The Challenges of Conducting Research on Supermax Prisons: Results From a Survey of Scholars Who Conduct Supermax Research

Literature Review: Conducting Research on/in Correctional Facilities

Research on correctional facilities is a common form of criminal justice research. One outgrowth of the myriad studies on inmates, correctional staff, facility conditions, programs, structures, management, and outcomes (e.g., recidivism) has been an accompanying body of scholarship addressing how to best conduct research in carceral settings. In addition to Wacquant’s (2002) now-dated article, “The Curious Eclipse of Prison Ethnography in the Age of Mass Incarceration,” numerous pieces have been published on conducting scholarly research in Anglo-American jails and prisons over the past three decades. ⁵ These articles and chapters focus interchangeably on the difficulties of doing scholarly research in prisons; conducting research on special populations behind bars; co-producing research with inmates; Convict Criminological approaches to research; and the ethics of conducting research in correctional facilities. There is also a blurring across these themes. In other words, the authors in question often focus on more than one of these topics in their discussions.

The Challenges of Conducting Research in Prisons

One of the earliest pieces to examine conducting research behind bars was by Newman (1958-1959). He outlines the difficulties of gaining access and methods to improve interviews conducted with inmates, including how to build rapport, and the ethics of this type of research study. Another classic piece was written by Jacobs (1974). In this study, he documents his efforts to gain entrance to Statesville Penitentiary in Illinois to conduct qualitative research. Jacobs utilizes reflexive accounts to report his initial reactions to the facility, and how he managed to work and interact with both inmates and correctional officers, dealing with ethical matters as they arose. Similarly, after working as a researcher, Marquart (1986) became a correctional officer (CO) to conduct an ethnographic analysis of a Texas prison. He describes his entrance into the prison setting and the challenges he experienced with other COs and inmates alike. At no time did Marquart attempt to conceal his identity in occupying two roles. Based on numerous experiences he encountered, Marquart outlines both the positive and negative interpretations of this kind of approach to research. Similar research by King and Liebling (2008) outlines the challenges of gaining access based on the researchers’ social location (i.e., doctoral student, researcher working for private research organizations, or those working for government agencies). The authors then provide cautionary advice for individuals wishing to conduct research behind bars. Patenaude (2004), a former correctional worker and administrator, reviews both the scholarly research and his personal experience navigating the steps necessary to gain access to prisons to do research with inmates.

Alternatively, Liebling (1999) conducted an intensive study in a handful of maximum security prisons in England, which also involved managing a research team and then having to interview close to 100 inmates within a week’s time to complete the project on schedule. She reflects on the stress that she and her team experienced in trying to finish the work on time, and examines the possibility of remaining objective in a setting like this. Liebling further reviews the research protocols and difficulties her team encountered from the prisons in gaining access. In sum, the challenges are not simply confined to negotiating entrance with prison authorities; Liebling highlights the stress and/or emotional burnout that researchers may experience when confronted with these issues. Similar insights are brought forward by Jewkes (2012) in her discussion of autoethnography and emotion as resources when engaging in prison-related research. Some of the scholarship that has followed has been focused on the emotional experiences of prison ethnographers (e.g., Drake & Harvey, 2014). According to the authors, “the finer details of ethnographic practice can be better understood when the emotional dimensions of research experiences are carefully analyzed and processed” (Drake & Harvey, 2014, p. 489).

Apart from these interesting discussions are still other accounts that offer friendly advice to carceral researchers. Wakai, Shelton, Trestman, and Kesten (2009) review a number of steps that investigators considering doing work in correctional facilities should take. They emphasize the necessity of forming collaborations with the National Institute of Corrections, a division of the United States Bureau of Prisons. For them, this contact is especially important for negotiating between the differing cultures of prisons and researchers. This tactic is perhaps most important when researchers represent disciplines outside of criminal justice, such as health care, psychology, anthropology, and so forth. Instructively, Fox, Zambrana, and Lane (2011), based on their previous research on gangs in jails, present a list of 10 items they found useful when doing research inside prisons—including a considerable number of helpful steps and checklists. Similarly, Apa et al. (2012) enumerate approaches for researchers to follow to gain access and conduct correctional setting research.

Conducting Research With Special Populations Behind Bars

The study of incarcerated special populations, whether they are women, sexual minorities, the physically/developmentally/mentally challenged, or any of the other myriad varieties of “types” of inmates, usually requires special, unique approaches to ensure successful research (e.g., Quraishi, 2008). Although hundreds of studies of special populations have been conducted, what is lacking is a systematic discussion of the unique approaches that are necessary or beneficial in such investigations. Unfortunately, there are but a “handful” of studies that have examined the difficulties of conducting research with special populations behind bars.

The first and most obvious correctional “special population” is women. Just as in free society, studies of women must take into account their unique social, physical, emotional, and relational contexts to gain valuable insights about their experiences. One of the earliest studies focusing on women in prison, including reflective accounts, was provided by Giallombardo (1966), who outlines the challenges she encountered doing yearlong fieldwork in a woman’s facility. Giallombardo’s completion of this study depended on her relationships with both inmates and correctional workers. Key to her success was gaining their confidences and perceptions of her ability to maintain trust. Alternatively, Byrne’s (2005) study of incarcerated pregnant women delineates how to deal with ethical issues and inmate study protocols mandated by federal human subject research bodies. In addition, Ferszt and Chambers (2011) who also studied female inmates, offer helpful approaches, for example, including contacting the chief nursing officer, obtaining institutional review board (IRB) approval, and completing necessary confidentiality paperwork. However, as any experienced institutional researcher will acknowledge, obtaining formal approval is only one of a series of processes that needs to be negotiated and navigated. Others include how to recruit subjects, how to actually conduct interviews/observations or other data collection activities, how to organize everything from data collection to writing the report, and how to craft a summary of findings that is useful and nonthreatening to institutional authorities.

A second and only recently recognized special correctional population in need of study is transgender inmates. Jenness (2010) examines the data collection methods of her study of transgender inmates in the California Department of Corrections. Calling this method a “soft mixed methods approach,” the researcher used both quantitative and qualitative methods, including ethnography, to develop a portrait of transgender prisoners and the challenges they faced behind bars. Interviews were highly dependent on the establishment of rapport and trust between the researchers and the inmates; it was also necessary to balance the needs, demands, and skepticism of correctional officials.

Somewhat differently, Eldridge, Johnson, Brems, and Corey (2011) explore the implementation of psychiatric and mental health research behind bars. They conducted 87 semistructured interviews with a wide range of scholars who do work on prisons, in addition to the chairs and members of IRBs, prison activists, and practitioners. They address the top ethical concerns expressed by their sample subjects and offer suggestions on how to address these challenges. As well, Eldridge, Robinson, Corey, Brems, and Johnson (2012) apply a similar methodology to determine the unique obstacles experienced by researchers studying inmates with HIV. Chief among these difficulties are problems of maintaining confidentiality, challenges in securing and maintaining prisoners’ informed consent, avoiding coercion of inmates to participate, as well as the general challenges of carceral settings research.

Only three studies were identified that touch upon the methodology of conducting research in supermax prisons. Zwerman and Gardner (1986) review the decisions they made in their efforts to interview female inmates who had been convicted of political crimes and were incarcerated in both state and federal prisons. Although not specifically identified as a supermax or high security prison, the researchers indicated, “The prison received increased status and additional funds for security due to the presence of the respondent and her status as a ‘terrorist’” (p. 296). Reiter (2014), while conducting her dissertation research, failed to gain official access to California supermax prisons or garner support from her university IRB in her efforts to contact prisoners via phone or correspondence. Instead, Reiter resorted to interviews with state politicians about their decisions to pass legislation authorizing the construction of supermax prisons and individuals who designed the supermax facilities. To “flesh out” this research, she also interviewed inmates who had been released from supermaxes, networking with activists and correctional professionals through the state correctional officers’ union. In each case, the researchers were subjected to both increased questions regarding the purpose of their studies and tighter control over their access. Harrington (2015), in conducting research on different types of solitary confinement including administrative segregation, temporary segregation, protective custody, and supermax prisons, argues that among the greatest barriers are access to complete records, the differing definitions across facilities, and the effect of these factors in exacerbating the ability to do quantitative research.

In sum, the majority of scholarship about conducting research on special populations in correctional facilities is based on American institutions and approaches (Ross, 2007). Most of the literature reiterates and reinforces the difficulties that researchers encounter, offering similar suggestions on how to improve the process. Noteworthy is that scholarly studies of supermax prisons are relatively silent with respect to access issues and research methods applicable on or inside these institutions.

One must also keep in mind that very good basic research on correctional facilities, including supermax prisons, can be done without setting foot inside a jail or prison. This includes secondary data analysis, correspondence with inmates, and surveys administered to wardens, staff, and even inmates from afar (or with assistance of someone inside the gates). Although these approaches can be highly informative, they also are limited in terms of the variety of questions that can be investigated. However, those wishing to visit a supermax prison, speak with either inmates or correctional workers in a research capacity, and perhaps conduct ethnographic research need to adopt a number of different strategies.

Who Does Research on Supermax Prisons?

At a foundational level, we found that the researchers working in issues related to supermax prisons are both primarily from academic institutions; they are fairly evenly distributed among the traditional ranks found in universities: assistant professors (seven), associate professors (eight), and full professors (11). Other experts identified themselves as researcher (three), attorney (two), doctoral student (one), and an emeritus professor (one). None of the experts identified themselves as working for a government agency and/or department of corrections.

Not surprisingly, most of the researchers indicated that they had conducted research on supermax prisons in the United States (18/46%). Otherwise, some researchers took a global approach to the subject (4/3%), or examined supermaxes in a diverse number of countries that included, among others, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Israel, and Canada.

Perceptions of the Experience of Research in Supermax Facilities

One of the difficulties both identified early in this article and clearly reinforced by the survey data is that there is no clear, widely accepted, standardized definition for what is meant by “supermax.” Different terminology and varying criteria for inclusion in studies is reported across the pool of scholars. As a consequence, researchers may be talking past one another, not recognizing similarities (or differences) with other studies, conflating research findings, and simply introducing confusion and misunderstandings to the literature.

Despite definitional differences, there were surprisingly consistent explanations of difficulties and obstacles encountered by these investigators. Primary among the expressed obstacles are a lack of access, a shortage of empirical research to build on and use as guidance, and “research” that, rather than presenting empirically backed facts, trends, and ideas, is essentially commentary. The degree to which obstacles were perceived as impediments ranged between “very significant” to “moderate impediment” (see Table 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Impediments to Conducting Research on Supermax Prisons: How Significant Are the Following Items as Impediments?

Possible impediment	Very significant	Moderate impediment	Minor impediment	Not an impediment	Missing/none
Consensus on definition	2	9	13	8	1
Lack of access to supermax facilities	12	9	4	7	1
Lack of personal expertise in the subject matter	1	7	5	17	3
Journal/book editors lack interest in subject matter	1	2	5	23	2
Journal/book reviewers lack interest in the subject matter	1	1	5	24	2
Journal/book reviewers lack expertise in the subject matter	2	2	9	16	4
Lack of empirical studies	7	11	2	12	1
Most scholarship is commentary	12	9	3	8	1
Inability to secure grant funding	8	4	4	15	2

While informative, these findings are preliminary and only touch upon the meaning, scope, and consequences of efforts to study inside supermax prisons. Much more valuable than the quantitative questions are the results obtained from the survey’s open-ended questions. Here, two broad questions were posed in an attempt to determine precisely how and what about the structure, organization, and expectations of such correctional facilities meaningfully influence the possibility, form, and focus of research in supermax prisons. Below, we discuss the issues identified both as obstacles and necessary advances/resources/approaches for furthering these lines of investigation.

First, some of the responses implicated other researchers who are working on this topic. Here, respondents attribute much of the difficulties in conceptualization (and hence subsequent approach/entre) to other scholars who are not well versed in the field of institutional corrections and who (inadvertently?) confuse and conflate supermax facilities with other forms of institutional corrections, such as solitary confinement or disciplinary segregation. This issue may be further complicated by what many see as the changing nature (e.g., definition) of supermax prisons. In part, this is an issue of definitional variation and evolution. In the words of one respondent, “Often there is an ahistorical emphasis in the secondary literature, whereas supermax regimes were/are often evolving and changing entities and institutions that have changed over a period of time, some decades in some cases.”

For other respondents, concerns centered on scholars who preferred discussion to empirical studies. In explanation, one respondent suggested that “the area is very politicized and commentaries that have been published do not, by in large, advance an empirical agenda.” A connected issue pertains to quality control issues in the publication process. One respondent claimed, “The knowledge and rigor of the peer reviews is very low and editors are willing to publish content on supermaxes that does not meet high standards of either theory development or empirical analysis.”

A second issue, and one not necessarily restricted to the realm of supermax facilities, centers on a lack of and/or poor cooperation from departments of corrections (DOC). Comments included, “DOC efforts to collect (or make available) enough data that can be used to evaluate policy related to the efficacy of supermax prisons, is for the most part lacking”; “Facilities/states not complying with requests for information.” Or, more direct and pointedly,

The U.S. Government and state governments do not want academic researchers conducting studies. Prison administrators are concerned that prisoners will report neglect, abuse, and torture. The only exception is when prison authorities want a study report to use defending themselves in a lawsuit . . . . Staff members are also deeply suspicious due to assumptions that university types are always “pro-inmate.”

In addition to barriers and active resistance from correctional officials and agencies, so, too, do supermax prison scholars report issues concerning uninformed Institutional Review Boards (IRB). In a concise and direct manner, one respondent reported that IRBs “don’t have any realistic concept of prison, much less supermax, conditions, even with a prisoner rep as part of a panel conducting research with people in these settings, and this can cause problems regarding the bioethical issue of justice.” Others also suggested that IRBs can be an especially daunting obstacle for those seeking to conduct research in supermax prisons. Not only do IRBs sometimes fail to distinguish the differences in types or security levels of prisons, but fail as well to understand the day-to-day routines and experiences of inmates (and staff in such facilities, rather imposing demands that may apply appropriately to either lower-level security facilities or very different types of correctional facilities (jails, prisons, juvenile institutions, etc.).

What Do We Need to Advance the Scholarly Study of Supermax Prisons?

Although citing barriers and challenges is useful, identifying means to manage, overcome, or side-step such obstacles is where most scholars prefer to focus their efforts (and comments). In simple terms, these respondents were quite vocal with respect to what needs to be done to improve our knowledge of supermax prisons. To begin with, a number of respondents were pretty emphatic about the necessity of performing “good empirical, field-based research” with “fewer opinions, more facts.” Building on this comment, another respondent advocated for, “consistent definitions, public concern, investigative research, rather than opinion/policy evaluations.” One wished for “a commitment on the part of editors to not publish commentaries. Reviewers that know something about prison violence and prison management.” In short, there is a need both to conduct scholarship rather than editorialize, and to conduct scholarship that is based on consistent, shared, and known definitions.

A second commonly voiced issue focused on the need for funding by both government and private institutions in the United States (and elsewhere). Due to the challenges of supermax prison locations, their strict schedules (which will limit data collection opportunities), time requirements, and other obstacles, funding is seen as critical. Research funding not only provides opportunities for investigations—Studies that are funded serve as a baseline and launching point for additional research. However, because of what is recognized as a highly politicized realm, there is a perception that governmental funding may be less than fully objective. Hence, it is not only funding itself that is seen as critical, but also more specifically, the call is for, “Private foundation funding with no strings attached.”

Finally, some respondents recommended more cooperation among researchers. One urged, “More inter-group cooperative team research across the U.S.; comparative studies based in different regions; finding common ground between prison administrators, scholars, and researchers who represent different constituencies.” Another mentioned, “Scholars in this area need to have a regular meeting; share notes and experiences.” In this way, not only can findings be shared expeditiously, but so too can scholars collaborate in efforts to overcome obstacles and share successes. Or, rather than limiting to only cooperation between and among scholars, so too do some see it important to establish lasting, true partnerships with correctional agencies.” “Finding avenues to partnership with correctional agencies to conduct mutually beneficial research in this area.”

In sum, to advance scholarly work and understandings of supermax prisons, contemporary supermax scholars highlight barriers of access, definitions, resistance from correctional institutions/agencies, flawed guidance from IRBs, and a literature replete with commentaries, editorials, and “think pieces” rather than empirical studies. With these barriers identified, the needs of the field include a renewed and funded focus on actual research and recognition of the importance of cooperation among all involved, including fellow scholars and institutional gatekeepers.