Moral economy and the pursuit of desistance
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Cambridge
Department Name: Criminology
Abstract
Moral economy and the pursuit of desistance
Studentship Projects
| Project Reference | Relationship | Related To | Start | End | Student Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ES/J500033/1 | 01/10/2011 | 02/10/2022 | |||
| 2405252 | Studentship | ES/J500033/1 | 01/10/2018 | 30/12/2021 | Benjamin Jarman |
| ES/P000738/1 | 01/10/2017 | 30/09/2027 | |||
| 2405252 | Studentship | ES/P000738/1 | 01/10/2018 | 30/12/2021 | Benjamin Jarman |
| Title | Can confidential research be reproducible: Consent, ethics, prison interviews and the Open Research agenda |
| Description | A presentation given at the ESRC DTP conference on 29th January 2021, reflecting on the Open Research agenda and some ethical questions it raises in relation to interviews conducted in prison. |
| Type Of Art | Image |
| Year Produced | 2021 |
| URL | https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/317486 |
| Title | Penal Theory, Personal Ethics and the Life Sentence in Empirical Perspective |
| Description | Slides from a presentation given as an invited talk at the University of Hull Criminology Rising Star series event, April 2021. |
| Type Of Art | Film/Video/Animation |
| Year Produced | 2021 |
| Impact | Presented emerging findings from the PhD to a public audience of c.50 via webinar. |
| URL | https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/322528 |
| Description | Recent research on how people adapt and adjust while serving a very long prison sentence has tended to show a largely invariant pattern of adaptation. It has theorised a picture of adaptation to long-term imprisonment whereby, with some variation by gender, prisoners given life sentences initially struggle to absorb and accept the impact of their conviction and sentence before, over time, coming to recognise that life as they were living it before prison has ended, that they bore some responsibility for this outcome, and that they have no choice but to look to the future and try to progress through the sentence. The key findings of this research nuance and qualify that picture, and in particular suggest that patterns of adaptation, and the qualitative feelings of moral responsibility which underlie them, in fact vary rather more than previous research has suggested. The research enables this variation to be presented in two dimensions. First, age at conviction. The research shows that there is a substantial difference in how people make sense of their conviction and the impact the sentence has had on their lives if they were convicted older rather than younger. Those who are convicted young tend (as suggested by earlier research) to make sense of their predicament by recognising the future as the only place life can meaningfully be lived. Generally, the research underlines how they make sense of their situation by constructing the sentence as a kind of correction, whereby they will redeem a difficult past and try to live differently in future. Adaptation to the sentence consists in relinquishing the past, and trying to work towards progression through the prison system and a future release. People in the sample for this research who were convicted and given life sentences when older display a qualitatively different pattern of adaptation. They too recognise that life as it was lived before is over, but tend much more to 'live in the past', emphasising their moral worth and achievements before conviction. Rather than relinquishing their grip on the lives they had previously or characterising them as deficient, they often also draw on them as a resource in prison, for example by considering their work history before prison as a marker of moral worth and superiority to younger, angrier, and less compliant counterparts. The second dimension by which there is varied adaptation is on the nature of the offence. This appears to be the first study of adaptation to long-term imprisonment that systematically samples by different kinds of murder (the crime that most commonly leads to a life sentence). Here the finding is that wider cultural narratives about the moral status of different kinds of murder influence the process of adaptation to imprisonment. Put simply, people convicted of murder in different circumstances make sense of their moral status in different ways. Those convicted of less stigmatised forms of murder---for example those arising from other forms of criminality and which involved adult male victims and adult male offenders who were both involved in other criminality---tend to make sense of their offence by emphasising how their offences were unintentional or 'mistakes'. They tend to be reinforced in these views by the views of those around them in prison, with the result that many see a 'way back' from these offences, progressing through the prison system more confidently and more reliably. Those convicted of more stigmatised forms of murder, by contrast---for example where the victim was female---very often appear to internalise the shame and stigma attendant on such a conviction, tending to see themselves as more problematic, and more lastingly risky. Put simply, they internalise the idea that they are still dangerous, are more cooperative with psychological forms of intervention, and often progress through the prison system and get released more slowly and less reliably. Both of these dimensions of variation have some effects on the way that long-term prisoners engage with the progression and parole process; these effects are also described in the research. |
| Exploitation Route | At the time of writing this summary the key findings are clear enough to be added here but the thesis has not yet been submitted or examined, owing to my postdoctoral employment and changes in my family circumstances. Further details including URLs will be added to this record at the next ResearchFish round. The Prison Reform Trust collaboration described elsewhere in this submission represents a significant development building on the foundations of this research, and the findings have therefore already been taken forward and put to use by a civil society organisation working in the field. If recommendations made from this collaboration are taken up by the Prison Service then the results may include administrative systems around long-term prisoner progression which are more responsive and take greater account of how prisoners themselves believe their development in prison should be recorded and interpreted by risk assessors and adjudicators. Educationally/academically the findings represent a contribution to the growing recent literature on the effects on long-term imprisonment. I will present on them at an academic conference on the topic in the summer of 2023 and they will form the basis of my own teaching materials. |
| Sectors | Education,Government, Democracy and Justice |
| Description | Findings from this research were used in partnership with policy researchers working on a Lottery-funded project with the Prison Reform Trust, a highly influential voice in the criminal justice reform space. They informed the design and operationalisation of ongoing policy work by PRT (including the report in my portfolio on how long-sentenced prisoners experience the systems of sentence progression, which was written with PRT during my collaboration with them). The report itself was launched at events in HMP Swaleside and the PRT offices, attended by (among others) senior civil servants from the Ministry of Justice, the CEO of the Parole Board, the director of long-term and high-security prisons in the South of England, and the governors of three prisons. Influencing/lobbying work is ongoing. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2022 |
| Sector | Government, Democracy and Justice |
| Impact Types | Policy & public services |
| Description | Contributions to the report of the Independent Commission on the Experiences of Victims and Long-term Prisoners |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Policy Influence Type | Participation in a guidance/advisory committee |
| URL | https://icevlp.org.uk/ |
| Description | Influence on training of prison practitioners working with long-term prisoners |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Policy Influence Type | Influenced training of practitioners or researchers |
| Description | Moral economy and the pursuit of desistance |
| Amount | £0 (GBP) |
| Funding ID | 2405252 |
| Organisation | Economic and Social Research Council |
| Sector | Public |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Start | 10/2018 |
| End | 12/2021 |
| Description | Understanding long-term prisoners' expectations of the parole process |
| Organisation | Prison Reform Trust |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Sector | Academic/University |
| PI Contribution | ## What the placement involved ### Focus 1 Using emerging recent findings from my own and wider academic research on prison sentence progression, as the basis for evidence-based policy consultation work with people serving long prison sentences. #### Further details My PhD research gathered interview data on long-term imprisonment. Some themes in these were highly relevant to the PRT's Lottery-funded Building Futures Programme, which aims to improve outcomes and experiences of imprisonment for people serving sentences which involve periods in custody of 10 years or more. I was aware that during 2020 PRT staff had been completely unable to access prisons to carry out work towards this project, and so I suggested to them that we could use sections from my PhD findings to conduct a preliminary analysis that would then help them to conduct a consultation with long-term prisoners remotely, by letter and email. This proposal having been accepted, we built impact and knowledge exchange from my PhD findings by developing a strand of work on sentence progression and parole, within the existing Building Futures programme. We reviewed findings from the PhD relating to long-term prisoners' experiences of sentence progression and the parole process, and then used these to develop stimulus materials for a consultation on progression with the Building Futures Network, an established network of serving prisoners, former prisoners and family members who contribute to PRT's consultations on questions of penal policy. We then analysed and wrote up the consultation responses. A draft consultation report authored by me and Claudia Vince (a PRT colleague) is currently in the final stages of preparation, awaiting consultation with external stakeholders at two roundtable events (further details below). A final report, incorporating feedback from these roundtable events and on which I will be named as the first author, will develop detailed policy recommendations, and will be published by PRT subsequently. ### Focus 2 Using emerging findings from academic research on long-term imprisonment to assist the work of a commission examining the moral basis and effectiveness of sentencing policy in serious crimes. #### Further details While working with PRT I also contributed substantially to the work of the Independent Commission on the Experiences of Victims and Long-term Prisoners (www.icevlp.org.uk). This work was opportunistic and beyond the scope of the original internship proposal. PRT was providing the Commission's secretariat and I had submitted evidence based on my PhD research to the Commission, when it invited expert submissions at the end of 2020. Shortly after my internship as described above started, Mark Day (PRT's Head of Policy and Communications) approached me to ask if I would expand a section of that submission into a draft chapter of the commission's report. In the end, I made substantial contributions to three different chapters of the report, and I am credited as an advisor to the Commission. The report is due for publication in April 2022. ### My contributions In both cases, I brought my academic expertise and conceptual knowledge to ensure that the prisoner consultation and the relevant sections of the Commission's report were responsive to the latest academic research on long-term imprisonment. #### Specifically in relation to the first focus I conducted (with PRT staff) an analysis of a subset of the interviews conducted for my PhD, using this to design the original questions and guide the direction of the original consultation. I took the lead in collating, considering and analysing the responses to the consultation and in writing the report, as well as planning the roundtable events. I will participate in those events later this month. #### Specifically in relation to the second focus I drafted two chapters of the Commission's report and added considerably to their discussion of sentencing theory. However, my role in this report was more that of an advisor, and PRT staff drafted the recommendations for the report and edited it overall. The work done on this project was fundamentally collaborative and I question the extent to which it is meaningful to split the contributions - therefore please see my answer to the previous question for details of what the partnership involved. Here I would only add that PRT's contributions partly consisted of facilitating the project's reach - that is, the ability to connect my PhD research findings with very senior practitioners from the field. This was entirely dependent on PRT's existing communications expertise, their outstanding professional networks, and their reputation as a trusted independent voice in the field of prison and criminal justice reform. They also hosted me in office space, and gave access to their advisory board, which helped to develop my professional network when it reviewed the work we were conducting. With respect to the two publications, PRT staff were involved in the editing and sign-off process and internal review, and in relation to the Independent Commission's report, drafted several chapters of the report which I only edited or contributed to. My PRT colleague Claudia Vince co-authored the first report with me and will be named as a second author. |
| Collaborator Contribution | The work done on this project was fundamentally collaborative and it is not meaningful to split the contributions - therefore please see my answer to the previous question for details of what the partnership involved. I would add, however, that PRT's contributions partly consisted of facilitating the project's reach - that is, the ability to connect my PhD research findings with very senior practitioners from the field. This was entirely dependent on PRT's existing communications expertise, their outstanding professional networks, and their reputation as a trusted independent voice in the field of prison and criminal justice reform. The Building Futures project also runs a network of serving long-term prisoners and members of their families, who the Building Futures team consults on the team's work including its policy work. This network was the group whose responses helped produce the report mentioned under Focus 1 above, and without its being there it would have only been possible to write based on my own PhD research (which was relevant to, but not specifically about, the question of progression). PRT also hosted me in their office space during periods in 2021 where face-to-face work was possible, and access to their advisory board has also helped me develop my professional network, because it reviewed the work we were conducting and also resulted in me receiving further invitations to speak (which at the moment I am putting off till after my write-up). With respect to the two publications, PRT staff were involved in the editing and sign-off process and internal review, and in relation to the Independent Commission's report, drafted several chapters of the report which I only edited or contributed to. My PRT colleague Claudia Vince co-authored the first report with me and will be named as a second author. |
| Impact | ## Outputs There are two main outputs from my work with PRT. ### A report on the prisoner policy consultation As described above, this report is awaiting external consultation before it is published. The drafts have been shared with the Building Futures Network Working Groups - groups of serving prisoners doing active citizenship work in prisons, as part of the Building Futures Programme. Feedback from them has been used to develop detailed policy recommendations. These are to become the subject of ongoing conversation between PRT and prison leaders, concerning about how they manage and think about the progression of people serving very long prison sentences. Two roundtable events are planned in March 2022 which will bring me and project staff into dialogue with senior leaders from HM Prison & Probation Service and from private sector prison providers, along with relevant stakeholders from the voluntary sector and other academic researchers. These events will discuss the project's consultation findings and recommendations before the report is finalised, and the resulting recommendations will become part of PRT's advocacy/policy work associated with the Building Futures programme for the remaining three years of its duration. Impact from this work will be tracked as part of Building Futures' existing evaluation. One of the programme's objectives is to secure a 10% increase in the annual number of long-term prisoners achieving parole at the first time of asking. The programme has also commissioned an independent evaluation of its work (provided by Justice Studio), which is currently drawing up a set of outcome measures. I have met with the evaluators and discussed my contribution to the parole and progression workstream. This outcome cannot be achieved by a report alone, but will depend on subsequent influencing and policy advocacy work based on that report. However, by having been centrally involved in writing that report and by having ensured that the consultation it is based on took account of my PhD findings, my contribution to it will have occurred at a key stage. ### A report on the the experiences of victims and long-term prisoners Second, the Independent Commission on the Experiences of Victims and Long-term Prisoners report is the other main output from my time at PRT, though was not envisaged in the original plan for the partnership. Its impact can also only be measured over the longer term, but the Commission's report makes nine specific recommendations relating to the rethink of sentencing policy for serious crimes which the Commission believes is needed. The report's impact can be inferred in how far these recommendations are taken up. The Commission explicitly intends its report to be used by other organisations and to be the starting point of a wider public conversation; it does not call for changes to sentencing policy, but for changes in how the institutional/political landscape around sentencing serious crimes can more adequately reflect the interests of justice and the human costs of imprisonment, *while also* taking into account the strong moral sentiments of anger and outrage, and the public sympathy expressed on behalf of, the victims of very serious crimes. |
| Start Year | 2021 |
| Description | Can Confidential Research Be Reproducible? Consent, Ethics, Prison Interviews and the Open Research Agenda |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Postgraduate students |
| Results and Impact | c. 40 postgraduate students attended a webinar as part of an online conference |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2021 |
| Description | Departmental seminar on the ethics of open data publication in prisons research |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Postgraduate students |
| Results and Impact | Presented at seminar on open data and reproducibility - several encouraging responses from colleagues suggesting this was an interesting issue and should be pursued further; this ultimately led to other presentations mentioned in this form, and to my work with the Open Qualitative Research Working Group, also covered elsewhere here. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2020 |
| Description | Desistance and Long-term imprisonment - workshop run for the Community Chaplaincy Association |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Third sector organisations |
| Results and Impact | Invited to lead workshop on desistance from crime among people serving long-term prison sentences, organised for voluntary sector practitioners working with long-term prisoners at the end of their sentences. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| Description | Global Civil Society Forum on Life Sentences |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Third sector organisations |
| Results and Impact | Global Civil Society Strategy Forum on Life Sentences (convened in London by Penal Reform International) - attended and participated in two-day workshop of organisations interested in working to improve global governance of life imprisonment through the UN institutions. Subsequently attended further meetings of the resulting Global Coalition on the Reform of Life Sentences, in 2019 and (planned) in summer of 2022. All convened and organised by the voluntary sector organisation Penal Reform International. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018,2019,2021,2022 |
| Description | Open Qualitative Research Working Group (within University of Cambridge) |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Postgraduate students |
| Results and Impact | Invited to work on sub-group of the university Open Research Steering Group, with a 12-month brief to steer the development of University services in support of open qualitative research. This work has only just begun in January 2022 |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2022 |
| Description | Penal Theory, Personal Ethics and the Life Sentence (invited to lead webinar as part of Hull University Criminology Rising Star series) |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Postgraduate students |
| Results and Impact | Invited to give a webinar on the PhD findings as part of a series organised by another university. Received 2 requests for further information about my research from other academics. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2021 |
| Description | Posted to the Changing Inside blog |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | Research blog was active 2018 to 2020 but I ceased posting there during the pandemic. The following figures relate to the period between 2018 and 2020: 2018: 272 page views, 158 unique visitors, 13 posts published 2019: 2540 page views, 1604 unique visitors, 14 posts published 2020: 2083 page views, 1332 unique visitors, 4 posts published Although the blog remained active I have not posted analytics for 2021 here because a) I no longer posted and b) the analytics plugins were (unbeknownst to me) not working during that period. Some comments received from audiences, including a number from prison chaplains who said they found the sections on the policies governing prisoner progression helpful. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018,2019,2020 |
| URL | https://changinginside.co.uk |
| Description | Presentation to academic conference at University of Worcester |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | Presented paper on my PhD pilot research at academic conference to audience of c. 20 including several prison psychologists. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| Description | Repository moderator, Crimrxiv subject-specific repository |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Postgraduate students |
| Results and Impact | Starting in 2022, I have worked as a volunteer moderator helping approve publications on the Crimrxiv Open Access repository. This ensures that research from my institution is available OA to a wider audience of the general public and practitioners, rather than being in institutional repositories where there is no cross-referencing and serendipitous discovery by being able to browse related papers. Outcome/impact is nascent as the activity is new and so is the site, but the site has the potential to become **the** destination on the web for criminological research to be made available for free, and so I want to contribute to that outcome. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2022 |
| URL | https://crimrxiv.com |
| Description | Research Data Management - An Introduction |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Postgraduate students |
| Results and Impact | c.25 Masters and PhD students (in total) attended two different runnings of this training. Several students requested further information and reported plans to alter how they managed and handled their data. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2021 |