1. An Appreciative Inquiry of the Diversity Strategy at HMP Wakefield: practical issues and theoretical challenges Dr Malcolm Cowburn Principal Lecturer in Criminology Sheffield Hallam University & Dr Victoria Lavis Lecturer in Psychology University of Bradford

2. Structure of Presentation How the initial research proposal was developed Its aims and objectives Early thoughts/issues being raised Research evaluation Possible ways forward post pilot

3. Proposal Development: pre award

4. Diversity Governor and IMB Representative Conversations and collaborations Resolving conflicts of interest Involving others – In the prison – In the University

5. Developing the project with the prison Meetings with prison staff – Local Diversity Governor Psychologists Wing managers – National Race Equality Action Group (REAG) Security issues

6. Negotiation, Approval and Funding Negotiating the project – Prison (Diversity governor & Psychologist) – Diversity week (post proposal but pre-award) Ethical issues (NHS REC) Prison access (HMP Approval proposal) Consultation with colleagues (Funding holders) Funding proposal to ESRC Methodological issues – (NB – pilot)

7. Beginning to engage with prisoners Pre-award Diversity week workshop with prisoners WonderWall activity [see poster] to capture prisoners views about how to research diversity – Which people we should talk to – What ways of finding out about diversity we could use. Major, but at the time unanticipated, means of building trust and gaining prisoners engagement with the research. Reinforced our confidence in the design of the research we were proposing

8. Aims and Design of the Project

9. Aims of the project To understand how minority grouping prisoners experience prison life and the strategies designed to improve their quality of life. To obtain the views of prison staff about issues of diversity and the prison’s diversity strategy

10. Design:Data Collection Documentary analysis Interviews with offenders Survey of wing Focus groups with staff

11. Design: Appreciative Inquiry Interviews Questions are framed to focus on what prisoners experience as positive and valuable about prison life and diversity policies and procedures.

12. Design: Timetable Project started March 2009 Phase one – information giving – meetings with offenders and staff Phase two – data collection Phase three – data analysis Final Phase – Report (February 2010)

13. Design: Identifying the sample Total Diversity Sample of wing Ethnicity Age Disability Faith Sexuality Purposive within diversity sample to represent – Place in sentence – Offence

14. Developments post award

15. Returning to work with the Diversity Week group Post award Follow on workshop to complete the WonderWall and re- establish prisoner contact Impact of WonderWall on research design [see second poster] Benefits Gained prisoner trust and engagement Group became advocates of the research at a wing level Group became nucleus of an advisory group But, impacts to consider – Whose ‘side are you on’? – Need to retain and maintain boundaries – Researchers not advocates

16. Observing ‘diversity’ in action Attended, observed and took field notes at various diversity events Prison wide ‘question time’ Social Inclusion Forums on each wing Observation of staff and prisoner relationships on pilot wing A word about words Offender vs. Prisoner To ‘have keys’ or ‘not have keys’? Whose side are you on?

17. Guiding the ongoing research Set up a Steering Group Membership – RRLO; Wing Managers; Wing Staff; Psychology. Imam; Chaplain; Outside agencies (Age concern); Academic with specialist knowledge from another University; IMB Set up a Prisoner Advisory Group All prisoner diversity reps from pilot wing + two diversity reps from each of other wings (includes members of the Diversity week group)

18. Early thoughts on theory and issues being raised

19. Three key areas to theorise 1.Identities Identification Intersectionality 2.Theorising cultures in prison 3.Resistance Matters methodological

20. Key methodological issues AI – collusive … or not? Accounting for ‘evaluative dissonance’ – Quantitative discontents – Qualitative contents All of which points to the need for more research!

21. Research evaluation

22. Evaluating and assisting the project Steering Committee and Prisoner Advisory Group ESRC end of project report Prison & Prison Service report National and International Conference presentations Peer reviewed journals

23. Moving forward: extending and developing the research Options post-pilot – Initial idea – whole prison study of Wakefield only – Other possibilities Comparative study – Wakefield and ‘other high security dispersal’ – Wakefield and Cat B or Cat C – Wakefield male and female estate.

24. Your questions and comments