Researching sport in a ‘Total Institution’: reflections on research barriers and methodological adaptations in a study of prison physical culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reflects on the methodological challenges faced during a qualitative research project on sport and physical culture in the Canadian federal prison system, during which the author tried and failed to gain access to observe sport programming and conduct interviews in two prisons. The paper has three principal aims. Firstly, to self-reflexively analyse the experience of failing to gain access to a research site and the subsequent methodological adaptations undertaken. Secondly, to assess the difficulties for scholars of sport and physical culture of researching in a ‘total institution’. And thirdly, to advocate for the use of bricolage in sports studies, as both a methodological tactic for researching difficult-to-access sites or subcultures and an interpretive analytical tool. This paper fills a unique void in the literature on sport research in total institutions, offering a critical and reflexive methodological examination of the barriers to qualitative research at such sites. It will be of particular interest to researchers of sport and physical culture who must find creative methodological solutions to research barriers, particularly in sites, subcultures and organisations to which access is severely restricted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.122 | 0.162 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".