3.

Learning from the Failure of
Previous Studies

The Defensive Measures of a Paranoid

Investigators wishing to visit a penal institution usually plan to stay for a relatively short period even though they intend to examine a large number of people. They imagine, for instance, that there should be little difficulty in organizing a sizable group of inmates for a survey in a penal institution and that there should be no problems in finding a place to conduct such research. After all, the warden or counselor has only to summon successive groups to the recreation hall, and in a short time the research will be completed. It appears to be simple, but in reality the situation is quite the reverse. For example, the impression left by any earlier investigators will directly influence the attitudes of the inmates and staff toward all future research. When a penal community has little or no previous research experience, the inmates and functionaries behave with great reserve during the initial stage. They are unwilling to begin conversations, and they keep their distance. In the presence of an investigator they behave very formally, both toward him and toward their peers.¹

Distrust and suspicion can be manifested by the functionaries’ attempts to prevent the investigator’s learning about negative aspects of the institution. During my own research, this was accomplished in various ways:

Interviews with the inmates had to take place in the presence of the functionaries. The excuse was that they were responsible for the safety of the visitors.

• The respondents (the inmates) could not be chosen at random. The same arguments were used as above: “Some of the prisoners are very aggressive and it is difficult to predict what they would do.’’ It was proposed that the inmates be chosen by the staff on duty that day.

• The course of the research was controlled and its “true purpose’’ was tested by sending in prisoner-informers:

1. If it were agreed that interviews with the prisoners be held without the presence of functionaries, there had to be at least two inmates at the interviews. Usually these were not close acquaintances, and each one was afraid to speak to the other.

2. Purposeful disinformation was accomplished by summoning, in addition to informants, those prisoners who were soon to be released, or had obtained conditional release (or were trying to receive it), as well as those who in the eyes of the prison staff were well behaved. Any of these had something to lose if it were discovered that they relayed unfavorable information about the work of the administration.

3. Difficulties were encountered when aggressive, noisy, or mentally retarded prisoners were selected, or when delays occurred in summoning the inmates.

Investigator Y conducted experimental research² and at first managed quite well. But at a certain stage in the course of a successive interview she ran out into the corridor and turned to the counselors for help in completing the interview. She claimed that for some time she was unable to cope with the inmates. She was exasperated by their behavior and feared that the results of the research were no longer a function of the controlled experiment but of the “antics” of the inmates. After the intervention of the counselors, the investigations were continued without further incidents, but Y was no longer satisfied with the outcome and suspected that it was rather the effect of the intentional behavior of the prisoners since regular patterns were absent.

I experienced another situation.³ I arrived at the prison and for several days I was forbidden to administer a questionnaire. Finally, I was granted permission to start my work on a Sunday in January at about 6 p.m. The cell block in which the research was to be conducted was a corridor about 50 yards long. Along one wall of the corridor were doors to the cells. About 250 inmates were housed here with only one functionary—a guard who assigned the recreation hall for the interviews and successively escorted the prisoners. After each group of prisoners entered, the guard closed the door from the outside and departed to pursue his other duties— leaving me quite alone with the inmates. There was no possibility of opening the door from the inside. Only after prolonged knocking would the guard open it and usher in the next prisoners.

Research with the first group went quite peacefully and only one of the prisoners declined to complete the questionnaire, claiming that he was illiterate. After a few minutes the lights went out. This gave rise to laughter and shouts and the inmates exchanged comments. They left their seats and walked around the room. A moment later the lights went on and the prisoners continued filling out the questionnaires. The guard glanced through the slightly opened door and once again locked us in from the outside. This group was immediately followed by another which was composed of seven men. All were strangely excited and aggressive. “Where are you from,” they asked. “From Warsaw,” I answered. “ . . . he’s a local.” “And who are you?” I asked. “I’m a code user” [one who uses the prison argot]. “My old lady is one, and so is sis. The whole family uses the code.” Slightly nervous I managed to induce the prisoners to sit down and showed them the instructions. There were no questions. The lights went off and the prisoners began to scream and laugh wildly. They abandoned their seats, went up to the windows, and shouted something toward the street. They surrounded me, brushing against me and knocking my bag off the table. Now they were much more excited than at the beginning of the interview. They also provoked me to talk: “Do you have a piece of ass?” “Yes, I do.” “Do you fuck her?” “Of course.” “What do you do?” “I am studying.” “Then you’ll become a reptile” [a pejorative term used for describing the prison staff]. “No, I won’t.” But the tension in the room was growing, not dissipating. The lights didn’t go on and no one came in. Of course, I was quite afraid and wondered whether or not to throw myself against the door, and begin hammering with my fists and shouting so that I could escape the “bandits” (I thought in those terms) who continued to brush against me asking me insulting and provocative questions.

“Do you know how the girls do it in the women’s [prison]?” “No, I don’t but tell me, it interests me.” Laughter. “Of course, who isn’t interested?” They began their story, admiring it themselves and awakening my authentic shock and interest. They described how the women inmates inserted boiled sweets into the vagina and then “licked it for each other,” about the porridge from their supper placed inside a stocking and sewn up in such a way as to form something resembling a “stiff and warm” male organ with which they masturbated each other. The inmates knew all this from the girls who “sat” and who practiced these activities.

They also described a rape committed by up to twenty women inmates on a male prisoner. Having discovered him in the attic of one of the prison buildings, they first sent the prettiest girl to carry out the foreplay. Then the others threw themselves on him, tying his penis so as to stop the flow of blood and performed intercourse. The rape victim was injured and needed medical attention. The inmates also told me about sexual relations between the male personnel in the women’s prisons and the inmates. These tales about sex relaxed my interlocutors to such an extent that they changed their attitude toward me and I even won their sympathy. They now addressed me as “sir,” and politely without hostility asked what I would like to know. This was much better. I asked that they continue the theme they had begun.

Anxiety and tension had disappeared and the meeting changed into a general conversation—no one was nervously walking around the room. The prisoners inquired about the situation “outside,” the possibility of an amnesty, etc.; they also admitted that the guard had instructed them to frighten me off. Finally, the lights went on. When the guard came back, I said goodbye to the inmates, promising that we would meet again. I also informed the functionary that the light was faulty and I was unable to conduct my work, thanked him, and departed.

Other obstacles created by the functionaries include:

• Severe treatment of those prisoners invited to take part in the research. Sometimes they were instructed how to behave: “Don’t say anything stupid, you know what I mean.”

• The functionaries, without being asked, divulged information about life in the penal institution: “Here the prisoners have it cozy . . . just like at home. . . . They have everything and are satisfied. . . . Most didn’t have it this good outside the prison.”

• Hostility toward certain inmates was encouraged by showing or describing documents detailing murders, rape, and other particularly cruel crimes.

The suspicion and animosity of the prisoners was expressed in the following behavior:

• Some did not shake hands although the investigator extended his. Those inmates who did shake hands said magic words right away to annul this form of contact with an “unclean” person.

• The prisoners called the investigators “reptilian seed,” i.e., people who were planning to work in the penal or judicial system. Prison employees were known as “reptiles,” students were “reptilian seed.” We were also described as “red spiders,” that is, we were taken for party members, communists, or their coworkers.

• Sometimes the inmates refused to participate in research or gave “polite” answers: “I don’t complain,” “I have nothing against anyone.”

• At other times they expressed their animosity maintaining that “nothing improves for us in prison as a result of these studies . . . and they even think up worse things for us—all those changes in the rules.”

• Some of the inmates checked whether or not I was passing the information to the functionaries.

During the first meeting one of the inmates didn’t want to talk. Instead, he asked me to look at the two solitary confinement cells which he described as terrible. He also told me where to find them and proposed to meet once again. I saw the two identical cells: cold spaces in the corner of which was a cement perpendicular block on which lay a wooden lattice of the sort used in showers in public baths together with a wooden head rest—this was the sleeping area. In the middle of the cells stood a cement table on a single leg (which came out of the cement floor) and next to it a cement stool. In the corner a wide pipe stuck out of the wall, intended as the toilet.

A few days later I met with the same inmate and told him that I had seen the cells. He in turn described numerous drastic events connected with solitary confinement. He also explained why he did not want to say all this earlier. First, he had checked whether or not I would inform the staff about the fact that he had mentioned the cells. Had I done so, he would have been punished “but only slightly, because this information . . . was not a big deal.” Since he hadn’t suffered any sanctions, he concluded that I was “alright” and he could talk “openly.”

As long as the investigator doesn’t antagonize the inmates and staff, this first difficult period soon passes. The change can be noted when the functionaries abandon certain restrictions; for example, we were permitted to freely choose persons for purposes of study, or to talk alone with a single inmate. The second stage was characterized by increased interest of the prisoners and staff in the persons conducting the studies. At the same time, a singular competition began between the inmates and the personnel for establishing better relations with us. The inmates would tell us how badly they were treated by the administration of the institution. The functionaries, in turn, would describe the criminal acts committed by the inmates, drawing particular attention to the degeneration of the perpetrators. They claimed that the prisoners are “lazy good-for-nothings, whom the state has to keep” while they (the staff) have to “suffer with them.”

During the second stage symptoms of distrust present in the first period gradually disappeared. Both the inmates and the staff more eagerly established rapport, and in the third stage expressed a readiness to become friendly and confess. As a rule, members of both groups took the initiative to be on first-name terms. It became attractive to be associated with the newcomer, and being seen in his company became a source of satisfaction. The functionaries almost always accompanied persons conducting the studies, making it difficult to carry out work and out-right impossible to talk with the inmates.

The Closed Circuit of Information

The inmates (and to a certain degree also the functionaries) spend a good part of their lives in one place—the prison. Their work and lives are a duplication of an unchanging, universally familiar routine. Anything new or different immediately becomes a subject of discussion. But these new events are not as frequent as outside the prison walls. It could be said that there is a certain deficiency of information and a longing that something will happen. One boasts of possessing information and no matter what the content or the source, anyone who has some news is the subject of immediate and special interest. In prisons it is said: “Nothing can be kept secret here for very long.” Information is passed on secretly or in the open. As a result, in a very short time everyone knows everything about the given event including the interpretations added on the way. This is a closed circuit of information. If a certain group of inmates is randomly selected for a study, after having talked with some of them, on the very same day all the other inmates know that such research is being conducted and its purpose, and they are already predisposed toward our work. The next persons interviewed are no longer “the same” as the first few. Interpretations of the research by the inmate community will influence whether, for example, an inmate will refuse to participate or not, the sort of answers he will give, etc. Each consecutive event connected with the research will become common knowledge and will reflect on the attitude of the successive persons concerned.

X carried out a survey⁴ in which he asked the prisoners to mark on a scale their opinion about the situations described in the questionnaire. These situations were “scenes” from prison life. The guard escorted randomly selected prisoners in groups of ten—there were ten tables, one for each inmate, and there was no possibility for communication between the respondents. After one set of the inmates completed the questionnaire, the next ten entered according to a list of selected names. But during the successive change of groups the investigator realized that since the last two groups, prisoners had been marking identical opinions and in such places on the scale that it was obvious that they had heard nothing about these events, knew nothing, or that nothing of the sort had ever occurred in their institution.

The following three groups behaved in the same manner. X began to despair and was ready to give up on this study. It would seem that the more neutral the contents of the studies, and more distant from prison life, the less probable that their interpretation by the inmates would significantly influence the results of the studies. If the purpose of the survey was “hidden life,” then it was necessary to take into consideration a more frequent than usual refusal to participate as well as intentionally false answers. Such disinformation could be fostered both by the heads of “hidden life” and by the staff. This particular example was an excellent illustration of the impact of research upon the results. Apart from whether the situations described in the “scenes” did or did not take place in the community of the inmates, the very examination of “hidden life” constituted a challenge mainly to the most privileged groups in the informal structure of the prisoners’ community to see whether they would keep silent with regard to matters of which a stranger should remain ignorant. After testing the first group of inmates the information about the contents of the interviews had already spread throughout the prison. The investigations were interpreted as an attempt to penetrate the problems of those groups. The inmates decided to negate the statements in the survey regardless of their veracity. They created an atmosphere of ridicule surrounding the investigation. Some of the inmates carefully observed the way in which prisoners who did not belong to the privileged groups marked their answers. On the second day the respondents completed the survey ten minutes earlier, did not ask for instructions to be repeated, had no questions, and did not have to be told to sit singly at the tables—they did so by themselves immediately after entering the recreation hall. This gave the impression that before they arrived they knew exactly what their tasks would consist of. Some of the inmates refused to participate even before entering the hall.

In conversations with me after the research, the prisoners claimed that the survey was not anonymous. I was surprised to hear this, considering that the inmates were only requested to circle or check their attitude to the described situations and nothing else—no names, age, or origin—was demanded. The inmates nonetheless maintained that it is possible to recreate precisely who completed which questionnaire by remembering the place where he sat, the color of his ink, or the order in which the questionnaire was completed, and that with the help of the guards who escorted the inmates to the hall one could determine their names. They would have been happier not to participate at all, but a general refusal could be badly viewed by the administration and the inmates wanted to avoid this. The best solution would be to come and prove that no one knows anything. Then, they would have no further problems and would unanimously state that there are no elements of “hidden life” such as those presented in the survey. If in a conversation with one of the inmates I would say that it was general knowledge that the prisoners of this particular institution were divided, and that events occur which are the outcome of this division, his answer could usually be summed up: everyone knows that but proof is quite another matter.

It was the contention of the inmates that the questionnaires demanded almost a confession about participation in “hidden life” and violated the obligation to keep silent on the subject of essential events in the life of the prisoners. The research, therefore, was a sui generis violent act against the community since its members were unable to refuse to take part. The inmates also believed that such a refusal would be interpreted by the administration as disobedience which, in turn, would reflect badly on the administration. The prisoners were thus forced to take a stand regarding matters which they do not discuss with strangers.

Even more surprising, the inmates regarded conversation with me as something quite different from filling out questionnaires—in contrast to words which can always be contradicted or denied, writing leaves a trace. Even the expression that “a study is being conducted” sounded serious and threatening. The procedure of being summoned, sitting down and filling out questionnaires made it a special event. It was analyzed from the point of view of eventual dire consequences for the persons involved. Anonymity actually suggested that the questions concern dangerous issues. The suspicion that anonymity could be violated without the knowledge and willingness of the inmates meant that they wondered whether some sort of a dishonest game was being played behind their backs.

A face-to-face conversation is different and emphasizes the individuality of the inmate who becomes the center of attention and can speak without fear—words exist as they are uttered and when one finishes speaking, no traces remain. This closed circuit of information and the attitudes of those under examination mean that the behavior of the investigator is important. If the investigators act in ways that humiliate or insult the person under examination, then they can be certain that they have turned the prisoner against them. The other inmates will quickly find out about this conduct and judge the investigators accordingly. If, for example, in the situation cited above (when I found myself alone with the prisoners in a dark room), I had thrown myself against the door and shouted to open it (and this was what fear dictated), I would have had nothing more to do in that particular institution. Furthermore, I would have become the object of mockery and ridicule, and this attitude toward me would certainly have been transferred into the work I conducted.

Proper use of this aspect of the prison community can direct the attitude of the inmates to the research in a favorable direction. Investigators should not divulge what they have found out about the prison either to the staff or to the inmates; even more so, they should never admit who was the source of information or what and whom they have seen. If news starts to spread that the investigator disclosed the contents of interviews, then nothing will be found out in the future or the investigator will be disinformed in further interviews.

At the same time, the prison staff takes care that no one should “sell out the prison.” Anyone who does so can expect to be punished. It is true that many of the prisoners talk about the institution without fear of repressions and are prepared to face penalties; they attach little importance to the possibility of, for example, being beaten—for them, they claim, “truth is more important.”

On the Sources of Prisoners’ Knowledge and
Certain Pertinent Problems

Prisoners rarely serve their entire sentence in a single penal institution. They are transferred to other units for various reasons: when a prisoner ceases to be a juvenile offender (over 21) he/she can be shifted to an institution for first offenders; prisoners are moved from overpopulated institutions to the less populated ones; badly behaved inmates are handed over to institutions with a stricter regime; prisoners with five, ten, or more years left to serve are moved to special institutions intended precisely for such terms; certain inmates leave closed institutions for semi-open ones, and so forth.

The inmates “travel,” and those “journeys” provide them with knowledge about life in other institutions which is also the subject of exchanged information. This is why each convict has knowledge about the situation in the institution where he had served time, the one where he is currently confined, and those about which he found out from other prisoners while “traveling across the country.” An enormous source of information about penal institutions are the recidivists. The older recidivists provide valuable information about the situation in the more distant past. I was able to use their reminiscences while analyzing changes within the “hidden life” in penitentiaries.

Once one overcomes their distrust, the inmates reveal a tendency toward an uncontrolled narrative based on associations. It is difficult to focus their attention on a single theme. Their statements are dominated by descriptions of events and by their own emotional attitudes toward them. Sometimes it is impossible to interrupt or to stop them from talking. Therefore one should collect information while listening to everything the prisoner wants to tell you, and during the following meeting to ask questions, only if the prisoner allows you to do so. This inclination on the part of the inmates is particularly important during the initial stage of research when it is not yet clear what to ask and how to ask it. In this way a lot of information can be gained acquainting the investigator with the customs and social order governing the prisons. But for those very reasons one has to be especially careful in order to extract from the tide of disorderly information what the inmate is talking about, the source of his information, and the period to which it pertains. The inmates like to be listened to carefully. One can steer the topic of their statements by showing greater or lesser interest about the related incidents, thus encouraging them to expand a theme of special interest to the investigator.

Inmates who hold the highest position in the social stratification of the prison are not allowed to speak about the mores of a given institution; otherwise, they could be expelled from their group. For this reason, it is very difficult to obtain any sort of information from them. While organizing an interview, one should take special care to guarantee anonymity and discretion.

In talking with more than one prisoner (or in the presence of other prisoners) one should remember that the divisions of the prison community into groups means that each inmate will speak only about “safe” topics in the presence of an unknown inmate or a member of another group. As a rule, everyone is willing to describe the wrongs suffered by them, often expecting that perhaps the investigator will be able to put them right.

On the Dissimilarity of the World of the Investigator
and the World of the Prisoners, and on Other Perils

Investigators who conduct studies in penal institutions should not assume that life in prison is similar to that outside. That which we could expect to be unpleasant for the prisoner does not have to be so and vice versa. For example, a question about the reason for the incarceration is regarded as completely normal, but holiday greetings can come as a total shock. An inquiry whether a woman prisoner has a boyfriend could reduce her to tears. What amuses the inmate can be horrifying to outsiders, and so on.

One of the most dissimilar things is the prisoners’ language, full of expressions completely unknown to outsiders or familiar but with a different meaning. It is not embarrassing to inquire about the meaning of various words and expressions, but it can be harmful to use the argot unskillfully. Certain studies have indicated in using the prisoners’ vernacular (and sometimes their opinions) a tendency to mimic the inmates. By doing so instead of establishing contact, investigators only make themselves look ridiculous. The inmates are perfectly well aware of the differences, not only in regard to their position, between themselves and the investigator.

It is possible that the researcher could be robbed or the prisoners could try to steal from him. In one institution several prisoners engaged me in a conversation, actually trying to avert my attention from a bag which I had left on top of a barrier in the prison library. The inmate standing closest to the bag, delicately and in an offhand manner, pushed it with his elbow. Another prisoner squatted in back of the counter in order to be able to search the bag quickly once it had fallen, and to take the more valuable items. At the same time, the first prisoner was supposed to apologize profusely and jump over the barrier and hand me the “untouched” bag.

One should try to avoid becoming a “sucker” who “allowed himself to be skinned.” But if such an incident does occur, then one should forget about it so as not to be regarded as an informer who seeks help among the functionaries and brings repressions on the prisoners. A notification about the theft to the administration would have had a decidedly negative influence on further research.

Many apprehensions are connected with research conducted in men’s institutions by women. These fears are rooted in the specific way of thinking about prisoners as sexually depraved criminals who, deprived of any hindrance, would readily commit rape. It would be difficult to contradict this completely, but one can notice that the prisoners control themselves and try not to reveal their emotions if the presence of a woman arouses sexual desire. In situations created by the administration, rape attempted in the course of the investigation would be quickly noticed and the possibility for the offender to find himself alone with his victim is nonexistent—it would be impossible to close from the inside the room in which the interview is conducted.

A female student, Z, held interviews with prisoners who were summoned one by one to the room; when she made it known that the interview had come to an end, the prisoner was escorted back to his cell. At one point, an inmate stood up, pulled down his trousers, and placed his penis on the table. The student, embarrassed by this unusual situation, managed to control herself, stood up, looked straight into the eyes of the young prisoner and quite calmly and in a surprised voice asked “Sonny, what do you want?” The mortified inmate quickly pulled up his pants and ran out of the room. A moment later Z called for the next prisoner, informing no one about the incident. No other disturbances of this sort occurred.

Some of the prisoners refuse to talk with women at all. It would be difficult to explain the reasons more precisely—some said that “they do not want to excite themselves unhealthily.” The apparel of a woman interviewer is also very important. It should be inconspicuous but can be quite chic, a feature which the prisoners appreciate; they are more courteous and proud of the opportunity to talk “with an elegant woman.” The reverse effect is accomplished if her clothes are frivolous or provocative while matching behavior is totally reprehensible. A woman dressed or behaving in such a way is usually regarded by the prisoners as a “whore.” She evokes anger and aggression—the inmates either do not want to talk to her or are insolent and flirtatious and jeer: “Lady, why do you ask? Women should stay home and take care of children and not hang around jails.”

Fear in the presence of prisoners is also undesired. Usually the inmates notice it quickly and ridicule such investigators, whether men or women. The prisoners claim that this attitude is the effect of viewing them as bandits who could attack their chosen victim at any moment.

A woman about 45 years old conducted a survey in a penal institution and was so afraid of remaining alone with an inmate that she demanded the presence of a member of the prison staff during one of the interviews. For this reason she was regarded by the functionaries as a “stupid bitch” and a nuisance, and by the prisoners as a “louse.” To annoy her they admitted that they wrote down only “lots of rubbish.”

Fear of the prisoners is also revealed in rigorous, attorney-like behavior. It upsets the prisoners and results in their perceiving such a person as “reptilian seed.” Generally speaking, if none of these deviations occur, then the prisoners are more polite and inclined to cooperate with women, and there is no subject which they do not discuss openly. On the contrary, they talk about the most intimate problems more often and more willingly with female investigators.