Abstract
Action research methodology is well-suited to engaging with marginalised groups to inform policy and guide practice. Prisons are complex institutions with hierarchies of power; social systems that demand a research approach suited to social structure. The pilot project to be evaluated is designed to promote positive pregnancy and birth experiences for pregnant female prisoners and provide extraordinary learning opportunities for midwifery students. The project team includes staff from a regional university, the local health service and the state run prison service. Very early in the project it became evident that in addition to management patronage, the project needed the practical support of the Custodial Correctional Officers. Thus, officers as project ‘champions’ were recruited. Custodial Correctional Officers play an integral role in these social systems and although they are perceived to have power over prisoners, they too are subject to controls and in some instances have minimal power. The study will be conducted in two stages, the first of which will involve the Custodial Correctional Officers as participants, focus on the outcomes to date and how this may inform policy and practice. This article justifies the use of action research methodology for this purpose.
Background
The project under evaluation
In April 2017, a project aimed at linking provision of antenatal support for incarcerated pregnant women and student midwives' continuity of care experiences was launched. This collaborative project between three organisations; corrective services, the area health service and a regional university campus, has now been in place for just over a year. The project provides emotional, social and educational support for pregnant women in the regional jail supported by a student midwife supervised by midwifery clinical educators. Within the first year, 10 Custodial Correctional Officers (CCOs) volunteered to participate in the project as champions. This number has increased over time to 22 CCOs engaged in the project outside their usual routine. Informal feedback from the women is positive, and this is reflected in their ongoing interest in the project. This article reports on one component of a two-staged project evaluation; the use of Participatory Action Research (PAR) with the CCOs to facilitate organisational and policy change of benefit to both the CCOs and the women prisoners. The second component of the evaluation will involve the women themselves and is not reported here. Neither of these studies has been undertaken at this time. This article presents the study design to investigate whether participating in the initial project as champions has altered the CCOs’ perceptions of their role. Further, it provides justification for adopting an action research methodology, explaining how it fits with the unique setting for the research.
In order to embed the project as usual practice and service in the prison, involvement and ownership by staff is key to its success. The role of the champions is to promote the project to the incarcerated women, other CCOs and external stakeholders of the prison. As well as facilitating acceptance by staff and prisoners, the champions offer valuable insight into the practical and logistical aspects of incorporating changes related to the project into the CCOs’ everyday work lives (Lerman & Page, 2012).
There is a dearth of literature about the experiences of incarcerated pregnant women, particularly research undertaken with women themselves. This is partly due to the perception of incarcerated women and pregnant women as vulnerable research participants. Whether or not conducting research with perceived vulnerable groups exacerbates their vulnerability and perpetuates powerlessness by removing an opportunity to be heard, is a topic under intense scrutiny and debate, and beyond the remit of this paper (van der Zande, van der Graaf, Oudijk, & van Delden, 2017). However, there is little research into how prisons provide support for pregnant women. To build a case for the need to conduct research with incarcerated women as active participants, the first step is to evaluate the project from a CCO’s perspective and gain insight into outcomes at the ground level. This will provide a platform upon which to build future research, with the participating women themselves.
There is also a relative lack of literature about the roles of prison CCOs, particularly in the context of the changing practices and philosophies of punishment and incarceration (King, 2009). Previous research highlights the challenges faced by CCOs throughout their career, as well as the stereotypes and assumptions upon which much public opinion is based. The existing research has a predominant focus on the real or perceived conflict between the CCOs providing compassionate support for prisoners and maintaining order (Tait, 2011). Interestingly, Tait points out that both prisoners and staff have a mutual interest in maintaining order in prison and that over time, through sharing the social space that is prison, develop a shared understanding of the prison’s social context.
In this current project, the multiple, sometimes conflicting roles of the CCOs show that they also are in a position of powerlessness at times which is at odds with first assumptions. CCOs are often caught between political, societal and organisational demands, the rigid organisational and legal parameters, the women and their own values. In many cases, they are charged with implementing policies and procedures that may not be as practical as the governing bodies who developed them envisaged. How CCOs view their role is both the cause of, and effect on, how they approach the job and how they interact with their colleagues and the offenders they work with. Many CCOs view their role as closer to nurses, particularly mental health nurses, rather than police as is more commonly assumed (Crawley, 2004). However, the concept of caring is a flexible one, built on interactions and the work environment (Tait, 2011).
The power imbalance between the people who work in corrective services and prisoners is apparent. However, while the prisoners are well recognised in the literature as being a vulnerable population, CCOs themselves have less power than might be assumed. They are bound by their role to work within the legal and departmental guidelines in their daily work. Importantly, if CCOs’ perceptions of their work selves is one with limited, or no, power, their ability to be effective in maintaining order is minimised (Gordon & Stichman, 2016). Although government departments espouse employee input into decision making, many street level staff have limited, if any, opportunities to contribute. CCOs report feeling devalued and disregarded by their management and organisation; and are described as despondent about how they are perceived in the community and portrayed by the media (Crawley, 2004). Crawley goes further to note that CCOs themselves report that ‘the prison service placed a veneer of excellence over a bucket of shit’ (p. 183). This view is consistent with the previous statement about the challenges associated with the practical implementation of overarching organisational policies directed towards positive change.
The contradiction inherent in the role of the CCOs is apparent in that they are trained to anticipate and deal with conflict amongst prisoners, with strategies ranging from effective communication to the use of force. At the same time, they are charged with promoting rehabilitation, providing support and promoting positive behaviours (Ricciardelli & Perry, 2016). Lerman and Page (2012) use the term ‘bi-dimensionality’ to describe CCOs’ internal conflict about supporting rehabilitation programs while harbouring significant concerns about the ideological stance of prisons as rehabilitation settings. These authors assert that this is a concept that must be incorporated into any research about prisons and programs. Further, several authors refer to CCOs, the primary contact for prisoners, as ‘street level bureaucrats’ (Antonio, Young, & Wingeard, 2009; Lerman & Page, 2016; Shannon & Page, 2014), demonstrating that this idea of the CCOs’ role is generally accepted. Antonio et al. further explain that due to the time in direct prisoner contact, CCOs’ responses to a situation, such as engaging in research for policy and practice development, can either have a positive or negative effect on implementation. For these reasons, input from CCOs in meaningful research is essential to develop practical policy and guide implementation.
Increasingly, contemporary research projects must demonstrate value to the community and society. Methodologies that include the research subjects as equal and active participants are being used and adapted to enhance the voices of participants. In particular, these methodologies are relevant to the social sciences. Prisons, prisoners and CCOs are recognised as part of a specific social site (Lerman & Page, 2012). Lerman and Page describe prisons as ‘relatively bounded social spaces with unique historical and cultural traditions’ (p. 504).
Prisons and those who are incarcerated or work in them are part of the apparatus of ‘total institutions’. The term ‘total institutions’ was first coined by Goffman in 1961 (Geppert & Pastuh, 2017). He made reference to ‘misanthropic institutions’ such as work camps, military organisations and prisons with strong boundaries around them. In these institutions, inmates occupy a very separate world from officers, guards and medical professionals (Geppert & Pastuh, 2017). Lerman and Page (2016) also note that prisons are ‘fundamentally political institutions’ (p. 580). That is, the government of the day is responsible for ensuring public safety and enforcing law and order. Politicians and lawmakers make the laws, and employ those charged with implementing them. This concept of prisons and those who live and work within them as isolated social spaces adds to the importance of approaching research about CCOs, with improved policies and practices and a socially focussed methodology. The study design described in this article recognises the unique and challenging role of the CCOs and seeks to identify and centre their understandings to create change.
For these reasons, adopting a participatory action approach to this project evaluation is key to gathering meaningful data. The research design recognises that CCOs know the prisoners best, can provide valuable insight and suggestions as to how best to improve the service and prisoner outcomes, and may contribute to a more positive work environment for them. Further, the PAR methodology has the potential to redress the scepticism and suspicion of the CCOs towards outsiders who seek to engage with their world (Toch, 2011).
Selecting and developing a study design
Designing a research project that recognises the power imbalances in such a complex social setting requires deep analysis and understanding of processes that best address perceptions or actual power (Gustafson & Brunger, 2014). There are several research methodologies that could be considered for such a study. Two examples are Theory of Change (Imas & Rist, 2009) and PAR (De Chesnay, 2014). Both methodologies are well suited to research on social change, with differences about how the research component and change are integrated as core. Both allow for constant review of data and readjustment of approaches throughout the research process. Theory of Change takes it a step further to examine the impact over the short, medium and long term, which for emerging change in practice, is important. After lengthy discussion and reading on methodologies the research team decided to undertake PAR to best meet the evaluation requirements and answer the research questions.
The decision to use action research was influenced by Drake (2014) who asserts that it may be the only appropriate research methodology to affect sustainable, organisational change in prison settings. She offers practical advice for conducting action research with prison officers, saying it ‘may be the only means by which the terms and conditions of confinement may be meaningfully challenged and changed’ (p. 106). She refers to prisons as examples of ‘hierarchical oppressive environments’ (Drake, 2014, p. 96). Drake also refers to the participation paradoxes suggesting officers’ volunteer status is questionable due to involvement of management in the study design. Although this project was developed and implemented by a project team that included prison management, health services and academic representatives, engagement with the officers bypassed management. The project itself was developed in response to a need identified by a CCO working in a non-management role in the organisation. As a result, the project team liaised with the officers directly from the beginning. Further, champions were active participants in the project implementation prior to the action research evaluation.
Since the project implementation, the behaviour of other staff towards the champions has changed noticeably. There was some initial reluctance from the wider staff cohort to embrace the initiative which has improved over time and resulted in the ongoing volunteering of CCOs as champions.
What is Participatory Action Research?
PAR is a qualitative research design that, according to Gustafson and Brunger (2014) has two distinct features. Firstly, PAR is ‘intended to be community-based and community driven’ and its ‘purpose is to generate knowledge or understanding that brings about change’ (p. 999). Other authors state that PAR is distinct as a research methodology due to its ‘focus on collaboration, political engagement and an explicit commitment to social justice’ (Brydon-Miller, Kral, Maguire, Noffke, & Sabhlok, 2011, p. 388). Secondly, PAR is also known as a quality improvement cycle where the actions and reactions to interventions and change are monitored, reviewed and adjusted according to findings and responses. It allows change to evolve incrementally which does not make it overwhelming for those working within the process. This not only allows for change to be embedded into the system, but it also encourages stakeholder ownership through their input, so that change becomes business-as-usual, and therefore sustainable (Imas & Rist, 2009).
In PAR research participants in the study are regarded as equal participants, in contrast to being considered research subjects. Participants have equal say and control over the process and outcomes. This is particularly relevant for participants who may have traditionally been excluded from processes of knowledge generation and also of importance when the research is about them, and their world (Brydon-Miller et al., 2011). The outcomes of PAR, however, are not limited to the researchers or the participants; but are intended for greater good of the broader community. The contribution of PAR to social change is well linked in the existing literature (Selener, 1997).
The PAR approach allows for a series of consultations to inform future development of outcomes and promotes ownership of any resultant changes to policy and procedures. However, it is unreasonable to assume that PAR studies always produce policy change, although it can provide understanding and knowledge to inform policy development (McIntyre, 2014). It is essential that data interpretation is undertaken in consultation with prison staff because any change will need to be accepted and implemented by them. Again, this strategy fits with the concept that PAR allows participants and researchers to be equal partners in the research; and key decision makers as the study unfolds (McIntyre, 2014).
Study design
The pilot project will be evaluated in two stages: stage one evaluates the impact this project has had on the perceptions and practices of the CCOs, the protocol for which is the basis of this article. Stage two, which will follow the completion of stage one and is therefore outside the scope of this article, will seek to better understand the experiences of incarcerated pregnant women who have taken part in the project. This project has received institutional ethics approval.
The research question this section of the study seeks to answer is: ‘How has participation in the pilot project influenced CCOs’ approach to their role and has it resulted in positive organisational policy change?’
The aims of the pilot project were to improve the pregnancy and birthing experiences of incarcerated pregnant women and provide quality learning experiences for midwifery students in North Queensland through the provision of neutral, unbiased support within a continuity of care framework. The aims of this research are to evaluate the pilot project from two perspectives. One is that of the correctional officers who have taken on the role of champions. The other is to investigate the pregnancy, birth and early motherhood experiences of incarcerated women who have participated in the pilot project, which is beyond the scope of this article.
The design of the evaluation study incorporates strategies to ensure methodological rigour, accountability and credibility of the research process, findings and outcomes, including ‘reliabilism’; a true belief generated by a reliable process. Any change resulting from the evaluation will need to be accepted and implemented by prison staff, so it is essential that data interpretation is undertaken in consultation with them. Again, this strategy fits with the concept of PAR in that participants and researchers to be equal partners in the research; and key decision makers as the research unfolds (McIntyre, 2014). The study sample for this evaluation research is purposive given that it is an action research project with a specific population group. In purposeful sampling participants are selected for their knowledge, engagement or links to the study question. Therefore, only those CCOs who have volunteered to be champions for the pilot project will be invited to participate.
Data collection methods
Data collection will be undertaken by the academics as external stakeholders to further remove any potential for coercion or bias, or silencing of participants’ voices by the presence of prison management. The data collection methods will be reflective journaling, focus groups and, if required, individual interviews. Focus groups and individual interviews are reliable data collections sources used frequently in PAR (Dick, 2014). The relevance of each of these methods to PAR and justification for their use in this study is discussed below.
Reflection
Reflective journals are a key aspect of action research. They seek to share meanings constructed from individual experiences (Phelps, 2005) and provide a rich source of qualitative data by accessing the unique body of knowledge possessed by the participants (Jasper, 2005). Participants play an active role in constructing knowledge gained through their experience and reflective journaling captures insights that can otherwise be difficult to access (Phelps, 2005). Often these insights provide a new perspective on existing issues (Jasper, 2005). Reflective journal entries highlight what is happening at the ground level during change or implementation of a program, thus allowing the researchers to evaluate the degree of success (Bashan & Holsblat, 2017). The use of a reflective journal in this project is to allow the researchers to hear the voice of the champions and to record their thoughts and the changes they experience as a result of participating in the project. Journaling promotes change by challenging the status quo and in this project, may direct policy change and improve outcomes for the correctional community.
There are potential problems in using journals as a source of data, such as inaccurate recall, poor memory or hindsight bias of the participant (Jasper, 2005). To minimise these risks, the champions will be encouraged to record concepts as soon as possible. They have been issued with pocket sized note books to provide them with easy access to recording thoughts, feelings or insights in a timely manner. Additionally, data analysis can be tainted by researcher bias. However, methodological rigour can be enhanced by involving participants in the verification of data analysis . This increases reciprocity and will empower the champions in the research process.
Reflection was incorporated into the project from its inception. All members of the project team and the champions were given a journal in which to write their thoughts, ideas, reflections and suggestions. Training was also provided on the role of reflection in their workplace using Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle (1988) which asks the individual to move from reporting feelings to description; to thinking through solutions and strategies. Participants will be invited to submit their journals for analysis by the research team, although submission for inclusion will not be compulsory and will not affect ongoing participation as a champion of the project.
Focus groups
Focus groups are more than group interviews, or collective conversations (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2011). They are a mix of both, controlled by the participants with the researcher as facilitator. Focus groups allow for free discussion, and have been shown to promote deeper dialogue, debate and exchange of ideas. As noted by Kamberelis and Dimitriadis (2011), participants must perceive the spaces created by focus groups as safe and supportive, providing the forum for the generation of collective testimonies.
Focus groups as a data collection method are particularly suited to answering why and how research questions (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2011). Additionally, they contribute to correcting power imbalances between the researcher and the researched by decentralising the researcher in the collective conversation. While the focus group leader may provide some of the lead questions in order to understand the social context and to clarify issues that have emerged from the reflective journal, the champions are the experts in the discussion. The role of the chair is to listen if they wish to obtain credible information that emerges from the lived experience of the participants; this challenge is core to data analysis (Baum, MacDougal, & Smith, 2006). As a consequence, focus groups are particularly suited to PAR which itself has a primary focus of equalising power.
Unlike other data collection methods, maintaining participant confidentiality in focus groups requires specific consideration. Confidentiality in focus groups is assured when all participants acknowledge that what is said in the group stays in the group, and that the groups themselves are safe spaces for open conversations. The participant information sheet will clearly outline the expectations of involvement in focus groups and the strategies employed to minimise risk for participants has been subject to the scrutiny of the ethics committee prior to approval. Additionally, the focus groups will be facilitated by the researchers who are external to the organisation, and will be held at a venue outside the prison. This consideration recognises the potential power imbalance of conducting the focus groups onsite and possible identification of participants by other employees or management of the organisation.
Individual interviews
The use of individual interviews as a data collection method in qualitative research is well documented. Interviews allow the researcher to delve deeper into the subjective knowing of the participant, reaching ‘areas of reality that would otherwise remain inaccessible’ (Perakayla & Ruusuvuori, 2011, p. 529). Further, individual interviews require the interviewer (researcher) to develop a relationship with the interviewee as one of ‘narrator and listener’ (Chase, 2011, p. 423). In addition to providing one manner in which rich data can be generated, individual interviews complement the use of focus groups and reflective journals in the way that each method promotes and facilitates the researched as narrator and the researcher as listener.
Data analysis
It is not uncommon for participants to be engaged in data analysis in PAR, although the logistics of achieving this are time-consuming and resource intensive. Bergold and Thomas (2012) report that while participants have unique insights into the data, they may not be trained in the rigours of analysis thus presenting problems of reliability. In this project we have taken a middle ground. Analysis will involve two steps; firstly, the research team will do a preliminary analysis of the data to generate codes and themes. Secondly, the analysis will be presented to the participating champions for discussion, ratification and possible modification or elaboration. We have taken this approach because of the sensitivity of the data, especially that contained in the reflective journals. Access to journals prior to de-identification will be limited to the chief investigators to ensure anonymity and confidentiality. In this way, confidential notes written by the champions will not be accessible to prison management, or to other CCOs and should promote free and honest journaling.
The de-identified journals will be read and re-read by two chief investigators to isolate common themes in order to generate codes. The codes will be considered in context and will then be taken back to the participants for confirmation and clarification of accuracy to ensure that the research outcomes reflect what they have written. To further unpack the key points raised in the reflective journals, the participants will be invited to participate in focus groups with the chief investigators as facilitators.
The focus groups and interviews have been included to achieve two aims; firstly, to generate new data through interaction, and secondly, to confirm existing analysis generated through the reflective journals. As a consequence, the academic team will check with participants as the study evolves, revisiting the focus groups for on-going clarification of meaning and possibly recommendations and policy options. The authenticity of this process will be judged by the extent to which the data reflects the lived experience of the champions (Baum et al., 2006). This will require the focus groups to occur after analysis of the reflective journals. A core component of the reliability of this analysis will be to ensure the champions remain central to the study and the knowledge produced is directly useful to them.
Discussion
The aim of this study is to better understand the subjective world view of the CCOs, without whom prisons would not function. The study design provides the CCOs with a voice and, through research participation, enables them to contribute to a better and more just system. Despite public perceptions to the contrary, CCOs are not anti-prisoner, and may well embrace the opportunity to actively participate in making the system better. Historically, the unyielding system that employs CCOs to enforce the law has not encouraged discussion and debate in order to generate change. However, for the CCOs, organisational policies and procedures are a lived experience, and their honest feedback is valuable. In some countries like Australia, the pendulum of listening to voices is swinging towards upholding the rights of prisoners as a vulnerable population. While it is imperative that prisoner rights are upheld and their voices heard, it is also necessary to hear the voices of the jailer, as well as the jailed, to enable sound, objective decision-making for the future.
Previous authors have described the relationships between CCOs and prisoners as central to the efficient running of prisons, with the positive relationships built on clear, visible rules of engagement and effective communication (Antonio et al., 2009). Unfortunately, the perception of many CCOs is one of them and us; surprisingly the ‘them’ is not always the prisoners, but the organisation they are employed by. It is not surprising that at a time when prisoner rights are highlighted, that CCOs feel vulnerable to organisational dysfunction. Not all aspects of organisations are bad, neither are all staff employed as managers. For these reasons, it is imperative that CCOs be afforded the opportunity to create positive change that improves prisoners’ experiences, meets organisational targets, fulfils political promises and gives CCOs input into their workplace decision-making and practices. These opportunities may also provide the impetus to build positive working relationships between management and staff, going some way to addressing the concerns apparent in the current literature.
Although this formal evaluation process is yet to be conducted, informal feedback and reported success to date is positive (Baldwin, Capper, Rogers, & Wood, 2018). Despite the perceived divide between CCOs and management, the project has demonstrated that achieving change is possible. Anecdotally, the champions report having a voice and feeling optimistic about the opportunity for input into organisational policy and procedure as well as contributing to more positive outcomes for the pregnant women in custody. As one champion reported, participation in the project is a bright light in a sometimes dark day at work.
The role of the champions is one area to be further explored, beyond the parameters of the existing project. For example, potentially the champions may contribute firsthand knowledge from interactions and observations that allow for better informed decision-making by management about offenders. This may include a fuller, more honest narrative for the Department of Child Services to base decisions on whether the woman and baby stay together in the Mother and Baby Unit, or broader custodial decisions. Currently, due to their increased exposure to, and training about imminent birth, the champions are the go-to officers for the women and the supervisors on shift. The current champions have established themselves, without formal guidance to do so, as resources to improve the care of pregnant women.
As part of the project team, management representatives remain engaged and committed to facilitating the involvement of the champions in the project evolution. Rostering staff around workplace commitments to attend champions training, and communicating the achievements of the champions are evidence of this.
The complex relationships between CCOs, offenders and the organisation demand a research methodology that enables and empowers the participants. The use of PAR as a framework to better understand the phenomenon of CCOs’ perceptions of their role as a result of being part of the project is appropriate. The outcomes from the research will inform future iterations of the project and will provide real insights upon which policy and practice may be modified. Attempting to engage in PAR within this context will also provide knowledge on the viability of this methodology for this context. While researchers have suggested that it is the only appropriate methodology for the prison context (Drake, 2014), the complexities, including wider political considerations may well intervene to make authentic PAR impossible, leading to cynicism on the part of the CCOs and for the women prisoners. The difficulty in following research accounts of PAR used in the prison context is that most of the publications are by academics, rather than prison staff or inmates. This challenge remains to be explored.
The research questions this study seeks to answer is ‘How has participation in the pilot project influenced CCOs’ approach to their role and has it resulted in positive organisational policy change?’. As previously stated, this article does not present research findings as such. It does, however, present a justification for use of action research in prisons, recognising the unique power imbalances that are present in that setting. At this time, informal, anecdotal feedback from the champions is positive; the project team has witnessed behaviour change and altered attitudes to new initiatives in the champions. This may or may not be indicative of the research outcomes, and it would be inappropriate to make such assumptions.
Conclusion
Sometimes the distribution of power is not obvious, and the precarious position of the CCOs reflects that. PAR as a methodology is just as it sounds, actively including the participants in the research process, highlighting its suitability to projects where there is the potential for power imbalances. Consideration of participants as equal partners in this research project respects the complex nature of power imbalances and social relationships in the prison system, enhancing the quality of the research and its potential value for future practice.
Footnotes
Authors’ note
Eileen Willis is now affiliated with CQUniversity, Rockhampton, Australia.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
