The dynamics of peer support work in a UK adult male prison: A way of performing positive masculinities?

Abstract

This article explores how peer support work gives male prisoners opportunities to develop and perform positive masculinities within prison. As a former prison officer, I returned to the same prison (a category B local in England) in 2014/2015 to conduct a qualitative/ethnographic study with (n = 19) male prisoners around engagement with peer support work. Data was analysed thematically to extract narratives relating to expressions of masculinity that challenge existing assumptions of hegemonic masculinity. ‘Insider’ positionality is a key aspect of this article when exploring the dynamics between researcher and researched, especially around building trust and rapport with male prisoners who express emotions and vulnerability. Findings suggest that peer support workers adopt a range of strategic and healthy masculinities, including protective approaches to support vulnerable prisoners. Peer support workers form homosocial bonds with each other and flows of male intimacy and generativity are evident in the care and concern shown towards others. However, there are challenges for peer support workers who have to negotiate multiple audiences to ensure personal safety and survival in prison, thus placing them in a precarious liminal position. In addition, peer support workers can be exploited by staff through neoliberalist policies and practices. Recommendations to support and develop male peer support work schemes concludes this article, which has relevance for prisons internationally that may model progress made within His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service.

Keywords

Prison peer support work prison listeners prison masculinities prison officers autoethnography

Introduction

Peer support work (PSW) is a recent and timely intervention within His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) and this paper will appeal to an international audience to understand PSW dynamics within a male prison in England. Mead et al. (2001: 35) expresses peer support as ‘a system of giving and receiving help that is founded on key principles of respect, shared responsibility and mutual agreement of what is helpful’. In addition, Mead and MacNeil (2006) define peer support as people who have had similar experiences and therefore can relate with others going through the same thing, thus offering authenticity, empathy and validation. Finally, HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2016) identified peer support as a wide range of activities where prisoners assist other prisoners with emotional support, mentoring, advice, thus facilitating self-help and learning. These definitions provide context to understanding the mechanisms through which PSW can help develop and nurture positive and healthy masculinities in male adult prisons. The range of peer support programmes varies between establishments in the UK but the predominant ones in this study are the prison Listener scheme, education peer mentoring, and substance abuse peer mentoring, where prisoners in recovery support others in recovery.

The aim of this article is to explore how PSW schemes allow adult males opportunities to exhibit positive masculinities which challenge normative expectations of hegemonic masculinity within prison. (n = 19) prisoners were interviewed in 2014/2015 about involvement in peer support programmes; for example, prison Listeners (who volunteer for the Samaritans to help prisoners who are suicidal/self-harming), substance misuse peer mentors and education peer mentors. Data was collected in a category ‘B’ prison in England and as the author of this article, I am an ex-prison officer who served 6 years at this prison (between 2003 and 2009). I was known to all participants as a former prison officer, which presents an interesting ‘insider’ positionality and dynamic when exploring the depth of narratives collected around expressions of vulnerability, masculinities, and emotion. Rapport and trust were key to emotional exchanges between researcher and researched in eliciting narratives that contravene traditional prison hegemonic masculinity and instead demonstrate empathy, kindness and intimacy towards others.

Thematic analysis of data (Braun and Clarke, 2006) identified that PSW can develop protective masculinities, where stronger prisoners use PSW positively to support and protect weaker prisoners. Themes around strategic masculinities (Ricciardelli et al., 2015) were identified as necessary to survive prison; masculinities are strategic and fluctuate because prisoners are required to constantly modify their behaviour and negotiate multiple audiences. Several (but not all) PSWs exhibited hegemonic traits within PSW roles, for example strong leadership and assertiveness, initially having been imprisoned for offences including violence, drug debt collection and football hooliganism. These hegemonic values were utilised as positive attributes within PSW, which simultaneously reinforced hegemonic masculinity but also sent clear messages to other prisoners about their prowess, role status and presence on the landings as trusted prisoners. However, themes around generativity, kindness, empathy, recognising and overcoming vulnerability, homosocial relations and flows of male intimacy built upon trust were also identified, challenging existing conceptions of male prisoner interactions.

Whilst this article highlights a range of positive masculinities that are possible through engagement in PSW, institutional challenges impede the development of peer support programmes, which Perrin (2020) identifies as ‘stumbling blocks’. Drawing upon neoliberalism, PSW can also exploit prisoners through expectations to do the work of prison staff. Inconsistent validation from staff, poor penal regimes and liminal status of peer workers can cause strain and burnout (Jaffe, 2012). Prison peer workers are thus forced to constantly modify masculine performances and negotiate masculine identity to both survive and thrive in prison, which places them in liminal territory.

Peer work support schemes in adult male prisons

Positive aspects of PSW

Perrin and Blagden (2014) studied male prison Listeners in England and found that the role afforded a sense of purpose, helped to build trust with officers and allowed prisoners to ‘make good’ for harm caused prior to prison. Peer support schemes can have a transformative impact, develop ‘new me’ narratives and provide a chance to ‘do good’, consequently creating healthier practical and narrative identities (Perrin, 2020; Perrin and Blagden, 2014). The Samaritans state that the Listener scheme helps to create an ‘enabling culture’, where it is acceptable to share problems, talk to other prisoners thus building trust, which allows for the creation of a calmer and safer environment upon which to address rehabilitation. Involvement in peer support roles can generate feelings of hope and motivation for the future (Edgar and Solomon, 2004). As socially excluded citizens, prisoners can take responsibility and gain a sense of citizenship (Levenson and Farrant, 2002). Involvement with prisoner councils¹ allowed prisoners to gain elevated status from staff and these roles offer a transformative experience, counteracting negative appraisals from society around their criminality (Barry and Weaver, 2016; Schmidt, 2013)

Involvement in peer support schemes, (particularly self-help groups), allows for the use of ‘experiential knowledge’ which can facilitate self-determination and promote empowerment, through using self as a ‘wounded healer’. In turn, this mobilises the ‘helper therapy principle’ and reciprocity, which has mutual benefits for those helping and being helped (Reissman, 1965). Indeed, PSW allows prisoners opportunities to develop generativity, defined as ‘the ability to transcend the immediate self-related interests of the person in favour of generations to come’ (Monte, 1995: 291 in Healy and O'Donnell 2008). Through recognition of vulnerability in self, people can become a source of wisdom, empathy and compassion for others. Jaffe's (2012) study on male prison Listeners in England found that motivation to become a Listener was based around altruistic concern for others, originating from prior selfishness and self-centredness through criminal activities. This echoes Perrin and Blagden (2014), who identified redemption and a desire to give something back, with intentions to contribute positively in the future.

Halsey and Harris (2011: 90) assert that through denying prisoners ‘the capacity to care for self, others and future in meaningful, durable and non-violent ways … are guaranteed to produce a large cohort of repeat consumers of the carceral enterprise’. This is supported by Maruna and Barlow (in Crewe and Bennett, 2012: 138), who identify that ‘prisoners need opportunities to be useful to others, to discover their own hidden talents and recognise the rewards of … generative activity’. Brown (1991) studied a prison programme in a male prison that was led by ‘professional exes’² and observed encouragement towards other group members to behave empathically and display positive masculinities within the group setting. Professional exes’ can be role models to current serving prisoners, demonstrating empowerment and potency similar to gains accomplished from criminal lifestyles (Brown, 1991). New identities ameliorate the process of dehumanisation and pains of imprisonment (Sykes, 1958), helping prisoners to cope with loss, deprivation and survival challenges (O’Connor and Duncan, 2011). Indeed, some prisoners would never have survived their time in prison had it not been for the kindness and mentoring of others (Kupers, 2019). These ‘softer’ humanistic sides are largely overlooked within the dominant hegemonic masculinity paradigm that prevails within criminological research on male prisoners.

Institutional challenges towards PSW

There are challenges towards PSW schemes in prison, ranging from institutional cultures to attitudes of prison staff on what PSW represents. Perrin (2020) identifies potential ‘stumbling blocks’ to the operationalisation of PSW programmes including questionable motivations for participation, limitations and boundaries of the role and negative attitudes from staff and other prisoners. Volunteering is not ‘intrinsic to the culture of many prisons and the prison service would rather contain prisoners than develop them’ (Levenson and Farrant, 2002: 203). Liebling et al. (2005) state that prisoners run the risk of being perceived as vulnerable and weak if they are observed asking for support and Jaffe (2012) also expressed concerns about the high visibility of Listeners who engage in roles that demonstrate ‘active citizenship’, with such roles potentially viewed as violations of the ‘inmate code’ (Trammell, 2012). Buck (2016) argues that prison officials can act as blockers, limiting prisoner's access to becoming peer mentors because of previous convictions and perceived risk when placing them in positions of trust. While things are progressing, neoliberalist policies and practices place prisoners at risk through PSW. It is therefore imperative that PSW schemes are run well to facilitate confidentiality, protect vulnerable prisoners and diversify recruitment without exploiting prisoners and pressuring them to do the work of prison staff.

Prison context and PSW

Male-dominated institutions can become orientated around a hegemonic masculine value system (De Viggiani, 2003) and prisons are high-regulation, low-trust environments with deep power differentials and little constructive activity (Liebling et al., 2004). Values of the institution, inmates and staff combine to create a pervasively ‘masculine’ atmosphere and culture, which adversely affects the physical and mental health of prisoners (De Viggiani, 2003). Indeed, Cohen and Taylor (1972) noted that whilst prisoners viewed friendships with other prisoners as important for ‘psychological survival’, they would balance this against maintaining a level of detachment and reserve.

Morse and Wright (2019) ask the question of what it means to be a ‘real man’ in prison, if crime is the result of doing masculinity. Prisons produce ‘tedious circles of hypermasculine posturing’ (Maruna et al., 2004 in Halsey and Harris, 2011) and the prevailing culture in prison is around hegemonic masculinity, which creates barriers and governs the way that prisoners ‘do prison’. For some, violence and crime are at the heart of how they define themselves as men. Masculinity is linked to the prisoner code of conduct and the rules are to act tough, suffer in silence, not show fear, trust no-one, not grass on others and fight when manhood is threatened, with the willingness to inflict pain on others (Sabo, 2001). One key aspect of the ‘inmate code’ that is consistent across time, space, place and context is that prisoners do not ‘grass’ (inform) on each other. This is perceived as a gross violation and prisoners organise themselves according to informal value systems (Crewe and Bennett, 2012). The ‘inmate code’ is a modified or intensified version of (masculine) values that exist in criminal and street cultures outside of prison (Irwin and Cressey, 1962) where weakness is concealed and the only emotion permissible is anger Kupers (2019)

Masculinity is a performance directed towards an audience and within prisons, landings are a place of high visibility and vulnerability (Solan, 2016). Prison ‘manhood’ according to Phillips (2001) is an adaptation to an environment laced with danger, deprivation and social control, which leads to behaviours of bravery, size, strength and being a ‘stand up’. Indeed, De Viggiani (2003) states that social survival is achieved through taking steps to avoid exploitation and victimisation, through keeping one's head down. Projection of unemotional and confident facades, concealing weaknesses or potential vulnerabilities is imperative to survive prison. Prisoners are treated as docile subjects, impotent within a regime of paternalistic authoritarianism enacted through the disciplinarian conduct of staff, which reinforced dissonance towards prisoners’ personal rehabilitation goals, especially their desire to rebuild their lives beyond prison, fostering mistrust in both institution and staff De Viggiani (2003).

In contrast, Ricciardelli et al.'s (2015) research found that many of their male prisoner participants acted passively to avoid attention, choosing instead to embody softer masculinity. However, some strategies employed to manage penal uncertainties create new risks, for example asking for help from staff and looking like a ‘snitch’, which could increase risk of victimisation. An inversion of this premise is acceptable in some circumstances, for example if a prisoner is being bullied (Crewe and Bennett, 2012), although this presents obstacles to surviving prison, because ‘screw boys’ challenge normative expectations of what it means to be a ‘prisoner’ (Barry and Weaver, 2016). Crewe and Bennett (2012) examined how the transient, distorted, and inauthentic nature of prison environments impact upon a prisoner's ability to evaluate the moral conduct or trustworthiness of other prisoners. However, Crewe (2014) also states that ‘homosocial relations’, defined as flows of male intimacy submerged or expressed indirectly within a prison, are lacking from studies of male imprisonment, which this article seeks to address. Prison conditions can be favourable to the emergence of respected and humane selves (Liebling et al., 2005) and in a ‘compressed living space’, Crewe and Bennett (2012: 36) found that there was also warmth, humour and empathy in prison alongside aggression and fear. Whilst prison can foster passive compliance, toeing the line, keeping a low profile and demonstrating a level of unquestioning obedience instead of making moral choices (Pryor, 2001), there are avenues for autonomy and making a difference in a culture of indifference (Crewe, 2014). PSW can potentially represent ‘the scaffolding that makes possible the construction of significant life changes’ (Giordano et al., 2002: 1000). PSW can allow prisoners to experience autonomy, agency and make a difference to the custodial lives of self and others through participating in trusted roles, allowing the development of empathy, agency, personal growth and respect for staff (Perrin and Blagden, 2014). Trained prison peer workers offer expertise ‘by experience’ (Durcan and Cees Zwemstra, 2014: 93), which allows for development in roles that are integral to self, others and the social order of the prison. Prison does result in ‘mortification of the self’ (Goffman, 1961a), yet through PSW, prisoners can construct new identities that help to lead fulfilling and meaningful custodial lives through helping and caring for others. Relationships with prison staff are central in supporting PWSs and impact upon opportunities for generative behaviour (Liebling et al., 2005 in Halsey, 2011) and therefore changes in the culture of uniformed prison staff are welcomed to increase interior legitimacy and reduce social distance between staff and prisoners.

Method

‘Insider’ research positionality

This section will begin by presenting the rationale for studying PSW within prisons, starting with a background of my time spent as an officer and the interactions had between myself and male adult prisoners. The prisoners in this study were known to me in my former professional role as a prison officer. Starting the job in 2003 I had to work hard to gain the trust of prisoners and develop professional working relationships with them, which did not happen overnight. The process of ‘becoming’ an officer and learning ‘jailcraft’, including application of practices like discretion and procedural legitimacy was something that took approximately 2 yearss to master (Nixon forthcoming). What I learnt during POELT³ training around prisoners was deceptive; prisoners can be manipulative, devious and violent. However, they can also be kind, protective, chivalrous and demonstrate warmth and empathy towards both staff and other prisoners. The seed was sown subconsciously I believe for me to explore PSW much earlier than when I decided to leave the service in 2009 and embark upon a PhD in 2013. Time spent during 2003 and 2009 allowed for the development of professional working relationships that supported prison PSWs and it is encouraging to see progression towards helping prisoners to develop positive and pro-social behaviours and relationships with staff and other prisoners. However, with austerity and staff shortages, PSWs can become exploited under neoliberalist policies and practices and austerity was just starting to impact when I left the service in 2009. It is important to set this context before this article proceeds to present methods used within research, as my former position as a prison officer is a key aspect of this research. As a civilian tutor/researcher in 2014–2015, it is beyond the scope of this paper to explore the partial/complete ‘insider’ positionality I held collecting data, but I was definitely not an ‘outsider’. Upon reflection of ‘insider’ positionality, and the (auto)ethnographic aspects of my research/writing, it is imperative to state the centrality of my positionality to convey how I interpreted and coded data around PSW.

Research design

This research was conducted at a category ‘B’ prison in England during 2014 and 2015. Category ‘B’ prisons hold a mixture of prisoners on remand awaiting trial, sentenced prisoners awaiting reallocation to another prison and prisoners preparing for local release. All the prisoners in this sample were convicted prisoners and the role of PSW gave a 6-month holding period to remain in the prison.

Getting in

At the time of data collection in 2014, I was working as a civilian tutor in the prison education department, teaching literacy and numeracy. Many of the prison officers I had worked with had left the service (for various reasons including Voluntary Early Departure Scheme (VEDS)), but there were staff I had worked closely with on the landings. I was given the task of performing ‘outreach’ work on the landings to prisoners who could not come to education for various reasons. Whilst I had a generic set of keys, I did not have a cell key, which is interesting to consider upon reflection of the complete or partial ‘insider’ I currently was, in contrast to being an officer. However, I had knowledge, professional experience of working in this environment, knowledge of prisoners, peer support programmes and staff-prisoner relationships which gave an advantage (over ‘outsiders’) to navigate around the prison and rebuild trust and rapport with prisoners formerly known to me. I was granted ethical clearance from De Montfort University to conduct this research. As a civilian tutor in the same prison I had worked at operationally, I was known to the senior management team, particularly the security governor. I put together a proposal outlining the research aims and objectives of the study, which in the original PhD research was to explore PSW and desistance. Permission was granted within one week by the number one governor to interview prisoners, once the participant information sheet, interview schedule and consent form had been approved.. Prison staff/governors acted as gatekeepers and I had permission to bring a Dictaphone into the prison to capture interviews.

Upon reflection, every aspect of my research in the prison was shaped and facilitated by the proximity and familiarity with this particular establishment, and the study developed ethnographically. I cannot comment on how I would have reacted if interviews had taken place on a more neutral territory, for example at an establishment I had not worked at previously. However, familiarity played to the strengths of the research design and allowed me to consolidate my previous subconscious ideas to research PSW at PhD level. I was granted access with relative ease compared to ‘outsider’ researchers.

The sampling strategy to recruit PSWs was a combination of convenience, for example, prisoners who happened to be around and not too busy with their own custodial lives; criterion, where they were all presently engaging as peer support workers and finally snowball sampling, where PSWs referred other prisoners they thought might want to take part in this study. Prisoners were taken to a private office space where privacy was (mostly) granted. Only one alarm bell disrupted interviews, which caused amusement for the prisoner because I jumped up and reacted as a prison officer would, forgetting I was a civilian researcher. All interviews were conducted on days I was not teaching, to prevent further confusion of my positionality and identity for both self and the PSW prisoners.

Interviews and interview dynamics

Interviews were conducted according to an interview schedule, organised around the 4 stages of Giordano et al.'s (2002) cognitive transformational model of desistance (Nixon, 2018). Participants were asked a series of questions around criminal histories, their role and influence within PSW, the emotional and relational dynamics of working with others, the benefits and challenges of being a peer support worker and finally how this role might support their desistance process in both prison and upon release. Questions around vulnerability, emotions and masculinities within prison naturally flowed into the interviews. All interviews were recorded on a Dictaphone, having secured consent from the prisoners.. Interviews lasted between 30 and 90 min and were transcribed verbatim. Disruptions were kept to a minimum apart from operational emergencies.

As an ‘insider’ rapport, trust and familiarity did not need to be established. Shared language and understanding about prison allowed conversations to flow, which is an interesting ‘insider dynamic’. Sloan (2016) identified the gender dynamics of interviewing male prisoners as a female researcher, which is something I have reflected upon. I think the most salient part of my identity during this research was the fact that I had served as a prison officer, and those who knew me introduced me to other prisoners outside of the study. The legacy of being a trusted, ‘firm but fair’ prison officer built rapport quickly with the research participants, which again is an advantage of ‘insider’ positionality. Gender and sexuality (gay female) were problematic during aspects of my prison officer career (see Nixon, 2021); however, shared cultural meanings of this prison were more prominent during the research and I feel that it was this, more than gender that allowed prisoners to express vulnerability and speak openly about their emotions.

Aligning with Liebling et al.'s (1999) work using appreciative inquiry, I integrated aspects of this approach into interviews to further gain trust, but I felt it was also a genuine place to start in relation to researching PSW. Appreciation for the commitment to PSW set the foundations upon which to build. Aligning with Merten's (2019) transformative worldview, I explained to the prisoners my rationale for this research, from where I had come from, what I had seen as an officer and why I felt it appropriate to act as a mediator in research to ‘bang their drum’ within academia for their contributions as PSWs. The hidden depths of prisoner generativity, altruism and PSW is something that needs greater exposition. Consent was obtained prior to interviews to use data in subsequent publications around PSW and desistance, providing anonymity and confidentiality was upheld.

Drawing upon Matza's (1964) appreciative dimension of criminology, interviews were started with asking participants to present an overview of their current status in PSW and to provide context with their criminal histories. During interviews, the shared history between myself as a former prison officer and the prisoners were strong. The following conversation between one prisoner and myself epitomises my approach to interviews and how my positionality needs to be stated. Underpinned by an appreciative methodology, this might help to inform future prison research

I said to a prisoner, ‘wow, so yes you are still in prison, but on a really positive note you are doing excellent work for the prison around peer support work. Do you remember when I was your landing officer?’

To which he said ‘oh yes! You chilled out after a while!’ (laughing)

I said ‘do you remember when you were a right dickhead and I had to chase you round the landings trying to get you behind your door?’

He said ‘yes, ive grown up a lot since then!’ (laughing)

The rapport, trust and appreciation for my role as researcher set the interview off well as I explained my aim to uncover the hidden depths of prisoner PSW, with him acknowledging his maturity and progression to be part of HMP's solution rather than a continual problem. This strategy proved successful during all 19 interviews. As a methodological limitation I assumed that prison PSW was only going to be a positive step for prisoners. However, as I progressed with interviews, themes around vulnerability, liminality, emotional labour (see Nixon, 2020) and wider implications of neo-liberalism exploiting prison PSWs through expecting them to take responsibility in circumstances beyond their control, became evident. This will form part of the discussion later on, which has relevance for the successful implementation of PSW in prisons internationally. Aligning with the introductory speel around the appreciative dimensions of this research, many prisoners stated they were so happy to talk about something positive within their custodial lives that was not related to legal visits, offender management, sentence planning or probation, and the opportunity to talk openly in a private ‘backstage space’ to an ‘insider’ was a welcome break from being just a ‘prisoner/offender’.

Alternative conceptions of what it means to be a ‘man’ in prison were explored in a safe ‘backstage space’ and participants expressed their emotions, vulnerability, strategies to negotiate multiple audiences and survive in prison, in both the context of PSW and their wider custodial lives. Masculinities that are equated with feminine characteristics, for example, empathy, are seldom considered in prison research. Indeed Maguire (2021: 502) exposes the limitations of research around prison masculinities to date, stating that the main focus is on revered, dominant or hegemonic forms with little attention on other (subordinated) masculinities within prisoner hierarchies. His work identifies situationally adaptive strategies, revealing dynamic, fragile, relational and spatial aspects of prison masculinities within extreme and hostile carceral spaces, which provides a suitable rationale for this article and the methodological approach taken.

Data analysis

The data set was revisited in 2021 to produce this article, as the initial focus was on PSW and desistance. Thematic coding of data (Braun and Clark, 2006) was used to analyse narratives that signified expressions of masculinities that challenged or contradicted the mainstay of male prisoner research, (ie hegemonic masculinity), and anything pertinent was extracted as a quote (as it related specifically to PSW and masculinities). Themes were devised to help situate PSW as mostly a positive expression of masculinity and quotes throughout each interview were joined together to emphasise each theme (with … to indicate a gap in conversation). However, as stated already there were counter themes around liminality which were not anticipated within the original research design, which allowed for exploration of the ‘double edged sword’ that constitutes prison PSW. Themes include:

Protection of vulnerable prisoners through PSW

From ‘toxic masculinity’ to wounded healer: recognising and overcoming vulnerability

Homosocial relations and flows of male intimacy

Generativity: kindness, care and empathy

Liminality: ‘betwixt and between’ prisoners and staff as PSWs

Survival in prison as a PSW: strategic masculinities

Findings

The following section presents narratives to illustrate themes identified (above) around masculinities and characteristics that are not necessarily synonymous with traditional hegemonic masculinity within prisoners

Protection of vulnerable prisoners through peer work

… there was somebody I met who said because he was first time in prison the Listeners really helped him … I thought it would be nice to give something back for all the bad things I have done to people … people who haven’t been to jail before they are really scared … I don’t like to see people weaker than me struggling … you know getting bullied and all that … just to think I have done something nice to help … I sometimes feel empathy for certain people (PCA Prison Listener)

Prisoners are often motivated to become PSWs out of a desire to ‘give something back’ and make amends, which Maruna (2001) links with generativity. PCA was a prison Listener, kitchen worker and prominent in the gym network at the prison, therefore confident of his status within the prison hierarchy. His narrative depicts protection over vulnerable prisoners through PSW. However, whilst peer work might not lead to sustained desistance outside of prison (for example PCA said that he had ‘more offending to do for about one year’), his ‘qualities’, linked closely to his index offences, were channelled into a Listener role where he protected weaker prisoners from bullying. Whilst not quite creating a ‘model citizen’, the PSW role helped to shape a ‘model prisoner’, aligned to the values of prison staff and prison policy in terms of providing a safer custodial environment, demonstrating a positive masculinity within prison.

From ‘toxic masculinity’ to ‘wounded healer’ – recognising and overcoming vulnerability

Peer mentoring (PM) … is all about mending yourself, getting yourself positive and strong. It can be an achievement. Not everybody can become a PM. Not everyone can exhibit the right qualities. So, it is going down the road of improving yourself, but having other people seeing that you have the right qualities … it gives you belief in yourself that other people recognise what you are trying to project. I have had a lot of problems with abuse (sexual), losing family, breakdown in relationships so I am always looking to try and understand why this happens and how I can control it. I have always aspired to be a PM because I want to better myself but I need to help other people … it's a good way of being a responsible person and you know you are being a role model for other inmates … I really like talking about this stuff … it puts it all into perspective … I like telling my story to people because the shit I have been through, if I can’t use it to make a difference, what a waste (LW substance misuse peer mentor)

LW's criminal career included using boxing skills to enforce debt collection, security work, an aggressive toxic relationship and drug addiction. Yet LW has used PSW within his many custodial sentences to develop a softer masculinity, reflecting upon lifelong vulnerabilities and abuse. PSW helps to build social, human and recovery capital, generativity, empathy and altruism which are all factors that can support desistance and might avoid what Halsey and Harris (2011: 90) refer to as ‘repeat consumers of the carceral enterprise’. PSW can be a potential ‘hook for change’, helping to create a different appealing and conventional replacement self (Giordano et al., 2002) and LW uses himself as a ‘wounded healer’ to use his trauma and vulnerability in a positive way to help others.

‘Homosocial relations’ and flows of male intimacy

… when I came into prison I was in a bad way. I was self-harming and I was thinking I need to stop this. What made me stop was the Listener on the landing. He pushed me and said you need to do something positive, so I became a Listener. I can talk to him when I am feeling down, and he will bring me back up’ (ND Prison Listener)

From his own position of vulnerability through self-harm and coping with a life sentence (on appeal during interview), becoming a Listener helped him to cope with the uncertainty of his immediate circumstances and his relationship with another Listener was built around emotional connection established through PSW. Similarly, talking about his relationship with another Listener SS explains his interactions with AB

… my relationship with AB is a good one. He has helped me out and I respect him a hell of a lot. I was not accepting of the fact that I had been sent to prison … but I have got my head round the fact that I am here. I was so out of my depth and scared and AB, you could just talk to him, the way he came across, friendly guy … seeing the help that I received from him, I wanted to be that person’ (SS Prison Listener)

BR and AJ were older prisoners who became drugs peer mentors and shared a cell together. They epitomise what Crewe (2014) calls ‘homosocial relations’, which are essentially flows of male intimacy constructed around penal routines

AJ and I … we clicked straight away…. I said to the staff he would make a good peer mentor … he moved in my cell because it is easier to have one cell for PMs. One cell door open. He is quiet, funny, mature and we help each other. We talk about what is going on in the group and what has gone on in our day. We bounce off each other. If one is feeling a bit down or depressed or worn out, we help each other. We have a coffee and a smoke…. favourite time of the day when everyone else is locked up … we are given an extra hour at the end of the day before bang up

Generativity: kindness, care and empathy

… we get on well with the officers … you can usually have a quiet word. It happened recently. Someone came in and said they were depressed. He is a self-harmer was scared … I didn’t want to see him hurt himself … I just thought I would help … he became a good friend for the time he was here … he said to me once that I was like a father figure … I felt that I had done something good … it makes you feel brilliant. Even if you just help one at the end of the day … it's about supporting each other. Treat others how you would like to be treated yourself … everything I have done, and I see in others, I don’t want them to do that (BR substance misuse peer mentor)

Some PSWs acted as ‘father figures’ to younger male prisoners, transmitting wisdom and experience, which aligns with the concept of generativity proposed earlier. Through using age, experience, professional working relationships with prison officers and positive PSW roles, generativity can be transmitted to others. BR was a recovering alcoholic who had struggled with personal relationships and stability around accommodation and employment. Yet he used self as a source of wisdom and had a natural empathy for others both in and out of the PSW role, especially towards younger prisoners.

Liminality: Peer worker status as ‘in betwixt and between’

There was a prisoner bullying other lads on the landing … something had to be done; an example had to be made. All 3 Listeners sat down … we needed to sort it out. A prisoner came to my cell and said they were going to slash up (self harm) because of him … after that 8–10 people came forward and said he was bullying them…. we can speak to the staff on their behalf, so that was how it occurred. Our role, we have to do that. We are not part of this violence, we have to do the right thing … his little followers still walk up and down the landing making smarmy comments … they know it was us Listeners (ND Prison Listener)

Being a peer support worker can place prisoners in a place where they are guarded because of liminal status as ‘betwixt and between’. They are above ‘standard’ prisoners who do not occupy enhanced status but they are not prison staff. Indeed, prison staff have differential approaches to trust, knowledge, understanding and valuing the importance of PSW and validation of PSW identities. These inconsistencies can blur the boundaries further. However, when prisoners feel a sense of duty to speak up, it reveals their integrity

… the worst bit is getting labelled. People are quick to call you a ‘grass’ and a ‘screw boy’. You hear so much bullshit in prison, lies, crap and people make stuff up. Things can get out of hand really quickly (SS Prison Listener)

Yes, they call us ‘screw boys’…but as a Listener it is your job to help others. That is our role. If someone comes in and says they are being bullied and don’t want to tell the staff themselves, then that is our job, to keep people safe so they don’t self-harm or commit suicide (ND Listener)

Prisoners who occupy key PSW roles are at risk of negative labelling of being a ‘grass’, and a ‘screwboy’, and perceived ‘favouritism’ towards PSWs can generate tensions (see Barry and Weaver, 2016). However, many of the prison PSWs asserted themselves and stood up to negative labelling. ND highlights the priority of his Listener role over the verbal threats to his character, reinforcing his care and concern for others at the risk to his own personal safety.

Survival in prison as a PSW: Strategic masculinities

… I think that people see kindness as weakness. I try not to let that bug me. There have been a couple of times in here when people have said they are going to knock me out and I’ve said” just because I’m a nice guy and a Listener doesn’t mean I won’t kick the shit out of you” … they see a different side of me that I don’t normally let out but it's survival…. it's funny because being a Listener helps to retain a sense of who I am, but general prison, every day I lose a bit of who I am. I feel like I become more and more of the person I don’t want to be. I have to watch my mouth, be more aggressive than I want to be…there are no manners…you leave your dignity at the door (SS Prison Listener)

SS stated that in order to survive prison, he has to behave in a more aggressive way than he is comfortable with. There are elements of conflict in his narrative around strategies needed to stay safe and he has to navigate different aspects of prison life between his dual identity of PSW and ‘prisoner’.

Discussion

This section will expand on the themes and narratives presented, to explore significance in terms of understanding positive, healthy and strategic masculinities in prison, and also liminal status through PSW. Sloan (2016) found that prisoners spoke more favourably about close male relationships that reinforce masculinity and improve masculine credentials through providing help and support for weaker and more vulnerable individuals, which is relevant for PCA. A former boxer and doorman, he uses his physicality in a role that allowed him to protect weaker prisoners from bullying. Shott (1979: 1323 in Giordano et al., 2007: 1607) states that role taking emotions are the ‘process of putting oneself in another's position and taking that persons’ perspective’. As a violent career criminal, PCA empathises with other prisoners, and he uses the Listener role to assert a protective masculinity. However, as an enhanced⁴ prisoner this was a precarious juggling act to stay within the parameters of acceptable behaviour in accordance with enhanced status and perceptions from staff and other prisoners, thus demonstrating a liminal status through PSW.

Sogaard et al. (2016) explored the aspirations of offenders to become peer mentors and how ambition to use self as a ‘wounded healer’ is part of the reconstruction of a reformed masculinity (see Backlin, 2022). LW is a ‘wounded healer’ and he uses his presence, status and experience from both prison and personal life to influence other prisoners positively. There is real vulnerability in LWs story and I worked closely with him on the landings during my 6 years as a prison officer (he was the landing cleaner during multiple sentences). Through using self in a way that draws upon past negative experiences to restory the present; something that Maruna (2001) calls ‘wilful cognitive distortions, the past is an almost necessary prelude to LW's current self. The ‘wounded healer’ narrative is integral to LWs older, softer masculinity, having used PSW and recovery to help overcome his vulnerabilities and build resilience and coping mechanisms.

Aligning with Crewe (2014), there was a strong homosocial bond forged between ND and another prisoner (SC) and also BR and AJ, allowing them to cope with the demands of their custodial lives. O’Connor and Duncan (2011) state that new identities in prison turn the largely powerless prisoner into an agent, giving them a sense of empowerment and control over an uncertain future. PSW allows prisoners to act as positive role models for others, demonstrate coping strategies within prison, generating hope and inspiration in an environment largely diminished of agency and positivity. PSW facilitates the role modelling of different masculinities and can enable prisoners to find meaning, purpose and close friendships defined around empathy, care and concern for others. SS became involved in a close friendship with AB through PSW (Listener) and they formed a strong homosocial bond (Crewe, 2014). Less experienced prisoners seek social recognition from more experienced or respected prisoners, attempting to improve their own social standing (De Viggiani, 2003) which is evident in the dynamics of their friendship. It is important to consider that 5 years previously AB was convicted of GBH (grievous bodily harm) relating to football violence and he has a lifetime ban from local, national and international football matches. Football hooliganism is a dominant masculine subculture and yet during interview, I could not assimilate the person in front of me (as a kind, caring and compassionate prisoner) with the levels of violence he spoke openly about. Some individuals refer to their own or others’ criminal reputations as a symbol of notoriety or to convey a tough façade (De Viggiani, 2003), yet AB spoke very humbly and remorsefully about his football violence. When interviewed he was the head Listener in prison, so there is evidence to support the importation (Irwin and Cressey, 1962) of his status as head of his football firm, masculine values of power, prowess and control over others. However, in the prison this was used as an asset in a constructive way and AB was respected by both staff and prisoners for his Listener PSW. He took SS ‘under his wing’ thus demonstrating a close bond together.

The prison cell represents an ‘emotional zone’ for prisoners (Crewe et al., 2014); a backstage space where masculinities constructed around support and intimacy can flourish. PSW is intensive and requires emotional labour to perform the role, but the dynamics of AJ and BR's cell-sharing arrangements enhanced their relationship and they expressed healthy and positive masculinities through talking about emotions, feelings and concerns both within PSW and their wider custodial lives. These interactions were away from other prisoners in a safe space and they held a trusted, enhanced PSW role that allowed for positive interactions with prison staff.

In custodial environments, prisoners mobilise a range of masculinities to ‘ensure emotional, psychological and social survival, employing strategies to mask self-perceived weakness or vulnerability and to attain status and legitimacy ’(De Viggiani, 2012: 271). Survival for SS as a prisoner takes on a dimension incongruent with his role as prison Listener and also his previous self prior to prison (for example volunteering with disabled children). Under this ethos, and to survive and thrive, prisoners feel compelled to act as they perceive others would expect them to, by adopting the normative masculine apparel … whilst engaging in an existential battle of self (De Viggiani, 2003), which is evident in SS's narrative.

To conclude, violation of the inmate code of conduct, through informing staff of the behaviour and conduct of other prisoners is potentially the riskiest decision to make as a prisoner. In contrast to Phillip's (2001) and De Vigianni's (2003) observations, prison peer workers do act in ways that contravene the expectations of being a ‘stand up’. The ultimate prisoner code has been broken by ND (with 2 others) ‘grassing up’ the landing bully. AB was also a strong advocate of working closely with staff to keep the landings safe. These decisions were fuelled by personal beliefs and genuine care for other prisoners within their role as Listeners; however, in terms of hegemonic masculinity and the normative expectations of what it means to be a ‘prisoner’, PSWs are placed in a liminal position where they must negotiate multiple audiences of both staff and other prisoners, which can create problems in terms of personal safety. AB was assaulted by a group of prisoners in his cell. ND had verbal abuse daily from people connected to the bully he ‘grassed up’. Liminal status as a PSW places individuals at a threat of violence from other prisoners and additionally, exploitation and overwork from staff who get them to do aspects of their job for them. This is particularly pertinent during times of austerity, with fewer staff on landings to ensure safety, control and discipline. However, the wider context of the prison gives opportunities to manage liminality, through prowess in the gym and social interactions when not on duty as PSWs. The next section presents implications for improvements of PSW programmes within UK adult male prisons, which may have relevance more broadly for female and young offender Institutions (YOIs). In addition, implications for policy and practice may have relevance for prisons internationally to develop PSW programmes based on current schemes run in HMPPS England

Implications for policy and practice

This paper identifies the importance of PSW in a male prison in England and the growing literature base on PSW predominantly from the UK highlights how PSW schemes could be operationalised internationally. However, there are recommendations to improve the way PSW schemes are delivered in prison. Transferring between prisons should not be a barrier to continued opportunities for PSW and there should be progression routes for PSWs. There needs to be a better link up between PSW in prison and the community, so prisoners can continue PSW upon release, with the links to desistance emerging within criminological research.

There is a need to diversify the range of PSW schemes within UK prisons to support a complex range of needs around physical health, mental health and well-being. A greater array of peer-led support groups within prisons would foster a culture of promoting and developing ‘healthy masculinities’ (De Viggiani, 2003). Support groups should be supervised minimally so prisoners can express emotions and vulnerability without fear of breaches of confidentiality from staff.

In addition, vocational qualifications could tap into PSW as a mechanism to promote opportunities for prisoners to enhance their CVs⁵. PSW can support desistance by providing a ‘hook for change’ (Giordano et al., 2002) which should be formally recognised by employers. However, the culture of prisons needs to change to disrupt the notion that PSWs are ‘screw boys’ and some UK prisons perform more successfully around this. PSW schemes should be run in a way that empowers rather than exploits prisoners and greater visibility of PSW schemes (for example posters to advertise) may help to shift perceptions of PSW around this. Reception, first night centre and induction are viable spaces for PSWs to formally introduce themselves at the start of prisoner's custodial sentences, which may help to overcome the stigma of being a ‘trusted yet untrusted’ PSW prisoner. Dedicated prison officers who are formally appointed to run PSW schemes would give prisoners opportunities to build positive relationships with staff and mediate liminal identities. Prisoners who express strategic or protective masculinities should be channelled and nurtured by prison staff within PSW to help support the prison's safer custody agenda. Flows of trust between male prisoners and staff can be enhanced if prisoners are recognised and ‘rewarded’ by trusted positions, rather than categorically being denied/blocked by security because of index offences or behavioural conduct on previous sentences (Buck, 2016). However, this is discretionary, and security and management of risk need to be contemplated. All prisoners in this study were convicted of violence, yet what they have offered in supporting other prisoners is invaluable and contributes to a healthy moral prison climate (see Liebling et al., 2004).

The culture of prison officers is changing and many ‘old school’ officers have taken VEDS, so there is a very different climate and a high turnover of staff since austerity kicked in. It is therefore imperative that prison PSWs are developed and supported within a transient workforce, to develop and perform positive masculinities. Prison officer training should explore the value and utility of peer support schemes and PSW, grounded in empirical evidence (something I plan to develop from an ‘insider’ perspective) as this knowledge is integral to educate new officers on the potential that PSW has to improve quality of relationships within prisons.

Prisoners engaging in PSW should be made aware of the transferable skills they develop towards ‘making good’ (Maruna, 2001) which aligns with Burnett and Maruna's (2006) work on strengths-based resettlement. Having positive influences and status on the landings, willingness to break the convict code of conduct and become trusted prisoners, PSWs are a real asset to staff and are integral to support the positive social order of a prison. Prisoners who demonstrate hybrid and softer masculinities need to be encouraged and developed by staff to apply for PSW roles rather than simply recruiting from the same pool of repeat prisoners who are ‘fast tracked’ because it is easy for HMPPS staff to manage them (because they have performed the role before). The net therefore needs to widen, and the recruitment of PSWs needs to be more robust, to facilitate the emergence of divergent masculinities within UK prisons.

Finally, the role of the voluntary sector is integral in supporting the development of positive masculinities in prison; for example, the Samaritans, who provide a safe ‘backstage space’ for Listeners to air emotional concerns whilst in Listener roles. Former prisoners who are in (peer) support roles exhibiting desistance, recovery and reintegration into society (tertiary desistance) are pivotal resources for HMPPS to utilise within prisons. The Samaritans (2018) for example use ex-prisoners to revisit prisons and work with vulnerable prisoners. Powerful messages of transition from toxic, hegemonic masculinity, violence, drugs and gang-related activity to roles within youth justice/criminal justice mentoring provide ‘success narratives’ that change is possible beyond prison. PSW involvement should be an important factor to be considered during parole hearings, sentence planning and offender management alongside risk to the public. Finally, allocation of funding to set up and evaluate PSWs ‘through the gate’ into community PSW roles should be a priority; future research on this would contribute valuable empirical evidence to evaluate the desistance potential and longevity of positive masculinities developed through PSW in prison.

Conclusion

This article has explored narratives from PSWs on how the role can help support the emergence of positive masculinities in a UK adult male prison. This paper makes both empirical and theoretical contributions to existing knowledge on PSW and aims to contribute to a growing research base on the importance of PSW from the perspective of somebody who has both worked as a prison officer and completed a PhD researching PSW. Qualitative/ethnographic data was analysed through the lens of an ex-prison officer/researcher (insider positionality) who understands both the positive and exploitative dimensions of PSW. This study found that PSW allows for expressions of vulnerability, male bonding, intimacy and generativity which challenges the predominant research focus around hegemonic masculinity in prisoners. PSW gives opportunities for prisoners to explore feelings and still exhibit performative masculinity in other areas of prison life, for example the prison gym (see Sabo, 2001). PSW offers different ways of being a prisoner and being a man and give ways of mobilising agency in an environment that largely deprives of human agency. PSW can facilitate protective masculinities legitimised through supporting vulnerable prisoners. However, the male prison environment can be brutal and challenging and present extreme and hostile carceral spaces (Maguire, 2021). There are institutional challenges to supporting PSW schemes because of neoliberalist policies and practices and PSWs have to fluctuate between masculinities when in/out of their roles to survive and negotiate multiple audiences, thus placing them in a liminal position. Indeed, liminality of PSW is one of the key messages from this article.

I would like to thank, as always Professor Rob Canton, Associate Professor Vic Knight and Dr John Hockey for your help with writing this paper.

Footnotes

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.

ORCID iD

Sarah Nixon

Notes

References

Bäcklin

(2022) Supporting masculinities: Wounded healing and masculinity in peer support organizations for people with experiences of criminality and substance abuse. Victims & Offenders 17: 872–892.

Barry

Weaver

(2016) An evaluation of the User Voice Prison and Community Councils University of Strathclyde.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101.

Brown

(1991) The professional ex: Alternatives for exiting the deviant career. The Sociological Quarterly 32(2June 1991): 219–230.

Buck

(2016) I wanted to feel the way that they did” Mimesis as a situational dynamic of peer mentoring by ex-offenders. Journal of Deviant Behaviour 38(9): 1027–1041.

Burnett

Maruna

(2006) The kindness of prisoners: Strength’s based resettlement in theory and action. Criminology and Criminal Justice 6(1): 83–106.

Cohen

Taylor

(1972) Psychological survival: The long term effects of imprisonment Penguin UK.

Crewe

(2014) Not looking hard enough: Masculinity, emotion, and prison research. Qualitative Inquiry 20: 426–437.

Crewe

Bennett

(2012) The Prisoner: Routledge Oxon.

10.

Crewe

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

11.

De Viggiani

, 2003. (Un) healthy prison masculinities: Theorising men’s health in prison . Doctoral dissertation. University of Bristol, Bristol, England.

12.

De Viggiani

(2012) Trying to be something you are not: Masculine performances within a prison setting. Men and Masculinities 15(3): 271–291.

13.

Durcan

Cees Zwemstra

(2014) Mental health in prison. In: WHO (ed) Prisons and Health. Geneva: WHO, pp.84–98.

14.

Edgar

Solomon

(2004) Having Their Say: The work of prisoner councils: Prison Reform Trust.

15.

Giordano

Cernkovich

Rudolph

(2002) Gender, crime and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation’. American Journal of Sociology 107: 990–1064.

16.

Giordano

Shroeder

Cernokovich

(2007) Emotions and crime over the life course: A neo-median perspective on criminal continuity and change. American Journal of Sociology 112(6): 1603–1661.

17.

Goffman

(1961a) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and other Inmates. New York: Doubleday Anchor.

18.

Halsey

Harris

(2011) Prisoner futures: Sensing the signs of generativity. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 44(1): 74–93.

19.

Healy

O’Donnell

(2008) Calling time on crime: Motivation, generativity and agency in Irish probationers. Probation Journal 55(1): 25–38.

20.

HM Inspectorate of prisons (2016) Life in prison: peer support: London. https://www.samaritans.org/scotland/news/samaritans-sends-former-prisoners-back-inside-help-prevent-suicide/ (2019)

21.

Irwin

Cressey

(1962) Thieves, convict, and the inmate culture. Social Problems 10: 142–155.

22.

Jaffe

, 2012. Peer support and seeking help in a prison: a study of the Listeners scheme in four prisons in England . unpublished PhD. Keele University.

23.

Kupers

(2019) https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/prisons-and-prisms/201904/toxic-masculinity-in-and-outside-prison

24.

Levenson

Farrant

(2002) Unlocking potential: Active citizenship and volunteering by prisoners. Probation Journal 49(3): 195–204.

25.

Liebling

, assisted by Arnold H (2004) Prisons and Their Moral Performance: A Study of Values, Quality, and Prison Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

26.

Liebling

Price

Elliot

(1999) Appreciative inquiry and relationships in prison. Punishment and Society 1(1): 71–98.

27.

Liebling

Tait

Durie

Stiles

Harvey

(2005) An evaluation of the safer locals programme final report. Cambridge Institute of Criminology. Prison Research Centre UK.

28.

Maguire

(2021) Vulnerable prisoner masculinities in an English prison. Men and Masculinities 24(3): 510–518.

29.

Maruna

(2001) Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild their Lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

30.

Maruna

Lebel

Lanier

(2004) Generativity behind bars: Some ‘redemptive truth’ about prison society. In: De St Aubin

McAdams

Kim

(eds) The Generative Society. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 131–151.

31.

Matza

David

(1964) Delinquency and Drift. New York: Wiley.

32.

Mead

Hilton

Curtis

(2001) Peer support: A theoretical perspective. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 25(2): 134.

33.

Mead

and MacNeil (2006) Peer support: What makes it unique? International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation 10(2): 29–37.

34.

Mertens

(2009) Transformative research and evaluation. New York: Guilford.

35.

Morse

Wright

(2019) Imprisoned men: Masculinity variability and implications for correctional programming. Corrections: Policy, Practice and Research 7(1): 1-23.

36.

Nixon

, 2018. “I just want to give something back” peer work and desistance . unpublished thesis. De Montfort University England.

37.

Nixon

(2020) The emotional labour of prison listeners. In: Emotional Labour in Criminal Justice and Criminology. Routledge Frontiers of Criminal Justice. Oxon, UK: Routledge, pp.208–220.

38.

Nixon

(2022) Surviving the landings: An autoethnographic account of being a gay female prison officer (in an adult male prison in England). Women & Criminal Justice 32: 1–2.

39.

O’Connor

Duncan

(2011) The sociology of humanist, spiritual and religious practice in prisons: Supporting responsivity and desistance from crime. Religions 2: 590–610.

40.

Perrin

(2020) Maximising the utility of peer support in carceral settings: A few stumbling blocks to consider. European Journal of Criminology: 1–16.

41.

Perrin

Blagden

(2014) Accumulating meaning, purpose and opportunities to change ‘drip by drip’: The impact of being a Listener in prison: Psychology. Crime and Law 20(9): 902–920.

42.

Phillips

(2001) Cultural constructions of manhood in prison. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 2(1): 13–23.

43.

Pryor

(2001) The Responsible Prisoner: An Exploration of the Extent to Which Imprisonment Removes Responsibility Unnecessarily: Home office.

44.

Reissman

(1965) The helper therapy principle. Social Work 10(2): 27–32. 1 April 1965.

45.

Ricciardelli

Maier

Hannah-Moffat

(2015) Strategic masculinities: Vulnerabilities, risk and the production of prison masculinities. Theoretical Criminology 19(4): 491–513.

46.

Sabo

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

Kupers

London

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

47.

Samaritans (2018) https://www.samaritans.org/news/samaritans-sends-former-prisoners-back-inside-help-prevent-suicide/.

48.

Schmidt

(2013) User Voice and the Prison Council Model: A summary of key findings from an ethnographic exploration of participatory governance in three English prisons; in Prison Service Journal September 209.

49.

Shott

(1979) Emotion and social life: A symbolic interactionist analysis. American Journal of Sociology 846: 1317–1334.

50.

Sloan

(2016) Masculinity and the Adult Male Prison Experience. London: Palgrave McMillan.

51.

Søgaard

Kolind

Thylstrup

, et al. (2016) Desistance and the micro-narrative construction of reformed masculinities in a danish rehabilitation centre. Criminology & Criminal Justice 16(1): 99–118.

52.

Sykes

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

53.

Trammell

(2012) Enforcing the Convict Code: Violence and Prison Culture. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.