Analysis of Murphy's "Health Care in the Federal Bureau of Prisons"

¶ … Health Care in the Federal Bureau of Prisons: Fact or Fiction by Daniel S. Murphy (2005). The intention is to provide an overview and to analyze the various aspects of the report in terms of qualitative research provisions and expectations. It is therefore firstly important to provide a brief overview of qualitative methods and analysis.

A common definition of qualitative as opposed to quantitative research is as follows.

Qualitative research involves an in-depth understanding of human behaviour and the reasons that govern human behaviour. Unlike quantitative research, qualitative research relies on reasons behind various aspects of behaviour. Simply put, it investigates the why and how of decision making, as compared to what, where, and when of quantitative research. Hence, the need is for smaller but focused samples rather than large and random samples.

Qualitative research: Wikipedia)

The above points to a number of important foundation concepts in qualitative research. Qualitative research is more wide ranging and discursive but also usually takes place within a selective and smaller data or subject sample. In the case of this article the direct research was limited to the prison population, which the author was in contact with. Importantly, qualitative analysis focuses on ascertaining the reason and factors behind a certain situation or problem rather than on the statistical or numerical scrutiny of the data.

Another view of this research method was also helpful in the analysis of this article. This refers to the fact that,

Phenomenological inquiry, or qualitative research, uses a naturalistic approach that seeks to understand phenomena in context-specific settings. Logical positivism, or quantitative research, uses experimental methods and quantitative measures to test hypothetical generalizations. Each represents a fundamentally different inquiry paradigm, and researcher actions are based on the underlying assumptions of each paradigm.

(Hoepfl 1997)

Furthermore it is important to bear in mind the following essential differences between these two forms of research in an analysis of the article. The qualitative researcher is "...explicitly a part of the data gathering process whereas in quantitative, the researcher is formally an independent entity." (Qualitative research: Wikipedia)

This means that the researcher is subjectively involved with the data collection and selections, which also implies the negative aspect of possible bias. Qualitative research also normally makes use of unstructured data rather the structure data.

2. The problem

The problem that this article addresses is succinctly stated in the introduction. "Are prisoners' rights to medical care, such as those afforded under the Eighth Amendment that bans cruel and unusual punishment, being met?" (Murphy 2005)

This problem is expanded on by the author in an investigation aided by relevant literature, personal experiences and interviews with prisoners. Therefore the problem also extends to other factors such as the question of whether the healthcare facilities are effective and if they are being offered on an equal basis to all prisoners. The article also brings external factors to bear on the central problem; such as the effect of the growing prison population on present healthcare facilities.

However, the central problem that the article continuously refers to is the underlying lack of concern and compassion for the health of prisoners, which is a central critique of the prison system. This is emphasized by comments by the author such as," the prisoner is unable to get a second opinion. Life or death of those imprisoned is dependent upon the medical care provided by the FBOP." (Murphy 2005)

Subjects and Setting

The subjects mentioned in the interview are all appropriate to various central questions that are investigated. There is no indication of the sampling or selection process used in determining the interviewees. This would suggest that the study took place on an experiential basis and on the basis of the importance of the views expressed in the interviews as they pertained to the central hypothesis. The possibility of subjective bias is offset to a certain extent by the extensive literature component, where similar studies are shown to present results and views which concur with those of the author.

Data Collection Methods

The central data collection methods are reported interviews and observations that the author recounts. This is validated by the authors own experiences. This form of data collection, while seemingly random, is also appropriate to the type of study that is being undertaken. The study is intended to be in the first instance an account of personal experiences, which are supported and validated by interviews and associated literature and studies.

The data collection method seems to conform to the semi-structured interview method. The structure of the study is derived from the hypothesis and the various aspects that were observed from personal experience. This is an appropriate tool for investigation in this setting. In the case of semi-structured interviews "...the interviewer is free to probe and explore within these predetermined inquiry areas. "(Lofland and Lofland, 1984). Furthermore "...In keeping with the flexible nature of qualitative research designs, interview guides can be modified over time to focus attention on areas of particular importance, or to exclude questions the researcher has found to be unproductive for the goals of the research." (Lofland and Lofland, 1984).

Data Analysis Procedures

The method used in this regard is mainly inductive analysis. This would suggest that the central theme and problems have been allowed to emerge from the experiential data. This is also an adequate method for data analysis in this situation. As Patton (1990) points out "Qualitative analysis requires some creativity, for the challenge is to place the raw data into logical, meaningful categories; to examine them in a holistic fashion; and to find a way to communicate this interpretation to others." ((Patton, 1990).

The data analysis procedure is therefore one which emphasizes participation and observation. As the author states,"As a Convict Criminologist (an ex-prisoner who has academic training), I had the opportunity to analyze prison culture from the perspectives of participant and observer." (Murphy 2005)

It is also important to note that the author as an academic and trained criminologist would be capable of selecting and synthesizing the data available.

9. Strengths and limitations

One of the limitations of this qualitative study is a common limitation that is endemic to many qualities studies; namely that there is always the possibility of subjective and individual bias in both the selection and the interpretation of the data. "The presence of an observer is likely to introduce a distortion of the natural scene which the researcher must be aware of, and work to minimize. (Hoepfl 1997)

However this can also be seen for another angle as an advantage in that this form of research study provides a view of the problem that would not be possible with more defined and purely quantitative research methods. The experiential component in this study adds depth and allows aspects that would not reveal themselves in a quantitative research study to be known.

A second limitation of this study is the inadequate stipulation of a clear research question and the linkage of the various sub-sections of the main question. A more cohesive introduction would have added a sense of thoroughness and increased the validity of the study. The most positive aspect of this study is the way that it interweaves and combines the literature, experiential data and interviews to provide a convincing view of the reality of healthcare in the prison system more Jungian approach to qualitative analysis suggests that "there are no operationally defined truth tests to apply to qualitative research" (Eisner, 1991, p. 53). This implies that a joint responsibility is shared by the researcher and the reader is ascertaining the value of the research. (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p. 232) This suggests a more phenomenological approach to qualitative studies of this nature; where the final analysis of the worth of research is seen as combination of the interaction between the researcher and the reader.

However the ultimate test of a study lies in the instrumental utility or the usefulness of the study in helping us to understand the situation and problems. In this respect the study by Murphy achieve its intentions and brings the problem of health in the prison environment to light in a clear and forthright way.