Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article examines organization development (OD) activities in corrections. Corrections refers to all settings within the correctional system, including jails, prisons, and similar environments. The intent of this research was to examine the existence of OD in an unlikely setting, demonstrating the applicability of the field. The main question addressed was the extent and nature of OD consulting in corrections within the United States and Canada. Although journal publishing in this area proved non-existent, cases found. Word of mouth and the use of e-mail and internet resources more successful than journals. OD interventions analyzed in terms of characteristics including objectives, methods, and designs involved as well as theory orientations of practitioners. METHOD The search and reporting processes entailed the use of a variety if resources. After a thorough search of journal articles, a combination of networking, internet resources, and phone interviews provided the bulk of the data. Selection of journals and depth of journal research based on availability of resources, averaging approximately ten to fifteen years per journal. Six journals relevant to the field of organization development reviewed including Organization Development Journal, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal of Behavioral Science, HRD Quarterly, and Harvard Business Review. Four journals relevant to the field of criminal justice reviewed: Canadian Journal of Criminology, Corrections Today, Journal of Criminal Justice, and The Prison Journal. In addition to the individual journals, a criminal justice database consisting of twelve years of articles was reviewed. The Criminal Justice Periodical Index contains articles from approximately 150 criminal justice journals. Key words searched in this index included organization development, career development, training, and education. Relevant internet listservs and personal communication used to locate people applying OD to the field of corrections. Internet resources utilized include the OD Network listserv, the ASTD Organization Development Bulletin Board, The Corrections Connection Homepage Bulletin Board, and the website of the Correctional Service of Canada. Personal communication and networking, including associations such as the Organization Change Alliance (OCA, Atlanta, GA) proved quite fruitful. Phone interviews conducted with respondents who indicated having worked in corrections in an organization development capacity. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT Significant changes have occurred in corrections over the last four decades with continual fluctuation in goals of reform and retribution. Consideration of climate and inmates' needs barely existed four decades ago. Inmates prisoners with no rights and wardens displayed behaviors with no limits. The attitudes that prevailed in the 1960s appear to be mostly gone. The 1970s brought a more conservative outlook with retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation included as penal system goals. With the 1980s came the resurgence of rehabilitation (Kurian, 1989). By the mid-1980s, correctional staff in both the United States and Canada were increasingly discontented with being merely humane keepers, passive provider of opportunities, ... and caretakers of programs that didn't work (Duguid, 1993:5). The new attitudes of the 1980s set the stage for organizational culture change efforts (Fleisher, 1996). A philosophy of rehabilitation in corrections has emerged as a priority over the last three decades. This attitude supported culture changer to continue into the 1999s. The Bureau of Prisons increased staff communication and longevity and attempted to restructure for increased effectiveness, including efforts aimed at fostering open channels of communication and increasing staff morale (BOP webpage). These types of goals evident in Canada as well. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.002 |
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".