Micro-Scholarship, What it is, How can it help me.pdf
A pike-m res-dissertation-ap2
1. Investigating
Technology-supported
Distance Learning in Prison
Dissertation for
Master of Research (MRes) degree
The Open University
Anne Pike, BSc. (Hons), MSc, PGCE (PCET)
a.e.pike@open.ac.uk
Submitted: 13th September 2010
Re-submitted: 24th December 2010
3. Abstract
The internet and its new technologies provide many opportunities to support distance
learning (Bates, 2005) but the pace of change has led to a „digital divide‟ between
those who have the access, skills and desire to use new technologies and those who
do not (Eynon, 2009). There are, however, up to 4000 distance learning inmates in
English prisons who have restricted access to technologies and for whom the „digital
divide‟ may be even wider.
This research employed a partial ethnographic approach to obtain multiple
perspectives of what technology is available to distance learning inmates, how they
access and use that technology to support learning, and what are the attitudes
towards technology-supported distance learning. Data was collected over two days
within one prison cluster in England which included three prisons housing adult male
inmates. 10 student-inmates and 6 staff participated in the in-depth, semi-structured
interviews and additional data was collected through participant observation, informal
conversations and document analysis. Through a grounded theory style analysis of
access, skills and attitude, three themes emerged: physical environment, institutional
visions and student identity.
This research finds a closed social world where the distance-learning student-
inmates show great determination in maintaining an essential student identity.
However the conflicting institutional visions of the education stakeholders and the
controlled physical environment negatively impact on technology-supported distance
learning. Except in the most „progressive‟ prison with a learning culture, the student-
inmates perceive very little choice in what technology they use for learning. In the
iii
4. „working‟ prison with the regimented work culture, student-inmates perceive
insufficient time or space for learning. Having access to a computer and a printer
which are attached to each other is a bonus and the idea of internet access appears
inconceivable to some. In this environment the „digital divide‟ appears more like a
total „discontinuity‟.
Keywords: distance learning, prison education, technology-supported learning,
digital divide, identity.
iv
5. Acknowledgements
Special thanks go to staff and students in the prisons who were extremely helpful
and kind. Without their support and enthusiasm I would have been unable to
complete this research.
Thanks also to my supervisors Dr. Anne Adams and Dr. Lesley Anderson who were
amazingly patient and always available to help, even at unusual hours.
I would like to thank the tutors of the MRes modules for helping to provide me with
the skills I needed, especially Prof. Martyn Hammersley and Prof. John Richardson
for their vision which inspired me.
I also acknowledge the support I received from staff in the Institute of Educational
Technology (IET) and the Centre for Research in Education and Educational
Technology (CREET) and fellow students.
Finally, thanks to Steve, Ben and Georgina for supporting me through difficult times.
v
9. CHAPTER 1: AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
1.1 Introduction
Up to 4000 prisoners per year study through distance learning1 while in prison
(Schuller 2009), potentially equipping them with better qualifications, skills and
values for a crime-free future (Hughes 2007; Prisoners Education Trust 2009a). The
internet and its new technologies2 provide many opportunities to support distance
learning (Bates, 2005) but studies of technology-supported distance learning in the
general population of England have identified a „digital divide‟ between those who
have the access, skills and the desire to use new technologies and those who do not
(Eynon, 2009). Many prisoners come from those socio-economic groups in England
where exclusion or truanting from school is commonplace (SEU 2002) and which are
considered to be most at risk of marginalization through the „digital divide‟ (Clarke,
2008). However, in terms of the technology which they can access in prison, they
have been labeled “cavemen in an era of speed and light technology” (Jewkes and
Johnson, 2009). The aim of this research is therefore to investigate if and how
distance learning in prison is supported by new technologies.
1
Distance learning is the main progression opportunity for those prisoners who attain level 2 (GCSE
equivalent) either before or inside prison (Open University, 2008)
2 New technologies are defined here as the information and communication technologies (ICTs)
developed since the advent of the WWW, such as networked computers, internet, Virtual Learning
Environments (VLEs) and more recently Web 2 technologies and social networking tools.
2
10. 1.2 Background
1.2.1 The ‘digital divide’ in England
Since the development of the World Wide Web (WWW) in 1995, the use of new
technologies in everyday life and learning has grown almost exponentially; leading to
an information revolution (BIS and DCMS 2009; Schuller and Watson, 2009).
However, the pace of change has caused a „digital divide‟ for those who have been
unable to keep up and are „digitally disconnected‟, either because they cannot
access new technologies or because they lack the skills or confidence to use them
appropriately (Kirkwood, 2006a). The nature of inequality is complex (Schuller and
Watson, 2009) and the interpretation of the „digital divide‟ varies but some research
suggests that it has widened over recent years (Morris, 2009). The previous
Government stated,
“We are at a tipping point in relation to the online world.
It is moving from conferring advantage on those who are
in it to conferring active disadvantage on those who are
without” (BIS, 2009, p11)
They prepared to address the issue and the Digital Britain report highlights how
those who want to participate in the information revolution may be enabled, and have
the capability to do it (BIS, 2009). Considerable research, both quantitative and
qualitative, has been devoted to investigating the „digital divide‟ in Britain and its
implications for learning but students in prison are rarely included in these studies.
3
11. 1.2.2 The prison context
The principle aim of prison is to protect the public (NOMS, 2007). However, the
balance of security, control and justice is complex and those who manage prisons
have conflicting aims in providing secure containment and a rehabilitative
environment (King, 2007). This complexity in the prison‟s role causes tension in
determining what prisoners should be allowed to do or have (Schuller, 2009). The
security category of a prison normally determines the level of physical containment.
Category A (High Security) normally houses longer-sentenced, dangerous criminals,
Category B (fairly high security) closed environment and receives prisoners directly
from the courts. Category C is lower security closed prison often aimed at providing
vocational training. The category D open prison is the lowest security prison and
allows some prisoners to leave the prison to work or get home leave in preparation
for release/resettlement. Prisoners often move through the categories, entering a low
security, sometimes open, prison shortly before release. Most prisons are managed
by the Ministry of Justice but eleven prisons in England are privately managed
(NOMS, 2007) and there is significant variety in the way prisons are run which is not
always related to security category (Adams and Pike, 2008; Liebling 2007).
1.2.3 Education in prison
In all except a few private prisons, the classroom-based prison education in England
is provided by the Offender Learning and Skills Service (OLASS)3 whose contracted
Further Education (FE) providers concentrate on addressing basic literacy and
numeracy needs. This is not considered sufficient to meet many prisoners‟ personal
or employment needs (NAO, 2009; Owers, 2007) and distance learning provides a
3 OLASS is managed by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) (previously the Learning and Skills
Council)
4
12. higher level learning option in most prisons. However, prisoners must apply through
complex screening procedures and fund themselves or apply for funding through
charitable trusts such as the Prisoners Education Trust. As with non-prison students,
student-inmates4 organise their own learning but communication with distance
learning providers is complicated by the need to go through an intermediary in the
prison; often the OLASS contracted education staff or, more recently, Careers,
Information and Advice Service (CIAS) staff. The Open University (OU) provides
some support through face-to-face or telephone tutorials when possible (Hancock
2010) though there are many other providers. Recent research suggests that lack of
internet access may be a barrier to this mode of study since student-inmates are
unable to access online materials, assessments, tutors and other students (Pike
2010, Prisoners Education Trust 2009a)
1.2.4 Educational technology in prison
The previous government committed to a long-term strategy of online secure access
in prison and planned for the development of a campus model for learning in prison
which has more flexible access to skills and employment support, with effective use
of ICT (BIS, 2006). OLASS has recently invested heavily in upgrading and replacing
its ICT infrastructure in many prisons in England and has financed suitable
maintenance arrangements. Most education departments in prisons in England now
have at least one IT suite which has modern computers with CD ROM drives, some
of which may be internally networked (Learning and Skills Council, 2008). A variety
of different technology solutions have been developed, including a new secure, fire-
walled resettlement tool, the Virtual Campus, which is being trialed by the Prison
Service in prisons in two English regions and there are plans to roll out across all
4 ‘Student-inmates’ are defined here as those prisoners who study through distance learning while in
prison
5
13. prison in England over the next two years (Prisoners Education Trust, 2009b).
Internet access in a prison environment is problematic; apart from obvious security
concerns it is politically sensitive as there is significant negative public and media
opinion (Jewkes, 2007) but it is also dependent upon Prison Service management
and each prison establishment has its own unique culture (Liebling and Price, 2001).
1.3 The research questions
The literature review which follows draws upon research on the „digital divide‟ from
the broad field of distance learning in the community at large, exploring its relevance
in a prison context and comparing it with the limited research literature of distance
learning in the prison environment. The research questions which emerge are as
follows:-
Qu1. a) What technology is available to the student-inmate?
b) How does the student-inmate access and use technologies for learning in
prison?
Qu2. How does the student-inmate develop the skills required to use technologies
for learning in prison?
Qu3. a) What are the student-inmate‟s perceptions of technology-supported
distance learning in prison?
b) What are the attitudes of others towards technology-supported distance
learning in prison?
6
15. CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
In an attempt to understand how technology supports distance learners in prison,
this review draws on the wealth of research literature on technology-supported
distance learning in England and explores its relevance for distance learning in a
prison context. Section 2.2 reviews the definition of the „digital divide‟ for non-prison
distance learners. Section 2.3 reviews the small amount of empirical research which
relates to a ´digital divide´ for distance learners in prison. Section 2.4 reviews the
literature which investigates improving technologies in prison. The review concludes
that some solutions to the „digital divide‟ in the community at large could relate to a
prison context, but there may be specific issues related to the closed prison context
which require further exploration.
2.2 The ‘digital divide’ for distance learners in England
2.2.1 Introduction
A large proportion of adults in England learn through distance education (Clark
2008). New Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) such as Virtual
Learning Environments (VLEs) and collaborative learning tools are perceived as
having the potential to widen participation in education by providing accessible and
flexible learning at a distance, though they also present many challenges (Becta,
2008; Clark, 2008) as some students are unable or unwilling to use them (Kirkwood
2006a). From some perspectives the „digital divide‟ is a socio-economic divide,
involving students who live in deprived circumstances and cannot undertake online
8
16. study for financial or social reasons (or both)‟ (Clark, 2008). Others argue that the
„digital divide‟ is shaped by factors which go beyond simple access to hardware and
skills; that use of ICT is also related to the cultural and political context in which they
operate, hence the inequalities are not being reduced by simply improving the
availability of ICT (Selwyn and Facer, 2007; Selwyn, Gorard and Furlong, 2004).
Eynon (2009) however, defines the „digital divide‟ as a “continuum of access and
use” and suggests that access, skills and attitudes may explain patterns of use of
new technologies. These are useful distinctions for ICT and learning issues and align
well with suggested concepts of „access‟, „awareness‟ and „acceptability‟ for an e-
learning framework in a secure environment (Adams and Pike, 2008a) so have been
used to structure this literature review.
2.2.1 Access
Kirkwood and Price (2005) reported on studies which used a variety of surveys to
generate quantitative and qualitative data regarding access and use of computers,
ICT and media technologies among 80,000 active OU students over the period 2001
to 2005. They found a variety of practical access issues, such as home computers in
noisy family areas which were unsuitable for study or shared access time
restrictions. Some students had problems associated with their employers, such as
prohibition of loading „external‟ software including course resources onto employers‟
computers and they found that access and use of IT inversely related to age. Eynon
(2009)‟s statistical analysis of Oxford Internet Surveys (OxIS)5 data also identified
age as a significant factor in explaining access to online learning but social class,
level of income and level of education were also highly significant factors. Although
these findings may translate to a prison context, there is a fundamental assumption
5 Multi-stage face-to-face surveys on internet use of 2000 random people in UK (see
http://microsites.oii.ox.ac.uk/oxis/)
9
17. in this literature that students have some choice in how they access and use
technology for learning and this may not be the case in a closed prison environment.
2.2.2 Skills
Increasing sophistication in new technologies and level of competency expected of
learners may widen rather than bridge the digital and educational divide (Lane,
2009). Allen (2009) identified a lack of confidence in the use of ICTs among new OU
students who lived in areas of high deprivation6 in the UK. They had negative
experiences of formal learning of ICT skills, undervalued skills developed through
informal learning and were nervous about engaging in courses which required
significant ICT usage. Many perceived the need for specific face-to-face ICT training
early in the course to develop required skills. Kirkwood and Price (2005) found that
students needed to understand why as well as how they should use ICTs for study.
Peasgood (2007), supported Kirkwood and Price‟s results for OU Openings
students, who usually utilize telephone tutorials, but also found that many students
preferred personal contact from a tutor instead of electronic communication.
However, the fact that all her interviewed students were elderly may have biased her
results. As Openings courses are often compulsory for new OU students in prison
these results may be particularly relevant.
2.2.3 Attitudes
Eynon (2009) found that those internet users with a positive attitude towards ICT
were significantly more likely to use the internet for formal and informal learning.
However, Peasgood (2007) found contrasting attitudes towards use of ICTs for
assessment and suggested that although the convenience of online assessment
6 the lowest 25%, using the UK Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007
10
18. procedures could be motivating its unfamiliarity could cause significant anxiety which
may be alleviated through appropriate informal support. Kirkwood (2006b) argues
that distance learners only „go outside the box‟ to learn if they are given a reason to
do so and need encouragement to communicate with their peers. He suggests that
online and collaborative activities should be clearly linked to outcomes and
assessment. Although this argument may encourage participation for those with
easy internet access, it may negatively affect those in less connected environments.
In comparison, Helsper and Eynon (2010) discuss the „digital natives‟7 who can
receive information really fast, parallel process and function best when networked.
They argue that these skills are not necessarily purely generational and suggest that
the „digital native‟ label could lead to unhelpful attitudes from educators who may
think that technology is a „quick fix‟; an attitude which would certainly be unhelpful to
those with more restricted access.
2.3 The ‘digital divide’ for distance learners in prison
2.3.1 Access
Hughes (2007)‟s mixed methods study of distance learners across 9 prisons in
England and Wales in 2001-2003 found variety in computer facilities and highlights a
lack of access to information generally since libraries had inadequate academic
literature or modern computers. Her research was not focused on technology,
however, and lacked technical detail. Braggins and Talbot (2003) found perceptions
of „old and outdated‟ hardware and software in their study of young prisoners in
prison education. Some distance learners were included but were not
7
One of a number of labels to describe young people born into the WWW generation, now studying at
school or University
11
19. distinguishable. Pike (2010)‟s study of 35 OU distance learning students across 15
prisons in England in 2007 also found that access to computers and storage devices
varied significantly from one prison to another and most access was in shared areas
with very restricted times. She found some use of in-cell laptops which was
perceived as „empowering‟ and almost 10% of participants had internet access but
her findings were biased by 2 students in one prison who had internet access
through their employment and her method and analysis were not clearly defined.
However, none of these studies focused on how students used computer facilities for
learning.
2.3.2 Skills
Hughes (2007) found distance learning tutors very supportive but also a perceived
lack of email correspondence with tutors meant that students felt isolated. Adams
and Pike (2008a) also identified some isolation from lack of interactive tutor support
but added that lack of communication with peers was also significant. They
suggested that OU tutors or prison education staff often needed to „bend the rules‟ in
order to provide good support, such as copying DVDs or downloading material onto
prison laptops. However, these accounts provide very little detail of how support
impacts on students‟ skills and they are unable to identify preferences for specific
types of support in order to compare with non-prison studies (Kirkwood and Price
2005).
2.3.3 Attitudes
Most prison distance learning literature provides evidence of positive perceptions of
distance learning, for improved confidence and self-esteem (Prisoner‟s Education
Trust 2009; Wilson, 2000). However Braggins and Talbot (2003) found negative
12
20. attitudes from staff and huge differences in attitudes of the prison management
regarding what technology is or is not allowed for educational purposes. They
commented on the „stupid rules‟ such as lack of access to in-cell electronic
calculators which could relate to biased cultures within the prison community.
Hughes provides an example of one student whose application for a word-processor
for typing up coursework was refused. “Security said „no‟ because of the memory”
(Hughes, 2007, p204). This highlights two specific issues: firstly the possibility that
technological advancement in prison at that time was several years behind that in
the non-prison community and secondly the institutional fear of technology which
may or may not be related to genuine security concerns. Adams and Pike (2008b)
identified similar tension among some prison staff regarding prisoner access to
unfamiliar technology which, they argue, related to the IT literacy of those in control.
However, there was no detailed review of these issues in their paper and they
suggested that further investigation was required. Although „attitude‟ is a theme in
the literature of the „digital divide‟ in the non-prison community, the aspect of control
which this literature suggests, may be peculiar to a prison environment and requires
further consideration.
2.4 Technology in prison: bridging the ‘digital divide’?
2.4.1 Access
Jewkes and Johnson (2009) suggest that 7 prisons in England and Wales provide
internet access though they do not provide any detail and their estimate of 300
students annually studying with the OU disagrees substantially with other literature
(Hancock, 2009; Jones and Pike, 2010). The OU and other distance learning
13
21. providers are participating in trials of the new Virtual Campus by providing a small
number of courses (Prisoners Education Trust, 2009b) though evaluation is limited.
Pike (2009) suggests other prisons have networked their new computers internally,
allowing software and printers to be shared so students can appear to access
uploaded courses „online‟, though she mentions only one High Security prison. There
are many other initiatives across prisons which are making use of e-learning
(Englebright and Essom, 2009; Englebright and Petit, 2009). Although this work
represents a big step forward, most of the individual initiatives use non-interactive
technology such as digital cameras and are limited in their effectiveness because of
lack of access to the internet in prisons. Also there are many cases where the
materials are prevented from working properly due to the security tools used to lock
down the computers to the satisfaction of the authorities (National Learning Network,
2010).
2.4.2 Skills
Computer skills in prison are provided in the form of European Computer Driving
Licence (ECDL) or Computer Literacy and Information Technology (CLAIT)
qualifications and some prisons have introduced e-skills though these IT skills are
usually only available to students attending standard classroom education and are
not available to those doing distance learning (Prisoners Education Trust, 2009a).
Some prisons also provide IT qualifications through CISCO academies or
Learndirect courses (Jewkes and Johnson, 2009). In the non-prison community,
Kirkwood (2006a) indicates effective networked learning requires specific skills
though it is not known whether student-inmates either have or need such skills.
Hancock (2009) suggests an Essential, Desirable or Optional (EDO) framework to
structure centralised support for specific distance learning courses which require a
14
22. VLE. Acknowledging this as an improvement and potential for a valuable short-term
solution, Pike (2009) argues that alternatives are not the long-term solution and
further research is required to identify barriers to online resources.
2.4.3 Attitude
Braggins and Talbot (2003, p29) commented
“It is difficult to believe that the obvious risks and temptations
associated with unfettered access to the internet could not be
overcome with a little imagination, computer know-how and
institutional courage”.
Modern technology is able to provide secure access and a number of successful
initiatives suggest technical solutions are possible (Jewkes and Johnson, 2009).
Taylor (2005) explained that although no firewall is completely safe some prison
governors prefer the ´trust´ method of internet access (as adopted by some
European countries) along with censored email, to the current system of letter-
checking. Adams and Pike (2008a) argue that negative perceptions of information
security and control which impede the development of open and distance learning
are not specific to the Prison Service and other closed institutions such as the NHS
have similar perceptions. However, they argue that in order to find appropriate
solutions to the „digital divide‟ there is a need to understand the culture within the
environment.
15
23. 2.5 Conclusion
This review suggests that the „digital divide‟ is not a static gap but a complex and
evolving phenomenon for both the prison and non-prison distance learner. However
the prison context is under-researched and in order to adequately address the „digital
divide‟ in this closed environment there is a need to identify patterns of access and
use, levels of competence and support, student preferences and cultural attitudes as
in the community at large. This research project therefore aims to identify how the
developing technology is supporting distance learning in a prison environment; what
technology is now available to the student-inmate, how they access and use that
technology and what are the perceptions and attitudes regarding access and use of
the technology (see research questions in section 1.3 above). Chapter 3 discusses
the methods and ethical issues related to the data collection.
16
25. CHAPTER 3: METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION
3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the research design. The adopted research approach is
described, a number of possible data collection methods discussed and the rationale
for the chosen methods of data collection provided. The table in Appendix A, which
is adapted from Mason (2002), justifies how the chosen data collection techniques
specifically address the research questions. The selection process for the prisons
and the participants is then outlined and some of the many ethical issues are
addressed.
3.2 Theoretical perspective
The prison, being a „total institution‟8 (Goffman, 1961), is a difficult environment to
research (Liebling, 2001) and one that requires a special research stance
(Piacentini, 2008). Student-inmates have actions, thoughts, attitudes and a story to
tell about their hidden social world. A qualitative approach is considered most
appropriate as it could generate rich descriptions of participants‟ perceptions of
technology-supported distance learning in a prison context9, which would be flexible
and sensitive to the complexity of this closed social world (Mason, 2002). Some
qualitative researchers such as discourse analysts argue that language is
8
A total institution is described as an isolated, artificially created, world in which people are subjected
to a depersonalizing and totalitarian regime. Goffman considered prisons, mental asylums, monasteries
and boarding schools as total institutions and his version of ‘inmate’ included staff as well as
prisoner/patient.
9
The education department in the prison is not the prisoners’ natural setting in terms of their
accommodation and leisure activities but with respect to the educational technology focus of this
research it is considered to be acceptable
18
26. constructive, constitutive of social life, so the social world only exists through human
meaning-making (Potter and Wetherill, 1987) and nothing beyond the discourse is
valid. However in line with a „subtle realism‟, perceptions may differ but an
assumption can still be made that the described phenomena are as they are and not
just how they are perceived to be, as long as threats to validity are minimised
throughout the research process (Hammersley, 1992; Hammersley and Gomm,
2006).
A grounded theory style of analysis is therefore considered to be most appropriate
(Strauss and Corbin, 1998) as it may capture the social complexity of the closed
prison environment. However, to improve validity, multiple sources with different
perspectives could provide a better understanding of the complexities and a variety
of different collection techniques which have different kinds of validity threat may
also check interpretations (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007).
3.3 Methods of data collection
A mixed-methods approach generating both qualitative and quantitative data is
initially considered as it could provide multiple perspectives (Blaxter et. al., 2006). A
quantitative research method, such as a survey, could be useful at a macro-level,
providing large-scale, structural features of technology-supported learning in the
larger prison community as it is more concerned with identifying patterns and causal
relationships between variables which can be measured (Bryman, 2001). It could
also provide evidence on which to base a qualitative research method for the micro
perspective. Surveys have been used successfully in a prison context as part of a
mixed-methods approach (Hughes, 2007) but delivery, completion and return is
19
27. dependent on the prison authorities and can be an issue. Although open questions
could provide some qualitative data, a survey alone would be unlikely to provide
sufficiently detailed information of the participants‟ perceptions of technology-
supported distance learning under investigation and there is insufficient time to use it
as a complementary method.
Since the way people think and feel affects the way they behave and interact with
others (Blaxter et al., 2006), observation of student-inmates in their learning
environment could provide insight into their social world. Participant observation is
one of the primary tools of ethnography which has proved to be a valuable approach
to studying social relations and cultural codes in a prison context (De Viggiani, 2007;
Jewkes, 2002). However, time restrictions make the sustained observation required
for an in-depth ethnographic study inappropriate for this small-scale research. Also
as much of the study time of the student-inmate is in the confines of the cell which is
not observable, participant observation does not adequately address all of the
research questions. However, some observation could provide a complementary
method of data collection and a partial ethnographic approach is considered
feasible10.
In-depth interviews are considered to be the most appropriate for the primary
research data collection method as they may produce rich descriptions of
participants‟ accounts, both for information about how student-inmates access and
use technology and for analysis of the perspectives they imply (Hammersley and
10
It is acknowledged that a full ethnographic approach would require more than two days in the field
but data collection was approached in a reflexive manner over the two days.
20
28. Atkinson, 2007). They would also potentially provide data which would not be directly
observable such as in other prisons and in-cell activities.
Group interviews are briefly considered as they could potentially capture more
participants at one time and encourage less formality, but it is likely that narratives
would be affected by participants‟ inability to divulge personal information in the
company of others. One-to-one interviews in a quiet setting are considered to be the
most likely possibility of providing the participants with the privacy to be able to talk
freely. They are also likely to provide flexibility for the researcher within the confines
of the prison regime. Only face-to-face interviews of the student participants are
feasible as the likelihood of being able to access prisoners by telephone is slim. Less
formal interviews with staff are possible, both face-to-face and telephone, and could
be arranged opportunistically to improve flexibility.
Document analysis is used in some form or other in most social research projects. It
is a valuable resource and particularly useful in a prison context because it can often
be completed without a site visit. This method is not suitable as a main data
collection technique as it could not obtain perceptions of technology-supported
distance learning. However pertinent procedural and policy documents could provide
information about distance learning and technology across the wider prison estate
and individual learning plans or class registration documents could provide useful
background information.
3.4 Data collection methods chosen
21
29. A systematic analysis of the above data collection methods leads towards a partial
ethnographic, multi-method approach with in-depth, semi-structured, face-to-face,
interviews as the primary data collection method for the majority of the participants.
Additional data will be generated from participant observation and informal
conversations with staff and students; providing direct situational information and
ideas to bring meaning to the data collected through the interviews. Government,
Prison Service, Ofsted and Third Sector documents will also be examined where
appropriate to provide background information and aid selection criteria. Appendix A
provides a table which justifies how these data collection methods address the
research questions.
This multi-method approach should provide multiple perspectives and improve
validity. In an attempt to further improve validity, interviews will not follow a strict
sequence but be allowed to flow as in a natural conversation. What questions are
asked and how they are asked would be considered in the analysis and an
awareness of the researcher‟s participation in the research process could also be
exploited with respect to the information gained from the participants‟ reaction to the
researcher (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). Research in prison must adhere to
the strict security regime (Jewkes and Johnson, 2009; Piacentini, 2007) and this
multi-method approach provides the flexibility to accommodate this.
3.5 Selection Procedures
3.5.1 The prison
Only one prison setting is considered as Prison Service Research regulations require
complex and time-consuming Home Office approval for research in more than one
22
30. prison and difficult access arrangements are eased by a good rapport which usually
takes time to develop.
The selection criteria for the prison are as follows:-
1. Potential of new technologies for learning.
2. Sufficient number and variety of distance learners.
3. A variety of learning environments (some prison clusters contain several prisons
in one site with multiple security categories).
4. Ease of access, including known gatekeepers and distance from the researcher‟s
home as at least two full day visits are required and the day starts early.
3.5.2 The participants
An application to the Student Research Project Panel (SRPP) is not required as the
focus of the research is on all distance learning students in prison, not just OU
students (see email confirmation in Appendix B).
Purposive sampling is planned, to handpick student participants across a range of
prison security categories and distance education providers (Blaxter et. al., 2006).
This is chosen because there are few distance learning students available and the
aim is to interview as many as possible with a variety of experiences. Sampling of
the staff will be more opportunistic though partially „theoretical‟ (Strauss and Corbin,
1990, p177), as the data will be partially analysed and emerging themes may affect
further selection.
23
31. 3.6 Ethical Issues
3.6.1 Introduction
This research adheres to British Educational Research Association (BERA) ethical
guidelines as well as OU ethical guidelines, and is cleared by the Human Participant
and Materials Research Ethics Committee (Appendix C). However, research involving
prisoners is “fraught with ethical challenges” (Roberts and Indermaur, 2008) and a
number of specific issues require consideration at different stages of the research.
These are highlighted below under the five main principles which can be considered
to underpin the majority of ethical concerns in social and educational research: harm,
autonomy, privacy, reciprocity and equity (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007;
Hammersley and Traianou, 2007).
3.6.2 Harm
For the participant: Every attempt will be made to avoid sensitive or distressing
subjects. The prison and the participants will be anonymised to prevent harm from
any adverse publicity or publications at a later date.
For the researcher: Enhanced CRB disclosure has been obtained and the
researcher, as an ex-prison tutor, is fully conversant with prison security procedures.
3.6.3 Autonomy
Participation will be completely voluntary and participants must sign a consent form.
The rights of prisoners to make free and informed decisions may not be appreciated
by prison gatekeepers who consider prison management as the only authority
deciding prisoner participation (Waldram, 1998). Thus to ensure that participation is
24
32. voluntary and student-inmates understand the implications of the research and its
subsequent report, easy-to-read information sheets will accompany the consent form
and the main points discussed at length prior to the interview. The option to withdraw
at any stage up to analysis and the opportunity of not being recorded will also be
stressed, and time given for reflection before the end of the interview.
Roberts and Indermaur (2008) argue that signed consent forms may pose a threat to
confidentiality, for example, to a prisoner‟s future wellbeing. However, this is not
expected to be an issue as: firstly, the research is focused on educational technology
not their crimes; secondly, the student-inmates will be specifically informed that other
topics are not for discussion; finally, a suitably confidential room for the semi-
structured interviews will be identified where possible (though regime restrictions
may affect interview space).
3.6.4 Privacy
All data will be anonymised and subject to the requirements of the Data Protection
Act. The required OU Data Protection form has been completed and all necessary
measures to ensure the security of the data will be taken. Audio files and/or
transcripts and other electronic data will be stored in password-protected files on an
OU laptop, printed material in locked cupboards at the OU, personal data kept
separately from the interview schedules to protect confidentiality and preserve
anonymity. Anonymity and confidentiality will be stressed before and after the
interview (especially relative to staff/ student relationships).
25
33. 3.6.5 Reciprocity
Access to prisons is difficult and people who are inconvenienced or disrupted by the
research may require recompense, in order to allow access to more research in the
future. The researcher will attempt to fit in with the prison regime and be guided to
the participants and spaces available. The researcher is aware that prisoners may
request favours but they will be informed of the researcher‟s role, working within the
BERA ethics code and that she has no influence in relation to their studies, nor could
she provide any other privileges.
3.6.6 Equity or justice
An attempt will be made to treat all participants equally within the research process
and not discriminate against or exploit anyone.
26
35. CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter provides information about the data collection and analysis procedures.
It describes the prison setting, including how the prison was selected and access
gained. The discussion of data collection procedures includes adaption for
unforeseen problems and ethical issues considered. Finally, the analysis process is
described and the emerging themes of physical environment, institutional visions and
student identity are introduced.
4.2 The prison setting
The initial gatekeeper was the OLASS National IT manager who, in order to improve
the potential for technology, recommended those prisons which were successfully
using the Virtual Campus (see section 1.2.4). Distance learner numbers in the
recommended prisons were estimated by analysing data at the Prisoners Education
Trust (PET) and the OU. Ofsted reports provided background information. The prison
chosen was a cluster prison11, trialling an OU Openings course on the Virtual
Campus and provided the potential to investigate distance learning at three security
levels, B to D.
The OLASS manager introduced the researcher to the second gatekeeper, the Head
of Learning and Skills (HoLS), a Governor level manager at the site. He gave
11
A cluster prison contains several prisons within one site which act as one establishment and aim to
progress prisoners through the different security levels as they complete their sentence.
28
36. permission for access to all three prisons on the site and completed security
arrangements for the audio equipment. It was agreed that the research would be
completed over two days with a gap of approximately 2 weeks for reflection, analysis
and staff holidays.
A third gatekeeper, an education staff member became the visit coordinator,
providing support and an escort12 around the establishment. The HoLS, the visit
coordinator and the Virtual Campus were all in the Category (Cat) D Open prison, so
that was where the research was mostly focused.
Initial enquiries established that out of the 1400 prisoners, there were possibly only
13 distance learners though actual numbers were unknown. Through liaison with the
visit coordinator and various other education staff at the prison, the participants were
selected according to the sampling criteria (see chapter 3). However, data collection
could not be fully planned prior to the first visit as student availability and staffing
arrangements were unknown and the final decision on who participated was with the
prison management.
4.3 Data collection procedures
4.3.1 The Visits
Data collection was completed over two full-day visits in June 2010. During the first
visit, data was generated from students and staff in the Cat D prison and one student
from the Cat B prison. The second visit generated data from additional students and
staff in the Cat D and Cat C prison. Movement around the cluster site was eased
12
Visitors to prisons must be escorted at all times by a key-holder, not only to open the many locked
doors but also to adhere to security regulations.
29
37. substantially by the visit coordinator, who also provided an excellent source of
background information, though most of the informal conversations took place „on
the move‟ and were recorded from memory in hand-written field-notes.
4.3.2 The Interviews
In all, 10 students and 6 staff were interviewed. Details are provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Prison and interview details
Prison Number and type of prisoner Number of interviews
Category
#
Staff* Students
B 1074 remand, sentenced and vulnerable 0 1 (OU)
prisoners.
C 170 sentenced prisoners focused on 2 (CIAS) 2 (ST)
training 2 (MC)
D 187 sentenced prisoners in open 1 (CIAS) 4 (OU)
conditions (with 25% going outside the 2 (Education) 1 (ST)
prison to work or study) 1 (HMPS)
Totals 6 10
* Staff employers: CIAS = Careers Information and Advice Service staff, Education = OLASS
contracted education provider, HMPS = Prison staff.
# Student‟s current distance learning provider: ST = Stonebridge, OU = Open University, MC
= Manchester College.
Following ethical procedures as discussed in Section 3.6, information and consent
forms for both students and staff were checked with the ethics committee and the
30
38. prison before being sent in advance (see Appendix D). These forms provided
information on interview technique, confidentiality, withdrawal options and the
anonymised report procedures. The options and procedures were reinforced before
and after the interviews but this process was not extended to informal staff interviews
as it appeared inappropriate.
The interview guides (see Appendix E) provided questions and probes to focus the
conversation towards the research questions only when necessary. They were
slightly different for students and staff to avoid sensitive issues such as staff-student
relationships and previous history. Student participants were also provided with an
additional request form (Appendix F) which included sensitive information such as
age range, length of sentence and expected release date, as well as a request for
permission to be contacted again either in prison or on release (see 6.3 Future
research). Most student interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes. Staff interviews
were mostly shorter as they were opportunistic within their busy schedule.
All student interviews and most of the staff interviews took place in the education
department of the prisons which enabled the researcher to move around relatively
unrestricted and appear less obtrusive. The student interviews in the Cat B and Cat
D prisons took place in relatively quiet staff rooms. There were some interruptions
such as phones ringing and prison or education staff entering for records but these
did not appear to affect the interviewee. The four students in the Cat C prison were
interviewed in a group. This was not planned (see 4.4 below), but was organised by
a staff member who considered that there was insufficient time for students, who had
been released from their work to attend, to be interviewed individually. The room was
large with interviewees seated formally at four small tables facing the researcher,
31
39. who was seated between the interviewees and the door (in accordance with prison
security).
4.3.3 Other data collection methods
Observation
Opportunistic observations took place across the prison on both days; they included
observation of what technology was available in the classrooms and the staff rooms,
how students accessed and used that technology and the interaction between the
students and staff. On the second visit, one student, who had been involved in an
OU trial, was observed for approximately 45 minutes using the Virtual Campus.
During most of that time the researcher sat beside the student at the computer,
noting his actions and his comments.
Informal conversation
Informal conversations were carried out with staff and students during observations,
over lunch-times, on the move between prisons or while waiting for formal interviews.
These provided interesting background information to the interview data. Hand-
written field-notes were made unobtrusively, as and when possible.
Document analysis
Documents studied prior to the field visits included various OU and PET records,
recent Ofsted reports and the Prison Service Instruction13 (NOMS, 2010), a recently
published document providing instructions for the allocation and support of distance
learning in prison. Documents studied during the field visits included the prison
13
Mandatory instructions to prison Governors
32
40. employment guide and induction material. There were unfortunately no distance
learner records available to provide quantitative data as originally planned.
4.3.4 Recording and transcription
Nine interviews at the Open prison were recorded (with consent from the
participants) using the audio recorder. All other data collected was recorded with
handwritten field-notes (see 4.4 below). Additional field-notes were made while
audio recording which provided non-verbal observations such as body language but
also provided a backup in case the audio recording failed. The researcher‟s words
and thoughts were always placed in square brackets14. Informal conversations and
observations which could not be recorded at the time due to logistics or
inappropriateness were written from memory as soon as possible and were
consequently less reliable. Audio recordings were fully transcribed by a third party
but only the words were required (not a detailed transcription as would be needed for
discourse analysis). All hand-written field-notes were word-processed later by the
researcher to allow for searches for words and phrases during the analysis phase.
The data was organised and categorised according to where it was collected within
the prison.
4.3.5 Participant Profile
Only the student participant profile was obtained sufficiently completely to analyse
(see problems below). Most of the student participants interviewed were well
educated and had been distance learners in prison for several years; some had
gained all their education in prison. Descriptive statistics of the student participants
14
A lesson learnt from previous research when the researcher was unable to tell whether the comment
was her’s or the interviewee’s
33
41. are shown in a table in Appendix G and key features are displayed in the following
graphs.
Figure 1 shows the age range of the student participants. All had some IT skills,
though some had developed those skills in prison doing CLAIT and CLAIT Plus. 60%
hand-wrote their assignments but the only student to admit lack of internet skills was
in the oldest age bracket. Sentence lengths ranged from 3.5 years to life.
60
50
40
Percentage of students (%)
30
20
10
0
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54
Age range of student participants (Years)
Figure 1: Age range of student participants
Figure 2 shows their previous education. Only 20% admitted leaving school with
nothing, but many of the 50% with GCSE equivalent suggested that much of their
education had been completed in prison or Young Offender Institutes. In addition,
34
42. 80% of the students described poor school experiences and 50% were excluded
from school at various stages of their education (See Appendix G)
Degree Left school with nothing
20% 20%
A-levels
10%
GCSE (or equivalent)
50%
Figure 2: Education level of student participants
4.4 Problems encountered
Permission for the audio equipment was only granted for formal interviews in the
open prison so interviews at the Cat B and C prisons, all other conversations and
observations were recorded with hand-written field-notes. Care was taken to ensure
that the interviewee‟s words were recorded as closely as possible however this was
not always possible. The group interview was particularly difficult to record as it was
rarely possible to record who said what and some abbreviations were later
35
43. undecipherable. The group interview was also a problem in other ways as the
researcher was unable to probe potentially sensitive issues such as previous
education, skills levels and prison experiences which require privacy. In addition, the
seating was very formal and did not provide an environment which was conducive to
„open‟ conversation. Also, although well-intentioned, the organising staff member
returned several times which disrupted the flow of the conversation and at one point
one of the students said “Shh he‟s coming”,
Prison officer staff were not interviewed at each security category prison as planned
as only one prison staff member was interviewed on the first visit and permission to
speak to prison officers was refused for the second visit.
Many staff were very helpful and forthcoming but the researcher occasionally
perceived some reluctance and decided that some questions such as previous
education and IT history were too sensitive to ask.
For the student participants, age-ranges instead of actual ages were collected as
actual age was considered sensitive and age-range could be compared with
literature on the „digital divide‟ (Eynon, 2009). However these age-ranges were not
helpful for statistical comparison with prison records15.
The transcriber was not an expert in the field and the transcriptions contained a
significant number of errors which were corrected by the researcher by playing and
replaying the audio files. One or two of the recordings were faded in some sections
15
More than 10% of prisoners are aged over 50 in England and Wales, with more than 2500 over 60
(the fastest growing age group in prison) (Cooney and Braggins, 2010)
36
44. or difficult to hear above the noise of telephones or shuffling of the researcher‟s
notes, and the wording was lost. Hand-written notes were used to fill in gaps where
possible.
4.5 Data Analysis
4.5.1 Procedure
Once all the data had been transcribed or word-processed, it was read and re-read,
with the recordings, where available, in an attempt to “know one‟s data”
(Hammersley and Atkinson 2007, p162). In line with a grounded theorising approach,
the data was open coded by selecting sections of narrative which were given
conceptual labels (Strauss and Corbin 1998, p65) which were written in the margin.
The words and phrases „coded‟ were not taken out of context and what happened
before and after the account were also considered. In order to ensure theoretical
sensitivity this open coding was completed without pre-conceived themes or
hypotheses. Themes then emerged from the data.
Later, due to short time-scales, an adaptation of grounded theory, closer to
“qualitative content analysis” (Bryman 2001, p392) was used to group the conceptual
labels according to the three themes which were drawn from the literature and which
formed the research questions. Selections were then colour-coded; access (red),
attitude (green) and skills (yellow) and the grouped concepts were mostly recorded
in a spreadsheet (see Appendix H). Some concepts did not appear to fit into the
themes initially and were left for a later analysis. Some concepts had multiple
themes. The colour-coded data was copied and pasted into a variety of other
documents which were then used to „think‟ with and look for patterns.
37
45. The aim was to identify “situated meanings” (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007, p168),
not just what was happening but why it was happening and what perceptions were
behind the words. For example it was often necessary to consider the potential effect
of rules and relationships on a situation and sometimes what was not said was as
important as what was said. Initial ideas were recorded and built upon or discarded,
depending on whether the rest of the data fit into the idea or not. Pre-conceptions of
the researcher, such as empathy with the student‟s lack of resources, were guarded
against as much as possible by trying to keep an „open mind‟ about how the data fit
together. Frequent and fundamental cases (Adams et. al., 2008) were used to set
the limits of what was perceived as the „normal‟ situation. Identifying the patterns led
to an appreciation of some of the rules, not just the official rules but the everyday,
„hidden‟ rules as perceived by the interviewees.
4.5.2 Emerging themes
Most student-inmates provided rich descriptions of learning journeys through the
prison system; providing comparison of their current prison with other prisons they
remembered and analysing the situation from other perspectives. Their
interpretations were treated objectively as information on other prisons but as a
student‟s perspective of different prisons “the social location is no longer a source of
bias, it is a focus for the analysis”, (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007, p181). As some
of the narratives were memories from several years previous their validity was
questionable but despite this, they were surprisingly consistent and extremely
interesting so were fundamental in the development of the three emerging themes of
physical environment, institutional visions and student identity. These are detailed
below in relation to the research questions (see section 1.3 above) and described
38
46. more fully in chapter 5, where the participants‟ comments are used to highlight key
points.
The physical environment
The physical environment is perceived as a powerful force; controlling the student-
inmate‟s ability to access personal space in which to learn or communicate with
peers, providing the technologies to support the learning but controlling access to
those technologies (RQ 1a, b); even controlling the clothes which are worn which
impacts on self-esteem and attitude towards learning (RQ 3a). It also impacts on the
distance learner‟s skills by developing the determination to survive (RQ 2).
Institutional Visions
This second emerging theme is related to how students perceive the visions of the
institutions which have control over their learning in some way; that is the Prison
Service, the OLASS Providers, the CIAS Organisations and even the Distance
Learning Providers who all have different attitudes towards technology-supported
distance learning (RQ 3b). These institutional visions are perceived to clash with the
physical environment, thus further controlling the student‟s time and ability to access
technology for learning (RQ 1b) and promoting skills which may or may not be
perceived as useful to the technology-supported distance learner (RQ 2).
Student Identity
This third emerging theme is the one thing over which the distance learner perceives
to have some control. The physical environment and the competing institutional
visions together impact on the student identity but ultimately the distance learners
have a perception of their own learning, what access and skills they need to manage
39
47. their learning and what motivates them to continue with their studies despite the
barriers (RQ 1b, 2, 3a, 3b).
40
49. CHAPTER 5: INTERPRETING THE DATA
5.1 Introduction
The data analysis which has been described in chapter 4 produced three emerging
themes. This chapter describes how these emerging themes impact on the prison-
based distance learner, as he seeks to develop his student identity through
technology-supported higher level learning within the confines of a physical
environment which is pulled in different directions by the conflicting institutional
visions of the educational stakeholders within the prison, who all have a different
perspective of rehabilitation. Participants‟ narrative is used to describe key issues but
in order to ensure anonymity; the names used are not the participant‟s real names.
Additional and fuller quotes are supplied in Appendix I. Although the research
questions (as specified in 1.3) are answered within each theme, they are more
clearly addressed in chapter 6.
5.2 The physical environment
5.2.1 Introduction
Within this research „access to technology‟ is defined as being able to physically gain
access to a place where the technology exists and, once there, being able to fully
utilize the technology which exists but it also appears to be dependent on the student
being given the time to study.
42
50. The physical environment is perceived to vary significantly across prisons and
security categories so physical accessibility depends on where the students access
the technology. Often the education department, where the technology is perceived
to be „improved‟ and „good quality‟, was in a different building to the library or the
vocational working environment or the student‟s cell or dormitory. The time to study
was dependent on where and when the student could access the technology and
also on what other activities the student was expected to do. Both time and space
were seen to be controlled by the various organisations within the prison.
5.2.2 ‘Progressive’ prison versus ‘working’ prison
Most student-inmates had perceptions of a stark contrast between those prisons
which appeared to consider technology-supported independent learning as
something to be encouraged and those that appeared to positively discourage it. To
explain this contrast, the terms „progressive‟ and „working‟ have been used for the
prisons at each end of the spectrum. At one end of the spectrum, there is the
„progressive‟ prison (often Private) in which higher level distance learning is
integrated within the full-time education programme. It provides an environment in
which prisoners perceived they could learn independently and grow through
reflection, with unrestricted access to computers, DVDs, printers and a place to talk
to like-minded students. Ethan, who was already studying an OU course when he
was transferred to a Category (Cat) C prison, explains how there was supported
internet access to his distance learning materials in the „progressive‟ prison he had
left behind.
At the other end of the spectrum, the student-inmates talked about the „working‟
prison (usually Cat C and D) which is highly regimented with an “obsessive work
43
51. environment” (Freddie), which does not allow space and time for independent
learning and personal development. All student-inmates interviewed provided
examples of severe restriction to computers in these prisons. Even though there may
be modern computers in the education department, the distance learner is not
allowed to study there. Often, they are only allowed in the library, perhaps for one
evening a week where there are a couple of computers which they share with those
who “play solitaire” while talking to their friends, and they try to print on the one
“temperamental” printer. The distance learner appears to be almost invisible in this
type of prison. One student-inmate knew of only one other higher level student who
he could talk to, and that was because he had shared a „dorm‟ with him.
5.2.3 Trust
In the higher security category prisons (A and B), physical movement is heavily
restricted but as the student moves to prisons with lower security levels (C and D)
they expected more freedom to access technology and learning. However, the
findings from this research were mostly contrary to this. As physical restrictions were
improved, access to technology appeared to reduce. Ethan explained that when he
was in the Cat B prison, he received the help which he considered to be acceptable
for that level of security but he was confused by the level of increased restriction at
the Cat D prison.
“There seems to be more restrictions. We are placed in
somewhere we can be suitably trusted, in open conditions,
but I don‟t really see that trust” (Ethan)
44
52. In the „progressive‟ prison the student-inmate is allowed to study alone; often given
a room in which to study full-time and unsupervised. The student-inmates respect
that trust. However, in the „working‟ prison they are often told that they must be
supervised and this restriction is sometimes difficult to understand as “the whole
point about distance learning is that you learn by yourself” (Ethan). However, the
worst effect of the need for supervision is that if the supervising staff are not
available then valuable technology-supported study time is lost.
“If they [the CIAS staff] weren‟t in, you couldn‟t go to the
library, which meant that‟s a day you couldn‟t study” (Ethan)
Some student-inmates manage to gain employment in the library. This trusted
position allows them more time to access computers and other material. Charlie
used to work in the library at his Cat C prison where he had access to a “tele and a
DVD player” though he has no access to a DVD player at the Cat D open prison. He
also used the computer in the library but explained that storing your work on the
library computers could be dangerous as it could be deleted by other prisoners
which “can destroy the entire course.” (Charlie)
5.2.4 Personal space
Personal space is at a premium in prison and if the student-inmate is not able to find
study space during the day, the only place to find peace and quiet to study may be in
a cell at night. Single cells were sometimes perceived good for study as once the
door was closed it was easy to focus, though others perceived even single cells were
noisy at night. Some prisons have dormitories which held as many as 9 other
prisoners and student-inmates find it very difficult to study in these conditions as
45
53. there is so much else going on. However, the determination to survive enables
student-inmates to find ingenious coping strategies. Those who share a dormitory,
may study in the early hours of the morning before the other prisoners are awake.
Duncan copes by completely „switching off‟ to everything around him by saying,
“this bed space is mine and what takes place in here is me
and anything else is outside of that” (Duncan)
But that is not technology-supported learning as Freddie highlighted as he told what
happens if, while studying in your cell, you make a mistake on the third attempt at a
hand-written assignment,
“you .. rip off a little white piece of paper and stick it over the
mistake and write on it like it‟s a little bit of Tipp-ex. It‟s really
medieval like some sort of … struggling communist in a
fascist prison.” (Freddie)
Another aspect of the physical environment is the student-inmate‟s clothes. These
have an impact on their self-respect as well as their learning. Freddie did not want to
leave the „progressive‟ prison where he wore his own clothes though he explained
that it was necessary to keep moving through the prison‟s perceived rehabilitation
route; to be seen to be progressing by going to a Cat C prison. But he was shocked
by the “horrible pyjama humiliation” of the „working‟ prison, where,
“it‟s put on your purple tracksuit … at HMP X you are going to
be sewing curtains” (Freddie).
46
54. 5.3 Institutional visions
5.3.1 Introduction
Although the ends of the physical spectrum are extreme cases, they show the
different institutional visions. In a „progressive‟ prison the different organisations
appear to work together towards one aim which is „student-centred‟ or, in the case of
the private prison, there may be fewer organisations to have different visions. In the
„working‟ prison, however, the many different organisations appear to have
conflicting views. The key aim of the Prison Service is that prisoners should be
doing purposeful activity. Distance learning is classed as a recreational activity which
has a much lower priority than prison „work‟ as Minny explains,
“I do think there is the stigma that it [distance learning] is just
recreational … a lot of the officers think it is just a case of
some purposeful activity that keeps the guys amused”
(Minny, [education staff])
The following paragraphs highlight how the conflicting institutional visions impact on
the student-inmate‟s ability to access the space, time and technology to learn or the
ability to gain appropriate skills.
5.3.2 Can you read?
The student-inmate‟s perception is that the OLASS provider‟s vision is to educate
those who cannot read and write. The higher level learners feel unwanted in the
47
55. prison education department and consider there is very little help for those who
already have literacy and numeracy skills,
“can you read and write? Yes you can? In that case you are
educated. As far as anything further, there is not a lot of
support.” (Charlie)
The student-inmates are also saddened by the fact that there are good computers in
the education department which are standing idle. Education in the „working‟ prison
is not compulsory and many of the classrooms are only half-filled.
“It [education department, Cat D] has got a lot of resources
and life and a lot of good stuff, but it hasn‟t got any people.”
(Freddie)
The student-inmates feel they should be entitled to use the facilities but they are not
allowed to use the idle computers as distance learning is not an OLASS accredited
course. The education staff acknowledge that access to computers for student-
inmates is not as good as it could be and that “increasingly there is less opportunity
for students to access resources where there isn‟t necessarily accredited learning”
(Minny, [education staff]).
Many of the student-inmates have the perception that the education staff are just
following orders which are “coming from above” (Ethan). This is corroborated by
education staff who put the blame for the orders at either the door of the Prison
Service or the OLASS provider.
48
56. “There is all sorts of rules and regs that we just have to work
within. There are boundaries and OU is just one part of
prison life where we have very tight boundaries…..but I do
think it is very difficult for them to do an OU course in prison,
because education departments (and obviously I‟m extending
this back to prison) are only open for so many hours. XX [the
OLASS provider] restricts the hours that we can offer them….
my understanding is that OLASS providers are not supporting
them” (Molly, [education staff])
Most education staff are sympathetic to the plight of the student-inmate and try very
hard to help but feel that their “hands are tied”. Officially, there also appears to be
some confusion about who should be taking responsibility for distance learning and
the staff are concerned about those who “are falling completely through the cracks”
(Molly, [education staff])
5.3.3 Tagged on
Student-inmates are sometimes attached to a taught accredited course in the
education department. Often this is facilitated by supportive education staff. Andrew
used the Computer Literacy and Information Technology (CLAIT) course to access
computers every day. Officially he was doing CLAIT but he purposely had not
finished the course as he was concerned that he would then no longer be able to
gain access to the computers and would have to „work‟ elsewhere. One student had
already “done the highest level of IT in here, CLAIT Plus and Advanced and all that”
49
57. (Ethan). He was allowed to sit in the CLAIT class and do his distance learning work
instead.
However, not all students liked being tagged onto someone else‟s class. Despite
being grateful to the “friendly and sociable” education staff for enabling them to
access computers in this way, they really wanted their own space where they could
access technology for their own study, rather than being “just tagged on”.
Ben sums up why technology-supported distance learning in a „working‟ prison can
appear so difficult,
“I can‟t do my work here [education], because they wouldn‟t
pay me …So I have to get a job so therefore the only chance
of work [study] is of an evening and the only place I can do it
is over there [library] and the only place I can print is over
here” (Ben)
5.3.4 Regimented work ethic
Students perceive the regimented work ethic of a „working‟ prison to be detrimental
to any form of learning. The induction process is considered to be a particularly
unhelpful process in which prisoners are provided with insufficient information to
make a choice about education or work. They are perceived to be pushed into doing
such activities as recycling.
“Do you want to do IT classes? They [prisoners] are going to
say – oh hell, I don‟t know what that is, right next, recycling,
50
58. want to do that? Yes? Do you know what I mean? It‟s a quick
interview - tick that box.” (Freddie)
There are several major perceived problems with this emphasis on work for the
student-inmates. Firstly, the financial aspect does not encourage the student-inmate.
As distance learning is not part of the OLASS curriculum so the student-inmates are
not paid. Therefore, unless a student is able to get onto a paid education course they
must do various other work activities. This leads to the second perceived problem,
that there is insufficient time to study as the students must spend at least half their
time working in the prison or doing community work. They must therefore complete
their distance learning by “stealing time here and there” (Ethan).
“The greatest drawback is time. There is never enough time.”
(Duncan)
Thirdly, the skills being developed in the working environment may be inappropriate
for higher level learners. Students perceive the CIAS provider‟s role in induction as
less about providing sufficient information about what is available and more about
channeling prisoners into prison work vacancies, regardless of whether that is
appropriate training or not.
“I think because [the CIAS provider] didn‟t have anybody to
do recycling I was pigeon holed into doing it.” (Charlie)
Most students perceive the skills being developed through their work as not helpful.
Charlie is hoping to get a job in retail when he is released and sees “Powerpoint
51
59. skills” or “something to extend my vocabulary” more useful than “sifting through
metal and plastic.” (Charlie)
But this is not the view of the Prison Service staff in the „working prison‟ which sums
up the Prison Service vision for the higher level student-inmate,
“Even though they are very well educated we have to sort of
sit with them and look at a different career path, hard though
that is, and that might involve sort of retraining them … we
have got to be honest with people and there is no point in
somebody hoping to be able to practice as an Accountant or
as a Lawyer or a Solicitor if their offence is going to preclude
them from doing that…. it may be plastering or it may be
forklift truck or brick-laying, something like that, simply
because that‟s probably where they are going to, I‟m not
saying that‟s where they will end up, but ultimately they can‟t
practice and do what they were doing originally. (Peter,
Prison Service staff)
5.3.5 Deteriorating landscape
Many students consider that the technology landscape for distance learning is
deteriorating and that “the window is just closing all the time” (Ben)
Lack of internet access is perceived to be reducing access to courses since the
vision of the distance learning providers is fully online courses but there is general
52
60. acceptance by the student-inmates that internet access in prison is not going to
happen any time soon.
“Prisons are terrified of technology. They haven‟t realised
Queen Victoria‟s dead yet.” (Ben)
Most student-inmates have not heard of the Virtual Campus, and the few student-
inmates who know of its existence, do not perceive it to be a means of accessing
the internet. The courses are pre-loaded onto the server and there is no apparent
interactive element to the learning or additional information on demand. It is
therefore not considered to be particularly useful for higher level distance learners at
the moment.
“it doesn‟t really help me as a person that much … it‟s limited.
At the end of the day the internet really means unlimited. …
This is the complete opposite.” 16
One student sees the information provided on the Virtual Campus as useful for
reading the course material but another student actually perceives it to be “quite
patronizing” and more likely to be of use to “someone who doesn‟t know how to fill
out a CV or whatever and needs advice on interview techniques”17
Andrew thinks that internet access is not really the issue at present. He sees
access to a computer and a printer as the biggest problem at the moment.
16
The false identity of these Virtual Campus quotes have been removed to ensure anonymity
17
See footnote 16
53
61. “just give us a room, give us a corner…. even old computers
with a word-processor would be OK” (Andrew)
5.3.6 Potential for the future
There is hope that the Virtual Campus will become more useful in the future. The
secure messaging is thought to have the most potential,
“Yes, through emails it would be easier to speak to him [the
OU tutor], because obviously I can ask my questions and
hopefully if the email works get my answer back”18
The education staff could see its usefulness for resettlement but its potential for
distance learning is less clear,
"I think it [Virtual Campus] will go an awful long way. I think
the potential of it is massive. I just don‟t know what a distance
learner is going to be able to do on there in a year‟s time”
(Molly, Education staff)
Many of the CIAS staff are new in post but appear dedicated and keen to
learn. One staff member is considering doing distance learning,
“I think that that would probably be quite good and I think it
would expand my understanding of what people are doing”
(Mandy, CIAS staff)
18
See footnote 16
54
62. 5.4 Student identity
5.4.1 Introduction
One of the key differences between the „progressive‟ prison and the „working‟ prison
is that in the former the student is provided with an open learning environment in
which they can assume the identity of a student and use technology to access the
information they require to learn. In the „working‟ prison, however, the student-inmate
is isolated, often only finding other distance learners by accident and feeling
deprived of the time, space, technology and information to learn. Although their
student identity may be harder to find in this environment it does still appear to exist
and the student-inmates show remarkable determination in overcoming the barriers
in order to maintain that identity.
5.4.2 Isolated but special
Being one of only a very few higher level distance learners in a prison environment is
perceived to have its benefits and its drawbacks. The benefits are that the student-
inmates feel special and pride themselves on their achievements. They take work
where they can, which will allow them to access technology and study space but
they are also very keen to help others. Many teach „toe-by-toe19‟ or work as mentors
or classroom assistants in the IT lessons. They seem to care greatly about their
fellow prisoners, knowing that education makes such a difference; they want them to
have the same. Freddie is saddened by the lack of students using the technology in
the education department in the „working‟ prison.
19
A one-to-one literacy scheme run by the Shannon Trust in which prisoners teach other prisoners to
read.
55
63. “It‟s a complete drastic irony to me, it‟s not in some way
incentive based or mandatory … Because they will just go
and work on the farm…. Why aren‟t they in here? I don‟t get
it, I just don‟t get it. Everyone should leave prison with a level
of some sort (Freddie)
The drawback to distance learning in the „working‟ prison is isolation. With no access
to online student forums or other students of a similar academic level they often feel
they are “the only one doing this thing” and desperately seek peer support from
wherever they can. Duncan explains how nice it is when his OU tutor visits “because
I can sit there and grill him … and grill him and take it to all different levels”. Andrew
explained that a Prison Governor went on to do the same course as him and he was
proud that the Governor asked his opinion. Charlie feels that he is “swimming
against the tide”, with most of the prison population “just getting through their time”.
He considers it very hard for some prisoners “to put their heads above the parapet
and say I want to better myself” as “it‟s not perceived to be cool to be educated”.
5.4.3 Shaking the foundations
Student-inmates are very determined and seem to be able to overcome, at least in
part, many of the barriers placed in their path. Normally this requires help from
others, and they appear very grateful for whatever help they do receive, such as
receiving printed iCMAs from the OU so they do not lose 10 per cent of the marks for
their course, or downloaded internet search material from relatives or perhaps a
member of staff with a memory stick to transfer a TMA to a computer which will print.
56
64. Sometimes the student-inmates feel they need to exert pressure to make their voice
heard. Duncan explains that sending a message to his tutor is not always easy and
only happens “after raising my voice, kind of shaking the foundations a bit, which you
have to do from time to time”. Similarly Ethan perceives that he “might rattle a few
bushes” in order to be allowed to travel to an official exam centre for his forthcoming
OU exam.
However, sometimes they just have to accept the situation and stay quiet. Ethan
explains that sometimes prison officers have “an air of resentment” and recalls a
recent comment about his new web design course,
“”Oh, how can you do web-design? What do you know about
computers?” And I‟m thinking what kind of naive question is
that? … but I didn‟t engage in the conversation I just took the
slur as that‟s your ignorance that you choose to believe that
because I‟m a prisoner, „you walk around with a swagger and
a bag of clothes‟, you know” (Ethan)
5.4.4 Pandora’s box
The skills of the technology-supported distance learners are many. Most students
have completed all the CLAIT courses at least once and perceive them as easily
accessible and a good option for access to computers yet others suggest that their
IT skills are “self-taught” or “come from playing” (Andrew). Duncan, as the oldest
student, still puts his faith in books, hand-writes everything and admits that he does
not really use the internet on home leave as he is still trying to learn his way around
57
65. it. But as there is very little technology in prison to challenge these learners, they do
not as yet see lack of internet skills as a big problem.
However, the perceived benefits of technology-supported distance learning extend
far beyond IT skills or even the subject-specific knowledge which they gain from their
courses, as the following quotes highlight.
Duncan feels liberated by his knowledge.
“Well, it‟s like Pandora‟s Box isn‟t it? Well I see almost
everything now, but before I see very little” (Duncan)
The next two quotes highlight how their perceived student identity provides hope.
Distance learning enables them to see beyond the confines of their criminal past and
potentially providing a route out.
“It makes me feel a lot more like a human being. I‟m not a
number in a box, I‟m an individual. I‟m allowed to share and
expand my mind. It opens my horizons up. If you have
greater horizons there‟s less chance of coming back to jail
and I‟ll have an actual future instead of more of the same.
(Andrew)
“I just can‟t wait to get out and use the skills that I‟ve learnt
and try and put this behind me and I shouldn‟t say this about
58
66. jail and it sounds a cliché but jail is where I‟ve found myself
and I‟ve realised what I can and can‟t do - my limits. (Ethan)
However, this last quote highlights that distance learning may provide a life-line to
those attempting to preserve their identity within this constrained world.
“If it hadn‟t been for the OU I‟d have folded in on myself years
ago.” (Andrew)
59
67. CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
6.1 Introduction
This chapter summarizes the findings in Chapter 5, relating them back to the
literature review and research questions, discussing how the „digital divide‟ in the
prison context differs from that in the non-prison context. It concludes that despite
slight improvements in the technology for learning and the student-inmate‟s
extraordinary determination to maintain a student identity, the controlling elements of
this closed social world are such that the „digital divide‟ for distance learners appears
wider than ever. A reflection on this research project is then provided and future
research is discussed.
6.2 ‘Digital divide’ or discontinuity?
6.2.1 What technology is available to the student-inmate?
Prisons are perceived to have recently improved networked computers in the
education departments but mostly only available to student-inmates doing OLASS
accredited courses. However, unlike Pike (2010)‟s findings, student-inmates in this
research perceived no laptops or in-cell technology available. A few „progressive‟
prisons are perceived to provide very good resources for distance learning, including
independent learning sessions with good intranet facilities or supervised internet
access to distance learning course materials. Library facilities vary, agreeing with
Hughes (2007); most being „old and outdated‟ as described by Braggins and Talbot
(2003), with a few stand-alone computers and separate printers, although some new
60
