‘For those few minutes you are free’: The meaning of sport from imprisoned men's perspective

Abstract

Based on an ethnographic study in a German prison, this article explores the question of what meaning incarcerated men attach to sport in light of the loss of freedom and autonomy which according to Sykes are particular ‘pains of imprisonment’. The material shows the following: (1) Incarceration is perceived by imprisoned men as a life under duress and proves to be a stark contrast to life outside prison due to the limited freedom of movement, action and decision making. (2) Sport is a means for incarcerated men to bring back memories of being free and to mentally escape into the time before imprisonment. (3) Sport is one of the few opportunities for imprisoned men to spend time in fresh air, which results in a physically–sensually experienced liberation. (4) Participation in sports enables the incarcerated to temporarily regain freedom of action and decision making. Overall, the findings indicate that sport can best be understood as a help in coping with incarceration. It is concluded from the findings that imprisoned men attach their own meanings to sport, largely detached from the function of sport ascribed by the institution (such as rehabilitation and health promotion).

Keywords

Incarceration total institution prison sport pains of imprisonment ethnography

Introduction

Over 11 million people are incarcerated worldwide. Since the year 2000, there has been a steady increase in the global prison population, with Europe totalling around one and a half million incarcerated men and women (Fair and Walmsley, 2021). According to the Federal Statistical Office (2022), approximately 57,000 people are currently imprisoned in Germany, a large proportion of whom are male (approximately 53,000). For a considerable time now, sport has been an integral part of everyday life in German prisons, and sport is now even included in all of the correctional laws of the federal states. For example, §64 of the Lower Saxony Prison Act (‘Niedersächsisches Justizvollzugsgesetz’) states: ‘The prisoner is given the opportunity to engage in sport in his or her spare time’. In accordance with the legal requirements, incarcerated persons have the opportunity to engage in sports activities during their spare time on the outdoor facilities, in gyms or fitness rooms of the prisons (Schröder, 2018).

Approximately 30% to 50% of imprisoned men regularly participate in sports activities offered in open and closed prisons in Germany.¹ Among the incarcerated men, there is a preference for football, volleyball, table tennis, badminton, weight training and running (Müller and Mutz, 2023; Schliermann and Kern, 2011). Meanwhile, there is a small body of scholarly literature on the experiences of sport from imprisoned persons’ perspective (e.g. Martinez-Merino et al., 2019; Martos-García et al., 2009; Norman and Andrews, 2019; Parker et al., 2014). The present study follows on from these qualitative investigations by reconstructing the meaning of sport in prison from incarcerated men's perspective with reference to Sykes’ (1958) concept of the ‘pains of imprisonment’.

Sykes’ (1958) concept has long shaped sociological prison research and is used as a starting point in numerous current sociological studies (e.g. Crewe, 2011; Haggerty and Bucerius, 2020). Crewe (2011: 509) accordingly calls the concept a ‘celebrated analysis’ of prison research. In sociological prison research, however, a linkage of Sykes’ concept with the recreational activity of playing sports has so far been absent. This is particularly surprising given that sport has been an essential part of prison life for many years, not only in Germany (Schröder, 2018) but also in Canada (Norman, 2017), Australia (Gallant et al., 2015), the United Kingdom (Meek, 2014) and Spain (Martos-García et al., 2009), for example. Sykes (1958: 65) identifies ‘the deprivation of liberty’ and ‘the deprivation of autonomy’ as central ‘pains of imprisonment’. Situating the research in Sykes’ concept, this article aims at exploring the following question more deeply: What meaning do imprisoned men attach to sport against the background of the loss of freedom and autonomy that comes with imprisonment?

Referring to Sykes’ concept in a sport sociological study on prison sport seems valuable in two respects: First, the concept may help to better understand the deprivations and strains experienced by incarcerated people. Thus, the concept can be both an aid in analyzing data on the experience of imprisonment and helpful in situating the findings. Second, the concept makes it possible to sociologically examine the significance of activities behind bars (such as sports) that may be linked to the pains of imprisonment. This, in turn, allows for a better understanding and contextualisation of the meaning attached to sport by imprisoned people. In this way, the study can contribute to relating the experience of prison sport to the experience of the prison context, which is very enlightening from a sport sociological perspective. A special feature is that the study refers to prison sport in Germany, about which there is little empirical knowledge (Müller and Mutz, 2019). The study thus provides insights into sport in prison from a new perspective and expands the empirical knowledge.

The study argues that sport has an important compensatory value for incarcerated people in terms of experiencing particular ‘pains of imprisonment’ (Sykes, 1958). By referring back to Sykes’ concept, the analyses made here are connectable to the broader social science prison research. Above all, however, the study is relevant for research in the sociology of sport, as it expands the discourse on socially vulnerable groups in sport, which include not only refugees (e.g. Waardenburg et al., 2019) or homeless (e.g. Crook et al., 2023), but also imprisoned people. Thereby, the present study reconstructs the sport experiences from the perspective of those affected, resulting in findings that are insightful for the sociology of sport. Furthermore, the study can be connected to the topic ‘sport and social inequality’, which has become a classic issue in the sociology of sport.

Theoretical approaches to imprisonment

In German criminal law, detention is the last resort when other punishment mechanisms have failed or are not (any longer) an option. Imprisonment has undoubtedly always been intended to cause pain or deprivation: ‘One of the striking things about prisons is that we make no bones about the fact that we intend them to be uncomfortable’ (Johnson and Toch, 1982: 13). The consequences of imprisonment for detained persons have been extensively described in numerous sociological works (e.g. Goffman, 1961; Johnson and Toch, 1982; Liebling and Maruna, 2005; Sykes, 1958).

In his prominent sociological study on prisons, Sykes (1958) very vividly reconstructed the incarcerated persons’ perspective and identified five ‘pains of imprisonment’: One of the pains described by him is (1) ‘the deprivation of liberty’, which is most evident in the fact that detained people have to live in a confined area within which their freedom of movement is severely restricted. Thus, according to Sykes, the imprisoned people's loss of liberty is a double one: ‘first by confinement to the institution and second, by confinement within the institution’ (ibid.: 65). Another pain described by Sykes is (2) ‘the deprivation of autonomy’, which is particularly evident in the fact that the detained people's personal autonomy of decision making is very limited and their lives are structured by the institution. The imprisoned persons are deprived of any decision-making autonomy and the independence that goes with it, especially due to the ongoing regulations, so that they are almost completely subjected to the decision-making power of the institution. According to Sykes (1958: 76), the loss of autonomy throws the detained people ‘back into childhood's helplessnes’ which is experienced as painful. Additional pains of imprisonment described by him include (3) ‘the deprivation of goods and services’, (4) ‘the deprivation of heterosexual relationships’ and (5) ‘the deprivation of security’. In the latter, he alludes to offences committed by incarcerated persons against other incarcerated.

While scholars have recognised that the pains of imprisonment are experienced differently in contemporary prisons (e.g. Crewe, 2011; Hancock and Jewkes, 2011; Shammas, 2014) and that new ‘modern’ pains, such as ‘the pain of constant psychological evaluation’ (Crewe, 2011), ‘spatial pains of imprisonment’ (Hancock and Jewkes, 2011) and ‘pains beyond the prison wall’ (Haggerty and Bucerius, 2020), have emerged in the past several decades, the pains of the deprivation of liberty and the deprivation of autonomy remain central to the contemporary experience of imprisonment (e.g. Rocheleau, 2013; with regard to Germany: Bereswill, 2015). After all, these pains are related to the structure of incarceration, which has not fundamentally changed since the middle of the last century. Thus, it can be assumed that Sykes’ concept can be applied in contemporary studies.

In addition to Sykes’ concept, the concept of the ‘total institution’ (Goffman, 1961) is also relevant for sociological prison studies. Goffman describes a ‘total institution’ as a living and working place for a large number of people in a similar position, who are isolated from the rest of society and live a strictly regulated life together. Besides mental institutions and convents, he also refers to prisons as total institutions. Characteristic of total institutions is that all activities take place in a locked space and are meticulously structured by the institution. Prison inmates² are particularly (and significantly more than the inhabitants of other total institutions) under the leadership of an authority that regulates life and the daily structure within the institution and restricts options for action. By necessity, inmates must obey the authorities. Consequently, the total institution of prison confers almost total power over the inmates (Foucault, 1977). Directly related to this are persistent conflicts of authority between the inmates and the institution.

It becomes clear that the particularities of the total institution described by Goffman (1961) determine the loss of freedom and autonomy described by Sykes (1958). With regard to the transferability of Goffman's concept to today's prisons in Germany, Dollinger and Schmidt (2015) can be agreed with, emphasising that his work still provides valuable impulses and impressive examples of penal research open to the difficult construction and interaction processes of social reality. The fact that Goffman's concept is of central importance for the study of sport in the penal system is also emphasised in current contributions in the sociology of sport (e.g. Norman, 2017).

Review of literature on sport in prisons

Given that sport has become an integral part of prison life in different countries, a number of studies on sport in prison have been published in the past. Key themes in the literature on sport in prison are ‘sport and health’, ‘sport and rehabilitation’, ‘sport and power relations’ and ‘sport experiences from the perspective of imprisoned persons’.

Firstly, there are numerous studies that deal with the relationship between sport and different aspects of incarcerated people's health, such as physical and mental health, fitness, general wellbeing and life satisfaction (e.g. Meek and Lewis, 2012; Müller and Mutz, 2023; Psychou et al., 2021; Woods et al., 2017). In this context, current findings from Germany (Mutz and Müller, 2023) show that many incarcerated men complain about physical symptoms that increase in the course of imprisonment. However, the study suggests that physical activity is associated with better physical and mental health and contributes to maintaining health during imprisonment.

Secondly, there are a small number of studies that examine prison sport with regard to its potential for rehabilitation (e.g. Devís-Devís et al., 2012; Kovalsky et al., 2020; Meek, 2014). In this context, a few studies examine from a pedagogical perspective how sport aiming at rehabilitation is arranged, carried out and experienced in prison (e.g. Roe, 2021; Roe et al., 2019). Some studies suggest that participation in sport has a positive influence on the social behaviour of detained people, for example by teaching them cooperation and reducing antisocial behaviour (Kerekes et al., 2017; Kovalsky et al., 2020; van Hout and Phelan, 2014). Some studies also show that sports interventions in prison can contribute to violence prevention insofar as they can reduce aggression levels and increase impulse control (Wagner et al., 1999; Williams et al., 2015). However, a recent study from Germany (Müller et al., 2023) reveals that imprisoned men themselves refer to only a few educational experiences gained in sport; they most often report that they learned the willingness to exert and acquired health-related knowledge.

Third, there are some studies that critically reflect on sport behind bars (e.g. Norman, 2017; Ricciardelli, 2014): In this context, it is argued, among other things, that weight training and martial arts are less likely to teach prosocial behaviours and that these forms of sport are instead drivers of a subculture based on violence and oppression (Abrams et al., 2008; Ricciardelli, 2014; Sabo, 2001). Norman's (2017) study also points to violent interactions in the context of sport, though at the same time he shows the extent to which detained people resist the administration's social control in sport. Meek and Lewis (2014), in turn, identify participation barriers for incarcerated women interested in sports, and Woods and Breslin (2019) do so for young incarcerated men in sports interventions.

Fourth, there is some qualitatative research reconstructing the experiences of sport in prison from detained persons’ perspective (e.g. Martinez-Merino et al., 2019; Martos-García et al., 2009; Müller and Mutz, 2022; Norman and Andrews, 2019; Parker et al., 2014). Thereby, two Spanish studies found that ‘a diverse and contradictory set of meanings are associated with sport and physical activity within this particular prison culture’ (Martos-García et al., 2009: 77) and that sports participation supports coping with incarceration among detained women (Martinez-Merino et al., 2019). Additionally, a Canadian study showed that sport in prison can help imprisoned persons ‘to cope in various ways with their incarceration’, although it can also promote violence and exclusion (Norman and Andrews, 2019: 453). Furthermore, a study from UK explored broader notions of personal development within a sporting intervention behind bars and concludes that sport potentially entails positive psychosocial aspects and can be beneficial for the rehabilitation of juvenils leaving prison (Meek and Lewis, 2014). A review of qualitative research summarised the meanings of prison sport from detained people's perspective and concluded that participation in sports allows them to overcome monotony and boredom, reduces stress and feelings of social isolation and helps them to experience themselves temporarily as self-determined subjects (Müller and Mutz, 2019).

Although previous studies have partly examined the sport experiences of imprisoned people, none of the previous studies have reconstructed the meaning of prison sport with reference to Sykes’ (1958) concept of the ‘pains of imprisonment’. The study expands the current state of research by introducing a relevant concept from prison sociology into sport sociology for the first time. The study can be linked not only to the study by Martos-García et al. (2009) in particular, in which ‘multiple meanings’ of sport are reconstructed, but also to the study by Norman (2017), who in his study draws on an equally important concept from sociology with reference to Goffman (1961).

Methods

This article draws on interview and observational data collected as part of an ethnographic study on sport and exercise activities in prisons conducted between January 2018 and April 2020 in a German high-security prison. The prison has a maximum occupancy of 340 persons, including sections for detained people in the closed prison system and for pretrial detention. In the prison studied, the incarcerated men are offered various organised sports activities, such as football, volleyball, badminton, table tennis, indoor cycling on stationery bikes and running, which are instructed and supervised by prison staff. In addition to these supervised sports activities, the detained men can also engage in self-organised sports: For example, during the daily recreation hour, which is required by law, the men can play table tennis, go running or do exercises (e.g. push-ups) in the recreation yard. Furthermore, they can do exercises in a small fitness room equipped with a stationery bike, a pull-up bar and a multifunctional dip station, or independently in their cells. It is up to the men themselves to decide which sports activities they want to do and in which setting.

Access to the prison was gained through a weekly fitness sports project run by the author as a volunteer sports educator. The sports project consisted of weekly fitness classes based on the principles of Tabata, where you train in short, intense intervals, alternating periods of exertion and recovery. A total of eight imprisoned men could participate in the sports project on each date. Altogether, over 30 detained men took part in the sports project during the course of the research, which lasted more than 2 years. The sports project made it possible to realise weekly field visits in the prison that included participative observations in a sports context and helped to establish contacts with potential interview partners. Thus, the project was a suitable means of gaining access to a prison that is often described in the literature as very difficult (e.g. Martinez-Merino et al., 2022; Norman, 2018).

In the course of this sports project 80 field visits were carried out and problem-centred interviews (Witzel and Reiter, 2010) were conducted with 16 imprisoned men. Characteristic of the the problem-centred interview is that, on the one hand, it enables the interviewer to focus on the interview thematically and, on the other hand, it enables the interviewee to structure his or her statements and answers according to his or her own relevance. This interview variant was chosen against the background that the interviews should basically deal with prison sport, but the interviewees themselves should address or describe aspects relevant to this topic from their point of view. In the interviews, open, narrative-generating questions and more focused questions alternated in order to evoke personal narratives about experiences and perceptions in the context of prison without losing the thematic focus on sport in prison. Sykes’ (1958) concept of the ‘pains of imprisonment’ was not specifically addressed by the interviewer, but the questions asked about the experience of imprisonment enabled the interviewees to address it (which, by the way, was evident in all interviews). The interviews lasted from 70 to 200 min each. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

These formal interviews were complemented by several unstructured interviews and conversations during the field visits. The field visits took place both within the sports project led by the author and as part of observation visits during the regular sports activities led by the sports staff. The field visits can be described as ‘hanging out’ (Woodward, 2008), which has already been reflected on by Ugelvik (2014) as extremely suitable for doing research in prison. After all, ‘hanging out’ implies meeting the same people regularly over a period of time and getting to know each other, which can reduce possible scepticism of the imprisoned persons towards the researcher. The ‘hanging out’ status thus ensured a certain trust level that is a necessary condition for getting an undisguised in-depth look into the imprisoned people's subjective life worlds. However, especially at the beginning of the sports project, the researcher was ‘tested’ by some incarcerated men to find out whether he was really just a curious researcher and not an undercover employee of the justice system, as Ugelvik (2014) also experienced.

The interview partners are men between the age of 25 and 65. During the data collection, they were serving prison sentences between 18 months and 11 years. The offences range from violations of the narcotics law, fraud and extortion to sexual and violent crimes and homicide. While some of the interviewees had been in prison for more than 6 years at the time of the interview, others had only been imprisoned for a few months. Among the men interviewed, more than half can be described as intensive offenders, many of whom were thus repeatedly imprisoned and had previous experience in the penal system. One interviewee had been repeatedly housed in various juvenile homes and psychiatric institutions throughout Germany since childhood; using the words of Irwin (1970), he can be described as a ‘state raised youth’.

All study participants knew that the interviews served solely a scientific purpose and that prison staff had no access to the material. Additionally, all participants were informed that the sports project led by the author as well as any conversations and all stays in the prison were part of the data collection. The transparency of the research project towards the imprisoned men was particularly important from a research ethics perspective and is a pre-requisite for any research in German prisons, which must first be approved by the ‘Kriminologischer Dienst’ (an institution that coordinates any research in the prison system). All men participated voluntarily and agreed with a publication of anonymised interview excerpts and the observational data. The names used below are pseudonyms.

The transcripts of the formal and unstructured interviews as well as the observation protocols were analysed according to the thematic analysis described by Strauss and Corbin (1990), Charmaz (2006) and Clarke (2005). Particularly two phases in the course of the analysis need to be distinguished: the initial and focused coding (Charmaz, 2006). During the initial open coding significant core themes were identified that emerged from the material. In the subsequent focused coding, core categories were further developed and refined by thoroughly relating and comparing smaller pieces of data to these codes (Charmaz, 2006). The analysis and interpretation of the data involved systematic, inductive processes. The following sections illuminate the main themes that emerged from the material with reference to Sykes (1958) remarks regarding the deprivation of liberty and autonomy.

Results

Four main themes emerged from the material that show close references to the pains of ‘the deprivation of liberty’ and ‘the deprivation of autonomy’ (Sykes, 1958: 65): (1) Incarceration is perceived by detained men as a life under duress and proves to be a stark contrast to life outside prison due to the limited freedom of movement, action and decision making. (2) Sport is a means for the imprisoned men to bring back memories of being free and to mentally escape into the time before imprisonment. (3) Sport is one of the few opportunities for incarcerated men to spend time in fresh air and exercise outdoors, which results in a physically–sensually experienced liberation. (4) Participation in sports enables imprisoned men to temporarily regain their freedom of action and decision making.

Life under duress

The data show that the incarcerated men experience imprisonment as a life under duress and that they feel their freedom is severely curtailed. The typical understanding of ‘freedom’ from the detained men's point of view is expressed by one man: ‘For me, freedom is simply living into the day and doing whatever I feel like doing. So if I say I get up at twelve, I get up at twelve and if I say I get up at three, I get up at three’ (Mr Koch). Constraints on freedom can be seen in the data above all with regard to the possibilities of movement, action and decision making. Restrictions on movement are particularly evident during lock-up times, when the radius of mobility is limited to the 9 m² sized cell or the slightly larger ward. The only exception is the daily recreation hour on the 200 m² sized recreation yard, which is required by law in Germany. The fact that the limited freedom of movement is perceived as a great burden is clearly shown in the interviews: ‘So being locked up, not being able to go out when you want. I have to say, that is actually the worst thing for me’ (Mr Schmidt). Against the background of the imposed restrictions on movement, the incarcerated men speak of feeling ‘like a dog in a kennel’ (Mr Wartini). A striking number of imprisoned men use similar metaphors and compare their living situation to that of a caged animal. For the men, the confinement results in the fundamental and continuing feeling of lack of freedom.

Constitutive of life in a prison is the severely limited self-determination and autonomy of action (Sykes, 1958) associated with the particular structure of the ‘total institution’ (Goffman, 1961). In this context, the detained men speak of ‘external control’ (Mr Wartini) or ‘external determination’ (Mr Thiel), which is evident in all areas of life in prison and is accompanied by a feeling of ‘powerlessness’ (Mr Gabor) or ‘helplessness’ (Mr Wolf). Sykes (1958: 76) addresses precisely this aspect with the term ‘childhood's helplessness’. These feelings in turn imply a strong form of dependence on the institution. The experience of coercion and dependence is comprehensive and extends to the smallest everyday routines, such as wake-up times, work activities or eating. Thus, one interviewee describes as a serious change after imprisonment ‘that you can’t just do what you feel like doing’ (Mr Gabor). All in all, the available data clearly show that for the detained men, prison proves to be a stark contrast to life outside, which after all is characterised by extensive freedom of movement, action and decision making. The meaning of sport in connection with life under restraint from the perspective of the imprisoned men is illustrated below.

Memories of being free

Sport in prison is an opportunity for the detained men to mentally free themselves from the ‘total institution’ (Goffman, 1961) and to escape with their thoughts into earlier times when sport was practised and which the men still have in good memory. Before imprisonment, the men practised sports mainly at school, in sports clubs, in fitness studios or on public sports grounds. The possibility of a mental immersion in the time of freedom is mainly related to the fact that the experiencing of sport in prison is very similar to the experiencing of sport in former times, that is, before imprisonment. One man addresses this in the interview: ‘[Sport in here] reminds you of the past, of sport activities you did outside. So the positive, and that makes you feel good because you have fun, just like before’ (Mr Medvedev). Another imprisoned man formulates it in a similar way: ‘I feel like I am free when I play volleyball. Because it's like playing sports with my buddies in the old days’ (Mr Tucci). Here it becomes apparent that the past memories become more or less strongly present again, so that one can speak of a realisation of the past outside the prison walls. This mental ‘journey’ into the past is also addressed by Mr Thiel. When he entered the gym in prison for the first time, he ‘felt a bit transported back into the past, the school gym’. This reveals what Gacek (2017: 75) describes as ‘imaginative episodes’.

The reason for the feeling of being transported back into the past outside the prison during sport (see also Gacek, 2017; Norman and Andrews, 2019) is that – as the numerous observations showed – the sports activities hardly differ from leisure sports activities outside the prison, and in the researcher's self-reflection they seemed very familiar from the beginning. Not only is the structure of the supervised football and volleyball activities very familiar (a short warm-up phase of running and stretching is followed by the division of the team before the game is started by the prison staff), but also the perceptible background: the sport-typical instructions, feedback and agreements between the players in the context of the various team sports are just as noticeable as the smells that the sweaty sportspeople emit and which are in a way a constitutive element of sport. This structure of sport – familiar from other contexts such as sports clubs or physical education classes – as well as the perceptible soundscape immanent to team sports, including the smells typical of sport, make it easier to forget for a while being in prison. That the researcher's observations and perceptions described here coincide with those of the imprisoned men can be seen from the interviews at a deeper level of analysis.

It is striking that most of the interviewees relate the mental ‘journey’ into the past to the stay in the gym, the fitness room or the sports field. This means that they implicitly attach great significnace to the sports facilities and not (only) to the sports activities themselves. The meaning of the sports facilities was also noted in the ethnographic observations. It was found that the prison gym is very reminiscent of a school gym or a multi-purpose sports hall outside the prison. Only the bars in front of the narrow windows at ceiling height and the barely visible two cameras in the corners indicate that it is not an ordinary gym outside the prison. This also includes the sports equipment and the entire inventory, which also gives no indication that one is in a prison gym. From the small football goals and the basketball baskets as well as the wooden benches and jumping boxes to the blue and green soft floor mats and the table tennis tables: The entire equipment is identical to that from any gym outside prison. One interviewee brings this up in conversation when he talks about a previous incarceration: ‘Already being in the gym was a highlight because it was not so typical prison’ (Mr Coman).

Hence, the gym is perceived as an atypical prison space, that is, as a space that is different from all other places in prison. One of the things that contribute to this is the wooden panelling on the walls, which is common in gyms, and which, due to its warm colour, emits a certain cosiness and provides a comfortable atmosphere that one would not actually expect in a prison. The prison gym, which is described by the incarcerated men without exception as ‘very nice’, thus invites in a certain way to temporarily not feel like in a prison, but rather like in a (school) gym outside prison. Above all, the room design, which is on the one hand familiar and on the other hand atypical for a prison, seems to be of central importance here and makes it an oasis of the prison.

The fact that a large number of the detained men perceive the prison gym (or basically the sports context) as an associative moment of freedom is also related to the fact that the uniformed prison staff, who are otherwise permanently present in the prison, are out of sight during organised sports. Here, the imprisoned men are among themselves and are only instructed and supervised by a prison staff member responsible for the sports activities. Unlike the other prison staff, however, the sports staff are not dressed in uniform with boots, but in ordinary sportswear. Thus, they are not visually recognisable as prison staff and are perceived by the men as trainers rather than prison guards. As a result, the sports staff are typically called ‘coaches’ or ‘physical educators’ by the men.

With Goffman (1961: 62), sport in prison can thus be interpreted as a ‘sampling of the outside world provided by the establishment’. Participation in sport in prison reduces the perceived discrepancy between the inside and the outside world. Within the gym – one could say – the boundaries between the inside and outside world blur and a certain permeability or fragility of the wall of the total institution becomes perceptible for the imprisoned persons. Linked to this are feelings of freedom that accompany the men's sporting activities in many cases and which are sometimes accompanied by specific emotions. In this context, Mr Koch says that he sometimes feels ‘really happy’ when doing sports. The fact that the spaces within the prison can be divided into different ‘emotional zones’ is also reflected by Crewe et al. (2014), who criticise in this context that this idea has hardly been explored in the classic and current sociological contributions on prisons. However, Crewe and colleagues focus on the aspect of the external emotional expression of the imprisoned persons (e.g. towards other detained people or staff), whereas they disregard the idea of the internal emotional experience or feeling. It should have become clear by now that the prison gym is a special ‘emotional zone’. The outdoor sports area also represents a special space within the prison, which will be focused on in the following.

Freedom with all senses

Like almost all German prisons, the prison studied is equipped with an outdoor sports field. Participation in the sports activities on the sports field is one of the few opportunities for the imprisoned men to spend time in the fresh air, to move outdoors and – on a very reduced scale – to feel or perceive nature. In contrast to the inside of the prison, where – in the words of one man – ‘it actually smells like prison everywhere’ (Mr Thiel), the sports field is dominated by ‘the smell of nature’. By expanding the field of sensory perception on the outdoor sports facility, it is associated with freedom, that is, the detained men can almost smell and also hear freedom – for example through the chirping of the birds, the buzzing of the bees or also the rustling of the wind. These sensory perceptions associated with freedom were also reflected by the researcher himself in the observations: On the sports field it feels less like being in a prison and more like being in a public park. It smells, sounds and looks like freedom.

One of the interviewees mentions this and at the same time refers to the contrast between the inside of the prison and the sports field: ‘You are locked up in a very small space all the time … and you only look at the walls. And out there on the sports field, for those few minutes you are free. Because you are outside, in the fresh air’ (Mr Coman). In this way, the sports field differs significantly from the other places where the detained people stay, and the spatial confinement typical of prisons (Goffman, 1961; Sykes, 1958) does not exist here either. After all, nowhere else in the prison is it possible to look over such a long distance to the prison wall. This observation made by the researcher corresponds with the perception of the imprisoned men:‘It is of course different when I move around in the inner courtyard and see walls or facades on all four sides, or whether I am on the sports field, where I can run almost five hundred metres in one round and also look over the wall sometimes. It is really pleasant to have a little bit more of a view into the distance’ (Mr Thiel).

Another man's answer is similar when he is asked for a reason why he would always look at the sky during the running breaks:

‘The prison is closed on all sides, only the top is open. When I look at the sky, I don’t see any walls or buildings. Then you can forget that you are locked up, because you can look upwards to an unlimited distance’. (Mr Koch)

Especially when spending time on the sports field, a physical and sensual liberation is experienced. This includes not only the feeling of the grass when walking barefoot, which could be observed again and again during the field visits, but also the seeing, hearing and smelling of nature described above. Due to the sensory impoverishment that characterises everyday prison life, the fresh air, the sun and clouds, the far view and the wind are experienced as something very special and valuable. These physical–sensual experiences, which are taken for granted by people outside of prison, become particularly significant through imprisonment including the associated predominant accommodation in closed indoor spaces within the locked space of the institution (Goffman, 1961) and represent moments of liberation.

The spaciousness of the sports field described above is accompanied by the possibility of being able to move freely and within a large radius – especially in comparison to the confined space of the cell, the ward, the yard or the gym. Thus, being allowed onto the sports field means being released from the confined and movement-restricting building, for which the lack of physical freedom – as also described by Sykes (1958) – is characteristic: ‘Especially on the sports field you can move around a lot. And movement means not being locked up at that moment’ (Mr Koch). The fact that the lack of freedom is not felt so strongly on the sports field is probably also related to the fact that the high density of people that otherwise exists everywhere in the prison does not exist there due to the spatial expanse. Here, the imprisoned men can spread out over the entire outdoor sports area and thus counteract the feeling of being ‘crammed in’. Accordingly, many of the interviewees point out that it is very pleasant to ‘have a bit of distance from each other’ (Mr Rubak), because otherwise they are ‘together in a confined space all the time’. The possibility to distance oneself from other incarcerated men is another aspect of freedom.

Freedom of action and decision making

As described above, incarcerated persons can participate in supervised sport activities and engage in self-organised sport. Many men mention in the interview that self-organised sport is a field of action in which autonomy and self-determination can be experienced: ‘The [staff] can take away everything that is important to you here. TV, Playstation, books … They can also force twenty-three hours of confinement on you. But I can do push-ups and sit-ups even in solitary confinement, they can’t take that away from you’ (Mr Öger). The reason for being able to experience autonomy is that no material is needed for self-organised sporting activities and this form of sport can actually be practised anywhere and at any time. Accordingly, independence from the total institution becomes apparent in self-organised sport in a special way.

Although this independence from the institution is not given in the case of prison-organised sport (after all, the men need a sports permission for this), it also represents an opportunity to regain freedom of action and decision making: After all, as soon as the detained men have a sports permisson, they can freely choose sports activities according to their preferences. Above all, this possibility of choice in the context of sport means a degree of self-determination within the total institution, where normally all activities are meticulously structured (Goffman, 1961). Furthermore, sport is a field of action in which – at least to a certain extent – the social context itself can be influenced. After all, the men can register for particular sports programmes knowing the composition of the participants, so that the prison-organised sport functions in a certain way as a social meeting place across the wards. The fact that this possibility to influence the social context is an incentive for participation in sport that should not be underestimated becomes clear in many interviews: ‘The nice thing about sport is that you can arrange to meet other prisoners indirectly, for example at table tennis or something. Otherwise you can’t choose who you spend most of your time with’ (Mr Wolf).

The regaining of freedom of action and decision making can be experienced in a special way in sports: ‘In sport you can at least make your own decisions, for example, whether you do this or that exercise or whether you want to run after the ball or not’ (Mr Sanders). The special role attributed to sport is justified with the possibility of self-determination that is otherwise not given in prison. Above all, this liberation from the restrictions on action and decision-making typical of prisons is strongly related to the experience of freedom in the context of sport. The regaining of freedom of action and decision making is also connected to the organisation of the sport: ‘The sports staff don’t try to hold the strings in their hands. They are a bit more relaxed when it comes to sports and just let us do what we want’ (Mr Coman). The possibility of being able to help design the prison-organised sports activities implies not only making individual-related decisions, but also being able to influence prison-related processes and structures. This means that detained men can hardly experience comparable moments of individual influence on the institution and its typically pre-structured processes (Goffman, 1961).

Discussion

Based on extensive interview material as well as ethnographic observations in a German prison, this article explored the question of what meaning imprisoned men attach to sport in light of the deprivation of liberty and autonomy which according to Sykes (1958) are central ‘pains of imprisonment’. The article has shown that imprisonment is accompanied by feelings of loss of liberty, and that sport opens up numerous opportunities for experiencing (conditional) physical and mental freedom (see also Gacek, 2017; Martos-García et al., 2009; Norman, 2017).

The loss of liberty is constitutive of the prison, which not only restricts free movement, but also prescribes the daily structure meticulously and monitors activities almost without exception (Goffman, 1961; Sykes, 1958). The detained men's prevailing feeling of being locked up and completely controlled by the total institution is broken up occasionally in sport. Sykes (1958: 76) states in his classic work that the deprivation of liberty is ‘painful, and the inmate of the prison must somehow find a means of coping with the issue’. The data collected from this study indicate that for many detained men, sport is such a means of coping with this issue.

Hence, this article argues that sport can create ‘moments of liberty’ (Goffman, 1961: 305) for imprisoned men: Through memories of a free youth time shaped by sport, through the freedom of movement existing in sport, through an expansion of the sensory field of perception on the outdoor sports field and through the freedom of action and decision-making existing in sport, which is much more restricted in other fields of action in prison. Following on from the work of Norman (2017), this study has shown what these moments of liberty are that sport offers. The study has shown that it is not only the sporting activities themselves, but also the time spent in the indoor and outdoor spaces (i.e. the gym and the sports field) that create these feelings of freedom. Although the possible interplay of positive memories, sensual perceptions and independent actions means that the prison context – in which the detained people also find themselves during sport – cannot usually be left behind when doing sport, it can at least be forgotten and faded out for a while.

This study ties in with previous qualitative studies on prison sport: While Norman (2017: 602) illustrates that sport can be ‘means through which inmates resist, in a small way, the social control agenda of the institution’ and can thus be ‘a resource for surviving deprivation and resisting some of the oppressive features of this social setting’, the present study builds on this by focusing on the deprivation of liberty and the related meaning of sport. Moreover, in light of the finding that sports facilities are given special meanings by imprisoned men, there are points of connection to those studies in which ‘the spatial significance of sport’ has been stressed (Norman and Andrews, 2019: 456). Furthermore, the study is connectable to the work of Roe et al. (2019: 928) who describe sport as ‘a sort of free zone in relation to what could be a stressful, even hostile social environment at the institution’ or as a way to ‘feel free’ (Roe, 2021: 273), implying ‘a temporary release from confinement’ (Roe, 2021: 274). The findings of the present study thus simultaneously strengthen his argument that exclusion from sport can be functionalised by the institution as punishment to trigger intended behavioural changes in detained people. In this sense, sport can indeed become an important means of ‘disciplining’ (Foucault, 1977).

At the same time, tensions become apparent that are compatible with the findings of Roe (2021): Finally, it becomes apparent that the men interviewed and observed in this study relate sports to the deprivations of incarceration as well as coping with incarceration, whereas no one associates sports with rehabilitation or health. On the one hand, this shows that the loss of freedom is perceived as stressful and that coping with this pain is particularly important for detained men (Bereswill, 2015; Sykes, 1958). On the other hand, this also shows that the subjective views and experiences of the detained men clearly deviate from the ‘official’ attributions that are applied to sport in prison by the institution (such as rehabilitation, health promotion). In this respect, it becomes clear that the externally attributed functions of sports play no role in the subjective experience of the imprisoned men and that the men attach their own meanings to sport, largely detached from external attributions of function.

Reflecting on the ethnographic approach of this study, previous work can be agreed upon in which ethnographic research in prison is positively evaluated: In agreement with Ugelvik (2014), it can be summarised that it was the recurring challenges and interactions in the prison that in many cases provided high-quality data and made visible the special sides of the institution that could hardly have been uncovered only with interviews. Finally, through the field research, the researcher himself became from an outsider to an insider or a ‘liminal in-between figure’ (Ugelvik, 2014: 477). In this sense, experiential research made available ‘new kinds of data’ (ibid.: 477) that were especially valuable for understanding subjective meaning. In this context, experiencing (everyday prison life as well as sports behind bars) allowed to take the imprisoned men's point of view on a trial basis and to empathise with their perspective. Indeed, this allowed for the production of ‘thick’ descripions that took into account the men's perspective and, compared to purely interview-based research methods, were less episodic (Drake et al., 2015). The ethical concerns that arise from ethnographic research – particularly in the context of vulnerable groups, such as incarcerated people – were best addressed through disclosure of all research intentions.

The present study has strengths and limitations. A strength is that through the sports project, which has been running for more than 2 years, it was possible to build up a trusting relationship with the interviewees, making their narratives authentic and extensive. The interweaving of the interview data and the ethnographic observations, which were only made possible by the numerous field visits, is also the strength of the study. In view of the linkage made in this study between classical prison research (e.g. Goffman, 1961; Sykes, 1958) and prison research in the sociology of sport (e.g. Martos-García et al., 2009; Norman, 2017), the study is not only relevant for the different disciplines, but also makes a potential contribution to deepening the dialogue between the disciplines. This is also a special feature and strength of the study. However, all interviewees were incarcerated in the same German prison. Thus, they had similar opportunities and restrictions to do sports. However, prisons vary with regard to sport facilities and exercise opportunities and this variation is not captured in this study. It is therefore difficult to assess whether comparable experiences of freedom can also be made in other prisons where the organisation of sport and the sports facilities are different. Furthermore, all interviewees are male. Given that the participation rate in prison sports is lower among women (Martinez-Merino et al., 2017; Meek, 2014) and that German women's prisons offer different sports programmes than men's prisons (Schröder, 2018), it remains unclear to what extent the findings can be applied to women in prison.

Furthermore, it should be taken into account that only those men who regularly participate in sports had their say in this article, whereas those incarcerated men who do not participate in sports behind bars were not given any consideration. Whether and to what extent the imprisoned men who are abstinent from sports in prison have similar positive memories of sports before imprisonment and whether sports in prison would evoke similar positive memories for them cannot be said. It should also be noted that not all interviewed men feel the discussed positive outcomes to the same extent, but all interviewees basically associate the different sports activities in the different settings with the feeling of freedom. That is, while informal weight training can be a moment of freedom for one man because self-determination can be experienced there, for another man playing football organised by the prison means freedom because memories of the time before imprisonment are awakened. Future studies could further focus on the differentiations mentioned here. In doing so, it would be worthwhile to look more closely at the different types of sport and not, as was done in the present study, to focus on the overarching structure of informal and organised sport behind bars.

Conclusion

The present study showed that for many detained men, playing sports in prison evokes feelings of physical and mental freedom. In this sense, many imprisoned men play sport everyday in order to experience moments of freedom, to regain autonomy of action and to free themselves mentally from the total institution. In the context of sports, the structure imposed by the institution (Goffman, 1961) can be broken for incarcerated men. Thus, sport proves to be an escapist world of experience and an island of freedom (see also Martos-García et al., 2009; Norman and Andrews, 2019). Taking into account the meaning of sport from the imprisoned men's perspective and against the background that the loss of freedom is a central deprivation for the convicted, sport can be described as a leisure activity that makes the imprisonment more bearable: Thus, the tension between ‘being in’ and ‘wanting to get out’, which according to Goffman (1961) is constitutive for the total institution, is relativised at the moment of playing sport.

It can be concluded from the findings of this study that sport can best be understood as a help in coping with incarceration (see also Martinez-Merino et al., 2019; Martos-García et al., 2009; Norman and Andrews, 2019). In this sense, sport is a leisure activity of extremely high significance for some of the imprisoned men. The very extensive sporting activity of many incarcerated men is related to the described significance and particular meaning of sport in prison. To a certain extent, the extensive sporting activity proves to be a functional adaptation to the prison context. After all, coping with the deprivations typical of prison is a high priority for many incarcerated men (e.g. Gonçalves et al., 2016). The unique advantage of sport is that its access is relatively easy and participation in sport is supported by many prison administrations.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Johannes Müller

Notes

References

Abrams

Anderson-Nathe

Aguilar

(2008) Constructing masculinities in juvenile corrections. Men and Masculinities 11(1): 22–41.

Bereswill

(2015) Zwischen autoritärer Zumutung und Entwicklungsversprechen – der Freiheitsentzug als tief greifende biographische Konflikterfahrung. In: Schweder

(ed) Handbuch Jugendstrafvollzug. Weinheim: Juventa, pp. 339–353.

Charmaz

(2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Los Angeles: Sage.

Clarke

(2005) Situational Analysis. Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Crewe

(2011) Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishment & Society 13(5): 509–529.

Crewe

Warr

Bennett

, et al. (2014) The emotional geography of prison life. Theoretical Criminology 18(1): 56–74.

Crook

Costas-Bradstreet

Spence

, et al. (2023) ‘I feel like a kid again’: The voices of youth experiencing homelessness in a mobile recreation program. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 15(5): 619–635.

Devís-Devís

Peiro-Velart

Martos-García

(2012) Sport and physical activity in European prisons: A perspective from sport personnel. Prisoners on the Move. Available at: http://derodeantraciet.be/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Annex-2-Sport-and-physical-activity-in-european-prisons-UVEG.pdf (accessed 06 March 2023).

Dollinger

Schmidt

(2015) Zur Aktualität von Goffmans Konzept “totaler Institutionen”. Empirische Befunde zur gegenwärtigen Situation des “Unterlebens” in Gefängnissen. In: Schweder

(eds) Handbuch Jugendstrafvollzug. Weinheim: Juventa, pp. 245–259.

10.

Drake

Earle

Sloan

(2015) General introduction: What ethnography tells us about prisons and what prisons tell us about ethnography. In: Drake

Earle

Sloan

(eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Prison Ethnography. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–16.

11.

Fair

Walmsley

(2021) World Prison Population List. London, UK: International Centre for Prison Studies.

12.

Federal Statistical Office (2022) Bestand der Gefangenen und Verwahrten in den deutschen Justizvollzugsanstalten . Available at: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Staat/Justiz-Rechtspflege/Publikationen/Downloads-Strafverfolgung-Strafvollzug/bestand-gefangene-verwahrte-xlsx-5243201.html (accessed 02 March 2023).

13.

Foucault

(1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House.

14.

Gacek

(2017) ‘Doing time’ differently: Imaginative mobilities to/from inmates’ inner/outer spaces. In: Turner

Peters

(eds) Carceral Mobilities: Interrogating Movement in Incarceration. New York: Routledge, pp.73–84.

15.

Gallant

Sherry

Nicholson

(2015) Recreation or rehabilitation? Managing sport for development programs with prison populations. Sport Management Review 18: 45–56.

16.

Goffman

(1961) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and other Inmates. Garden City: Anchor Books.

17.

Gonçalves

Martins

, et al. (2016) Prisoners’ coping strategies in Portugal. In: Reeves

(ed) Experiencing Imprisonment. Research on the Experience of Living and Working in Carceral Institutions. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 119–136.

18.

Haggerty

Bucerius

(2020) The proliferating pains of imprisonment. Incarceration 1(1): 1–16.

19.

Hancock

Jewkes

(2011) Architectures of incarceration: The spatial pains of imprisonment. Punishment & Society 13(5): 611–629.

20.

Irwin

(1970) The Felon. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

21.

Johnson

Toch

(1982) The Pains of Imprisonment. Beverly Hills: Sage.

22.

Kerekes

Fielding

Apelqvist

(2017) Yoga in correctional settings: A randomized controlled study. Frontiers in Psychiatry 8: Article Number 08.

23.

Kovalsky

Hasisi

Haviv

, et al. (2020) Can yoga overcome criminality? The impact of yoga on recidivism in Israeli prisons. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 65: 671–691.

24.

Liebling

Maruna

(eds) (2005) The Effects of Imprisonment. Cullompton: Willon.

25.

Martinez-Merino

Martín-González

Usabiaga

, et al. (2017) Physical activity practiced by incarcerated women: A systematic review. Health Care for Women International 38(11): 1152–1169.

26.

Martinez-Merino

Martín-González

Usabiaga

, et al. (2022) Reflexivity of discomfort: Two women outsiders doing sport research in prison. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 58: 850–866.

27.

Martinez-Merino

Martos-García

Lozano-Sufrategui

, et al. (2019) Frictions, cracks and micro-resistances: Physical activity and sport as strategies to dignify imprisoned women. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11(2): 217–230.

28.

Martos-García

Devís-Devís

Sparkes

(2009) Sport and physical activity in a high security Spanish prison: An ethnographic study of multiple meanings. Sport, Education and Society 14(1): 77–96.

29.

Meek

(2014) Sport in Prison. Exploring the Role of Physical Activity in Correctional Settings. London: Routledge.

30.

Meek

Lewis

(2012) The role of sport in promoting prisoner health. International Journal of Prisoner Health 8: 117–130.

31.

Meek

Lewis

(2014) Promoting well-being and desistance through sport and physical activity: The opportunities and barriers experienced by women in English prisons. Women & Criminal Justice 24(2): 151–172.

32.

Müller

Meek

Blessing

, et al. (2023) Prisoners’ educational experiences in five different prison sports programmes: A research note. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 13(10): 2290–2298.

33.

Müller

Mutz

(2019) Sport im Strafvollzug aus der Perspektive der Inhaftierten: Ein systematisches Review qualitativer Forschungsarbeiten. Sport und Gesellschaft 16(2): 181–207.

34.

Müller

Mutz

(2022) Pumping iron for strength and power: Prisoners’ perceptions of a stable body. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 14(7): 1159–1173.

35.

Müller

Mutz

(2023) Sport und Gesundheit im hessischen Strafvollzug. Abschlussbericht. Gießen: Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen.

36.

Mutz

Müller

(2023) Health decline in prison and the effects of sporting activity: results of the Hessian prison sports study. Health & Justice 11: Article Number 34.

37.

Norman

(2017) Sport in the underlife of a total institution: Social control and resistance in Canadian prisons. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 52(5): 598–614.

38.

Norman

(2018) Researching sport in a ‘total institution’: Reflections on research barriers and methodological adaptations in a study of prison physical culture. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 10(1): 17–31.

39.

Norman

(2019) Transforming space? Spatial implications of Yoga in prisons and other carceral sites. Race and Yoga 4(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5070/R341042359.

40.

Norman

Andrews

(2019) The folding of sport space into carceral space: on the making of prisoners’ experiences and lives. The Canadian Geographer 63(3): 453–465.

41.

Parker

Meek

Lewis

(2014) Sport in a youth prison: Male young offenders’ experiences of a sporting intervention. Journal of Youth Studies 17(3): 381–396.

42.

Psychou

Kokaridas

Koulouris

, et al. (2021) Impact of exercise intervention on anxiety levels and mood profile of Greek prison inmates. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise 16(1): 147–156.

43.

Ricciardelli

(2014) Surviving Incarceration: Inside Canadian Prisons. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

44.

Rocheleau

(2013) An empirical exploration of the ‘pains of imprisonment’ and the level of prison misconduct and violence. Criminal Justice Review 38(3): 354–374.

45.

Roe

(2021) Pedagogies of sport in youth detention: Withholding, developing, or just “busying the youth”? Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 50(2): 261–288.

46.

Roe

Hugo

Larsson

(2019) ‘Rings on the water’: Examining the pedagogical approach at a football program for detained youth in Sweden. Sport in Society 22(6): 919–934.

47.

Sabo

(2001) Doing time, doing masculinity: Sport and prison. In: Sabo

Kupers

London

(eds) Prison Masculinities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp. 61–66.

48.

Schliermann

Kern

(2011) Sport im Strafvollzug: Eine repräsentative Bestandsaufnahme von Sport- und Bewegungsprogrammen in deutschen Justizvollzugsanstalten. Neue Praxis 41(3): 243–257.

49.

Schröder

(2018) Leitfaden Sport im Justizvollzug. Wiesbaden: Forum Strafvollzug.

50.

Shammas

(2014) The pains of freedom: assessing the ambiguity of Scandinavian penal exceptionalism on Norway’s prison island. Punishment & Society 16(1): 104–123.

51.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990) Basics of Qualitative Research. Grounded Theory Procedures and Technics. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

52.

Sykes

(1958) The Society of Captives: A Study of A Maximum Security Prison. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

53.

Ugelvik

(2014) Prison ethnography as lived experience: notes from the diaries of a beginner let loose in Oslo prison. Qualitative Inquiry 20(4): 471–480.

54.

van Hout

Phelan

(2014) A grounded theory of fitness training and sports participation in young adult male offenders. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 38(2): 124–147.

55.

Waardenburg

Visschers

Deelen

, et al. (2019) Sport in liminal spaces: The meaning of sport activities for refugees living in a reception centre. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 54(8): 938–956.

56.

Wagner

McBride

Crouse

(1999) The effects of weight-training exercise on aggression variables in adult male inmates. The Prison Journal 79: 72–89.

57.

Williams

Collingwood

Coles

, et al. (2015) Evaluating a rugby sport intervention programme for young offenders. Journal of Criminal Psychology 5(1): 51–64.

58.

Witzel

Reiter

(2010) The Problem-Centred Interview. London: Sage.

59.

Woods

Breslin

(2019) Reflections on implementing the active choices rugby programme to enhance mental health and well-being of young men in prison. In: Breslin

Leavey

(eds) Mental Health and Well-Being Interventions in Sport. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 128–143.

60.

Woods

Breslin

Hassan

(2017) A systematic review of the impact of sport-based interventions on the psychological well-being of people in prison. Mental Health and Physical Activity 12: 50–61.

61.

Woodward

(2008) Hanging out and hanging about. Ethnography 9(4): 536–560.