Advertisement

Critical Criminology

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 295–309 | Cite as

Defining Post-release ‘Success’: Using Assemblage and Phenomenography to Reveal Difference and Complexity in Post-prison Conceptions

  • Diana F. JohnsEmail author
Article

Abstract

The complexity of men’s experience of prison release is frequently reduced to singular narratives about reoffending risks or reintegration challenges. This paper seeks to enlarge this conventional view by highlighting the heterogeneous ways in which prison release may be experienced and understood. Analysis of men’s experience of release from prison in Victoria, Australia, shows how the concept of assemblage and a phenomenographic methodology can work together to capture and convey this heterogeneity. By assembling the ways ex-prisoners understand and experience release together with the conceptions of post-release support workers this approach highlights conflict and convergence between different ways of experiencing the post-release terrain, specifically around conflicting notions of post-release ‘success’. The innovative combination of assemblage and phenomenography thus contributes a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the challenges of release from prison and of supporting ex-prisoners’ so-called ‘reintegration’.

Keywords

Hard Thing Prison Life Remote Indigenous Community Prisoner Reentry Prison Release 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Akerlind, G. (2005). Learning about phenomenography: Interviewing, data analysis and the qualitative research paradigm. In J. A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental phenomenography (pp. 63–73). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D. (2004). A risky business? Research, policy, governmentality and youth offending. Youth Justice, 4(2), 100–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong, D. (2006). Becoming criminal: The cultural politics of risk. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(2), 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrigo, B. A., & Milovanovic, D. (2009). Revolution in penology: Rethinking the society of captives. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Prisoners in Australia cat. no. 4517.0, ABS, Canberra.Google Scholar
  6. Baldry, E., McDonnell, D., Maplestone, P., & Peeters, M. (2003). ‘Ex-prisoners and accommodation: What bearing do different forms of housing have on social reintegration: Final report. Melbourne: AHURI.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Bowden, J. A. (2000). Experience of phenomenographic research: A personal account. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 47–61). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, M. (2005). Corrections. In D. Chappell & P. Wilson (Eds.), Issues in Australian crime and criminal justice (pp. 101–138). Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths.Google Scholar
  10. Daly, S. R., Adams, R. S., & Bodner, G. M. (2012). What does it mean to design? A qualitative investigation of design professional’s experiences. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(2), 187–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeLanda, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  12. Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus, transl. B. Massumi. Minnesota: University of Minneapolis Press.Google Scholar
  13. Donohue, E., & Moore, D. (2009). When is an offender not an offender? Power, the client and shifting penal subjectivities. Punishment & Society, 11(3), 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feeley, M. F., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giddens, A. (1999). Risk and responsibility. The Modern Law Review, 62(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Gowan, T. (2002). The nexus: Homelessness and incarceration in two American cities. Ethnography, 3(4), 500–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Green, P. (2005). A rigorous journey into phenomenography: From a naturalistic inquirer viewpoint. In J. A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental phenomenography (pp. 32–46). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Grunseit, A., Forell, S., & McCarron, E. (2008). Taking justice into custody: The legal needs of prisoners. Sydney: Law and Justice Foundation of NSW.Google Scholar
  20. Hallett, M. (2012). Reentry to what? Theorizing prisoner reentry in the jobless future. Critical Criminology, 20(3), 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Halsey, M. (2007). Assembling recidivism: The promise and contingencies of post-release life. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 97(4), 1209–1260.Google Scholar
  22. Haney, C. (2003). The psychological impact of incarceration: implications for postprison adjustment. In J. Travis & M. Waul (Eds.), Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities (pp. 33–66). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hannah-Moffat, K. (2005). Criminogenic needs and the transformative risk subject: Hybridizations of risk/need in penality. Punishment & Society, 7(1), 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hasselgren, B., & Beach, D. (1997). Phenomenography—A “good-for-nothing brother” of phenomenology? Outline of an analysis. Higher Education Research & Development, 16(2), 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jewkes, Y. (2005). Men behind bars: “doing” masculinity as an adaptation to imprisonment. Men and Masculinities, 8(1), 44–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. LeBel, T. P., Burnett, R., Maruna, S., & Bushway, S. (2008). The ‘chicken and egg’ of subjective and social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal of Criminology, 5(2), 131–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mann, L., Dall’Alba, G. & Radcliffe, D. (2007). Using phenomenography to investigate different ways of experiencing sustainable design. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) 2007 annual conference. Hawaii, 24–27 June 2007.Google Scholar
  28. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography—A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28–49.Google Scholar
  30. Marton, F., & Pong, W. Y. (2005). On the unit of description in phenomenography. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(4), 335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matthews, B. (2008). ‘A view from the inside’, Our Patch, viewed 15 July 2014. http://www.ourpatch.com.au/australia/users/intractable/blogs/247-a-view-from-the-inside
  32. Moore, R. (2012). Beyond the prison walls: Some thoughts on prisoner ‘resettlement’ in England and Wales. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 12(2), 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Newbold, G., Ross, J. I., Jones, R. S., Richards, S. C., & Lenza, M. (2014). Prison research from the inside: The role of convict autoethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(4), 439–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Malley, P. (2002). Drugs, risks and freedoms: Illicit drug ‘use’ and ‘misuse’ under neo-liberal governance. In G. Hughes, E. McLaughlin, & J. Muncie (Eds.), Crime prevention and community safety: New directions (pp. 279–296). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Oliver, S., & O’Brien, M. (2003). From corrections to the community: The need for transitional support services for offenders with a cognitive disability. Victoria: The Office of the Public Advocate.Google Scholar
  36. Richards, S. C., & Jones, R. S. (1997). Perpetual incarceration machine: Structural impediments to postprison success. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 13(1), 4–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Richards, S. C., & Ross, J. I. (2001). Introducing the new school of convict criminology. Social Justice, 28(1), 177–190.Google Scholar
  38. Robbers, M. L. P. (2009). Lifers on the outside: Sex offenders and disintegrative shaming. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rose, N. (1989). Governing the Soul: The shaping of the private self. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Rose, N. (2000). Government and control. British Journal of Criminology, 40(2), 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rose, N. (2010). ‘Screen and intervene’: Governing risky brains. History of the Human Sciences, 23(1), 79–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Säljö, R. (1997). Talk as data and practice: A critical look at phenomenographic inquiry and the appeal to experience. Higher Education Research & Development, 16(2), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Semetsky, I. (2005). Semiotics. In A. Parr (Ed.), The Deleuze Dictionary (pp. 242–244). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Sparks, R. (2001). Degrees of estrangement: The cultural theory of risk and comparative penology. Theoretical Criminology, 5(2), 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Svensson, L. (1997). Theoretical foundations of phenomenography. Higher Education Research & Development, 16(2), 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Terry, C. M. (2004). Managing prisoners as problem populations and the evolving nature of imprisonment: A convict perspective. Critical Criminology, 12(1), 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trigwell, K. (2006). Phenomenography: An approach to research in geography education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30(2), 367–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wacquant, L. (2002). The curious eclipse of prison ethnography in the age of mass incarceration. Ethnography, 3(4), 371–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Willis, M. (2008). Reintegration of indigenous prisoners: Key findings. Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, No. 364. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.Google Scholar
  51. Zhang, J. & Webster, A. (2010). An analysis of repeat imprisonment trends in australia using prisoner census data from 1994 to 2007. ABS Research Paper, Catalogue no. 1351.0.55.031. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Global, Urban and Social StudiesRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Social and Political SciencesUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations