This article is developed from the contents from one of the chapters the researcher has written as part of her PhD thesis. It discusses various methodological challenges the researcher had to face during the phase of data collection in the prisons of Kerala, India, and the strategies adopted to overcome these challenges. This article is intended as a guide for researchers who want to conduct a qualitative enquiry in prisons in the future.
BandyopadhyayMahuya. 2010. Everyday Life in a Prison: Confinement, Surveillance, Resistance. New Delhi, India: Orient Blackswan.
2.
ConleyJohn A. 1980. “Prisons, Production, and Profit: Reconsidering the Importance of Prison Industries.” Journal of Social History14(2):1–19. Retrieved June 15, 2014 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3786794).
3.
Model Prison Manual for the Superindence and Management of Prisons in India. 2016. Bureau of Police Research and Development. Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
4.
RaghavanVijay. 2010. “Youth Arrested in Extortion Cases in Mumbai City: Processes of Entry and After.” PhD thesis, submitted to Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.
5.
SchlosserJennifer A. 2008. “Issues in Interviewing Inmates: Navigating the Methodological Landmines of Prison Research.” Qualitative Inquiry14(8):1500–25. Retrieved October 10, 2013 (http://qix.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/8/1500).
6.
SivakumarVineetha. 2006. “Stress Due to Economic Dependence Among College Students.” BSc dissertation, submitted to University of Calicut, Malappuram.
7.
SivakumarVineetha. 2017. “Vocational Training Programmes in the Prisons of Kerala: Policy and Practice.” PhD thesis, submitted to Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai.
