Access denied: Research on sex in prison and the subjugation of ‘deviant knowledge’

Abstract

Despite the fundamental necessity of gaining gatekeeper approval for prisons fieldwork, researchers rarely publicly acknowledge and analyse their failures to secure access. Drawing upon the Foucauldian-inspired literatures on the production and policing of new criminological knowledge, this article presents as a case study the Sex in Prison research project, instigated by the Howard League for Penal Reform, and for which permission to interview serving prisoners was refused. This denial of access, it is argued, resulted from a politically motivated attempt to prevent the acquisition of knowledge perceived as likely to be unfavourable to and critical of prison authorities, emanating from ‘deviant’ informants, using ‘deviant’ methods and obtained on behalf of ‘deviant’ penal reformers. The troubling implications for prisons researchers are explored. The article concludes by highlighting the potential of formerly imprisoned people, as participants in research, to circumvent the limits to knowledge imposed by prison authorities.

Identifying research priorities to improve the health of incarcerated populations: results of citizens' juries in Australian prisons

“…This practice has implications for transparency, duty of care to people in prison, cost of delays, academic freedom, researcher morale, progress in this area, and public accountability. 44 Although the presence and degree of gatekeeping is likely to differ between countries and jurisdictions, we were able to overcome the obstacles of gaining access to citizens' jury participants through perseverance, patience, and by showing, we believe, the research team's expertise and track record in undertaking prison-based research.…”

Stroking Reflexivity Into Practice: The Pros and Cons of Resorting to Gatekeepers to Conduct Qualitative Criminological Research

“…In addition, Davies & Francis (2018) claim that this methodology observes the interaction between the subject and society and the facts and emotions accompanying such subjects. For qualitative researchers, gaining and maintaining access to a research field is a fundamental and standard process (Stevens, 2020;Riese, 2019;Cheek, 2011). However, the increasing scholar demand for results, publications, funding (Atkinson, 2019;Brannen et al, 2013;Wigfall et al, 2013), or even ethical commission approvals (Cheek, 2011) trivializes access, potentially promoting disregard for the complexity of the inherent challenges (Riese, 2019).…”

“…In criminological research, it is common to encounter social and institutional powerful figures (Lumsden & Winter, 2014). However, the process of accessing research settings and participants has been a vaguely touched topic of research in criminology (Stevens, 2020). Nevertheless, criminological studies have already experienced the gatekeeper's power to limit or deny access to potential research participants on the grounds of their vulnerability (Jeffords, 2007;Myers, 2015).…”

“…Gatekeepers' access control can evolve from granting or denying access to research settings to a more profound institutional control (Witham et al, 2015), such as turning a blind eye to potential participants' will and right to freely engage with research (McFayden et al, 2016). In addition, institutional or organizational interests concerning the study could influence gatekeepers' decision of approval (Christian et al, 2021;Stevens, 2020;Davies & Peters, 2014;Cheek, 2011;Sampson & Thomas, 2003;Stalker et al, 2004). Jeffords (2007) approached 15 state juvenile correctional research departments in the U.S. and concluded that the nature of the topic influenced gatekeepers' decisions to grant access, the methodology used, the amount of data requested, the extension of their control over the research outcomes, and their personal profit.…”

Sexual deviance in prison: Queering identity and intimacy in prison research

“…Chamberlen, 2018; Crewe, 2009). This history suggests that sex and intimacy in prisons remains a ‘deviant’ or ‘subjugated’ knowledge (Stevens, 2020).…”