This week's assignment required me to read at least two articles related to my research topic. I have provided summaries of the articles and then a brief analysis of the points I found most relevant to my questions for qualitative and quantitative research.
Article One
Mobilong Independent Living Units : New Innovations in Australian Prison Architecture
The author briefly provides context for the Mobilong Prison in South Australia by describing its geographic location, inmate population and existing programmatic and physical structure. An increase in the inmate population required the Department of Correctional Services to expand Mobilong's facilities which led to the design and construction of the independent living units as a part of the new facility. These new facilities were given a more residential design than the existing prison in an effort to create a more humane, secure, safe and respectful environment for inmates and staff. Grant touches on project and client goals specific to inmate and staff participation in the design and construction project as a way to lessen the typical disputes associated with change in procedure or change in facilities. Aggressive and non-compliant behaviors were associated with inflexible, "hard", architecture. Human scale, color, visual and physical access to the outdoors are all attributed to greater inmate and staff safety and security. Space planning was listed as a tool used to minimize conflict - long corridors were not used and occupancies for living spaces allowed for democratic design-making. Safe cell design methods included specifying recessed and/or sloped hardware, designing lighting to be recessed and additional exhaust equipment for ventilation in case of fire and air circulation. An association is made between an inmate's ability to have privacy (locking bedroom doors) and lower rates of conflict between inmates and between inmates and staff.
Article Two
Violence in the Supermax : A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
The author's point seems to be that supermax prisons, like Pelican Bay State Prison in California, create an environment that in no way rehabilitates prisoners but instead dehumanizes them such that they are less stable and possibly more violent than when they entered incarceration. Prison staff, policy, culture and design are all factors in the overall flawed system. Prisoners are isolated for up to 23 hours per day, provided little to no access to the outdoors and receive no mental or emotional care. Pelican Bay uses concrete, steel and plexiglas for cells, partitions and furniture. With little access to the natural environment most prisoners experience little to no daylight and overall poorly or overly-lit environments. Indoor air quality is questionable as recycled air is the only option. The article goes on to describe staff (correctional officer) training and the their sub-culture within the overall prison culture. Inmate subculture is also described. Other information is provided regarding prison policies and deductions made regarding the effects of solitary confinement and abusive treatment on the psychological state of inmates.
Analysis
For the purpose of my research I think it is helpful to isolate within these articles what I can tie directly to architectural design. With a topic like this there are so many factors to consider it can become difficult to asses causes and effects. Both of these articles describe specific architectural design elements like space planning, adjacencies and transitions, orientation to daylight, use of color and materials as interior materials and finishes, lighting and segregational versus congregational environments. My initial research topic was based on the relationship between prison architectural design and instances of violence between inmates or between inmates and correctional officers. As I read the above articles I question whether I want to open my research topic to explore links between design and violent instances, percentage of inmates receiving parole and percentage of inmates being treated for emotional issues. The difficulty is finding research that supports a direct link between the architecture of a prison and those three things. There are so many cultural factors like fear of abuse from other inmates and staff and prison policies that inform officers to treat inmates as not worthy of humane conditions. I think studying the effects of the architectural elements I have described on inmate emotional or mental well-being will fall under the qualitative research and looking for numbers related to violence or treatment will align with more quantitative research.
Questions
Is there research available on indoor air quality in prisons and the relative health of inmates with varying levels of outdoor access?
What are differences in prison design today versus 10, 20, 30 years ago?
Does visual access to the outdoors but not to other inmates make a difference in the percentage of inmates in solitary confinement requiring cell extractions or medical care?
Would a more open plan design for prisons work the same way, policy-wise, as the labyrinth plan design currently used by most prisons?
How has technology affected prison design - in the supermax prison designs described in this article, almost 100% of the surveillance occurs through cameras and other electrical systems. Human interaction occurs very rarely yet inmates are aware they are never not being watched.
References
Grant, E. (2006). Mobilong Independent Living Units: New Innovations in Australian Prison Architecture. Corrections Today, 68(3), 58-61.
King, K., Steiner, B., & Breach, S. (2008). Violence in the Supermax. Prison Journal, 88(1), 144-168.
Article One
Mobilong Independent Living Units : New Innovations in Australian Prison Architecture
The author briefly provides context for the Mobilong Prison in South Australia by describing its geographic location, inmate population and existing programmatic and physical structure. An increase in the inmate population required the Department of Correctional Services to expand Mobilong's facilities which led to the design and construction of the independent living units as a part of the new facility. These new facilities were given a more residential design than the existing prison in an effort to create a more humane, secure, safe and respectful environment for inmates and staff. Grant touches on project and client goals specific to inmate and staff participation in the design and construction project as a way to lessen the typical disputes associated with change in procedure or change in facilities. Aggressive and non-compliant behaviors were associated with inflexible, "hard", architecture. Human scale, color, visual and physical access to the outdoors are all attributed to greater inmate and staff safety and security. Space planning was listed as a tool used to minimize conflict - long corridors were not used and occupancies for living spaces allowed for democratic design-making. Safe cell design methods included specifying recessed and/or sloped hardware, designing lighting to be recessed and additional exhaust equipment for ventilation in case of fire and air circulation. An association is made between an inmate's ability to have privacy (locking bedroom doors) and lower rates of conflict between inmates and between inmates and staff.
Article Two
Violence in the Supermax : A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
The author's point seems to be that supermax prisons, like Pelican Bay State Prison in California, create an environment that in no way rehabilitates prisoners but instead dehumanizes them such that they are less stable and possibly more violent than when they entered incarceration. Prison staff, policy, culture and design are all factors in the overall flawed system. Prisoners are isolated for up to 23 hours per day, provided little to no access to the outdoors and receive no mental or emotional care. Pelican Bay uses concrete, steel and plexiglas for cells, partitions and furniture. With little access to the natural environment most prisoners experience little to no daylight and overall poorly or overly-lit environments. Indoor air quality is questionable as recycled air is the only option. The article goes on to describe staff (correctional officer) training and the their sub-culture within the overall prison culture. Inmate subculture is also described. Other information is provided regarding prison policies and deductions made regarding the effects of solitary confinement and abusive treatment on the psychological state of inmates.
Analysis
For the purpose of my research I think it is helpful to isolate within these articles what I can tie directly to architectural design. With a topic like this there are so many factors to consider it can become difficult to asses causes and effects. Both of these articles describe specific architectural design elements like space planning, adjacencies and transitions, orientation to daylight, use of color and materials as interior materials and finishes, lighting and segregational versus congregational environments. My initial research topic was based on the relationship between prison architectural design and instances of violence between inmates or between inmates and correctional officers. As I read the above articles I question whether I want to open my research topic to explore links between design and violent instances, percentage of inmates receiving parole and percentage of inmates being treated for emotional issues. The difficulty is finding research that supports a direct link between the architecture of a prison and those three things. There are so many cultural factors like fear of abuse from other inmates and staff and prison policies that inform officers to treat inmates as not worthy of humane conditions. I think studying the effects of the architectural elements I have described on inmate emotional or mental well-being will fall under the qualitative research and looking for numbers related to violence or treatment will align with more quantitative research.
Questions
Is there research available on indoor air quality in prisons and the relative health of inmates with varying levels of outdoor access?
What are differences in prison design today versus 10, 20, 30 years ago?
Does visual access to the outdoors but not to other inmates make a difference in the percentage of inmates in solitary confinement requiring cell extractions or medical care?
Would a more open plan design for prisons work the same way, policy-wise, as the labyrinth plan design currently used by most prisons?
How has technology affected prison design - in the supermax prison designs described in this article, almost 100% of the surveillance occurs through cameras and other electrical systems. Human interaction occurs very rarely yet inmates are aware they are never not being watched.
References
Grant, E. (2006). Mobilong Independent Living Units: New Innovations in Australian Prison Architecture. Corrections Today, 68(3), 58-61.
King, K., Steiner, B., & Breach, S. (2008). Violence in the Supermax. Prison Journal, 88(1), 144-168.
Great work. These two articles sound really interesting. Having worked in urban schools (very prison-like aesthetically) the conclusions of the articles make a lot of sense to me. Space matters. In your summaries you didn't mention the research methods. Were these qualitative studies? Did the authors spend time at the prisons to come to their findings?
ReplyDeleteAlso, while I was reading your reflection, I thought that you might have trouble finding too much on your topic because research with prisoners is very restricted. There are not going to be too many studies out there. This is not to say you should change. I am really interested to see what you come up with.