My name is Sophie Ordway and I am a Master’s level candidate in the School of Social Work at the University of Michigan. My practice method is Social Policy & Evaluation, and my practice area is Community & Social Systems. My interest in working with the Documenting Criminalization & Confinement (DCC) Team as part of the UM Carceral State Project grew from my personal and professional experience with Michigan’s ‘corrections’ system.
One of my very close friends, who is more or less family, has been incarcerated in the Michigan Department of Corrections since 2011. Between monthly visits, almost daily phone calls, and weekly letters and emails, I have learned about and experienced the impact of incarceration on a very personal level. When he was placed in solitary confinement in 2016 I decided I wanted, needed, to do more than just “be there” for him. I completed a year of Americorps service with Goodwill of Greater Grand Rapids’ reentry program, which led to me working there for two and a half years, eventually running the program. During this time, I began to learn about the convoluted way incarceration impacts individuals in a myriad different ways while simultaneously affecting us all the same. The complexity of this issue is what drew me to pursue a graduate degree in social work.
I applied to a Research Assistant position with the DCC Team due to the DCC’s commitment to confronting confinement through demonstrating the human and social costs of incarceration and criminalization. The DCC Team has six research projects focusing on different aspects of those costs. I work with the Captive Afterlives Team, researching the role occupational licensing has played in continuing the carceral state for folks after they have technically left prison.
The Captive Afterlives Team, and the larger team as whole, is working to provide educational tools for those advocating to abolish the prison industrial complex. Those advocating for such a cause could be community organizers, lawyers, policymakers, academics, people directly impacted by the carceral state, and more. We are also aiming to reach audiences that may lean more towards criminal justice reform rather than prison abolition, be staunchly opposed to any such advocacy efforts, and those that lie somewhere in the middle or may just be indifferent. One of the best ways to fuel the mass movement that is needed to abolish the carceral state is to engage with the myriad people that may not naturally agree with such a goal.
As we try to reach these varied audiences, I think it is important to be cognizant of who we purport to represent and how we collaborate with them. When it comes to representing or advocating for directly impacted folks, we must be aware of the power and privileges we hold as academics, and how that plays into the relationships and collaborations we use to do our research and convey it to the rest of the world. Oftentimes there is concern of conducting research for research’s sake. One thing that I am learning in the school of social work is to be wary of trying to empower folks and instead working to engage with those directly impacted by injustices so that they may take ownership and leadership of the much-needed change movement. It may seem like a subtle difference, but I think it is an important one.
It is just as important for us to think about how we are reaching these varied audiences. If we truly want to have an impact, the way we produce and disseminate our research must be with those most directly impacted by the carceral state in decision-making roles. If we tailor our research only to academics, we will alienate other audiences that are equally, if not more, important. A website is a great way to circulate our research to academics, policymakers, lawyers, etc. However, in order to reach the everyday person, particularly people with a loved one incarcerated, currently and formerly incarcerated folks and community organizers, I think social media, written word, and in-person conversation are more accessible platforms. I believe we need to have multiple media types for whatever is ultimately published, if we want to reach the widest audience and the most directly impacted.
Likewise, if our approach is to reach audiences that do not already recognize the need to decarcerate, I would argue that our methods should be not only strategic but also humble and respectful. Change is not brought about easily, and it certainly does not occur (at least not permanently) through force or coercion. Just as DCC Team members have built relationships with directly impacted folks (many of us already are), it will be necessary to build relationships in some form or another with people who line up along various places on the spectrum of advocating for decarceration to those who oppose it. Those relationships, and the understanding of why people stand where they do on that spectrum, and how best to dialogue with them, will be instrumental in our approach to disseminating research and information. This leads to a reframing of the question “Who is our target audience?” to the questions “Who can our research initiate dialogue with, and what are the best practices to do so?” In order to create that dialogue ethically and effectively through research, the DCC Team will need to be creative in tailoring its approach with different community members, readers and participants.
