Secondary Adjustment in Prisons: Prisoners’ Strategies of Influence

Henry Khiat

doi:10.18778/1733-8077.6.2.08

Authors

Henry Khiat Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.6.2.08

Keywords:

Secondary adjustment, Influencing Strategies, Covert Participant Observation, Grounded Theory

Abstract

This participant observation research explores and examines the strategies that prisoners use to influence prison officers in an Asian prison setting. Grounded theory methodology is employed in the analysis process. From the study, eight strategies of influence are conceptualised: repetition, distraction, finding excuses, feigning ignorance, false compliance, hearsay, direct hit and spontaneous protest. They are further subsumed under three main categories of Enhancers, Trouble Shooters and Resistors. On the other hand, there are three categories of prison officers with respect to their responses to the eight strategies of influence – Idealists, Pragmatists and Authoritarians. In summary, this study serves three objectives. First, it provides a fresh perspective on how prisoners attempt to influence prison officers in their daily interactions. Second, it has demonstrated that data collection through covert participant observation can be done effectively without causing any harm to the stakeholders in a prison setting. Lastly, this study has implications for the development of theory, practice and future research in the area of penology.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Henry Khiat, Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore

Henry Khiat (PhD) is a lecturer in Singapore Polytechnic. He received his doctorate in education from the University of Leicester in 2008. His research interests include social psychology,penology, criminology, curriculum development, mathematics education and qualitative research methods.

References

Glaser, B. (1978) Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. and A. Strauss (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Glaser, B. G. (1992) Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence versus forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Goffman, E. (1961) Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

Finlay, L. (2002) "Pearls, pith and provocation. ‘Outing’ the researcher: the provenance, process and practice of reflexivity." Qualitative Health Research 12(4):531-545. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/104973202129120052

Hamm, M., T. Coupez, F. Hoze, and C. Weinstein. (1994) "The Myth of Humane Imprisonment: A Critical Analysis of Severe Discipline in U.S. Maximum Security Prisons, 1945-1990." Pp 167-200 in Prison Violence in America edited by Braswell, M., Montgomary, R. and Lombardo, L. Cimcinnati: OH. Anderson Publishing.

Lincoln, Y. and E. Guba (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8

Festinger L., H. W. Riecken and S. Schachter (1956) When prophecy fails. New York: Harper & Row. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/10030-000

Humphreys, L. (1970) Tearoom Trade. London: Duckworth. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02812336

Parker, J. (1974) View from The Boys: a sociology of down-town adolescents. Newton Abbot: David & Charles.

Patton, M. Q. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Rosenhan, D. (1973) "On being sane in insane places." Science, Vol. 179, 250-258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.179.4070.250

Scharf, P. (1983) "Empty Bars: Violence and the Crisis of Meaning in Prison." Prison Journal 63(1):114-124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/003288558306300111

Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1998) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Sykes, G. (1958) The Society of Captives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.