Abstract
This article is developed from the contents from one of the chapters the researcher has written as part of her PhD thesis. It discusses various methodological challenges the researcher had to face during the phase of data collection in the prisons of Kerala, India, and the strategies adopted to overcome these challenges. This article is intended as a guide for researchers who want to conduct a qualitative enquiry in prisons in the future.
This article is developed from the experiences the researcher has undergone conducting a qualitative research in a prison setting and forms a part of the thesis “Vocational Training Programmes in the Prisons of Kerala: Policy and Practice” (Sivakumar 2017). During the conceptualization of the current research, the researcher noted that a large number of studies on prisons are in the form of policy evaluation or effectiveness of a program(s), following a positivistic framework. The researcher identified various evaluatory studies on vocational training programs limited to those conducted mainly by government agencies, the results of which have come out in the forms of committee reports and administrative reports. It was also noticed that even after huge criticisms on the practice of prison labor in prisons, these programs continued to persist under different names with different purposes (Conley 1980). Hence, the focus of this work was not evaluating the program but to understand why and how has such programs survived, without being interrupted even once, for such a long duration.
Dominant theories in the penal literature suggest that the concepts of discipline and control determine the way how the visible structures of the prison interact with its invisible structure like the programs in prison to define and redefine the way they are operated. Hence, a critical understanding of the said programs in the context of larger debates of discipline, surveillance, space, time, and so on, was necessary. This line of enquiry led to adopting a constructivist framework, assuming that individuals in any environment (system) is capable of acting on the system and making meanings out of their experiences with the system. The social constructivist approach offers provision for a critical analysis of “taken-for-granted” knowledge, looking beyond the “notions of ideal prison,” not undermining the fact that there are factors that could be similar in case of prisons, but not all prisons are the same. The perceptions of people in prison about such programs could vary according to their individual contexts, which may result in the formation of categories of interpretations.
A few literature (Bandyopadhyay 2010; Raghavan 2010; Schlosser 2008) that depicted qualitative research on prisons became my guide in devising tools as well as strategies to overcome possible challenges a researcher may encounter while data collection. Being aware of the ethical and methodological challenges that a researcher may face in prison research while dealing with sensitive issues such as reasons for crime causation, I avoided such direct questions in my interview guide. Any ways, such sensitive issues were never my concern while conducting this research. I was prepared to address fingers that may point toward the significance of the study and significance of the methodology that is being adopted, as the Indian prisons are little exposed to a qualitative enquiry that is purely academic in nature. In this article, I am not going to discuss the planned methodology or the tools that were used to collect data, since all these processes were guided by the writings others have already made. Instead, the current article would focus on my individual experiences of challenges and strategies formulated for addressing these challenges, hoping it to be a guide to future researchers. The challenges and strategies would be aligned under two major sections: (1) securing permission and (2) the process of data collection. The article would end by explaining how the research guided in the discovery of my “self” in relation to the research that was conducted.
Securing Permission
The process for securing permission to conduct a study in prisons varies in different states. My initial visit to the prisons of Kerala was to explore the procedure to be followed to attain this permission. I was informed by the prison headquarters, Kerala, to write to the Chief Welfare Officer of the State of Kerala in the letter head of my affiliated institution/university. Being aware of the long procedural delay for securing permission, I applied for the same way before I planned my data collection strategies (almost one year prior to the actual process of data collection). I received a permission letter from the Home Ministry of the Kerala state after two months, where I understood that in the State of Kerala, India, the authority who permits to conduct research may vary depending on the target population. I learned that if the researcher confines himself or herself to the prison authorities or is circulating a questionnaire through the authorities, then the Director General (prisons) have the authority to provide permission. However, if the researcher wants to interact with any inmate, then the permission has to be attained from the Home Ministry of the State. The permission letter issued in my name came with in-build security safeguards; The data collected from the prisoners shall be kept confidential and not used for any publication. If any interview schedule is used for the collection of data, a copy of it will be submitted to the superintendents of the jail for approval before the collection of data. Interviews of prisoners shall be conducted in the presence of a jail official only. Prisoners shall not be interviewed without their consent.
Since gender was one of the critical concepts for analysis, I had to secure data from both male and female research participants. However, while applying for permission initially, I wasn’t aware that the administration of women prison was separated from central prisons recently and permission needs to be applied separately for data collection in these prisons. Although I initially decided to carry on dropping the objective that explored gender dimension, the Welfare Officer in one of the central prisons where I started data collection persuaded me to extend my data collection to women prisons and open prisons.
When I applied initially, there was no time frame mentioned in the permission letter for carrying out the research. But later, when I wanted to extend my research to the women and open prisons, the permission was offered in a minimum (im)possible time frame (will be discussed in the next paragraph).
I understood that a change in the political scenario in the state could also affect the kind of permission attained. Knowing the procedure of applying to the Home Ministry, this time I submitted my application for permission at the Secretariat and was asked to collect the permission letter after two days. I was surprised to see the letter issued in my name permitting me to conduct the interviews in two weeks. I met the Principal Secretary, Home Department, and explained him how humanly impossible it would be to even visit six jails (three women prisons and three open prisons) located in different locations in Kerala (three in Trivandrum, one in Thrissur [approximately 280 km from Trivandrum], one in Kannur [approximately 200 km from Thrissur and 480 km from Trivandrum], and one in Kasargod [approximately 100 km from Kannur, 300 km from Thrissur, and 580 km from Trivandrum]) in two weeks time. He was not convinced by my explanation and said I have to manage in the given two-week time. I asked if it is possible to obtain an extension if I am not able to finish my target and he replied a plain “no.” He said my extension application need to be approved by him and he will make sure that I do not get an extension. I learned later that I was better-off as other researchers who applied after me were given a week to cover all the prisons of Kerala. The political turmoil caused by the accused, remanded of in the solar case (a famous case that shook the then government of Kerala), had brought prisons under the close watch of media, which resulted in this restricted permission.
Process of Data Collection
Data required for this research were collected in the form of “talk” and “text,” which are manifestations of “language.” In-depth interviews with research participants became the source for talk data while text included various reports of prison reform committees, prison administrative reports, other archival data, prison records, parliamentary debates, and so on. Practical challenges were encountered while collecting both text and talk. When availability of materials became a major challenge in collecting text data, presence and interference of officials during interviews, noncooperation from research participants, gaining access to the “restricted” prison setting, and so on, became major challenges while collecting talk data.
After collecting archival data and available reports on prisons from various libraries, I asked permission to access documents regarding prisons that might be available in the library, for obtaining a better understanding on the functioning of prisons in Kerala (I could not find specific information on the functioning of prisons of the state of Kerala from any libraries). I discovered that neither the prison office nor the State Institute of Correctional Administration has copies of important documents regarding prisons. However, the welfare officer was kind enough to share his personal copies of the Prison Rules (1958), Udayabhanu Committee Report (1993), Report of State Correctional Administration Seminar, and so on. These reports helped in understanding the functioning of prisons in Kerala.
A major challenge during the initial phase of data collection was to convince authorities on the tools and techniques used in a qualitative research and the idea of theoretical sampling. The welfare officer, who was the contact person in one of the central prisons, agreed to cooperate with my research but advised me to keep my sample size low that it would be easier for both of us. I was asked to produce a copy of the interview guide for approval to the welfare officer, the superintendent of prisons, and the jailor before I actually started the data collection.
During the initial days, a prison research by a woman was not considered as a serious affair and I was discouraged on a daily basis. Persistent attempts and visits to prison on a daily basis, I was allowed to officially kick-start the process of data collection after a month. Noticing the lack of trust among officials, I decided to first conduct interviews with the officials and trainers and finally move toward interviewing inmates. The strategy here was to win the confidence of officials, so that they do not consider me as a threat.
After continuous interviews (two per day) for a week, I was again asked to break the process as the officials were not available. With a small proportion of officials to inmates in the prisons of Kerala, the institutional responsibilities of officers kept them occupied, which caused a lag in research activities from external bodies in prisons (rule says the presence of an officer while any interview with inmates take place). Waiting for the concerned officials was an everyday affair. The time I spend waiting for people was utilized to pen down my observations that were maintained in the form of personal diaries. I used to also note down my emotions and everyday experiences as a woman researcher during this period. The time I spend “waiting,” which sometimes even lasted for a few hours, helped me to be patient enough to conduct this study.
As I moved from one prison to another, the waiting period dropped and negotiations became much easier. Initiating interview process in a second prison was made easier as the “internal” approval (from officials in prisons) on using my tool was not required. Repeated visits to the same prison made me familiar to the guards and other officials on duty, which made movement and entry into the prison premise easier. I also started noticing smiles of familiarity among some officials and inmates as my interactions with them became more frequent.
Presence of Official During Interview
Maintaining confidentiality and anonymity of data shared by inmates was really a challenge when the data have to be gathered in the presence of an official. The first interview with an inmate was conducted in the room of the weaving instructor. There were two tables in the room and two officers sat on one edge of each table. I was asked to take a seat at one of the sides of a table. That left me in a position at equal distance from both the officials. The inmate was called and was asked to stand at one end of the room. I made arrangements for him to sit but I could not negotiate with the space that separated us. This distance was such that any question I ask and any reply he gives was audible to everyone in the manufactory. To any question posted, he spoke about God’s grace and how good the officials in the prison treated him. The presence of an official and the space between the researcher and the researched made the entire interview biased.
After the first interview, I understood that the proximity of an officer with respect to the researcher and inmate and intrusion of officials in the process of the interview had a negative influence on the interviews. I raised my concern on both these issues to the supervisor in the manufactory, but he defended with a clause in the permission letter of “the interview had to be conducted in the presence of an officer.” He also justified the proximity of officials during the interview with space constraints in the manufactory for conducting an interview with minimum intrusion.
I was allowed to use a table and chair in the office of the manufactory where I could conduct the interviews. The facility provided to me was only at a feet distance from the seat of the supervisor. On my right side, around two feet away was the seat of the clerk to the manufactory. The clerk did not interfere in any of the interview process, although he was very friendly. However, the supervisor tried hard to listen to the conversation between the researcher and the inmates. Hence, we (the researcher and inmates) kept our voices so low that made listening to us, even with great effort, impossible. This made the officer to stop me at regular intervals and ask what question I asked and what the interviewee’s reply was. I used to manipulate both the question and the answer asked to secure confidentiality of information. For instance, in one of the interviews, I was asking the inmate about power politics among inmates and the inmate responded that those who have political and economic backing can find their lives easier in prison when compared to others. At that time, the supervisor stopped me and asked what question I asked and what the inmate’s reply was. I told him I was asking about the security aspects in prison and the inmate answered that the security is very important as there are people from different background staying in prison. The storekeeper appeared to be very pleased regarding the response. This helped in reinforcing the confidentiality of the data as well as winning certain information that are forbidden from revealing to anyone.
As the interview progressed, such interferences reduced, except in one unavoidable situation. One of the interviews was conducted in a totally unfavorable situation as I had to share the table of the supervisor of the manufactory to conduct an inmate interview. The inmate became totally defensive throughout the interview and was not revealing anything on the experience in prison or even the nature of crime he has committed. I had to literally use certain information from previous interviews about the treatment toward new prisoners, experience in prison, and so on, and the supervisor of the manufactory, on hearing this, stopped me in between and asked where I got such information. I told him I get to know things with my presence in the site of data collection for an extended duration. The supervisor was adamant and wanted to know who shared such information, which I had to refuse him. He became upset with my response and thought I am playing a double standard with the inmates and officers. I was surprised to know his expectation to reveal the ‘secrets’ collected from the inmates to him. I tried convincing him that I cannot reveal certain information because it affects the confidentiality agreement with my research participants; however, he remained upset and cold during the rest of the day. The worst thing was this conversation took place in the presence of the inmate whom I was interviewing then and the inmate who provided me “forbidden information” (the inmate who gave me such information was the office boy of the supervisor of the manufactory). I spent hours to solve the issue as I had to collect more data from the manufactory.
Since “space” was one of the analytical criteria, a visit to areas where various activities are conducted became important. However, when asked for permission to visit the barracks, I was denied stating that such visits do not contribute to the study. Being present in the prison premises for a longer duration and interacting with officials, I was able to establish the genuine nature of the study. As a result, I was finally escorted inside the male prison, although only to “limited” spaces. I was allowed entry to the prison premises of central prison, Viyyur, by virtue of participating in a performance of Chendamelam, an initiative by the welfare officer of that prison.
Cooperation From Research Participants
By and large, my experience with male prisons was very positive. Both prisoners and officials were ready to share information, although many times a few officials requested not to write anything ill about the prison and to show my report to the superintendent of the prison and get his approval before I left. Most of them tried to defend the system and sounded like business executives. It was difficult to extract systemic information from them.
Most of the nonuniformed officials were very helpful, friendly, and caring from the beginning. On one of the initial visits to prison itself, one of the nonuniformed officials told me which areas in the prison premises are unsafe for a woman to move alone. He advised me to avoid taking those routes that are normally deserted. The trainers/nonuniformed officers in the manufactory and press were very cooperative when compared to the uniformed officials. A few uniformed officials were also very cooperative. I was introduced to the in-charge of the agriculture unit by the welfare officer stating that this officer would be very helpful. We started our conversation regarding my research and how does agriculture become a part of the research. It was revealed during the conversation that he is a friend to my husband’s colleague and a family friend. This officer was very cooperative and helpful after this conversation. He gave me a tour to all the agricultural area and explained what all crops are being cultivated there. He also gave information on politics between officials and how that has affected the functioning of prison as an institution.
The women officials and the inmates in one of the women prisons turned out to be hostile from the beginning. They were neither willing to talk nor ready to share anything. Even after I assured they need not talk about the crime or their family, they did not cooperate. However, the situation was better in other women prisons. Inmates, although did not reveal about the situation in prison or treatment toward them, they were willing to talk. Both the inmates and officials of the women prison, Kannur, were very cooperative, in contrast to the discomfort exhibited in the other two women prisons of Kerala. They identified me with a research scholar from Kerala University who was there before me to collect data for her PhD thesis. In four days, I could complete interviews with seven inmates, two officials, and the superintendent of prisons. In retrospect, I would explain the noncooperation of women inmates in some prisons might be due to research saturation. These women are being subject of numerous interviews as they are located in the headquarters of the state. Now, they respond to only those people who could help to get released from the prison.
Finding Safe Accommodation
Finding safe accommodation in Kerala for a woman scholar was a huge hurdle. I used Internet and other reliable sources to find accommodation in hostels/paying guest facilities. However, accessing such facilities was difficult as many of them wanted a parent/guardian to accompany me while I checked in to their hostels. To get somebody to keep traveling with me was not possible at all. I found an accommodation in Kannur, consulting the Internet and also with the help of the welfare officer of women prison, Kannur. The hostel authorities allowed me to stay there as a guest for three days during the initial phase of data collection, but I was asked to bring a parent/guardian, if I have to access their facilities further.
Being a Woman in a Male World
During my initial visits to prison, I noticed that people in prison whether it is the officials or the “visitors” were interested in me as the number of women who visit a male prison is negligible. My interactions with the guard and my entry into the prison premises made them curious.
The prison premises normally have a very few female visitors, consisting largely of those who have come to meet inmates, officials who have accompanied certain female convicts from the women prison, and certain short-time visitors like members of an non-governmental organisations (NGOs) like me. The women visitors who come to visit their kith or kin in prison normally appear to be fearful and used to be accompanied by some male member of the family. Once they get used to the procedure of visiting inmates, then they normally stays at the welfare officer’s office and hence the inmates or officials on duty have minimum chance to notice them. The same is with the officials who accompany inmates from female prison.
People inside the prison, both officials and inmates, a few of them get a regular opportunity to meet and interact with a person from the opposite gender. When inmates are bound to spend certain amount of days inside the prison as part of their punishment, officials are forced to stay inside the premises as their work place is away from their homes and those who get to go home do not find enough time to spend with their families. In such a restricted circumstance, it is no wonder that people like me and the female staff in the press unit find it difficult to manage stares while walking around the prison premises.
There was an incident that still raises terror in me. From the first day of data collection in the prison manufactory, I noticed an official who spoke to me very jovially. He also mentioned that he has many information to share. I was hoping to gather certain key information about the manufactory and prison by large from him. When I told the in-charge of the manufactory that I need to interview this particular official, he told me to avoid it. I thought the official wanted to prevent me from knowing “many things” regarding prison and its facilities and decided to grab the opportunity to talk with this particular official.
When I approached the official, he said that many things that he wanted to discuss cannot be shared in the presence of others. Hence, I waited for the morning section of the manufactory to get over to talk to the official. After sending inmates back to their barracks, he agreed to talk and suggested to take a walk. While walking, I started to explain my research and its rationale and realized that the official is taking one of those deserted paths a nonuniformed official had asked me to avoid. I got a little scared but I decided to follow the path and kept explaining him on what I wanted to know. Before I started my questions, he started showing interest in who I am, my family background, and other personal details. I tried to give a brief introduction about myself and get back to the questions, but he kept on expressing interest on my personal matters. He also took me to the area toward the outer wall of the prison premise where the quarters for employees are located. I was scared but to hide my fear, I made sure to convey that I am familiar with this path while taking a tour of the agricultural area. I also tried to highlight my acquaintances with the higher officials in the prison like the jailor, the welfare officer, and the superintendent of prisons and officials at the prison headquarters. I had to abruptly stop this interview as he was not answering any of the questions I was posting. He said he was not in a mood to answer the questions then and mood can be created on a beach side or a park. He also asked my number. I lied that I do not carry my phone while in prison premises. He asked me to note down his number and call him if I need to know anything. He also asked me if I would be free on weekends for a conversation. I said that my evenings are spend penning down the interviews and cannot spare time. I was relieved when I reached the main path that leads to the welfare officer’s office. I hinted the welfare officer that the official did not cooperate and was more interested in my personal matters. However, I did not complain or tell him the details as I feared that would affect my already restricted entry into the prison premises.
I devised strategies to avoid this officer during the later days of my data collection as I am sure I would bump into him. But to my surprise, I learnt on the next day that he was transferred on immediate effect to another prison. That was truly relieving.
My position as a woman as well as a person who could speak three Indian languages other than English helped in the process of data collection. Many officials in the prison openly admitted that they were keen to talk to me because I am a lady and they would not have bothered to talk if the researcher was male. They seemed to enjoy the presence of a lady inside the prison premises. Even prisoners were willing to talk and spent time as they came to know I am not keen on their case.
Accessibility to Prisons
Accessing all the prisons in Kerala was a real challenge during data collection. To access central prisons and women prisons, I had chosen hostels in the town/city area itself, which resulting in spending much of my resources in traveling and lodging. From the place where I lodged, these prisons were hardly a journey of 30 minutes. However, reaching open prisons was a real challenge. The open prisons for men, although claim to be liberal, open, and without walls, are located in a literally inaccessible location. For instance, from the central prison, Poojappura, or from Trivandrum city, this place is located more than 35 km away. There is no connectivity by means of public transport to almost 8 km circumference of the open prison. To access the open prison, one has to travel 20 km to reach a bus station called Kattakada. From Kattakada, one has to take a bus to Neyyar dam bus station, which is almost 10 km away and the frequency of buses in this route is one service in every two to two and half hours. Once in Neyyar dam bus station, there are no buses beyond this point, so one has to take a rickshaw to travel another 8 km up the hill (officials in prison either travel by their own vehicles or the prison vehicle to reach the prison). The average cost to reach this place while taking the cheapest mode of transport was around Rs. 100 and the minimum time to travel was two hours and maximum of four hours (one way). Sometimes, it gets late and the buses may not be accessible, then I become forced to take a rickshaw from Neyyar dam to Kattakada as well. Then the minimum cost becomes Rs. 350.
I had to drop the idea of even visiting open prison, Nettukalthiri, due to inaccessibility issues. I tried locating some hostels in Kasargod district, even at university campuses. However, I couldn’t access one as the district itself does not have many hostels.
Challenges in Interviewing Research Participants
As a strategy to build rapport with my research participants, before starting the interview, I used to assure them that I am not interested in any personal sensitive information and all ethical guidelines would be followed. Although initially hesitant, most of them while talking have opened up and talked about the crime committed and the mind-set that made them to commit the crime. However, in spite of such explanations, one of the inmates in the women prison, Kannur, was hesitant to talk. She agreed to cooperate as the welfare officer asked her to. This concern was because of being victimized as a result of one such interview. She opened up that once a journalist convinced the inmates saying that being a woman she could understand the feelings of other women. Even though the inmate requested the journalist to keep her details confidential as her family would be upset to learn about her engagement with the public, the story appeared in a local magazine with only the names changed. Anyone who knew about the incident could guess about whom the story was. She decided to interact with the journalist to convey a criticism to the current penal system that does not consider the premature release of inmates who are sentenced for crimes against children and women. By revealing her story, she wanted to convey the message that there should be a change in the system. However, all the details of the crime appeared, except the cause she wanted to share. This incident created a strain in the relationship with her family. I promised the inmate that I will not publish any of their stories and the data collected will only be used for my research purpose.
Unwarranted Pauses and Breaks Between Interviews
Many a time, interviews were interrupted as a result of interference from officials or the interviewee, if an officer, had to answer to duty calls. The first interview with the supervisor of the manufactory was interrupted many times due to various reasons. The longest break was when the superintendent came for a routine visit to the manufactory. During this visit, interview had to be stopped for almost 20 minutes. Breaks also occur when an office boy came to get some bills signed or when some other institutional demands come up. In a few instances, inmates were called by their supervisors for some urgent work. Another cause for interruption in interviews was the time frame. Sometimes inmates get too involved in explaining crime and justifying their acts, which results in diverting from the topic of the interview. Such instances have stretched interviews to a longer duration and in one of the interviews it resulted in stopping the interview abruptly as the inmate was send back to lockup after work hours. I had to wait for the inmate to get back to work for continuing the interview.
Being Under the Scanner
Research in prison was always characterized with the presence of surveillance mechanisms. Every time I enter the prison premises, I was asked to enter my name, address, and purpose of visit, in addition to producing my identity card and copy of permission letter allowing me to collect data from prison. During the course of data collection, this became part of my routine to enter my name in the register at least twice a day.
While I was collecting data from prisons, Kerala prisons were under the close watch of the media due to two reasons: (1) the arrest and remand of accused in the solar case (a case which shook the government) and (2) allegations of corruption related to the food processing unit (the growth of the food processing unit raised competition to hostel owners who alleged corruption in prisons. There were numerous reports on the newspapers detailing corruption ranging from procurement of materials to manufacture and sales on a daily basis. Back-to-back reports on corruption in the food processing unit appeared after I visited the unit and interviewed officials there. One such report also put me in a situation where the jailor asked me whether I was the one who gave such information to the newspapers.) Such constant focus by media made data collection and movement in prison tougher.
Ethical Issues While Collecting Data in Prisons
Theoretical sampling guided the sampling procedure of this research. I used to describe a category of inmate whom I wanted to interview and inmates belonging to that category were sent to me by the concerned officials. Being in an oral tradition, taking formal written consent in Indian context did not make sense in the beginning of data collection. Hence, I decided to take informed consent. However, the idea of informed “oral” consent itself did not make sense in the prison situation as the inmates could not refuse orders from officials to cooperate with me and disobedience may make their life in prison difficult. Aware of this dilemma of inmates, I assured those inmates who were sent to me that I will not ask anything about their case and they could choose whether to respond to my questions or not, depending on their comfort. I explained to each respondent the nature of the current research and the rational for conducting such a research in simple terms that they could follow. I also assured them that the data they share with me would be kept confidential and I will assign them false names that their identity and anonymity would be preserved.
Subversion as a Strategy to Overcome Challenges During Data Collection
I was welcomed into the prison premises bounded by many does and don’ts. Since the presence of officials and their interference was a major challenge, a strategy adopted to overcome this situation was to conduct an interview in a language that the officials cannot understand. For instance, when I interviewed an inmate who speaks a different language, the inmate could reveal much more when compared to others as both of us knew that the officials may not understand much of it. He revealed about the “welcome treatments” (nadayadi—meaning beatings at the gate) in prison and various subversive practices inmates in prison adopt. But the inmate was careful to keep his voice very low in case if somebody overhears and understands what he is talking.
Another practice was to talk as softly as possible. Although not suggested to the inmate, there was an understanding in many of the interviews to keep our voice as low as possible that a second person cannot overhear. I also lied about the content of the interview when being interrupted by officials to maintain confidentiality of data.
Another subversive strategy used was in relation to the limited permission. When only two-week permission was provided to collect data from all women prisons and open prisons in Kerala, I had no other option but to cheat. I collected the permission letter from the Home Ministry and completed data collection from two of the prisons mentioned in the second letter, before the letter reached them. Data collection from the second prison took four days. When I moved to all other prisons, I had to tell them that I had just started and finished data collection from only one prison and need to hurry up because of the nature of the permission. Following this strategy, I finished data collection from five prisons in a month’s time (the actual permission was for two weeks).
Research in Prison—A Self-discovery
Why prisons? Why vocational training? These were questions that I had confronted from both within myself and people I met as part of my daily life, since I started working on this topic. My interest in prisons had developed during my master’s program in criminology and I had proposed a research on prisons for my master’s dissertation. However, I was discouraged then, as prison research cannot be conducted in a limited time as securing permission for data collection and the actual process of data collection could be time-consuming. I remember faint images of people behind bars when we were taken for a prison visit from school during childhood, although I still wonder what the purpose of that visit was.
Although criminology deals largely with crime causation and solutions to reduce crime, I consciously decided to avoid such topics for my research. Let me confess, I was not confident on whether I will be able to do justice to a holistic study on prison in a limited period. In addition, getting into sensitive issues may raise ethical concerns to me as well my research participants. That is how I decided to concentrate on rehabilitation of prisons, focusing on vocational training as one of the programs offered in almost all the prisons.
The question on why vocational training and work bothered me even when I started data collection. As I progressed with data collection and analysis, I realized my preoccupation with work and economic security. I had conducted a research on “Stress Due to Economic Dependence on Young Adults” as part of the requirement for my undergraduate degree (BSc. Psychology). The research revealed that economic dependence created a significant amount of stress among young adults and a level of such stress is high among males (Sivakumar 2006). Entry into a penal system would naturally create a break in the source of income to both the person who is in conflict with law and his family. I found that the Model Prison Manual (2016) suggests “imparting an occupational status and thus creating a sense of economic security among inmates” as one of the objectives of vocational training and work programs in prisons.
My upbringing as a member of a family that struggled to prosper has sowed the seeds of being economically dependent at a young age. The research undertaken as part of the undergraduate course is a product of this upbringing. I understand that the stress adult inmates in prison experience when economically insecure would be much more than what I had experienced as a young graduate.
Conclusion
This research helped in linking the concepts of prison, labor, and economic insecurity with the researcher in me. The journey of this research was a great learning in many ways. It not only taught me to negotiate with a highly restricted environment but also learn from the experiences of others who are in prisons for various reasons. Although many challenges were encountered during the process of this research, I learned the use of various strategies to combat them. A few individuals in prison (both officials and inmates) also contributed in the successful completion of this research, cooperating with me in many ways. In addition, it helped in the discovery of myself, a link between the researcher and the “field.”
Footnotes
Author’s Note
The materials used for this research are from state archives, state prison officers training academy, Academy of Prisons & Correctional Administration, Vellore, books, libraries across India and various online resources. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all research participants included in the study.
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.