Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To examine participatory research (PR) in a women’s prison to assess: (1) whether incarcerated interviewers elicit different knowledge than outside interviewers and (2) whether incarcerated interviewers are perceived as more trustworthy than outside interviewers.</p> Methods <p>We conducted a randomized experiment with 158 incarcerated women in Arizona, assigning participants to be interviewed by either an incarcerated (<i>n</i> = 78) or outside (<i>n</i> = 80) interviewer. Participants discussed their experiences of trust and relationships within the prison environment, as well as their comfort level with the assigned interviewer.</p> Results <p>We observed few statistically significant differences between conditions. However, perceptions of interviewer trustworthiness varied: participants assigned to incarcerated interviewers more often voiced concerns about confidentiality and information sharing.</p> Conclusions <p>This study contributes to inclusive prison research approaches that engage incarcerated people as partners in the research process. However, using incarcerated interviewers raises ethical concerns, including risks related to perceived coercion and harm.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Who’s asking? Participatory research, interviewer effects, and the production of knowledge in a women’s prison

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月3日

查看全文
  • Kevin A. Wright,
  • Jacob T.N. Young,
  • Alexis N. Klemm

摘要

Objectives

To examine participatory research (PR) in a women’s prison to assess: (1) whether incarcerated interviewers elicit different knowledge than outside interviewers and (2) whether incarcerated interviewers are perceived as more trustworthy than outside interviewers.

Methods

We conducted a randomized experiment with 158 incarcerated women in Arizona, assigning participants to be interviewed by either an incarcerated (n = 78) or outside (n = 80) interviewer. Participants discussed their experiences of trust and relationships within the prison environment, as well as their comfort level with the assigned interviewer.

Results

We observed few statistically significant differences between conditions. However, perceptions of interviewer trustworthiness varied: participants assigned to incarcerated interviewers more often voiced concerns about confidentiality and information sharing.

Conclusions

This study contributes to inclusive prison research approaches that engage incarcerated people as partners in the research process. However, using incarcerated interviewers raises ethical concerns, including risks related to perceived coercion and harm.