Ethnographic experiences of participating in a correctional officer training program: An exploration of values, ethics, and role conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the current article, I reflect on data from an ethnographic study at the National Training Academy of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), where I participated in the correctional officer training program (CTP) with the objective to gain appreciation for the many realities of the training process and content. Reflecting on experiences as a uniformed participant in the 14-week in-person component of the program, I describe the challenges tied to starting an immersive ethnography midcareer and unpack the central ethical dilemmas shaping data collection and article preparation. First, I speak to what it means to be part of the 14-week job interview with 24 other individuals, with a strong emphasis on how participant values and ethics align with those of the organization and the challenges of consent. Next, I unpack the complexities across relationships that emerge in doing ethnographies in an organization with a hierarchical structure, specifically the role conflict between being a researcher (e.g., working in partnership with CSC) and participant (e.g., doing the training). As an ethnographer, I did not want to affect the experiences or outcomes of other recruits, but my presence may have influenced them regardless of my intentions. I conclude by highlighting implications for further consideration when conducting ethnographic work in partnerships with organizations of justice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".