Advertisement

Doing Reflectively Engaged, Face-to-Face Research in Prisons: Contexts and Sensitivities

  • James E. Sutton
Reference work entry

Abstract

This chapter begins by establishing an historical trajectory of face-to-face research with prisoners. It goes on to identify fundamental features of prisons and prisoners’ lives that make them sensitive settings and populations for researchers to study, and it then presents ethical considerations that researchers must be mindful of when carrying out this kind of research. Ethical concerns both within and beyond the scope of formal Institutional Review Boards are outlined and explored, as are researcher strategies for managing boundaries and emotions when doing prison research. To the extent that ethics, emotions, researcher presentation of self, and similar themes have been written about within the context of prison research, they have primarily been framed as considerations for qualitative field researchers. By way of contrast, an underlying assumption of this chapter is that those who do other forms of face-to-face research with prisoners, including quantitative self-report surveys, mixed-method approaches, and focus groups, should similarly engage with these themes. This chapter ultimately endorses being reflectively engaged with the setting, the research process, and oneself when doing face-to-face research in prisons, regardless of the substantive goals of one’s study or the particular research methods one employs. Accordingly, the issues raised in this chapter will be relevant to a range of health and social science researchers who enter prisons to study prisoners.

Keywords

Prison Corrections Research ethics Sensitive research Reflexivity Total institution 

References

  1. Beyens K, Kennes P, Snacken S, Tournel H. The craft of doing qualitative research in prisons. Int J Crime, Justice Social Democr. 2015;4(1):66–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bick JA. Infection control in jails and prisons. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(8):1047–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosworth M, Kellezi B. Doing research in immigration removal centres: ethics, emotions and impact. Criminol Crim Justice. 2016:1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895816646151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brewer-Smyth K. Ethical, regulatory, and investigator considerations in prison research. Adv Nurs Sci. 2008;31(2):119–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cislo AM, Trestman R. Challenges and solutions for conducting research in correctional settings: the U.S. experience. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2013;36:304–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clemmer D. The prison community. Boston: Christopher; 1940.Google Scholar
  7. Comfort M. Doing time together: love and family in the shadow of the prison. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coninx R, Maher D, Reyes H, Grzemska M. Tuberculosis in prisons in countries with high prevalence. Br Med J. 2000;320(7232):440–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cunha M. The ethnography of prisons and penal confinement. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2014;43:217–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Downing S, Polzer K, Levan K. Space, time, and reflexive interviewing: implications for qualitative research with active, incarcerated, and former criminal offenders. Int J Qual Methods. 2013;12:478–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drake DH, Earle R, Sloan J. General introduction: what ethnography tells us about prisons and what prisons tell us about ethnography. In: Drake DH, Earle R, Sloan J, editors. The Palgrave handbook of prison ethnography. New York: Palgrave MacMillan; 2015. p. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Easterling BA, Johnson EI. Conducting qualitative research on parental incarceration: personal reflections on challenges and contributions. Qual Rep. 2015;20(10):1550–67.Google Scholar
  13. Fazel S, Seewald K. Severe mental illness in 33,588 prisoners worldwide: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2012;200(5):364–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fazel S, Bains P, Doll H. Substance abuse and dependence in prisoners: a systematic review. Addiction. 2006;101:181–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fishman JF. Sex in prison: revealing sex conditions in American prisons. New York: National Library Press; 1934.Google Scholar
  16. Goffman E. Asylums: essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Garden City: Anchor Books; 1961.Google Scholar
  17. Hart CB. A primer in prison research. J Contemp Crim Just. 1995;11:165–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harvey J. An embedded multimethod approach to prison research. In: King RD, Wincup E, editors. Doing research on crime and justice. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 487–99.Google Scholar
  19. Hoge CW, Reichler MR, Dominguez EA, Bremer JC, Mastro TD, Hendricks KA, Breiman RF. An epidemic of pneumococcal disease in an overcrowded, inadequately ventilated jail. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(10):643–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Howard J. The state of prisons in England and Wales. Warrington: William Eyres; 1780.Google Scholar
  21. Hser Y, Longshore D, Anglin MD. The life course perspective on drug use: a conceptual framework for understanding drug use trajectories. Eval Rev. 2007;31(6):515–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacobs JB. Stateville: the penitentiary in mass society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1977.Google Scholar
  23. Jenness V. From policy to prisoners to people: a “soft-mixed methods” approach to studying transgender prisoners. J Contemp Ethnogr. 2010;39(5):517–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jewkes Y. Autoethnography and emotion as intellectual resources doing prison research differently. Qual Inq. 2012;18(1):63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson R. Hard time: understanding and reforming the prison. 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth; 2002.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson J. Researching in prison: first hand encounters of a first-time prison researcher. Te Awatea Rev. 2015;12(1):15–20.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson ME, Kondo KK, Brems C, Eldridge GD. HIV/AIDS research in correctional settings: a difficult task made even harder? J Correct Health Care. 2015;21(2):101–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaeble D, Glaze L, Tsoutis A, Minton T. Correctional populations in the United States, 2014. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), US Department of Justice, & Office of Justice Programs; 2015.Google Scholar
  29. King RD. Doing research in prisons. In: King R, Wincup E, editors. Doing research on crime and justice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 285–312.Google Scholar
  30. King RD, Liebling A. Doing research in prisons. In: King R, Wincup E, editors. Doing research on crime and justice. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 431–51.Google Scholar
  31. Liamputtong P. Researching the vulnerable: a guide to sensitive research methods. London: Sage; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liebling A. Whose side are we on?: theory, practice and allegiances in prisons research. Br J Criminol. 2001;41:472–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liebling A. Postscript integrity and emotion in prisons research. Qual Inq. 2014;20(4):481–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin C. Doing research in a prison setting. In: Jupp V, Davies P, Francis P, editors. Doing criminological research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2000. p. 215–33.Google Scholar
  35. Naylor B. Researching human rights in prisons. Int J Crime Justice Soc Democr. 2015;4(1):79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Newman DJ. Research interviewing in prison. J Crim Law Criminol Police Sci. 1958;49(2):127–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nielsen MM. Pains and possibilities in prison: on the use of emotions and positioning in ethnographic research. Acta Sociol. 2010;53(4):307–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Petersilia J. When prisoners come home: parole and prisoner reentry. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reiter K. Making windows in walls: strategies for prison research. Qual Inq. 2014;20(4):417–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rhodes R. Why they kill: the discoveries of a maverick criminologist. New York: Vintage Books; 1999.Google Scholar
  41. Ross JI, Richards SC. Introduction: what is the new school of convict criminology? In: Ross JI, Richards SC, editors. Convict criminology. Belmont: Wadsworth; 2003. p. 1–14.Google Scholar
  42. Sloan J, Wright S. Going in green: reflections on the challenges of “getting in, getting on, and getting out” for doctoral prisons researchers. In: Drake DH, Earle R, Sloan J, editors. The Palgrave handbook of prison ethnography. New York: Palgrave MacMillan; 2015. p. 143–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sutton J. An ethnographic account of doing survey research in prison: descriptions, reflections, and suggestions from the field. Qual Sociol Rev. 2011;7(2):45–63.Google Scholar
  44. Sykes G. The society of captives. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1958.Google Scholar
  45. US Department of Health and Human Services. The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1979.Google Scholar
  46. Wacquant L. The curious eclipse of prison ethnography in the age of mass incarceration. Ethnography. 2002;3(4):371–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wakai S, Shelton D, Tretman RL, Kesten K. Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions. Behav Sci Law. 2009;27:743–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Waldram JB. Challenges of prison ethnography. Anthropol Newsl. 2009;50(1):4–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Walmsley R. World prison population list. 10th ed. London: King’s College London International Centre for Prison Studies; 2013.Google Scholar
  50. Western B, Pettit B. Incarceration & social inequality. Daedalus. 2010;139(3):8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wolf LE, Zandecki J, Bernard L. The certificate of confidentiality application: a view from the NIH institutes. IRB Ethics Hum Res. 2004;36(1):14–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anthropology and SociologyHobart and William Smith CollegesGenevaUSA

Personalised recommendations