Skip to main content

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

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences
  • 479 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bick JA. Infection control in jails and prisons. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(8):1047–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosworth M, Kellezi B. Doing research in immigration removal centres: ethics, emotions and impact. Criminol Crim Justice. 2016:1–17. doi:10.1177/1748895816646151.

  • Brewer-Smyth K. Ethical, regulatory, and investigator considerations in prison research. Adv Nurs Sci. 2008;31(2):119–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemmer D. The prison community. Boston: Christopher; 1940.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comfort M. Doing time together: love and family in the shadow of the prison. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2008.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coninx R, Maher D, Reyes H, Grzemska M. Tuberculosis in prisons in countries with high prevalence. Br Med J. 2000;320(7232):440–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunha M. The ethnography of prisons and penal confinement. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2014;43:217–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazel S, Bains P, Doll H. Substance abuse and dependence in prisoners: a systematic review. Addiction. 2006;101:181–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishman JF. Sex in prison: revealing sex conditions in American prisons. New York: National Library Press; 1934.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman E. Asylums: essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Garden City: Anchor Books; 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart CB. A primer in prison research. J Contemp Crim Just. 1995;11:165–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard J. The state of prisons in England and Wales. Warrington: William Eyres; 1780.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs JB. Stateville: the penitentiary in mass society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jewkes Y. Autoethnography and emotion as intellectual resources doing prison research differently. Qual Inq. 2012;18(1):63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R. Hard time: understanding and reforming the prison. 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson J. Researching in prison: first hand encounters of a first-time prison researcher. Te Awatea Rev. 2015;12(1):15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Liamputtong P. Researching the vulnerable: a guide to sensitive research methods. London: Sage; 2007.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liebling A. Whose side are we on?: theory, practice and allegiances in prisons research. Br J Criminol. 2001;41:472–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebling A. Postscript integrity and emotion in prisons research. Qual Inq. 2014;20(4):481–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Naylor B. Researching human rights in prisons. Int J Crime Justice Soc Democr. 2015;4(1):79–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman DJ. Research interviewing in prison. J Crim Law Criminol Police Sci. 1958;49(2):127–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen MM. Pains and possibilities in prison: on the use of emotions and positioning in ethnographic research. Acta Sociol. 2010;53(4):307–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia J. When prisoners come home: parole and prisoner reentry. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter K. Making windows in walls: strategies for prison research. Qual Inq. 2014;20(4):417–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes R. Why they kill: the discoveries of a maverick criminologist. New York: Vintage Books; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sykes G. The society of captives. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wacquant L. The curious eclipse of prison ethnography in the age of mass incarceration. Ethnography. 2002;3(4):371–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakai S, Shelton D, Tretman RL, Kesten K. Conducting research in corrections: challenges and solutions. Behav Sci Law. 2009;27:743–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldram JB. Challenges of prison ethnography. Anthropol Newsl. 2009;50(1):4–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley R. World prison population list. 10th ed. London: King’s College London International Centre for Prison Studies; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Western B, Pettit B. Incarceration & social inequality. Daedalus. 2010;139(3):8–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James E. Sutton .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Cite this entry

Sutton, J.E. (2017). Doing Reflectively Engaged, Face-To-Face Research in Prisons: Contexts and Sensitivities. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_137-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_137-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2779-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2779-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Social SciencesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics