Probation practice in the information age
| Date | 01 September 2017 |
| Published date | 01 September 2017 |
| Author | Jake Phillips |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550517711279 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Probation practice in
the information age
Jake Phillips
Sheffield Hallam University, UK
Abstract
This article analyses the implications of the greater use of technology and information
in probation practice. Using data generated via an ethnography of probation, the
article firstly argues that probation in England and Wales now exists in what scholars
would identify as ‘the information age’ (i.e. that computers and other technologies
work to define and create probation practice as we know it). The article goes on to
use actor-network theory to analyse two ‘heterogeneous networks’ to explore the
way in which probation practitioners and the technologies they use interact to create
particular forms of practice. The article argues that unless we understand the tech-
nology that underpins practice we cannot fully understand practice. Finally, the
article considers the implications of this analysis for probation post-Transforming
Rehabilitation (TR).
Keywords
probation practice, information age, technology, actor-network theory, ethnography
Introduction
This article analyses the ways in which probation practice is shaped by practi-
tioners’ interactions with technology. Rather than focusing on the developments of
specific new technologies, this article uses actor-network theory (ANT) to consider
the ways in which human and non-human actants are critical to the way in which
probation practice is constituted. As an approach to understanding a social sphere,
in this case probation practice, ANT sees objects as playing an important role in the
construction of the sphere itself. ANT incorporates non-human actants into our
Corresponding Author:
Jake Phillips, Department of Law and Criminology, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, S10 2BQ, UK.
Email: jake.phillips@shu.ac.uk
Probation Journal
2017, Vol. 64(3) 209–225
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0264550517711279
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
understanding of why and how things happen as they do. Rather than seeing
objects as neutral ‘tools of the job’, they are described as actants, which implies an
active role in the development of a narrative or form of practice. Such an approach
overcomes the neglect given to the role of technology, in particular information
communication technologies, in constructing probation practice and highlights
some important ramifications for the future of probation in the context of Trans-
forming Rehabilitation (TR). Analyses prior to TR highlighted problems with the
rationale and subsequent research has demonstrated that some of these problems
have come to pass (Burke, 2015). Alongside this, we have seen concerns raised
about the way in which the technology which the new probation providers are
delivering is neither fit for purpose nor interoperable. This article draws on research,
which was conducted prior to TR to consider the effect of technology on probation
practice, before considering the ramifications of this for the new probation land-
scape. Following a discussion of prior research on technology in probation and the
methods used, I examine two ‘heterogeneous networks’ to explore the way in which
human and non-human actants work to constitute practice. In doing so, I explore the
way in which knowledge is reified, information travels and technologies such as risk
assessments are value-laden. Thus, we see that the constitution of practice is not
simply a product of the interaction between policy and practitioners.
Literature review
The subject of probation culture and practice has been reinvigorated in recent
years. A body of literature has made the case that broad shifts in the political and
policy sphere towards punitivism, managerialism, public protection and risk man-
agement have not neatly translated into practice and workers’ values. Thus, pro-
bation workers remain adherent to a ‘welfarist ethos’ (Fitzgibbon, 2007), value a
more qualitative type of supervision to that defined by key performance indicators
and outputs (Grant and McNeill, 2014; Robinson et al., 2013b) and find more
value in the one-to-one work they conduct with people on probation than the risk
management approach as espoused in policy and as described by Feeley and
Simon (1992). Much of this work has made use of Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus
and field to explore the ways in which practitioners resist, succumb, eschew and
internalize these broader changes in policy (Grant, 2015; Phillips, 2016). More-
over, this research has come to broadly similar conclusions – that the probation
habitus has been relatively resilient to such changes and represents what Bourdieu
would call a heterodox in probation practice: the field is structured in such a way for
multiple forms of practice to coexist (Deering, 2011; Grant and McNeill, 2014;
Robinson et al., 2013b).
This article does not refute these broad findings. However, it takes issue with the
way in which the arguments put forward are focused on a tension between relatively
narrow definitions of what makes up the probation field and habitus. In this body of
research, habitus is, rightly, seen as being synonymous with the people involved in
probation. However, the field is primarily associated with the policy that defines the
rules of the game which practitioners have to play rather than, for example, politics
210 Probation Journal 64(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial