Getting the usual treatment: research censorship and the dangerous offender

Yeager, Matthew G.

doi:10.1080/10282580802482645

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Effectively, the official response conveyed that CSC conducts their own monitoring and research on infectious disease, 6 enough so that external studies on such topics are not needed. This response fits well within an organizational risk management strategy that seeks to protect CSC’s agenda by impeding external researchers (Watson, 2015), and is in keeping with the denial of access that other scholars have documented (Martel, 2004; Yeager, 2008). The rejected application meant that we would not be able to hold focus groups in federal prisons, nor would we be able to consult prison healthcare staff as participants.…”

Section: Reflections On Access Barriers and Impacts On The Research Psupporting

confidence: 59%

“…While most prison-related research undertakings include various challenges and barriers, we found ours to be particularly illustrative of ways in which carceral institutions can shape and limit knowledge (Martel, 2004; Yeager, 2008). As we experienced firsthand when we were advised that we could not recruit people who were on parole without formal CSC permission, access barriers can unexpectedly extend beyond prison walls.…”

Section: Concluding Thoughts On Enhancing Research With Former Prisonersmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…In practice, however, this is not always the case. CSC-collected data is not readily accessible to external researchers, and some have documented their experiences of being denied access to CSC information, prisoners, and staff (Martel, 2004; Yeager, 2008). Indeed, a recent case study found that CSC openness to external researchers has become less common over time, with a limited number of collaborations occurring per year; out of 66 project descriptions in CSC’s 2010–2011 research plan, only six mentioned external partners as collaborators, and though an additional 31 project requests came from external researchers during that plan’s timeframe, there is no indication of how many were approved (Watson, 2015).…”

Section: Controlling Research Access and Limiting Carceral Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Research in carceral contexts: confronting access barriers and engaging former prisoners

Watson

Meulen

2018

Qualitative Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prison systems, with the ability to reject or approve applications for conducting research with incarcerated populations, function as shapers of carceral knowledge and thus can potentially close opportunities for new qualitative studies as well as affect the quality and richness of the data obtained. This article describes a collaborative research process wherein access to current prisoners was not granted, and only former prisoners who were not on parole were eligible to participate in the study. We provide a unique reflective analysis of how access barriers altered the scope of our research and may have impacted our findings were it not for a change in our recruitment plan. We also incorporate insights from multiple literatures that speak to the value, challenges, and ethical concerns associated with doing research with former prisoners. Our contribution to the qualitative carceral literature sparks new questions worthy of further in-depth exploration, in particular how to more meaningfully involve former prisoners in the research process.

show abstract

Section: Reflections On Access Barriers and Impacts On The Research Psupporting

confidence: 59%

Section: Concluding Thoughts On Enhancing Research With Former Prisonersmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Controlling Research Access and Limiting Carceral Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Research in carceral contexts: confronting access barriers and engaging former prisoners

Watson

Meulen

2018

Qualitative Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pressure may be exerted during drafting, 'fact-checking' can stray into interpretative direction, or research may be stalled by bureaucracy. For instance, Yeager (2008) documents how state and university official 'structured' and 'destabilized' critical research on dangerous offenders through a range of mechanisms, including delay tactics and lengthy approval practices.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Why have we funded this research?’: On politics, research and newsmaking criminology

Murray

2017

Criminology & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the value, or otherwise, of newsmaking criminology has generated considerable debate within academia. On the one hand, critics have argued that such approaches risk devaluing academic enterprise, for instance, privileging style over substance; on the other hand, proponents argue that newsmaking can promote more informed, progressive discourse in societies that are already saturated with crime and justice issues. Taking a different tack, this article argues that newsmaking criminology can provide a vehicle for controversial or 'difficult' research findings, and serve to hold authorities to account. Using a case-study approach, the article shows how police executives and government officials sought to undermine a critical report on the use of stop and search in Scotland by deploying a range of 'neutralization' techniques; and how, via media coverage, the findings nonetheless gained traction, prompting legal reform. The article also acknowledges the risks and limitations of newsmaking, and argues that fundamental problems remain apropos the production and dissemination of critical policing research in Scotland.

show abstract

“…An impressive multi-disciplinary and international social science literature has emerged based on the analysis of ATI/FOI disclosures. Critical scholars have mobilized ATI/FOI requests in research on policing, security, and carceral organizations in Canada (Wright, Moore, and Kazmiersky 2015; Luscombe and Walby 2015; Rigakos and Worth 2011; Kinsman and Gentile 2010; Piché 2011; Piché and Walby 2010; Yeager 2008; see also Brockman 2018), Britain (Rappert 2012; Brown 2009), and the United States (Greenberg 2016; Lee 2001). While this body of literature has demonstrated that ATI/FOI requests can be used to good effect in facilitating access to information about the activities of government agencies, it has also highlighted important gaps between the official promise of ATI/FOI law and the reality of access barriers and continued organizational secrecy and obfuscation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Access to Information, Higher Education, and Reputational Risk: Insights from a Case Study

Lamoureux¹

2019

Can. j. law soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Access to information and freedom of information (ATI/FOI) requests are an increasingly utilized means of generating data in the social sciences. An impressive multi-disciplinary and international literature has emerged which mobilizes ATI/FOI requests in research on policing, national security, and imprisonment. Absent from this growing literature is work which deploys ATI/FOI requests in research on higher education institutions (HEIs). In this article I examine the use of ATI/FOI requests as a methodological tool for producing data on HEIs. I highlight the data-generating opportunities that this tool offers higher education researchers and provide a first-hand account of how ATI/FOI requests can be mobilized in higher education research. I argue that despite the value of ATI/FOI requests for producing data on academic institutions, the information management practices of HEIs limit the effectiveness of ATI/FOI in ways that I detail drawing on my experience using information requests to scrutinize the quality assurance of undergraduate degree programs in Ontario. I suggest that in an age of rankings and league tables HEIs are likely to prioritize the protection of their reputation over the right of access. In conclusion I consider the implications of the article’s findings for higher education researchers and ATI/FOI users.

show abstract

Getting the usual treatment: research censorship and the dangerous offender

Cited by 19 publications

References 10 publications

Research in carceral contexts: confronting access barriers and engaging former prisoners

Research in carceral contexts: confronting access barriers and engaging former prisoners

‘Why have we funded this research?’: On politics, research and newsmaking criminology

Access to Information, Higher Education, and Reputational Risk: Insights from a Case Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About