What about ethics? Developing qualitative research in confinement settings
| Author | Vera Duarte,Sílvia Gomes |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370818801305 |
| Published date | 01 July 2020 |
| Date | 01 July 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370818801305
European Journal of Criminology
2020, Vol. 17(4) 461 –479
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1477370818801305
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
What about ethics? Developing
qualitative research in
confinement settings
Sílvia Gomes1
Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, University of Minho, Portugal
University Institute of Maia, Portugal
Vera Duarte1
Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, University of Minho, Portugal
University Institute of Maia, Portugal
1Equally contributing authors
Abstract
The main purpose of this article is to discuss some ethical-methodological issues associated with
scientific research in confinement settings, particularly those that result from the relationship with
the confined individual in the framework of qualitative research. Basing the reflection on empirical
research developed by both authors in Portuguese confinement settings – prisons and youth
educational centres – we examine the significant challenges and dilemmas this type of research entails,
exploring the interface between procedural ethics and ethics in practice at three points in the analytical
process: before, during and after data collection. This article illustrates the interplay between formal
and informal procedures, and between the initial distancing and strangeness when making contact with
confinement settings and their social actors and the institutional and relational dynamics that become
ingrained in our everyday practice. Our goal is to give visibility to these institutional and relational
dynamics and to reflect on the challenges experienced by those who enter confinement settings to
do research, in an effort to make the research process more transparent and at the same time more
reflexive. We end our reflection advocating more ethically committed and critical scientific research.
Keywords
Confined individuals, confinement settings, ethics in research, qualitative research
Introduction: Confinement settings as ethically challenging
in research
The need for ethical reflection – desirably critical, continuous and coherent within ongo-
ing research – is an imperative that arises independently from the social universe under
Corresponding author:
Sílvia Gomes, Interdisciplinary Center for Social Sciences, University of Minho, Gualtar Campus, Braga,
4710-057, Portugal.
Email: silvia.mf23@gmail.com, silvia.gomes@ics.uminho.pt
801305EUC0010.1177/1477370818801305European Journal of CriminologyGomes and Duarte
research-article2018
Article
462 European Journal of Criminology 17(4)
analysis (Burguess, 1991; Ferreira, 2013). Indeed, carrying out any scientific research
requires the observation of ethical principles that (i) ensure the conditions of research,
minimizing potential problems and promoting reconciliation in the resolution of con-
flicts; and (ii) safeguard the interests of the research and its participants, in particular in
terms of confidentiality, privacy and security for all persons involved.
Research in confinement settings, owing to the particular environment and access to
information on crime, criminal behaviour and criminal justice, is conducive to the devel-
opment of these ethical conflicts, which require constant vigilance on the part of the
researchers. Another important factor that assumes particular relevance in confinement
spaces is the principle of trust, which implies the development of practical and pragmatic
agreements in relation to the other (Beyens, 2013; Beyens et al., 2015; Gomes and
Granja, 2018; Jewkes, 2014; Liebling, 1999; Nielsen, 2010; Phillips and Earle, 2010).
During research practice, this relationship brings to the forefront an issue that literature
has discussed at length, which is the inefficiency of scientific neutrality and the tendency
to remain anchored to ‘old theories’ that do not explain ‘new phenomena’ (Becker, 1967).
Reflecting on ethical challenges in confinement settings forces us to adopt a theoreti-
cal-conceptual definition of these institutions. In this article we chose the designation of
settings, not merely assigning the meaning of facility or place, delimiting what is inside
and outside the walls, nor wanting to refer only to the architecture of the seclusion build-
ing. The definition used here of setting is closer to the concept of institution, since it is
seen as a place where a set of regulatory and normative instruments are socially con-
structed and recognized by society and in a normative and/or coercive way are shared by
individuals; a set of values, norms, standards, behaviours and social relationships that
allow us to perceive the culture of these spaces. Portuguese prisons and youth educa-
tional centres, which are the contexts of analysis in this paper, fit into this category, shar-
ing the same administrative board – the General Direction of Social Reintegration and
Prison Services (DGRSP).
Notwithstanding the existing diversity of these confinement settings – for men and
women, for young people, for young adults and for adults, for pre-trial and condemned
individuals, for minor or serious offences, from the highest level of security to the low-
est level of security – there are some basic similarities. There seems to be a remarkable
tendency to override the variations of time, place and purpose (Sykes, 1958: xxxi), as
Goffman (1961) also showed us in his work on total institutions. They are defined as
places of residence and work where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off
from the wider society for an appreciable period of time, together lead an enclosed,
formally administered portion of life that is explicitly and meticulously regulated
(Goffman, 1961: 11–17). Within these settings there are two socially distant groups: the
confined individuals and the staff, hierarchically separated by their power relationship,
but also by their ability to access (or not) the outside space. We use the term confined
individuals – instead of, for example, prisoners – because in this article we refer to both
young individuals detained in youth educational centres and to young adults and adults
captive in prisons. In Portugal, national legislation makes a clear separation between
terminologies, legal responses and intervention depending on the age of criminal
responsibility, which begins at age 16. The term confined individuals encompasses both
groups, without calling into question the theoretical-ideological discussions that these
To continue reading
Request your trial