scieee AI-readable full text Open interactive document viewer

Carceral Silence: A Sociological Framework for the Betrayal of Incarcerated Women, Data Control, Hegemony, and the Ethics of Health Librarianship

Bernert, Joseph Colby

Publisher
Zenodo
DOI
10.5281/zenodo.17351741
Repository
zenodo.org
Language
en

Abstract

This poster presents a sociological framework for understanding “carceral silence,” the systemic suppression or distortion of data concerning incarcerated women. It argues that medical librarians and researchers operate within structures of hegemony that normalize omission, restrict access, and reproduce gender erasure. Drawing on Gramsci’s theory of consent and feminist sociology, the analysis links data inaccessibility to official ignorance and structural violence. It critiques privatized electronic medical record (EMR) systems, HIPAA misuse, and fragmented correctional data architectures that make evidence-based care and policy impossible. The framework concludes that librarians must act as organic intellectuals, advancing counter-hegemonic data practices rooted in transparency, dignity, and justice.Dedicated to Dr. Glenn McIntosh, my mentor and colleague, who stood as a champion for higher education.

Full text

Sources Gramsci and Counter-Hegemony Hegemony maintained through control of information Counter-hegemonic practice = reclaiming knowledge for justice Medical librarians and researchers as organic intellectuals Reform requires reordering data systems around care and truth Carceral silence = suppression or distortion of data on incarcerated women Large volumes of health data exist but little is public or verifiable Many U.S. databases conflate sex and gender, obscuring women’s health realities (Jacobs et al., 2022).(Jacobs et al., 2022). Silence operates as hegemony (Gramsci): consent built through control of knowledge Administrative omission produces official ignorance Feminist sociology: denial of recognition is structural violenceis structural violence By Joseph “Joey” Colby Bernert, Any/All, LLMSW, Statistician, MPH(c) Background and Theory Regulatory opacity: misuse of HIPAA to block data access Privatization: proprietary EMR systems fragment and restrict records Institutional control: data release treated as security risk 75% of prison system studies 75% of prison system studies use restricted data (Carneiro et al., 2021) Consequences Segmentation: EMRs disconnected from public health databases Proprietary capture: vendors control access and data policy Accountability drift: lack of gender-specific reporting Ethical research requires transparent governance (Shah & Khan, 2020)governance (Shah & Khan, 2020) Correctional data governance remains opaque and punitive Women’s health realities erased from research and policy Formerly incarcerated women report neglect and poor care (Norris et al., 2022) Evidence-based practice becomes impossible Silence functions as governance Librarians face ethical conflict between accuracy and institutional loyaltyaccuracy and institutional loyalty Data Architecture Failures Carceral Silence: A Sociological Framework for the Betrayal of Incarcerated Women Data Control, Hegemony, and the Ethics of Health Librarianship Joseph “Joey” Colby Bernert | [email protected] Policy and Practice Pathways Interagency data sharing across corrections and public health Mandated gender-disaggregated reporting Training in carceral data ethics for medical librarians Partnership with formerly incarcerated women in research Information policy guided by transparency and human dignity Structural Barriers Carneiro et al., 2021. Revista de Dialógica Sociedade, 6(1), 243–254. Jacobs et al., 2022. JAMA Network Open, 5(6), e2217472. Norris et al., 2022. J. Correctional Health Care, 28(3), 210–219. Shah & Khan, 2020. IEEE Access, 8, 1–12. Levenson et al., 2020. J. Correctional Health Care, 26(4), 243–254. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.