The article explores the challenges of conducting ethnographic fieldwork in intensely surveilled carceral spaces, specifically Polish guarded detention centres for foreigners. It examines how institutional surveillance, including electronic monitoring, and direct observation and interrogative interactions, impact the researcher's position, positionality, data collection, and the establishment of trust with informants. The article builds on autoethnographic experiences of a young researcher to illustrate key difficulties, discussing surveillance not merely as an obstacle but as a powerful and inherent force, shaping fieldwork and collected data. It points out that there are important differences in how institutional surveillance affects young and senior researchers, outlining pitfalls as well as strategies for navigating the surveilled field.
AbbottPDiGiacomoMMaginP, et al. (2018) A scoping review of qualitative research methods used with people in prison. International Journal of Qualitative Methods17(1): 1–15.
2.
Baum-TalmorP (2020) ‘It’s okay even if you are a spy’: issues in researcher positioning within a precarious workplace. Journal of Organizational Ethnography9(1): 94–109.
3.
BorrelliLM (2020) Between suspicion, nicknames, and trust: renegotiating ethnographic access with Swedish border police. Journal of Organizational Ethnography9(2): 143–157.
4.
BosworthM (2014) Inside Immigration Detention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BosworthM (2019) Affect and authority in immigration detention. Punishment & Society21(5): 542–559.
6.
BosworthMKelleziB (2017) Doing research in immigration removal centres: ethics, emotions and impact. Criminology and Criminal Justice17(2): 121–137.
7.
BourbeauP (2019) Detention and immigration: practices, crimmigration, and norms. Migration Studies7(1): 83–99.
8.
BreulsL (2020) Understanding immigration detention: the analytical value of practical and emotional challenges during fieldwork. Journal of Organizational Ethnography9(2): 129–142.
9.
BrownGBosE (2017) ‘We were there too’: there is much to learn from embedding auto/biography in the knowing and doing of prison research. Methodological Innovations10(2): 8.
10.
ChantraineGScheerD (2022) Surveillance, radicalization, and prison change: self-analysis of an ethnographic survey under tension. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography51(2): 171–196.
11.
CopesHHochstetlerABrownA (2013) Inmates’ perceptions of the benefits and harm of prison interviews. Field Methods25(2): 182–196.
12.
CreweB (2014) Not looking hard enough: masculinity, emotion, and prison research. Qualitative Inquiry20(4): 392–403.
13.
DawarAI (2021) Are you a spy? On the inconveniences of conventional methodology in terror wrap ethnography. Qualitative Research Journal21(1): 29–39.
14.
EarleR (2014) Insider and out: making sense of a prison experience and a research experience. Qualitative Inquiry20(4): 429–438.
15.
ErgunAErdemirA (2010) Negotiating insider and outsider identities in the field: ‘insider’ in a foreign land; ‘outsider’ in one’s own land. Field Methods22(1): 16–38.
16.
FoucaultM (1995) Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.
17.
Gibson-LightMSeimJ (2020) Punishing fieldwork: penal domination and prison ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography49(5): 666–690.
18.
GomesSGranjaR (2021) (Dis)trusted outsiders: conducting ethnographic research on prison settings. Etnografica25(1): 5–22.
19.
HaggertyKDWilsonDSmithGJD (2011) Theorizing surveillance in crime control. Theoretical Criminology15(3): 231–237.
20.
JewkesY (2012) Autoethnography and emotion as intellectual resources: doing prison research differently. Qualitative Inquiry18(1): 63–75.
21.
KönönenJ (2023) Multiple functions of immigration detention: police measures in the governance of mobile populations. Punishment & Society26(3): 507–526..
22.
LieblingA (1999) Doing research in prison: breaking the silence?Theoretical Criminology3(2): 147–173.
23.
LieblingA (2001) Whose side are we on? Theory, practice and allegiances in prisons research. British Journal of Criminology41(3): 472–484.
24.
LieblingASchmidtBEBeyensK, et al. (2021) Doing team ethnography in a transnational prison. International Criminology1(2): 123–134.
25.
LindbergAEuleTG (2020) Organisational ethnography as a project of unease. Journal of Organizational Ethnography9(2): 237–247.
26.
LyonD (2007) Surveillance Studies. An Overview. Cambridge: Polity Press.
27.
MajcherIFlynnMGrangeM (2020) Immigration Detention in the European Union. Cham: Springer.
28.
MirandaD (2024) Carceral surveillance: data flows within and beyond prison walls. Incarceration5: 1–19.
29.
NiedźwiedzkiD (2022) People in total institutions. The case of border guard functionaries and employees in guarded centres for foreigners. Studia Migracyjne – Przegląd Polonijny48(4 (186)): 109–127.
30.
NiedźwiedzkiDSchmidtJ (2023) Introduction to Immigrant Detention in Poland: Theory and Methodology. Oxford: Peter Lang.
31.
NielsenMM (2010) Pains and possibilities in prison: on the use of emotions and positioning in ethnographic research. Acta Sociologica53(4): 307–321.
PhillipsCEarleR (2010) Reading difference differently? Identity, epistemology and prison ethnography. British Journal of Criminology50(2): 360–378.
34.
ReiterK (2014) Making windows in walls: strategies for prison research. Qualitative Inquiry20(4): 417–428.
35.
RodowiczA (2024) Nieletni migranci. Gdy nie uda się ich wypchnąć za druty, trafiają w tryby niewydolnego systemu’ [Minor migrants. When they cannot be pushed back behind the fences, they end up caught in the machinery of an inefficient system], 3 August. Available at: https://oko.press/maloletni-migranci-polska-granica-ani-prawa-ani-opieki (accessed 28 October 2025).
36.
RoweA (2014) Situating the self in prison research: power, identity, and epistemology. Qualitative Inquiry20(4): 404–416.
37.
RyanCMTynenS (2020) Fieldwork under surveillance: rethinking relations of trust, vulnerability, and state power. Geographical Review110(1–2): 38–51.
38.
RyoE (2019) Understanding immigration detention: causes, conditions, and consequences. Annual Review of Law and Social Science15: 97–115.
39.
RyoE (2024) Immigration detention as a shadow carceral system. Theoretical Criminology28(4): 577–598.
40.
SökefeldMStrasserS (2016) Introduction: under suspicious eyes – surveillance states, security zones and ethnographic fieldwork. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie141(2): 159–176.
41.
SymkovychA (2023) Prison order through the hyperopticon, collectivism, and atomisation: the surveillance and disciplining of Ukrainian prison officers. Theoretical Criminology27(3): 481–498.
42.
UgelvikT (2014) Prison ethnography as lived experience: notes from the diaries of a beginner let loose in Oslo prison. Qualitative Inquiry20(4): 471–480.
43.
VillettazPKilliasMZoderI (2006) The effects of custodial vs. non-custodial sentences on re-offending: a systematic review of the state of knowledge. Campbell Systematic Reviews2(1): 1–69.
44.
WaltersW (2021) State Secrecy and Security: Refiguring the Covert Imaginary. London: Routledge.
45.
ZadrożnaA (2016) What are you really looking for? Ethnography while (feeling) under surveillance. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie141: 215–232.
