权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

An organisational ethnography of junior Prison Officer socialisation

初级监狱官员社会化的组织民族志

基本信息

批准号：
1923174
负责人：
金额：
--
依托单位：
University of Cambridge
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Studentship
财政年份：
2017
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2017 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-1923174
关键词：
organisational ethnography junior Prison Officer

项目摘要

The work of prison officers is an understudied topic in organization studies, as well as the wider social sciences. Even in the sociology of the prison, the officers who are responsible for the on-going running of the institution have been vastly understudied in comparison to the inmates (Crawley, 2004). The inner culture of inmate life: their routines, integration into the system, access to resources, drug use and countless other topics encompass a wide body of research in our understanding of what life in a total institution entails. Yet an over focus on the inmates provides only a limited picture of what life is really like inside a total institution. As Hawkins (1976: 85) argued several decades ago: It is in fact remarkable how little serious attention has been paid to prison officers in the quite extensive literature on prison life. It is almost as though they were, like the postman in GK Chesterton's celebrated detective story, so commonplace and routine a feature of the scene as to be invisible. Yet their role is of critical importance.Despite these remarks, literature on prison officers in the United Kingdom remains sparse. Some studies have explored the consequences of prison work, such as the severe levels of job stress, burnout and mental health issues prevalent in prison officers (Kinman, Clements & Hart, 2017). Few have conducted a serious study into the occupational world of a prison officer, and even less have looked sociologically at how novices learn to do the job of a prison officer. There was a detailed account of the role of The English Prison Officer since 1850: A Study in Conflict published by J E Thomas in 1972. Thomas argued that prison officers had been increasingly pushed to the side lines of their occupational world. He outlined that the 'Golden age' of prison reform between the 1930's and 1970's (p.152-180) placed increasing emphasis on reforming inmates, rather than punishing them. Yet prison officers were judged based on their ability to control inmates, rather than their involvement in helping them. Thomas reasoned that this caused prison officers to become increasingly excluded from their profession: on the one hand, officers were the custodians of control, and on the other, their forms of control increasingly diminished in the midst of an ever increasing progressive logic. They were in a confusion between security and rehabilitation, which led to their increasing alienation in a world they were supposed to control. The wider poststructuralist critique (Foucault, 1977) is a welcome addition here, for what Thomas viewed as a shift to treating prisoners more humanely as part of rehabilitating them, may be equally viewed as an increasing concealment of state power, shifting the nature of punishment from physical to mental. This is a point somewhat echoed by Cohen & Taylor (1972), where the Home Office's secrecy of imprisonment in the 60's and 70's led to a severe restriction of prisoner rights. These restrictions, such as barriers to obtaining medical treatment, manifest as physical deterioration, but the psychological implications may have ran far deeper. Without delving into this argument, Thomas (1972) alerts us to the importance of understanding the relative impact of policy on prison officers, albeit with a scepticism of power in mind. One wonders at the extent to which prison structure is political as opposed to purely operational, and the consequences, both visible and invisible, of this. There has also been a sociological exploration of what prison officers at their best look like. The Prison Officer by Liebling & Price (2001) used appreciative enquiry to generate a detailed understanding of the best practices of prison officers. The central proposition is that the dynamics of any prison ultimately lies in the relations between the prisoners and prison officers.

监狱官员的工作是组织研究以及更广泛的社会科学中一个未被充分研究的话题。即使在监狱社会学中，与囚犯相比，负责监狱持续运行的官员也受到了极大的忽视（Crawley，2004）。囚犯生活的内在文化：他们的日常生活、融入系统、获取资源、吸毒和无数其他主题，涵盖了我们对整个机构生活的理解的广泛研究。然而，对囚犯的过度关注只能有限地描述整个机构内的生活真实情况。正如霍金斯（Hawkins，1976：85）几十年前所说：事实上，在有关监狱生活的大量文献中，很少有人认真关注监狱官员，这是值得注意的。就好像他们就像 GK 切斯特顿著名侦探故事中的邮递员一样，是场景中司空见惯的特征，以至于看不见。然而他们的作用至关重要。尽管有这些言论，但有关英国监狱官员的文献仍然很少。一些研究探讨了监狱工作的后果，例如监狱官员普遍存在的严重工作压力、倦怠和心理健康问题（Kinman、Clements & Hart，2017）。很少有人对监狱官员的职业世界进行过认真的研究，更不用说从社会学角度研究新手如何学习担任监狱官员的工作。 J·E·托马斯 (J E Thomas) 于 1972 年出版了《自 1850 年以来英国监狱官员：冲突研究》一书，详细描述了英国监狱官员的角色。托马斯认为，监狱官员越来越被推到职业世界的边缘。他概述了 1930 年代至 1970 年代监狱改革的“黄金时代”（第 152-180 页），它越来越强调改造囚犯，而不是惩罚他们。然而，监狱官员的评判标准是他们控制囚犯的能力，而不是他们帮助囚犯的程度。托马斯推断，这导致监狱官员越来越被排除在他们的职业之外：一方面，官员是控制的守护者，另一方面，他们的控制形式在不断增强的进步逻辑中日益减弱。他们在安全和康复之间感到困惑，这导致他们在他们本应控制的世界中日益疏远。更广泛的后结构主义批评（福柯，1977）在这里是一个值得欢迎的补充，因为托马斯认为，作为改造囚犯的一部分，更加人道地对待囚犯的转变，可能同样被视为国家权力的日益隐蔽，将惩罚的性质从肉体惩罚转变为精神惩罚。 Cohen & Taylor (1972) 也有类似的观点，其中内政部在 60 年代和 70 年代对监禁的保密导致了对囚犯权利的严格限制。这些限制，例如获得医疗的障碍，表现为身体恶化，但心理影响可能更深。托马斯（Thomas，1972）在没有深入探讨这一论点的情况下，提醒我们了解政策对监狱官员的相对影响的重要性，尽管心中对权力持怀疑态度。人们想知道监狱结构在多大程度上是政治性的，而不是纯粹的操作性的，以及其可见和不可见的后果。人们还对监狱官员最好的样子进行了社会学探索。 Liebling & Price (2001) 的《监狱官员》使用欣赏式询问来详细了解监狱官员的最佳实践。中心命题是，任何监狱的动态最终取决于囚犯和狱警之间的关系。