In 2017, I was asked to write a research chapter on group-singing in prison. This chapter would ultimately be included in a multi-volume work entitled, The Routledge Companion to Interdisciplinary Studies in Singing, Vol. 3, “Wellbeing” (Annabel Cohen, Series Editor). I was uncertain whether or not the OMAG singers would wish to participate, and I didn’t want to make “academic” the musical experience we shared. I asked the men their thoughts, and they unanimously (and preliminarily) agreed to participate; they wanted their musical story to be shared. After the WVIZ story on the choir, I knew the singers had to be an integral part of approving the words I would write and the tone of the written presentation.
In this research project, I explored group singing as a catalyst for those incarcerated to develop and practice their musical, personal, emotional, and social competence by developing their intrapersonal and interpersonal skills. Specifically, I questioned (1) how choral singing might be a viable experience for incarcerated people in which to imagine, re-imagine, and practice aspects of their best “possible selves” (Markus & Nurius, 1986), and (2) how participation in prison choir might reflect “freedom practice” (Tuastad & O’Grady, 2013). I collected written survey, interview, and observational data.
How does one begin research approval within a prison? While not a newcomer to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process for conducting research with human subjects, conducting research within a prison was new to me. After discussing the prospective project with the OMAG singers and gaining written consent, I presented a project proposal to the Grafton deputy wardens for their feedback and ultimate approval. Next was seeking approval from the Oberlin IRB. The full IRB review process required extensive detail and review by a faculty committee that included someone (college or community) who knew the ways of prison life from volunteering, working, or living “on the inside.” In addition, to the Oberlin IRB, I was also required to obtain approval from the Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Corrections IRB. Double duty. Securing approvals from both IRB groups took several months prior to commencing with the research.
While “opinion pieces” and “storytelling” about facilitating arts programs within prisons are common, it is crucial as an arts profession to conduct systematic research with the appropriate approvals in place prior to the beginning of the research. In order to better understand the impact of participating in prison arts programs, facilitators and researchers must bring a critical eye to data in an effort to build the body of research literature. As artists, we assume the benefits of arts education participation, but what do we have to show for it? What do the data say? This is all challenging because the research takes place in a closed society—prison. Prisoners are considered by the Belmont Report (45 CFR 46 Subpart C) a vulnerable population, because their ability to make an informed and voluntary decision to participate in research is compromised; they have diminished autonomy. The category of “permissible prison research” that my study addressed was “research on practices, both innovative and accepted, which have the intent and reasonable probability of improving the health or well-being of the subject.” The IRB approvals help to insure that the research is grounded in professional ethics, such that the prisoners’ autonomy, beneficence, and justice is being maintained. While the singers might not have the opportunity to exercise much personal choice in prison, their freedom to choose to participate in as much of the research process as they wanted was guaranteed in this research project.
The published chapter is due out in early 2020! Stay tuned.
Singing Behind Bars 