Registros Digitalizados de Tasa de Ocupación (Agosto 2015)

The traveller explores the many domains of the country, as unknown territory or with maps, roaming freely around the territory. The traveller may also deliberately

seek specific sites or topics ... the journey may not only lead to new knowledge; the traveller may change as well (Kvale, 1996:3-4).

Introduction

As with the patients and prisoners on which this study is based, both the research and the researcher, made several journeys before the study developed into the form in which it is presented today. Along my research journey many pathways were uncovered, and while many were relatively easy to follow, others were simply inaccessible or only became available after much perseverance.

During the early stages of my fieldwork I was advised to revisit Genders and Player‟s (1995) methodological account of their research at Grendon Underwood. Their account offers a helpful insight into the reality of conducting research in a prison setting, and helped me to appreciate that some of the challenges I was facing were not problems as such, but simply part of the business of undertaking research in high security settings.

Genders and Player (1995), like others (Crawley, 2004; King, 2000; Sparks et al, 1996) identify that research in prisons cannot often be simply and neatly designed in advance and then carried out in accordance with a pre-ordained plan. The options available at each stage of the research depend on how previous stages have been handled (Wolf, 1991), and the information a researcher is able to access, in what format, and from whom, is largely dependent on the skills and personality of the researcher (Genders

and Player, 1995). This demonstrates that the viability of prison research is often the result of a number of „make or break‟ factors (Genders and Player, 1995:19), and a „grab-bag‟ approach that draws on a number of different methods (Smith and Wincup, 2000:335).

The uncertain nature of research in high security settings has often meant that researchers are not explicit enough about their methodology (Cohen and Taylor, 1972; Genders and Player, 1995; King, 2000), preferring instead to present a „heroic tale‟ (Lee, 1999 in Smith and Wincup, 2000). Inspired by the honesty and explanation of the methodological accounts above, this chapter outlines the methodological journey of my PhD. I begin with a rather sanitised account of my research journey, before turning to explore some of the challenges that I encountered along my way.

The never-ending journey: securing access to the most high profile units

in the country

Originally, my thesis aimed to explore the emergence of the DSPD programme, and to place it within the context of ongoing mental health and criminal justice reform. Using a governmentality (see Burchell et al, 1991; Dean, 1999; Foucault, 1991; Miller and Rose, 2008) and interpretative policy analysis framework (see Fischer and Forrester, 1993; Fischer, 2003; Hajer and Wagenaar, 2003), I sought to develop a „history of the present‟ (Garland, 2001) and explore why the DSPD programme emerged, in this form, at this time.

In order to develop this, I proposed to make good use of the vast array of policy and parliamentary documents surrounding DSPD, and to interview key policy-makers and members of the Mental Health Alliance. I negotiated access to observe Mental Health Alliance steering groups and to interview key members of staff from the Royal College

of Psychiatrists and Rethink (a mental health charity). I was also in discussion with a number of other relevant professional groups.

This focus and strategy largely followed from my assumption that access to the staff, patients and prisoners within the DSPD units was likely to be difficult, if not impossible. Although I expected access to policymakers to also have its challenges, I hoped that a workable study, not wholly dependent on access, existed. In hindsight my assumption that access to policymakers would be easier to secure was perhaps naïve, but to my surprise, very helpful, for actually securing access to the pilot units.

On receipt of my letter to the DSPD Programme, the Head of Research agreed to meet with me. The meeting went well, and took an unexpected turn, when he revealed that the DSPD Programme were about to confirm a research contract, and that, with the support of the research team, there may be „criminological‟ elements of the research that I could become involved with. If I wanted an opportunity to study DSPD, he advised that I make contact with the lead researcher. I did.

I met with the lead researcher from Imperial College, who outlined the „Multi-method Evaluation of the Management, Organisation and Staffing (MEMOS) in high security treatment services for people with DSPD‟ study. The focus of this study is primarily with the staffing of the DSPD pilot units, but having looked over their research proposal, I identified that I was particularly interested in their intention to consider the impact of the policy and the legislative framework on the units, the significance of the legal status of DSPD participants, the process and outcome of PB and MHRT reviews, and the significance of these reviews for the management of DSPD patients and prisoners. I agreed to develop a proposal of how I would incorporate the aims of my PhD with the new focus available to me through collaboration with the MEMOS study. Following submission of this proposal and a meeting between the lead researcher and

my lead supervisor, the MEMOS proposal was resubmitted to the Home Office complete with amendments to cover my involvement in the project.

The project was subsequently approved by the Home Office, and the new angle available to me through collaboration with MEMOS became central to my PhD. To formalise the arrangement I was given an honorary contract with Imperial College, a small expenses pot was made available, and I agreed to provide regular updates and a report of my findings to the DSPD Programme. Because the MEMOS team works closely with the „Inclusion for DSPD: Evaluation, Assessment and Treatment‟ (IDEA) study run by the Department of Psychiatry at Oxford University, I was also issued with an honorary contract with their research team.

These developments, following from the DSPD Programme steer away from a study of DSPD policy decision-making, demonstrate that in order to negotiate access to prisons, researchers must be flexible in making the most of their opportunities, and prepared to develop a number of reciprocal relationships (King, 2000). The collaboration also suggests that there „seems now to be some official recognition that PhD ... students may provide a useful – and cheap, if not free – resource to undertake exploratory studies of various issues‟ (King, 2000:290).

Although some may consider this collaboration to be indicative of the relationship between researchers and the Home Office as being „far from symmetrical‟, with the real gatekeeping and funding power „resting largely in the hands of officialdom‟; developing a working relationship with government does not mean that „one automatically buys in to an official agenda‟ (King, 2000:288-9). Moreover, „the sociologist concerned with imprisonment can never rest entirely content with a singular role‟, and it is possible to deliver policy-relevant research and embark on a journey of theoretical development (Sparks et al, 1996). Although the relationship between the Home Office and

researchers has at times been problematic, „fruitful collaborations‟ have also been developed (King, 2000). This was certainly one such collaboration and one I welcomed, not least because it enabled me to gain a greater proximity to, and understanding of DSPD, than I had previously envisaged.

Once the contracts were agreed, I set about trying to secure ethical and security clearance for the study. Despite the best efforts of the DSPD programme and the units to speed the process up, this took some considerable time, and was complicated by my involvement with a national study across establishments in the NHS and the Prison Service. In terms of security clearance I was subject to a Counter Terrorism Check (CTC), two enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks, and individual security checks at each of the four DSPD units. In order to gain ethical clearance, the study was approved by two NHS Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (CORECs)29, West London Mental Health NHS Trust, Nottinghamshire Mental Health NHS Trust, the Ministry of Justice, the Centre for Criminological Research at Keele University, and the Research Ethics Committee for the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at Keele University. To satisfy the prison based sites, the MEMOS study was also signed off by the Home Office Project Quality Assurance Board (PQAB).

Once all the necessary ethical and security checks were underway, the lead researcher and I arranged introductory meetings and presentations at each of the units. These meetings with staff and prisoners/patients have been described as essential to the whole endeavour (Drake, 1997) because it is important that researchers engage in a period of informal familiarisation to develop trust, credibility and access (Sparks et al, 1996).

29

Before data collection could begin, I was required to complete a staff induction at each of the four DSPD sites. The inductions varied in length from one to three weeks, and in total I spent nine weeks on inductions. I was required to attend a range of training sessions about: security; the use and management of keys; diversity awareness; institutional polices; health and safety; fire safety; first aid; breakaway; the management of violence and aggression; hostage-taking; first on scene; and the preservation of evidence. Once the inductions were complete, I was issued with identification cards, keys and a desk in each of the DSPD units.

As I completed the inductions for each site, I set about ensuring that I had prisoner and patient consent to view their files. Consent from DSPD patients and prisoners was sought on my behalf by on-site researchers from the IDEA team (see Appendix B for consent forms). This was mainly for operational reasons and our awareness that, in high security prisons, researchers must be sensitive to security and resource issues (Martin, 2000). Because it was proposed that our samples should be the same (to permit later collaboration), and as a result of several of the units operating a strict two- to-one policy with the patients and prisoners, this helped avoid duplication of effort, and reduce our demands on DSPD staff.

Forty-six patients and sixty-six prisoners consented to the amended participant sheet by the 28th September 2007, the end of the recruitment period for my PhD30. It is of note that patients and prisoners were only invited to consent to the study following formal admission to the assessment phase on the DSPD unit. It is regrettable that time did not permit interviews to be conducted with the patients and prisoners about their experience of PB and MHRT reviews, but the strict two-to-one policy with DSPD patients and prisoners would have left me reliant on considerable staff time to help

30

This date was originally chosen because it marked the end of my second year of my PhD, and time to draw a close to data collection. After this date I spent until December 2007 following up the participants who had consented to the study.

arrange and conduct the interviews. This demonstrates that „interviewing detained patients raises difficulties over and above those ordinarily entailed‟ (Peay, 1989:37).

After formally accessing the DSPD units, I then turned my attention to negotiating access with the PB and MHRT Service to interview members about their experience of reviews with DSPD participants. Following several meetings with the MHRT Service and the Regional Chairman for the South of England, I achieved support to interview MHRT members and it was agreed that I could also collect data directly from the MHRT Service. Before interviews could commence, another bit of clearance was discovered, and I had to apply to the Ministry of Justice research unit for a Privileged Access Agreement (PAA) for permission to interview judicial members.

Initial meetings with the PB also went well and, on their advice, I made contact with the Public Protection Unit (PPU)31 in the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), who agreed that I could access PB files from them. While provisional access to interview PB members was agreed, formal agreement was more difficult to establish. In hindsight this was unsurprising given the pressures on the PB at the time, which included a dramatic increase in caseload, the aftermath of two high profile inquiries into PB decisions to release (HMIP, 2006a, 2006b), and a number of legal challenges surrounding the independence of the PB from the MoJ32. Before formal agreement to interview PB members could be negotiated much perseverance, and a little help from the DSPD Programme, was required. Once a working agreement was established, the PB worked hard to facilitate interviews with members and to provide access to decision letters. A good dialogue has been developed and I have provided regular updates about the progress and findings of my research to the PB.

31

Formerly known as the Lifer Review and Release Section (LRRS).

32

See R(Brooke) v Parole Board [2007] EWHC 2036 (Admin) and R(Brooke) v Parole Board [2008] EWCA Civ 29 and others.

Key research questions

Based on the uncertain context of DSPD I was interested to explore what impact placement in a DSPD unit may (or may not) have on PB and MHRT decision-making. In this sense, the research aimed to consider what decisions PB and MHRT made and to explore why, rather than how they made these decisions. During my fieldwork, it became apparent that PB and MHRT members conceive prisoners and patients as needing to undergo a journey through the criminal justice and/or mental health system before they are suitable to be considered for release. Along these journeys, many key decision-stages exist, including PB and MHRT reviews. At each of these decision- stages, participants are „made up‟ (Hacking, 1986; McCallum, 2001) and „made sense‟ of by report writers and decision-makers. In this regard, my theoretical journey was similar to Irwin‟s (1970:1) who notes that although his book The Felon:

began as a study of parole. Almost immediately the boundaries were extended to encompass the extended “career” of the felon. The reason for this expansion was not simply the meandering interest of the investigator. Rather, it became apparent … that to understand this phase of the felon‟s life it would be necessary to examine earlier phases, because the felon‟s parole experiences are shaped for him to some extent by orientations he acquires in prison. Furthermore, his position in the prison world is related to his preprison life.

My interest with the journeys and pathways of DSPD patients and prisoners and the significance of their placement in DSPD for PB and MHRT decision-making led me to consider the following key questions:

1) What are the characteristics of the men detained in the four high security DSPD units? What journeys have they made prior to and following DSPD admission?

How do multi-disciplinary report writers present DSPD patients and prisoners (and the DSPD units) to the PB/MHRT?

2) What were the outcomes of PB/MHRT with DSPD participants? Does placement on a DSPD unit impact on PB/MHRT decision-making? What sense have PB/MHRT members made of DSPD?

Data collection: exploring the journeys of DSPD participants and the

outcomes of PB and MHRT reviews

Researchers are often advised to use a number of methods and sources of data in their research. In the context of prison research, King (2000) suggests that it may be best to begin with observation and documentary analysis, and then conduct interviews to enable what one has seen and read to be subjected to questioning and fuller understanding. To this end, I spent twelve months collecting data and speaking to as many people as possible across the four high security DSPD units for men, the PPU, and the MHRT Service. This enabled me to develop a better understanding of the nature of the DSPD units and the significance of PB/MHRT reviews. After a year in the field I turned my attention to conducting interviews with twenty-three members of the PB and MHRT.

Informal observation (and dialogue)

While observation was not a formal research tool, it became hard to consider my data as independent of this. Before I was allowed to commence the study I was heavily security checked, given honorary contracts with a number of organisations, and required to engage with nine weeks of full time induction programmes. Once my inductions were over, I was given keys and a place to work, and like other staff, required to wear an alarm and, in some sites, carry basic resuscitation equipment. In

many respects, I considered myself as a member of „responsible staff‟, before a researcher. This demonstrates that security staff usually impress upon newcomers that they are an „extra pair of eyes and ears‟ (Martin, 2000:222) and that the security of the institution and the welfare of those inside, is a shared responsibility, irrespective of role.

My presence in a number of DSPD related sites inevitably impacted on the choices that I made about data collection, interpretation and analysis. On entering the field I needed to familiarise myself with the data. It is important to remember, that, at this stage in my career, I had never seen a confidential prisoner or patient file, and consequently, I was unaware of what data may be available, in what form, and where it would be held. My experience was similar to Taylor‟s (1987) in that, although I had:

some ideas about what I wanted to find ... my priorities changed as the people I met there taught me what to look for and said what they thought was important (Taylor, 1987:50, quoted in Patenaude, 2004:80S).

This indicates that „if a research project is genuinely directed towards new knowledge then there are limits to the kind of foreknowledge that the researchers can have‟ (Sparks et al, 1996:343). Unsurprisingly it may „have the feel of an exploratory foray‟ (Crawley and Sparks, 2005:349). The development of the thesis was informed by a number of informal conversations with patients, prisoners, and staff from the DSPD units, DSPD Programme, PB and MHRT. This illustrates that researchers in high security settings must develop factual and cultural knowledge, and while factual knowledge can be learnt by consulting official and academic texts, cultural knowledge is „less readily available and learned more slowly through observation and listening while “inside”‟ (Byrne, 2005:228). This cultural knowledge has been crucial for making

sense of the DSPD units and the significance of DSPD for PB and MHRT decision- making.

Originally I had hoped that observation would constitute a much larger data source. I had proposed to observe PB and MHRT reviews as they occurred for DSPD