In many Western democracies, education in prison is considered vital for the rehabilitation and societal reintegration of incarcerated individuals (Behan, 2014; Halimi et al., 2017; Novek, 2019; Roth et al., 2017). Participation in education is linked to lower recidivism rates, better employment prospects, and enhanced public safety. Previous research has also shown that it can improve prisoners’ well-being by providing a sense of purpose and agency, as well as mitigating the emotional strain of imprisonment (Behan, 2014; Bhatti, 2010; Bovill & Anderson, 2020; Brosens et al., 2020; Costelloe, 2003; Panitsides & Moussiou, 2019; Roth et al., 2017; Tewksbury & Stengel, 2006). Despite education’s positive impact on the individual and society, the provision of education for prisoners has become subject to changing political climates and ideologies. This is also visible in Sweden, which is the country under investigation in this presentation. In recent years, Sweden has adopted a more punitive approach to crime by implementing harsher criminal policies with longer prison sentences and by restricting the range and content of educational opportunities for inmates (Kriminalvården, 2019, 2023). This underscores a commitment to punishment rather than rehabilitation, reflecting a turn away from democracy and social justice seen elsewhere in Europe. A perspective largely absent in public debate and academic research on education in prison is the voices of prisoners, despite being at the center of all educational efforts. I argue that it is crucial to include prisoners’ perspectives and experiences in order to generate academic knowledge that can truly benefit both prisoners and society, as well as promote social justice. My presentation, therefore, explores education in prison from the perspective of prisoners and formerly incarcerated individuals through interviews and questionnaires. I will provide insights into how (former) inmates experience this unique environment for education and the challenges and possibilities they encounter. In addition, I explore why inmates choose to participate in education while incarcerated and the value they ascribe to it. The research questions are as follow:

1. What affects inmates’ decision to participate in education while incarcerated?
2. How does the correctional setting shape inmates’ study experiences?

Studying while incarcerated is strictly regulated, as it must adhere to the prison’s overarching rules and security protocols. To analyze how prison conditions shape inmates’ participation in education, the theory of practice architecture (Grootenboer & Edwards-Groves, 2023; Kemmis et al., 2014; Mahon et al., 2017) is applied as theoretical framework. It provides the analytical tools to examine how correctional arrangements can both constrain and enable educational experiences. Through the analysis, we can gain insights into prison as a complex and multifaceted setting for education.

This study, although focused on Sweden, has broader international relevance, as the provision of education is framed by prison regulations and security considerations that are inherent to the prison as an institution, regardless of country. It stimulates reflection on how to create meaningful learning experiences that provide prisoners with the knowledge and skills to lead an independent and law-abiding life. This, in turn, can contribute to more democratic, just, and safe societies – an aim pursued by many countries, yet increasingly challenged by polycrises.

The empirical material consists of 15 semi-structured interviews with former inmates who had studied high school courses, vocational education, or higher education during their incarceration. The interviews lasted on average around 35 minutes and were conducted via phone or video call. A semi-structured interview guide was used, covering questions relating to the reasons for participating in education and the study experiences while incarcerated. As personal semi-structured interviews with current inmates were not possible due to the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s strained situation with overcrowding, open-ended questionnaires were distributed instead. In total, 108 open-ended questionnaires were collected from current inmates studying high school courses. The questionnaires covered the reasons for participating, what the students liked and disliked about the studies, what support they received, and how studying in prison differs from studying outside prisons. The analysis of the data is inspired by qualitative content analysis, as described by Elo and Kyngäs (2008), which includes coding, creating categories, and abstraction. I coded all material with the help of the NVivo software and created categories that were iteratively refined by collapsing, renaming, and creating new categories. After generating categories, the theory of practice architecture was applied to understand how the correctional setting shapes inmates’ reasoning around education and their study experiences. My research is approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority and follows the guidelines on good research practice by the Swedish Research Council (2007) and the All European Academies (2017). During the research process, continuous moral and ethical reflections were made in order to protect the research participants’ integrity. This is especially important in prison-related research, as research participants can be considered a vulnerable group. Although my interview participants were no longer incarcerated, some of them were in a halfway house (i.e. still serving part of their sentence within the prison system) and individuals with a criminal record, which oftentimes is stigmatized. It was therefore important to ensure that participation was fully voluntary and that all data were handled with care and confidentiality in order to prevent any additional social harm.

For some interviewees, being in prison was the driving force for participating in education, as they would not have started studying if they had not been incarcerated. They shared how they were unable or unwilling to participate in education outside prison due to familial and work obligations or engagement in destructive lifestyles. Some respondents participated in education without personal interest, as prison administration mandated participation, or because other activities, such as prison work, were considered a worse alternative than education. Other research participants actively chose education, as they had an interest in education even prior to the conviction. Another common reason to participate was the wish to improve employment prospects and to show future employers that the time in prison was used for something meaningful. The study experiences were affected by the specific prisons the research participants were located at, their security class, attitudes of the staff, length of the sentence, as well as the type of education and the specific subject. One limitation mentioned by several research participants was security considerations, as they, for example, could not get permission to visit the library or to participate in study activities other than lectures. Access to the internet was also restricted, which made it difficult to search for information or to contact their teachers when needed. Prison-related issues, such as conflicts between inmates, searches, and lockdowns, could also frequently disrupt the studies. At the same time, for some students, studying in prison was experienced as easier due to fewer distractions. Many research participants also shared that it was fun and interesting to study and that their teachers were engaged and supportive. Studying while incarcerated made the participants feel good and accomplished, highlighting the positive effect that education has on inmates’ well-being.

Behan, C. (2014). Learning to Escape: Prison Education, Rehabilitation and the Potential for Transformation. Journal of Prison Education & Reentry, 1(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.25771/8039 Bhatti, G. (2010). Learning behind bars: Education in prisons. Teaching and Teacher Education, Anthropological Perspectives on Learning and Teaching: Legitimate Peripheral Participation Revisited, 26(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.020 Bovill, M., & Anderson, C. (2020). Changing the Subject: A Community of Philosophical Inquiry in Prisons. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 11(2), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.3384/rela.2000-7426.ojs981 Brosens, D., Croux, F., Claes, B., Vandevelde, S., & De Donder, L. (2020). An Organizational Analysis of Foreign National Prisoners’ Participation Possibilities in Flanders (Belgium). Journal of Prison Education Reentry, 6(2), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.25771/mh4f-0996 Costelloe, A. (2003). Third level education in Irish prisons: Who participates and why? https://oro.open.ac.uk/63999/1/27532740.pdf Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x Grootenboer, P., & Edwards-Groves, C. (2023). The Theory of Practice Architectures. Researching Practices. SpringerBriefs in Education. Halimi, M., Brosens, D., De Donder, L., & Engels, N. (2017). Learning during Imprisonment: Prisoners’ Motives to Educational Participation within a Remand Prison in Belgium. Journal of Correctional Education, 68(1), 3–31. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26508015 Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L. (2014). Changing Practices, Changing Education. Springer Science+Business Media. Kriminalvården. (2019). Beslut avseende avveckling av högskolestudier i anstalt (KV 2019-23133). Kriminalvården. (2023). Kriminalvårdens kapacitetsbehov till följd av Tidöavtalet. Mahon, K., Kemmis, S., Francisco, S., & Lloyd, A. (2017). Introduction: Practice Theory and the Theory of Practice Architectures. In K. Mahon, S. Francisco, & S. Kemmis (Eds.), Exploring Education and Professional Practice (pp. 1–30). Springer. Novek, E. (2019). Making meaning: Reflections on the act of teaching in prison. Review of Communication, 19(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2018.1554824 Panitsides, E. A., & Moussiou, E. (2019). What does it take to motivate inmates to participate in prison education? An exploratory study in a Greek prison. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 25(2), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714198406 Roth, B. B., Westrheim, K., Jones, L., & Manger, T. (2017). Academic Self-Efficacy, Educational Motives and Aspects of the Prison Sentence as Predictors for Participation in Prison Education. Journal of Correctional Education, 68(3), 19–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.15845/jper.v3i2.1040 Tewksbury, R., & Stengel, K. M. (2006). Assessing Correctional Education Programs: The Students’ Perspective. Journal of Correctional Education, 57(1), 13–25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23282685