With First Peoples and non–First Peoples scholars alike questioning the efficacy of research methods based solely upon accepted social science research paradigms with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations, innovative and ontologically inclusive alternatives require consideration. Research conducted with incarcerated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in the Northern Territory and Western Australia may provide such an opportunity, arguing for a method of ‘research at the interface’ that utilises appreciative inquiry with culturally appropriate conversations (yarning). Employed across four prisons, the interface research method was applied as an innovative solution to measuring prison performance. It highlighted the lived experience of incarceration while re-imagining the prison, as it exists when it functions at its best. The article begins with a snapshot of the research conducted with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in prisons across the Northern Territory and Western Australia; this provides a frame through which to consider the efficacy of interfacing First Peoples research paradigms with Western traditional modes of research. Furthermore, the innovative application of appreciative inquiry to the prison is discussed. Given that appreciative inquiry explores and privileges the narrative as a means of making sense of the prison experience, the authors suggest it complements the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tradition of ‘yarning’. A yarning style represents a way of ensuring cultural safety, respect and the utilisation of First Peoples ontology to research conducted with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. Overall, it is delineated how interfacing appreciative inquiry and yarning may provide a viable alternative to the deep colonising and perpetually oppressive use of Western modes of scholarship when engaging in research with First Peoples.

No abstract

Australian First Peoples hyperincarceration is concomitant with the trauma of historical and contemporary colonisation in perpetuating social dysfunction. Ongoing colonisation has been sustained by research that does not respect First Peoples epistemology, axiology, and ontology. Given this, the impact of prison quality and the potential association with First Peoples imprisonment and recidivism has been inadequately researched. Therefore there is a need to examine prison quality as experienced by Australian First Peoples. The purpose of this paper is to conceptualise a decolonising prison quality research method that is respectful of and culturally sensitive to Australian First Peoples. The proposed method interfaces First Peoples yarning with Appreciative Inquiry. Underpinning the proposed method is that all researchers, First Peoples or non-Indigenous, are attuned to cultural awareness and sensitive to the engagement process. When yarning is interfaced with Appreciative Inquiry and the latter is modified in consultation with First Peoples input, the proposed research method empowers research participants, potentially contributing to de-colonisation.

Research Summary:Macroeconomic reforms have swept many modern Western corrections jurisdictions into a world of commercial realities, privatization, and competition. The following case study reviews how competition (i.e., a market test) between the public and the private sectors in tendering for the operation of the Woodford Corrections Centre contributed to a riot. A combined model of the threshold and state-centered theories of prison riots provides a template that clarifies the interactions of factors that contributed to the riot. Through document analysis and interviews, it is evident that despite producing a highly innovative bid judged superior to the private sector, the public sector was caught in a policy bind that led to a prison riot 3 weeks after the new center opened. Policy Implications:This research highlights important policy considerations for governments initiating policy-driven prison reform. First, the research highlights the need for custodial policy development and implementation to be strategic and part of an overall reform agenda that considers prison riot theory. Second, if the public sector is to be involved in open competition with the private sector, then policy should be consistent with the conditions of the competition. Prisons, whether public or private, cannot cope successfully with reformist policy that does not consider adequately the interactions of the individuals in the prison.

Research Summary In this historical review of prison privatization, we identify interconnected events in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom and their distinctiveness from other nations. The political and economic catalysts for the post‐1980 reemergence of privatization are also analyzed. Privatization exists on a continuum from ancillary service delivery to full custodial operations and management. As privatization seems to have lost some of its momentum, it is unclear whether its advent has produced the intended system‐wide improvements. Policy Implications Modern privatization spawned an enormous amount of research in which a comparison of the private and public sectors was attempted. Despite the plethora of research, the findings are mainly inconclusive. Policy makers should focus on privatization as a subset of mainstream prisons research, with investigation of system‐wide key issues like confinement quality, preparation for release, and accountability. These matters bear, in turn, on outcomes such as reduced recidivism and the ability to lead a useful life postrelease.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract