not about making themselves invisible, which clearly is impossible, but, as Loftus
and Goold (2012) state, it is about making their work invisible. Police officers use items
such as clothes and accessories to change their looks and avoid being noticed (Carlström,
1997). Loftus et al. (2016) noted that they were told to change clothes to avoid being
conspicuous in certain environments when they conducted an ethnographic study of
4 European Journal of Criminology 00(0)

undercover policing. Carlström (1999) found something slightly different, which is that
police officers wore a brightly coloured jacket, which was called the ‘stop jacket’ to draw
people’s attention to the jacket, which made the individual’s face inconspicuous and less
noticeable. However, it is worth reflecting on whether this may also have the opposite of
the intended effect, that the distinctive ‘stop jacket’ draws attention to the person wearing
it. Hansson (2006: 138) writes: ‘People who perfect the techniques of blending in become
experts in cultural analysis of others. They know if you need a wig, a certain dress, or just
a certain body language or a big smile.’

Methodology
As noted above, in this article I draw upon data derived from a research project on
police work on mobile organized crime groups. I conducted 45 interviews with police
officers about the investigation of such crimes in Norway. However, this article is
based predominantly on interviews with police officers working in a specialized crime
task force. These officers include both operational intelligence officers and investiga-
tors. In this task group, one of the main tasks of operational police officers is to con-
duct covert physical surveillance, such as staking out, tailing, tracking and shadowing
a person without that person being aware of it, in order to acquire as much relevant
information as possible. When the crime field the officers are working on involves
mobile criminal offender groups, most of the covert physical surveillance is conducted
by car, hence tailing a car to see what is going on. Additionally, they work inside the
police station conducting database searches and helping with certain investigative
steps. When needed and when convenient, the investigators also conduct covert physi-
cal surveillance. Therefore, interviews with both operational intelligence officers and
investigators are included in the analysis. Both of these groups hardly ever make
arrests. For this, uniformed police officers are called for. I have interviewed both men
and women; however, as a reflection of the team, therre are more men than women.
Most of them were in their thirties and early forties. They were all experienced police
officers because nobody is recruited to the task force without having worked several
years either predominantly with covert police methods or with mobile organized crime
groups in some way.
Additionally, the article draws upon interactive participatory observation (Tjora,
2018) of officers conducting covert physical surveillance, primarily in cars owing to the
crime field of mobile criminal offenders. The observation has contributed to a more pro-
found understanding of chameleonizing and better interviews, because the ground-level
realities of covert policing can be captured well through first-hand observation (Loftus
and Goold, 2012: 277). In the beginning, I was a pure observer without any other tasks.
After some time, I was involved in various forms of interaction in terms of both conver-
sation and assistance. Assistance could include looking for a particular car or watching a
door while the operational intelligence officer conducted electronic searches. There are
several ethical considerations associated with such assistance, and in police research
there are, additionally, legal restrictions that limit what a researcher can do (Bacon and
Sanders, 2016: s 166). Assistance does, unquestionably, help limit the unnatural passivity
of the observation role (Tjora, 2018).
Dahl 5

In her classic presentation of insider researchers (that is, police officers) and out-
sider researchers (that is, civilians), Brown (1996) differentiates between four groups
of researchers. Depending on their proximity to the police organization, these groups
typically experience different levels of access to and support from the police. Inside
outsiders, who are typically academic researchers working at research units within
the police organization, will usually experience fewer difficulties compared with
outside outsiders, who as external researchers have no link to the police organization
at all. As a sociologist working in the Research Department at the Norwegian Police
University College, I may be categorized as an inside outsider and there is reason to
believe that this position has had a positive impact on access to the field and my
meeting with the field. The project is funded by the Norwegian Research Council
and the Norwegian Police University College, and it is approved by the Norwegian
Police Directorate and the Norwegian Centre for Research Data. When I entered the
field, I was given the opportunity to participate in everything I wanted and to inter-
view whom I wanted about what I wanted on the assumption that I would safeguard
the police’s wishes for secrecy in relation to the aspects of police activities that can-
not be public.
All interviews were transcribed verbatim. The analysis followed a stepwise deduc-
tive–inductive (SDI) approach (Tjora, 2018) with the aim of identifying issues and
themes across the empirical data to illuminate how covert policing is conducted.
According to the SDI approach, and similar to grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss,
1967), qualitative analyses aim to explore issues emerging inductively from detailed
processing of empirical data. Hence, the interview data were subjected to an inductive
content analysis and coded in NVivo. This implies that new codes appear continuously.
To ensure that all relevant text fragments were given the relevant code, the transcripts
were reread and recoded several times (Sommerbakk et al., 2016). The detailed ‘empiri-
cal close coding’ was followed by categorization, in which idea generation and a struc-
tured volume reduction are supposed to support conceptual generalization (Tjora, 2018;
Trondsen et al., 2018).

Chameleonizing
In this section I will explore how covert police officers chameleonize to conduct covert
physical surveillance without being detected.

A close stranger
The main goal of a covert physical surveillance is to obtain relevant information about a
milieu or a person without them being aware of it. To conduct covert physical surveil-
lance, it is crucial that the police get to know the daily routines of the people they are
staking out and the wider environment in which they operate. This initial process before
a surveillance operation commences is called ‘researching’ or ‘lifestyling’ in covert
policing (Loftus and Goold, 2012: 279). In the lifestyling process, the aim is to obtain
basic information about suspects, such as address, associates, work details and where
they socialize. However, after a while the police officers conducting the surveillance
6 European Journal of Criminology 00(0)

may feel as if they know the subject because they know what the subject eats, where and
when they sleep, whom they talk to, and, instrumentally, what kind of crime they com-
mits and in what way. For example, when I conducted fieldwork the officers never started
the stake-out outside suspects’ houses before noon because they knew the subject would
have been up all night and that noon was the time they used to get up. Eventually, the
surveillance officer may feel close to the target and develop a sense of familiarity with
the subject under surveillance and construct a hermeneutical narrative, although in fact
he or she is a stranger. Hence, the term ‘a close stranger’ may be a suitable expression.
This has similarities to the relationships that operators in CCTV rooms develop to their
‘stars of CCTV’ when the operators feel they know the people who are frequently in the
focus of the operators’ gaze (Smith, 2007). Becoming close to the strangers provides
crucial information for a case. As pointed out by an interviewee, he never staked out two
different people in the same way:

It’s about reading the entire situation, learning to know someone even if you’ve never talked to
him and you can learn quite a lot about a person without talking to him. Just the way a person
moves, restless–not restless, paranoid–not paranoid, outgoing–not outgoing, or fit–unfit.
Several of these issues make you behave differently when you are conducting covert physical
surveillance. I never stake-out two different people in the same way.

Here the interviewee points to several central themes in covert physical surveillance and
chameleonizing. The interviewee underlines the importance of thorough knowledge and
the importance of reading an entire situation to contextualize a person. When the subjects
are close strangers and the officers have knowledge of the milieu and the habitat sur-
rounding the subject, this will enable the police officer to know what ‘colour’ or ‘pattern’
must be applied to chameleonize without being exposed. The concept of chameleonizing
is further explored below.

Chameleonizing looks: Camouflage

It is possible to be seen without being noticed only a limited number of times. Therefore,
perhaps the most obvious part of the chameleonizing process is that police officers
conducting covert physical surveillance must, like the chameleon, not stand out in the
settings they are observing. A criminal may see a police officer without noticing them
a couple of times if they appear neutral and without any flashy details. Hence, wearing
something unnoticeable is a way to chameleonize in a variety of settings. Like
Carlström (1999), I learned that the investigative intelligence officers I studied at work
mostly wore neutral clothes such as jeans and sneakers to be flexible in relation to
where they could chameleonize.2 Additionally, these are comfortable clothes that ena-
ble movement – another important aspect when conducting physical surveillance. As
one interviewee said:

You must be natural. You must be aware of timing and distance. You must observe what you are
supposed to observe, preferably without being seen, that’s the best. There is a limit to the
number of times you can be seen without being detected. If you are seen ten times, then
eventually your object will think ‘I have seen him before’. This demands more changes of
Dahl 7

clothes, maybe putting on a hat, a cap or something. But if you move in a way so that you are
not seen, then you won’t be noticed as easily.

What looks neutral and natural depends on what kind of environment you aim to mirror.
Clothes may say something about who we are and the way we dress may communicate
and symbolize our identity (Davis, 1992). If officers want to conduct covert physical
surveillance in a special milieu, they must adapt their appearance in relation to clothes to
blend into that milieu. However, regardless of what kind of milieu the covert physical
surveillance is conducted in, if criminals see the same person, perhaps in the same outfit,
several times during a limited period of time, they will not only see but also notice them.
Hence, an officer who conducts covert physical surveillance on one person for some time
might have to change their clothes or accessories to enable chameleonizing. Small
adjustments in the outfit may change the officer’s visual pattern in the same way as a
chameleon; therefore, they are less likely to be noticed by the criminal. As one inter-
viewee pointed out:

I think that staking out on foot is more fun than by car because I think it is a lot more difficult.
It is easier for us who are girls and who do not necessarily look like a traditional police either;
thus, you have several benefits. Here we have always tried to have a lot of different outfits
available, such as jackets and hats. It is almost like different profiles, as we call it, where you
have a certain outfit for each profile, so that if you have three outfits, you can switch between
them. It’s a huge advantage! It makes it a bit difficult to see the difference if you’re good at it.
Changing outfits doesn’t require that much, but you are someone completely different five
minutes later. It is super fun.

Although using clothes and accessories to enable a change in the pattern is an obvious
and relatively easily obtained advantage, the entirety of a person’s looks may not be so
easily disguised and hence chameleonized. Accordingly, chameleonizing the body is
much more challenging. Police officers conducting physical surveillance should look
plain and cannot afford to be too attractive, or, conversely, too unattractive (Loftus and
Goold, 2012: 282). However, at least in some countries, the bodily aspect of police habi-
tus (see Bourdieu, 2010) is often quite visible and distinct. In Norway, it is considered an
essential part of the police culture to stay fit because athletic bodies imply safety and
control (Finstad, 2000: 219), to be fit is considered an important symbolic capital in the
police (Doran and Chan, 2003; Lagestad, 2011). Although it is clearly a generalization,
the Norwegian police are characterized by being fit, well proportioned and toned (Lander,
2016), perhaps particularly young officers such as those I interviewed. I experienced this
when conducting fieldwork:

We were a number of cars tailing an object’s car. I was in the car with the leader of the
surveillance team. I saw the other cars change position several times during the night.
Nevertheless, in contrast to the other leaders I had been in cars with, he hardly ever stayed in
his natural place in the chain of cars. I asked him why he was never the car closest to the object.

The interviewee explained to me that his body was too big, too muscular and too distinc-
tively police-like to enable him to chameleonize his physique or habitus. According to
8 European Journal of Criminology 00(0)

him, and I do not disagree, he would always be too visible; therefore, it would not be
possible for him to be seen without being noticed. Accordingly, he conducted covert
physical surveillance almost exclusively by car. Additionally, he primarily drove the car
furthest away from the that of the subject. By articulating what needs to be covered to
chameleonize or conceal the police aspects of themselves, the interviewees also imply
what police officers are or what they look like.
More specialized undercover officers may even change their appearance more pro-
foundly to enable them to merge with the criminal environment they are attempting to
access. Such changes may, for example, involve gaining or losing weight or body build-
ing. However, the police officers I studied were only conducting physical surveillance,
and were not undercover agents, so such drastic measures were not considered relevant.
According to Mauss (1973), the use of the body is culturally dependent, and this may
affect people’s gaits. A prominent part of the police habitus, or perhaps more specifically
the police hexis (see Bourdieu, 2010), is a proud gait and elegant posture, including a
straight back and direct gaze. Police officers are used to owning a space and conse-
quently having all eyes on them. According to Carlström (1999), this may partly be
attributable to their uniform. A number of interviewees told stories that illustrated how
criminals could see that they worked for the police, even when they were out of uniform.
Accordingly, the police habitus and hexis may also be very visible when working in
civilian clothes. This implies that, when conducting covert physical surveillance, espe-
cially on foot, they must chameleonize by altering their hexis, gait and posture, because
it is probably this that gives them away. Accordingly, an important part of the chamele-
onizing process is to de-socialize or avoid being visible or noticeable as police officers.
Chameleonizing entails an understanding of how to reflect a pattern. This clearly not
only requires knowledge about what things should look like but also ‘requires extensive
knowledge about how things should not look’ (Loftus and Goold, 2012: 283). Conducting
covert physical surveillance on foreigners may be an extra challenge for ethnic Norwegian
police officers, because differences in ethnicity and a lack of language skills may be
more difficult to chameleonize, cover and adjust than the police body, habitus, hexis and
behaviour. Since my interviewees were primarily ethnic Norwegians and primarily con-
ducted covert physical surveillance on mobile organized crime groups, they knew that it
was a challenge for them to chameleonize in certain surroundings. Both in regard to
looks and language, they represented what the pattern should not look like, for example,
in a café primarily visited by East Europeans. This illuminates the need for a police force
reflecting the diversity of society.

Chameleonizing behaviour: A leaf blowing in the wind

In order for police officers to chameleonize it may not be sufficient to adopt the looks,
colour and pattern of the surroundings. A defence mechanism for the chameleon is to
swing its body back and forth so that it resembles a leaf moving in the wind. Like cha-
meleons, police officers must also adjust and mirror the behaviour of people at the right
time in the surroundings in their social interactions. Correspondingly, an officer must
have great knowledge of culture and social interactions in relation to norms and rules. In
fact, covert police officers must be experts or professionals in everyday behaviour and be
Dahl 9

able to appear as if they are doing the same as everyone else. They must be able to
manipulate social settings to enable them to act in extraordinary ways in the guise of
ordinary activities. It is important that the cultural knowledge of a police officer includes
being able to distinguish accurately between congruity and incongruity (Loftus and
Goold, 2012: 283). This was also mentioned by an interviewee:

At least I have done it myself; when sitting outside there and I am in a situation when you must
think one step ahead, and for my part I have benefited greatly from learning from the
environment around me because to blend into an environment you must observe other people
around you. What are they doing and make sure you do not do the complete opposite of them,
but blend in, no matter what, wherever you are. But it is very difficult and very interesting.

One important way to avoid incongruous behaviour in social interaction is distance.

However, what is considered an appropriate distance depends on culture, context and
situation (Hall, 1969). For example, most officers know the codes of different forms of
‘corporal travel’ (Urry, 2004) because they may have to use several forms, such as ‘walk-
ing codes’, ‘cycling codes’ and ‘car codes’. Each of these mobility forms involves a set
of practices and normative regulating principles; some are also governed by explicitly
articulated cultures (Jensen, 2006). Whereas some ‘mobility cultures’ are formally regu-
lated, others are embedded in the body as tacit mobility cultures. Some of these cultures
and codes are global and generic, while others are locally anchored (Jensen, 2006). One
example where the size of physical space is visible is on public transport (Jensen, 2006;
Levine et al., 1973); for example, in Norway, it is considered socially awkward to sit
down next to someone on a double seat in a bus if empty double seats are available
(Bourrelle et al., 2018). In Norway, people tend to have a larger physical personal space
than in several other countries (Bourrelle et al., 2018). A police officer stepping into
another person’s personal space not only may result in discomfort for that person, but,
because people see and notice those who invade their personal space, it increases the
chances of the officer being noticed and having their cover blown. Police officers must
be close enough to hear or see what the subbject says or does, but they risk exposure by
coming too close. Hence, in order to chameleonize, officers must be aware of what is
considered appropriate distance in different social settings such as cafes, public transport
and in the street.
What is considered appropriate distance also varies according to the time of day and
place. This implies that physical surveillance must be adjusted to whether it is conducted
in a place that Goffman (1963) would define as ‘below or above the nod line’, because
the size of the community determines whether members have to nod or not. Covert phys-
ical surveillance conducted in area below the nod line, such as busy streets during the
day, allows officers to stay closer to a subject because they will easily blend in.
Chameleonizing during the night in areas above the nod line, such as rural areas, requires
officers to maintain a much greater distance from the subject, as pointed out by the inter-
viewee below:

You must always think three steps ahead and imagine different scenarios at any given time. It’s
a matter of distance assessment and such things. For example, I think that if you follow a person,
you would want to be as close as possible to have control, but if you walk on a long stretch of
10 European Journal of Criminology 00(0)

road and the person has nothing, like there aren’t any houses, no parked cars, there’s nothing,
then there’s not much point in you staying ten metres behind that person. If this is in the
countryside, you must say: ‘Okay, here there aren’t many things that can conceal me. I cannot
escape to so many places. If I’m close, maybe he’ll suddenly decide to turn around. Where am I
going to go? I don’t have anywhere to escape either.’ So, there’s something about considering the
landscape all the time. If you’re in the city, it’s much easier to stay close. It’s more important to
stay close because there are so many corners, there are so many doors and so on.

To behave according to the surroundings requires no actions that would occasion

surprise. Where we direct our gaze is an important part of social interaction; central in
this relation is which way to look and at what time. One example may be if an officer is
conducting covert physical surveillance on a subject who is waiting for a bus. Most peo-
ple standing alone at a bus stop will look at the bus when it arrives, so it will be very
noticeable if someone looks the other way. This requires that officers are conscious of
where to position themselves at, for example, a bus stop. The officer will have to look the
same way as everyone else so as not to appear suspicious, but also to be aware of how to
see the subject.

The stake-out gaze or the stake-out glasses are supposed to look like a regular gaze. That’s what
I think when you’re on the subway, for example, and look around you; what are people doing?
What’s the look of ordinary people? And I try to have that look. It’s easier said than done to
force oneself to have a natural look, to put it that way. And at the same time, when you’re out
and conducting a stake-out and staking out on foot, right, what do most people do? They go and
look down, right? But if you’re tailing someone then, eventually, you’ll have to look at them to
find where they’re going, so it’s not always easy to tail someone and at the same time try to
have a relaxed and natural look.

The following quote illustrates both the importance of a knowledge of mobility cultures,
but also another essential cultural knowledge for police officers conducting physical
surveillance – the importance of the gaze in social interaction:

When it comes to the stake-out, especially stake-outs on foot, it’s daring to get as close as
possible. And of course, for God’s sake, do not meet the eye of that person, because in a way it’s
a bit over then. Then they may remember you and then they’ll become very aware of you. So I
always work very hard to constantly create legitimacy in what I do, for example, at the store or
wherever I might be to follow them and look at them. But never meet their eye! It is very hard.

Here the interviewee sheds light on something important in microsociology, which was
also pointed out by Goffman (1963: 93): the eye has a uniquely sociological function,
because the interaction of individuals is based on mutual glances – perhaps the purest
reciprocity anywhere. The exchange of glances between individuals in each other’s pres-
ence is a common social occurrence (Goffman, 1963: 13). When walking in the street or
meeting someone, it is customary to give the other person enough visual attention to
acknowledge their presence and to openly admit to having seen that person, but in the
next instant it is usual to withdraw one’s attention from that person so as to express that
there is no interest in further acquaintance (Goffman, 1963: 82). This is the kind of social
interaction that police officers conducting covert physical surveillance must be extremely
Dahl 11

aware of and experts at. A person who does not want to have further social interaction
with the people around him may do this through ‘the abnormality of the gaze’, especially
by averting the eyes. If one avoids meeting the other’s eyes, one avoids the cooperative
claims that may occur in the exchange of eye contact. Eye contact leads to facial engage-
ment (Goffman, 1963); accordingly, mutual glances must be avoided by a police officer
conducting covert physical surveillance.
To chameleonize, one cannot breach expectations of social interaction, and the gaze
is a part of this. There is a norm of anonymity that governs behaviour in public between
strangers. Goffman (1963) defines civil inattention as when strangers quickly glance at
each other and then withdraw their gaze. By this civil inattention, we acknowledge each
other’s presence, showing that we have no hostile intentions and that we are not seeking
further interaction. Several of my interviewees claimed that perhaps the one aspect they
found most challenging in working covertly was not to be able to breach the norm of civil
inattention in relation to gaze (Dahl, 2019). This was difficult because it meant they had
to stop having staring contests when meeting a known or suspected criminal in a public
space. The ‘winner’ of such competitions was the one who did not lower his eyes.
According to my interviewees, this was a test to see whether a person is a criminal. When
conducting such staring contests, the police officers know they are breaking social codes.
Apparently only two groups, police and criminals, prolong their gaze and refuse to lower
their eyes, and thereby breach this social code of civil inattention (Dahl, 2019). However,
when conducting covert physical surveillance, police officers must follow social expec-
tations and not stare into people’s eyes, because this will give them away as police to
criminals. This example illustrates how conscious police officers must be of their body
language, the signals they send and how they must control and adjust them to their set-
tings. This exemplifies a form of hermeneutics of suspicion, where the two parties
involved systematically search and test for hidden intentions in their surroundings, and
that, when the police are subjected to the criminal’s counter-gaze, the roles switch and
chameleonized police must lower their eyes to appear average. It also illustrates that the
targets of surveillance, far from being passive, are often masters of disguise, evasion and
subversion (Haggerty et al., 2011; Nippert-Eng, 2010). Furthermore, it illustrates the
importance of officers reading their surroundings and knowing what effect they may
have on it. One interviewee claimed: ‘It’s a way that uniformed personnel can use their
gaze, but we covert officers cannot.’ Another interviewee said:

If you are wearing your uniform, it doesn’t matter if you are sitting there [in a café] and looking
into his eyes and almost asking with your gaze: ‘What are you doing?’ I can see it. But, as a
covert officer, you must look away and then you must find another way to conduct the
observation.

Whereas uniformed officers may use their eyes to inform a suspect that ‘I am watching
you’ as a form of social deterrent to crime, and with a disciplinary gaze send a message
to suspects that they are being watched, a chameleonized officer cannot do the same.
However, an interviewee illustrated this counter-surveillance:

The police gaze is what gives us away to the criminals because we unfortunately tend to hold
their gaze a bit too long. If we see someone, they will notice it. It’s actually so bad that we have
12 European Journal of Criminology 00(0)

observed several times that mobile organized criminals use exactly the same tactic as a counter-
tactic. That is, when they walk down the street they look straight into everyone’s eyes and hold
their gaze for a long time, which is because, if he thinks ‘that’s a cop’, he will avert his gaze
very quickly and he’s conscious of letting his gaze go.

Moreover, this is one example where the knowledge and experience an officer gains
from uniformed policing may actually be a disadvantage in civilian policing. Conducting
civilian policing may require renouncing some of the mindset, behaviour and responses
that officers have used previously. Van Maanen (1978) writes that the execution of much
policing is dependent on the authority of the uniform.

The chameleon gaze

Another part of the chameleon’s arsenal that helps it remain unnoticed is its eyes and its
use of them. Chameleons have the most distinctive eyes of any reptile. Chameleons’ eyes
are independently mobile; for example, the left eye may look up and backwards at the
same time as the right eye looks down and forwards. This enables the chameleon to see
without the object of its gaze noticing it; it can see but not to be seen. The chameleon gaze
may also illustrate how the covert physical surveillance gaze is executed because police
conducting physical surveillance are also dependent on a multifaceted gaze. Conducting
covert surveillance is about achieving knowledge through watching and listening without
being spotted, as mentioned above; therefore, it is imperative that officers know social
interaction codes also in relation to gazes, which of course are in cultural flux. For exam-
ple, the amount of time one can stare at another person before it appears impolite in
Norway is quite limited. Therefore, an officer cannot observe a subject directly for too
long. Accordingly, one way for an officer to observe without being noticed is to use a
chameleon gaze, which may be done by using different instruments enabling observation
of an object without the object noticing. Examples of instruments that allow observation
from different angles are mirrors, phones and windows. For example, an officer can sit in
a car with his back towards the object and watch the subject in the rear mirror. Moreover,
instruments such as binoculars and cameras with zoom lenses may allow observation
from a distance. These are examples of what Goffman would term assymetrical commu-
nication. Additionally, modern phones may be used in places such as cafes because offic-
ers may look down at their phone while in fact holding it at an angle that allows them to
record what is going on somewhere else in the room. Their eyes look one way, but their
gaze is directed at something else. In such settings, phones may also have the additional
beneficial effect for police officers of being what Goffman (1971) called ‘interaction
shields’ or ‘involvement barriers’. Interaction shields are social cues that are turned on by
active or inactive shifts in verbal or non-verbal cues. When an officer uses a phone in
public space, this may indicate that they are ‘engaged’ and hence not engaged in the social
space around him. Therefore, the barrier for other people seeking to interact or engage
with them is larger. This may be important for police officers to prevent them being dis-
turbed by others while they conduct physical surveillance and focus on an object.
Officers, like chameleons, must aim at their prey or object by directing their focus
forwards in coordination, which provides them with stereoscopic vision. Hence, the
Dahl 13

chameleon stands still while it moves its eyes at different angles without the prey noticing
it. To enable the chameleon gaze and to prevent detection, officers must conduct impres-
sion management, but not to the full extent of Goffman’s (1971) definition. Officers must
employ impression management to influence the perceptions of other people of their
actions in a given situation. When conducting covert physical surveillance, officers must
appear to be relaxed whereas in fact they are very focused. An example of such facework
(see Goffman, 1955), when individuals make their behaviour appear consistent with the
image they want to present, is when an officer is observing a subject in a café. The officer
must appear to be relaxing and drinking his coffee, perhaps talking with a friend, while
their chameleon gaze is actually very concentrated and focused on what the subject is
doing. Another similar example was given by an interviewee:

Clearly, on the subway, bus, car and so on, you must be focused in a relaxed way, sort of. So,
there’s something about the surroundings.

Several of my interviewees said that appearing relaxed while in fact being very con-
centrated was a more challenging task than it appears:

And many of them have said that he in a way reads who is a police officer. You probably get so
concentrated when you’re out and working that you become . . . when you leave the door and are
not at work and walk like usual and talk on the phone with friends or something you are all like
– Yes, relaxed, but then you turn on that switch and then I think something happens to your face.
It’s like you’re not so relaxed in a way. It’s hard to walk around and concentrate, manage to take
everything in and also appear to be taking a stroll in the city. That’s what we humans are like.

One of the reasons chameleons change their colour is to avoid getting eaten. If offic-
ers conducting covert physical surveillance do not chameleonize, they are not eaten but
they might be exposed, which may imply that they cannot work on the particular case
any more, and the entire case may even be blown.

Concluding remarks
To chameleonize, officers must employ cultural techniques such as concealment, dis-
guise and camouflage in both their appearance and social interactions. Chameleonizing
requires the ability to read and relate to relevant surroundings; that is, it requires police
officers to know what is expected of people in settings in relation to their looks and
behaviour, and their ability to respond to, reflect and mirror these requirements.
Accordingly, this article explores how covert police ‘manipulate’ everyday norms of
looks and behaviour to blend into their surroundings so that they can watch without
being seen. Additionally, because chameleonizing is a cultural technique that requires
careful observation and analysis of the group or setting the person wants to blend into, it
also requires reflexive monitoring of personal behaviour (Hansson, 2006). This necessi-
tates reflexive monitoring of the police officer’s own behaviour.
Several aspects of police work may be characterized by tacit knowledge (Dean et al.,
2008), and police receive little formal education on conducting covert physical surveil-
lance (Kruisbergen et al., 2011) . Often knowledge about covert surveillance is passed on
14 European Journal of Criminology 00(0)

through on-the-job socialization (Loftus and Goold, 2012: 284). It is possible to learn a
lot from such forms of knowledge transfer, although it may be counter-productive if
mistakes or unsuccessful operational methods are passed on. Therefore, it is important to
have a terminology to discuss covert physical surveillance; precise language may make
tacit knowledge more explicit. Moreover, an increased vocabulary may potentially pro-
fessionalize the field, and may contribute to increased organizational learning (Lam,
2000; Nonaka, 1994) and to developing the police profession (Bjelland and Dahl, 2017;
Fashing, 2013). It is my aim that the concept of chameleonizing will contribute to profes-
sionalizing the field of covert physical surveillance because it may contribute to the
conceptual framework to enable making tacit knowledge explicit, and thus improving
the accuracy of discussions with more precision and distinctions.
Although there has been an increase in technology for surveillance, a considerable
amount of monitoring is still direct monitoring: people watching other people with mini-
mal technological mediation (Haggerty et al., 2011; Lyon, 2010; Marx, 1988). Although
the object of study in this article has been police conducting covert physical surveillance,
chameleonizing and the chameleon gaze are concepts that may be applicable and gener-
alized to other policing agencies such as customs services and others who are conducting
covert surveillance, such as private detectives, thereby adding to the body of literature on
covert policing.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Norwegian Research Council (Grant
number 23170); and the Norwegian Police University College.

ORCID iD
Johanne Yttri Dahl https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8958-3115

Notes
1. Some claim this is a myth and that the actual reason for the chameleon’s change in colour is
because they are courting.
2. I started my data gathering just after returning to work after one year of maternity leave. In a
futile attempt to power dress and look like I had not mostly thought about baby-related things
for the past year, I treated myself to a new coat, which I thought made me look like a seri-
ous researcher. The first day I went out with the physical surveillance team I realized I was
doing the opposite of chameleonizing, I was very visible, and accordingly the odd man out.
Everyone was wearing their thick winter jackets and comfortable shoes. It was the first and
last time I wore my new coat during my data gathering.

References
Back L (2015) Why everyday life matters: Class, community and making life livable. Sociology
49: 820–836.
Bacon M and Sanders T (2016) ‘Risky research’ and discretion in pursuing the criminological
imagination. In: Jacobsen MH and Walklate S (eds) Liquid Criminology: Doing Imaginative
Criminological Research. Oxford/New York: Routledge, 159–173.
Dahl 15

Bjelland HF and Dahl JY (2017) Exploring criminal investigation practices: The benefits of ana-
lysing police-generated investigation data. European Journal of Policing Studies 5(2): 5–23.
Bourdieu P (2010) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Oxford: Routledge.
Bourrelle JS, Lund N and Zhao X (2018) The Social Guidebook to Norway. Oslo: Mondå.
Brodeur J-P (2011) The Policing Web. New York: Oxford University Press; published to Oxford
Scholarship Online.
Brown J (1996) Police research: Some core issues. In: Leishman F, Loveday B and Savage SP
(eds) Core Issues in Policing. London/New York: Longman Group, 177–190.
Carlström AK (1997) Spanere i skarpt läge. Om allvar och lek i polisarbete. In: Jansson S (ed.)
Verktygslådan: kulturvetenskapliga perspektiv på yrke och arbetsliv. Stockholm: Carlssons.
Carlström AK (1999) På spaning i Stockholm: en etnologisk studie av polisarbete. Stockholm:
Institutet för folklivsforskning, Stockholms universitet.
Clark D (2007) Covert surveillance and informer handling. In: Newburn T, Williamson T and
Wright A (eds) Handbook of Criminal Investigation. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, 426–449.
Cook IR and Whowell M (2011) Visibility and the policing of public space. Geography Compass
5: 610–622.
Dahl JY (2019) Spaningsblikket – en utforskning av politispaneres lesning av omgivelsene. Tidsskrift
for samfunnsforskning 60(3): 211–227. doi:10.18261/issn.1504-291X-2019-03-01 ER.
Dahl JY and Sætnan AR (2009) ‘It all happened so slowly’ – On controlling function creep in
forensic DNA databases. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 37(3): 83–103.
DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2009.04.002.
Davis F (1992) Fashion, Culture, and Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dean G, Fahsing IA, Glomseth R, et al. (2008) Capturing knowledge of police investigations:
Towards a research agenda. Police Practice and Research 9: 341–355.
Doran S and Chan JBL (2003) Doing gender. In: Chan JBL (ed.) Fair Cop: Learning the Art of
Policing. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 276–300.
Fashing I (2013) Tænkestile – effektivitet, dyder og krydspres i etterforskninger. In: Hald C and
Rønn KV (eds) Om at opdage: metodiske refleksioner over politiets undersøgelsespraksis.
Fredriksberg C: Samfunnslitteratur, 115–147.
Fassin D (2017) Introduction: Ethnographying the police. In: Fassin D (ed.) Writing the World of
Policing: The Difference Ethnography Makes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Finstad L (2000) Politiblikket. Oslo: Pax Forlag A/S.
Flyghed J (2002) Normalising the exceptional: The case of political violence. Policing and Society
13: 23–41.
Fyfe NR, Gundhus HI and Vrist Rønn K (2018) Introduction. In: Fyfe NR, Gundhus HI and Vrist
Rønn K (eds) Moral Issues in Intelligence-led Policing. London: Routledge, 122.
Glaser BG and Strauss AL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Goffman E (1955) On face-work. Psychiatry 18(3): 213–231. doi:10.1080/00332747.1955.1102
3008.
Goffman E (1963) Behavior in Public Places. London: Free Press of Glencoe/Collier-Macmillan Ltd.
Goffman E (1971) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Haggerty KD, Wilson D and Smith GJD (2011) Theorizing surveillance in crime control.
Theoretical Criminology 15: 231–237.
Hall ET (1969) The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Hansson K (2006) Camouflage. In: Löfgren O and Wilk RR (eds) Off the Edge: Experiments
in Cultural Analysis. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen,
136–140.
Harfield C and Harfield K (2005) Covert Investigation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16 European Journal of Criminology 00(0)

Jensen OB (2006) ‘Facework’, flow and the city: Simmel, Goffman, and mobility in the contem-
porary city. Mobilities 1: 143–165.
Kruisbergen EW, de Jong D and Kleemans ER (2011) Undercover policing: Assumptions and
empirical evidence. British Journal of Criminology 51: 394–412.
Lagestad P (2011) ‘Fysisk styrke eller bare prat’: om kjønn, fysisk trening og ordenstjeneste i
politiet. Oslo: Norges idrettshøgskole.
Lam A (2000) Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: An integrated
framework. Organization Studies 21: 487–513.
Lander I (2016) Doing the right masculinities right. In: Lander I, Ravn S and Jon N (eds)
Masculinities in the Criminological Field: Control, Vulnerability and Risk-taking. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Larsson P (2018) On the hunt: Aspects of the use of communication control in Norway. In: Fyfe
NR, Gundhus HI and Vrist Rønn K (eds) Moral Issues in Intelligence-led Policing. London:
Routledge, 104–120.
Levine J, Vinson A and Wood D (1973) Subway behaviour. In: Birenbaum A and Sagarin E (eds)
People in Places: The Sociology of the Familiar. New York: Praeger, 208–216.
Loftus B (2010) Police occupational culture: Classic themes, altered times. Policing and Society
20: 1–20.
Loftus B (2019) Normalizing covert surveillance: The subterranean world of policing. British
Journal of Sociology. Published online 6 March 2019, doi: 10.1111/1468-4446.12651.
Loftus B and Goold B (2012) Covert surveillance and the invisibilities of policing. Criminology &
Criminal Justice 12: 275–288.
Loftus B, Goold B and Mac Giollabhui S (2016) From a visible spectacle to an invisible presence:
The working culture of covert policing. British Journal of Criminology 56: 629–645.
Lyon D (2010) Surveillance, power and everyday life. In: Kalantzis-Cope P and Gherab-Martín
K (eds) Emerging Digital Spaces in Contemporary Society. London: Palgrave Macmillan,
107–120.
Mac Giollabhuí S, Goold B and Loftus B (2016) Watching the watchers: Conducting ethnographic
research on covert police investigation in the United Kingdom. Qualitative Research 16:
630–645.
Maguire M (2000) Policing by risks and targets: Some dimensions and implications of intelli-
gence-led crime control. Policing and Society 9: 315–336.
Marx GT (1988) Undercover: Police Surveillance in America. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Marx GT (2016) Windows into the Soul: Surveillance and Society in an Age of High Technology.
Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Mauss M (1973) Techniques of the body. Economy and Society 2: 70–88.
Nippert-Eng CE (2010) Islands of Privacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science
5: 14–37.
O’Neill M and Loftus B (2013) Policing and the surveillance of the marginal: Everyday contexts
of social control. Theoretical Criminology 17: 437–454.
Ratcliffe JH (2016) Intelligence-led Policing. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ross JE (2007) The place of covert surveillance in democratic societies: A comparative study of
the United States and Germany. American Journal of Comparative Law 55: 493–579.
Sharpe C (2002) Covert surveillance and the use of informants. In: McConville M and Wilson G
(eds) The Handbook of the Criminal Justice Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith GJ (2007) Exploring relations between watchers and watched in control (led) systems:
Strategies and tactics. Surveillance & Society 4.
Dahl 17

Sommerbakk R, Haugen DF, Tjora A, et al. (2016) Barriers to and facilitators for implement-
ing quality improvements in palliative care – results from a qualitative interview study in
Norway. BMC Palliative Care 15: 61.
Tjora A (2018) Qualitative Research as Stepwise-Deductive Induction. Abingdon: Routledge.
Trondsen MV, Tjora A, Broom A, et al. (2018) The symbolic affordances of a video-mediated gaze
in emergency psychiatry. Social Science & Medicine 197: 87–94.
Urry J (2004) Connections. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22: 27–37.
Van Maanen J (1978) Kinsmen in repose: Occupational perspectives of patrolmen. In: Manning PK
and Van Maanen J (eds) Policing: A View from the Street. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Pub. Co.