We report here on inmates’ experiences with participating in interview-based research to provide insights on the ethics and validity of research on prisoners. We interviewed 40 inmates to explore their reasons for participating in previous research, the benefits and harm they experienced, and whether they felt coerced into participation. Inmates report several benefits from participating in research, including psychological satisfactions, a respite from the boredom of prison life, and monetary gain. Participants stated that they did not experience harm from the research or feel coerced to take part.
ClarkT.2010. On being researched: Why do people engage with qualitative research?Qualitative Research10:399–419.
3.
ColecchiaT.2007. Human subjects research involving special populations: Federal regulations and beyond. Paper presented at the American Health Lawyers Association, San Francisco, CA, June 28–July 2.
4.
CopesH.BrownA.TewksburyR.. 2011. A content analysis of ethnographic research published in top criminology and criminal justice journals from 2000–2009. Journal of Criminal Justice Education22:341–59.
5.
DugoshK.FestingerD.CroftJ.MarloweD.. 2010. Measuring coercion to participate in research within a doubly vulnerable population: Initial development of the coercion assessment scale. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics5:93–102.
6.
DurcanG.2008. From the inside: Experiences of prison mental health care. London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health.
7.
FleisherM. S.1989. Warehousing violence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
FoxK.ZambranaK.LaneJ.. 2011. Getting in (and staying in) when everyone else wants to get out: 10 lessons learned from conducting research with inmates. Journal of Criminal Justice Education22:304–27.
9.
FryC.,DwyerR.. 2001. For love or money? An exploratory study of why injecting drug users participate in research. Addiction9:1319–25.
10.
GiallombardoR.1966. Society of women. A study of a women’s prison. New York: Wiley.
11.
JacobsB. A.,WrightR.. 2006. Street justice: Retaliation in the criminal underworld. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
JacquesS.,WrightR.. 2008. Intimacy with outlaws: The role of relational distance in recruiting, paying, and interviewing underworld research participants. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency46:22–38.
13.
JacquesS.,. 2010. Dangerous intimacy: Toward a theory of violent victimization in active offender research. Journal of Criminal Justice Education21:503–25.
14.
MarunaS.2001. Making good. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
15.
MobleyA.HenryS.PlemmonsD.. 2008. Protecting prisoners from harmful research. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation45:33–46.
16.
MoserD. J.ArndtS.KanzJ. E.BenjaminM. L.BaylessJ. D.ReeseR. L.PaulsenJ. S.FlaumM. A.. 2004. Coercion and informed consent in research involving prisoners. Comprehensive Psychiatry45:1–9.
17.
PatenaudeA. L.2004. No promises, but I’m willing to listen and tell what I hear: Conducting qualitative research among prison inmates and staff. The Prison Journal84:69–91.
18.
PolskyN.1998. Hustlers, beats, and others, exp. ed. New York: The Lyons Press.
19.
RosenfeldR.JacobsB.WrightR.. 2003. Snitching and the code of the street. British Journal of Criminology43:291–309.
20.
SchlosserJ.2008. Issues in interviewing inmates: Navigating the methodological landmines of prison research. Qualitative Inquiry14:1500–25.
21.
ShoverN.1996. Great pretenders: Pursuits and careers of persistent thieves. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
22.
SmoyerA.BlankenshipK.BeltB.. 2009. Compensation for incarcerated research participants: Diverse state policies suggest a new research agenda. American Journal of Public Health99:1746–52.
23.
SykesG. M.1958. The society of captives. A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
WrightR.,DeckerS.. 1997. Armed robbers in action. Boston: Northeastern Press.
