Reinforcing Experiential Learning in Criminology: Definitions, Rationales, and Missed Opportunities Concerning Prison Tours in the United States

Abstract

Carceral tours remain a controversial aspect of pedagogy and curricula in criminology and criminal justice. In recent years, critics have questioned the pedagogical and ethical validity of conducting prison tours. In response, we clarify definitional ambiguities and provided a rationale for carceral tours that occur within the United States. Here, pedagogical justification for prison tours is based on the work of Lev Vygotsky which is subsumed under the broader paradigm of experiential education. Criticisms leveled at prison tours are described as missed opportunities; with experiential learning examined in terms of the epistemology of criminological expertise, the concept of impression management (i.e. Goffman), and the notion of the penal gaze. The efficacy of pedagogical tours is discussed with reference to the role of active and innovative teaching methods in criminology and criminal justice.

Notes

1. Ironically, Eastern State Penitentiary, Philadelphia offered a prison tour to academics attending the 2009 American Society of Criminology meeting.

2. Note that Minogue’s caveats are centered on the need for ethical and respectful dialogue between inmates and the penal visitor. Comparatively, we find in the North American context that these ethical boundaries are honored during PTs. Case in point; Minogue (2003) states that no prison tour in Australia has required ethics approval, with Piche and Walby (2010) finding a similar trend in Canada. Yet, in our PTs in the Southeast United States (Smith et al., 2009, 2011) we were mandated to receive Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval from the governing University body, including a review process that includes the approval of an inmate advocate. We would caution these critics about the methodological limitations of making sweeping generalizations from a specific, often solo prison-system context to an international context. Moreover, the substance of Minogue’s (2003) commentary on the activities he witnessed during his incarceration involving prison tours, if substantiated, would not only violate the standards of practice established by the American Correctional Association (2003) and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (2008), but would also violate the civil rights of the inmates involved and lead to litigation of the prison and its employees. While critical of these methodological limitations, we support the argument that all PTs should have IRB approval and this process should include the voice of the inmate and/or the inmate advocate.

3. We did not include the term “field trip” because this term does not adequately capture the goals and processes listed in any category of experiential learning. Therefore, the use of “field trips” should be avoided in tertiary pedagogy, and is more appropriately applied to primary and secondary educational excursions.

4. When an expert is governing both ideology and content in the classroom then bias is inevitably introduced, limiting the efficacy of social science. In the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, “All things are subject to interpretation; whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”

5. Piche and Walby (2010, p. 574) present the following as evidence of impression management; “A prominent theme in the Saskatchewan Penitentiary script is the frequent mention of institutional security and order.” Yet major incidents have occurred at Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Canada including: (1) a hostage situation in 1991, in which two staff members and one inmate were held for twenty-two hours. The incident ended when members of the Emergency Response Team shot and killed two of the three hostage takers and (2) In 2010, a large brawl resulted in one inmate being killed and two more seriously injured (CBC News, 2010).

6. Liebling (2001) presents a fascinating discussion on academic bias that may help explain our critics’ perspective. Liebling finds that academic researchers tend to reserve sensitivity and empathy for inmates while rarely affording the same respect to prison staff. Liebling (2001, p. 476) asks, “Why is sympathy reserved for the offender and denied to those who (sometimes in good faith) work in criminal justice, with their own lives, stories, pains, motives, and understandings?” The answer may be found in extended discussions between Howard Becker and Alvin Gouldner that are outside the purview of this manuscript. Yet, there appears to be a similar bias held by our critics and Howard Becker—“Becker argued that responsible officials have sufficient power and credibility to define reality” (Liebling, 2001, p. 476). This may explain why the heterogeneous power-relations between officer and inmate lead to a higher degree of scrutiny and ethical debate; and why comparatively the more homogenous power-relations between officer and citizen produce much less ethical deliberation in policing research (particularly with regard to the common practice of having students conduct a police ride-along for pedagogical or research experience).

7. Piche and Walby (2009, p. 575) cite Wacquant’s ethnographic research as evidence that an observational methodology in a prison setting confines one’s findings to “some of the more superficial aspects of imprisonment.” They include the following observational variables; overcrowding, racial composition, lack of privacy, correctional signs, prisoner dress code, the administration of inmate privileges, and environmental features of cells particularly light and air. We fail to see how such observations can be viewed as “superficial.”

8. The reader should note that Michel Foucault’s treatises are the foundation of the criticism leveled by both Brown (2009) and Piche and Walby (2010). However, Foucault’s only visit to a prison was to Attica, New York, in 1972 and this visit was prompted by serious rioting (i.e. an extreme and rare event) (see Sibley & van Hoven 2009). One can only speculate on the degree to which classics such as Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1975) would have been altered had Foucault actually immersed himself within the prison milieu.

9. The concept of power differentials is particularly salient during PTs and may serve as another pedagogical topic. Student groups often report feeling a loss of power and control following the tour. One student wrote, “Although we as a class had entered the prison with the objective of observing and talking to the tenants [sic], the role had shifted and we found ourselves the object of study by the inmates and staff alike.” This is reminiscent of the classic Nietzsche quote, “and if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you” (Nietzsche, [1885] 2010, p. 48).

10. Even critics like Brown (2009) find potential efficacy of the gaze. While dubious of PTs in general, Brown writes that the reason she continues to lead prison tours is “tied to the possibility that the penal gaze might be interrupted-that it might be altered in some manner, some way that leads towards different ways of looking, different ways of understanding the project of punishment. That look, whatever it may be, I believe, will always require primary contact-a direct engagement, eye to eye” (Brown, 2009, p. 117).

11. Note that a critical perspective is well suited to the work of Lev Vygotsky. Vygotsky’s pedagogy is based on a Marxian philosophy which centers on a dialectical historical materialism and consciousness development (see Newman & Holzman, 1993).