Professional boundary violations in prisons: a scoping review of the literature

IF 2.1 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Criminal Psychology Pub Date : 2023-02-15 DOI:10.1108/jcp-04-2022-0012
Dominic P. Kelly, J. Potter
{"title":"Professional boundary violations in prisons: a scoping review of the literature","authors":"Dominic P. Kelly, J. Potter","doi":"10.1108/jcp-04-2022-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nProfessional boundary violations – intentional blurring, minimising or exploiting of institutions’ ethical and legal frameworks – have the potential to cause significant harm to prisoners, staff, prison systems and the public. There has been little empirical research on the nature, extent and impact of boundary violations in UK prisons. The purpose of this paper is to synthesise and critically review studies which have sought to explore, measure and predict boundary violative behaviour, with a view to direct future research and inform prison policies and practices.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nFour internet-based bibliographic databases were used for this review. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Twenty studies published between 2001 and 2022 were included in this review.\n\n\nFindings\nThere is a lack of comprehensive self-report measures around prison boundary violations. Staff and prisoner characteristics, as well as prison-specific conditions, are linked with boundary violations. Staff training, improved working conditions and amnesty programmes as well as bolstered surveillance and restricted cross-sex staff deployment were among recommendations to reduce boundary violations. “Insider” researchers offer insight and access opportunities, but they also pose ethical implications. Current studies have research design, participant sampling and measurement scale limitations which compromises the applicability of findings. Prisons need robust policies on defining, reporting, punishing and recovering from boundary violations. Collaboration between prison institutions and academics, using individuals with experience of both professions, is essential to understand, predict and reduce boundary violations.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first review of empirical studies on professional boundary violations in prison.\n","PeriodicalId":44013,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Criminal Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcp-04-2022-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose Professional boundary violations – intentional blurring, minimising or exploiting of institutions’ ethical and legal frameworks – have the potential to cause significant harm to prisoners, staff, prison systems and the public. There has been little empirical research on the nature, extent and impact of boundary violations in UK prisons. The purpose of this paper is to synthesise and critically review studies which have sought to explore, measure and predict boundary violative behaviour, with a view to direct future research and inform prison policies and practices. Design/methodology/approach Four internet-based bibliographic databases were used for this review. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Twenty studies published between 2001 and 2022 were included in this review. Findings There is a lack of comprehensive self-report measures around prison boundary violations. Staff and prisoner characteristics, as well as prison-specific conditions, are linked with boundary violations. Staff training, improved working conditions and amnesty programmes as well as bolstered surveillance and restricted cross-sex staff deployment were among recommendations to reduce boundary violations. “Insider” researchers offer insight and access opportunities, but they also pose ethical implications. Current studies have research design, participant sampling and measurement scale limitations which compromises the applicability of findings. Prisons need robust policies on defining, reporting, punishing and recovering from boundary violations. Collaboration between prison institutions and academics, using individuals with experience of both professions, is essential to understand, predict and reduce boundary violations. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first review of empirical studies on professional boundary violations in prison.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
监狱职业边界侵犯:文献综述
故意违反职业界限——故意模糊、尽量减少或利用机构的道德和法律框架——有可能对囚犯、工作人员、监狱系统和公众造成重大伤害。关于英国监狱中侵犯边界行为的性质、程度和影响,几乎没有实证研究。本文的目的是综合和批判性地回顾旨在探索、衡量和预测违反边界行为的研究,以指导未来的研究,并为监狱政策和实践提供信息。设计/方法/途径本综述使用了四个基于互联网的书目数据库。采用纳入和排除标准。本综述包括2001年至2022年间发表的20项研究。调查结果对违反监狱边界的行为缺乏全面的自我报告措施。工作人员和囚犯的特点以及监狱的具体条件与侵犯边界行为有关。工作人员培训、改善工作条件和大赦方案,以及加强监督和限制跨性别工作人员部署,都是减少侵犯边界行为的建议。“内幕”研究人员提供了洞察和接触的机会,但他们也带来了伦理影响。目前的研究存在研究设计、参与者抽样和测量量表的局限性,这影响了研究结果的适用性。监狱需要在界定、报告、惩罚和从侵犯边界行为中恢复方面制定强有力的政策。监狱机构和学术界之间的合作,利用具有这两种职业经验的个人,对于理解、预测和减少越界行为至关重要。原创性/价值据作者所知,这是对监狱中违反职业界限的实证研究的首次回顾。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Criminal Psychology
Journal of Criminal Psychology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Policing rape and serious sexual offences: officers’ insights on police specialism Sexual harassment, rape myths and paraphilias in the general population: a mediation analysis study Operation Soteria Bluestone: Rethinking RASSO investigations The effect of tailored reciprocity on information provision in an investigative interview Reconstructive psychological assessment (RPA) applied to the analysis of digital behavioral residues in forensic contexts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1