Research Design
This inductive study was conducted from an interpretive perspective, or ‘inquiry from
the inside’ (Evered and Louis 1981) in an attempt to produce a rich account of the
lives of those incarcerated in Helsinki Prison, Finland. Our decision to research a
Finnish prison was based on four concerns. First, given that in many countries
incarceration ‘is becoming a normal pathway for significant portions of the
population’ there is a strong rationale for examining ‘…the experience of
imprisonment’ (Simon 2000: 285)i. Second, as Foucault (1977) recognized explicitly,
there are evident parallels between prisons and other institutions such as factories,
schools and hospitals, making the findings derived from penal institutions relevant to
a broad category of organizations ii . Third, because a prison is ‘a system of total
power’ (Sykes 1958: xvi) with de-individualizing tendencies it may correlate with,
and offer insight into, ‘the prevalent depersonalization of modern life’ (Fludernik
1999: 70). As Sykes (1958: xvi) long ago observed, the study of high security prisons
is useful because it ‘can supply a prism through which we can see the spectrum of
forces at work when social control nears its extreme’. Fourth, most scholarly attention
has focused on US, ‘super max’ or ‘maxi-max’ prisons where inmates are held in near
total isolation and which ‘…don’t instruct or correct. They merely contain’
(Robertson 1997: 1005). There is thus a prima facie case for the investigation of other
prison systems, especially those, such as Nordic penal institutions, which place a
greater emphasis on prisoner rehabilitation.
Context.
In line with other Nordic countries the Finnish penal system was based on an ideology
of ‘humane neoclassicism’ which, arguably, in contrast to the retributive nature of US
and UK regimes, emphasized ‘both legal safeguards against coercive care and the
goal of less repressive measures in general’ (Ikponwosa 2006: 387). This meant, for
example, that according to the law a custodial sentence should not involve any
punishment other than the loss of liberty, priority be given to rehabilitation, and
prisoners be justly treated and their human dignity respected (The Finnish Sentences
Enforcement Act, 1974: 612). One corollary of this approach was that Finland
incarcerated only 70 people per 100,000, among the lowest in Europe, and had a total
daily prison population of less than 4000. Across the prison system, inmates average
age was about 35 years, two thirds were single, 6% were women, and 10% (a growing
number) foreign nationals. The Ministry of Justice had overall charge of the penal
system which it exercised through the Criminal Sanctions Agency.
Referred to by inmates as ‘the Rock’, after the infamous American penal institution
Alcatraz, Helsinki prison was the oldest, most high profile and (by popular repute)
‘toughest’ prison in Finland iii . It was a ‘high-security’ establishment populated by
approximately 320 male inmates, who were mostly long-serving serious violence and
drug offenders. Defined formally as a ‘closed prison’, it operated on the basis of
seclusion, close surveillance and risk management (Garland 2001). The prison staff
consisted of 4 managers (a director and 3 deputy managers), 31 rehabilitation and
activities personnel (e.g. social workers, psychologists), 27 support services workers
(e.g. cooks), and 125 security officers. Prisoners’ typical daily schedule involved
being woken at 07.00, subject to morning roll call, escorted to the mess hall for
breakfast, and then to their ‘work detail’, for example in bicycle repair, the library,
laundry or license plate shop (though inmates in rehabilitation and detention/isolation
blocks were exempt). Prisoners were then fed at 10.30 and given ‘free time’ until
12.00, during which time they were able to go to the exercise yard or attend to
personal matters such as telephone calls or showering. From 12.00 until 15.30 they
undertook further ‘work detail’, and dinner was then served until 16.30. Evening roll
call and lock-down was at 17.00, after which prisoners could choose how to spend
their time in their cells.
Data Collection.
Access to Helsinki prison was granted by the Criminal Sanctions Agency and all the
data were collected and translated by a native Finnish/English speaker. Preliminary
discussions with a deputy manager led us to seek recruits for the project by
advertising on cell block and social facilities notice boards. While those interviewed
appeared relaxed and happy to answer our questions, some of our interviewees said
that a small number of inmates suspected the primary researcher was an undercover
policeman seeking to elicit incriminating statements iv . The point here is that our
sample was one of convenience, though we have no reason to think that it was biased
in any important respect. The interviews took place in a ‘staff’ building, separate but
connected to the main prison, in an office made available to the researcher. Each
prisoner was individually escorted to the office by a guard who then left the room,
and the researcher was given custody of him for the duration of the interview. Many
of the men had histories of violence and some were convicted murderers, so for safety
the offices all had ‘panic buttons’. During the course of this research, however, the
prisoners were calm and well behaved, and the primary researcher was very rarely
perturbed.
Our data consisted of 45 audio-recorded semi-structured interviews with prisoners
conducted between June, 2009 and June, 2010. These ‘conversations with “embedded
questions”’ (Fetterman 1989: 49) were of between 60 and 120 minutes, with a median
duration of 90 minutes. Once an interview had been conducted a Finnish language
transcript was generally produced by the researcher within 48 hours, and an English
language transcript was prepared immediately afterwards v . The interviews were
structured using open-ended ‘broad domain’ questions phrased in colloquial Finnish,
such as: ‘how did you end up in here?’; ‘tell me about your average day/week’; ‘what
are the best/worst things about being here?’; ‘tell me about a significant event that
happened here’. In response to prisoners’ accounts the researcher often followed-up
with invitations to elaborate further on what seemed to be interesting themes. We
collected official documentation about the penal system in Finland produced by the
Criminal Sanctions Agency and undertook a broad-ranging literature review centred
on the Finnish and other penological systems. Our analysis has also been informed by
the primary researcher’s experience of entering Helsinki prison and casual
observations of buildings, and the living and working conditions for inmates.
Data Analysis.
Recognizing that language is a significant ‘medium of social control and power’
(Fairclough 1989: 3) our attention focused on prisoners discoursal practices, how they
constructed versions of their selves, and how they reproduced ‘existing social and
power relations’ (Fairclough 1995: 77). To produce ‘thick description’ (Geertz 1973)
we subjected our transcript material to a form of grounded theory analysis (Glaser and
Strauss 1967) in which we derived coded categories in an inductive process of
interaction and integration of theory and empirical data (Putnam 1983; Strauss and
Corbin 1990). While our primary focus was on how prisoners constructed versions of
their selves, we sought also to ‘identify the salient grounded categories of meaning
held by participants in the setting’ (Marshall and Rossman 1995: 114). In practical
terms, both authors read the transcript material and independently generated analytic
codes. Over time, and through continued discussion between the researchers, we came
to focus on two broad types of identity work, that which affirmed the legitimacy of
the prison (‘legitimating identity work’), and that which contested it (‘de-legitimating
identity work’).
Each of these themes was then analyzed to evaluate in more detail how inmates’ talk
functioned in relation to internal legitimacy. Our approach was influenced by notions
of ‘abduction’ (Peirce 1931) and what Dubois and Gadde (2002) refer to as
‘’systematic combining’ in that we examined individually coded items of talk in the
context of the literatures on identity work and legitimacy and sought to trace linkages
between the theory and our data. This was an iterative process of confronting theory
with data, interpretation, coding and recoding, until our evolving framework
exhausted our empirical data (cf. Strauss and Corbin 1990). Ultimately, drawing on
Suchman (1995), within each category we identified three kinds of legitimating/delegitimating identity work: pragmatic, moral and cognitive. An overview of the final
iteration of our data analysis is provided by Table 1. While our approach to data
analysis was inductive and rigorous we recognize also that it reflected our
idiosyncratic understandings regarding what constitutes interesting first order data
from which to build theory. As Gelsthorpe (2007: 534) writing specifically about
penology and criminology asserts: ‘…inevitably, the researcher’s subjective
experience structures the sociological narrative because it provides the medium
through which the raw data are gathered’vi.
Reflexivity
While our approach to data analysis was inductive and rigorous we recognize also that
it reflected our idiosyncratic understandings regarding what constitutes interesting
first order data from which to build theory. As Gelsthorpe (2000: 534) writing
specifically about penology and criminology asserts: ‘…inevitably, the researcher’s
subjective experience structures the sociological narrative because it provides the
medium through which the raw data are gathered’. More particularly, we should
recognize that prisons and prisoners are peculiar research subjects that pose unusual
demands on researchers: ‘…prisons are pervaded by an interpersonal opacity that
thwarts even those who govern, manage, or live in them’ (Rhodes 2001: 76; cf.
Bergner 1998, Conover 2000, Schlosser 2008). Further, like other researchers in this
field, the primary researcher was uncomfortably aware that in conducting this study
he was complicit in a culture of surveillance (Feldman 1991: 12). A final point to note
is that prisoners are highly incentivized (by the prospect of privileges and parole etc.)
to portray themselves in particular ways (e.g. as innocent or remorseful) and we
should regard their stories as strategic, partial tellings or quasi-fictions that in part
serve impression management purposes (Presser 2009).
In the USA, for example, approximately 2 million people are imprisoned.
Indeed, the administrative and organisational techniques originally developed in prisons (e.g.
hierarchical organisation, separation of tasks, rules and procedures, impersonality, development
of surveillance techniques and systematic gathering of information on participants) have come
later to be adopted in factory (and other bureaucratic) settings (Clegg, 1990; Melossi and
Pavarini, 1981).
iii Helsinki prison was one of eight penal institutions located in the ‘Southern’ prison district of
Finland. Built in phases from 1874 onwards, the prison consisted of four main three-storey wings
(north, east, south and west) divided into closed blocks that housed between 20 and 25 inmates.
The ten acre compound in which the prison was located contained a number of ancillary
facilities, guard towers and staff dwellings, and was surrounded by a high wall and a razor-wired
mesh fence. Cell blocks were in part formed and maintained by prisoners who also exercised
discretion regarding who could, and could not, join their block.
i
ii
This suspicion is understandable given that many prisoners had ongoing court cases against
them and that, in the recent past, interviews had been surreptitiously recorded by the police. Yet,
the researcher was evidently treated with suspicion by just two of the prisoners who were
interviewed; the overwhelming majority accepted that he was just a university employee with no
hidden agenda or power to determine their cases.
v Prior to the Finnish transcript being translated it was first read through in its entirety so that a
thorough understanding of the text as a whole was attained. In addition, contemporary notes
taken by the researcher in the interview were read through so that interviewee’s tone, manner
etc. were made salient. The transcript was then translated section by section, with care taken to
ensure that Finnish colloquialisms and prison vernacular were translated appropriately into
English. Each completely translation and original Finnish transcript were then cross-checked by
a research assistant who was a native Finnish speaker fluent in English.
vi More particularly, we should recognize that prisons and prisoners are peculiar research
subjects that pose unusual demands on researchers: ‘…prisons are pervaded by an interpersonal
opacity that thwarts even those who govern, manage, or live in them’ (Rhodes 2001: 76; cf.
Bergner 1998, Conover 2000). Further, like other researchers in this field, the researcher was
uncomfortably aware that in conducting this study he was complicit in a culture of surveillance
(Feldman 1991: 12). Finally, we note that prisoners are highly incentivized (by the prospect of
privileges and parole etc.) to portray themselves in particular ways (e.g. as innocent or
remorseful) and we should regard their stories as strategic, partial tellings or quasi-fictions that
in part serve impression management purposes (Presser 2009).
iv