Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Breaking with tradition : role development in a prison-based baccalaureate program Clarke, Grant Stewart 1987

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1987_A2 C52.pdf [ 7.15MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0055823.json
JSON-LD: 1.0055823+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0055823.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0055823+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0055823+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0055823+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0055823 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0055823.txt
Citation
1.0055823.ris

Full Text

BREAKING WITH TRADITION: ROLE DEVELOPMENT  IN A PRISON-BASED  BACCALAUREATE-PROGRAM  by  GRANT STEWART  CLARKE  A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in THE (Department  We  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e ,  accept to  THE  this  A d u l t and H i g h e r  dissertation  the required  © Grant  Stewart  as c o n f o r m i n g  standard  UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H February  Education)  COLUMBIA  1987 C l a r k e 1987  -31  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  available  copying  of  department publication  of  in  partial  fulfilment  of  the  University  of  British  Columbia,  I  agree  for  this or  thesis  reference  thesis by  this  for  his thesis  and  scholarly  or for  her  The University of British C o l u m b i a 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  I further  purposes  gain  shall  that  agree  may  representatives.  financial  permission.  DE-6(3/81)  study.  requirements  be  It not  that  the  be  Library  an  advanced  shall  permission for  granted  is  for  by  understood allowed  the that  without  make  it  extensive  head  of  copying my  my or  written  i i  Breaking  With  T r a d i t i o n : Role Development B a c c a l a u r e a t e Program  In A  Prison-Based  ABSTRACT  Prisons  are  traditionally prisons  and  oppose  resists  educational aspects  organized  of  authority,  working  social toward  appear ecology  humanities.  positive success  had  inmates accounts  roles.  not  and  the  social  of  the  program  explanations  this  study  this  was  model t o e x p l a i n s t u d e n t expectations, with  neutralize  while  engaging  goals.  this  inmates theory. stages:  drawing  anecdotal  (1)  Transition,  model  of  associated feeling  and  (5)  The  previous literature  explicate  first  about was  To  and bridge  theoretical states  and  relationships  variables. involved formulating and  experience  t h e p r o g r a m , and posited.  (2) D i s o r i e n t a t i o n ,  Solidarity.  a  t o examine  studies  development  Previous  development.  carceral  develop  reviews  roles  role  Recruitment,  program.  to  and  to  in  between  designed  on  program,  program  interaction  on  and  i s the  apparent  relied  inmate  setting  program's  the  of  in  appear  of  t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e i t , and  in this A  the  negative  initiative  ecology  v a r i o u s socio-demographic  model,  f o r the  examined  T h r e e a p p r o a c h e s were u s e d . the  certain  One  of  Successful  inmates  program  Inmates  ecology  baccalaureate  Explanations  previously  social  to  in  psychological gap,  the  inmates.  programs.  prison-based  Inmates  student  and  pro-social  Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y the  control  change-oriented  programs the  t o h o l d and  (3)  I t has  Separation,  with role five (4)  The  second  Seventy  written  inmates' each  stage  of  used  to  feel,  a model  of  With  the  third  phase,  that  workable,  (2)  and  ANOVA  in  development,  program,  five  at  experts  assigning  (2)  in the  role  to the  (3)  like  were  these  (2)  They  "how  this";  70  I  and  analyzed  (4)  using  procedures. from  r e g a r d t o the concluded  five  study  explication  that  for articulating  experience  the  (1)  Role  a model  distinct  of and  development. operationalization  (1) J u d g e s Judges  felt  of  prison.  now";  emerged  i t was  Inmates  sort  i n one  I feel  data  With  a p p r o p r i a t e framework and  a card  "never  which  three purposes.  s t a g e s , and  concurred  statistical  conclusions  regard  by  "how  For  s t a g e s of  concluded  (1)  (3)  ecology,  judged  students  now";  role  an  representing  university  involved  not  to the  is  sequential  into  also  but  major  pertained  prison  strongly  inmate u n i v e r s i t y  correlations  The  the  model.  respective stages. phase  33  know."  Pearson  theory  by  and  the  constructed  They were  the c a r d s a c c o r d i n g t o :  "don't  of  into  operationalizing were  prison,  the model.  second  statements sorted  toward  e d u c a t i o n who  statements The  involved  statements  feelings  correctional 70  phase  found  the  overall  of  responses  it  was  model p l a u s i b l e  were a b l e t o r e l i a b l y  Inmates'  the model,  and  d i s c r i m i n a t e items  confirmed  intra-stage  reliability. With  regard  operationalizing prison-related associations  to r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h e model  variables, were  not  and i t was  between  various concluded  confirmed,  (2)  scores obtained  from  socio-demographic that  (1) The  Inmates'  and  expected  forwarding  of  i v  feelings model,  from (3)  previous A  incarcerations  counter-intuitive  Recruitment)  i s probably  experience,  and  social  role  things  work"  (4)  The  development, position.  an  supports  finding  artifact  of  university  thus  providing  the  Importation  (university previous  program does support  for  term  by  penitentiary foster the  pro"some  V  TABLE OF  CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  i i  L I S T OF TABLES  v i i  L I S T OF FIGURES  viii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  ix  C h a p t e r 1: INTRODUCTION TO EDUCATION IN PRISONS The P r i s o n S e t t i n g Prison Organization M o d e l s Of C o r r e c t i o n a l P r a c t i c e The P r o b l e m Of E f f e c t i v e P r o g r a m s F o r I n m a t e s The " N o t h i n g W o r k s " P o s i t i o n The "Some T h i n g s Work" P o s i t i o n Correctional Education The P r i s o n U n i v e r s i t y P r o g r a m P u r p o s e s Of T h e S t u d y  1 1 4 7 9 10 11 13 14 20  C h a p t e r 2: LITERATURE REVIEW V i e w s Of The Inmate S o c i a l S y s t e m The D e p r i v a t i o n M o d e l The I m p o r t a t i o n M o d e l  21 21 25 30  C h a p t e r 3: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK G e n e r a l A s s u m p t i o n s Of R o l e T h e o r y Concepts In Role Theory C r i t e r i a F o r A M o d e l Of R o l e D e v e l o p m e n t S t a g e s Of The M o d e l Recruitment Stage D i s o r i e n t a t i o n Stage Separation-Alienation Stage T r a n s i t i o n - R e f r a m i n g Stage S o l i d a r i t y Stage  35 35 40 48 51 53 54 55 56 57  C h a p t e r 4: INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT I t e m C o n s t r u c t i o n And S e l e c t i o n Item J u d g i n g P r o c e s s Inmate And S t a g e M e a n i n g s R e l i a b i l i t y Estimates Q u e s t i o n s D e r i v e d From The S t a g e  60 62 64 67 86 87  Model  vi  TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)  Chapter 5: METHODOLOGY C h o i c e Of R e s e a r c h S e t t i n g Subject S e l e c t i o n Procedures A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Of Q - S o r t s C a r c e r a l And Demographic I n f o r m a t i o n Data A n a l y s i s  89 89 91 92 94 98  Chapter 6: RESULTS 99 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Of P a r t i c i p a n t s 99 Stage I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s And I n t e r n a l C o n s i s t e n c y 103 P r i n c i p a l Stage O r i e n t a t i o n s 106 R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between S t a g e s And Respondent Background ..112 E f f e c t s Of Background V a r i a b l e s On Stage S c o r e s 118 Chapter 7: CONCLUSIONS The P r i s o n C o n t e x t The Model E x p l i c a t i o n Of The Model O p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g The Model R e l a t i o n s h i p s W i t h The Model L i m i t a t i o n s Of The Study  122 122 123 125 125 .127 130  Chapter 8: DISCUSSION Concerning Future Research Concerning P r i s o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n C o n c e r n i n g T r a i n i n g Of C o r r e c t i o n a l E d u c a t o r s  134 134 138 139  REFERENCES  141  APPENDICES Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix  A: B: C: D:  Seventy Items L i s t e d By Stage Offence S e v e r i t y Scale I n f o r m a t i o n Sheet C a r c e r a l And Demographic C o d i n g Sheet  148 148 151 152 153  vii  LIST  1.  I n t e r - J u d g e Agreement  2.  Overall  3.  Summary And  4.  Reliabilities  5.  Item  6.  Severity  7.  O c c u p a t i o n a l And  8.  Stage  9.  Percentages  Item  On  For  Five  Characteristics  70  Items  Stage  For  Five  11..  Stage,  12.  Effects  13.  Carceral  14.  Effects  Of  And  Of  Role  And  82 86  Variables  100  Federal Prison  Effects  Or  Never  Correlations  On  Stage  E x p e r i e n c e On  Scores  Stage  104 109 111 113  Scores  Stage  .101 102  Reliabilities  Role  72  Development  Carceral  Demographic  Demographic  ...  Score Meanings  P r e s e n t , Past  E n r o l l m e n t Term On  And  Stages  Items D e s c r i b i n g P r e s e n t F e e l i n g s  Items D e s c r i b i n g F e e l i n g s : Carceral  Development  Educational Characteristics-  Intercorrelations Of  66  P r e v i o u s F e d e r a l Term S e r v e d  10.  Of  Role  Stages  O f f e n c e s And  Score  TABLES  S c o r e Means By C o n t r a s t s Of  Of  OF  Scores  119 120 ..121  viii  1.  Oppositional  2.  P r e - And  Social  L I S T OF  FIGURES  Ecology  In The D e p r i v a t i o n  Post-Incarceration  Factors  I n The  Model  ..  27  Importation  Model  31  3.  Role  I n t e r a c t i o n s P e r t a i n i n g To E d u c a t i o n  4.  I n t e r a c t i o n s I n The A c a d e m i c  Ecology  And  In P r i s o n s S t a g e s Of  Development And  ..  49  Role 52  5.  Inter-Judge  Inmate  Agreements  6.  Inmate  R e s p o n s e s By S t a g e And  7.  Inmate  I t e m R e s p o n s e s By C a t e g o r y  On  Items  Category And  68 74  Stage  108  ix  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I would and and  like  t o thank  i t s representatives for  grateful whom  facilitating  the Correctional  for allowing my  access  to  none  of  this  was  possible.  University  prison  u n i v e r s i t y program works,  this  faculty  study.  They  and  are  logistical  during  the data  assistance collection  My c o m m i t t e e rigorous John thanks  f o r seeing  T h e r e were really  me  times  Sork,  me  up  over  supportive,  ensure  as expert Jacquelyn  the  judges Nelson,  appreciate  Jacquelyn  Nelson  To  and uncompromisingly  Drs.  and Stephen Duguid,  I didn't  a long  children  h a v e been my b e s t  parents  and  encouragement.  who  Roger I extend  Boshier, sincere  (and t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n ) t h r o u g h .  g r a t e f u l to family,  buoyed  without  phase.  was a m i c a b l e ,  Tom  by D r .  I am  t o t h e Simon  particularly  me  i n i t s s c r u t i n y o f my work.  Collins,  Duguid, I  given  study  I am i n d e b t e d  Stephen  Canada  records.  this  a n d who s e r v e d  of  t o be c o n d u c t e d ,  relevant  administrators  H e n d r i k Hoekema a n d Wayne K n i g h t s . the  study  t o t h e 33 men who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n  Fraser  in  this  Service  mother-in-law Thank y o u .  think  friends, haul. friends  I would and  My w i f e , through  have g i v e n  finish,  fellow  ever.  students  I am who  E l a i n e M c C r e a r y , and this  process.  me u n f a i l i n g  support  My and  1  CHAPTER 1  INTRODUCTION TO  The  Prisons for  are  breaking  represent its  society's for  largely closed  kept  play  out  unknown by  the  a  Prison  to  Concretely  impose  legal  to mainstream  society.  murder  except  focuses  and  of  send  people  abstractly,  sanctions  codes.  substantial portion  or  courts  extreme  v i o l a t i o n s of  larger public  hostage-taking  p o l i c e and  laws.  power  PRISONS  Setting  where t h e  criminal  members  are  places  EDUCATION IN  their  on  prisons  k e e p e r s and  the  lives  and  for occasions attention  against  Moreover,  Both  they  unseen  when  a  riot,  a prison's  inner  workings. Society prisons.  not  seem  Regulations  a casual largely  does  look  enclosing (Goffman,  Inmates a r e results  in  workings of society  to  inmates 1961,  a  prevent  inside.  impermeable  "hands-off  an  prison  evidence and  public  societal and  about from  from  its  taking  society,  standards  regulatory  stereotyped attitude  as  toward  (1977, p . spent  dangerousness  while  barriers  r a i s e dark  dangerous; the  126)  in prison  "rather  change, c u r e ,  prisoners  the  more  1968).  Boyanowsky  of  know  isolated  of  physical  inmate's time  in  are  influence  uncritically  h i s c r i m i n a l i t y and  Prisons  the  to  members o f  1961a; G r o s s e r ,  of  as  want  Prisons  behind  prisons.  views  to  or and  than  purposes contends  as  this and that  confirmation  accepting  time  rehabilitation." disquieting  feelings  2  in are  the  public.  generally  (Scull, is  Despite unwilling  1977),  Force  requiring policy  toward  from.the  1984).  of  causes  the  has  p.  criminal  true.  inmates a l i k e the  criminal system,  is  not  face  behaviour,  as  be  that  support  of  nor  given  current  this  an  and  argued  offenders  prisons  those  sentences  of  a  tougher use  as  a  of  fight  of  as  prisons  crime  and  Ekstedt  and  the  'tail-end'  vehicle  for  the  opposite by  do  up  seems  public  and  1982).  in  "correcting" with  little  more  experience  of  Prison  to  reforming  disenchantment  However, t h e be.  Griffith,  lived  success  rights  correctional  Gosselin,  public's  to  the  for crime"  1977;  the &  1977).  emphasis  have not  Indeed,  "schools  to  (Ekstedt can  Prisons  i s i t intended  Task  wanted  s h i f t e d in  itself,  that  for  offences.  perceives  the  support  increasing  that  lack  crime  longer  contend  viewed as  midst  that  example  (Task F o r c e ,  them  human w a r e h o u s e s .  benign,  be  public  crime prevention  individuals.  of  public  i n C a n a d a has  (Thomas & P e t e r s o n ,  i t may  function  to  expectations  in their  f e d e r a l government  r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of  363)  are  A  is  j u s t i c e system."  Prisons  In  to  crimes  v i e w e d , and  criminally-oriented  in  Canadian  notable  notion  lost  "is  society's  and  the  (1984,  enterprise  A  policy  c r i m e and  Moreover,  Griffith  the  for drinking-driving  treatment  victims  resulted  crimes  justice  built  communities  i s a widespread perception  that  certain  i n Canada,  prisons  offenders.  incarceration.  Criminal  of  of  exceptions  h a v e new  has  serious  imprisonment  its  This  (1977) c o n c l u d e d of  to  there  treatment  convicted  of  and  increasing.  "sterner"  recent  the than  prison  authorities  and  3  the  public  seem  to  punishment,  not  Ekstedt  &  Griffith,  the  they  time  punishment  true  today.  punitive  regulations the  control  no  that  govern of  (Hepburn  i n the  enforce  daily  prison  life  not  of  is  supposed  of to  be  corporal  enjoy  comment is  still  reflexively punishment.  directives  life.  used  for 1977;  to  82)  prisons"  multiple  prison  prison  Stratton,  (1960, p.  tend  form  to  &  function  practices  longer  sent  Cressey's  unequivocal  prison  are  Inmates a r e  authorities  routine by  punishment  in prison.  Thus  prison  inmates  1984).  i s "an  though  Instead,  that  j u s t as  spend  that  feel  Grosser  as  a  and  contends  mechanism  of  authorities:  Even e a t i n g and s l e e p i n g t e n d t o become r o u t i n i z e d i n the p r i s o n . The d i s c i p l i n e e x t e n d e d t o every aspect of the p r i s o n e r ' s m u l t i p l e r o l e s l e a v e s l i t t l e scope for nonregulated or unsupervised activity. H i s t o r i c a l l y , t h i s d e v e l o p m e n t was b a s e d on t h e b e l i e f that discipline per se is a good and that its enforcement w i l l have b e n e f i t s beyond the p r i s o n w a l l s in the habits inculcated in individual prisoners....The r o u t i n i z a t i o n of p r i s o n l i f e i s a l s o t r a c e a b l e t o : (1) t h e p u n i t i v e p h i l o s o p h y , which tends t o be e x p r e s s e d i n o v e r - e l a b o r a t i o n o f the necessary routines of living so t h a t p r i s o n e r s ' d o n ' t h a v e i t t o o e a s y ' ; and (2) t h e i m p e r a t i v e s o f any functioning institution which cannot leave time schedules, a l l o c a t i o n of r e s o u r c e s , e t c . , t o the discretion of e a c h i n d i v i d u a l (1968, pp. 15-16).  Notwithstanding penalties released  imposed from  on  the serious  prison.  dependency-inducing  prison  the  formidable  task  of  how  prisons  treat  authority,  public's  desire  offenders,  most w i l l  After routine  "making  inmates,  i s c e n t r a l t o any  a  and  sustained  (Grosser,  i t " on  to  the  how  examination  see  eventually  be  experience  of  1968),  inmates  outside. they of  tougher  respond  face  Therefore, to  prison  socio-psychological  4  change.  Moreover,  purportedly  equip  emotional because  inmates  skills prison  substantial  treatment  to  with  "make  i t "  organization  obstacle  prisons  Canada  (CSC),  Prisons  are  implies  a concern  somewhat because  under  more  priorities.  than  have  a  functions  In  General  of  functions  were r a n k e d as  offenders;  second,  correctional  programs  A basic reconcile  dilemma  by  (Ekstedt are  that  follows:  the  The  Service  of  The  name  situation is  correctional  mandate  that  label  includes  deterrence,  & Griffith,  1984;  by  the  1977),  and  Cressey,  assigned  varying Solicitor-  correctional  c o n t r o l and  treatment;  and  custody  third,  of  sound  rehabilitation. prison  authorities  changing  there  i s no  inmates.  pursuit  of  "prisons  are  primarily organized  and,  by  first,  prison's  process  a  the S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l .  document p r e p a r e d  that  they  be  outcomes.  Correctional  typically  humane for  and  studied  to  institutions."  implied  contend  not  the  (Solicitor-General,  c o n t r o l l i n g and while  of  incapacitation,  a discussion Canada  appear  kinds  diversified  (reformation)  These  these  that  social,  thoroughly  practices  d i r e c t i o n of  (punishment),  rehabilitation  be  "correcting" behaviour.  complex  prisons  cognitive,  should  "correctional  with  initiatives  Organization  operated  the  labelled  retribution  1960).  are  program  the  and  to a c h i e v i n g  Prison  Federal  and  c o n t r o l and  instead,  inherent  face  is  how  Thomas and  Peterson  contradiction  change, a problem a r i s e s  remain  to pursue changes committed  to  to  in  the  in  the  because those goal  of  5  insuring  effective  Notwithstanding about  goals,  changed  custodial  formal  (Thomas  germinal  work f r o m t h e  society  by  retained  their  they  authors  &  i s that  Peterson,  1960's on like  relevance  Cressey,  i n contemporary  i s that  changes  possibilities  Murton, A  (Burns,  in  Messinger  corrections  refer.  and  Moreover,  have  literature;  still  custody  (Ekstedt  inmate  control  a widely held and  custody  & Griffith,  1984;  Conrad,  &  Burns  their  custody"  style  which  Peterson, of  in  prison  relies  1977).  The  on  p.  153)  systems  inmates as a mechanism  of  the  argued that  differing  fundamental p r o c e s s e s . "  He  power  coercion  c o n c e r n of a l l  inmates encourages  (1969,  i s an  use  "prisons  in too  of  detail, perceived  shared  by  a l l  systems.  Perhaps  the  accounts  for part  efforts,  despite  toward  and  1961a; C r e s s e y , 1960;  and  t o form a group of s o c i a l  against  prison  "control  for control  power.  alike  force  of  Thomas  t y p e s of p r i s o n s  appear  Goffman,  administrative  1969;  coercive  the  1976).  corollary  authoritarian  Moreover,  concern with c o n t r o l  f o r change  authorities has  researchers  i n inmates.  p r i s o n ' s dominant  Thomas & P e t e r s o n , 1977; 1983;  to which  and  64-65).  structure  structure  Sykes  evidence to suggest that  positive  prison  prison  There  i s no  pp.  1977).  "benchmarks"  neutralizes  but  view  (1977,  by c o r r e c t i o n a l  established  promotes view  statements  a commonly h e l d  little  control"  prison's  continued  of the c o n t r o v e r s y shifts  in  more humane t r e a t m e n t .  reliance over  contemporary In  Canadian  on c o e r c i v e  their policy  power  rehabiltative and  practice  corrections  there  6  have  been  changing  a  the  number of  of  From  guard  Cressey  (custody)  to  while  for  (a)  h a v e not  purposes. concerned  i s the  treatment  with  keeping,  provided  keeping  for  and  rehabilitative  distinct  foremost  or  the  personnel  (b)  using,  the  at  prison,  custodial  organizing  are  principle  hierarchies and  the  (c)  the  give  p r o g r a m s and  change purpose are  at  a  are  line not.  in  prisons,  serving  inmates.  of  purposes  inmates as  1977).  members o f  personnel  integration  viewed  In  from  Thomas & P e t e r s o n ,  program  serving  contradictory. within  and  three  Moreover, Cressey  partly  allocation  usually  warden, c u s t o d i a l p e r s o n n e l  (1960) w r o t e of  responsible Prisons  program are  ( S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l , 1977;  organization,  and  and  Control  prisons  a p p r o a c h e s aimed  inmate.  Treatment staff.  d i f f e r e n t treatment  their  divergent  of  personnel  entirely different  and  take  personnel  a clear  of  resource  serving  disadvantage:  On an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e v e l t h e e f f e c t of t h e p r i m a c y of c u s t o d i a l or c o n t r o l g o a l s is quite pronounced. The p h y s i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n , t h e manner in which a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s are a l l o c a t e d , the rigid organizational h i e r a r c h y , l i n e s of communication, the distribution of decision-making power, the routinization of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s , t h e means by which organizational participants other than i n m a t e s a r e e v a l u a t e d , and r e l a t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and activities of the organization a l l reflect the d o m i n a n t c o n c e r n of t h e prison (Thomas & Peterson, 1977, p. 37).  a  7  Models of  Even  though  principles policies  of  deal  Correctional  custody  Canadian with  and  control  inmate  policy  practice  period  1700-1938  characteristic type  and  of  severity  Three models are until  today:  While  1970.  reforming  other  the  likened  treatment present  was day,  model  criminality prescribed. but  is  inmates of  time)  during  tenure  and  correctional the  training.  programs  medical  have  system model.  t h e i r key  of  over  primary though  the  the  prisons  principle.  period  on  the  1938-  task  of  development  of  the  medical  f o r which  favour  of  the  Though  due  to  (though not  Rehabilitation  received  comparable  to  that  to  the  i t s lack  of The  f o r the  first  model  was  education  and  within  the  initiatives  based  support given  model  therapeutic  lingers  significant,  1938  Reparation.  organizing  model  from  treatment,  the  the  years.  t h e i r presumed c r i m i n a l i t y .  t o emerge  not  the  and  took  medical  l a r g e l y out  program  as  a disease  The  significant the  such  models, c h i e f l y  to  present.  correctional practice  precipitated or  Griffiths  correctional  practice,  characterized  and  other  on  as  various  the  as  changed  corrections  modalities  in "curing"  education  punishment  objectives  offender  which  until  Reintegration,  punishment  this  treatment  training  with  organizing  and  Canadian  1700  practices  Rehabilitation,  inmate  success  punitive  R e h a b i l i t a t i o n model Under  years  featured  associated  relinquished The  models of  the  prime  Ekstedt  c o r r e c t i o n a l p o l i c y and of  promoting  never  spanning  the  institutions,  rehabilitation.  67-73) i d e n t i f y f i v e  The  are  correctional  (1984, pp. and  Practice  8  The from  Reintegration  1970  to  1978  (1984), c o n t i n u e s practice. emphasis  The from  and  to  proportion  to  basis  of  i s best  prison the  Reparation is a  are  liable  inmates  for  business  of  known a s  the  to  pay  their  use  Griffiths  the  shift  to  the  belief  community,  not  the  Offenders and,  in  that  prison.  corrections,  behaviour  to  the  on  and  own  own  parole  were  to  be  i n some d i r e c t  exhibited,  say  the  has  will  This  not  on  but  is  toward  are  focus.  a  offenders  feasible  and  who  accept  (Solicitor-General,  make r e s o u r c e s not  available  claim  treatment  (1984) c l a i m  and  that  to  be  to  in  the  orientation  is  the  Reintegration. model  is  in  d i v e r s i o n are  assume g r e a t e r  gained  reparation  new  of  moved  model.  mixed  corrections  i n m a t e s must  of  punishment where  has  victims  rehabilitation  is s t i l l a  present  r i g h t s of  betterment,  Griffiths  to  the  restitution  "Opportunities"  rehabilitation  greater  1978  rehabilitation.  community-based  own  policy  correctional  m o d e l was  resort  criminal  and  much  treatment  last  i n which  for their  more a c c u r a t e  that  a  period  correctional practice  notion  this  i n the  c o r r e c t i o n a l system  Ekstedt of  of  for  community-based  renewed e m p h a s i s  The  of  Ekstedt  more s u p p o r t .  as  kind  model  responsibility 1977).  sought  programs,  to  to account  m e d i c a l m o d e l of  f o r the  There  day  correctional  presumed c r i m i n a l i t y .  Policy the  this  a l l received  sentenced  the  according  p r i n c i p a l feature  diversion  probation  and,  to  the  rehabilitation Thus,  model c h a r a c t e r i z e d  It  Given  model  i s probably  effect.  While  emphasized,  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for  prominence. likely.  current  this  the  their  emphasis,  9  However, despite moral  current  security  prisons.  given  of on  tension,  relies  punishment,  on The  1977)  in greater the  on  by  CSC  antipathy  correctional  are l i k e l y  positive  and  staff  towards  between  the  system's  to  to f a l l  short  change  The  change  that  and  maximum  Corrections  that  tension i s  coercion.  under  of o f f i c i a l  i n i n m a t e s must  by CSC  two  divergent  (rehabilitation)  "nothing  works";  Furthermore, stance  the  towards  Opportunities  claims.  Any  prospect  be w e i g h e d a g a i n s t  pressure  prescribe  Programs  resistance  viewpoints  f o r Inmates  regarding  t r e a t m e n t s and programs.  the other  to  staff.  Problem of E f f e c t i v e  are  inmates are l i k e l y  passive  inmates  Punishment  groups.  inmates t o conform to inmate codes t h a t  There  or  this orientation  Role of F e d e r a l  acknowledged  occurs  the merits  i n medium  control  benefits  to a u t h o r i t a r i a n a c t i o n s  of  Whatever  especially  report  Force,  actions  rehabilitation, model  against  inmates s t i l l  in corrections.  Punishment motivated  or  The  (Task  "paramount"  result  for  increases  Canada  of  correctional practices.  arguments  inevitably  in  i n p r a c t i c e , "punishment"  that  "some t h i n g s  the  efficacy  One  work."  holds  10  The  "Nothing  Works"  Doubts about prison  context  Position  the e f f i c a c y gained  the p u b l i c a t i o n of  consensus  bases  for correctional  Ouimet  supportable  Canadian (1974).  He  concluded  appreciable  Cousineau  report  seemed  (1969)  and  reparation  suggest  r e p o r t s by  (1977)  than  the  went  Law  further  was  not  a  incarceration.  a  and was  survey  lasting  effect  r e p o r t e d by  of  programs conducted  231  on  Martinson  evaluations  between  1945  and  of 1967  claimed  that  the  reports  on  treatment  and  programs  failed  to demonstrate  any  recidivism.  report  exceeded  &  Plecas,  others  what  1982).  successful  t o be  found the  i n Canadian  that  was  the  impact  justified  1984;  by  Gendreau  &  of its  Ross,  Nevertheless, Martinson's  suspicions  that  l e g a c y of  policy  argued  (Ekstedt & G r i f f i t h ,  to c o n f i r m the worst  the  to  He  programs a r e u n l i k e l y of  theoretical  works."  validity  1979;  the  effective  rehabilitation  of a u t h o r s have s i n c e  Martinson  Part  that  corrections  a m e l i o r a t i o n of  A number  more  with  noted  evidence  federal  significant  from  treatment  rehabilitation  scientific  a  American  "nothing  the  had  be  i n the  corrections  Ouimet  growing  a Task F o r c e  for  programs  the a p p r o p r i a t e  might  concluding  that  and  (1969).  Subsequent  (1975) and  in  correctional that  treatment  justification  A study  i n Canadian  p r o g r a m s , and  programs.  Reform Commission than  foothold  among e x p e r t s on  community-based  prison-based  rehabilitation  of the Ouimet R e p o r t  lack  that  a  of  raised  by  rehabilitation  Ouimet (change)  in prisons.  " n o t h i n g works" v i e w p o i n t corrections  (Ekstedt &  is  the  Griffith,  11  1984) to  within  which t h e "program  accomplish  three  o p p o r t u n i t i e s model"  i s supposed  things:  I t makes t h e o f f e n d e r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c h a n g i n g h i s own conduct, i t provides Federal Corrections with a realistic goal rather than an u n a t t a i n a b l e g o a l o f changing the offender's behaviour, and i t does not lead the public to believe that Federal Corrections can r e s o l v e t h e p r o b l e m o f c r i m e ( S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l of C a n a d a , 1977, p . 3 4 ) .  The  "Some T h i n g s Work" P o s i t i o n  O t h e r s have claims, Fabiano in  there  and Ross  treating  and c o n c l u d e d  programs  were  which they  felt  correctional  to Martinson's  rehabilitation  after  that  program  successful.  to  over  published  follow-up  s t u d i e s of  f o r the period  of c o r r e c t i o n a l  Summarized  related generally  success  completion.  behaviours  s e v e r a l types  Ross and  have d e m o n s t r a t e d  (1979) e v a l u a t e d  antisocial  initial  programs.  r e c i d i v i s m r a t e s by 30 t o 60 p e r c e n t  Gendreau  1978  contrary  some p r o g r a m s  o f up t o 15 y e a r s  programs  that,  are effective  (1983a) c l a i m e d  reducing  periods  asserted  the  below  1973 t o  treatment  are five  failure  of  issues  so  programs. on a s i n g l e m e t h o d - more p o s i t i v e by u s i n g a c o m b i n a t i o n o f m e t h o d s .  95  1.  Reliance occurred  results  2.  Reliance on a s i n g l e o u t c o m e , s u c h a s r e c i d i v i s m . O t h e r outcomes such as resolving interpersonal, e d u c a t i o n a l and v o c a t i o n a l p r o b l e m s a r e v a l i d g o a l s too.  3.  Interactions and i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s - success i s i n c r e a s e d by t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t how individual t r a i t s and treatment s e t t i n g s i n t e r a c t .  many  1 2  4.  Not enough treatment too adequate access to treatment correctional environments are promoting p r o s o c i a l behaviours.  5.  Lack of l a c k of  Ross  and  community 1965  to  successful  -  McKay  institutionally  (1978)  evaluated  modification  They d i s c o v e r e d  from u n s u c c e s s f u l  three  53  fragmented,  programs f o r factors  that  the  distinguished  programs.  The s u c c e s s f u l p r o g r a m s were o f f e n d e r s i n an a u t h o r i t a r i a n them i n p r o g r a m p l a n n i n g .  2.  In successful p r o g r a m s t h e t a r g e t b e h a v i o u r s were not a n t i - s o c i a l behaviours. They sought to strengthen prosocial behaviours rather than a t t e m p t i n g t o r e d u c e the f r e q u e n c y of inappropriate or a n t i - s o c i a l a c t s .  3.  They n e u t r a l i z e d o r group. (1978, pp.  programs  i s being  as  those  attracted various  for  the linked  cited  mobilized 291-292)  not imposed f a s h i o n , but  the  rehabilitative increasingly above.  i n t e r e s t because of  e l e m e n t s of  and  period  1.  Support  such  i n t e r r e l a t i o n among a g e n c i e s s e r v i c e s to offender.  based behaviour 1976.  few inmates have sessions, many a poor c o n t e x t f o r  successful  on the involved  offender's  potential  with  Education its potential correctional  peer  of  specific i s one to  area  certain criteria that  incorporate  programs.  has the  13  Correctional  Correctional faced  by  education  other  objectives  are  organization  Education  confronts  kinds  of  treatment  thrust  up  against  embodying  practices  problems  s i m i l a r to  programs. the  reality  predicated  on  those  Educational of  prison,  control,  an not  change. The Report  Ontario (OISE,  education that  1978)  and  to the  training  p a r t i c i p a t i o n was  accord  with  reviewers to  Institute  involve  reviewers  impressed  themselves  Studies  in  Canadian  of  and  adult  by  the  in  a  to  participation  Education Canada  corrections thus,  on  education.  this  in  Furthermore,  the  variety  of  in  prison  concluded point,  willingness  with  (OISE)  reviewed  and  apparent  were p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n c e r n e d  inhibitors  in  S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l of  voluntary,  principles  were  for  of  programs. possible  education  inmates The  OISE  barriers and  or  training  programs. The the  c o r r e c t i o n a l system's  improvement  of  education  importance  given  control  correctional  priorities.  that  much e d u c a t i o n  lacks  commitment  to  for  inmates  rather  Furthermore,  sponsored real  resistance  by  the  to  recommendations  i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to  than  change  Cosman  in  (1981)  for the  setting contends  c o r r e c t i o n a l system  itself  attainment.  Penitentiary education in Canada has been c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a g e n e r a l l a c k o f i n t e r e s t i n g e n u i n e educational achievement, by i n a d e q u a t e s t a n d a r d s of teacher selection and training, by a lack of discrimination in matters of c u r r i c u l u m between t h e t r i v i a l and t h e i m p o r t a n t , a l a c k of discipline and structure, and by a complete lack of educational r e s e a r c h (1981, p. 46).  14  Moreover, than  that  1983;  of  prison  fitting  Knights,  primarily  solely  function  the  barest  much  Yet,  system  i n mainstream  correctional for  (Cosman,  inmates  in  is  vision 1981;  federal  is  human  fundamentally  a  n o t one  Morin  essential  for  aimed  I f inmates require  or e d u c a t i o n that Indeed,  Fawcett, are  1983).  they w i l l  other  prisons  relations,  (Fawcett,  society,  education.  no  f o r work  of  training  inmates  admits  society  well-being"  utilitarian  education  inmate  Canadian  based  a t economic  to  the  1983).  adults.  "politically  education often  are  more  than  characterizes  (1981 ) a r g u e s their  that  dignity  and  development.  The One  Canadian  because  it  Prison  University  prison-based  appears  to  educational  provide  a  for i t s inmate-students.  program  been  first  by  Fraser which  the U n i v e r s i t y University.  assumes t h a t  victims,  (3)  (4) h a v e  1981a;  The  program  inmates  1981b;  contribute  to  behaviours. reasoning  1983).  The  deficits  way  to  years,  decision  sponsored by  Simon  of  social  ability  cognitive  i s to involve  reasoning responses 1979;  are thought  recurring  overcome c o g n i t i v e ,  than  (Duguid,  deficits  and  makers  of c r i t i c a l  repertoire  initial  i n inmates  undergraduate  more r e c e n t l y  (lack  reasoning  These  inmates'  and  more  deficits  moral  educational  academic,  thirteen  s t a n d s out  i s b a s e d on a c o n c e p t u a l m o d e l  (1) a r e  possess a l i m i t e d  limited  An  f o r over  of V i c t o r i a ,  (2) h a v e c o g n i t i v e  ability), and  in existence  program  significant  experience has  Program  social  them a s  to  criminal and  moral  learners  in  15  an  issue-oriented,  and  democratic Duguid  in  the  community  (Duguid,  (1981a) o b s e r v e d  u n i v e r s i t y program,  interactions.  cynic  to  the  supporter  Boshier  (1983) c i t e d r e p o r t s  wrought  in their  A  study  p r o g r a m on of  on  65  recidivism  cent  for  concern the  a  has  by  the  a  over  for  s t u d e n t s was  matched been  two  of  the  inmates of  year 14  group  expressed  former  university  men  of  over  a  great  deal  (Ayers  matched  et  of  rather  than  i n t e r e s t was  the  from  the  skeptic program.  positive  of  the  concluded  cent  changes  the  rate  to  52  per  prisoners.  Though  inmate-students  randomly d e r i v e d the  university  that  compared  fact that  by  in  university  non-student  generated  social  student  effects  per  and  program.  period  the  participated  experienced,  post-release  interactive  attitude,  u n i v e r s i t y p r o g r a m were s e l f - s e l e c t i n g and  used  that  the  control  in  study  group,  optimistic  a  results  a l . , 1980).  The  apparent  facilitating  casts  external  review  i t had  correctional  i t i n t o the of  of  and  university  social  "some t h i n g s  components  intervention  inter-personal  the  one  programs.  that  to  He  emphasized  problem-solving  its ability  i n common  skills.  neutralize  (1980) other  described cognitive  the  in  key  the  In  an  observed effective  program  development feature  anti-social  in  inmate-  work" c a t e g o r y .  with  A  program  change  t h i s u n i v e r s i t y program, Ross  several  "multi-faceted",  p r o g r a m was  success  s i g n i f i c a n t personal  students  that  the  i n m a t e s who  a  had  an  1981).  in  (1981),  enthusiastic  by  1980;  changes  c h a n g e s he  lives  program w i t h i n  in motivation,  Whetstone  program, d e s c r i b e d and  liberal-arts  of  as and the  influences  16  of  the  it  as  o f f e n d e r ' s peer a  prosocial  effective  prison  force.  that  with  alternative  most  impact  and  R o s s and program they  intensive  Fabiano  the  programs,  programs,  community  in  their  Linden  and  ones  and  same t i m e  that  peer  mobilizing review  Perry  provide  support,  will  of  (1982) inmates  have  the  success.  embodied  label  a t the  Similarly,  education  concluded an  group while  (1983a)  principles  maintained  of  that  intervention  " C o g n i t i v e Model"  of  crime  the  university  a s s o c i a t e d with  and  what  delinquency.  The cognitive model s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e o f f e n d e r n e e d s t r a i n i n g , not t h e r a p y . He n e e d s to learn not only social skills and vocational skills, but t h i n k i n g s k i l l s , problem-solving skills, and decision-making skills. He needs to develop his s o c i a l p e r s p e c t i v e : t o go b e y o n d an e g o c e n t r i c v i e w o f t h e w o r l d by developing the ability to take the p e r s p e c t i v e of o t h e r p e o p l e (1983a, p. 7).  R o s s and and  interpersonal  the p h y s i c a l of  Fabiano  causality,  refers  realm  (1981)  distinguished  cognition.  Impersonal  including  time,  ability  to i n t e r a c t  with  impersonal  cognition  encompasses  the development  movement and  t o d e v e l o p i n g an  between  space.  understanding them b a s e d  o f an  Interpersonal cognition  of p e o p l e ,  on  understanding  an  including  understanding  the  of  their  offenders  have  perspectives. The  cognitive  developmental skills  delays  which are  model  assumes  i n the a c q u i s i t i o n  essential  Fabiano  (1983a)  reducing  impersonal  that  to s o c i a l  concluded and  that  many  o f a number  adaptation.  interventions  interpersonal  cognitive  of  Yet, aimed  cognitive Ross  and  only at  deficits  in  17  offenders lead  did  not  to better  interventions  necessarily  post-release a t t e n d e d as  implementation,  to  change c r i m i n a l  adjustment. well  the  to  b e h a v i o u r , nor  Successful  the  manipulation  correctional  processes of  the  of  program  inmate's  social  environment. Cognitive university portrayal though  the how  is  peer  Yet  interactions  Boshier  acknowledged  because  it  including environment  Authors  importance  of  the  academic  and  t o overpower Zimbardo,  appear  This  the  model  of  involve  supporting  to  describing  their study  peers, attempts  spend  new  the of  1977).  research  (1980;  prison inmate  community.  Yet  that  variables  Duguid  individuals  to learn,  to acquire  Inmate-students  given  even of  to  processes  like  in  skills,  need  "environment"  membership  program  social  and  facets  university  a  for prison  a l l  and  the  content.  on  1984;  as  inmates,  impinges  Jackson,  mentalistic  importance  role  been  t o t h e need  another. the  i s able  the  interactions.  "person"  w i t h one  the  and  individual  the program  these  about  has  of  inmate-students  social  attention  (1983) p o i n t e d  operationalized interaction  sustaining  o c c u r among  to o p e r a t i o n a l i z e  in  behaviour,  little  p e r s o n n e l , and  change  instructor's  and and  underpinnings  1981b) p r o v i d e a  agreement  the  attitudes  1981a;  of  general  group,  program.  have  (Duguid,  in creating  program  conceptual  of the dynamics  prosocial inmates  other  program  there  inmate's  and  in 1981)  environment experience, The  prison  (Gosselin,  1982;  inmates  in  to develop i n t e l l e c t u a l  the and  attitudes.  more t i m e a s p r i s o n e r s  than they  do  18  as  students.  Duguid  in  p r i s o n " r e m a i n s an  move b e t w e e n two which  expect  results. in  the  more and  become  the  deter  codes.  An  sentence  kinds of  the  norms o f  involved  the academic  the  lingering  f o r bank  from  further  impel  him  to  community.  program  and  values  them.  from  identify  even  (1983)  inmates  of  to  institutional inmates  therefore in conflict  recently  Tension  Boshier  p r i s o n on  and  involvement  among  because  in a Scottish  robbery  opposing  reluctance  community  Inmate-students  p e r c e p t i o n s among some  i s "therapy"  inmate-student  academic  sea."  behaviour  individual  examples of  with  and  program  in a hostile  program or p o s s i b l y  (1982) c i t e d  disturbances the  different  university  Bell  island  t h a t the  c o m m u n i t i e s w h i c h embody  I t may  with  (1981) o b s e r v e d  with  that inmate  a twenty  year  wrote:  Because of my o f f e n c e , s e n t e n c e , a n d t h e f a c t t h a t I was i n the notorious security party at Peterhead (sic). It caused quite a stir when I opted f o r education classes after four years in prison. Normally t h i s w o u l d h a v e meant b e i n g a c r e e p , j o i n i n g the " o t h e r s i d e " , or a t the very least sycophantic b e h a v i o u r i n s u r r e n d e r i n g t o t h e "enemy" ( J . C r o s b i e , p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n t o SFU P r o g r a m , 1 9 8 4 ) .  There  is  university  evidence  program  expectations communities  from  developing (Duguid,  "inmate-student"  occurs  within  support  and  Inmates  appear  the  extensive  the a dual  "inmate-student"  community  i n m a t e s who  accommodate  coming by  that  the  role  within  modelling  to develop  their  of  traditional  social  identity  The  change  from  "alternative" c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  by  university  student  roles  the  conflicting  or  an one  involved with  tension  academic and  1981a).  prison,  stay  prison as  "inmate"  an to  academic peer  group  personnel.  gradually rather  19  than  instantaneously,  The  alternative  opportunities  to  feelings  and  marked  involved  community  student  deal  entail.  be  become  academic  and  choices  seems  they  to p r a c t i c e  reinforcement, their  as  with  process  of  by  stages  which  expectations  inmates'  receive  personal  The  the  program.  provides  roles,  the  in  and  taking  them feedback  social  on  student  toward  the  and  tensions  characterize  hold  with  roles  changing university  program. The role  study  reported  development  here  involved  inmate-students  cognitive  p r o c e s s of  acquiring  Fabiano,  1981)  also  character  of  significant academic  but  prisons social  oriented  present  to  just  skills the  of  as  (Ross  a &  authoritarian  expectations  individuals within  formidable  programs. program  organization  on  their  university changes  in  achieved.  university  must  The  ecology The  lacks  a  and  the  norms  prison  accompanying p r o g r a m and  social here  feelings prison.  impact  of and  and  change-  the  of  the  SFU  of  prison  and  groups  to  explanation  ecology  of  like  relating  involved  explanation  successful  individuals  comprehensive  reported  grounded  of  the  literature  prevailing  study  to  initiatives  accommodate  social  domains.  the  theoretically and  the  program  obstacles  Successful  university  roles  relation  competing  g r o u p s and  not  interpersonal  in  the  experience,  stages  communities.  Prisons  within  and  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of  the  SFU  of  how  prison  development  inmate-students' expectations  of  are a  changing  toward  the  20  Purposes  Inmate-students'  of  for this  prison study,  and  academic  whose  purposes  1.  Explicate a theoretical model to i d e n t i f y student r o l e s (and a s s o c i a t e d f e e l i n g s t a t e s and e x p e c t a t i o n s ) o c c u p i e d by i n m a t e s who participate in the prison u n i v e r s i t y program.  2.  Operationalize inmates.  3.  Examine r e l a t i o n s h i p s between operationalizing the model d e m o g r a p h i c and p r i s o n - r e l a t e d  as a  purposes  framework  model  is  with  threefold:  The  with  Study  interactions  environments provided a context were  the  with  from  inmate-students.  necessary  ecology  of  "importation"  to  model  were a c c o m p l i s h e d  to develop  input  the  review prisons,  views of  a  with  by  expert  (1) u t i l i z i n g (2)  expert  judges,  and  Before  d e s c r i b i n g the  inmate  society  (3) c o n d u c t i n g  the and  role  theory  operationalizing  study  pertaining  particularly  and  scores obtained from and various sociovariables.  model,  literature  judges  a  the study  procedures  to  the  social  "deprivation"  behaviour.  it  and  21  CHAPTER 2  LITERATURE  Successful university number  correctional  REVIEW  initiatives  program engage t h e s o c i a l  such  ecology  as  the  SFU  of the prison  in a  o f ways:  The p r o g r a m a p p r o a c h i s b a s e d or e d u c a t i o n a l model. Environmental behaviour or neutralized.  on a s o c i a l  learning  factors which support delinquent prevent prosocial adaptation are  The o f f e n d e r ' s peer group m o b i l i z e d as a t h e r a p e u t i c Program p e r s o n n e l reinforcement.  provide  i s neutralized force. prosocial  or i s r e -  modelling  and  Offenders a r e a c t i v e l y engaged i n v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of t h e program. ( R o s s & F a b i a n o , 1981; 1983a) This and  chapter  structure  literature groups,  will  of  prison  on i n m a t e  typologies  "deprivation"  and  review  social  of  salient literature  ecology.  Prominently  on t h e featured  systems a r e d i s c u s s i o n s  inmate  roles  "importation"  and  views  origins  of  reference  distinctions of  inmate  i n the  between  s o c i e t y and  behaviour.  V i e w s o f t h e Inmate S o c i a l  The life,  an  inmate  social  integral  system  part  System  i s an i m p o r t a n t  of p r i s o n  culture.  element  of  The inmate  prison social  22  system  i s the  exist  in  that  repository  counterpoint  membership  inmate's  of  inmate  to  norms  prison  i n the s o c i a l  traditions  authority.  system  response to c o r r e c t i o n a l  and  Grosser  influences  an  that  contends  individual  programs.  The role of the inmate social s y s t e m i s f a r more s i g n i f i c a n t and e x e r t s f a r d e e p e r influence on the personality of i t s members than i s i m p l i e d by t h e s u p e r f i c i a l n o t i o n t h a t c r i m i n a l s t e a c h e a c h o t h e r bad habits....Treatment o r i e n t a t i o n and reform have to reckon with the prisoner a s a g r o u p member a n d a l l t h a t t h i s e n t a i l s (1968, p . 23).  Insofar structured inmate  as  around  social  Grosser  Peterson and  differences  exist  for  inmates  Thomas recent  authorities,  the  is  even  to o f f i c i a l view  consistent  institutions. The  to  of  the  prison  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a  "ruling  Similarly,  between  on  and  vertical  notwithstanding  This  discussion  relationship  respectively.  elaborated  between  in prison.  subject  organization  the  caste"  and  Thomas  and  "haves"  (staff)  (inmates).  (1968)  opportunities  its  asserts  made a d i s t i n c t i o n  "have-nots" Grosser  consider  social  control,  inmates t y p i f i e s  caste"  (1977)  isolated of  (1968)  a u t h o r i t i e s and  "subordinate  i s an  principles  s y s t e m must  authorities. prison  the p r i s o n  the staff  mobility  and  most  mundane  to  the  of c a s t e - l i k e  observing caste  (1977)  inmate  lines  that do  contend  power  not  that,  of  prison  activities  remain  dictate.  of the d i f f e r e n t s t a t u s e s with Goffman  central  by  across  Peterson  challenges  notion  a  portrayal  of  prisons  succinctly defines  feature  of  total  for staff  and as  inmates "total"  their characteristics:  institutions  can  be  23  d e s c r i b e d a s a breakdown o f the b a r r i e r s ordinarily separating.... spheres of l i f e . F i r s t , a l l a s p e c t s of l i f e a r e c o n d u c t e d i n t h e same place and under the same single authority. Second, each phase of the member's d a i l y a c t i v i t y i s c a r r i e d on i n t h e i m m e d i a t e company o f a l a r g e number o f o t h e r s , a l l o f whom a r e treated alike and required t o do t h e same t h i n g together. T h i r d , a l l phases of the day's activities are t i g h t l y s c h e d u l e d , w i t h one a c t i v i t y l e a d i n g a t a p r e a r r a n g e d time i n t o t h e n e x t , and t h e whole sequence of a c t i v i t i e s being imposed from above through a system of e x p l i c i t formal r u l i n g s a n d by a body o f officials. Finally, the contents of the various e n f o r c e d a c t i v i t i e s a r e brought t o g e t h e r as p a r t s of a single o v e r - a l l r a t i o n a l plan purportedly designed to f u l f i l l t h e o f f i c a l aims o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n (1961, p. 17).  In is  total  institutions,  frequently  characterized  to the Canadian that  view  are  consequences  Canadian in  and/or  s e c u r i t y " (1981, p .  taken  U.S.A.  to  (Eichman,  numbers  of  security  prisons  1981).  prisoners have  kind  extent  authoritarian  prison  between  Referring  Eichman  observed  a s more o r l e s s  to function  of  without has  t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f inmates once  they  system.  Once  as l i k e l y  classified  to  In a d d i t i o n  relative  to  convicted,  the  as h i s c o u n t e r p a r t s a  maximum  to holding  minimum  security increasing  s e c u r i t y , maximum  i n f l u e n c e d medium s e c u r i t y i n s t i t u t i o n s t o  a n d armed g u a r d s  the  inmates  stereotyping  i s twice  be  system,  a l l convicts  This  and  stereotyping.  s i m i l a r a t t r i b u t e s such as peepholes,  discipline  schism  for  federal offender  institution  To  6).  staff  t o o immature  i n t o the c o r r e c t i o n a l  the  acquire  by h o s t i l e  "...virtually  dangerous, untrustworthy  further  between  federal correctional  officials  tight  the s p l i t  that  (Gosselin, inmates  organization  themselves  and  increased  internal  1982).  are  presented  with  an  and a c a s t e - l i k e , a n t a g o n i s t i c staff,  they a r e l i k e l y  t o make  24  oppositional responses  responses to t h e i r  to the shared f a c t  the e x i s t e n c e and  proscriptions  Deviations most not  o f an  inmate of  actively  respect promote  of t h e i r  code  which  behaviour  from the code  inmates  imprisonment.  result  and it.  defer  Status visibly  a r e shaped  defines  prescriptions  i n inmate  the  &  Peterson,  imposed  t o t h e code  even  E l e m e n t s of the code  though  or n o n e x p l o i t i v e  prison  and prestige accorded to inmates opposed t o the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .  most  attitudes  emphasis  on  t o w a r d money a n d in-group l o y a l t y  and  strength,  property. and  solidarity.  Aggressive and exploitative relations conventionally oriented out-groups (Ohlin, pp. 28-29).  into  and five  Messinger major  classified  the tenets  with 1956,  of t h e inmate  groups:  1.  Don't i n t e r f e r e w i t h inmate your c l a s s - the cons.  2.  Don't l o s e y o u r h e a d fellow prisoners.  3.  Don't e x p l o i t chicanery.  fraud  or  4.  Don't weaken - show c o u r a g e , m a i n t a i n i n t e g r i t y the f a c e of p r i v a t i o n .  in  5.  Don't  or  be  a  interests  sucker  - be  loyal  - don't argue or q u a r r e l  i n m a t e s - by means o f  -  don't  may  society,  with  Predatory  Sykes  they  so  include:  liaison  violence  by  1977).  sanctions,  conventional  P o s i t i v e v a l u i n g of p h y s i c a l e x p l o i t a t i v e sex r e l a t i o n s .  Strong  inmate  imprisonment  (Thomas  O p p o s i t i o n t o the v a l u e s of and t o p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s . No supportive officials.  Collective  force,  accord  prestige  to  with  code  25  respect to prison authorities or the world stand f o r , don't adopt values of hard work s u b m i s s i o n t o r o u t i n e (1960, p p . 6 - 9 ) .  While  there  inmate code,  there  caused  by  variety  and degree  issues  organization  t h e two p r i n c i p a l  The  deprivation  "structural  (Thomas  literature  1960's a n d r e t a i n s in  the  of  has  been  Model."  as  response Much  to of  prison  t h e most  model was w r i t t e n  i nthe  T h e s e a u t h o r s h a v e been and  model have  a  w h i c h an o p p o s i t i o n a l  1977).  deprivation  of the d e p r i v a t i o n  These  o f inmate  characterized  a r e viewed as a Peterson,  i t is  to p r e d i c t the  perspectives  in  on t h e d e p r i v a t i o n  of  which  Model  perspective"  &  to  o f an  to incarceration.  theoretical  i t s relevance.  explication  Proponents  extent  or i s s u f f i c i e n t  Deprivation  inmate code and s u b c u l t u r e  important  the  the existence  Model" and t h e " I m p o r t a t i o n  model  functional  organization  about  of inmate a d a p t a t i o n  - the "Deprivation  The  agreement  i s debate over  prison  form  society  i s general  they and  importation focused  cited  models.  on t h r e e  areas  concern: 1.  P r o c e s s i n g and i n d u c t i o n procedures that to the "homogenization" of inmates;  2.  The problems and d e p r i v a t i o n s of c o n f i n e m e n t that are either d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y a j o i n t product o f t h e p r i s o n o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d t h e p o s i t i o n h e l d by inmates w i t h i n that o r g a n i z a t i o n ;  3.  The c o l l e c t i v e o r s u b c u l t u r a l make t o t h e i r common p r o b l e m s 1977, p . 4 8 ) .  The  processing  and  response (Thomas  induction  of  contribute  t h a t inmates & Peterson,  inmates  and  the  26  deprivations regulated 1968;  of  process  Davis,  stages status those  confinement  of  of  1976;  the degradation  imposed  experience  status attribution  Cloward,  attributions  they  1960). process  arising  w i t h i n the  from  a  or d e g r a d a t i o n  Goffman  highly (Grosser,  (1961) d e s c r i b e s  i n terms of  an  are  a tension  inmate's c i v i l i a n  the  between  world  and  prison.  It i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f i n m a t e s t h a t t h e y come t o t h e institution with a "presenting culture"....derived from a home world -a way o f l i f e and a r o u n d of activities taken for granted until the point of admission to the i n s t i t u t i o n . . . . W h a t e v e r the s t a b i l i t y of t h e r e c r u i t ' s p e r s o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , i t was p a r t o f a w i d e r framework l o d g e d i n h i s c i v i l e n v i r o n m e n t — a round of experience that confirmed a tolerable c o n c e p t i o n o f s e l f , and a l l o w e d f o r a s e t of d e f e n s i v e m a n e u v e r s , e x e r c i s e d a t h i s own d i s c r e t i o n , f o r c o p i n g with conflicts, discreditings, and failures....The recruit, then, comes into the e s t a b l i s h m e n t w i t h a c o n c e p t i o n of h i m s e l f made p o s s i b l e by c e r t a i n stable s o c i a l a r r a n g e m e n t s i n h i s home w o r l d . Upon e n t r a n c e , he i s i m m e d i a t e l y s t r i p p e d o f t h e s u p p o r t p r o v i d e d by these arrangements... he begins a series of abasements, degradations, humiliations, and p r o f a n a t i o n s of s e l f . His self i s systematically, i f o f t e n u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y , m o r t i f i e d (1961, pp. 22-23). Once  invested  "non-person"  with  a  (Sarbin & Allen,  prisoners  experience  a host  physical  separation  from  services,  deprivations  relationships, 1960,  pp.  confinement life  prisoners  of  Ekstedt  "pains  society,  of  autonomy,  1968;  of  "criminal"  & Griffiths,  imprisonment"  deprivation  freedom  s t a t u s and  s t a t u s of  of  movement,  security  (Sykes  and  1984), including  of  goods  and  heterosexual &  Messinger,  13-16).  According  of  degraded  are  to  the  deprivation  sufficiently  experience  and  isolated  a  as  model,  powerful  history group  at  these  "facts"  to d i s p l a c e other  from the  the bottom  outside, of  the  of  sources leaving prison  27  Figure  organizational impels  1.  O p p o s i t i o n a l S o c i a l E c o l o g y In The D e p r i v a t i o n Model  hierarchy.  t h e growth  t o the formal  large.  Figure  prison  dynamics presumed Figure  of the d e p r i v a t i o n  goals  of p r i s o n  vacuum  oppose  any lines  This  thus  created  i s oppositional  in  a u t h o r i t i e s and s o c i e t y a t  1 shows i n t e r a c t i o n s among  1, t h e j a g g e d  separate  goals  organization.  to  cultural  o f an i n m a t e s o c i e t y w h i c h  nature  and  The  and  between  inmates  d i a g r a m d o e s n o t show a l l o f t h e  model,  but r a t h e r  expression between  that  of  prison  the  arrows  of inmates and a u t h o r i t i e s ) suggest  inmates  are  authority.  In  (representing antipathy.  28  The  growth  of the inmate s u b c u l t u r e or s o c i e t y ,  t o the d e p r i v a t i o n model, i s b e s t "prisonization"  which  Clemmer  t a k i n g on i n g r e a t e r or l e s s customs,  and  general  explained (1958, p.  degree  culture  of  of  as 299)  the  a  according  process  d e f i n e d as  folkways,  of "the  mores,  the p e n i t e n t i a r y . " The  key  f e a t u r e of the d e p r i v a t i o n model's view of p r i s o n i z a t i o n  i s that  v i r t u a l l y a l l p r i s o n e r s a r e l i k e l y t o become p a r t of t h e  inmate  subculture  to  to f a c t o r s  such  organization,  v a r y i n g degrees, as  sentence  psychological  some more than o t h e r s a c c o r d i n g length,  differences  attributes,  kind  c o n t a c t s u s t a i n e d w i t h the o u t s i d e and so on.  in  and  prison  extent  Inmate  of  society,  w i t h i t s p r e s c r i p t i o n s and p r o s c r i p t i o n s , i s the c e n t r a l f e a t u r e of  prison  life  t h a t a l l i n m a t e s , a c c o r d i n g t o Roebuck  have t o engage i n t o e x p l o i t or f a c e b e i n g e x p l o i t e d  (1963),  by  it  in  turn. A  major  area  of  study  on  prisoners' assimilation  inmate s o c i e t y l o o k s a t the development which  accord d i f f e r e n t i a l  Messinger  of  social  role  s t a t u s to t h e i r occupants.  or  inmate  the  various  roles,  or  ideals  inmate code, e s p e c i a l l y the n o t i o n of inmate s o l i d a r i t y  One t y p e s was  1960; of  the  Kassebaum, Ward & W i l n e r ,  Prisoners  of  role, the  (Sykes &  1971).  most n o t a b l e d e p i c t i o n s of inmate s o c i a l  d e v i s e d by Sykes and M e s s i n g e r  roles which  are assigned a p a r t i c u l a r  based on the e x t e n t t o w h i c h they e x e m p l i f y the  Messinger,  Sykes and  solidarity,  m i t i g a t e s t o some e x t e n t the " p a i n s of i m p r i s o n m e n t " . enact  types  ( i 9 6 0 ) viewed the development of d i s t i n c t s o c i a l  as a f u n c t i o n of group c o h e s i o n ,  into  (1960).  role  They d e s c r i b e d  29  a  variety  Among  of  social  them  is  " t o u g h " who  the  than  sale  cannot  the  force or  to  and  of  the  the  to  be  the  in  opposition  to p r i s o n  prisoners  holding  restoring  need  ensure instead  officially  opportunity with  the  help  to  superior  to  within that  preserve  "wolf"  other  allow  to  roles  stability  like  Those the  the  By  so  prison  most in  means  inmate The  of  prison becomes society  "illegitimate  influence  as  system  doing,  prisoners  so  who  denies  behaviour  " r i g h t guy"  in prison  the  inmate code  within  the  to  the  evolve  " i l l e g i t i m a t e means." to  who  homosexual  society  potentially disruptive  correspond  he  9-11).  society.  status  "fag"  " r i g h t guy"  the  status,  inmates  inmate  or  shows  prisoners, of  no  trickery  conform  the  because  to higher  the  involving  in  to  (1960, pp.  role types.  through  the  i s seen  that  and  " w e a k l i n g " who  values  into acquiring  social  prisoner;  usually  involved  to  the  access  structures"  upwardly mobile  loyal  terms.  fights readily for  a u t h o r i t i e s ; and  to  tolerated  argot  the  prison;  proposed  the status  channelled by  (1960) of  authorities  goods;  authorities  means  recognizes  most  slang  another  inmates,  passively  prison  or  uses manipulation  " s q u a r e J o h n " who  steadfast  Cloward  betrays  other  scarce  or  argot  q u a r r e l s o m e and  r i g o r s of  norms o f  supposed  who  exploit  actively  relationships; values  "rat"  " m e r c h a n t " who  trade  cope w i t h  becomes  is  the  l a b e l l e d in  i s aggressive,  obvious cause; rather  roles  associated who  or  become  "merchant"  to maintain  their  status.  However undocumented  interesting, i n the  these  u n i v e r s a l i t y of  social their  types influence  are on  still  inmates.  30  A  number  of s t u d i e s  types because according Glaser  of the d i f f i c u l t y  to  the  categories  & Stratton,  that  a  1961).  limitation  portrayal social  relation  rather  In  perceived  (Kassebaum, Ward, and S t r a t t o n  role typologies  than average  effect,  they  to connote  Importation  according the than  deprivation  model a n d s h o u l d  1971;  observed  r e s u l t s from in  the  and  their inmate  of inmate  consequences  in  solidarity.  Model  m o d e l " do n o t r e j e c t a l l t h e  ^model.  t o Thomas a n d P e t e r s o n  deprivation  The  (1977),  importation  is  an  model,  "extension"  be s e e n a s c o m p l e m e n t a r y  of  rather  contradictory. The  is  the  role  inmates  (1961)  abstractions  interests  Proponents of the " i m p o r t a t i o n of  of s o c i a l  & Wilner,  roles  are  t o t h e inmate code and g r o u p  The  claims  the u t i l i t y  of a c t u a l l y c l a s s i f y i n g  Glaser  of s o c i a l  of extreme  system.  behaviour  have q u e s t i o n e d  too  principal criticism restrictive  primarily  as  a  organization.  direct Rather,  Thomas a n d P e t e r s o n future,  and,  exclusively  tied  in  note  not  of the d e p r i v a t i o n  suggesting response in that  arguing "...  unimportantly,  to their  that to  model  inmate  the  i s that i t  society  impact  emerges  of  prison  f o r the importation inmates a  position within  have  present  a  which  the p r i s o n  model,  past, is  (1977,  a not p.  56). Advocates  of  the  intra-institutional seek  positive  importation  variables  model  to analyze  resocialization  among  look  to external  prisonization inmates.  and  and to  External  31  Figure  influences future of  take  P r e - And P o s t - I n c a r c e r a t i o n F a c t o r s The I m p o r t a t i o n Model  the  experiences.  origin  Present  2.  form  pre-prison  Pre-prison  and a t t a i n m e n t  influences  of  and  are things  (past),  influences  previous like  In  include  criminal  t h e number  present social  and class  convictions.  of l e t t e r s  inmates  32  receive  per  maintain  with  influences  week and outside  refer  the  q u a l i t y and  reference  to  the  around p o s t - r e l e a s e  External  or  Thomas  &  interactions  circle than in  as  the  2  of  the  spaces or  are  prison  which  model  may  qualified  and  prisonization.  under  &  Wilner,  Hepburn  &  Stratton,  importation  (1963) e x p l o r e d remaining While  to  Clemmer  system  the be  manifest (shown a s  or  the  to  1971;  the  and of  control  compared  criminal  These  of the  model,  one  values  on  Cohen  Akers,  1977).  on  w i t h any  importation  1962;  act  prosocial  outside  held  factors  prison.  have  the  a  is less insular  both  Cressey,  &  f o r an  by  for  previously  (Irwin  Sapsford,  arrows)  researchers  of  1963;  outcomes a s s o c i a t e d  of  (Thomas,  post-incarceration (with  Ward,  support  Garabedian  Some  impact  adaptation  1976;  be  responses  Inmates  social  allows as  to  and e x t r a - i n s t i t u t i o n a l  control exercised  with a variant  the  Kassebaum,  Hayner,  shown  model  authorities.  prisoner  opportunities_.  circumference) and  inmates  inmate code  model.  inmate  Pre-  inmate a d a p t a t i o n  evaluates  served  the  importation  deprivation  and  they  Future  understandings  the  intra  i n the  community  factors  1972;  gaps  the  outside  antisocial  that  but  1.  of  and  importation  in Figure  The  and  Garabedian,  the  shown  inmates, o u t s i d e  these  1977;  depicts  to a u t h o r i t y  with  contacts  individuals.  life-chances  organization  Peterson,  Figure  opposition  or  of  e x t r a - i n s t i t u t i o n a l factors contribute  i n m a t e s make t o p r i s o n  1978).  groups  concerns  construct  1973;  frequency  &  Taylor,  Gruniger, studies  &  give  model. influence served  of  length  on  the  (1958) m a i n t a i n e d  that  of  degree  time of  variations  33  in  the  degree  inevitable, should role  of  the d e p r i v a t i o n  increase  three  separate  served  and  phase" phase"  model  inmate  implies  as a  function  of time  (1963)  measured  the degree  groups  had  served served  t o inmate  that  served  were  prisonization  across  a l l social  than  found  that  three  groups  pattern.  conformity showed  norms,  buttresses The  organization  p.  Inmates  (p.  i n the  142).  the  p.  or  were  142).  of the  inmate  Inmates a r e a d u l t s . situation in a way  than  phase"  Garabedian i n the  "adaptive" twice  w i t h inmates i n  this  process  of  inmate  i n m a t e comes t o t h e end  of h i s  interpretation  norms  i n the l a t e groups  phase  the as  values  model.  model  for this  the  control  inmate  and  of  adaptation  study i s i t s of to  prison prison  code. They that  six  inmates  inmates  U-shaped  Moreover,  importation  influence  "middle  "proportionately  external  beyond  i n the  norms t o  staff to  "early  141).  norms a s c o m p a r e d  Garabedian's  with  factors,  and  phase  of the i m p o r t a t i o n  that  "late  time  the  more  norms among most  as the  socialization  of  had  for  b a s e d on  in  those  i s , movement away f r o m s t a f f  " i s reversed  utility  authorities,  and  curvilinear,  (1963,  the claims  explication  to s t a f f  to staff  conformity  anticipatory  served,  i n the e a r l y  that  career" to  served.  prison  t h a n s i x months,  a  to conform  prisonization,  return  i n one  s i x months r e m a i n i n g (1963,  the m i d d l e p e r i o d "  prison  less  t o be  Inmates  likely  code  inmates  of p r i s o n i z a t i o n  more t h a n s i x months b u t  remaining  less  of  t i m e r e m a i n i n g t o be  had  months  as  from  types. Garabedian  had  prisonization  relate to their present reflects their preprison  34  learning experiences, their extra-prison learning experiences, their extra-prison relationships, and their post-prison expectations Most p r i s o n i n m a t e s do n o t become c o m p l e t e l y o r u n i f o r m l y a s s i m i l a t e d i n t o the inmate society Resocialization can be efficiently developed even in the context of a c u s t o d i a l l y o r i e n t e d maximum-security p r i s o n (Thomas, 1973, pp. 20-21).  The  importation  opportunity  to  develop  prison  university  prison  authorities.  possibilities  the  saliency social In  of  with  viewing  of  roles  social  direct  in addition In any  to  members of  r o l e theory  or  of  suggest instead  of  proponents  concur  groups  the  control  case,  models  the  like  relationships  importation  i n m a t e s as  inmates have groups,  the  such  inmate code.  and  utilizing  with  outside  Moreover,  the  that  and  to analyze  on  the  of  the  the  inmate  system. Chapter  community  will  formulated  development behaviour  3,  the  be  analyzed  to  participation  and  relationships  community,  deprivation  importance  recognizes  for developing  those a s s o c i a t e d of  model  social  explain in  the  assumes t h a t in  the  incorporates  institutional  ecology  using  influences  social  changes  university the  prison  manner p r o p o s e d the  of  prison  role theory  associated program. ecology i n the  "importation" determine  the  university and  with  The  "deprivation"  behaviour  as  model inmate  model of  influences  premise  a  that well.  role  inmate position extra-  35  CHAPTER 3  CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK  This theory,  chapter  from  students concepts five  outlines  which  a  emerged. in role  model  of  role  framework b a s e d development  theory,  criteria  on  role  inmate-  and major  of t h e model, and t h e  model's  stages.  Role  theory  environments. staff  is  Within  Assumptions  individuals  these  total  "prison"  roles  program,  understanding  to  for  the  themselves  as  difficulties  arising  of p r i s o n  the  roles  from  case  of  for  a  The a l l - e n c o m p a s s i n g with  and  in  rationale  the competing  student-instructor  inmates  students  provides  i s c h a l l e n g e d by t h e e d u c a t i o n a l e n v i r o n m e n t democratic  analysis  In  theory  "education."  the  p r e s c r i b e d and s t a t u s i s accorded  role  and  Theory  institutions  on t h e b a s i s o f them.  "new"  university  of Role  well-suited  and inmates a r e r i g i d l y  creating  on  in  D i s c u s s i o n c e n t r e s on a s s u m p t i o n s  General  to  a conceptual  the for  demands o f  role  of inmate  i t s emphasis student-student  relationships. T h e r e a r e many v a r i a t i o n s and  Allen  advanced  SFU  prison university  For  them  "role"  of s o c i a l  a v e r s i o n with program  particular  (see a l s o  i s a theatrical  role  theory,  but S a r b i n  relevance  to  Sarbin & Schiebe,  metaphor,  "...intended  the  1983).  t o denote  36  that  conduct  than  to the  Thus,  inmate,  a  which  than  and  refers  more r o l e s .  or  or  part  student.  recite  But  (1968,  play  p.  f o r by  at  any  concept  any  social  one is  conduct  T h e y p o s e a number o f q u e s t i o n s  conduct  given  time;  a  larger  role. "role  of  489).  manifest  each p l a y e r m a i n t a i n s  Allen's principal overt  them"  individuals  they  i s accounted  to the  ' p a r t s ' (or p o s i t i o n s ) r a t h e r  context,  primary  guard,  self-identity  read  prison  to the  Sarbin  to certain  p l a y e r s who  in  according  adheres  enactment",  a person relating  i n one to  or  role  enactment: What are the positions o f t h e o t h e r s w i t h whom t h e actor i s performing? How e f f e c t i v e i s the actor in validating the occupancy of h i s s t a t u s ? What i s t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h e o t h e r s t o t h e e n a c t m e n t - do they provide discriminative cues which l e a d the a c t o r to s e l e c t another r o l e performance? (1968, p . 490)  the  Role  theory,  with  gap  between  the  history  and  social  three  criteria  social  behaviours  "convincingness"  i t s focus individual  on and  role the  enactment, group,  o r g a n i z a t i o n " ( 1 9 6 8 , p.  f o r making — of  the the  i n f e r e n c e s about  "...bridges  between  490).  They  observed  "appropriateness",  or  personal propose reported  "propriety",  enactment:  1.  Is the conduct a p p r o p r i a t e t o the s o c i a l p o s i t i o n g r a n t e d t o o r a t t a i n e d by t h e a c t o r ? That is, do his p e r f o r m a n c e s i n d i c a t e t h a t the a c t o r has taken i n t o account the e c o l o g i c a l c o n t e x t in which the behavior occurs? In short, has he s e l e c t e d t h e right role?  2.  Is the enactment p r o p e r ? That i s , does the overt behavior meet the normative standards which serve as v a l u a t i o n a l c r i t e r i a f o r the o b s e r v e r ? Is the p e r f o r m a n c e t o be e v a l u a t e d a s good o r bad?  3.  Is the enactment convincing? That i s , does the enactment l e a d the observer to declare unequivocally that the incumbent is legitimately  and  37  occupying  Sarbin role and  the p o s i t i o n ?  and A l l e n c o n s i d e r  enactments  to  (1)  (effort),  Number  roles  roles the  of that  without well  but  stressful  life  of  well-practiced  socially  survival  i n that  within  society  for  researcher, If for  a  legitimacy  a  person to  to that  is  less  meet new a n d  and  of p r i s o n  community  range  to  and  in  of  t o the Ross  with  1976; G a r a b e d i a n ,  implies  an  behaviour  1980).  &  realistic  &  Foster,  p r a c t i c e of student  respond with  sub-roles  with  1960; Thomas  prison  1983a; R o s s ,  g r o u p member,  roles  increased  acceptable  The  student  such as l e a r n e r ,  to role  colleague,  helper.  a r e put i n p r i s o n  punishment,  adequate  1981a;  than  (Davis,  & Messinger,  development  inmates  an  behavioural)  (Duguid,  environment  outside  the  lacking  r e p e r t o i r e o f r o l e s h a s more t o do  1963; S y k e s  because  as  cognitive  specialized  offenders  more  on,  They c o n t e n d  role-taker  demands o f s o c i e t y  (Ross & F a b i a n o ,  encompasses  as w e l l .  characterized  Their  an a c a d e m i c  capacity  skilled  (time)  organismic  and r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e  roles to c a l l  (both  interaction  Thus,  (2)  situations.  1981).  1976).  realistic  the  responses  Roebuck,  roles,  social  than  Fabiano,  1963;  of  propriety  r e f e r s t o the v a r i e t y or r e p e r t o i r e of  economic and s o c i a l  social  appropriateness,  of  491).  I n m a t e s h a v e been range  dimensions  (1968, p.  a v a r i e t y of such  prepared  their  number  490)  additional  (3) p r e e m p t i v e n e s s  a r e not only  actor,  three  determine  convincingness:  involvement  (1968, p .  their  inmates a r e  not j u s t as punishment,  involvement not,  i n student  according  to  but  roles  lacks  this  view,  38  supposed it  to  e n j o y any a s p e c t of p r i s o n .  i s i m p o r t a n t f o r inmates  realistic  to  be  On t h e o t h e r hand, i f  able  to  A  socially  and a c c e p t a b l e b e h a v i o u r s , then inmate i n v o l v e m e n t i n  programs which promote s o c i a l l y p o s i t i v e society  develop  values  of  mainstream  i s " a p p r o p r i a t e " and " p r o p e r . " second  dimension  is  the  "organismic  i n v o l v e m e n t " or  i n t e n s i t y of r o l e enactments.  Organismic involvement r e f e r s  the  visceral  degrees  enactment of  of  effort  by a p e r s o n .  low  involvement  and  participation in a role  S a r b i n and A l l e n suggest as a  of  involvement  championship involved  football  through  activation  an  example  t i c k e t s e l l e r i n a neighbourhood  d u r i n g a slow p e r i o d of b u s i n e s s (1968, p. end  is  the  game.  muscular  492).  quarterback's Great  exertion,  degrees  At  the  role of  autonomic  cinema high  during  effort nervous  a are  system  ( v i s c e r a l ) , and i n v o l v e m e n t of the s e l f i n the r o l e .  S a r b i n and A l l e n a s s e r t t h a t "even the c a s u a l o b s e r v e r identify  to  characteristics  of  r o l e enactment  d i m e n s i o n " (1968, p.  492).  maintain  standard  a  intensity  The u n i v e r s i t y r e q u i r e s inmates  o r d e r t o be  a l l o w e d t o remain i n the program.  As w i t h s t u d e n t s  everywhere,  effort  and e x c e e d i n g t h a t s t a n d a r d .  Those who the  involved  in  of  meeting  performance  to  in  is  minimum  a l o n g an  can  p e r f o r m a t o r beyond t h e minimum s t a n d a r d a r e e n a c t i n g  student r o l e with  propriety.  There a r e o t h e r i n d i c a t o r s of i n v o l v e m e n t role.  These p r o v i d e i n s i g h t s i n t o how  want t o be. in  each  in  the  involved certain  student inmates  An awards ceremony i s h e l d a t the end of each  term  of the p r i s o n s where t h e u n i v e r s i t y program o p e r a t e s .  39  At  t h e s e award c e r e m o n i e s  receiving with  awards  for  unrestrained  scholarly depth  typically  coursework.  applause,  effort.  their  the Matsqui  riot  program d i s s u a d e d r i o t e r s  library.  To  protect  an  important  demonstrated had  become.  holds  student of  to  instructors  roles  "the  are  In p r i s o n , regulated treat  education  the  by  time  i n maintenance, university  and  a l l  a  university in order  to  program  inmate-students riot,  and  the  support c o n j e c t u r e involved  recent survey  university  enactment  of  time  t i m e he  spent  the  with  involving  11  program  concluded  as h i g h l y  motivated  1985). is  the  a person  spends  prison  preemptiveness  spends  i n one  in other r o l e s "  t o spend  time  authorities.  in a  role (1968,  student  Furthermore,  a t t e n d i n g e d u c a t i o n a l c o u r s e s as a  inmates  lower  some  the Matsqui  opportunities  f o r which is  role  amount  t o t h e amount o f  work p l a c e m e n t  in  of  of  in  university  inmate-students  (Duguid,  dimension  —  496).  such as  viewed  in education  the  rioters  convincingly  i n t h e SFU  authorities  for  become  instructors  relative  role  inmates  students  burning the  inmate  instructors  16  A third  p.  university  responding  legitimacy  1981  w i t h the program  Moreover,  most  p e e r s , by  at  of the p e r s i s t e n c e  from  of  enactments.  engage  of  symbol  awards c e r e m o n i e s ,  that  of  of  role  the  that  by  will  involved  The  evaluation which  how  pride  students.  prison  the  exhibit  the  talked  university  oppose  Their  reinforce  Instructors  of m o t i v a t i o n of During  inmates  than  kitchen  are paid.  But  the  for other prison  work  and  p r o g r a m a r e now  laundry. required  pay  assignments  Moreover, t o pay  scale  inmates  a token  fee  40  for  each  despite  course  they  financial  take.  Yet  variable and  and  with  is  Allen  the  i n Role  treat  role  judgements about  its  convincingness  independent  subject  variables.  concept  of  The  to first  role  occupant  a social  position  such,  role  be  students  a  dependent  i n the  social  expectations  behaviour.  They o p e r a t e  imperatives  to a person's  influences these  as  —  in relation  the  o f a number  to persons  normative  and  beliefs,  obligations  (1968,  p.  cognition  of  for and  while  any  occupying 497).  limits  of  variables  the  personal-psychological  conduct  propriety  independent  d u t i e s and  structure"  set  as  appropriateness,  expectations  privileges,  positions  enactment  of  "rights,  other  to  Theory  the  expectancies, of  choose  disincentives.  Concepts  Sarbin  inmates  As  social social  enacting a  role. Different arise  from  part  because  role  inmate and  of  inmates'  "keeper"  to  instructor  service. not  within a prison  or  roles  with  Role  encumbered  Role  them a r e  system.  complementary  are  roles  employed  the  and  by  to  who  employees  imbued w i t h  the  t h e o t h e r hand,  a  student  role.  in  occupy enact  e x p e c t a t i o n s encompassed  universities,  traditional  conduct  context,  the people  On  e x p e c t a t i o n s between by  imperatives for  instance, correctional  "guard."  the p r i s o n  is  instructors  student  For  relationships  inherent  and  the complementary  them a r e d i f f e r e n t . roles  expectations  in  antagonism the  role  of  University  not  the  correctional  instructors  and  students  suspicion  that  exists  are  between  41  correctional  s t a f f and  inmates.  R o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s between o c c u p a n t s of complementary positions  are  mutually  determined.  Thus,  Sarbin  and  contend that c o n f o r m i t y to c e r t a i n r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s even  in  the  other  peoples'  role  reactions  e x p l a i n the m u t u a l l y - d e t e r m i n e d b e h a v i o u r of p e r s o n s  "difference  social  role  Role  503).  amount  of  refers  Where  a  lack  of  clarity knowing  needed  location  role  in a prison level,  occur.  of  such l o c a t i o n b e i n g d e t e r m i n e d  w i t h l o c a t i n g the p o s i t i o n of t h e o t h e r " (1968, p. i n t h e c o n t e x t of p r i s o n l i f e ,  inmate r o l e .  position  a  On  the  self  in  conjointly  507).  l o c a t i n g the p o s i t i o n  or "keeper" w i l l  complementary of  role  r e f e r s t o the i n f e r e n t i a l p r o c e s s whereby a  social structure,  "cop"  in  i s p r e s c r i b e d at a f a i r l y e x p l i c i t  p e r s o n ' s " c h o i c e of r o l e f o l l o w s from the l o c a t i o n  as  to a  conduct of  For b o t h inmate and s t u d e n t r o l e s  a l t h o u g h c o n f l i c t s between r o l e s may  in the  which  a r e a p p r o p r i a t e and what the complementary  context, role c l a r i t y  employee  to  information  e x i s t s , a p e r s o n has d i f f i c u l t y  o t h e r s s h o u l d be.  Role  clarity  e x p e c t a t i o n s and the amount a c t u a l l y a v a i l a b l e  expectations enactments  roles.  between the o p t i m a l  p e r s o n " (1968, p.  the  occur  use the c o n c e p t s of r o l e c l a r i t y and r o l e l o c a t i o n t o  complementary  about  may  502).  They further  Allen  absence of s t r o n g commitment t o a p a r t i c u l a r  because of a p e r s o n ' s s e n s i t i v i t y t o (1968, p.  social  of  Thus, a  CSC  l e a d an inmate t o choose a other  hand,  locating  the  u n i v e r s i t y employee as " i n s t r u c t o r " c r e a t e s t h e  p o s s i b i l i t y of an inmate c h o o s i n g o t h e r  than  an  inmate  role,  42  such  as  "student."  Specific  role  enactments  may  mores a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r called  role  conform  demands.  to  an  consequences. student  role  academic  these  i n the program  into  folkways  of  inmate  role  or  These  are  intense pressures roles  or  face  to the  demands a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  community  demands  the  social structure.  range  However, t h e r e a r e  and  from  inmate e x p e r i e n c e s  acceptable  w i t h i n an  university participate  An  arise  help  established  to  enacting  impel  a  a  by  the  inmates  who  convincing  student  role. Sarbin particular  and  Allen  role  depends  expectations,  role  congruence,  also  person. by  the  Role  training"  are  on  which  (1968, p .  because  of  life,  they  training skills  as may  may i n the be  divided  which d i v i d e s i n t o General accurate  of  the  cognitive  skills  role  specific widely  p r o p r i e t y of  similar  life  While  through  motor  role-specific the  in a s o c i a l situation,  the  possessed  and  may  prison university  include  by  vary  skills.  in later  role  convincing  experience,  i n t o c o g n i t i v e and  g e n e r a l and  inferences  and  a  self-role  role  skills  of  early  s o c i a l i z a t i o n experiences  enhanced  case  and  possessed  A c c o r d i n g l y , people  role  enacts  like  characteristics  a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s , and  through  be  demands  in effective  differential  learned largely  variables  skills  to those  appropriate  514).  well a person  on  role role  result  aptitude,  t h a t how only  those "refer  the c o n v i n c i n g n e s s ,  roles  not  location,  skills  individual  enactment:  in  but  maintain  appropriate  program. skills,  Role each  of  skills. ability to take  the  to  make  role  of  43  the  other  general  i n both  intellectual  apparent among  c o g n i t i v e and  lack  ability  with  this  reducing  cognitive  education  centred  Fabiano's  (1981;  a  view  on  a  1983;  delays  f o r the  the  notion  is  intelligence)  and  through  these  aspects  of  It  is  university of  Sarbin  skills  program.  and  Ross  and  concerning  (i.e. skills)  and  or  training  1) c l a i m s  social  the  eliminating  impersonal  interpersonal ( i . e .  closely  include  curriculum.  Chapter  inmates'  may  cognitive  appropriate  arts  1983a - see  and  515).  general  focus  liberal  in  terms,  p.  in these  "deficits"  developmental  match v e r y  (1968,  of development  inmates t h a t p r o v i d e s  Consistent  affective  general cognition  Allen's  role  theory. General facial  motor  expression  enactments. average  For  level  and the  refer  tone  of  student  enact  drama a h i g h e r  those  level  to the  .voice  roles  of motor a b i l i t y  inmates to f u l l y of  skills  of  body movements, required  interest  i s probably  roles.  For  of motor a b i l i t y  the  for  many  in this  sufficient study  posture,  and  is a requisite  role  study, to  an  allow  enactment for  full  enactment. Concerning  self-role  congruence,  S a r b i n and  Allen  contend  that: Social roles are perceived and e n a c t e d a g a i n s t the background of the s e l f . The t e r m ' s e l f r e f e r s t o t h e i n f e r e n c e s t h e p e r s o n makes a b o u t t h e referent ' I ' . It is a cognitive s t r u c t u r e and d e r i v e s from p a s t e x p e r i e n c e w i t h o t h e r p e r s o n s and with objects. We define the s e l f as the e x p e r i e n c e of i d e n t i t y a r i s i n g f r o m a p e r s o n ' s i n t e r b e h a v i n g w i t h t h i n g s , body p a r t s , a n d o t h e r p e r s o n s (1968, pp. 522-523). To  the  extent  "goodness  of  that fit"  self-role that  congruence  should manifest  is  high,  itself  as  there  is  a  commitment  or  44  involvement  in a role  convincing,  p r o p e r and a p p r o p r i a t e .  congruence,  confusion  experiences a state congruence and  development  of s o c i a l  consensual  perceived will  the  (interrole  model  of  role  group  or  or  ongoing  (2) t h e p e r s o n  i n the  member who o b s e r v e s t h e  p.  528).  The t h i r d  i t of  audience  i s directed,  most a p p a r e n t  role  which  a role  influence  responses  gives  social  p e r f o r m e r , and  behaviour  over  time  i s only s y m b o l i c a l l y or v a l u e s , and toward  which  i s called  a r e f e r e n c e group.  The  between an i n d i v i d u a l ' s group,  f o r that  p e e r s and p r i s o n reinforces  v a l u e s and the  t h e more l i k e l y  f o r inmates.  staff,  inmate  that  this  individual.  audiences a r e important  groups,  establishes  a person  become a r e f e r e n c e g r o u p distinct  enactment, from  The  p r e s e n t a n d be a  The a u d i e n c e  role  maintenance An  dyad.  member  other."  provides discriminative  withholds  congruence  Their  i s an  or only symbolically  v a l u e s of a symbolic  Several  present.  Self-role  conflict  enactment  third  (1968,  p r e s e n t , but which  the  a  performer's  to  enactment  greater  two  a  534).  cognitively  role  performer,  for a role,  t o the  p.  that  (3)  interaction  reality  contributes  group  and  small  reinforcement  role  judged  of s e l f - r o l e  strain.  of role in  be  enacting the role  or "the other" or "the g e n e r a l i z e d  (cues) t o guide  a  contend  may be p h y s i c a l l y  group,  (1968,  The p e r s o n  dynamic  (1) t h e r o l e  role,  the audience  large  then  In t h e absence  and c o g n i t i v e  a fundamental  involving  audience  of t e n s i o n  and A l l e n  complementary  is  is likely.  would  i n inmate-students.  Sarbin  process  enactment  c a n be e x p l o r e d i n t e r m s  intrarole),  process  whose  The  are physically  subculture  roles  45  (see  Chapter  community,  i s both  physically fellow as  2).  society  in  group  program.  The  for  segment  inmate Sarbin  and A l l e n  either  simultaneous  roles, while  staff  involved  norms  one l y i n g  with  shared  beyond  and  present  stems  the from  with  a  the scope of  rites  of passage  others being  inmate and s t u d e n t  incompatible  role  contradictory  looking  of  occur  of  occur (2)  two  held  role  process tasks.  when  (1) o n l y  two  or  more  within a given period  who  acts  the  formal  comedian  538). life  for  and the development roles.  Successive  simultaneously with  prison  expectations,"  expectations  may  at  i n terms of  or developmental  alternate  (1968, p .  enactment  occupancy  of  maturational  "latent",  of a surgeon  feature  simultaneous  the  of m u l t i p l e r o l e s  surgery  role  ways  s u c c e s s i v e enactment.  as i n the case  central  of  They d i s c u s s m u l t i p l e r o l e s  a n d (4) i n f o r m a l r o l e s  simultaneous between  and  is  t o become a  possibility  a number  (3) m u l t i p l e r o l e s  performing A  this  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  i s activated,  such  the p o t e n t i a l  become  values  present  enactment  merge,  time,  of  of  or  i t s associated  Simultaneous  of  the u n i v e r s i t y  i t i s symbolically  who  society,  phenomena.  enactments a r e best  roles  of  It  roles.  role  role  form  inmates  of  complex  one  the  significance  the academic  and s y m b o l i c a l l y p r e s e n t .  E q u a l l y important,  acknowledgement  legitimate  and  of i n t e r e s t ,  o u t s i d e of p r i s o n but with  reference  usual  audience  physically  present  students.  inmates'  The o t h e r  Interrole or  more and  by  of r o l e  conflict  or  more  is  conflict  i s "due t o  positions  intrarole two  students  having  c o n f l i c t "to groups  of  46  relevant  others  general,  an i n d i v i d u a l  according of  the  of  party results  tranquillizers  in  belief  four  with  The  (1)  perspective  541).  (2) e s t i m a t e estimate  of  569).  which  impels  role  instrumental  in belief  a n d (5) no o r  is  program,  the  r e s p o n s e modes i m p l y  system,  of response  the t h i r d  response  has the g r e a t e s t  among no r e a l  and  unsuccessful  types  one t h a t  development  acts  inmate-students. change  i n inmates  t h e u n i v e r s i t y program. in belief  transformation", i n a way t h a t  1978).  to  In  roles  (1968, p .  Although a l l f i v e  system)  a n d new p e r s p e c t i v e  (Mezirow,  540).  among  (3)  (3) c h a n g e s  releasers,  dynamics o f change  "perspective  and  in cognitive strain  a prison education  to explain  other  involved  energy  o r an a u d i e n c e  responses:  and  (1968, p . within  potential  action  partners,  (2) a t t e n t i o n deployment,  (change  and  (1968, p .  t o s e e k a r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e c o n d i t i o n by a n y o f  following adaptive  may o c c u r  old  by r o l e  third  conflict  individual  adaptation  The  a  role  rituals, (4)  a l l o c a t e s time  reward o r punishment  However,  t h e same r o l e "  t o (1) t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s norm commitment,  reactions  the  regarding  test  This or  a  system a r e congruent developing  a new  a c k n o w l e d g e s d i f f e r e n c e s between  one's  concerning  process  of  with  thought,  feeling  and  will  i n c l u d e s an a w a r e n e s s o f o n e ' s r o l e s , a n d practice  new  r o l e s which  incorporate  new  values. Boyanowsky perspective relationships, incorporation  (1977,  p.  transformation (2) a  116) —  distinctive  documents (1)  three  separation  transition  period,  i n t o a new g r o u p o r r e l a t i o n s h i p .  phases  of  from  old  and  (3)  A similar  three  47  phases are from  proposed  prescribed  of  again  These  of  one's  place  within  which  it  perspective  process  also  utilize  new  role  their  release.  implies  role  The to  in  an  better  criminals,  Concerning importance m o d e l s and They  roles.  and  role  their  learning  and  process  but  1983;  the  to  and  and  may  be  drawn  subsequent  to to  Also  worldviews.  p r o g r a m do  not  skills  The  view just  significant  social  to  transformation  the  Sarbin  and  complementary  role  in  of  that become  positive  referred  roles  learning  is essential student  focal  Allen  to  in  of  as  by  to  role  roles  for  teachers,  childhood  This  Thus,  gradually  gradual  model  of  achieved  learning.  inmates  a  the  audiences.  largely  enactment. point  stress  relevant  adulthood  convincing  the  inmate  perspective  supports  undergo  enhance  resolution.  s y s t e m s and  importance  practicing  is  (3)  1983a).  between  roles  of  prison  requiring  university  learning  full  and  possible  from  perspective  belief  enacting  and  of  of  learning,  persons  Practice  occupying  learn  role  coaches,  outside  cognitive  (1981;  differentiate  ascribed,  by  of  the  the  Fabiano  it,  becomes  ex-students  solidarity"  in  R o s s and  alienation  restructuring  in  concept  extent  inmate  inmate-students  in  or  development  how  process  "contractual  educated  (1)  transformation  role  the  suggests  conflict  development  of  opportunities  i s change of  and  Moreover,  transformation  notion  reframing  of  the  inmate-student.  —  society.  notions  understanding  105)  (2)  reality  in  ( 1 9 7 8 , p.  roles,  solidarity  participate  implied  Mezirow  social  one's c o n c e p t i o n contractual  by  of  role role  48  development.  Criteria  The outline role  preceding section the  among  a theoretical  particular  assumptions  dimensions  outlined  refers (1)  of a  of  indicators,  and  (7)  Figure  3  relation (square perform  framework  academic  area  Non-student  and  audience also  specify i t s along Dubin  the  (1978)  model  (6)  as (3)  empirical  —  do  (triangle) between  their  not  staff  frequent  Consequently,  the p r i n c i p a l instructors  normally the  role and  area  and  enact  in  roles  such  such  as  as  who  tutor  roles; as  location go  except  performers  round  within  on  — The  prison. Nor  do  business.  in interaction  inmate-students.  and  symbol  students.  there.  or  classmates.  inmate-students  status  distinct  and  inmate-students  symbol)  complementary  legitimize  inmates  environments,  other  (round  roles  enactments  Inmate-students  with  is a physically  are  Sztompka  interaction,  role  academic  occur  correctional  another  to  choices  of  inmate-students  roles  (triangle who  in  (5) p r o p o s i t i o n s ,  in association  interactions  role)  f o r a model of  hypotheses.  complementary  audience  to  theoretical  laws  t o t h e o u t s i d e community.  instructors  served  According  in a  (2)  states,  depicts  s t u d y p a r t n e r , and  theory  the g e n e r a l assumptions.  i n the p r i s o n  symbol)  role  o r c o n c e p t u a l m o d e l must a l s o  interaction, system  interactions  of  inmate-students.  in  (4)  one  concepts  to these concrete dimensions units  Development  i n terms of c o n c r e t e  boundaries,  Role  on  g e n e r a l assumptions  development  (1974),  f o r a Model of R o l e  with  49  P R I S O N E N V I R O N M E N T R O L E  I N T E R A C T I O N S  P R I S O N E N V I R O N M E N T  U N I V E R S I T Y  A D M I N I S T R A T I O N  U N I V E R S I T Y  S T U D E N T  B O D Y  THE OUTSIDE COMMUNITY  F i g u r e 3.  Role  Interactions Pertaining  To E d u c a t i o n In  Prison  50  The "whose  symbols interactions  (Dubin,  1978,  development with  in  any  constitute  p.  role  7).  enactment,  role  role  associated  of that  cognitive  strain  clearly defined  such program federal  prisons  boundaries,  the  values  salient  related  to  presumably  experience  role  involved  performer,  units  derive role  (2) t h e  roles.  cognitive  number  of  from  the  demands,  role  role  resolution  of  laws  of  s t r a i n , and t h e This  of r o l e  set  conflict  The  ways.  t h e model  model  conflict  beliefs  setting  the u n i v e r s i t y Columbia i n that  of that  system  prison  the r o l e  within  program  and  and  a  to hold  w h i c h any  in  are included  the  four  within  the  program.  t o any p r o m i n e n t which  i s expected  condition  fosters  is  feature  employees.  conflict  organization.  or  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and  inmates and c o r r e c t i o n a l  authoritarian  of  actors  student  which  system  among  attention"  roles.  British  refers  feature  from competing  the  by t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l  correctional  persisting most  states  of  role  changed  as a r e the s t u d e n t s  System of  within  in  model  and  a  in a  i s s e t . Thus,  the  sets  conflict,  commitment t o s t u d e n t boundaries  of  learning,  inmate-students' results  variables,  a n d (3) t h e a u d i e n c e ( s ) .  and  in  or  matter  expectations,  for role strain  units,  of  the  among  role  inmate  provide  that  The  units  (1)  role  skills,  proposes  are  of  with  interaction  greater  the subject  performer(s),  interrelationships  resolution  represent  The  laws of i n t e r a c t i o n  location,  3  are p r i n c i p a l l y the three  complementary The  Figure  and  The  tension  Inmate-students  c o n f l i c t s and t e n s i o n s  demands o f i n m a t e norms a n d s t u d e n t  that  role  come  demands.  51  The  propositions  transitions the  next  from  one  section  of  the  stage  of  to  this  model a r e another.  chapter.  s t a g e s were o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d  A  five-stage  academic fosters  environment, cognitive  and  The  academic  four  federal prisons  of  prison  in  Chapters The  by  an  social  in B r i t i s h  organization  how  program  Pre-university  but  who  lack  I n m a t e s may i n m a t e s , CSC  staff,  enrolment  upon  some l a t e r  time.  most  of  view  time  inmate  their  and to  maintenance,  or  The  necessary  i n the  "work,"  other  that on  area be  within  of  the  prisons,  inmate-students. model  exist  within  general  dynamics  systems  described  are  English  assessed language  courses  interest  are  in  the  skills.  u n i v e r s i t y p r o g r a m by T h e y may  hosts  a  academic  academic to  ecology  English  language the  enrol  4.  i n m a t e s who  u n i v e r s i t y personnel.  T h o s e who  in  in  expressing  a prison  five  prisons.  qualifying  r e c r u i t e d to  entering  expected  the  required  i n the  social  i n the  i s open t o  the  which the  in Chapter  the  these  inmates  or  means by  inmate s o c i a l  for  weekdays  spent  is  be  in  Columbia.  u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y to possess  given  described  Model  r e f e r r e d to  1 afid 2 p e r t a i n  periodically  These are  development  u n i v e r s i t y program  skills.  the  a l t e r n a t i v e community  environments  life,  the  model e x p l a i n s  s t a g e s and  The  i s reported  S t a g e s of  i t s five  the  area.  as  apply  program,  full-time  basis  Prison  traditional  in  the  prison  or  for at  spend  authorities  a work p l a c e m e n t . it  other  Every  kitchen, jobs,  in  on the  52  vocational Pay lowest life  shops,  scales paying  even  the  inmates. Reasons from  vary  inmate  for their  may  4  role  development of  F i g u r e 4.  each  university  Education  i s among  In c a s h - s h o r t  i s regarded  as  i n the program  interest  program.  and  prison  important remains  involvement  the  by  high. emerge  development.  diagrams  in  the  perform.  interest  continuing  environment  Descriptions  inmates  or  jobs.  smallest expenditure  t h e model of  academic  industries,  for different  "work"  Yet,  Figure  prison  and  the  essential  shows t h e  sequence, stage  of  interactions  stages  starting t h e model  of the model with  follow.  I n t e r a c t i o n s In The Academic E c o l o g y Stages Of Role Development  And  within of  the role  Recruitment.  53  Recruitment  Stage  Initially, from  the  inmate-students  inmate code.  a r e e v e n more l i k e l y through  the  Education  Diploma  role  various  this  think  possible  those  different  the  stage,  the  If  they  student.  from  those  scope  derived  the  program  have  have they  been  General have  However,  arising  program  the  inmate  and  some these  later  because  the  occupy  punished  by  group  Even  students  the  instructors exploring enactment committed  out  of  curricula  of the  of  the  out  (inmate  enrolled of  the  to  be  in order  to maintain  at  options. some  i t .  Thus,  minimal  B e c a u s e of  they  a  the  they  not  reinforcement  from  roles  not  to  their  anticipate  for  being  exploring  the  offer. no  put  thought must  of  changing  initially  forward  by  experience without  assumptions  comply  while  student  necessarily and  or  university  f o o t h o l d i n the program  they  level  do  staff)  experience  demands  Thus,  program have  audience  with  role  to the  cues or  or  p r o g r a m may  likely  i s worth e x p l o r i n g f o r i t s  or  least,  are  i t in prison."  recruits  minimum  these  to  New  the v e r y  university  something  program  complementary At  the  "making  expectations,  roles. any  expectations  with  value.  student  with  in  university  strategic  who  getting  a  university  concerned  experienced  options  s u s p i c i o n about  before.  being  differences  instrumentally  yet  be  in  are  programs.  At  may  system  about  may  considerable  and  (G.E.D.) o r v o c a t i o n a l c o u r s e s ,  expectations  participation  Cynicism  expectations  t o p r e d o m i n a t e among i n m a t e s who  prison  expectations  role  role being  practices  of  54  the  instructional  the academic create  an  personnel  area,  and t h e p h y s i c a l  the enactment  awareness  of  student  e n c a p s u l a t i o n of roles  of i t s c o n t r a s t with p r i s o n  begins  to  experience in  general.  Disorientation  Inmates' increases better  understanding  as they  role  criteria  and  behaviour  If they  participation discussions, they  Cognitive  to  develop  educational  Social  encouragement  from  may  be  and d i s o r i e n t e d  deriving  from  roles.  student  continue and  to the prison  cognitive  skills  experiences Their role  skills  student  role  in  work,  improve and enactments.  as w e l l  comes  and  through  (course  anything  surprised  as  socially  the  form  of  important  to  roles.  by t h e c h a n g e s a n d Moreover,  expectations  and  contrast sharply with  The c o n t r a s t c r e a t e s u n c e r t a i n t y a b o u t  relationships  of  to adjust  expectations  cognitive  student  because  roles  become  and c l a s s m a t e s .  initially  disturbed  They  expectations  adjust  do n o t e x p e c t  their  roles.  social  be i n t r i n s i c a l l y  they  rewards a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  and  to  in their  instructors  expectations  o u t , or a r e r e q u i r e d t o leave  reinforcement  However, b e c a u s e may  projects).  skillful  development  they  emerging  also  rewarding.  happen,  the  continue  more  student  and  Inmates e i t h e r  they  analysis,  demands  accompanying  them a n d d r o p  in  become  and  classmates.  reject  the program.  role  t o enact  roles  enactments or  of  continue  able to locate  instructors their  Stage  population  they a r e  behaviours i n m a t e norms  their  i n g e n e r a l which  primary in  turn  55  results the  in cognitive s t r a i n .  wisdom  or  program. though to  "Tightness"  T h e y may  role  demands and  " l o c a t e " , they  and  question  expected  of  may  develop  their  conflict  instructors  what  are  is really  those  i n complementary  roles  (eg.  to  involved  strain  easier  student  incompatible  occurs  when  classmates,  general For  responsibility  for  to  Social  instructors)  strain  Role  becomes  i n m a t e and  role are  the  student  subjected  serious  strain  may  be  Interrole  possibility r o l e s which  Intrarole  of  appear  conflict  contradictory  relevant others  (instructors,  and  acceptance  to  feel  the  instructors work  a  conflict.  expectations.  example,  practice  poses  Cognitive  inmate p o p u l a t i o n ,  their  inmate-students  roles  confront  s e v e r a l groups of  roles.  continue  also continues.  cognitive  intrarole  inmates  inmates of  code.  and/or  occupying  t o have  program  r e s o l v e d when  inmate  when  expectations  until  be  their  interrole  the  require resolution.  must  to the  in  fellow students)  deepen  enough t o  to  and  involved  practice.  occurs  initiative,  program,  with  simultaneously  student  about  the  cognitive skills  continuing  by  unsure  question  university  and  Cognitive  caused  motives behind  the  role  is likely  contradiction  the  from  in  stay  r o l e s (eg.  that  continuing  who  and  uncomfortable  of  them t o  Stage  by  conflict  leads  them.  reinforcement audience  strain  expectations  feel  Separation-Alienation  Inmates  The  staff) may  concerning  expect  them t o  development, and  tolerance  their take  to  show  of  other  56  students  and  their  support  the  inmate code expect  be  views.  However,  suspicious, exploitative,  non-student  them t o w i t h h o l d  and  to take  no  inmates  who  cooperation,  responsibility  to for  their actions. To  recapitulate,  condition any  of  deeper goals  kinds  of  i s a change  in  Individuals conflict  of  roles,  themselves  as  the  and  lead  to  adaptive  chances  achievement  roles  f u n d a m e n t a l and  on  of of  a  and  o n l y do  commitment  student-inmate belief  an  system  a the  those to get  t h e most  I n d i v i d u a l s begin  effects  of  social  attribute  not in  skills.  new  i n student  value  continue they  to  their role  degree  can  conceive social  enactments  r e c o n c e p t u a l i z e what  t o outcomes a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  roles. an  an  setting  However, w h i l e  student  They  anticipate academic  lasting  change),  individuals  the  positive  role  i n c r e a s e i n the  in changing  participation They need  them.  whose  engaged  c o g n i t i v e and  student  those  legitimately  on  their  role  (ie.  intensifies.  through  p o s s i b l e and  Not  their  identity  is  may  system,  perspectives  transition  the program  their  conflict  For  student  uncomfortable  Stage  congruence.  student of  role  belief  a l e s s e n i n g of c o n f l i c t  self-role  out  a  whose  undergo  experience  their  to  t o an  the program are g r e a t e s t .  T r a n s i t ion-Reframing  of  due  response  outcomes.  in their  involvement of  adaptive  of c o g n i t i v e s t r a i n five  response  an  indefinite in order  b e n e f i t s or changes  in prison,  and  as  continuation  the  have  of  to b e l i e v e that occurred  o p p o r t u n i t y t o do  for so  57  continues, involved  they with  complementary At  are other  and  this  validated  stage,  through  students  and  by  providing  cues  individual's  students  and  instructors  stay  enacting  feel  others  their  in  i n the academic general role  enactment  been roles  Additionally,  other  act  as  important  reinforcement  expectations and  have  complementary  area  social  roles  which  c o n t r i b u t e to  and  by  guide  the  i t s maintenance  time.  Solidarity  Stage  Inmate-students supporters the  as  classmates).  their  role  by  and  giving from  and  inmate-students  instructors  audiences  persist  roles.  acceptance  instructors  to  students  audience  (their  over  likely  of  at t h i s  the e d u c a t i o n  f a c e of d e s t a b i l i z i n g  riot,  the  students  university  program  attachment  and  their  academic  their  student  who  events  its  led  the  program,  severe  such  as  library  to  a  the and  stable  the  display  prison  advocates a  concrete  for  and and  prison  the  compelling symbols  identification  i t s personnel, to  Thus i n  Matsqui  exhibited  strong  inmate o p p o s i t i o n  become  i t s processes.  guardians  Their  roles  the  development  v a l u a t i o n toward  community.  with  of  program and  a c t e d as  and  positive  solidarity face of  stage  test  of  of  with their  i t s property  in  authority  and  organization. Individuals  who  resolve  t h e p r o g r a m become m o d e l s "Seniors"  have  a  for  stabilizing  cognitive strain new  recruits  effect  on  the  to  and  continue  the  behaviour  in  program. of  newer  58  students.  Their  administrators facilitators a  "robust"  new  of o t h e r  to  stages  are  socialized  of  the prison  chapter  on  the  and academic to higher of  linearity. prior  Separation,  particular  stages  and  may  be  characteristics  point  raises  (from  initial The m o d e l remain (eg.  i f no  transfer  individuals  have  likely when  than  personal  (role  role The  Solidarity. or  to  to  as  the  they stages  program,  expected first,  to then  p r o c e s s of  d e p e n d i n g on t h e  and academic individual.  inmates might i s very  ecologies, This  "jump"  last stages  sudden.  once  significant disruptions prison,  inmates  among  be  its  ecologies  impels  states  development,  another  and  development  gradual  inmates  i s thought  the d i s t i n c t  However, t h i s  of the p r i s o n  role  conflict)  would  Disorientation  the  program  tension  of  (Transition,  relationship  experience,  of  that  stages  recruited  sudden  composed  assumed  SFU  i f the t r a n s i t i o n  assumes t h a t stable  of  p o s s i b i l i t y that  to later)  and  model  higher  This  newly  development  the  program  become t u t o r s  roles  a  model  i n the  student.  Inmates  Transition  the c o g n i t i v e  person  The  program.  university  development  will  presented  Moreover, a t e n s i o n  role  and  and a r e l e s s  student  the " p o s i t i v e "  e x p e r i e n c e R e c r u i t m e n t and  and  These  f o r i n m a t e s a s t h e y move between  transition  role  instructors  occur.  through p a r t i c i p a t i o n  exist  without  their  development.  into  ecology.  implies  this  of r o l e  to  take  discontinue  reiterate,  five  into  t o the program  i n the p r i s o n  Solidarity)  with  inmates' l e a r n i n g .  relationship  disruptions  social  relationships  becomes more c o l l e g i a l a s t h e y  recruits  To  own  being  it occur  occurs, to the  placed  in  59  solitary) closed). stage  or  in  the  academic  ecology  Inmates would not be e x p e c t e d  to  one  lower.  (eg.  program  t o "jump" from a  lifespan,  program.  Student  presumed  to  and  role  provide  higher  However, as G a r a b e d i a n ' s (1963) r e s e a r c h  d e m o n s t r a t e d , inmate s o c i a l r o l e s a r e r e s p o n s i v e sentence  being  so may  stages  in  be i n d i v i d u a l inmates i n the  SFU  development, inmates  unlike  to  inmate  w i t h c o g n i t i v e and  roles,  social  is  skills  (and r e i n f o r c e m e n t ) t h a t p r o v i d e an a l t e r n a t i v e t o p r i s o n norms. Chapter  4 o u t l i n e s the r a t i o n a l e f o r  operationalize reliability questions  and  the  model,  validity,  provides and  and  steps  various  proposes  taken  to  estimates  of  several  d e r i v i n g from the model of r o l e development.  5 d e s c r i b e s t h e methodology employed i n the  study.  research Chapter  60  CHAPTER 4  INSTRUMENT  Chapter the  model  3 described could  operationalized, integral  the  use of expert  these  results  included the  part  from  judges.  the  chapter  to  questionnaires.  "tested"  by  themselves and f e e l  of  reticence  i s one t h a t  selected  results  inmates. proper,  Although they  were  additional information  about  present  Inmates  in  research,  especially  that  which  express  resentment  at  being  when  they  the r e s u l t s  perceive of such  may  questionnaire  (though  unintentional  of  method  negate  within  research  obtaining  reduces  or  component  instrument  involved  researchers.  about  methods o f  deliberate  crucial  study  process  are  no  often  benefit  to  could  be  research  them by p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s .  Inmate  method  that  chapter.  of p r i s o n environments  They  researchers  in this  stages.  characteristics  involves  used a g a i n s t  the  to provide  participate  h a d t o be  are with  Before  i t first  development  instrument  from  for  developed.  i s reported  reported  of the model's  difficulties  nonreactive  Also  was  inmates,  of the instrument  unique  reluctant  with  process  were o b t a i n e d  plausibility  special  tested  testing  in this  The  how t h e m o d e l  and t h a t  An  obtained  be  DEVELOPMENT  a  is  n e c e s s i t a t e d u s i n g more  information.  A  nonreactive  i t cannot  eliminate)  response  bias  the  instrument.  less-reactive  method  participant observation).  the r i s k  by i n m a t e s . A (eg.  A  reactive using  a  61  From p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e known  that  so t h i s  inmates  approach  selected  was  and  more  not  used.  likely  questionnaires.  1983)  paper-pencil survey-type A  card  a s an a p p r o p r i a t e i n s t r u m e n t  inmates, written  resist  (Boshier & Clarke,  to  A card  sort  to obtain  secure t h e i r sort  it  was  instruments, (Q-sort)  was  i n f o r m a t i o n from  participation  requires  no  writing  than  and  is  gamelike. Q  methodology  philosophical,  statistical  research  on  technique  involves  objects  individuals  such  phrases  as  the  is  of  achieved  Unstructured refer  Q-sorts  t o one  differentiated respondent  presumes.  in  representing  this  of  the  built  model.  into  these  the  items  of  verbal or  structured  o t h e r way  i n one  Q-sort.  i n the Q-sort  1973). groups or  Q of  written  based  on  some  which  this  rank  or  unstructured.  from  one  and  items  o r more ways. i s a domain o f into  the p r o p o s i t i o n s  Subsequently, the  which  another  Q - s o r t s use  tested  with  items of presumed e q u i v a l e n c e  d o m a i n were p a r t i t i o n e d effect,  or  Q - s o r t s by  such as a t t i t u d e ,  inmate-students  In  Kerlinger,  piles  may  of  concerned  statements  The  be  psychological,  items  1973).  Structured  more d o m a i n s p a r t i t i o n e d development  ordering  consist  any  1953;  categories  domain,  in  procedures  (Stephenson,  rank  (Kerlinger,  ordering  i d e a s and  words, p i c t u r e s ,  i n t o a number  criterion  that  i s t h e name g i v e n t o a s e t o f  except from  not  as  the  one  or  For example, interest. the of  inmates'  internal  are  five  role Items  stages  the model responses  were to  coherence  of  each  sorters  to  put  stage. Q-sorts are  either  "forced",  requiring  62  varying or  numbers of items i n t o d i f f e r e n t p i l e s based on a  quasi-normal d i s t r i b u t i o n ,  distribute  cards  1953; K e r l i n g e r ,  into  or  "unforced",  p i l e s without r e s t r i c t i o n s  1973).  Q-sort  constructed  r o l e development was statements  (Stephenson,  for s t a t i s t i c a l  t o t e s t the model of  necessarily structured.  regular  convenience. inmate-student  Sets  of  written  ( i t e m s ) i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e d i s t i n c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  s t a g e s of r o l e development. to  sorters  S o r t i n g s t r a t e g i e s which f o r c e  d i s t r i b u t i o n s a r e sometimes adopted A  whereby  normal  The  sorting exercise  was  unforced  reduce t h e r i s k of d e l i b e r a t e r e a c t i o n t o the c o n s t r a i n t s of  a required d i s t r i b u t i o n sort"  (Kerlinger,  role  with  items.  This  "one-way  structured  1973) was a n a l o g o u s t o a one-way a n a l y s i s of  v a r i a n c e , because classified  of  the  items  reference  in  the  sort  were  created  and  t o one domain -- b r o a d l y , s t a g e s of  development.  Item C o n s t r u c t i o n and Written  statements  incorporated  theoretical  D e s c r i p t i o n s of inmates  during  the  enrolled  prisons in  (items)  participation  course in  B o s h i e r , 1983).  making  up  the  propositions derived  from  of  card the  sort model.  conversations  with  i n t h e SFU u n i v e r s i t y program i n f o u r f e d e r a l  British  the  stages  Selection  Columbia. of  another  prison  The  conversations  study  education  took  place  on inmates' m o t i v e s f o r  (Boshier  &  Clarke,  1983;  Numerous s t a t e m e n t s made by inmates d u r i n g t h a t  s t u d y r e f e r r e d t o t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s of p e r s o n a l change i n s o c i a l identity  which  they  attributed  to  their  i n v o l v e m e n t i n the  63  university The in  program.  p r o p o s i t i o n s of  the  university  statements inmates The  i n any  the  When no was  of  immediately  sample  items I  I'm  particular  relationship asked  p o i n t out  much o u t  of  for a  Some  experience  role  development.  (items) stage  stage,  items  involved  at a  the  were or  of  time.  procedure discarded  obscure.  Four  of  item  ability  expected.  the  five  model's  on  with  labels  the  of  evaluated  four  items  to sort that  the  ideas  stages.  stuck  expert  items be  stages  the  face v a l i d i t y ,  to the  should  and  resulted  one  the p r i s o n u n i v e r s i t y  for c l a r i t y ,  first  His  learn.  process  administrator)  any  I  to  program.  construction  printed  familiar  of  this  w i t h p r i s o n games.  to the model's  experience.  "lived"  were r e d u n d a n t  i s more work t h a n  order)  the  adherence  stage.  inmates  basis for constructing  statements  emerged  because they  expect  were  and  became  next  representing  person  teacher  to  the  f e d up  statements  was  statements  initial  statements  generating  c o n f i d e n t o f my  There  The  s u b j e c t i v e or  by  follow.  don't  I'm  the  I t e m s were c o n s t r u c t e d one  additional with  formed  r e p o r t s made  h y p o t h e t i c a l stages  of  author.  almost  He  the  process  repeated  second  program  d e s c r i b i n g the  initial  only  t h e model and  into  60  statements and  He  intended him.  r e s p e c t i v e stages  u n c l e a r or items  should  contrary  a  ( i n no  content. The  A  (as  were e x p l a i n e d t o  their  for additional  These  program  d e l e t e d or m o d i f i e d be  60  to a card.  "judges."  stages  in  to  and  their his  for several stages,  64  notably S o l i d a r i t y  (Stage 5 ) , r e s u l t e d i n f u r t h e r changes.  items were r e w r i t t e n , o t h e r s dropped, constructed.  Seventy  labels  f i l e card.  new  ones  s t a t e m e n t s emerged from t h i s s t a g e o f t h e  item refinement process. mail  and a number of  Some  The 70 items were computer p r i n t e d  on  and then each one was s t u c k t o a b l a n k 3 by 5 i n c h M u l t i p l e decks of f i l e c a r d s were assembled  in  this  fashion.  Item J u d g i n g In  a d d i t i o n to the f i r s t  Process  j u d g e , t h r e e more i n d i v i d u a l s were  asked t o s e r v e as e x p e r t j u d g e s ; a l l f o u r were f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e s p e c i f i c p r i s o n u n i v e r s i t y program. for  extended  periods  judges were s t i l l  Each of t h e f o u r had t a u g h t  i n t h e p r i s o n u n i v e r s i t y program.  Two  engaged i n t e a c h i n g i n t h e program, two o t h e r s  were i n v o l v e d a s u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Separate appointments interviewed  in offices  were made w i t h each judge. a t Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y .  two judges were i n t e r v i e w e d on prison  and  Island,  where t h e s t u d y was s u b s e q u e n t l y c o n d u c t e d ,  a r e s i d e n c e near The  Vancouver  account  of  a  figure  explained  (Chapter 3 ) .  at the  the other i n  A  brief  t h e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t was g i v e n . explained.  (see F i g u r e 4 i n Chapter  f i v e s e q u e n t i a l stages of briefly  one  Victoria.  model and t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e 70 items were at  were  The o t h e r  same p r o c e d u r e was f o l l o w e d w i t h each j u d g e .  general  looked  Two  role  development.  The  Judges  3) d i s p l a y i n g t h e Each  stage  was  i n terms drawn from t h e c o n c e p t u a l framework  Judges were i n v i t e d t o a s k q u e s t i o n s i n o r d e r  to  65  clarify its  their  understanding  handed a deck of f i l e c a r d s  containing  the  s t a t e m e n t s w i t h the c a r d s sequenced i n no p a r t i c u l a r o r d e r .  F i v e e n v e l o p e s were p l a c e d b e f o r e them. of  and  propositions. Each judge was  70  of the model, i t s a s s u m p t i o n s  the  stage  names  printed  on  Each e n v e l o p e  i t .  Judges  had  looked  a t the  s t a t e m e n t s on c a r d s and a s s i g n e d each one t o the s t a g e they was most c l e a r l y s u g g e s t e d by statements  each  statement.  about which they were unsure  any  i n t o a p i l e t o one  side  a f t e r t h e y had been t h r o u g h t h e complete  They  sorted  the  remaining  cards  deck  of  cards.  i n t o stages i f they c o u l d .  Judges then l o o k e d over t h e i r i n i t i a l items  felt  put  until  They  one  t h e y wished t o o t h e r s t a g e s .  placements  and  moved  any  Each judge a s s i g n e d a l l the  c a r d s t o one s t a g e or a n o t h e r . Judges were asked item-statements.  A  for  their  few  observations  comments  regarding  indicated  the  that  certain  s t a t e m e n t s might be t r u e of more than one s t a g e because  inmates  had been h e a r d t o make s i m i l a r comments, but ( i n the view of the judges)  for  quite  different  reasons.  However, none of t h e s e  o b s e r v a t i o n s p r e v e n t e d them from a s s i g n i n g each of the 70  items  to a stage. The  piles  of  cards  for  each  stage  were i n s e r t e d  e n v e l o p e s marked w i t h the c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t a g e five  smaller  which was  envelopes  were  inserted  headings.  into a larger  into These  envelope  then s e a l e d and l a b e l l e d w i t h the judge's name.  Judges'  placements  of 70 i t e m s  into  stages  i n t o computer f i l e s f o r s t o r a g e and s t a t i s t i c a l  were  analysis.  entered Table  66  1  summarizes  the  agreement  s t a g e s of the model. showed eight  unanimous o f 70  judges  respect  agreement  items  stage placements  With  of  to  in placing 18  in placing  (83 p e r c e n t ) e l i c i t e d  items,  them  items  into  the  judges  in stages.  Fifty-  agreement  about  their  from t h r e e o r more j u d g e s .  Table 1 INTER-JUDGE AGREEMENT ON 70 ITEMS  Judges Agreement  No. of Items  5/5  18  26  26  4/5  17  24  50  3/5  23  33  83  2/5  12  17  100  Kendall's  coefficient  of c o n c o r d a n c e  inter-judge  placements  and  (p<.000l).  There  thus  assigning model. role  Cumulative %  Percent  each  was  o f t h e 70  Appendix development.  yielded a  a  (W)  was  coefficient  high consensus  items to i t s r e s p e c t i v e  A lists  t h e 70  calculated  items under  the  of  on  W=.81  among j u d g e s i n stage five  of  the  s t a g e s of  67  Inmate a n d S t a g e  The of  face  item  comment Apart  If  changes  the f i v e  stage  program.  to  represent  of  in  favour  toward  particular strongly  the  they  of  This  inter-judge agreement  provides  two  different  assessing  congruence vertical  phrasing)  in  indicates item  choose  toward  that  items  from  the u n i v e r s i t y  placements  within  s h o u l d be f r e e  of b i a s  describe  validate  consensus about  the  revealed  displays  the  stages of r o l e  I feel"  judges d i s p l a y e d  about  of  70  represents  This  figure for  development.  items  (in  development. in  5.  inmate  inmate-students)  the stages of r o l e  any  in Figure  extent  program.  (judges;  current  s t a g e s more  o f t h e 70 i t e m s  university  bases  certain  and the  which  their  be  Consequently,  judges'  a s t a g e and i n inmates' c h o i c e s  o f "how  initial  are plausible,  program.  p e r c e n t a g e agreements  into  indicator  example,  five  best  i s the pattern  within  axis  the  appeared necessary.  on i t e m  that  i n m a t e s may  toward  The  feel  development  items  feel  an  they  university  than o t h e r s .  participants'  i n the statements. after  changes  stage  s t a g e , i n m a t e - s t u d e n t s ' r e s p o n s e s may  of  sample  5 plots  made  development  how  role  biased  each  items  each  j u d g e was a s k e d t o  f o r inmate-students, they w i l l  any p a r t i c u l a r  axis  some  stages of r o l e  stages  feelings  Each  and e x p r e s s i o n s u s e d  to  towards  how  judging.  Whereas j u d g e s ' agreements  five  Figure  i t e m was a s s e s s e d a t  o f one j u d g e , no f u r t h e r  meaningful  the  and  on t h e l a n g u a g e from  each  of each  construction  involvement  is,  validity  Meanings  the u n i v e r s i t y  100 p e r c e n t c o n s e n s u s  The  abbreviated horizontal  placements of each  of  item as  program.  For  in placing  item  Percentage Agreement 0  RECRUITMENT  STAGE  1. C a n ' t be a n y u o r < « than o t h e r programs 2. D o n ' t p l a n to work too h a r d in program 3. Maybe can -fraud it awhile 4. Not I n t e r e s t e d in any subject 5. D o n ' t c a r e what is taught 6. D o n ' t e x p e c t much o u t o f program 7. C u r i o u s what program i s like 3 . P r o g r a m Is some s o r t o f s c a m 9. Program lIKe a l l the others 10. D o n ' t c a r e what 1 s t u d y 1 1 . N o w a y p r o g r a m c h a n g e me 12. Only take c o u r s e s I prefer 1 3 . O n l y one s u b j e c t interested In 14. Not get too i n v o l v e d in program IS. A l l Instructors t h e same 16. A l l c o u r s e s the same DISORIENTATION  30  40  50  60  70  * • • •  + *•  *  •  *  +•  •  *•  +  *  • •  +•  +  Inmates«15X  Judges>84Z  •  •  *•  •f  •  »  •  + •  *•  +•  +  *  +  •  * •  + +  *  •  * Inmates-281  Judges-58Z  STAGE  •  +  •  • • • » •  +•  STAGE  •  *  f  •  Judges (»)-62Z  i s h e l p i n g me c o n t r o l my life c h a n g e s In my l i f e as student 43. P r o g r a m h a s v a l u e f o r me 44. A c c e p t demands of b e i n g student 45. G e t t i n g something useful from program 46. D i f f e r e n t opportunities than before 47. Student status asset in p r i s o n 48. G e t t i n g something for s e l f In program 49. Student experience helps with problems 50. L e a d me t o d i f f e r e n t things 5 1 . S p e n d much t i m e on s t u d e n t Interests 52. More i n v o l v e d w i t h a l l aspects 53. L i k e m o r e c o u r s e s In subjects 34. E n j o y l e a r n i n g many s u b j e c t s  Inmates (+)-79% •  •  •*• • •  • •  *  +  *• +  •  4 -  • +  * • • •  B e s t to s t a y i n v o l v e d in program Being student Is c h a n g i n g things C o n f i d e n t o f my a b i l i t y to learn  Inmates"75Z  Judges-60X  STAGE  58. Feel involved with program 59. Can r e l y on s t u d e n t community 60. See program as means to e x p r e s s s e l f 61. Feel r e s p o n s i b l e to s u p p o r t program 62. B e s t t h i n g to happen in p r i s o n 63. Good w o r k i n g r e l a t i o n s w i t h instructors 64. E q u a l to any c h a l l e n g e in program 65. Have s o m e t h i n g to add to program 6 6 . Can get s u p p o r t f r o m o t h e r students 67. More t o l e r a n t toward others 6B. UouId defend program to inmates 69. Feel s u p p o r t e d by s t u d e n t community 70. O t h e r s t u d e n t s w a n t s a m e a s me  +  «  » » »  +• +• +•  • * * * 0  F i g u r e 5.  100  •  41. Program 42. Making  SOLIDARITY  90  +  31. Harder t o p u t up w i t h bullshit Lot of student v s . Inmate r o l e conflict 33. Feel cut off from r e s t of inmates 34. Feel pressure not to get Involved 35. L e s s to do w i t h i n m a t e s , b e t t e r f o r me 36. S t a r t i n g to handle b e i n g student 37. Like l e s s contact with general inmates 38. F o u n d one s u b j e c t to spend a l l my t i m e 3 ? . F e d up w i t h p r i s o n g a m e s 40. L e s s I n t e r e s t e d in n o n - s c h o o l activities  55. 56. 57.  80  +  32.  TRANSITION  20  (•) Judges' agreement - items to each stage (+) Inmates' agreement - Items to "how I feel now" Judges (»)=89% Inmates  STAGE  17. More work than I expected 13. Instructors expect a lot 1 9 . S u r p r i s e d how I n v o l v e d Instructors are 20. D o n ' t Know I f like program 21. Program d i f f e r e n t from I expected 2 2 . H a r d t o be a s t u d e n t 23. Not sure I s h o u l d c o n t i n u e 24. Feel too Isolated In a c a d e m i c area 25. O t h e r s t u d e n t s m o r e s e r i o u s t h a n me 26. Haven't f i g u r e d out program 27. D o n ' t know what t o make o f program 23. Other s t u d e n t s take program s e r i o u s l y 2 9 . D o n ' t know what t o do a s student 30. Being student Increase pressure SEPARATION  10  10  20  30  40  • +  +• 50  60  70  I n t e r - J u d g e And Inmate Agreements On Items  80  90  100  69  1 —  " c a n ' t be a n y  Recruitment indicated  worse  stage,  that  than  other  programs"  whereas o n l y about  i tdescribed  how t h e y  --  into  12 p e r c e n t o f 33  feel  toward  the  the  inmates  university  program. At ("J"  the  top  f o r judges;  represents These  their  in  each  representing actual was  33  "agreement" describe  this  Judges'  the feel  consensus  Solidarity  (J=58  Overall,  the  stages  of r o l e  element  in  experience prisons  the  value  number  per stage.  toward  of  to  obtain  calculated represent items  on i t e m s  Then t h e  Thus,  judges  development judging  of the judges.  was  70  SPSS:X  stage  (J=89  that  percent)  f o r items i n  percent)  and  and D i s o r i e n t a t i o n .  in assigning  concerns  to  70 i t e m s be  r a n g i n g f r o m maximum  to five  W=.83.  the diverse  A l l had e x p e r i e n c e w i t h  levels  to the  s t r o n g e s t v a l i d a t i o n of  calculated  process  stage  program.  (J=62  occurred with Recruitment consensus  a  using  each  f o r Recruitment  Transition  a value  inmate-students'  from  the university  of  a percentage  ( i n percentages)  were  number  percent),  with security  percentage  to obtain  (J=84 p e r c e n t ) were h i g h e r t h a n  judges'  the  of judges  Responses  (J=60 p e r c e n t ) .  stage d e s c r i p t i o n s  (J)  a l l items t o a stage.  agreement  The " I " p e r c e n t a g e s  Disorientation  Separation  maximum  inmate-students  how t h e y  percentages  a g r e e m e n t s on t h e i t e m s w i t h i n  stage.  about  judges  by m u l t i p l y i n g  s t a g e by t h e number  f o r each  by  The  in assigning  were c a l c u l a t e d  by  MULTRESPONSE.  and  agreement  of judges'  divided  items  s t a g e a r e two a d d i t i o n a l  t h e maximum p o s s i b l e  number  agreement  each  " I "f o r inmates).  percentages  items  of  One prison  students  in  t o low-medium.  70  Their  judgements  under  which t h e  were  influenced  program  by t h e d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s  operates  in  various  balanced  p e r s p e c t i v e on t h e p l a u s i b i l i t y  the  c o u l d n o t be e x p e c t e d  items  These  different  subjective obtaining between  -  the r e s u l t s  About  program.  percent) Thus,  f o r "how support  They  Transition "how  items.  inmate-students  of r o l e  Another Figure stage.  I  feel" most  These felt  feel"  the  the  program. - judges;  likelihood  lack  of  of  congruence  much  from  strongly  results  by  t o t h e 16  the u n i v e r s i t y  describing  28  their  i n c r e a s e d t o 15  percent  f o r the  higher percentages of and  Solidarity  the f i r s t  suscribed  suggest  the  toward  program  percent)  than  responses  items  and  i t s relationship  three  (1=75  stages.  t o T r a n s i t i o n and  that  this  sample  to the u n i v e r s i t y  Transition  and  of  program  Solidarity  development. way  of  r e p r e s e n t i n g inmate  Inmate-students When  = 2, " n e v e r  constitute  stage  (1=79  5 i s by c a l c u l a t i n g  categories.  for  assigned  terms best c h a r a c t e r i z e d  stages  I feel"  to the u n i v e r s i t y  inmate-students'  Solidarity  in  were  stage.  to  increased  expressed i n  (overview  of i n m a t e - s t u d e n t s '  f o r the D i s o r i e n t a t i o n  from  in  This  inmates.  Inmate-students'  Separation  inmates  reported i n Figure 5 —  percent  items  of s t a t e s  on t h e i t e m s  probably  relationship  percent  items  and  seven  Recruitment  present  perspectives  inmates)  judges  of  prisons.  sorted  coded felt  mean  a three point  depicted in  s c o r e s f o r a l l items  within  each  t h e 70 i t e m s t a t e m e n t s  into  four  "how  like  responses  this"  ordinal  I feel  now" = 3, "how  and "don't  know"  or rank-ordered  =  scale.  I used t o 1,  they  71  The ordinal  scale  is  transitivity  statements  like  property  than  c"  pertain  to  case,  feel", The  postulate  the  t o "how  being  "never  measured  self-perceived  program and p r i s o n .  development  the  ecology  interactive  and  I feel felt  feeling  of  decides  (number  26)  I feel  now"  item  His  i s "how  c h o i c e means  state.  this  would  not r e f e r  case,  the item  feelings  present.  his  current state,  he  i s experiencing.  or  — about  "how  meaning  "don't  do n o t c o r r e s p o n d of  assigned  students.  to  know." student's  university  cognitive  program  and  with  their States  F o r e x a m p l e , an  inmate  the  figured  out t h i s  university  to  program.  self-perceived  feel",  state.  the  item  However, i n t h i s  f o r the student.  experience  do p r o v i d e  items  I used  a  the  the  to the past  hand,  In  dynamics.  I used  to h i s lived  but they  experience  is  than  435).  and "don't  " I haven't  On t h e o t h e r  past)  "b" t o "how  social  roles.  Statements assigned  know"  1973, p .  toward  academic  to h i s present  i s not without  his  and  been  directly  are integral  property  item d e s c r i b e s h i s c u r r e n t  Had h i s r e s p o n s e  is,  as w e l l as the i n f l u e n c e of  determining their  That  b; b h a s more o f  o f 70 i t e m s  inmates,  develop  program" —  than  states reflect  change as s t u d e n t s an  1973).  this"  state  o f p r i s o n and mutually  now",  like  i n each  Feeling  affective social  (Kerlinger,  categories (Kerlinger,  and " c " t o b o t h  present  the c a t e g o r i e s s a t i s f y the  c ; t h e r e f o r e a h a s more o f t h e  "a" r e f e r s  property  because  "a h a s more o f a p r o p e r t y  the  this  ordinal  H i s past  and a r e a p a r t of may  not  reflect  an o r i e n t a t i o n  t o changes  t o "never  like  felt  at a l l to the l i v e d They  do  not  this"  (present  reflect  a  72  student's "how  current  I feel  response that  scale  I used  satisfies  c a l c u l a t i n g means  not  necessarily  Kerlinger  measures  research  and  purpose appear would  rationale  that  frequently  in faulty 2 displays  t h e sample  feel"  do.  that  interval  scales  On t h i s  issue  statistics  with  and  psychological  satisfactory results. s c o r e means t h e r e distortion  interpretations stage  responses. ordinal  using  of  or  For the does not  error  Stage  deviations  s c o r e means a s  Table 2 OVERALL ITEM SCORE MEANS BY ROLE DEVELOPMENT STAGES  Stage  that  of data.  s c o r e means a n d s t a n d a r d  o f 33 i n m a t e - s t u d e n t s .  the  of o r d i n a l i t y i n  intervals.  item and stage risk  labelled  Therefore,  equal  yields  items  f o r ranking  i t i s recognized  t o be a t o o - s e r i o u s  Table  to  t h e way  i s commonplace i n e d u c a t i o n a l  of c a l c u l a t i n g  result  state  the major c r i t e r i o n  provide  (1973) a r g u e s  ordinal  for  o r "how  i t permits a p l a u s i b l e In  do  now"  self-perceived  Mean  S.D.  No. of Items  Recruitment  1. 35  .21  16  Disorientation  1. 52  .28  14  Separation  1. 70  .36  10  Transition  2. 64  .38  17  Solidarity  2. 54  .38  13  well  73  as  standard  (X=1.35, The  stage score lower  An  mean than  overall  stage.  for  stage  the  program,  like  this"  o r "don't  displays, and in  f o r each  standard the card  responses  of  five  sort.  stages.  16  toward  category  stage  added  (6.8  percentage  of  choice.  enactment,  and t h e f o u r  The h o r i z o n t a l  that  axis  (coded  sample  the u n i v e r s i t y felt  vertical  stage  score  "High"  axis means  categories  each  used  stage.  i s 1.35, t h e l o w e s t  in picking  descriptors  way"  items  represents percentages of  program.  this  to  The  response  concurred  items as v a l i d  by a s u b s t a n t i a l  A  2 ) , "never  responses  t o items w i t h i n  s c o r e mean  inmates  percent).  "3."  the  I t s low mean c o u p l e d w i t h a s t a n d a r d  were a s s i g n e d t o " n e v e r know"  to feel"  in  the  (both coded 1 ) .  stage of r o l e  Recruitment  feelings  now" t o w a r d  o f t h e s e s t a g e s c o r e means i s o u t l i n e d i n  by 33 i n m a t e - s t u d e n t s  .21 i n d i c a t e s  the  know"  deviations,  Recruitment's the  I used  The h i s t o g r a m d i s p l a y s by  "feel  inmates  felt  stage  they  that  d e s i g n a t e most o f  when many  s t a n d f o r "how  a  by a v e r a g i n g t h e  be l o w e r  items  within  how  inmates  is  stage.  items a r e coded  most  6.  (X=2.54)  a l l such  say  Figure  stage  because  interpretation  stage  (X=2.64, S.D.=.38).  i s calculated  be h i g h when many  s c o r e mean w i l l  An  stage  Recruitment  t o t h e "n" items a s s i g n e d t o  i n a stage t o describe  university  the  Solidarity  s c o r e mean  responses  Scores w i l l  items  stage  from  i t s counterpart i n the T r a n s i t i o n  inmate-students'  the  increase  S.D.=.21) t o t h e T r a n s i t i o n  slightly  33  deviations  of a l l deviation  o n l y a few o f  of t h e i r  Instead,  most  present items  (65.3 p e r c e n t ) a n d " d o n ' t  i t e m s c o r e s may be due t o v a l u e s  number o f i t e m s c o d e d  "2" ("how  I used t o  Legend  SOLIDARITY X=2.54 S.D.=.38  Now Past Nv DK  'Now' - F e e l t h i s way now 'Past' - Used to f e e l t h i s way 'Nv' - Never f e l t t h i s way 'DK' - Don't know  75.1 % 4.2 % 7.0 % 13, 8 %  Now  TRANSITION X=2.64 S.D.=.38  SEPARATION X=1.70 S.D.=.36  Past Nv  DK  79.3 % 5.0 % 8.2 % 7.5 %  Now Past Nv DK  Now DISORIENTATION X=1.52 S.D.=.28  Past Nv  DK  Now RECRUITMENT  X=1.35 S.D.=.21  27.6 % 14.8 % 46.7 %  10.9 %  15.4 % 21.6 % 54.8 % 8.2 %  6.8 % 21.0 %  Past  65.3 %  Nv  DK  Figu:.re 6.  6.8 %  Inmate Responses By Stage And C a t e g o r y  75  feel"  - 21  percent) rather  ("how  I feel  now"  the  meaning  mind  that  this  sample  of  Figure  6  indicated  t h e y were items  by  pretty  much t h e same  inmates  be  one  sure  or  too  (item  Inmates  (item  Thus,  with  for  more  of  feeling  with low  Recruitment  this  sample  high  Recruitment  toward  they  most  feel  toward  with  high  c u r i o u s about  to take a  course  in  a l l instructors  one  third  of  the u n i v e r s i t y  the a  were  the  33  program i n  these  items.  A s m a l l e r number  of  scores  (7  12  33  that  (item  or  program c o u l d n ' t very  didn't  plan  s c o r e s were more l i k e l y  than  (item  they  1 1 ) , and  attribute  program based  to play  inmate-students.  of  14).  Recruitment deny  1),  percent  were  c h a n g e them i t (item  to  the u n i v e r s i t y  programs  appears  Figure  chosen  inmates  to  responses  stage.  were how  thought  Up  feelings  to the u n i v e r s i t y  of  Recruitment  feeling  o n l y wanted  15).  those with high scores to relationship  "3"  describing  inmates'  stages  general,  12), and  other prison  involved  p e r c e n t of  reported  they  the program wouldn't  to get  typify  to describe  In  scores  their  indicated  worse than  may  of the  with high Recruitment  inmates)  when  i n the Recruitment  f o r each  7), that  subject  of  "now"  program.  students defined terms  items coded  s c o r e s , r e a d e r s s h o u l d keep i n  seven  inmate-students  stage  (item  preferred  Therefore,  items  shows a l m o s t  that  Recruitment  a number o f  inmate-students.  university  program  percent).  a s m a l l number o f  frequently  from  of h i g h R e c r u i t m e n t  5 showed w h i c h  the  - 6.8  than  a minor  Those  on  the  these  role  items  scores represent c u r i o s i t y  to  as  16  past items.  r e p o r t e d by  associated  about  the  a  with  university  76  program  tempered  by  an  intention  changed  by  not  i t , and  an  uninformed  to  view  be " s u c k e d  of  i n " or  curriculum  and  instructors. The  Disorientation  indicates  that  describe  their  most  stage  inmate-students  present  Figure  well  t h e 54.8 p e r c e n t  moderately  than  5  shows  for  t h e 21.6 p e r c e n t about  surprise  45  students  (item  indicated  t h e r e was more work t h a n  19).  Those  28),  that  the  expected  (item 21), and  pressure  on them  As  low  Disorientation  stage  ever  indicating of  program  h a d them.  they  scores  preceding  was  the  a  to  and  feel."  participants were  with  scores  also  ( i t e m 17), t h a t  program  different  being  than  from  student  scorers,  either  to the past,  students'  they  what  they  increased  the  ecology  o r more  chose  two s t a g e s  of  a  few  stage  with  these  feelings they  Disorientation  items  twice  of " d i s o r i e n t a t i o n "  33 s t u d e n t s a p p e a r s  s c o r e mean  more o f t h e s e  to describe their  low  frequently, denied  was more t h a n  importance  of these  those  consigned  current feelings  the o v e r a l l  the s o c i a l  students  I used  o f t h e 33  expected  percent,  that",  high Recruitment  Recruitment  Separation-Alienation's that  like  f o r "how  Though t h e p e r c e n t a g e  Recruitment's,  defining  15.4  (item 30).  with  the  that  t o be  university  involved instructors  with  program  the  felt  s t u d e n t s were more s e r i o u s a b o u t  (item  about  a t how  few o f i t s 14 i t e m s t o  rate  percent  feeling  (X=1.52, S.D.=.28)  toward  "never  reported  other  chose  6 shows t h e r e s p o n s e  lower  Figure  mean  orientation  program. below  score  (X=1.70) items  present  that in  minor. indicates  than  feelings  from t h e toward  77  the  university  program.  An i n c r e a s e i n t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n  from .28 i n D i s o r i e n t a t i o n t o greater  degree  .36  in  stage  of  indicates  a  of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between t h e " h i g h " and "low"  s c o r e r s i n S e p a r a t i o n , and c o n s e q u e n t l y a  Separation  role  development  more d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s  compared  to  Recruitment  as and  Disorientation. F i g u r e 6 shows t h e response  r a t e f o r "how  I f e e l now" (27.6  p e r c e n t ) t o be h i g h e r than t h a t f o r "how I u s e d t o percent) (46.7  and  percent).  moderately  lower than f o r "never f e l t  "handle  being a student"  " f e d up w i t h p r i s o n games" with  the  harder  (item 36).  like that" scores  feeling  they  Moreover, they were  ( i t e m 3 9 ) , wanted even  less  contact  g e n e r a l inmate p o p u l a t i o n ( i t e m s 35, 37) and found i t  t o "put up w i t h p r i s o n b u l l s h i t "  proportion  (14.8  I n g e n e r a l , inmates w i t h h i g h S e p a r a t i o n  chose items t o i n d i c a t e they were a t t h e p o i n t of could  feel"  of  inmates  with  (item  31).  A  smaller  high S e p a r a t i o n stage scores a l s o  f e l t t h e y had found a s u b j e c t i n t h e c u r r i c u l u m t h e y would to  devote  a l l t h e i r time t o ( i t e m 3 8 ) , were l e s s i n t e r e s t e d i n  a c t i v i t i e s o u t s i d e of s c h o o l ( i t e m 4 0 ) , and f e l t c o n f l i c t between t h e i r For denied some  the  most  part,  i t s component  number of s t a t e m e n t s in  inmate and s t u d e n t inmates  with  f e e l i n g " s e p a r a t i o n - a l i e n a t i o n " or of  like  the past.  items.  a  substantial  r o l e s (item 32). low S e p a r a t i o n "didn't  scores  know"  about  A few i n d i c a t e d f e e l i n g t h a t a  c o n s t i t u t i n g t h i s s t a g e were t r u e f o r  Moreover, i t i s probable  s t u d e n t s w i t h low t o a v e r a g e  Separation  t h a t a number of scores  did  them  inmate-  feel,  in  common w i t h h i g h s c o r e r s , t h a t they were a t t h e p o i n t where they  78  could  "handle  percent than on  of  high  student  with  Separation  stage -  scorers  "true"  for  highest  Transition majority their  stage  (79.3  items  as  7.5  past felt  be  of  scores  Some  occurs  17  items  to  games"  in  rates characterized  feelings  (5 p e r c e n t )  or  the  chose  a  represent  the u n i v e r s i t y  - 8.2  low  distinct  inmate-students  toward  this"  themselves  s c o r e means.  response  like  handle"  moderately  stage  these  70  inmate-students).  a  stage Many  state  much l o w e r  ("never  five  a  by  likely  with prison  of  with high  response)  feeling  describing  statements  to  (X=2.64).  percent  current  Correspondly,  the  less  activities.  " f e d up  percent  appears  of  were  for distancing  prison  were a l s o  f o r inmate-students  The  need  and  49  they  "true"  to a s s o c i a t e " g e t t i n g  felt  inmates  Separation-Alienation "reality"  a  - p i c k e d as  However,  Separation  non-student  39  ( i t e m 36  inmate-students).  a  other  (item  a student"  s c o r e r s on  being  from  being  program. Transition  non-pertaining  percent;  "don't  know" -  percent). The  standard  mean o f  2.64  scores  chose  feelings scorers  deviation  indicates  that  virtually  toward  the  control  had  value  they  felt  learning accepting  over (item  and  c o n f i d e n t of about  coupled with a  a l l Transition  the  and their  many d i f f e r e n t  o f demands made on  was  items  program.  university  make c h a n g e s  43),  .38  inmate-students  university  reported feeling  get  of  ability  subjects them a s  In  lives  (item  students  high  stage their  general,  In  42),  addition,  ( i t e m 51), 54),  high  h e l p i n g them  ( i t e m s 41,  (item 45).  to learn  score  to d e s c r i b e  p r o g r a m was  in their useful  with  stage  enjoyed  felt  (item 44),  and  more saw  79  their  student  s t a t u s as an  Inmates number o f not  with  these  items  describing  scores  respondents than  high  was  helping  lives that  feelings inmates  orientation. low  scoring  41,  they  had  different  addition,  low  scoring  than  scoring  high  as p o s s i b l e involved  on  respondents program of  other  viewed  The  stage  marginally  (75.1 felt  response used  to  "don't  the  stage score  s m a l l e r than  the p a t t e r n of  they  aspects  toward to  feel" know" -  the  in  their or  (item 46).  In  were l e s s  with  likely  a s much  t o want  program.  relationship  time  t o become  However, most  the  university stance  items. for  Solidarity  for Transition, is similar.  response)  the  of  or  that  43),  spending  ( i t e m 51),  a  program  forward-looking, positive-valuing  responses  percent  like  of  the  (item  before  Transition  to f e e l  interests  their  i n terms of  the T r a n s i t i o n  most  respondents  on  stage  likely  that  f o r them  as  less  make c h a n g e s  o p p o r t u n i t i e s than  respondents  student  with  value  high  suggests  s c o r e s were  and  others  The  5  to report f e e l i n g  i t had  designated a  elements  Figure  over  47).  and  time.  common  stage  control  that  scores  any  However,  average  get  42),  at  (item  feelings,  shared  respondents  them  (items  and  prison  stage  to d e s c r i b e past  most  with  i n the  Transition  their  suggest  "transition"  low  asset  of  these  items  - 4.2  percent;  13.8  percent.  A standard deviation  by  of  but  still  S.D.=.38)  was  quite high  and  Many r e s p o n d e n t s  these  university  (X=2.54,  13  items  program.  to d e s c r i b e  Again,  o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s were low "never  .38  felt  like  indicates  this"  that  selected how  rates --  of  "how  I  - 7 percent;  respondents  with  80  high scores describe  s e l e c t e d v i r t u a l l y a l l of t h e  Solidarity  states.  In  completely  a p p r o a c h e d 3.00,  possible  i t e m s were chosen t o r e p r e s e n t  general,  involved  these with  respondents  the  program  means t o e x p r e s s t h e m s e l v e s ( i t e m 6 0 ) , support  items  t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e u n i v e r s i t y program.  because h i g h s t a g e s c o r e s most  Solidarity  to  This i s  only  current  when  feeling  reported  feeling  ( i t e m 5 8 ) , saw i t as a  felt a responsibility  to  i t ( i t e m 6 1 ) , t h a t i t was t h e b e s t t h i n g t o happen f o r  them i n p r i s o n  ( i t e m 6 2 ) , and b e l i e v e d they c o u l d add  to  64).  i t (item  t o l e r a n t of challenge to other  other  In  addition,  peoples'  they  views  (item  reported  f e e l i n g more  67), equal  posed by t h e program ( i t e m 6 4 ) , and a b l e inmates ( i t e m 6 8 ) .  relationships  with  something  t o any  t o defend i t  They f e l t good about t h e i r  instructors  working  ( i t e m 63) and about s u p p o r t from  the s t u d e n t community ( i t e m 6 9 ) . On t h e o t h e r hand, inmates w i t h low S o l i d a r i t y s t a g e were l e s s l i k e l y that other that  than h i g h s c o r i n g r e s p o n d e n t s t o r e p o r t  s t u d e n t s wanted t h e same t h i n g s t h e y d i d  scores feeling  (item  70),  they c o u l d r e l y on t h e s t u d e n t community ( i t e m 59) o r t h a t  the s t u d e n t community s u p p o r t e d them respondents  with  low  Solidarity  (item stage  69).  In  general,  s c o r e s d i d not r e p o r t  complete i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h t h e program ( i t e m 5 8 ) , d i d not see i t as  a means t o e x p r e s s t h e m s e l v e s ( i t e m 6 0 ) , nor f e e l i t was t h e  b e s t t h i n g t o happen t o them i n p r i s o n overall  majority  of  respondents  r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e program Table  3  summarizes  in  differences  (item 62). viewed  strong between  However, their  "solidarity" high  the  current terms.  and low s c o r e s  81  within  each  stage  of r o l e  development.  A noticeable feature i n Table in  stage  meanings scores  m e a n i n g s between D i s o r i e n t a t i o n i n Recruitment  expressed  Separation, high  process  of  items  (Chapter  program. is  stages  of  3 provides a f u l l  Item  a s s o c i a t e d with  high  states.,  anchored  or  to  "positive"  the item c o n s t r u c t i o n  i n the the c h a r a c t e r  development discussion  with  commitment  "negative" to  In c o n t r a s t ,  associated  aspirations,  The  crossover  and S e p a r a t i o n .  meanings  attributable  role  polarity  proposed  of  i n the model.  of the model's  stages  of  development.) To  recapitulate  distribution most  students feelings  and  Solidarity  students  strongly  that  this  various  the  three  stage  development  initial  items  within the i n i t i a l  stages  held  feelings  items  had meaning  toward  the  stages  acknowledged  three  characterized  weaker s u p p o r t  Different  distinct  respondents  that  —  among  Recruitment,  However, t h e r e was no r e a s o n t o  of inmates.  phenomenologically  showed  at the Transition  s t a g e s would e q u a l l y r e f l e c t  o r a n y sample  Moreover,  role  and S e p a r a t i o n .  a l l five  each  Figure 6 indicated  stages.  for  within  i n Figure 6 , the  suscribed to current states  associated with  Disorientation, expect  the i n f o r m a t i o n contained  of item responses  by  for  emerging  w h i c h was d e l i b e r a t e l y  different  role  the  reactive  and S o l i d a r i t y  suggested  and t o  polarity  and D i s o r i e n t a t i o n  oppositional,  Transition  scores  learning  3 i s the  stages  in  university  f o r respondents  item  of r o l e the  current sets  defined  development.  saliency  describing program.  states  o f some  previously  As s u c h  these  and, though not r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  82  Table  3  SUMMARY AND CONTRASTS OF STAGE SCORE MEANINGS  Stage RECRUITMENT  High  Scores  Low  Scores  -  c u r i o u s about program i n t e r e s t e d i n 1 subject only i n s t r u c t o r s a l l the same program couldn't be worse than others - won't be changed by program - won't get too i n v o l v e d  -  - s u r p r i s e d at l e v e l of i n s t r u c tor involvement - more work than expected - other students b e l i e v e d more serious - program d i f f e r e n t than expected - being student i n c r e a s e s pressure  -  SEPARATION  - can handle being a student - fed up with p r i s o n games - l e s s contact w i t h other inmates wanted - harder to put up w i t h p r i s o n bullshit - l e s s I n t e r e s t e d i n non-school activities - s u b s t a n t i a l c o n l i c t between inmate and student r o l e s  - already managing student r o l e or not y e t c o n f i d e n t about i t - n o t bothered by p r i s o n games - not concerned about contact with non-student inmates - coping w i t h p r i s o n - not e x c l u s i v e l y i n t e r e s t e d i n school - not f e e l i n g much c o n f l i c t between inmate and student r o l e s  TRANSITION  - program h e l p i n g to get c o n t r o l over and change l i v e s - program has value f o r them - program i s u s e f u l to them - c o n f i d e n t of a b i l i t y to l e a r n - enjoyed l e a r n i n g about d i f f e r e n t subjects - a c c e p t i n g of demands made on them as students - student s t a t u s an a s s e t i n p r i s o n  - program not viewed as r e s u l t i n g i n c o n t r o l or change i n l i v e s - no p a r t i c u l a r v a l u e to program - program not n e c e s s a r i l y u s e f u l - not concerned about or c o n f i d e n t of a b i l i t y to l e a r n - not turned on by d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s - not r e c o n c i l e d to demands made on them as students - student s t a t u s unimportant or a l i a b i l i t y i n prison  SOLIDARITY  - f e l t completely i n v o l v e d with program - program means to express s e l f - f e l t r e s p o n s i b l e to support program - best t h i n g to happen i n p r i s o n - f e l t they had something to add to program - more t o l e r a n t of o t h e r s ' views - equal to any challenge i n program - able to defend program to other inmates - f e l t good about working r e l a t i o n ships with i n s t r u c t o r s - c o n f i d e n t of support from student community  - not deeply i n v o l v e d i n program - program i n s t r u m e n t a l r a t h e r than expressive - not r e s p o n s i b l e f o r supporting program - unaware of making an impact on program - unaware of any change i n t o l e r a n c e towards others - not prepared to defend program to other non-student inmates - not c o n f i d e n t about a b i l i t y to meet future program requirements - unsure about q u a l i t y of r e l a t i o n s h i p s with i n s t r u c t o r s - not c o n f i d e n t about i n t e n t i o n s of f e l l o w students toward s e l f  DISORIENTATION  not c u r i o u s about program i n t e r e s t e d i n more than 1 s u b j e c t see d i f f e r e n c e s i n i n s t r u c t o r s not a g a i n s t being changed by program - becoming i n v o l v e d not an i s s u e  accept i n s t r u c t o r s ' involvement amount of work a n t i c i p a t e d s e r i o u s about student r o l e aware of program pressure not dependent on student role  83  of  current  theoretical A of  and  "denial" three  "Denial"  "never  for  feature  felt  this",  "recruitment", indicated feel."  other  items.  more  was  indicated feel,"  constituted Denial or  inmates, could more  the  validity  did or  I feel  can  54.8 p e r c e n t ,  of  the  this  initial  not  now"  ever  a n d "how  felt  of  of  explanations.  like  states  card  sorts  t o "how rates  I  was  used  by  these  performed  now"  "never  on 70  inmates d i d  a n d "how  felt  to  response  and " s e p a r a t i o n "  I feel  for  more  than  this"  that  One  feel  felt  there i s concern  t h e forms  Some  items  than I used  like  this"  of d e l i b e r a t e m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n in  the  sentiments about  and respondents'  have d e l i b e r a t e l y negative  65.3  of the " t r u t h . "  take  negative  was  "separation"  "never  limits  the response  "denial"  initial  e x t e n t t o which  different  reflection  by r e s p o n s e s  self-deception.  expressed  The  "recruitment", "disorientation"  then  the  f o r Recruitment  really  the  I f , on t h e o t h e r hand,  feel  to  yield  t o "how  words,  within  items w i t h i n  for Disorientation  "disorientation",  p e r c e n t a g e s were a v a l i d respondents  rate  to the  respondents  by r e s p o n s e s In  toward  consideration.  assumptions  i s that  the  nonetheless.  percent.  represented a threat  Different  of  o f F i g u r e 6 i s t h e c o n s i d e r a b l e amount  46.7  stages warrants  plausibility  development  response  like  Separation  assumption  the  shown by r e s p o n d e n t s  stages.  percent  enhanced  stages of r o l e  striking  "denial"  three  feelings,  aspects  three  stages  the program, p r i s o n ,  own c a p a c i t y  to  learn.  misrepresented the extent defined  initial  their  other  Respondents t o which  relationships  to  these the  84  university been  program, p r i s o n ,  loathe  to  correctional the program There of  or  in  research. wary  to  they  no  Any  of  inmates  who  Even  after  inmates  still  of  be  of  the  shaped  from  confidentiality  A  second  features  what  of  result  that  against  their  denied their  to  research  job i n "winning" and  purposes  interests,  really the  they  the of  remain  i f necessary  think  or  feel.  r e s e a r c h e r has  to maintain t h e i r  inmates'  uses  of  to t h i s  i n the  "denial"  science  role  long a f t e r  gone  wellbeing in  i t s findings.  used  an  toward  about  given to  high  the  inmates.  deliberately  the u n i v e r s i t y very  concern  program.  relative  to  5).  proposition  concerns  feelings.  themselves  relationships  were  threat  purposes  Each  Assurances  respondents  s t u d y was  "true"  p e r c e p t i o n s of  i n f o r m a t i o n , the  study.  that  feelings  rate  manipulation  to p a r t i c i p a t e  they  information  their  about  unwittingly  the  consent  s u b j e c t s (see C h a p t e r  deception  have  environment.  evidence  participation  available  this  difficult  to minimize  taken  of  no  misrepresented The  view,  the l i k e l y  the approach  was  might  press", fearing  social  t h e methods o f o b t a i n i n g  s t u d y , and  There  They  deliberate  p e r c e i v e d best  struggling  S t e p s were t a k e n  a  distrust  of d i s c l o s i n g  point  against  e d u c a t i o n a l or  treacherous social  arising  "bad  somehow use  sure defence  safeguard their  will  often  might  faces  their  inmates.  program  prison  the expense  From  other  i t s students.  item responses.  cooperation  the  authorities  was  attempted  at  give  or  some  respondents' They  of  could  selfhave  t h e more n e g a t i v e  to the u n i v e r s i t y  program.  In  85  an  unpleasant  prison  environment,  being  an i n m a t e - s t u d e n t  other  prison  roles.  out  of  touch  on  cognitive  purportedly university true  seem l i k e  Yet, the prospect  with  themselves  and  become  more  "pleasure" that  i s counter  social  more  with  relative  inmate-students  to were  t o t h e program's  development.  insightful  program, and thus  focus  Inmate-students  about  themselves  discriminating  i n the  about  their  feelings. Finally,  "denial" the  might  any " p a i n " a s s o c i a t e d  there  assumption.  constructs  Separation  in  are  of  the  measures  steps which a r e o u t l i n e d c o n c u r r e d on  Disorientation, The  other  environment  pronounced inmate  roles.  used  to  prison  like  authority  i n maximum to  these  "disorientation",  account  rapid  and  "separation"  and  the type of p r i s o n  The  permits  security  in  m e a s u r e s on  medium  relative  A  inmates  Typically,  inmate is  absence  less of  p r o g r a m a t W i l l i a m Head  socialization  inmate-students,  Moreover, the  Recruitment  Head  programs  university  of c a r e f u l  p r o g r a m was l o c a t e d .  stringent  security.  The  Separation.  institutions. and  the  a number  measure  William  imposes l e s s  inmate-students'  For  to  and  findings.  chapter.  which the u n i v e r s i t y  security  opposition  facilitates  in this  into  and  than  items  on t h e  t h e measurement o f  i n flawed  through  e x p l a n a t i o n takes  maximum  "opposition"  earlier  based  Disorientation,  resulting  degree,  within  movement  them t h a n  Recruitment,  proceeded  not  i s that  and t o a l e s s e r  low-medium s e c u r i t y more  explanations  One p o s s i b i l i t y  s t a g e s was f l a w e d ,  development  judges'  two  feelings quickly  into  their  new  of "recruitment", give  way  to  86  " t r a n s i t i o n " and " s o l i d a r i t y . " represented the " t r u t h " toward  Thus, i n m a t e - s t u d e n t s '  responses  r a t h e r than a " d e n i a l " o f t h e i r  feelings  t h e u n i v e r s i t y program.  Reliability Serviceable  estimates  of  Estimates reliability  o b t a i n e d from S t a n d a r d i z e d Item A l p h a s . characteristics.  Estimates  ranged  f o r t h i s s t u d y were  Table 4 provides  from  moderate  scale  (.57) f o r  Table 4 RELIABILITIES FOR FIVE STAGES OF ROLE DEVELOPMENT  Mean Stage Score  Stages  S.D.  Observed Range  Possible Range  No. of Items  Reliability Standardized Item Alphas  Recruitment  1.35  .21  1.0--1.8  1--3  16  .75  Disorientation  1.52  .28  1.0--2.1  1--3  14  .65  Separation  1.70  .36  1.2--2.4  1--3  10  .57  Transition  2.64  .38  1.6--3.0  1--3  17  .85  Solidarity  2.54  .38  1.5-•3.0  1--3  13  .75  n=33  S e p a r a t i o n t o h i g h (.85) f o r T r a n s i t i o n . Transition measures  (.85), S o l i d a r i t y  (items)  are s u f f i c i e n t l y  consistent) i n accounting responses  to allow  subsequent a n a l y s e s .  (.75) and R e c r u i t m e n t  f o r "true"  reasonably  homogeneous variance  confident  Greater caution  should  (.75)  (internally i n subjects'  interpretation be  of  exercised i n  87  interpreting Separation indicated  results  (.57) by  for Disorientation  due  to  moderate a l p h a  Questions  The  creation  development  1.  The  with  an  What a r e  the  were  empirically  existence  framing  The  role of  of  the  stages  With question  2.  variance  Model  to test a  the  number  model  of  initial  question  of  role  questions. and  answered,  asked:  d e f i n e d , and  3).  The  comes  used  insofar  five  stages  as  70  of  the  Judges  t o d e s c r i b e the  test  the  items the  subsequently  justification  from  were d e r i v e d .  They d i d not  "truth"  for  theoretical endorsed  five or  corresponded  the  stages  of  "realness" to  them.  model o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d , t h e  became:  Were the five stages of role development, as conceptualized and measured, a f a i r approximation of i n m a t e s ' s e l f - p e r c e i v e d feeling states?  Discussions concerning stages  Stage  i m p l i c i t l y put  sequencing  except  the  error  already  statements  development.  of  (see Chapter  and  70  the  theoretically  framework w i t h i n w h i c h t h e y adequacy  of  particularly  stages?  first  anchored  From  instrument  questions  this chapter.  stages  their  of  levels  and  coefficients.  Derived  r e q u i r e d the  These, along conclude  increased  (.65)  for  inmates  the  operational definitions  occurred  earlier  in  this  of  these  chapter.  five The  88  results given  of  i n Chapter The  relate  role  through m u l t i p l e  the  issue  the  five  s t a g e s based  the  card  sort.  4.  The the  results  of  on  Moreover,  i n terms  this  stages.  o f one  Thus,  "reside" within at a time?  inmate-students'  their this  Were t h e f i v e s t a g e s o f other variables? next  of  suggested  s t a g e s f o r inmates  Did inmate-students of r o l e d e v e l o p m e n t  posed  development  program  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s of  This  tests  question are  6.  s t a g e model of  than  3.  and  statistical  to the u n i v e r s i t y  rather the  additional  responses  inmates  dominant  stage,  the q u e s t i o n  o n l y one  r e g a r d i n g the  analyses  t o t h e 70  related  in  one:  to  i n the  Discussion  research questions occurs  through  statements  a related  development  performed.  stage  distribution  c h a p t e r d e s c r i b e s t h e method e m p l o y e d  statistical  about  became:  question raised  role  that  of  i n Chapter  study test 6.  89  CHAPTER 5  METHODOLOGY  Choice  Several prison the  criteria  as the s e t t i n g  importance  academic which  in  Participation  are  prison  variety  of  The  varies.  Canadian  security)  inmates of  from  setting  in  that  i s one i n  within  community  the  which  occupy  characterized  within  best roles  i s one i n w h i c h the  "new" t o " s e n i o r "  t o be l o c a t e d  full  community.  affords  setting  of  o f an  f o r achieving  members  preferred  statuses,  recognition  full  students.  a prison  by a " t y p i c a l "  with a  range and  offences.  The  from  in  model t o t h e e x i s t e n c e  exists  academic  population  Island.  which  a  the  t h e lower mainland  range  First,  SFU u n i v e r s i t y p r o g r a m o p e r a t e s  facilities  s e l e c t i o n of a single  the social.ecology  t h e s e t t i n g ought  general  by  majority  Secondly,  of academic  Thirdly,  in  a  study  the  a desirable  opportunity  the  of  the  prison,  to understand  members  spectrum  within  by  enacted.  inmate  by  Setting  in  f o r the study.  greatest  participation  opportunity  resulted  attached  community the  of Research  security  are  of  British  i n four  Columbia  classifications  federal  categorized  prisons  of  and  according  "7" (super-maximum).  and  on  the  four  other  up  to  Vancouver prisons  levels  "6"  Two o f t h e f o u r  t h e u n i v e r s i t y program o p e r a t e s a r e  prisons  correctional  to security  " 1 " a n d "2" (minimum s e c u r i t y ) and  federal  classified  that  (maximum  prisons i n at  level  90  "3"  or  by  low  inmates  medium s e c u r i t y . convicted  constitutes classified two,  by  something at  along  convicted the  levels  with  of  CSC  f o r the  benchmark  and  s e v e r i t y of  low  security  One the  the  of of  William prison  "5"  a  offence prisons  the  three  operated  Institution  located  on  is a  Vancouver  involved  with  participate  the  study,  university  other  two  program  comprehensive  range of  the  "general"  other  two  University Head  discussed  indicated the  their  assistant  the  at  or  would  to  limits  according risk,  rather of  than  inmates  which  (Kent,  Matsqui).  medium  security  program be  with  university  indicated  more  numbers,  a  students  that  likely than  prisons.  Head had  "senior"  age)  "preferred setting" two  security  set  hostage-taking.  low  in greater  William  inmates  high  Discussions  Head  to  inmate-  Moreover,  l a r g e r and than  more  either  of  prisons. involved  feasibility  willingness wardens  "3"  prison  and  contain  proportion  other  SFU  higher  "new"  personnel  level  the  William  i n the  the  latter  violence  the  are  These  ( W i l l i a m Head) i n  met  Island.  at  in  than  such,  prisons  within  m u r d e r and  prisons  as  inmates  Thus,  large  such as  better  of  risk,  B). a  "general"  program  offences  escape  contain  offences  other  prison,  placement  (Appendix  inmate-students  the  "3"  level  (e.g.  Two  populated  and  respectively.  institutional  major  Head  students  "6"  is heavily  offences  s p e c i a l case.  remaining  considerably  personnel  these  sex-related  and  criteria  university  criteria  of  of  a broad c r o s s - s e c t i o n of  to  convicted  of  One  to  with of  the doing  facilitate  for Education  program  and  the  i t .  at  study  William there  Discussions  Training  and  and with  Offender  91  P r o g r a m s a t W i l l i a m Head obtain  approval  Canada. formal  for  Approval research  Manager,  Planning  the  to In  his  40  inmates  explanation The c a r d  located All  (Pacific)  were  the  days.  The  with  week  subject  mentioned  with the  and  with study that  to their offered  approved  courses at inmate-  own  consent.  to  "spread  get inmates t o l i s t e n t o  performed of  academic  inmates  coordinator  to listen  the  together  A s many o f t h e s e  a t W i l l i a m Head  exercise  first  October  centre  took p l a c e  created  at  inmate-students 1984  William  the prison  within  schedule  over  three  Head  is  compound.  the centre.  The  inmate-students  t o a d e s c r i p t i o n of the study.  She i n t r o d u c e d  g i v i n g them  the  this  University  constituted the  a  by  for  one o r two a t a t i m e ,  fact  &  Regional  enrolled in university  i n a self-contained building within  affiliation  Planning  the  reviewed  t h e p r o j e c t and h e l p e d  sorting  meetings  willing  a  concerning i t .  in  university  Chief  of  S e l e c t i o n Procedures  co-ordinator  word" a b o u t  consecutive  submission  absence,  o f t h e CSC ( P a c i f i c )  as p o s s i b l e p a r t i c i p a t e d ,  occurred  to  proposal.  The u n i v e r s i t y  an  the  the Regional  W i l l i a m Head a t t h e t i m e o f t h e s t u d y .  the  steps  by t h e C o r r e c t i o n a l S e r v i c e o f  & Administration  Subject  students  appropriate  followed  o f t h e CSC.  R e s e a r c h Committee  About  study  application  (Pacific)  research  the  f o r the study  Analysis  the  identified  study  a  researcher's  of B r i t i s h  doctoral  concerned  name a n d h i s  Columbia,  and t h e  dissertation.  inmates'  views  She of  the  92  university At  program  this  Inmates r e a d project, right  point,  university  a p r i n t e d form  outlined  the  inmates  Q  asked  research  would  "testimonial"  types  the  be  university  technique from  put.  their  about  Quite  affirmed  and  identities.  the purposes a  their  few  t o which  volunteered  o f comments  regarding  the b e n e f i t s or value  program.  Inmates  generally  other  of p r i s o n experiences  in  procedures,  t h e e x e r c i s e a t any time,  questions  about  the  comments made, o n l y  withdrew.  C) w h i c h e x p l a i n e d t h e  regarding  viewpoints kinds  co-ordinator  (see Appendix  them o f c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y  Some  of  the  t o d e c l i n e or withdraw  assured  the  in prison.  program  that  two o r t h r e e  expressed  i n v o l v e d comparisons  or programs. were n e g a t i v e  Of t h e about  with  numerous  the program  a n y way. Thirty-five  been  asked  listen  inmates agreed  by  the  co-ordinator  to the presentation  inmates d i d not t u r n  t o do t h e Q - s o r t .  of the u n i v e r s i t y  on t h e s t u d y  in their  Three  Q-sorts,  who h a d  program t o  d e c l i n e d t o do s o . resulting  Two  i n 33 c o m p l e t e d  Q-sorts.  Administration Each p a r t i c i p a n t plain  file  were  sequenced  four The  cards  smaller  - How  r e c e i v e d an e n v e l o p e c o n t a i n i n g a s t a c k o f  on w h i c h  envelopes,  I feel  t h e 70 s t a t e m e n t s were p r i n t e d .  i n no p a r t i c u l a r  four headings  were: now  of Q-Sorts  each  order.  labelled  Each envelope  with  a different  Cards  contained heading.  93  - How  of  I used  - Never  felt  - Don't  know  this  were t o l d t h e i t e m s  viewpoints  about  The  their  sort  cards  distribution. wanted u n d e r  They each  participants  labelled  were  than  told that  the  envelopes  stacks which  They  were  headings  which  best  to  was  i f they  corner  thanked  of each  for their  of the l a r g e r  involvement.  quasi-normal  "right"  or  to, about cards  into  selections  within 30  sorted, and  10  to  t o 15  minutes.  were  the larger  envelopes.  any  wished.  sort  number c o d e c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e name o f e a c h the  or  a s many c a r d s a s t h e y  their  the  sorted  t h e n went  i s , inmates d i d  Once t h e c a r d s were  completed  of  put  no h e a d i n g  up  That  normal  the o t h e r s .  longer,  range  program.  was u n f o r c e d .  to other headings  A few t o o k  the  wide  the statements.  were t o l d t o r e c o n s i d e r  participants  completion,  about  into  required  heading,  statements  Most  a  represented a  university  them  procedure into  preferable  minutes.  feelings  sorting  reassign  the  t o r e a d and s o r t  represented  more  like  b u t n o t now  Participants  instructed  not  to feel,  Upon  inserted envelope.  participant  into A  marked  Participants  were  94  Carceral  and  I n f o r m a t i o n about of  participants  Demographic  carceral  came f r o m  the R e g i o n a l Headquarters of  Canada.  university William  Participants'  initial a  two  five  problem.  variation  i n the  higher This  socially,  per  term  while  were  number the  "university study  New  year  students  out  the  nuances  the  and  new  study  (year  the  forms  at  1 to  year  c o n s i d e r a b l y i n the  Some i n m a t e s  enrolled  enrolled  in  four  for or  Thus,  there  was  wide  spent  i n any  one  year  credits  to advance  not  to  spent  in  develop  the  to  the  and  to achieve  students, at  the  beginning  in  p r o g r a m , were  second  of  the  or  less  third  student  they are  going  o r want  stages  of  their  to  than have  and a s s o c i a t e d  1983)  least  and  likely  Numerous c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h  r e q u i r e at  new  terms  role  (Boshier & Clarke,  university  cognitively  conflicts,  to the program  whether or  program.  time  university  of o t h e r s .  another  inmates out  the  vary  inmates  that  role  first  find  in  year."  other  many  at  Service  enrolment  enrolment  others  opportunity  development.  expectations  term.  terms  assumed  t o work o u t  in  of  r e q u i r e d number o f  term  this  of  registration  available.  of  first  worked  term  Inmate-students per  program p r o v i d e s the  role  the C o r r e c t i o n a l  and  of year  take  courses  before amassing  of  of  university  they  courses  when  next  year  definition  number o f c o u r s e s or  characteristics  r e c o r d s of the T r a n s f e r Board  (Pacific)  p r o g r a m came f r o m  posed  one  the  demographic  Head.  The 4)  and  Information  inmates  revealed two  to  terms  in that to  "make i t " i n  95  Most terms, the  first  with  year  several  number  of  in third  university  currently  enrolled  available,  in part  other  s t u d e n t s were e n r o l l e d  p r i s o n s u n d e r a two  program's  trimester  or  four  t h e maximum p o s s i b l e Thus,  "year  enrolment" coded  as  semester  year  terms,  third  fourth  students year  year  Carceral  on t h e number load  per  date  (MSD), w a r r a n t  present  present  the  level  and  this  year  two, and  "term  of  students  were  term  "5" (minimum  "7" (minimum  occupied.  (WED),  terms  terms  information concerned  date  of  "3", f o r a minimum o f t h r e e  severity  taken),  taken).  age, date of  mandatory  supervision  o f most  (federal)  serious  term  served,  o c c u p a t i o n a l status at the s t a r t  of the  sentence.  Some o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n came f r o m index,  the  remaining  Forms  in  the Board's  to  to  required  as  actual  offence, previous penitentiary  educational  readily  to years  of c r e d i t s  l e n g t h of sentence, expiry  not  contrast  First  coded  and demographic  in  recoded  1,2,3,5,7.  were  was  term.  was  s t u d e n t s were c o d e d  recent sentence,  inmate-students  before advancing  s t u d e n t s were c o d e d  most  i n f o r m a t i o n about  by  system  enrolment"  follows:  second  T h e r e f o r e , t h e minimum number  required  course  of  taken  or  o f them h a d begun t h e p r o g r a m a t  "1","2" o r "3" a c c o r d i n g t o  Second  and  most  was b a s e d  Accurate  two, t h r e e a n d f o u r  system.  t e r m s an i n m a t e - s t u d e n t three  terms  i n years because  terms.  in f i r s t  information inmate  files.  o b t a i n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n , two  Headquarters  of  the  CSC were  the T r a n s f e r Board's  from  Pententiary  After  receiving  partial  days  at  required  to gather  the  card  Placement permission Regional  the data  from  96  the  cards  carceral  and and  forms.  demographic  Previous  sentence least  yes  Form being  one  term  according  diplomas, of  an  less  Years  13-15 16  no.  "Yes" that  the  inmate federal  at  to the  Form.  schooling,  i s shown a s  in a  level  the  4-12  term  to u n i v e r s i t y  of  university  education i n the  precision  used  clearly  defined  to code o c c u p a t i o n a l -  unskilled=1  -  skilled=2  -  clerical/sales=3  -  r e c o r d s was  job h i s t o r y  the  present  a l s o served  at  sentence  indicated and  had  was  i n the  Pen  secondary  post-secondary  some c a s e s t o be  the  extent  inferred  from  records.  Lack no  had  including In  Forms were s o m e t i m e s e x p l i c i t ,  had  to  to p u b l i c  occupational  i n the  coded  Penitentiary  present  level  Placement of  was  prison.  graduation.  previous  gather  D.  the  in question  start  precise indications  to  served  addition  correspond  to p a r t i a l  Concerning  in  used  Appendix  meant  a c t u a l grade  inmate's post-secondary than  schedule  penitentiary  or  served,  prior  Placement  data  indicated  Educational coded  coding  federal  dichotomously, Placement  The  or  status, at  Penitentiary  other  times  common where  training.  The  not.  individuals categories  s t a t u s were:  managerial/administrative=4  - professional/technical=5  Severity according employed  of  "most  to the O f f e n c e by  the  CSC  to  serious  present  Severity Scale determine  offence"  ( i n c l u d e d as  institutional  was  coded  Appendix  placement  B) of  97  inmates.  Offence  categories  Serious=3; Major=4. kidnapping,  espionage,  "Serious"  offences  assaults,  arson,  offences  include  causing  death  trafficking assault, bodily  or  bodily drugs.  Placement  on  the  to  of  was  not  Expiry  Offence  a  list  of  an  f o r them.  approximate  difficulties. lifers  do  possibility in  the  before for  the  provided  out a  of  study  on  parole  minimum parole  arose.  eligible  other  two  a possible parole served  on  the  common  the  in  prohibited on  the  appropriate  contained  under  life  Supervision  sentences, or  Warrant  have n e i t h e r l e g a l l y .  Setting  sentence  of  raised is life. The  additional However, many  i s s u e became one  incarceration  to serve  for parole.  lifers.  or  been g i v e n  R e c o r d s f o r two had  and  resulting  observed  to  sentence  period  negligence  Scale.  eventually.  i n d i c a t e d they  being  time a l r e a d y  of  T e c h n i c a l l y , the  get  estimating  length  "Moderate"  dollars,  not  offences  Mandatory  "Lifers"  sexual  include  restricted  Severity  p o s s i b l e to code  dates  200  offences  B e c a u s e s e v e r a l p a r t i c i p a n t s had it  over  participants  the  activities.  criminal  Forms were c o n v e r t e d  according  "each heading  enter, theft  of  murder,  violence, violent  c r i m i n a l negligence  offences  are  terrorist  with  "Minor"  possession  Moderate=2;  i n dangerous drugs.  harm,  mischief,  Present  categories  offences  f o r g e r y , b r e a k and  and  Penitentiary  "major" violent  trafficking  in soft  harm,  and  Minor=1;  i n c l u d e robbery  and  public  weapon.  Examples of  are:  No  the  10  years  was  given  "informed"  release date,  taking  sentence,  s e v e r i t y of  the  lifers  indication an  into  the  four  a minimum o f  such  Therefore,  of  before  of  guess  account the  the  offence  98  (eg.  second-degree  current (eg.  murder  versus  conventions governing  10,  15,  o r 25  from  categories  the  I feel  2 = How  I used  3 = Never  felt  4 = Don't  know  their  carceral  checked  None  were  programs.  for  and  major  the  crimes  offences).  Analysis  Q-sort  items  were  coded  into  four  participants  upon  now to f e e l , like  but  not  and  against  found. were  numbers a s s i g n e d  Chapter  4) and  topics  of Chapter  6.  the Q - s o r t i n f o r m a t i o n  the o r i g i n a l  data c o l l e c t i o n  and  Data  inferential  u s i n g t h e SPSS:X p a c k a g e o f  questions  initial  linked  information.  Descriptive  of  to  demographic  employed  Tests  now  that  of the Q-sort e x e r c i s e  were  analysis  70  identification  completion  length  murder),  follows:  1 = How  The  to  as  sentence  y e a r minimums f o r m a j o r  Data  Data  first-degree  arising  interpretations  from of t h o s e  the  for  records errors.  methods  of  statistical model  results  are  (see the  99  CHAPTER 6  RESULTS  This  chapter  describes data, the  presents  the p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  the t h i r d fourth  reports  significance enrolment  the  on  demographic  case  their  section  reports  associations of previous  study.  Q-sorts,  Two  A l l respondents  university  programs a d m i n i s t e r e d  sentence date  respondents. dates  were  and Warrant  not  given  whom no r e l e a s e d a t e s  inmates  scores tests  with  Head  and of  carceral  did  not  Institution complete  i n 33 u s a b l e c a s e s .  enrolled  as  students  by Simon F r a s e r  of  supervision  dates  f o r the f i v e  and  a r e a r e mandated.  i n the  i n which the  warrant date  mandatory  "lifers"  male  University.  (age), year  sentence,  or  As i s t h e  W i l l i a m Head h a s o n l y  of b i r t h  mandatory expiry  William  were  was h a n d e d down, l e n g t h  (year),  stages,  of the model.  prison,  the year  score  d u r a t i o n o f program  incarceration  of  inmates.  5 presents  between  first  of P a r t i c i p a n t s  resulting  f o r a l l b u t one f e d e r a l  Table  across  and t h e f i f t h  inmates  in this  responses  The  stage  stage  c o v a r i a t e s on s t a g e  Thirty-five  describes  between  Characteristics  return  second  sections.  relationships  the  and h i s t o r y  participated  in five  describes participants'  background v a r i a b l e s ,  and  findings  expiry  (year)  for  supervision  i n the study, f o r  Table 5 ITEM CHARACTERISTICS FOR FIVE CARCERAL  VARIABLES  Variables  n  Mean  S.D.  Range  (years)  32  34.3  10.16  22 - 65  33  1982 .1  2.53  1974 - 1984  33  2513  1408  500 - 5475  date (year)  29  1988 .6  2.82  1985 - 1995  Mandatory s u p e r v i s i o n date (year)  29  1986 .9  2.54  1984 - 1995  Age  Year o f s e n t e n c i n g Length o f sentence Warrant  expiry  (days)  The p a r t i c i p a n t s ' average age was 34.3 y e a r s ( y e a r o f b i r t h X=1948.66, S.D.=10.16 y e a r s ) w i t h ages r a n g i n g from 22 The  average  eighties  respondent  was  sentenced  to prison i n the early  (X=1982.18, S.D.=2.53 y e a r s ) t o a s e n t e n c e o f about 6.8  y e a r s (X=2513 d a y s , S.D.=1408). estimated  5475  governing  release  days.  Barring  on mandatory  S e n t e n c e s ranged from 500 t o an changes  to the  late  regulations  s u p e r v i s i o n , and i n t h e absence  of e a r l i e r p a r o l e , t h e average " n o n - l i f e r " released  t o 65.  respondent  will  be  i n 1986 ( y e a r X=1986.97, S.D.=2.54 y e a r s ) a f t e r  s e r v i n g two t h i r d s o f h i s s e n t e n c e .  The w a r r a n t b i n d i n g him t o  a  supervision  prison  term,  should  mandatory  or parole  be  r e v o k e d , e x p i r e s l a t e i n 1988 ( y e a r X=1988.69, S.D.=2.82 y e a r s ) . T a b l e 6 shows t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s of  offence  respondents  and p r e v i o u s (51.5 p e r c e n t )  federal  prison  had been  term  convicted  by c a t e g o r y served. of  Most  serious  101  Table 6 AND  SEVERITY OF OFFENCES PREVIOUS FEDERAL TERM SERVED  n  Variable  Percent  S e v e r i t y of worst present offence Moderate  12  36.4  Serious  17  51.5  Major  4  12.1  Minor  0  0  Previous term served i n a f e d e r a l penitentiary No Yes  offences,  including  possession  for  respondents percent)  prison  because  respondents  7  of  39.4  and  of  b r e a k and  murder.  13  drug  enter  None o f  percent)  at  major  (36.4  offences  r e s p o n d e n t s were offence.  least  one  or  remaining  offences  or  the  minor  served  The  moderate  a conviction for a had  trafficking,  trafficking.  convicted  r e p o r t s the  represented  as  term.  Ten  unskilled. were  percent),  distribution  status; educational  university  classified  (15.2  such as  (39.4  occupational  and  purpose  f r a u d and  of  robbery  60.6  in  Thirteen  previous  term  federal prison. Table  —  armed  been  such as  percent)  a  the  had  (12.1  in  •  20  skilled  of  level  respondents The (24.2  p r o f e s s i o n a l and  three at  start  (30.3  remaining percent),  characteristics of  sentence;  percent)  occupational clerical  t e c h n i c a l (21.2  were groups  and  percent),  sales and  1 02  Table 7 OCCUPATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL  Variables  CHARACTERISTICS  n  Percent  Cumulative X  Occupational status Unskilled  10  30.3  30.3  Skilled  8  24.2  54.5  C l e r i c a l & sales  5  15.2  69.7  Managerial & administrative  3  9.1  78.8  Professional & technical  7  21.2  100.0  Years of e d u c a t i o n a t s t a r t of sentence 9  1  3.0  3.0  10  4  12.1  15.2  12  14  42.4  57.6  13  6  18.2  75.8  14  5  15.2  90.9  15  2  6.1  97.0  18  1  3.0  100.0  12  36.4  36.4  5  15.2  51.6  third  7  21.2  72.8  fifth  4  12.1  84.9  seventh  5  15.2  100.0  University  term  first second  managerial  and  administrative  Educational from  9  to  18  p e r c e n t ) had had  credit  the  start In  largest the  levels  at  years  of  completed  for at of  their  terms  of  cluster  of  first  term  of  least  the  start  of c u r r e n t s e n t e n c e s  schooling.  grade one  (9.1 p e r c e n t ) .  12. year  The  Another  largest  cluster  group  (42.5  of p o s t - s e c o n d a r y  ranged (42.4  percent)  education  at  sentences. the  prison  respondents their  education (36.4  university  program  percent)  program.  were Inmates  itself,  the  enrolled  in  in  advanced  103  terms  (those  third  in  fifth  (27.2 p e r c e n t ) next  section  measures  of  internal  for five  a r e more other  reports  This role  stages  cohesive  section  enactment,  as  they  states  toward  question,  stage. from  and  Additional stages  are externally  were  that  related to  association  inmate-student  is a statistic  stage  cohere.  between  any  model a n d s h a r e  conceptual  fundamental concepts.  their  means t h a t  stages.  Solidarity  Table  coefficient  each other  share  feeling  To t e s t  this  and measures o f i n t e r n a l  two  because  alphas  Of t h e f i v e t h e most  in  units  are  stage  Pearson each  with  sets  of  (r=.71,  degree  of  parts  of  Alpha  for  items  values  a l l stages  h a d more  h y p o t h e t i c a l stages, common  strength  intercorrelation  r's  stage  tightly  of i n t e r a c t i o n and  i n the diagonal.  comprising  as a s e t than  Some  the stages  8 displays  how  r shows t h e  stages.  common  counterpart  items  that estimates  Pearson's  one  than  self-perceived  program and p r i s o n .  was e x p e c t e d  are higher  stages of  were c o n c e p t u a l i z e d a n d m e a s u r e d ( s e e  intercorrelation  with  t o which t h e f i v e  among t h e s t a g e s  alpha  w i t h i n each  values  Consistency  compared.  Coefficient items  and I n t e r n a l  the university  correlations  consistency  other  result  they  reports the extent  4 ) , approximated  with  relationships  f o r each  would  than  Intercorrelations  Chapter  which  under a  stages.  Stage  of  terms) r e p r e s e n t e d  inter-stage  consistency  distinct  internally  seventh  of a l l respondents.  The  support  or  i n common comprising  T r a n s i t i o n and  p<.0l)  but  have  104 Table 8 STAGE SCORE INTERCORRELATIONS AND RELIABILITIES  Recruitment Stages  Separation  Disorientation r  r  Transition  r  Solidarity  r  Recruitment  .73*  Disorientation  .62  .64*  Separation  .21  .21  .59*  Transition  .04  .04  .46  .85*  Solidarity  -.02  .15  .47  .71  r  .76*  C o r r e l a t i o n s above .45 are s i g n i f i c a n t o f the .01 l e v e l f o r 33 cases. * The e n t r i e s i n the d i a g o n a l are c o e f f i c i e n t alpha e s t i m a t e s .  moderately  (.85)  respectively  for  Disorientation moderately  and  marginally  internal  overlap  (.73)  and  for  moderately  internal  Disorientation  are both  to both  the  Transition  f a r , these  has f i v e  defining one's  and  (r=.62, p<.0l) but a l s o (.64)  higher  consistency.  middle  alpha  values  Recruitment  stage,  or is  higher  alpha  value  have  and  Solidarity. significantly (r=.47,  (.59)  than  correlation.  So it  values  (r=.46, p<.0l) and S o l i d a r i t y  P<.01) b u t shows a m o d e r a t e l y either  alpha  Recruitment  unrelated to Transition  Separation-Alienation, related  higher  consistency.  marginally  respectively  (.76)  putative stages,  the "loosening",  role  personal  f i n d i n g s suggest  structure  constructs.  really  t h a t t h e model, even has t h r e e  "restructuring"  reminiscent  and  D i s o r i e n t a t i o n (the  stages)  other  i s an " o p p o s i t i o n a l " theme o r p e r s p e c t i v e  interactions  within  the  i n common w i t h  (1955) t h e o r y o f  "loosening" stages  have  university  roughly  and " t i g h t e n i n g - u p " of  of K e l l y ' s  What R e c r u i t m e n t  "themes"  though  each other  program  and  but not with on  role  p r i s o n as a  105  whole. of  Cynicism,. skepticism, confusion  the p r i n c i p a l Transition  dynamics of these and S o l i d a r i t y  forward-looking,  positive  and  of education  the  value  They have t h i s  with  stages,  the other  (the "tightening-up")  and l e a r n i n g f o r c h a n g i n g  personal  i n common w i t h  accommodation  characterize  these  stages.  the  disengagement  occupants the  of the  Transition.  pointed  lead  Solidarity Separation  from  inmate  stages, the  self-  tensions  code.  The  principally  prescriptions model  is  social  system  the  growing  role  urgency  conflict.  suggests  of  and that  commitment  from of  from T r a n s i t i o n and  cognitive  strain  of that  framework o f  this  and  conflict,  study,  may  Transition,  and  stage.  significance  of  the  Separation,  i s the implication  scores  the  The r e s o l u t i o n  out i n the conceptual  overlap  toward  distinguishes Separation  to a t r a n s i t i o n The  inmate-student  "tightening-up"  inmate  What  inmate-student as  Certainty,  o f S e p a r a t i o n - A l i e n a t i o n a r e a l r e a d y m o v i n g away  conventional  Solidarity  of  but not  ( t h e " r e s t r u c t u r i n g " ) h a s some common  (alienation)  proscriptions  each other  Separation.  and  with  a  program  except  Separation-Alienation  to the  exemplify  university  confidence  elements  stages.  commitment  opportunities.  a n d u n c e r t a i n t y a r e some  were as  resolving  "restructuring"  stage  well  structures  in  positive  university,  prison authorities,  terms.  w o u l d be a p r e f e r r e d o u t c o m e .  as  that  inmates  the  conflict  "tightening-up" From  the  with of  their  standpoint  and respondents  high the role of the  themselves,  this  1 06  To  reiterate  alpha  values  the  indicate  intercorrelations, support  for five  development. and  moderate  demarcation.  students' stages  these  structures  role  psychometrically  distinct  shared  v a r i a n c e , the degree  based  on  subjects'  justifies next  the  identified  The point  all by  with  model  i n time,  stages or  use  section  —  five their  of  deals one  and  and  with  between  with  to which  items  scores extent  to  that  an  principally Disorientation, and  f o r these  items.  of  stage  suggest  of  the  a  inmatefive  for  five  e x i s t e n c e of within  (see  stages  Chapter  analysis.  which  4) The  respondents  inmate-student,  previous section  t o 70  comprising  another.  suggests  responses  that  t h e model of  in further  Stage O r i e n t a t i o n s  s t a g e s have m e a n i n g  suggest  cohered  responses  role  (Recruitment  support  Principal  The  of  task  i s l e s s e n e d by  s t a g e more t h a n  identifies  stages  intercorrelations  Although  the  moderate  items  the  stage  provide  Solidarity)  consistent  stage  clear  "tightening-up"  judges'  five  Recruitment,  Solidarity.  stage  stages  coefficient  intercorrelations and  development.  items  distinct  difficult  "restructuring"  role  of  more  However,  "loosening",  to  commonalities  making  section,  notwithstanding  stage  Transition  perceived  stages,  that,  this  phenomenologically  Disorientation;  these  of  subjects' responses  The  respondents  findings  This  with  one  a t any of  Separation, Chapter  4  five  Transition, showed  s u b j e c t s , as section  the  given  that  determined  describes  the  1 07  extent  to  which p a r t i c i p a n t s  particular  7 shows how  response  33  inmate-students  categories.  now"  s u b j e c t s ' d e s i g n a t i o n s of about  the u n i v e r s i t y  Transition.  Only  Recruitment  items  proportion 15.4  of  any  of  these  of  their  in this  as  4.  with  one  items  i n c r e a s e from subjects' "present  It i s  feel to  responses  to The  doubled  The  to  proportion  unlikely  stages c o n s t i t u t e s these  I  Recruitment  than  for Separation.  for  "how  by  feelings."  items.  orientation  to  Considered  stage  three  into  response  describing  c a t e g o r y more  Disorientation  initial  stage  items  percent  percent  s o r t e d 70  Chapter  program  described  for  t o 27.6  principal  6.8  responses  percent  increased  identified  D i f f e r e n c e s i n r a t e s of  t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s were d i s c u s s e d i n stage,  study  stage.  Figure four  in this  that  a dominant  or  particular  inmate-  current feelings  toward  students. Inmate-students the  university  items  from  percent) that  other  and,  next  Figure  Transition  of these  students  7  Table  9  individual feelings"  (79.3  to  the  stages  w i t h an  are  gives  the  the  the  for  issue  of  Solidarity  three stages. f o r most o f  a l l 33  of  .71  items  program.  these  between  the  stage in  d e s i g n a t e d as d e s c r i b i n g  university  It i s  (75.1 likely inmate-  them,  the  proportions  in  respondents,  dominant of  h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of  and  However, b e c a u s e  proportion  respondents toward  initial  intercorrelation  calculated  settle  percent)  i s dominant  most d o m i n a n t .  conclusively  their  program w i t h a s u b s t a n t i a l l y  compared  one  identified  they  do  not  orientation. each their  stage  that  "present  108  Legend 'NOW' - F e e l t h i s way now 'PAST' - Used to f e e l t h i s way 'NEVER' - Never f e l t t h i s way 'DON'T KNOW' - Don't know  90 80  S w 04  90 NOW 80  70  70  60  60  50  50  40  40  30  30  20  20  10  10  *4  F i g u r e 7.  In  every  Transition items  for  case  but  or S o l i d a r i t y .  from  "present  Inmate Item Responses By Category  both  one,  Subject  Transition  feelings."  the  33 d e s i g n a t e d  and  A Transition  dominant  Solidarity  stage  stage  Solidarity,  46  most d o m i n a n t  orientation  ranged  t o 100 p e r c e n t .  stage  occur  from  stage  i s either  100 p e r c e n t  of  to  indicate h i s  orientation  was d o m i n a n t  21 a n d S o l i d a r i t y f o r 11 r e s p o n d e n t s .  Transition  And Stage  Percents  f o r dominant  29 t o 100 p e r c e n t ;  for  I n o n l y two c a s e s d i d t h e n e x t  i n the i n i t i a l  three stages  (subjects  4 and 2 0 ) . The  findings  in  proportion  of responses  university  program,  orientation. in  view  this  section  describing  32 o f 33  However, t h a t  show  "present  inmates numerical  had  that,  feelings" one  f a c t must  of the r e l a t i v e s i m i l a r i t y i n s i z e  based  of  on t h e  toward t h e  dominant  stage  be r e c o n s i d e r e d most  Transition  Table 9 PERCENTAGES OF ITEMS DESCRIBING PRESENT FEELINGS  Stage Respondent  Recruitment (16 items)  Disorientation (14 items)  Separation (10 items)  Transition (17 items)  Solidarity (13 items)  33  0  7  60  100  100  32  0  7  40  100  92  31  13  7  20  88  85  30  6  7  10  100  77  29  6  29  20  47  92  28  6  21  20  88  77  27  0  7  30  82  92  26  0  0  40  88  85  25  0  0  30  94  77  24  19  21  50  82  62  23  0  14  30  100  85  22  6  21  20  76  92  21  13  21  20  88  62  20  25  43  40  41  54  19  25  29  10  65  54  18  0  0  30  71  77  17  6  29  50  100  92  16  6  7  70  100  85  15  0  14  30  100  85  14  6  36  20  53  62  13  6  7  10  53  62  12  0  14  60  94  100  11  19  14  40  100  92  10  13  29  20  82  92  9  0  21  10  100  92  8  6  7  40  76  85  7  0  7  20  88  77  6  6  21  10  76  69  5  0  7  10  88  62  4  13  36  20  71_  31  3  13  14  10  41  .46  2  0  0  0  53  46  1  13  0  20  29  23  Note:  Dominant s t a g e i s  underlined  1 10  and  Solidarity  comprising  the  respondents for  initial  were  most,  the  feelings,  as  was  percentages  the  "tightening-up" their  role  Furthermore,  suggests  the  for  a  that  inmates  items  range  dominant  even  appears  and  when v i e w e d  and  that  or  their  from  two  stages,  the h i g h e s t  Transition  interpret  a l l  Solidarity  f o r those  between  those  that  structures  Transition  30  to  and  Solidarity  commitments  within  a  to  common  orientation.  orientation  and  frequently  assigned  Transition "how  I  like  The  item response  now",  first  more c o u r s e s  ability these  to  confidence  (feel  in  "how  3.  enjoy  five  evaluated.  They appear  to demonstrate others'  views,  to  (good and  items  felt  like  feelings  confident that  all,  and  had  four  refers  Items  defend  of b e i n g  a willingness  to  my  above  sake  (would  (1.  of  to  four  relationships),  six this  externally be  to p r a c t i c e with  to  "never  program.  seven  record"  referred  for  Item  working  most  items  f o r i t s own  the  role  10  suggest  in a position  on  30  top  2.  f o r the program, "go  the  and  learners.  to indicate  support  s t a g e of  to present  learning)  others),  p l a c e the respondent  the  subjects;  as  of  to f e e l " ,  to support  a responsibility),  program)  lists  valued learning  themselves  toward  10  I used  29  in  "present f e e l i n g s "  items r e f e r r i n g  a responsibility  (more t o l e r a n t  patterns,  Table  in different  learn;  differences  to describe  three  inmate-students  feeling  individual  or S o l i d a r i t y .  feel  this."  of  between  r e p r e s e n t e d i n the  Notwithstanding  on  compared  It  program d i f f e r e n t l y ,  role  9)  stages.  percentages  orientation  three  demarcation  negligible.  lowest  (Table  other,  called  tolerance possibly  111  Table  10  ITEMS DESCRIBING FEELINGS: PRESENT, PAST OR NEVER  Items  Response Category Present F e e l i n g s : "How I F e e l Now"  1.  I'd l i k e more courses i n d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s .  2.  I'm  3.  I enjoy l e a r n i n g about many d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s . I f e e l a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to support the program.  5.  I have good working  6.  I f e e l more t o l e r a n t toward other p e o p l e s ' views.  7.  I would defend t h i s program to o t h e r  8.  I f e e l l i k e I'm s t a r t i n g to get something of t h i s program.  9.  I'm l o o k i n g forward to g e t t i n g something of t h i s program.  relationships with  instructors.  inmates. u s e f u l out f o r myself out  I f e e l l i k e my student experiences w i l l help me problems more e f f e c t i v e l y .  1.  I'm  2.  There i s more work than I expected.  d e a l with  c u r i o u s to see what the program i s l i k e .  3.  I o n l y want to take courses i n the s u b j e c t I p r e f e r .  4.  Other students take t h i s program more s e r i o u s l y than I do.  5.  I t ' s g e t t i n g harder to put up with p r i s o n  6.  I don't know what to make of t h i s program.  bullshit.  7.  I f i n d i t hard to be a student.  8.  I'm s u r p r i s e d at how students.  9.  X t h i n k a l l courses are p r e t t y much the same.  10.  Never F e l t : "Never F e l t L i k e T h i s "  a b i l i t y to l e a r n .  4.  10.  Past F e e l i n g s : "How I Used to F e e l "  c o n f i d e n t of my  Involved the i n s t r u c t o r s are with  Being a student i n c r e a s e s the pressure on  me.  1.  As a student, I f e e l too cut o f f from the r e s t of the inmate p o p u l a t i o n .  2.  I f e e l l i k e I'm  too i s o l a t e d here i n the academic area.  3.  T h i s program i s some s o r t of scam.  4.  Maybe I can f r a u d i t f o r awhile i n t h i s program.  5.  I t h i n k a l l courses are p r e t t y much the same.  6.  I don't know i f I l i k e t h i s program.  7.  I f e e l pressure not to get too i n v o l v e d w i t h student r o l e s .  8.  I don't care what i s taught i n t h i s program.  9.  T h i s program i s probably l i k e a l l the o t h e r s .  10.  I don't care what I have to study.  1 12  unsympathetic instructors first  of  deny  seven  concerns  inmates  prevailing  personal  the  items  and  inmate  to  associated most p a r t  attitude  denied the  their  section  a second  having These  instrumental the  of g r e a t e s t  grain  risk  for  concerned  respondents'  a  The  was  f o r the  uncritical  Stages  among  and  program.  their  Moreover,  consistent step  than  determined to  relationships  stage between  characteristics.  Respondent  h a v e been  study,  frequently  were r e l a t e d  reports  and  this  describe  next  variables  background  in  to  internally  used  stages.  the e x t e n t to which carceral  and  population,  dominant,  university  section  responses  relationships  study  general  respondents  other.  carceral  Between  f a r , inmate and  more  respondents'  Relationships  the  with  to  each  pressure  in this  stage o r i e n t a t i o n  following  s c o r e s and  increased  curiosity  scam, o r h a v i n g an  that  be  from  roles.  the  and  ranged  Inmates  a  toward  with  background The  as  student  related  found  intercorrelated  to  that  identified  feelings" were  question  situation  c u t o f f from  reported  endorsed  scores  than  of g o i n g a g a i n s t  the program  program  ostensibly  So  about  feeling  though  stage  to r i s k  relationships.  rather  the p o s s i b i l i t y  with being a student.  toward  This  scores.  their  expressive  acknowledgements  categorizing  whether  of  norms, t h e  feelings  surprise  stages  quality  suggest  entail  t h e p r o g r a m , and  safety.  Past  "present  to defend  demographic  to c a l c u l a t e The  stage  Background  last  scores are  stage  research related  characteristics.  The  1 1 3  model  suggested  spent  i n the u n i v e r s i t y  respondents' those  that  certain  stage  scores.  Testing  variables  analysis  of v a r i a n c e  stages  11  ten  the  f o r stage  should  such as d u r a t i o n relate  scores  significantly  i n systematic  significance  of time  of  involved  Pearson  background  correlations  variables.  Table  variance in  background  and  c o r r e l a t i o n a l and  among  Recruitment  the  five  correlated  11  CARCERAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CORRELATIONS  STAGE,  Variables  Year of b i r t h  Recruitment  Disorientstion  r  r  .12  Year of sentence Length of sentence Warrant expiry date  Separation  .25  Transition  r  Solidarity  r  r  .06  .01  -.14  -.03  -.06  -.35*  .10  -.05  -.16  .06  .24  .07  .11 -.03  -.13  .01  .01  -.11  -.16  -.12  -.18  -.28*  .09  Occupational status  -.17  -.12  -.22  -.17  -.12  Educational l e v e l a t s t a r t of sentence  -.14  -.10  -.27  -.06  -.18  Mandatory supervision  to  procedures.  displays  with  program  s c o r e s and r e s u l t  carceral  Table  variables,  date  Previous f e d e r a l tern served  .58***  .39**  .35*  .29*  University  .35*  .15  .10  .25  term  Severity of offence  -.05  -.08  -.04  -.02 .36*  -.10  .19  * p<.05 ** p <.01 *** p<.001  w i t h two background v a r i a b l e s : (r=.58,  p<.00l)  "previous  federal  term  served"  and " u n i v e r s i t y term" (r=.35, p<.02).  Inmates  11 4  with  high Recruitment  previous terms  federal  These  orientation, and  repeated finding  sentence  than  were  results  toward  most  strongly  is consistent  likely  that  the  with that  feelings  of  corresponds the  few  Recruitment stage  skepticism  prison  the  programs  experience  prison  system.  repeated  of This  imprisonment  of p r i s o n e r s  to authority  a  more  Recruitment  to  that  socialization  low  and  federal  express opposition  served  cynicism,  university  in  t o have  t o have taken a  inmates  w i t h the view  to increase  subcultures  by the  incarcerations  and  suggested  characterized  negativity  generally,  is  prison  of u n i v e r s i t y  scores.  s c o r e s were more l i k e l y  into  and  inmate  to  prison  programs. The contrary  correlation to  what  Recruitment than would their  them.  inmates  low  latter  longer duration  were  served" more  sentence  (r=.39, likely  than  Disorientation the  demands  were  be  term  inmates,  terms  have  inmates  Inmates served with  the u n i v e r s i t y  by  low  with  on  previous  in  behind  orientation  was  incarceration  and  program.  "previous on  federal  Disorientation  Disorientation  finding  prison  scores.  of u n c e r t a i n t y  This  term  federal  previous federal  feelings  program.  high  of u n i v e r s i t y  high a  was  inmates  i n the u n i v e r s i t y  moderately  i s characterized of  a  term  university fewer  a Recruitment  involvement  p<.0l). to  Perhaps  of p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l  correlated  inmates  first  served  several  university  that  in their  had  with  of  and  implies,  Recruitment.  with a h i s t o r y  Disorientation term  on  inmates  For these  a  model  university  than  associated with  the  w o u l d more l i k e l y  first  sentence  between R e c r u i t m e n t  about  suggested  115  that  feelings  experience  of D i s o r i e n t a t i o n  of  repeated  incarceration  Separation-Alienation "previous  federal  "mandatory  these  (ie.  items  Separation) sentence than  term  who  to  be  Alienation  is  and  for  feelings  Separation,  of  strongly  low  student  associated  incarceration.  status. say  with  Moreover,  a  norms)  observed  in prison studies.  model"  (see  behaviour  code  Chapter  2)  As  society  and  from  term  served"  were more l i k e l y those  with  role  literature  their  behaviours  federal  Separationover  an  the  emerging  suggested  that  previous  federal  (distancing  release on  the  have  sentences, tend  from been  "importation  patterns  associated  of  inmates  supports  this  to disengage with  the  from inmate  outside.  correlated  (r=.29, p<.04).  modestly  with  "previous  I n m a t e s h i g h on  Transition  t o have s e r v e d a p r e v i o u s low  on  were most  imminent  adaptive  low  conflict,  of  r e l e a s e , they  in preparation for l i f e  federal  The and  inmates near  Transition-Reframing  were  with  those  with  findings  history  i n v a r i o u s segments of  finding. inmate  associated  of  of c o n f l i c t  separation behaviours  inmate  proportion  previous  but  These  i n terms of  on  scores.  feelings roles,  with  mandatory s u p e r v i s i o n  Separation by  with  modestly  than  a  the  Inmates h i g h  greater  t o r e l e a s e on  student  preference  moderately  (r=-.28, p<.05). a  to  prisons.  ( r = . 3 5 , p < . 0 2 ) , and  t o have s e r v e d  characterized  inmate  correlated  "current feelings"  closer  with  strongly related  in federal  selected  indicate  inmates  demands o f  date"  were more l i k e l y  and  were  those  to  also  served"  supervision  Separation  a r e most  Transition  federal  scores.  sentence  than  Transition  is  116  characterized  by  feelings  s t a t u s and an a p p r e c i a t i o n being  involved  in  the  of for  consolidation  of one's s t u d e n t  the  associated  with  T h i s f i n d i n g suggested  that  program.  benefits  T r a n s i t i o n f e e l i n g s were most s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a h i s t o r y of p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l study  who  had  incarceration.  inmates  in  this  a p r i o r f e d e r a l s e n t e n c e spent a l o n g e r time i n  the program than inmates i n t h e i r marginal  Perhaps  correlation  between  first  federal  T r a n s i t i o n and " u n i v e r s i t y  (r=.25, p<.08) s u g g e s t e d t h a t inmates h i g h o f t e n had a few terms  sentence.  on  A  term"  Transition  more  i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y program b e h i n d them than  inmates w i t h low T r a n s i t i o n s c o r e s . S o l i d a r i t y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h " u n i v e r s i t y term" and  "year  of  sentence"  (r=.35,  p<.02).  (r=.36, p<.02)  Inmates  high  on  S o l i d a r i t y o f t e n had r e l a t i v e l y more terms of u n i v e r s i t y program b e h i n d them and were more l i k e l y t o have been  sentenced  ago than were inmates w i t h low S o l i d a r i t y s c o r e s . characterized program. are  by  longer  Solidarity is  f e e l i n g s of s u p p o r t f o r and l e a d e r s h i p i n the  These f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t e d t h a t f e e l i n g s  of  Solidarity  most s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d u r a t i o n of time spent i n the  u n i v e r s i t y program and w i t h the l e n g t h of time a l r e a d y spent prison  on  the  c u r r e n t sentence.  Inmates i n h i g h e r u n i v e r s i t y  terms n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e d more t i m e they  entered  c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h how model  to  achieve  prison with university credits.  of t h e s e inmates d i d n o t .  suggested  them,  unless  A large majority for  the  l o n g t h e y have a l r e a d y been i n p r i s o n .  The  that  Perhaps  in  inmates'  t h i s f a c t accounted  achievement  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e d u r a t i o n of time t h e y spend  of  Solidarity is  i n the program.  11 7  This in  finding  the  offered  program  support  i s presumed  f o r the  to play  part  i n the  that  d u r a t i o n of  development  of  time  student  roles. In and  summary, s e v e r a l  background  variables  stages a s s o c i a t e d with stage,  Recruitment,  second,  Solidarity,  students previous  with  socializes oppositional him.  at  federal  the  with  relationship  between  However, b a s e d  on  of  students  Recruitment The  or next  a  role  low  with  proportion  of  Solidarity  dominant not  Solidarity section  code  which  is  (rehabilitate)  s c o r e s were more a  scores.  scores  at  prior  indicated  was  consistent  odds  with  the  "seniority."  items  used  to  scores  were  considerably  state  "split"  that and  student  high Recruitment  more were  and  a  inmate  This result  e n a c t m e n t s and  is  without  Solidarity  Senior  the  high Recruitment  high  the  have s e r v e d view  t o change  and  two  first  program,  also  inmate  programs  t o be  program.  Recruitment  Recruitment  high  n u m e r i c a l l y than  indicative senior  the  feelings,  an  f o r the program. of  the  stage  The  the  "hardens"  authorities  their  students  s t a g e model  larger  of  to  s c o r e s may  into  with  those  with  present  by  than  support  within  imprisonment  deeply  beginning  of  appeared  A generally accepted  inmates  feelings the  of  to attempts  sentence  Senior  "solid"  Recruitment  more  Conversely,  often  "oppositional"  sentence.  him  There  between  b e i n g a more s e n i o r s t u d e n t .  was  experience  relationships  stood out.  was  high  federal  repeated  significant  scores,  and  therefore  f o r inmates.  into  those  describe  Therefore,  with  dominant  scores. reports  how  duration  of  program  1 18  involvement accounted  and  for variations  the e f f e c t s  This  reports  involvement  incarceration duration  predictor  concerned  of  the  stage  previous  federal  treated  as  effects,  several  on r e s p o n s e  extent  to  incarceration)  independent,  of  d u r a t i o n of of  federal  as u n i v e r s i t y  The  question  and o t h e r c a r c e r a l  stage  variance  were  (such as  variables,  scores.  that  term) i s  general  and demographic  predict  analyses  which  The m o d e l p r o p o s e d  (measured  this  Scores  history  scores.  Included are  patterns.  on S t a g e  orientation.  e x t e n t t o which  incarceration  stage scores.  previous  involvement  stage  federal  Variables  the  and  predicted  of program  of  variables  of Background  section  program  history  i n inmates'  of background  Effects  a  previous  To t e s t  performed  when these using  SPSS:X ANOVA. Table  12  university  term  relationship regard  on  to Recruitment  university  and  university varied  procedure  term, term  the  stage  between  of  term  reports  results scores.  stage  and  (p<.0l).  university  main  e f f e c t s of  only  significant  term  occurred with  t h e r e were  five  c o m p a r i s i o n between  was p e r f o r m e d  for  the  The  Because  a further  systematically. tested  of  to determine  SPSS:X  significant  ONEWAY  Recruitment  whether with  differences  levels  l e v e l s of the  Tukey  amongst  term  levels. The inmates enrolled  Tukey  test  i n terms in  established  that  mean R e c r u i t m e n t  1 a n d 3 were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  term  3  of the u n i v e r s i t y  different.  scores f o r Inmates  program had Recruitment  1 19  Table  12  EFFECTS OF ENROLLMENT TERM ON ROLE STAGE SCORES  U n i v e r s i t y Term C e l l Means Stage  1  Recruitment  1,.24  Disorientation  Sums of Squares  D.F.  F  1..38  .39  4  3.95  .01  .28  1..54  1.,53  .19  4  .51  .72  .07  1..70  1..82  1..68  .22  4  .37  .82  .05  2..67  2..59  2..84  2..76  .40  4  .60  .66  .08  2,.63  2..46  2..75  2,.78  .84  4  1.37  .28  .18  2  3  4  5  1..26  1,.52  1..42  1,.43  1,.57  1..63  Separation  1..62  1..82  Transition  2..53  Solidarity  2,.38  * denotes p a i r of groups s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t at the .05  scores  that  were  .28  Inmate-students opposition program  in  and  in  has  than  because  attitudes  Table background effects regard effects  f o r the were  by  toward  shows  variables  were  covariates stage,  13  on  influence  inmates than  those  covariate  stage first  of  One  the R Squared factor  the  in  3  i n term  1.  embody  more  1 of  had  the  served  Recruitment  oppositional  effects  of  carceral  enactment.  ( a s shown  in Table Then  the  The 12)  and  substantially  three.  The  only  and main  without  covariate  general observation i s that  of  1.  program.  role  values  2  university  term  term  of the c o v a r i a t e s .  calculated.  much a s a  in  i n term  significantly  toward  the u n i v e r s i t y  the  peers  respondents  items which  calculated  raised as  more  by  expressed  did  R  level  their  feelings  sentences  been c h a r a c t e r i z e d  cynical  3  present  prison  federal  h i g h e r than  term  their  program, p o s s i b l y previous  points  Prob.  for  the each  significant  1 20  Table  13  CARCERAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC EFFECTS ON STAGE SCORES  Sums o f Squares  Stage  D.F.  F  R  Prob.  2  Recruitment  .53  9  2.41  .05  .66  Disorientation  .48  9  .57  .80  .27  Separation  1.08  9  .81  .60  .31  Transition  1.08  9  .71  .68  .31  Solidarity  .84  9  .66  .73  .37  overall all  covariate the  (p<.0l). could  one  term  also  federal  express role.  scores.  was  to predict  term  second  .003  one  than  variance  covariate  (previous  related  to Recruitment  who  than  the  term  served"  stage o r i e n t a t i o n .  This  h a d s e r v e d more  those  to the u n i v e r s i t y more  Including  explained  "previous federal  respondents likely  (p<.05).  who  had  than  not  to  program and the s t u d e n t  other  stages,  embodied  statements. analysis  the e f f e c t s Table  Only  a Recruitment  were more  "opposition"  Previous f e d e r a l term served  the  significantly  results,  suggests that  "oppositional"  directly  .28 t o . 6 6 ) .  on t h e s e  Recruitment,  A  increased  served)  Based  be u s e d  result  (from  Prob.  was on R e c r u i t m e n t  covariates  substantially federal  effect  Best P r e d i c t i n g C o v a r i a t e  o f v a r i a n c e was p e r f o r m e d  of " p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l  14 c o n f i r m e d t h a t  term  to test  s e r v e d " on  "previous federal  term  more stage  served"  121  Table  14  EFFECTS OF FEDERAL PRISON EXPERIENCE ON STAGE SCORES  Previous F e d e r a l Term Served C e l l Means  Sums of Squares  D.F.  1  Prob.  R  1.50  .47  1  19 05  .0001  .33  1.44  1.65  .36  1  4 39  .04  .14  Separation  1.60  1.85  • 50  3 79  .06  . 12  Transition  2.55  2.77  .40  1  2 50  . 12  .08  Solidarity  2.55  2.53  .01  1  .90  .01  Stage  1 (No)  Recruitment  1.25  Disorientation  predicted effect These  (p<.000l) h i g h R e c r u i t m e n t  scores.  Furthermore,  its  (p<.04).  that  inmates-students  who  sentence  were  likely  feelings  federal  proving  2  suggested  o p p o s i t i o n and n e g a t i v i t y toward not  01  on D i s o r i e n t a t i o n s t a g e s c o r e s was s i g n i f i c a n t findings  another  2 (Yes)  the  view  that  inmates and r e i n f o r c e norms  have  t h e u n i v e r s i t y program.  repeated and  to  values  incarcerations resistant  to  served of  While "harden" change,  t h e s e f i n d i n g s d i d show t h a t inmates'  n e g a t i v e f e e l i n g s toward a  program  associated  they  otherwise  value  experience i n federal p r i s o n s .  are  with  previous  1 22  CHAPTER 7  CONCLUSIONS  This study  chapter  was  considers  recapitulates  designed  and  This  study  important  Some  to  portrayed  factors  oppose  as  values  held  The in  multifaceted.  the  SFU  role  goals  about  by  prisons  change.  of  to  organization  social  systems  correctional "import"  that  were  fostering  program  and  opposition  to correctional Successful  cognitive  their  associated effects  theory  of  appeared student with of  which  programs.  into not  as  the p r i s o n attributable  incarceration. from  to  inmates  programs  designed  p r o g r a m s were  described  and s o c i a l  p r o g r a m met t h e s e c r i t e r i a  prisonization The  and  They manage t o engage o r n e u t r a l i z e  through  development  structure  obstacles  system while  identities  the  run  formidable  SFU p r i s o n  prison  on t h e o u t s i d e  brought  achieve p o s i t i v e  social  and  Context  conjectured  Authoritarian  to  presents conclusions,  i n t h e growth of inmate  were  prisonization  present  the  Prison  the p r o - s o c i a l  inmates  criminal  conducted,  which  limitations.  The  largely  t h e framework w i t h i n  of  development.  success.  develop  roles.  the inmate  positive  Role  and  t h e program appeared  Inmates social cognitive  to counteract  incarceration.  Sarbin  and  Allen  (1968)  provided  a  1 23  framework within  f o r understanding  the p r i s o n  principles, role  a  cognitive  developing  prison  Previous  The  and  on  but not o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d . and  testing  to portray  aspects  r o l e development  this  r e v i e w s and  between  environment  a  their  accounts of  anecdotal  This  of  on  s t a g e s o f inmate  interaction  social  interactions  Drawing  to explain  primarily  explanations.  development  acknowledged  purports  was d e v e l o p e d  relied  of r o l e  ecologies.  i n t h e SFU p r o g r a m .  success  psychological  academic  model  development  program's  and  the importance  g a p was  inmate  had  been  bridged  five-stage  model  among p a r t i c i p a n t s  by  which  in  the  u n i v e r s i t y program.  The Each purposes  conclusion  pertains  of the study.  They  differing  views  Deprivation "nothing" recalls each.  and or  of  to  Importation  social  models) work  or  sections  more  to  system and  the  debate  over  (see Chapter notion  1).  conclusions  provide  of the three  the  (see Chapter  purposes and l i s t s  Subsequent  one  contribute  the inmate  "some t h i n g s "  the three  Model  This  —  that section  pertaining  discussions  2  of  to each  conclusion. The  first  identify  student  expectations) university 1.  p u r p o s e was t o e x p l i c a t e a t h e o r e t i c a l roles  occupied  program.  (and  associated  feeling  model states  by i n m a t e s who p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e  Two c o n c l u s i o n s  and  prison  resulted.  Role theory i s an appropriate framework a r t i c u l a t i n g a model o f p r i s o n e c o l o g y .  to  for  1 24  2.  The  Inmates e x p e r i e n c e five distinct s t a g e s of r o l e development.  second  j u d g e s and  The  p u r p o s e was inmates.  Three  1.  Judges found workable.  2.  J u d g e s were a b l e  3.  Inmates' reliability.  third  obtained  p u r p o s e was from  demographic  and  to  the  to  operationalize conclusions overall  to  examine  operationalizing prison-related  the  sequential  model w i t h  model  plausible  items  into  confirmed  model  variables.  and  stages.  intra-stage  relationships the  expert  resulted.  discriminate  responses  and  between  and  various  Four  scores socio-  conclusions  resulted. 1.  The e x p e c t e d a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h c a r c e r a l and d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s were n o t c o n f i r m e d .  socio-  2.  Inmates' forwarding of feelings from previous i n c a r c e r a t i o n s s u p p o r t s the i m p o r t a t i o n model.  3.  A counter-intuitive finding (university R e c r u i t m e n t ) i s p r o b a b l y an artifact of penitentiary experience.  4.  The u n i v e r s i t y program does f o s t e r p r o - s o c i a l r o l e development. T h e r e f o r e , "some t h i n g s " do work.  t e r m by previous  125  Explication  It  of  was for  literature  on  role  that  prison  easily  on  inmates  role  development  five  is  on  and  inmates'  of  and  and  inmate  concepts  of  the  university  i t was  The  five  The  concluded  s e q u e n t i a l stages  were p o r t r a y e d a s c o n s e q u e n c e s o f  fosters  system,  Disorientation,  i n the program.  The  settings.  inmate-students,  Solidarity).  inmate p a r t i c i p a t i o n  ecology.  social  Principles  distinct  appropriate  importance  literature  (Recruitment,  an  prison  inmate  to p r i s o n  theory,  experience  and  development  program  applied  role  that  of  to the  dynamics.  conversations with  Transition,  model  program a l l a l l u d e  theory are  p r o g r a m and  a  theory  o r g a n i z a t i o n , the  in analyzing prison  Drawing  role  articulating  university  roles  Model  concluded  framework  the  the  Separation,  stages  of  role  duration  of  model a s s u m e s t h a t  the  achievement  the  of  of  positive  role  development.  Operationalizing  After with  the  the  Model  t h e m o d e l was SFU  five  s t a g e s of  from  stage  prison role  developed,  but  judges  program a s s i g n e d a p o o l of  development.  to stage,  four expert  was  Agreement  moderately  70  familiar items  among j u d g e s  high o v e r a l l ,  into  varied  and  l e d to  several conclusions. First, plausible the  five  i t was and  stages  concluded  workable. of  role  that  I t had  judges  found  face v a l i d i t y .  development  on  the  the  overall  Judges basis  model  endorsed of  their  1 26  experience  with  the u n i v e r s i t y they  i n the v a r i o u s p r i s o n s i n which  program o p e r a t e s .  The s t a g e s made  c o u l d work on t a s k w i t h i n t h a t  framework.  Secondly,  that  reliably  i t  was  concluded  discriminate  feelings the  inmate-students  toward  judges  Moreover,  items  into  stages.  t h e program and p r i s o n  said  judges  sense  t o them,  were  able  The i t e m s  were w r i t t e n  i n t e r - j u d g e concordance  on p l a c i n g  expressing in  were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e i n m a t e s items  to  phrases  they  knew.  into  stages  was h i g h . Finally, responses  with  confirmed  coefficients of  items  model.  regard  explicating  intra-stage  showed t h a t  in their  to  inmates  responses,  Intra-stage  were  the model,  coherence.  Reliability  differentiated  corresponding higher  than  inmates'  among f i v e  sets  t o the stages of  inter-stage  the  correlations  (Table 8 ) . Moderate respondents Transition  viewed  many  relationship  Solidarity  items  were t h r e e p r o n o u n c e d model,  resembling  process  (Chapter  constructs. an  subjects  items, existed  as  These  "themes" among  3)  Kelly's  might from  of the s m a l l sample. be  more  the  four  A  moderate  five  stages  Before  representative  p r i s o n s i n which  of  of  the  personal  could well  concluding that  than  there  transformation  notion  correlations  and  Transition,  suggested  perspective (1955)  that  D i s o r i e n t a t i o n , and  findings  the  three-stage or  and  between S e p a r a t i o n ,  as w e l l .  a  suggested  similar.  However, t h e i n t e r - s t a g e  artifact  stages  correlations Recruitment  and S o l i d a r i t y  significant and  inter-stage  five,  be  three  additional  t h e program  operates  127  should  be  obtained  Relationships  The vary  by  and  in a  with  model  the  possibly with  other  stage  11).  Subsequent  s c o r e s and  between  scores  12,  was  carceral Age,  date was  severity  were  not  at  more  pro-social  lifespan It from  However, no  model. term as  parallel  stage  had  occupational  warrant  stage  release  inmates'  and  closely  scores.  those  the development in  inmate  supports  Disorientation allied  to  show in  mid-  of  student  over  the  (1963).  "forwarding  served  It  variables  roles  Garabedian  expiry  might  than  their the  p r e v i o u s l y served another  higher Recruitment feelings  and  that  the changes  sentences  confirmed.  sentence,  to  with  not  release-related  that  oppositional  tested  and  or  was  concluded  were  orientations  d e s c r i b e d by  I n m a t e s who had  sentence  suggesting  federal  (Table  associations  sentence,  closest  of a sentence  previous  existed  further  a s s o c i a t e d with  significantly  does not  of  o f f e n c e , l e n g t h of  inmates  roles  term)  variables  variables  expected  start  that  significant,  background  variance  variables  significantly  were  (university  inmate-related variables  the  expected  sentence.  should  relationships  background  that  level of  program and  of  socio-demographic  educational  status,  several  development  14).  concluded  and  role  Significant  these  13,  of  i n the  analyses  relationships (Tables  stage  carceral  inmates.  between  It  that  involvement  by  study.  Model  suggested  d u r a t i o n of  associated  follow-up  feelings"  Importation  federal  scores,  inmate  prison  typified  norms  and  1 28  codes,  than  inmates  model p r o p o s e s  without  that  an  that  experience.  inmate's  past,  The  importation  present,  and  future  experiences w i l l  shape h i s r o l e  e x p e c t a t i o n s and  values while in  prison.  prisonization  effects  to p e r s i s t  Thus,  sentence  to  Recruitment  and  inmates or  the  inmates  appeared  other  I t was  this  There  i s no  university  term  Moreover,  the  and  university  longitudinal  interactions  and  between  of  study,  proposition  term  toward  identified  with  of p r e v i o u s in  s c o r e s than  from  term  for  their  by  penitentiary  term  3  peers  increased,  Recruitment  this  term  to of  had  i n term so  would  Solidarity. the  relationship  model. between  Recruitment.  w i t h a sample  model's  opposition  strongly  Inmates  university  explanation  Transition  learning-oriented.  i s a t odds w i t h the a s s u m p t i o n s  clear  their  inmates,  (university  artifact  s t a g e s c o r e , moving  finding  than  as  and  of  a l l  s e n t e n c e s , were  finding  higher Recruitment that  for  either  development.  experience.  expected  the dominant Thus,  role  to  representative  only a l i t t l e  p r o b a b l y an  personal  suscribe  stages  they otherwise  s t a g e s of  was  significantly  rather  items as  as p r o - s o c i a l  counter-intuitive  Recruitment)  1.  strongly  dominant  to feel  program  pro-social  One  or  The  typified  university  through  not  those with previous f e d e r a l  Solidarity,  These  did  Disorientation  feelings.  including  from  sentence.  However,  current  appear  33  inmates  cognitive  a  cross-sectional  i t w o u l d be p r e m a t u r e  about  dominant  and  stage and  the  t o abandon  relationship  score. social  between  Therefore, development  the (the  129  program  goals  develop  these  acquisition of  and  skills  of r o l e  cognitive  and  longitudinally It  was  pro-social  desired  (duration  social  skill  concluded  judges  conclusion  that  t h e SFU  past  I used to f e e l " )  find  i t hard  feelings  typified  ability  to  peoples'  views."  Transition stages the  learn",  and  and  feelings  "I  to  and  the  i n advance be  program  studied  like  most  (Figure  the  notion  lack  of p r e s e n t  typified  6;  The  by  supported  the  shift  like  I feel  tolerant  o f a commitment  from  statements  confident  9).  that and  a  strongly Table  foster  model  ("how  "I'm  more  does  the p o s i t i o n  fostered  to present  feel  Respondents  embodied  to  generally  program  statements  Solidarity  need  programming.  inmates  prison  and  (possibly  and t h u s s u p p o r t s  t o be a s t u d e n t " by  required  involvement),  the u n i v e r s i t y  in correctional  from  "I  development)  that  evidence  ("how  of program  time  sample.  development,  work"  the  e x p e c t a t i o n s and v a l u e s  with a larger  role  "some t h i n g s  outcomes),  now") of  toward  my  other  suscribed These  to  latter  to learning  two  and  to  program. The  relative  Recruitment t h e SFU  Disorientation  program  respondents. appear  and  The  to provide  wider v a r i e t y  fostered  of  but s t r o n g e r buttresses  positive  role  model a n d m e t h o d o l o g y a basis  for further  institutional  support  for  the c o n c l u s i o n  that  development employed  study,  settings.  past  in  in this  especially  the study in  a  1 30  Limitations  All There (1)  these c o n c l u s i o n s are  were two  principal  Structural  inmates  pass  —  role  as a  framework.  theory, prison  Judgements on  structure,  about  variables  in  personal, interact. i f the  They a p p e a r e d  sufficiently  five  stages  construction the  s e t of  items  not  just  frequent  reviews  Did  the  same f a s h i o n , variety the  of  70  Moreover,  the  given that  items judges  best were  pool  stage  and  of  dynamics. depended  environmental  testing  of  were  judges  the  stage  adequate. to  of  items  discern  at the  each  of  The  these  item  t a s k was  Items  the  by  the  were  task  comments basis  culled  they  p r e s e n t e d to each  presentations  consensus  took  among j u d g e s  r e p r e s e n t e d was influenced  on  However,  of from  elements.  understand  the  stage.  Many were s u g g e s t e d  propositions.  equally  settings.  t o each  I t e m s were c r e a t e d  of each  as p o s s i b l e ,  role  were a s s i g n e d .  designated for  "happen."  and  judges  items  using  understanding  stage d e s c r i p t i o n s  which  passage?  prison  f o r the  do  have m o d i f i e d the emphasis p r e s e n t e d i n  inmate-students. concepts  and  Subsequent  extensive  finally  defined  Insofar  more  s t a g e might  items  did  made by  a  into  an  social  adequate  the  derived on  particular  study:  (2) F u n c t i o n a l —  s t a g e s were  I t e m s were b a s e d  how  model c o u l d o n l y o c c u r  Secondly,  the  e d u c a t i o n programs,  prison  distinct  s t a g e s , and  limitations.  to t h i s  what d e m o n s t r a t e s  the elements  understanding  Study  regarding limits  the  them, a n d  the  subject to c e r t a i n  issues  what a r e  through  Concerning theory  of  s t r o n g but  in their  on not  decisions  performed? judge place which  i n the in  a  stages  unanimous. by  the  need  131  to  reconcile  location these  in a high  possibly  studied, on  by  placements precisely items  a The  reasonable  each  to  be  discarded.  were  judging  Just  by  judges  was  not  function,  sample  based  findings with  of  not  could  the  based of  lacked a  on  for  unanimous number  items,  in  equally  obtained  a l l items  a  subjective  did  to  elicit  unanimous  sufficient  reason  to d i s c a r d  a  set  of  judges  f o r use  limitation in  this  t e s t of  explain  interpretations  not  inmates  initial  propositions prison  item  another  restricted  the  new  their  respondents  pool  after  was  were  i t e m s was  that  significantly  on  then  reliabilities  However,  i t e m s were r e t a i n e d  Concerning  However, t h i s  How  larger  items  involved  b e c a u s e an  inmates c o n s t i t u t e d  on  ambiguity  of in  included.  judges.  T h u s , a l l 70  no  operationalization  model w i t h  A  more c l o s e l y  agreement  employ a l l t h e  permitting  generated  Moreover,  its  to  increased  iterations  the  t e s t i n g the  be  its  balanced  themselves  items a l o n e .  items would have while  total  to  they  Some  stages  agreement.  stage  pool  decision  lacked The  "pure"  How  explicit  inter-judge  consensus  the  that  for  according  should  differences.  stages.  basis  program  observations  t o a more  items  by  the  security prison.  prison  using  defined  study?  rigorous  of  into  form  lower  leading  basis  introduced  or  in  disparate  perhaps  the  this  disparities  one  group of the  f o r the i n the  arises  from  prison.  i t .  The  items.  sort.  the  small  and  Generalizations  respondents are  model c o n c e r n e d  placement  same 70  card  by  the  limited. power  of  social-psychological interactions in  u n i v e r s i t y program  rather  than  i t sg e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y  132  to d i f f e r e n t p r i s o n 87  percent  William Their  of  the  Head and  to  be  25  typical  in  population  was  known  continuing  and  senior  A  the  to a l l other final  It  was  argued  influence personal could  the  beyond  denied  the  or  granted  mood  opposition to chart stages  they  or  or  in  the  other  prison,  optimism.  of  identify  legitimately  "snapshot  collection  tasks  of  used  The to  the  an  to  program  t o a number performed,  of  but  Factors or  of  the  the  mitigating central  university  to  being  receiving which  tasks  study  inmate-students experience  of  collection  incidents  this  or  study.  s u c h as not  have c o l o u r e d goal  in time"  unrelenting  data  recurring  However, t h e  r o l e o r i e n t a t i o n to  new  configuration  the  receiving  could  of  in this  exerts  were d o n e .  parole,  any a  the  inmate  region.  subject  they  f l u c t u a t i o n s that  Within  but  scope of  with which  correspondence,  or  university  and  prison  this  this  inmates.  been  prison.  general  in  environment  of  the  balance  h i s t o r i e s respondents brought  motivation  affect  prison  have  in  up at  varied  best  concerned  minds  conceivably  factors the  on  the  i n the  Moreover,  i n the  approach to data  that  population  the  students  prisons  r e s p o n d e n t s made  a l l inmates  Region. have  limitation  cross-sectional  of  inmates  Pacific  of  b a c k g r o u n d s were q u i t e  of  to  sample  inmate-student  percent  demographic  population  compared  The  university  about  c a r c e r a l and  appeared  settings.  with  was  but  not  levels  program  that  with. these  limits,  described  interesting  the  i n terms of  orientations.  function dominant Due  to  of  the  and  associated  the  stages  was minor  cross-sectional  133  approach  used  measured.  in this  Only  study,  predictors  passage of  from  stage  to stage  was  individual  stage  orientation  not were  investigated. The  final  implications system,  and  of the  chapter this  provides  study  t r a i n i n g of  a  broader  for future  discussion  research,  instructors.  the  of  the  correctional  1 34  CHAPTER 8  DISCUSSION  Concerning  Future function with  studies  should  of the model.  would  Research  investigate  the  F o r example,  a study  in  prisons  which  test  the  inmate-students  classification  Future  structure  to test differ  the in  and model  security  generalizeability  of  its  structure. Another inmates  be  A  step  first  wagon"  stability  that --  from  a study  development,  should  be  behaviour student)  to  back  and  be  to  on  face the  ever  to  after  stage  needs  long-term university  "fall  o f f the  Recruitment  hypotheses  need  to  and be  and d e s p a i r and  of  student  role  The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e  inconsistencies  longer-term  could  who  of discouragement  investigated.  fluctuations  community  Solidarity,  Do t h e y  competing  impact  which  effect.  Solidarity  and t h e i r  to  w o u l d be t o i d e n t i f y  relationship  "cycles"  extent  the  do i n m a t e - s t u d e n t s  Moreover,  Inmate  hope a n d r e n e w a l ,  learner,  into  exemplifies Solidarity? pass  considered.  How  maintain a role  Disorientation?  social  such  the  of the s t a g e s , e s p e c i a l l y  investigated.  inevitable  in  roles  i n d i c a t o r s of a t r a n s f e r  incarceration program  investigate  t h e i r student  appropriate  to  should  transfer  release.  The  study  social  investigated  in  personal  and  identity  (such  as  by  study  or  case  1 35  longitudinal to  entering  like  an  powered  study. the  involved  after,  that  mechanisms  as  prison.  with and  the  student  that  happens  reflects  rather  prior  something  than a  produce  in  opposition,  higher  extension  to  prison.  More  inmate  this  extent  How  to  affects  socially  maintaining program,  s t a g e of are  like  greater role  role other  relationship  to  the  relationships  prison  by  level  of  degrees  of  results  in  Thus, a  or of  for  could  effect  similar  of  the  be  security  official  security  high  needs t o  staff?  logical  William in  to  less  inmate-students  in  university  what a t t r i b u t e s a  than  orientation  to  and  security  in higher  backgrounds, it  vary  expected  Kent  more  result  This  different  development  and  formal  were  program.  "opposition"  inmates  positive  personnel,  a positive other  a  prison  low-  inmate  more o p p o s i t i o n .  w o u l d be  a  "oppositional"  practices  Lower  they  which  as  i s i t s r e p l i c a t i o n in a higher  "opposition"  which  felt  university  society.  research  classified  in  correspondingly  study  successful  than  prison  security,  a maximum s e c u r i t y  future  Head was  roles  that  for  respondents  i n the  view  "opposition"  William Most  participants  security  prisons  implications  study.  in positive  concurred  The  "conversion"  even  coping  several  this  medium s e c u r i t y  in  a  transition?  from  roles  there  program, or  individual's  There are flow  Is  security  tested. prisons  the If  Head.  university  they  program  in  maintain  absent  accounts  of  in  their  university  program  account  be  in other  program  achieved  areas? "Having  served  a previous  federal  prison  term"  emerged  as  1 36  an  important  should as an  be  correlate,  made o f  adult  and  participation thoroughly  juvenile  i n the  higher  sentence  "opposition" comparatively pro-social,  to determine  into  the  for  and  Even  those  roles  of  those  A  success  who  may  not,  in these inmates  a  amount  scores  developed by  inmate  previous  the  stage  typified  most  s c o r e s were  served  had  and  be  oppositional  had  study  incarceration  Disorientation  who  recidivist  learning-oriented  rate  of an  who  program e x p r e s s e d  minor.  repeated  the  values  inmates for  Recruitment.  program of  Recruitment  than  to the  associated with  university  Although  significantly federal  factors  socialized  subculture.  most n o t a b l y w i t h  of was  dominant  Transition  and  Solidarity. The  apparent  failure  significant  variations  Recruitment)  needs  inmates  are  how  quickly  expectations of  case  new  t o compare  their  of  inmate-students'  role  development  development.  Moreover,  to a d e f i n i t i o n  o f what  stages  development  sorts  of as  perceived  role  well.  inmates  Studying  feeling  states  and their  and  do  fashion changing  type  while  c o u l d be  A  number  would  enable  assessments would  the  should help explain  well the  of lead  various  to v a l i d a t e as  role  p e r s p e c t i v e s of  occupying used  be  about  into  of approach  behaviour  should  program.  of  where  information  instructors'  this  study  socialized  this  for  exception  to S o l i d a r i t y  are  in  account  longitudinal  the u n i v e r s i t y  conducted  to  (with the  would p r o v i d e  inmate-students  researchers  their  A  Recruitment  study  a s s o c i a t e d with studies  stage  of  term"  scores  study.  from  T h i s type  "university  in "stage  further  followed  undertaken.  of  as  the  Q-  self-  f u n c t i o n s of  137  student  role  stages  in  relation  to  the  demands  of  prison  existence. In  addition  program,  an  in  by  curriculum  the as  The  project  The  of p r o - s o c i a l  university  and  roles  similar  principles?  development programs,  distinct,  inmates b e l o n g . joint  understanding  and of  of  "what  the  studies  academic  between  works"  them  effects  community  pror u n on  of  or o t h e r  community the  would  in correctional  role  academic by  a  t o which  unique  socially  of  of the  of  stages  concerning  role  i n the  engendered  academic  content,  least  of  s o c i a l ecology  support  to  program.  development  the u n i v e r s i t y , social  interactions  t h e SFU  be c o n d u c t e d on  alternative  Comparison  contributions  communities,  why.  with  independent of the  physically  in  be  (at  stages  the i n t e r a c t i o n  a non-academic  a study should  associated  with  the a l t e r n a t i v e  social  Conversely,  s t u d y would  s o c i a l environment  Do  a c c o u n t f o r more v a r i a n c e would  humanities  What a c c o u n t s f o r v a r i a n c e  program  than  role  principles  the  i s concerned) f o s t e r s  roles?  curriculum  democratic  purpose of t h i s  is this:  university  investigate  without  analogous to those a s s o c i a t e d issue  of the  should  but  a "content-free" content  study  employing  program,  content.  underlying  development the  SFU  as academic  development  longitudinal  environments  d e t e r m i n e whether insofar  a  experimental  development espoused  to  and  supportive  increase programming  our and  1 38  Concerning  What d o e s t h i s responsibility If  their  inmates,  goals  and the  exception  the  with the  and  notion  contrast the  roles.  reinforce,  the  Prison  establish  due  prison  of  the  in  the  other  content.  Although  SFU  and  there  that  authorities  if  can the  providing  exemplifies  reduce  the  be  notion  "some t h i n g s  programs. to  inmate  they  should  active  social  focus  on  academic  success  neutralizing develop  work"  encourage a l l  and  institutional  the  to  to  prison  tolerate  guaranteed of  conflict pro-social  obstacles  the  opportunities  should  of  should  embody  no  an  lifelong  role  Moreover,  not  in  be  prevailing  similar  program.  program  programming,  roles  alternatives  SFU  programs  of  correctional  the  should  to  counterproductive  the  a  expectations  reasonable  and  in  relationship  role  formation  authorities  SFU  The  fosters  into  for  i t maintains  appears  i t w o u l d be  program  regard  autonomy  principles  Prison  Therefore,  because  norms and  i n the  prison?  changes  integration  prison  have  study.  prison  the  in  pro-social  prison.  horizontal  result  authorities  participation  social  to  Rather,  with  and  between  academic  organization.  of  within  who  programs  from t h i s  is successful  p r o g r a m and  potential  the  positive,  flow  program  associated  security,  program  authorities  implementing  foster  university to  assimilate  to  and  existence  The  values  prison  to  distinct  education.  which' has  say  implications  university  separate  Administration  planning are  several  The  between  for  study  Prison  in  inmate  pro-social  position.  inmates  to  enrol  1 39  (if  they  Being the  a  meet  student  negative  carries  from  continue  world.  the  transfer that is  as  to  roles  student  just  role  an  correctional  authorities.  role  to  success.  Training  the  tolerate  principles. alternative  The to  of  the  to  inmate  in  the  their  outside to  better  prison the  this  This suggests  SFU  program  prison  life  that  of  lasting support  and from  Educators study  First,  should the  inform  model  adult  of  educators  its  broadest  sense.  The  community  is a  factor  in i t s  put  that  of  with  importance  experimental  model  outside  Correctional  the  use  able  deserves  from  inmates  incarceration.  with  It  They  be  indicative  p r i n c i p l e s are  the  ameliorate  some  to  t h e y may  educators.  in  that  bridge  associated  but  SFU  Instructors  a  coping  highlights  of  program.  recidivist  release.  setting  arising  correctional  Democratic  experience. g u i d e and  of  climate-setting  distinctiveness  a  inmates.  implications  development  ascribe  to  release, in  their  led  development  change  of  SFU  well  the  recognize  roles  that  roles  substantive  training  t i m e may  construct  student  upon  Several  to  after  to  disappears  the  need  artifact  Concerning  i n the  sentence.  circumstances of  for a  prisonization  students  maintaining  pro-social  not  of  authorities  student By  requirements)  i n t h i s program  sentence  on  continuing  literacy  effects  Finally,  avoid  the  role  effective practice  into  key the  environment practice  must be of  development of  student  crucible able  of to  theoretical suggests  roles  within  no a  1 40  community  run  instructors experiment students  on  are of  likely the  to take  Instructors roles the  they  overall  democratic to  SFU  play  be  of  the  the  of m o d e l l i n g  well-centred models Finally,  in  does  provide  a  prison should the  SFU to  environment consider  lives  of  f o r l e a r n e r s everywhere.  social  allow  inmate-  means o f  act  typified  just  should  the be  instructors  to  SFU as  by  program  of  the  in relation  c o n s i s t e n t with  able  t h a t the  inmates  the  importance  They  Moreover,  are  who  audience)  p r o g r a m by  attitudes  who  the  inmates.  the program.  individuals  they  transforming  of  those  in  learning.  complementary,  they  goals  than  their  Content-bound  well  made aware o f  reinforcement  social  less  program  (eg.  integrity  importance  fare  ownership of should  principles.  as  to  social aware  the  of  pro-  should  be  consistent  manipulation. i s capable  liberalizing  of  education  141  REFERENCES  A k e r s , R., G r u n i g e r , W., & H a y n e r , N. (1976). P r i s o n inmate r o l e s : i n t e r - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and c r o s s c u l t u r a l c o m p a r i s o n s . I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f C r i m i n o l o g y and P e n o l o g y , 365381 .  Ayers, J . D., D u g u i d , S., M o n t a g n e , C , & W o l o w y d n i k , S. (1980). E f f e c t s of U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a program: A p o s t release study. Report to the S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l of Canada. Bell,  R. M. (1982, May 1 6 ) . An a p p r o x i m a t i o n t o t h e c o n v o c a t i o n a d d r e s s : T e n t h a n n i v e r s a r y of the U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n programme. Presented t o the S e c o n d A n n u a l R e c o g n i t i o n and Awards C e r e m o n i e s , W i l l i a m Head I n s t i t u t i o n , B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a .  B o s h i e r , R. W. (1983). Education inside: Motives for p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n programmes. Report to the S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l of Canada. Vancouver, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia.  B o s h i e r , R.W. & C l a r k e , G. S. (1983). Psycho-behavioural c o r r e l a t e s of m o t i v e s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n programmes. P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e 2nd A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e o f the Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Study of A d u l t E d u c a t i o n , 1, 1-14.  Boyanowsky, E . 0. (1977). The p s y c h o l o g y o f i d e n t i t y c h a n g e : A t h e o r e t i c a l framework f o r r e v i e w a n d a n a l y s i s o f t h e self-rble transformation process. Canadian P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , 1 8 ( 2 ) , 115-127.  B u r n s , H. (1969). A m i n i a t u r e t o t a l i t a r i a n s t a t e : Maximum security prison. Canadian J o u r n a l of C o r r e c t i o n s , 11(3), 153-164. Clemmer, D. (1958). The Rinehart & Winston.  prison  community.  New  York:  Holt,  C l o w a r d , R. (1968). S o c i a l c o n t r o l i n the p r i s o n . In L . H a z e l r i g g (Ed.), Prison within s o c i e t y : A reader i n p e n o l o g y (pp. 78-112). G a r d e n C i t y , NY: Doubleday.  E.  142  C o h e n , S. & T a y l o r , L. (1972). P s y c h o l o g i c a l s u r v i v a l ; The e x p e r i e n c e of l o n g - t e r m imprisonment. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.  Conrad, J . P. (1983). What p r o s p e c t s f o r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ? A d i s s e n t f r o m a c a d e m i c wisdom. In L. F. T r a v i s , M. D. S c h w a r t z , & T. R. C l e a r ( E d s . ) , C o r r e c t i o n s : An i s s u e s a p p r o a c h (2nd ed.) ( p p . 216-226). C i n c i n n a t i : Anderson.  Cosman, W. (1981). P e n i t e n t i a r y e d u c a t i o n i n Canada. In L . M o r i n ( E d . ) , On p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n ( p p . 34-42). Ottawa: Supply & S e r v i c e s Canada.  C o u s i n e a u , F. D. & P l e c a s , D. B. (1982). Justifying c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e p o l i c y with m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y inadequate research. C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l o f C r i m i n o l o g y , 24, 307-321. C r e s s e y , D. (i960). L i m i t a t i o n s on o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t r e a t m e n t i n t h e modern p r i s o n . I n R. A. C l o w a r d , D. R. Cressey, G. H. G r o s s e r , R. McCleery, L. E. O h l i n , G. M. S y k e s , & S. L. Messinger (Eds.), T h e o r e t i c a l studies in the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the p r i s o n (pp. 78-110). New York: S o c i a l Science Research C o u n c i l .  D a v i s , M. (1976). The p r i s o n d i l e m n a . In W. T. ( E d . ) , C r i m e and i t s t r e a t m e n t i n C a n a d a ( p p . Toronto: MacMillan.  McGrath 370-375).  Dubin,  Free Press.  R.  (1978).  Theory  building.  New  York:  The  D u g u i d , S. (1979). H i s t o r y and m o r a l e d u c a t i o n i n c o r r e c t i o n a l education. C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n , 4, 81-92. D u g u i d , S. (1980). Post-secondary education in a p r i s o n : Theory and p r a x i s . The C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l o f H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n , 10, 29-35.  D u g u i d , S. (1981). Moral the p r i s o n . Canadian  development, j u s t i c e and democracy i n J o u r n a l o f C r i m i n o l o g y , 23, 147-162.  D u g u i d , S. (1981a). P r i s o n e d u c a t i o n and context of decision-making. Canadian C r i m i n o l o g y , 23, 421-438.  criminal choice: J o u r n a l of  The  1 43  D u g u i d , S. (198lb). R e h a b i l i t a t i o n through education: A Canadian model. In L . M o r i n ( E d . ) , On p r i s o n education. O t t a w a : S u p p l y and S e r v i c e s C a n a d a .  D u g u i d , S. (1983). O r i g i n s and d e v e l o p m e n t o f u n i v e r s i t y education at Matsqui i n s t i t u t i o n . C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l of Criminology, 25, 295-308.  D u g u i d , S. (Ed.). (1985). The p r i s o n e r as s t u d e n t (Occasional P a p e r s on P r i s o n E d u c a t i o n ) . Burnaby: P r i s o n Education P r o g r a m and I n s t i t u t e f o r t h e H u m a n i t i e s , Simon F r a s e r University.  E i c h m a n , C. (1981). H u m a n i z i n g p u n i s h m e n t : The f u t u r e o f corrections. J o u r n a l : J o h n Howard S o c i e t y o f Q u e b e c , 1-7.  Ekstedt, J . W. & G r i f f i t h s , C. T. (1984). Corrections C a n a d a : P o l i c y and p r a c t i c e . Toronto: Butterworths.  Fawcet,  B.  (1983).  [Editorial].  Prison  Journal  83,  3,  2(1),  in  4-5.  G a r a b e d i a n , P. (1963). S o c i a l r o l e s and p r o c e s s e s of s o c i a l i z a t i o n i n the p r i s o n community. Soc i a l P r o b l e m s , 11, 139-152. G e n d r e a u , P. & R o s s , R. R. treatment: Bibliotherapy , 25, 463-489.  (1979). Effective correctional for cynics. C r i m e and D e l i n q u e n c y  G l a s e r , D. & Stratton, J. (1961). Measuring prison. I n D. C r e s s e y ( E d . ) , The p r i s o n New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t .  inmate change i n (pp. 381-392).  Goffman, E. (1961). C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t o t a l i n s t i t u t i o n s : The inmate w o r l d . In D. C r e s s e y ( E d . ) , The p r i s o n ( p p . 1567). New York: H o l t , Rinehart.  Goffman, E. (1961a). C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t o t a l institutions: S t a f f - i n m a t e r e l a t i o n s . In D. C r e s s e y ( E d . ) , The P r i s o n (pp. 68-106). New Y o r k : H o l t , Rinehart.  Gosselin,  L  (1982).  Prisons  i n Canada.  Montreal:  Black  Rose  1 44  Books.  G r o s s e r , G. H. (1968). E x t e r n a l s e t t i n g and i n t e r n a l r e l a t i o n s of the p r i s o n . In L . Hazelrigg (Ed.), Prison w i t h i n s o c i e t y : A r e a d e r i n p e n o l o g y (pp. 9-25). Garden C i t y , NY: Doubleday.  Hepburn, J . & Stratton, J. (1977). T o t a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and inmate s e l f - e s t e e m . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of C r i m i n o l o g y , 17(3), 237-250.  Irwin, J . & C r e s s e y , D. (1962). T h i e v e s , c o n v i c t s and inmate c u l t u r e . S o c i a l P r o b l e m s , j _ 0 ( 2 ) , 1 42-155.  the  J a c k s o n , M. (1983). P r i s o n e r s of i s o l a t i o n : S o l i t a r y confinement i n Canada. T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o Press.  Kassebaum, G., Ward, D., & W i l n e r , D. (1971). and p a r o l e s u r v i v a l • New Y o r k : W i l e y . K e l l y , G. (2nd  Prison  A. (1955). The p s y c h o l o g y o f p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s , ed.). New Y o r k : W. W. Norton.  K e r l i n g e r , F. N. (1973). F o u n d a t i o n s of b e h a v i o r a l (2nd e d . ) . New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t & W i n s t o n . K n i g h t s , W. 57-60.  Law  treatment  ( 1983).  Reform Commission I m p r i s o n m e n t and  Bourgeois p u r i t y .  Prison  research  J o u r n a l 83,  3_,  of Canada (1975). W o r k i n g p a p e r 11: release. Ottawa: I n f o r m a t i o n Canada.  L i n d e n , R. & P e r r y , L. (1982). The e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n programs. J o u r n a l of O f f e n d e r C o u n s e l l i n g , S e r v i c e s & R e h a b i l i t a t i o n , 6 ( 4 7 , 43-57.  Martinson, about  R. M. prison  (1974). What w o r k s ? Q u e s t i o n s and a n s w e r s reform. The P u b l i c I n t e r e s t , 35, 22-54.  Mezirow, J . (1978). Perspective transformation. E d u c a t i o n , 2 8 ( 2 ) , 100-110.  Adult  1 45  M o r i n , L. (1981). Inmate r i g h t t o e d u c a t i o n . In L . ( E d . ) , On P r i s o n E d u c a t i o n ( p p . 23-33). Ottawa: and S e r v i c e s C a n a d a .  M u r t o n , T. York:  0. (1976). The dilemma o f p r i s o n H o l t , Rinehart & Winston.  O h l i n , L. E. New Y o r k :  ( 1956). Russell  S o c i o l o g y and Sage.  the  field  Morin Supply  reform.  of  New  corrections.  O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r S t u d i e s i n E d u c a t i o n (1978). Review of p e n i t e n t i a r y e d u c a t i o n and t r a i n i n g , P h a s e 1: R e p o r t t o reviewers. Ottawa: E d u c a t i o n and T r a i n i n g D i v i s i o n , Canadian P e n i t e n t i a r y S e r v i c e .  O u i m e t , R. (1969). R e p o r t o f t h e C a n a d i a n c o m m i t t e e on corrections — t o w a r d u n i t y : C r i m i n a l j u s t i c e and corrections. Ottawa: I n f o r m a t i o n Canada.  Roebuck, J . (1963). inmate c u l t u r e .  A c r i t i q u e o f t h i e v e s , c o n v i c t s and S o c i a l P r o b l e m s , JM[(2), 193-200.  the  Ross,  R. R. (1980). S o c i o - c o g n i t i v e development i n the o f f e n d e r : An e x t e r n a l r e v i e w o f t h e u - v i c p r o g r a m a t matsqui~penTtentiary. Ottawa: U n i v e r s i t y of Ottawa.  Ross,  R. R. & Fabiano, E. (1981). Time t o t h i n k c o g n i t i o n and c r i m e : L i n k and r e m e d i a t i o n . Ottawa: Department of C r i m i n o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y of Ottawa.  Ross,  R. R. & Fabiano, E. (1983). The c o g n i t i v e m o d e l o f c r i m e and d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n a n d r e h a b i l i t a t i o n : Assessment Procedures. Toronto: M i n i s t r y of C o r r e c t i o n a l Services.  Ross,  R. R. & Fabiano, E. (1983a). The c o g n i t i v e m o d e l o f c r i m e and d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n : Intervention techniques. T o r o n t o : M i n i s t r y of C o r r e c t i o n a l Services.  Ross,  R. R. & McKay, H. B. (1978). B e h a v i o r a l approaches to t r e a t m e n t i n c o r r e c t i o n s : Requiem f o r a p a n a c e a . Canadian J o u r n a l o f C r i m i n o l o g y , 20, 279-295.  1 46  S a p s f o r d , R. J. (1978). L i f e sentence p r i s o n e r s : P s y c h o l o g i c a l changes d u r i n g sentences. British Criminology,  J_8(2),  J o u r n a l of  128-145.  S a r b i n , T. R. & A l l e n , V. L. (1968). Role theory. I n G. L i n d z e y & E . A r o n s e n ( E d s . ) , The handbook o f s o c i a l psychology (2nd ed., V o l . 1, p p . 4 8 8 - 5 6 7 ) . Menlo Park, C a l i f o r n i a : Addison-Wesley.  S a r b i n , T. R. & S c h e i b e , K. E. (1983). A model o f s o c i a l identity. I n T. R. S a r b i n & K. E. Scheibe (Eds.), S t u d i e s i n soc i a l i d e n t i t y . New Y o r k : P r a e g e r .  S c u l l , A. T. (1977). D e c a r c e r a t i o n : Community t r e a t m e n t a n d the d e v i a n t — a r a d i c a l view. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice Hall.  S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l o f Canada ( 1 9 7 7 ) . A summary a n d a n a l y s i s o f some m a j o r i n q u i r i e s on c o r r e c t i o n s , 1938 t o 1 9 7 7 . Ottawa: C a n a d i a n Government P u b l i s h i n g C e n t r e .  S t e p h e n s o n , W. University  (1953). The s t u d y of Chicago P r e s s .  of behavior.  Chicago:  S y k e s , G. & M e s s i n g e r , S. (1960). The i n m a t e s o c i a l s y s t e m . In R. A. C l o w a r d , D. R. C r e s s e y , G. H. G r o s s e r , R. M c C l e e r y , L . E . O h l i n , G. M. S y k e s & S. L. Messinger (Eds.), T h e o r e t i c a l studies i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the p r i s o n (pp. 5 - 1 9 ) . New Y o r k : S o c i a l S c i e n c e s R e s e a r c h Council.  (1974).  S z t o m p k a , P. Press.  Task  System and f u n c t i o n .  New  York:  Academic  F o r c e on t h e C r e a t i o n o f an I n t e g r a t e d C o r r e c t i o n s S e r v i c e (1977). The r o l e o f f e d e r a l c o r r e c t i o n s i n C a n a d a . Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s Canada.  Thomas, C. W. (1973). P r i s o n i z a t i o n or r e s o c i a l i z a t i o n ? A study of e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t e d with the impact of imprisonment. J o u r n a l o f R e s e a r c h i n Crime and D e l i n q u e n c y ,  10,  Thomas, C.  13-21.  W.  & Foster,  S.  (1976).  On t h e measurement o f  147  s o c i a l r o l e s a d a p t a t i o n s i n the J u s t i c e R e v i e w , j_( 1) , 11-21.  Thomas, C. W. and i n m a t e  prison  & P e t e r s o n , D. M. (1977). subcultures. Indianapolis,  community.  Criminal  Prison organization 111.: Bobbs-Merrill.  W h e t s t o n e , K. (1981). How the p r i s o n e r sees e d u c a t i o n . In A y e r s ( E d . ) , P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e n a t i o n a l c o n f e r e n c e on prison education (pp. 79-93). V i c t o r i a : U n i v e r s i t y of Victoria.  D.  Z i m b a r d o , P. G., Haney, C., B a n k s , W. C. & J a f f e , D. (1977). The p s y c h o l o g y o f i m p r i s o n m e n t : P r i v a t i o n , power and pathology. Stanford: Stanford University.  1 48  Appendix  A:  Seventy  Items L i s t e d  By  Stage  RECRUITMENT STAGE 1.  T h i s program c a n ' t be any worse  2.  I don't p l a n t o work too h a r d i n t h i s program.  3.  Maybe I can f r a u d i t f o r a w h i l e i n t h i s  4.  I'm  5.  I don't  6.  I don't e x p e c t much out of the program.  7.  I'm  8.  T h i s program i s some s o r t of scam.  9.  T h i s program i s p r o b a b l y l i k e  not i n t e r e s t e d  i n any  than o t h e r p r i s o n programs.  program.  subject i n p a r t i c u l a r .  c a r e what i s taught i n t h i s program.  c u r i o u s to see what the program i s l i k e .  a l l the o t h e r s .  10.  I don't  c a r e what I have to s t u d y .  11.  No way  12.  I o n l y want to take c o u r s e s i n the s u b j e c t I p r e f e r .  13.  There i s o n l y one s u b j e c t t h a t  14.  I'm  15.  I t h i n k a l l i n s t r u c t o r s a r e p r e t t y much the same.  16.  I t h i n k a l l c o u r s e s are p r e t t y much the same.  i s t h i s program g o i n g to change  I'm  me.  really  interested i n .  n o t g o i n g to get too i n v o l v e d w i t h t h i s  program.  DISORIENTATION STAGE  17.  There i s more work than I e x p e c t e d .  18.  I n s t r u c t o r s s u r e expect a l o t from  19.  I'm  20.  I don't know i f I l i k e  21.  T h i s program i s d i f f e r e n t  22.  I find  23.  I'm  24.  I feel like  25.  Other  26.  I haven't  27.  I don't know what to make of t h i s program.  28.  Other  29.  I don't know what I'm  30.  B e i n g a s t u d e n t i n c r e a s e s the p r e s s u r e on  s u r p r i s e d a t how  involved  me.  the i n s t r u c t o r s are w i t h the s t u d e n t s .  t h i s program. from what I e x p e c t e d .  i t h a r d t o be a s t u d e n t .  n o t sure I s h o u l d c o n t i n u e i n the program. I'm  too i s o l a t e d here i n the academic a r e a .  s t u d e n t s take t h i s program more s e r i o u s l y than f i g u r e d out t h i s  me.  program.  s t u d e n t s take t h i s program more s e r i o u s l y than I do. supposed ito do as a s t u d e n t . me.  149  SEPARATION-ALIENATION STAGE 31.  I t ' s g e t t i n g harder to put up w i t h p r i s o n b u l l s h i t .  32.  I f e e l a l o t of c o n f l i c t between student and inmate r o l e s .  33.  As a student, I f e e l too cut o f f from the r e s t of the inmate p o p u l a t i o n .  34.  I f e e l pressure not to get too involved w i t h student  35.  The l e s s I have to do w i t h the general inmate population the b e t t e r f o r me.  36.  I'm s t a r t i n g to f e e l that I can r e a l l y handle being a student.  37.  I would l i k e to have even l e s s contact w i t h the general inmate population.  38.  I've found one subject I'd be happy to spend a l l my time studying.  39.  I'm fed up w i t h p r i s o n games.  40.  I'm l e s s i n t e r e s t e d i n a c t i v i t i e s outside of school.  roles.  TRANSITION-REFRAMING STAGE 41.  I f e e l l i k e t h i s program i s h e l p i n g me get c o n t r o l over my l i f e .  42.  I f e e l the p o s s i b i l i t y of making changes i n my l i f e because of my student experiences.  43.  I'm beginning to f e e l that t h i s program has some value f o r me.  44.  I'm f i n d i n g i t e a s i e r to accept the demands of being a student.  45.  I f e e l l i k e I'm s t a r t i n g to get something u s e f u l out of t h i s program.  46.  I'm beginning to f e e l that I've got d i f f e r e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s than I've had before.  47.  I f e e l my student status i s an asset i n the p r i s o n .  48.  I'm l o o k i n g forward to g e t t i n g something f o r myself out of t h i s program.  49.  I f e e l l i k e my student experience w i l l help me deal w i t h problem more e f f e c t i v e l y .  50.  I f e e l t h i s program could lead me i n t o d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s .  51.  I spend as much time as I can on my student  52.  I want to be more i n v o l v e d w i t h a l l aspects of the program.  53.  I enjoy l e a r n i n g about many d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s .  54.  I'd l i k e more courses  55.  I f e e l the best t h i n g w i l l be f o r me to stay involved w i t h t h i s program.  56.  Being a student i s changing some things f o r me.  57.  I'm confident of my a b i l i t y to l e a r n .  interests.  i n different subjects.  150  SOLIDARITY STAGE 58.  I f e e l completely involved w i t h t h i s program.  59.  I know I can r e l y on the student community.  60.  I see the program as a means t o express myself.  61.  I feel a responsibility  62.  This program i s about the best t h i n g that has happened t o me i n p r i s o n .  63.  I have good working r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n s t r u c t o r s .  64.  I f e e l equal t o any challenge which might come up i n the program.  65.  I f e e l l i k e I have something t o add t o the program.  66.  I can gather support from other students f o r group projects; or a c t i v i t i e s .  67.  I f e e l more t o l e r a n t toward other peoples' views.  68.  I would defend t h i s program to other inmates.  69.  I f e e l supported by the student community.  70.  Other students want the same t h i n g I do.  to support the program.  Appendix  B: O f f e n c e  Severity  Scale  OFFENCE SEVERITY SCALE MAJOR OFFENCES 1. 2.  F i r s t , Second-degree Murder and Attempted Murder. A s s a u l t c a u s i n g o r intended t o cause s e r i o u s . i n j u r y d i s f i g u rement, o r m u t i l a t i o n . 3. Kidnapping, forcible detention/abduction, and/or hostagetaking . 4. . H i j a c k i n g o f a i r c r a f t and/or p i r a c y o f s e a v e s s e l s . 5. Treason. 6. Espionage. 7. I l l e g a l p o s s e s s i o n and/or d e t o n a t i o n o f e x p l o s i v e s which a r e l i k e l y t o cause d e a t h . 8. Violent terrorist a c t i v i t i e s . SERIOUS OFFENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. S. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.  Robbery w i t h v i o l e n c e . V i o l e n t sex o f f e n c e s (i.e., rape, attempted rape, child molestations, e t c . ) . Arson. Sabotage. C o n s p i r a c y t o t r a f f i c o r import a dangerous d r u g . T r a f f i c k i n g and p o s s e s s i o n f o r the purpose o f t r a f f i c k i n g (dangerous drugs) . Trafficking in i l l e g a l firearms. Manslaughter. Extortion. Armed Robbery o r Attempted Armed Robbery. Prison breach. Escape c u s t o d y with v i o l e n c e .  MODERATE OFFENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.  16.  P o s s e s s i o n o f dangerous d r u g s . T r a f f i c k i n g , c o n s p i r a c y , p o s s e s s i o n f o r the purpose o f t r a f f i c k i n g ( s o f t drugs) . Forgery. Fraud. Bribery. Forcible entry. Break and E n t e r / B r e a k i n g O u t . C r i m i n a l n e g l i g e n c e c a u s i n g death o r r e s u l t i n g in b o d i l y harm. N o n - v i o l e n t sex o f f e n c e s ( i . e . , g r o s s indecency, i n d e c e n t a s sault , incest). Robbery ( e x c l u d i n g armed r o b b e r y and r o b b e r y with v i o l e n c e ) . Escape ( n o n - v i o l e n t ) . T h e f t over 200 d o l l a r s . O b s t r u c t i o n o f j u s t i c e and p e r j u r y . P o s s e s s i o n o f s t o l e n p r o p e r t y over 200 d o l l a r s . P o s s e r s i o n o f a weapon f o r a purpose dangerous t o the p u b l i c peace. A s s a u l t causing  b o d i l y harm.  MINOR OFFENSES 1. P o s s e s s i o n o f s t o l e n p r o p e r t y under 200 d o l l a r s . 2. Common a s s a u l t . 3. P o s s e s s i o n o f s o f t drugs . 4. T h e f t under 200 d o l l a r s . 5. Public mischief. 6. C r i m i n a l n e g l i g e n c e n o t r e s u l t i n g i n b o d i l y harm. 7. P o s s e s s i o n o f a r e s t r i c t e d or p r o h i b i t e d weapon. 8. P o s s e s s i o n o f forged c u r r e n c y , p a s s p o r t s , cheques. 9. Unlawfully-at-Large.  Appendix  D:  Carceral  CARCERAL AND  Card  And  Demographic  Coding  DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION  One  Column  No.  Variable  Code  1 - 3  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number  7-12  Date o f b i r t h -  Day,  month, y e a r  Date of most r e c e n t sentence  Day,  month, year  19 - 22  Length of sentence  A c t u a l no.  23 -  28  Warrant e x p i r y  29 -  34  13 -  18  35  36 -  37  ( i n days)  date  Day,  month, year  Mandatory S u p e r v i s i o n date  Day,  month, year  Occupational status  Unskilled-1 Skilled»2 Clerical/sales=3 Managerial/ AriTninistrative-4 Professional/ Technical=5  E d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l at s t a r t of sentence  Grade 4 • 4 5 = 5 6 = 6  12 "13 Partial 14 Univ. _15 Univ. 16  38  Sheet  Previous f e d e r a l p e n i t e n t i a r y experience?  39  Current year of enrolment i n u n i v e r s i t y program  40  " S e v e r i t y " of most s e r i o u s present o f f e n c e  » = -  J,2 13~ 14 L5_ 16  No = 1 Yes = 2  Minor « 1 Moderate = 2 Serious = 3 Major = 4  -1— 1 r I i ! 1  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 5 0
Japan 4 0
Germany 1 3
United Kingdom 1 0
Sweden 1 0
France 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 4 3
Tokyo 4 0
Ashburn 2 0
Redmond 2 0
Stockholm 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055823/manifest

Comment

Related Items