Introduction

To what extent is it possible to adhere to the principles of a community development approach to co-produced research, when the community involved resides in a prison? Pain et al's definition of co-produced research as ‘research which is conducted together by a community, organisation or group with academic researchers’ (2015, p 4) suggests parity between community and academic partners in the realisation of the project plan. Genuinely co-produced research is underpinned by the commitment to constructing research questions as they emerge around the concerns of the community. Where possible this is accompanied by a commitment to selecting and developing methodologies best suited to addressing those questions in collaboration with the communities concerned. As Durose et al put it, ‘Co-production in research aims to put principles of empowerment into practice, working “with” communities and offering communities greater control over the research process and providing opportunities to learn and reflect from that experience’ (2011, p 2). But what happens to this commitment when access to the community is regulated by rigorous, mandatory permissions procedures that have been carefully designed to protect the vulnerable participants from exploitative and insensitive academic studies?

The aim of this chapter is to illustrate the challenges of aspiring to work co-productively in a prison environment. I draw on the processes I worked through in coming to the decision to carry out a research project that eventually was unable to commit to co-production. Other, stronger methodological and ethical pulls – such as the structure of the permissions process and my growing awareness of the complexity involved in working with prisoners – made co-production very challenging to enact, or even request. In other words, this is a chapter about not co-producing research and the reasons why that might happen, even when the academic is highly motivated about, and committed to, the principles of the methodology. Although the aspiration to work in democratic, open ways with communities may be sincere and strong, I argue here that it is very challenging to implement co-production specifically. The participants are too vulnerable, the power dynamics too complex and the risks of doing harm are too great for co-production to work on a first-time visit, or for a one-off funded project, without the support of a third sector partner with expertise in the area.