Introduction
In this paper we present a comparative study within a curriculum theory project on targeted socialisation in state governed welfare institutions, here represented by the correctional system and doctoral education. Both are important for the formation of identities and the reproduction of what counts as valid knowledge, values and norms in society at a given time. These institutions are also frequently debated and have over the last decades undergone substantial reforms, reflected in national and local policy. With globalisation this also involves initiatives and recommendations taken on the European level and its impact on national and local policy and regulations. In doctoral education some expressions of these changes are the demands for an increased number of PhD exams, through-put and emphasis on internationalisation, mobility and societal relevance. Correctional system policy has evolved around correctional or rehabilitation motives. A rich landscape with treatment programs has been implemented and the concept of “prison officer” launched. A Swedish initiative to European cooperation was manifested in the organisation EUROPRIS in 2011.

At the same time these institutions are fundamentally different with respect to input, processes and expected outcome. While prison is entered through force and negative selection and often discussed in terms of de- and resocialisation (cf Clemmer 1940 for a classical reference), university and doctoral education in particular admits members by their own choice and meritocratic selection and here the plain concept of socialisation are more often used., The main target of doctoral education is to reproduce the cadre of researchers and this is primarily done through research under supervision. One main objective of the correctional system is to turn the inmates into law-abiding citizens, and measures taken within the prison to achieve this is within frames open to negotiation between the inmate and the prison officer. There are also variations in status of the two institutions. This combination of similarities and differences make them affordable systems to study in order to develop knowledge on socialisation under different conditions in shifting contexts within welfare state governed institutions.

Specifically we attend to the prison officer-inmate and supervisor-doctoral student relationships, respectively. Two relationships formally expected to include a tutor-tutee relation. The supervisor-doctoral student relationship has been pointed out as the heart of doctoral education (Ahlén 2004) and the prison officer-inmate relationship has been described as one of the clearest expressions of the rehabilitative mission of the correctional system (Nylander 2011).

Correctional system research has emphasized rehabilitation, security and control aspects and the historical emergence in relation to the welfare state and neo-liberal thought patterns (see e.g. Nilsson 2013). Doctoral education has mainly focused the individual student or in some cases the supervisor (see, e.g. Elmgren et al. 2015). Our study contributes to this branch of research; by studying the formal offers of socialisation expressed in policy directed to the institutions, in particular the prison officer-inmate and supervisor-doctoral student relationships respectively.   

Research questions and theoretical approach

• What changes has taken place in policy on socialisation for correctional systems and doctoral education between the years of 1968-2010?

• What are the implications of shifting policies for the prison officer-inmate and supervisor-doctoral student relationships respectively based on the formal offers of socialisation?

We assume a discourse analytical approach (Foucault 1982) and a curriculum theoretical perspective, in a figurative sense, in order to make it applicable to targeted socialisation in different institutions.

Ahlén, A. (2004). Regarding doctoral education in Sweden. Nordic Studies in Education, 23(4), 262-266. Bernstein, B. (1977). Class, codes and control. Towards a theory of educational transmissions (2:a uppl.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Clemmer, D. (1940). The prison community. Boston: Christopher Publishing Durkheim, E. (1956). Education and sociology. New York: Free press Elmgren, M., Forsberg, E., Lindberg-Sand, Å. & Sonesson, A. (2015). Doctoral education in context. - The Swedish case. Lund University. (in press) Foucault, M. (1982): The subject and power. Critical inquiry, 777-795. Lundgren, U. P. (1972). Frame factors and the teaching process: A contribution to curriculum theory and theory on teaching. University of Gothenburg. Nilsson, R (2013). From Learning to Labour to Learning to Self-Control: The Paradigmatic Change in Swedish Prison Policy, Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 14:sup1, 24-45. Nylander, P.Å: (2011). Managing the Dilemma. Occupational Culture and Identity among Prison Officers. Örebro Studies in Social work 9.. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. New York Teachers College Press.