I know that Anglo-Saxon combat was largely based in shield wall tactics, whereas a blend of cavalry and infantry/archers was customary for Norman armies at the time of Hastings. However, I'm struggling to find sources pertaining to the use of footmen who weren't archers in the Norman army.
Would they have used shield wall tactics as well? And post conquest, would the Anglo-Norman army have utilized shield walls? I know that they added dismounted knights to the infantry ranks and that infantry typically fought defensively, but don't know what tactic was utilized.
So, the term "shield wall" is not so much a tactic as a literary description. By definition, heavy infantry fight in relatively close order, though generally not with shields overlapping; that would leave too little room to fight effectively. And the Normans and Anglo-Normans certainly deployed copious numbers of heavy infantry. Within ten years of the Conquest, the free tenants, small holders and petty landlords who had made up the English fyrd were performing the same role for their new kings. So it's a bit of a mistake to imagine Anglo-Norman infantry as distinct from Anglo-Saxon infantry: it's the same guys, or their sons, recruited in exactly the same manner, fighting in the same way, with spear and large shield.
Heavy infantry tactics were rudimentary in the period (and in most periods). Unlike cavalry, who could get fancier with things like feigned retreats, pretend charges, and the like, the main thing with infantry was to form them up into a relatively cohesive whole and either advance together (but not in perfect lock-step parade ground formation; imagine a reasonably coordinated mob), or stand and hold a position. The actual combat probably consisted of numerous pushes and small retreats, mostly directed by lower ranking leaders who led a few dozen men into the fight, fought for a few minutes, backed off when they became exhausted or their morale wavered, and tried to rally for another push.