International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, 2(1), 101–121
Balancing Structure and Learning
in an Open Prison
Trygve J. Steiro
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Bjørn Andersen
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Linda Solveig Olsvik
Idependent Scholar
Per Johansen
Municipality of Trondheim, Norway
Leira Prison is a branch of Trondheim Prison, functioning as a relatively small,
open prison with a maximum capacity of only 29 inmates. Leira Prison ap-
plies the method ‘consequence pedagogy.’ This article aims to pinpoint how
consequence pedagogy is executed at Leira. 50% of the Leira inmates are
released back into society, while new ones enter the prison. It is therefore
interesting to see how they balance structure and at the same time adjust to
changes, enabling Leira Prison to continue as a learning organization. This ar-
ticle identifies three items, consequence pedagogy and the view of humans,
maintenance of the philosophy and coherence in the community, and self-
regulation of justice through interaction. The use of consequence pedagogy
is deeply aligned to their positive view of humans and has generated a con-
structive organization based on empowerment and involvement of both staff
and inmates. Consequently, management, staff and inmates maintain the
philosophy of consequence pedagogy through interaction and self-regulation.
However, questions regarding the fundamentals of the consequence peda-
gogy are not raised.
Keywords: management; knowledge; learning; prison; consequence
pedagogy; view of humans
Introduction
Dilulio (1990) observed that prisons are very different and that they are run
differently. He also noted that the word ‘prison’ had a quite bad connota-
tion in the literature. Looking to popular films, for instance the Hollywood
film Shawshank Redemption featuring Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman
(Darabont, 1994), prisons seem to be run by a control-and-rule oriented
regime where the director is corrupt, and the wardens exploit the systems
and create alliances with inmates. The movie also portrays a Hobbesian
state waging war against the prisoners where assault and gang rapes are
www.issbs.si/press/ISSN/2232-5697/2_101-121.pdf
102 Trygve J. Steiro, Bjørn Andersen, Linda Solveig Olsvik, and Per Johansen
practiced. The individual is not seen and inmates are not prepared for reha-
bilitation by the correctional system, thus institutionalizing them to depend
upon the system. A more positive outlook, although introducing a new per-
spective, is presented by the film Caesar Must Die by the Taviani brothers
(Taviani & Taviani, 2012). In a high-security correctional facility in Rome,
inmates with severe sentences are about to set up the play Julius Caesar
by William Shakespeare. The film exposes a more humane side of the in-
mates, showing their passion for the play and finding new meaning in their
lives when given the opportunity. We need to gain better understanding of
the complex task of how to manage prisons in an effective way (Molleman
& Leeuw, 2012). The interaction between the keepers (management and
wardens) and the inmates is clearly interesting from an organizational per-
spective. The question is what the management system is based on, and
how the prison as a system is able to interact and learn.
Leira Prison is situated in rural surroundings approximately seven kilo-
meters outside the city of Trondheim. Since its inception in 1986, Leira has
applied ‘consequence pedagogy’ – a method based on social learning the-
ory and a humanistic and existential approach. The method was developed
by a Danish philosopher and pedagogue Jens Bay (1982, 2005). Central
aspects of the consequence pedagogy are freedom, choice, action, conse-
quence and responsibility (Bay, 2005). Leira faces the challenge of changing
people (inmates) while at the same time maintaining the pedagogy platform
as well as developing the organization. The following research question is
consequently raised in this article: How does Leira balance between the
structure of consequence pedagogy and the ability to learn and develop?
Theoretical Background
Traditionally, organizational effectiveness of prisons has been viewed in
terms of control, rather than rehabilitation of the inmates (Craig, 2004;
Sykes, 1958). Houchin (2003) maintains that a reorientation of the way we
think of prisons, and change toward communication of inclusion rather than
rejection of offenders from society after their sentences are served, is nec-
essary. It has also been argued that modern prisons have become more
complex to manage than before (Wright, 2000; Dilulio, 1991; Toch, 1988;
Gendreau, Tellier, & Wormith, 1985). Craig (2004) points out that prison
management is also about personnel management, including the inmates.
This can be seen as a participatory model, opening up also for empow-
erment among prisons. Dilulio (1987) distinguishes between three types
of prison approaches: control, responsibility and the consensual model.
The difference between these approaches is the degree of control on one
hand, and the degree of cooperation on the other. Taking communication
into account, in a control model prison, communication is restricted to of-
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Balancing Structure and Learning in an Open Prison 103
ficial channels going through the chain of command (Dilulio, 1987). The
responsibility model prison presents a freer-floating mode, crossing the lev-
els of authority. Typically inmates are more included in the decision-making
processes (Dilulio, 1987). Reisig (1998) found that those prisons possess-
ing a responsibility and consensual model often reported lower levels of
serious and less serious disorder than prisons with a control model. His-
torically and traditionally, prisons are seen as a more humane alternative
to punishment (Sykes, 1958). More recent writers claim that prisons with
the fewest security lapses tend to apply programmes that keep prisoners
occupied, as well as contribute to their skills (McCorkle, Miethe, & Drass,
1995; Gaes and Mcguire, 1985). It is hoped that these skills will also have
an effect after release from custody (Craig, 2004). Johnson and Bennett
(1995) found that programmes and hobbies helped both inmates and staff
to manage boredom in the prison, since time in a prison seems to pass
at a slower pace than in society at large. In their survey, Molleman and
Leeuw (2012) found that safety, human dignity and efforts made regarding
reintegration, as perceived by inmates, are connected to staff characteris-
tics. Garland (1990) argues that the staff is the primary bearer of the penal
culture and the conditions for the prisoners. However, there are a limited
numbers of studies on the interaction between staff behaviour and orienta-
tion when explaining inmates’ perception of the conditions. When inmates
interpret the staff’s authority as merely procedural, there are less inmate
misconduct and rule violations (Reisig & Mesko, 2009). Liebling and Arnold
(2004) reported that respectful treatment by staff, as perceived by inmates,
is highly correlated with various dimensions of prison life, such as percep-
tions of humanity. Similar results are found in relation to distress to inmates
(Liebling, Durie, Stiles, & Tait, 2005).
Gaes, Camp, Nelson, and Saylor (2004) write that in 25 state and federal
American and Canadian jurisdictions 48% pronounce that efforts should be
made to treat prisoners humanely. Similar pronouncements are made in
England, Wales and in the Netherlands. At the same time, mission state-
ments do not guarantee the realization of these goals or prison correction
resulting from them (Molleman & Leeuw, 2012). We believe that perception
of the inmates is important for the organization in order to learn.
The idea that an organization could learn and knowledge could be stored
over time was a key breakthrough, which was first articulated by Cyert and
March (1963). A significant portion of the literature on organizational learn-
ing is founded on the individual learning theory, while social learning the-
ory in the organizational learning literature has grown out of criticism of
the individual approach (Brandi & Elkjaer, 2011). Argyris and Schön (1987,
1996) pointed to the interaction between organizational members focus-
ing on the processes restricting an organization to single-loop learning (fo-
Volume 2, Issue 1, 2013
104 Trygve J. Steiro, Bjørn Andersen, Linda Solveig Olsvik, and Per Johansen
cusing merely on adjusting the organization within a given assumption),
while other organizations ask more fundamental and critical questions on
how things are actually done. This is a more fundamental question. Stacey
(1996) points out that this form is more likely to result in innovation and
creativity. Argyris and Schöns’ (1978, 1996) concept can be viewed as part
of the same scheme as March (1991); distinction between exploitation and
exploration. Both forms are important depending on the purpose; however,
exploration can gain the most impact. Argyris and Schön (1996) also stress
the deutero learning concept, i.e. meta-learning focusing on critical overview
and reflection of the learning process. Flatter organizational structures cre-
ate a tension that elicits development by employee development. This indi-
vidual learning contributes to a transformation process in the organization
(Pedler, Burgoyne, & Boydell, 1990). Thus organizations should adopt flat,
decentralized organizational structures that facilitate open communication
and dialogue (Pedler, Burgoyne, & Boydell, 1999).
Interpersonal challenges experienced in less hierarchical organizations
encourage individuals to engage in developing communication and other
interpersonal skills, creating organizational learning (Pettigrew & Whipp,
1991). The learning organization model is seen as a context where learning
improves as a result of proactive end empowering intervention by senior
management (Sicilla & Lytras, 2005). De Geus (1988) stresses the im-
portance of learning from planning by looking ahead and seeing different
scenarios. Here De Geus is in line with Senges’ concept of visioning, which
means seeing different perspectives (Senge, 1990).
A distinction has been made between the ‘first’ and the ‘second’ way of
organizational learning. The first way is identified as individuals’ skills and
knowledge acquisition in organizations as systems, and learning through
participation in communities of practice. The second way is about learning
participating in communities of practice. The ‘third way’ of organizational
learning is defined as the development of experience and knowledge by in-
quiry (or reflective thinking) in social worlds held together by commitment.
One of the practical implications of the ‘third way’ of organizational learning
is to bring intuition and emotion to the fore in organizational development
and learning. The implication for research is to work with situations and
events as units of analysis in order to understand individuals and organiza-
tions as being mutually forming and formed (Elkjaer, 2004). In this case, the
focus of learning is more on the interaction between actors and implies that
understanding is a form of social construct (Fiske and Taylor, 2013). Brandi
and Elkjaer’s (2011) point of departure are the theories of John Dewey
(1916). Dewey (1916) believes that learning takes place through social in-
teraction and cannot yet be passed from person to person, this implies a so-
cial constructionist’s approach to knowledge management (Easterby-Smith
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Balancing Structure and Learning in an Open Prison 105
and Lyles, 2011). Dewey’s notion of experience is not to be confused with
the one found in humanistic and individual-oriented psychology, in which ex-
periencing is viewed as intrinsically physical, mental and private processes.
Dewey’s concept covers both the individual and the world, and experience
is always culturally mediated (Bernstein, 1960; Dewey, 1981; Miettinen,
2000). However, to quote John Dewey; ‘To “learn from experience” is to
make a backward and forward connection between what we do to things
and what we enjoy or suffer from things in consequence”’ (Dewey, 1916, p.
140). We position this paper along with Brandi and Elkjaer’s (2011) social
learning theory, as this maintains that the point of departure for learning
is life experience: ‘All social learning theory departs from an understanding
participation processes emphasizing both issues of knowing and issues of
being and becoming’ (Brandi and Elkjaer, 2011, p. 24).
Case Description
Leira Prison started up in 1986, and its manager has been there from the
outset. There are several buildings located on the property: a barn and a
stable, a few hothouses for plants, a market garden with an indoor shop,
and a repair shop for cars. Additionally, there are two smaller buildings with
two apartments where inmates may enjoy family visits for a short period
of time on the weekends, provided they have permission in advance. While
there are no fences around the property, the prison boundaries are indi-
cated by crossroads and buildings. A prisoner moving beyond these limits
is considered to be attempting escape.
In total, there are 50 people at Leira, divided into the following groups:
25 male and four female inmates, 13 prison guards, four employees in the
market garden (two full-time and two part-time positions), three managers,
and one employee from a nearby technical school in the car repair shop.
The staff does not wear uniforms. Managers, employees and inmates are
on a first-name basis. This conveys a message of equality between inmates
and staff, in marked contrast to the traditional division between prison staff
and inmates in prisons at large. A central aspect of Leira is that inmates
apply for coming to Leira and this can only be attempted after serving at
least three years in a traditional prison. Leira is governed by the same laws
and regulations as Norwegian prisons in general, but the institution has
had the opportunity to develop with relative freedom within the legislative
framework. The prison has chosen to give the inmates considerable per-
sonal freedom. Since its inception in 1986, Leira has applied ‘consequence
pedagogy’ – a method based upon the social learning theory and a human-
istic and existential approach. The method has been developed by a Danish
philosopher and pedagogue Jens Bay (1982, 2005). Leira has maintained
close contact with Bay over the years, principally because all employees
Volume 2, Issue 1, 2013
106 Trygve J. Steiro, Bjørn Andersen, Linda Solveig Olsvik, and Per Johansen
at Leira are trained thoroughly in the method developed by Jens Bay. Con-
sequence pedagogy is anchored in the existential viewpoint that each indi-
vidual has free will and therefore will have to take responsibility for his/her
own actions and their ensuing consequences (Bay, 2005). The way Leira ap-
plies consequence is in line with Bay (1982, 2005) considerations on how
to apply it. Central aspects are freedom, choice, action, consequence, and
responsibility. The following are Leira beliefs as stated in their documents
and reported by Olsvik, Johansen, and Steiro (2007, p. 13); ‘When we say
that humans are “thinking, willing and acting” we need to have in mind that
this is meant subjectively – though dialectic relations to other people. In
order to be able to understand how each inmate thinks, we need to be in
a dialogue with each person and refrain from judging the other by applying
our own unfounded beliefs.’ Consequences are not considered to be mere
punishments or sanctions, but are rather viewed to be the logical results of
one’s actions (Olsvik et. al. 2007; Olsvik, Johansen, & Steiro, 2008). Such
a paradigm gives the individual a choice and provides each inmate with an
opportunity for personal development by learning new and more construc-
tive modes of behaviour. Central aspects of the consequence pedagogy are
freedom, choice, action, consequence, and responsibility (Bay, 2005). Leira
faces the challenge of changing people (inmates), while at the same time
maintaining the pedagogy platform and developing the organization. Thus,
the following research question is posed in this article: How does Leira bal-
ance between the structure of consequence pedagogy and the ability to learn
and develop?
Method and Collection of Data
In this study, the research question as well as the studied case is focused
on Leira Open Prison and how Leira’s pedagogical approach is suited for
organizational learning. First, this is a case study, which is very useful for
studying small samples in depth or to understand phenomena (Yin, 2004;
Stake, 1995, Ragin & Becker, 1992). A case study can involve producing
context-dependent knowledge that research on learning shows to be neces-
sary (Flyvbjerg, 2001; 2006). Second, in the study of human affairs, only
context-dependent knowledge appears to exist. While there has been skepti-
cism to the case study approach, it is however considered an opportunity to
learn something (Eysenck, 1976). Flyvbjerg (2006) claims that case study
is suitable for different research activities. However, case study design has
been prone to claims of containing a subjective bias and of not being able
to generalize the produced results (Flyvbjerg, 2006).
As part of the case study and in order to answer the research question, a
mix between different qualitative approaches was chosen. The data collec-
tion consisted of semi-structured interviews, participant observation both
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Balancing Structure and Learning in an Open Prison 107
formally (in meetings, etc.), and informally during daily activities. Denzin
and Lincoln (2000) claim that the word ‘qualitative’ means investigations
that aim at a deeper understanding of how people construct their lives in
a meaningful manner. It can also generate knowledge of interactions be-
tween people and how these interactions are interpreted (Denzin & Lincoln,
2000). The interviews were semi-structured, based on a prepared and not
too closely knitted interview guide, where the informants had the freedom
to speak on topics they found important to convey. Interviews lasted approx-
imately one hour to one hour and a half. An approach like this offers the
informants an opportunity to express their personal views and explain is-
sues in their own words (McCracken, 1988). Most interviews were recorded
digitally and transferred to sound files on a PC for full transcription and
further analysis.
The project was formally registered with the Norwegian Data Inspectorate
and a permit for the project was obtained from the Norwegian Correctional
Services. Since Leira is a prison with convicted inmates, it was of high
importance that ethical considerations and precautions were taken into ac-
count. Ethical considerations are important in qualitative methods, since
these methods provide a rich source of information on informants’ pub-
lic and private lives, and consequently researchers are responsible for the
maintenance of high ethical standards (Silverman, 1993). It should be em-
phasized that the inmates were not asked about the reason for their prison
sentence in order for the researcher to avoid personal presuppositions and
possible apprehension when meeting alone with almost every kind of con-
vict in a one-on-one dialogue inside the prison. Information was processed
several times: first during the interviews, then by listening and transcription,
and finally in writing for further reading and analysis (Kvale, 1996).
During the participant observations, full accounts of the meetings were
made a short time afterwards in order to be submitted to the management
as a means of communicating the process and serve as an opportunity for
feedback and comments. On less formal occasions, notes were taken. The
collection of data took place from October 2006 until May 2007. In total
it comprised of 15 interviews with present or former inmates, interviews
with all three managers of Leira, two group interviews with the staff, and
five interviews with some of the external partners of Leira. In addition to
the information gathered informally through participant observation, there
were 18 referred observations from different meetings at Leira; from the
introductory course for new inmates or from interviews with potential new
inmates.
Based on the referred observations and transcriptions of the interviews,
we performed an item-centred analysis of all the material, searching for
clues and patterns (Thagaard, 1988). From the material we identified the
Volume 2, Issue 1, 2013
108 Trygve J. Steiro, Bjørn Andersen, Linda Solveig Olsvik, and Per Johansen
following categories: interviews and notes from observations. Peer discus-
sions between the researchers were also important in order to compare and
contrast the material. The data collected was also discussed among the re-
searchers as recommended by Yin (2004) in order to limit the individual
researcher’s interpretations of the data.
Results and Analysis
Analysis of qualitative data is rarely a straightforward process. However,
Kvale (1996) writes that analysis of qualitative data goes through different
stages. Typically, an initial analysis is performed during the interviews. Cer-
tain patterns and themes may emerge as clues for further investigations.
This can lead to adjustments in the interview guide. However, this was not
the case in our study. Kvale (1996) also highlights that at some point the
scientist assumes the data collection reached a saturating level where the
scientist is no longer provided with new information. The research team,
at such a juncture, decides whether to stop the interviewing. The second
phase consists of data transcribing. Again, data is interpreted and can be
seen as a non-linear process. Observation notes served as a reflection
when put down on paper. In the review of the empirical findings, as seen in
relation to theory, reflections and interpretations, the following three items
were identified as relevant in answering the research question:
•consequence pedagogy and the view of humans,
•maintaining the philosophy through community and coherence,
•self-regulated justice through interaction.
In the following section, each item will be elaborated and discussed. We
will also justify the connections between the items and the knowledge that
can be derived from Leira. In addition, we will discuss the quality of the
findings and their external validity.
Consequence Pedagogy and the View on Humans
Leira’s staff interacts with the inmates as much as possible and their main
tool is dialogue. The staff reported that it was very important for them to
foresee difficult situations that may result in serious consequences. How-
ever, they also said that inmates are encouraged to assess situations, pre-
dict eventual outcomes, and act accordingly. Inmates reported a similar
view. We observed that staff members work consciously at not giving advice
but rather, through dialogue and the use of questions, empower inmates to
find their own solutions. All new inmates are, over a three-day period, given
an introductory course of approximately six hours in duration on Leira and
consequence pedagogy. This is to ensure that the newcomers have a clear
understanding of Leira, its norms and values. In a system such as this, it
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Balancing Structure and Learning in an Open Prison 109
is possible to be open with the inmates, ensuring that consequences also
include those of a positive nature. We observed that staff and inmates work
together on an everyday basis, as well as engage in mutual activities in their
spare time. The staff is expected to participate in leisure activities outside
fixed working hours. The inmates must meet the same requirements at work
as do any other employees in the general population. They are expected to
take responsibility for their job, and are not permitted to call in sick without
a good reason. In addition to the focus on job training, Leira concentrates on
helping the inmates to develop social skills. The inmates themselves have
signed a written agreement to partake in the social community at Leira.
The inmates viewed the applied consequence pedagogy as positive and
expressed the perception that they were addressed as humans. They re-
garded it as a good and fair framework that was easy to understand. They
knew what to expect should they break the rules and had no problems
with the methodology. Many inmates considered the mandatory physical
activities to be a positive requirement, and used this as an opportunity to
increase their physical exercises in order to change and grow as persons. In
the interviews, the former drug addicts particularly reported that they found
this activity helpful, both mentally and physically, in order to live without
any intoxicating substances. Furthermore, the management explained that,
over time, a number of inmates at Leira improved their physical condition.
According to this, the staff always expressed their appreciation of these ac-
complishments and often rewarded the prisoners who reached their goals
with prizes. Management and staff emphasized that the prizes are not the
crucial factor, but serve more as a means to uphold and maintain the sys-
tem.
Our informants described the managers and general staff as being very
competent, even if not all of the staff were equally esteemed by the in-
mates. They believed, however, that the entire staff worked in the inmates’
best interest. This is seen as a prerequisite for the prisoner’s perception of
the condition (Molleman & Leeuw, 2012). The inmates typically described
the wardens as humane and wise, but at the same time quite realistic. The
inmates felt that such characteristics were very important in a place such
as this. On their part, the wardens stated that they needed to be genuinely
engaged in the inmates’ wellness and in their future, otherwise the inmates
would soon see them as insincere. This point was also considered a pre-
requisite for the staff’s chance to have any influence on the inmates at all.
The wardens claimed that new inmates may typically find it difficult to really
believe in what they are offered in terms of personal freedom, but most of
them settle down quickly and begin to cooperate with other inmates.
Von Krogh, Ichijo, and Nonaka (2000) point out that the key ‘quality of
knowledge workers is their humanness’ (2000, 12). The goal of organiza-
Volume 2, Issue 1, 2013
110 Trygve J. Steiro, Bjørn Andersen, Linda Solveig Olsvik, and Per Johansen
tional learning is therefore to bring out this humanness by creating a proper
balance (Nonaka, 1998). Humaneness arises in our relationships with oth-
ers through communities (Plaskoff, 2011). The continuity of the community
is ensured from a tactical point of view with activities such as meetings, dis-
tributing information, setting agendas, and facilitating gatherings. The sec-
ond form is by mentoring, namely giving value directions (Plaskoff, 2011).
When we look at the interview data, we see that there is a clear link be-
tween humanness and consequence pedagogy. They go very well hand in
hand at Leira. This can be illustrated by an interview with the region director
of the Correctional Service North. He said in the interview; ‘What is impor-
tant to note here is that the way they work at Leira is very constructive. I
also think it is important to be able to feel that things are predictable as
well as safe. And in my experience of Leira, that is how it is. There is a red
thread running throughout the whole organization, as there is a fundamental
philosophy which influences everything they do.’
Several inmates stated that they were given a second chance when they
came from a high-security facility to an open prison. They also mentioned
the canteen with small tables, allowing small groups to sit together – man-
agement, inmates and staff alike. Based on the observations, we found
that management, wardens, and inmates are on a first-name basis when
addressing each other and talking about each other. No uniforms are used,
entailing that clothes do not create a distance.
Many of the inmates were parents, and, in the interview, they reported
their appreciation of how Leira arranged for them to normalize their family
lives through extended visits with their children and spouses in separate
apartments. Most informants mentioned that they felt Leira worked with
them in order to make their lives as similar as possible to living outside the
prison, in ordinary society.
We observed in our study that many former inmates call or visit Leira.
Also, at the end of most meetings or other informal occasions, we observed
the staff ended up talking about the former prisoners in a very positive way,
as people with whom they still had relations. Good communities turn dis-
agreements into learning experiences and chances to foster understand-
ing through managed conversations (Von Krogh et. al., 2000). Members
express different opinions, approaches and philosophies and find ways to
reconcile differences, combine approaches, and create new knowledge (Von
Krogh et. al., 2000). We observed that staff members often recounted for-
mer prisoners’ accomplishments achieved after having left Leira. In the un-
fortunate instances where this was not the case, the staff still offered un-
derstanding and expressions of hope for their future success. We perceive
this to be a special phenomenon, a cultural artifact in Leira’s organization.
It also demonstrates an arena for knowledge sharing (Nonaka, Toyama, &
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Balancing Structure and Learning in an Open Prison 111
Konno, 2000). Even though they were not all success stories, former in-
mates were always mentioned with respect and with expressions of hope
for them. The consequence pedagogical method builds upon the human-
istic and existential view, which is internalized by the managers and the
staff. Their personal views were noticeable in practice as more than mere
theory; namely, as a holistic view of a person as a whole, an undividable
entity. Hence, the individual’s subjective experience represents the truth for
that person. In practice, this view facilitates real relationships between the
inmates and the staff, as they are all human individuals of equal worth,
working together to achieve common goals. Naturally they have different
roles and authority, but this does not mean that someone is above anyone
else. The criterion for judging an individual’s worth is by how he or she acts –
from day to day – not what that person has done in the past. This approach
gives the inmates the freedom to choose new ways of behaviour without
anyone taking their past actions into account. One warden answered the
question of what is special about the consequence pedagogical method in
this way:
It must be the fact that we see the human being as a whole, and that
we provide new competence on many levels. It is not enough just to
learn to drive a car. You have to learn to get up in the morning and to
function in a small community; you must socialize with other people.
The mastering of practical tasks is easy to learn, but all other things
this involves, may be just as important [. . .] that you become a whole
person who functions well together with the rest of us.
An inmate describes it like this:
We still have lost our liberty because we have physical limitations as
to where we are allowed to move around [. . .] so it might be right to
say that the wall is situated in our heads. But for the soul [. . .] it is
actually much better. Assuming you can handle the choices you have
to make continuously.
The two previous quotes highlight the empowerment, of course within
limitations, at Leira. We see the view of human as the essence and the
point of departure. In the implementation of consequence pedagogy with its
focus on openness, respect freedom and choice go well in hand. However,
consequence pedagogy executed without the fundamentals in the positive
and humanistic view of people might be something completely different.
Maintaining the Philosophy through Community and Coherence
Leira has a strong and united organizational culture that not only includes
the managers and staff, but also the inmates. The only indication of existing
Volume 2, Issue 1, 2013
112 Trygve J. Steiro, Bjørn Andersen, Linda Solveig Olsvik, and Per Johansen
subcultures is the form of self-regulated justice, which changed from the
traditional, negative form, as found in closed prisons, into a more positive
form. Some informants mentioned that new prisoners would sometimes
cause trouble in the social group and that they would usually settle down
after being informed by the others of how unwelcome their behaviour was.
Some inmates wanted Leira to be selective about whom they accepted,
to make sure that hardened criminals who failed to realize how fortunate
they were to serve out their sentence there would not upset the positive
environment. However, this is not Leira’s policy. They will admit anyone to
serve their time at Leira, as long as the applicants qualify and accept the
rules.
We observed a significant amount of noise from a group of second-
generation inmates, i.e. inmates with a criminal record, where one of the
parents had a criminal record as well. In that case we witnessed a lot of
frustration, especially from the staff and other inmates. In an interview, an
inmate serving life imprisonment sentence said that Leira should consider
whether Leira might not be suited for all prisoners. However, these second-
generation inmates had not violated any Leira rule, so sending them back
to a high-security facility was not an option. The response was that manage-
ment and staff organized a meeting with the inmates, informing them, in a
casual way, of their observations. They continued by restating the prison’s
values and norms, explaining again why they are the way they are. They
also reminded everyone about their personal commitments and responsi-
bilities. In another case, the staff witnessed two foreign prisoners from a
non-western culture who did not seem to be willing to be a part of the
community. A question regarding whether this was a result of racism was
raised among the staff. No one had witnessed any behaviour that would in-
dicate this. The two non-western inmates were asked, but they reported no
racism or other form of excluding behaviour, although reporting behaviour
and reporting culture might differ. Based on the conversation with the two
inmates and other inmates, this was understood as a communication chal-
lenge to understanding the rules and what was expected from themselves
and others. In an interview with another outsider, the balance at Leira was
explained in an interview with the representative from The Norwegian Labour
and Welfare administration (NAV):
The flexibility is not easy to handle, as one probably needs to be very
conscious about the fine line between freedom and certain conditions
for action in this kind of organization.
It is worth noting that leadership in a community of practice is distributed
and takes two forms. The first form is administrative leadership. Bottoms
(1999) claims that prison management may have an important indirect influ-
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Balancing Structure and Learning in an Open Prison 113
ence on prison conditions. For instance, superiors can incite staff to adopt
a desirable orientation towards inmates. In this case, offering education,
courses and trainings are common means. Molleman and Leeuw (2012)
point to the fact that prison management can pursue a balance in sup-
portive and rule orientation, something to consider since they both have
positive connections with dimensions of perceived prison conditions. Trans-
formational leadership focuses on faith rather than tasks and economic in-
terests (Northouse, 1997; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). According to Argyris
and Schön’s (1996) perspective, we found significant evidence of congru-
ence between theory and practice at Leira. If an effort or method did not
have the expected outcome, we observed that the people involved quickly
returned to the starting point to investigate the reasons and make the nec-
essary changes. Both management and the general staff pointed out that
they often made mistakes because they had too little information or had
misunderstood a situation. Inmates confirmed this in interviews.
Self-Regulated Justice through Interaction
Inmates, as well as staff, mentioned the common ‘self-regulated justice’
that prevails in prisons. In closed prisons, this self-justice is often harsh
and negative and is often meted out by the inmates as well as the prison
guards. In contrast, Leira’s self-justice is a positive, regulating force within
general social life. The staff claimed this positive self-regulated justice to
be so potent that often no corrective action was necessary on their part. In-
mates coming from closed prisons soon learned that the other inmates did
not appreciate bad behaviour. Up to 90% of the inmates at Leira are serv-
ing sentences for drug-related offences. Generally, drugs are considered to
constitute some of the greatest challenges for prisons, especially when the
prisoner himself has been addicted. Many new inmates barely completed
the process of becoming addiction free before entering Leira; however, as
sobriety is a stipulated requirement, most inmates comply without relapse.
The council meeting, where the applications to transfer to Leira were pro-
cessed, showed that no differentiating took place when applications were
discussed.
When we shall start on a project, the inmates take part in the plan-
ning from the beginning in order to be involved from the start, instead
of later being told what to do. They gain ownership of the task in
question. And many times it might be the inmate who has the most
knowledge and competence [. . .] plumbing, construction work or elec-
trical work. [Employee]
According to Argyris and Schön’s theory, organizations often experience
a discrepancy between their espoused theory and their theory-in-use (Ar-
Volume 2, Issue 1, 2013
114 Trygve J. Steiro, Bjørn Andersen, Linda Solveig Olsvik, and Per Johansen
gyris & Schön, 1996). At Leira there is an apparent congruence between
their espoused theory and their theory-in-use, with reference to what we
experienced. Leira is also continuously looking for new partners in order
to maximize the inmates’ possibilities for rehabilitation and successful re-
entry to society.
The mentality among the inmates here is much to stay ‘clean,’ be-
cause everybody knows that it is very stupid not to do so. It doesn’t
take long before you understand that you are really lucky to be here
instead of in another prison. In other words, it is pretty stupid to get
yourself caught because of a positive urine sample. The general atti-
tude among the other inmates is that if this happens, it serves you
right to suffer the consequences. [Inmate]
On the other hand, few gave a critique of the consequence philosophy
itself. That in itself might be problematic and can serve as a preservation
of the system, thus not representing double-loop learning, but rather pre-
serving the system in itself and thereby constituting single-loop learning.
If, in the future, Leira decides to expand their activities and include more
external programmes for rehabilitation of the prisoners, this may cause im-
balance in their overall organization. This was raised as a concern among
some of the staff members. A similar development was studied and ob-
served in the work of Schumacher (1997). Kang, Morris, and Snell (2007)
conclude that culture affects learning, but argue that exploratory learning
may be suppressed in cultures emphasizing strong ties. This could suggest
that feeling too ‘comfortable’ within a particular setting may not necessar-
ily be conducive to deeper level learning (Shipton & DeFilippi, 2011). Good
communities turn disagreements into learning experiences and chances to
foster understanding through managed conversations (Von Krogh et. al.,
2000). Members express different opinions, approaches and philosophies
and find ways to reconcile differences, combine approaches, and create new
knowledge. We are of the opinion that questions of a double-loop character
are important in all varieties of organizations, but in particular in organiza-
tions with strong ties where the overall perception is that the organization
is operating well.
Prisons are now subject to more tight budgetary control and are often
obliged to report their performance against a number of different measures
(Houchin, 2003). If, due to budgetary reduction, Leira decides to cut down
on the training of personnel, this may cause more severe consequences
than anticipated, regardless of the systemic nature of Leira as an organiza-
tion. De Geuss (1988) writes that scenarios can be powerful in addressing
different challenges and different solutions as a means not only to cre-
ate strategies, but also to foster learning. Senge (1990) and Pedler et. al.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Balancing Structure and Learning in an Open Prison 115
(1990) stress the importance of working on the future. In particular, Senge
(1990) highlights the visions as a contributor to learning and change. Based
on the interviews, it became apparent that the meetings at Leira played a
significant role. In our participative observations we noted that the meetings
both with and without inmates were highly structured and that the meeting
agenda was applied at all times and carried out the way it was intended. The
participants were very conscious about the meeting culture. Consequence
pedagogical themes or methods were often referred to and were used to
explain or elaborate on something in discussions or were used as a means
for new learning. In meetings, while talking about inmates not present, the
tone was still as respectful and proper as if the person had been present to
hear what was being discussed. This was also reported as something they
were explicit about.
Conference meetings with management, employees, and inmates also
played an important role. This was strongly supported by all groups of in-
formants. The manager would begin by welcoming everyone, then preparing
people for inmates to arrive and stating their names. In the next point of
the agenda, inmates soon to be released were mentioned. In one general
meeting we observed that the manager refrained from using words like ‘if
everything goes well’ or ‘if people behave’ in his speech. He talked about
the release from prison as something positive and implied that all people
present would be happy for the people leaving the prison. At one meeting,
the manager predicted a nice and steady period with a few changes in the
inmate group, adding; ‘That is, if no major escapes happen or no-shows
after days away from the prison on leave.’ This remark was met by a lot of
laughter and more joking in return. It was interesting to observe what was
called ‘Leira’s favorite theme.’ This was informal talks that would often pop
up at the end of meetings and gatherings where the staff would remem-
ber and describe previous inmates and their, more often than not, positive
situation after the release.
Possible Methodological Issues to be Addressed
In the literature of information games, actors can use information in or-
der to serve their own interests at the expense of interests pertaining to
the system as a whole (March & Olsen, 1989; Krehibel, 1987; Shepsle
& Weingast, 1987). This could imply that both inmates and employees
recognized an interest in keeping a harmonic view. Inmates apply for ad-
mission to Leira after having served three years in an ordinary prison. The
self-selection can serve as a way of justifying own behaviour and avoiding
cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). However, conducting observations
over a relatively long period of time should give more insight into the ‘back
stage’ of Leira. A survey without the one-on-one interaction between the
Volume 2, Issue 1, 2013
116 Trygve J. Steiro, Bjørn Andersen, Linda Solveig Olsvik, and Per Johansen
researcher and the respondent could create more space and ensure more
comfort in order to raise more critical comments and questions. However,
in the end it will of course still be the reader who must make up his or her
mind on whether the results are valid (Polkinghorne, 1988). This point of
view should not result in the researcher being passive. A reader can make
up his or her mind on the validity. However, we acknowledge Tjora (2010),
who claims that the overall responsibility for the validity lies solely with
the researcher.
Concluding Remarks
The basis of this article is how Leira functions as an organization. Based
on our data, Leira has shown itself to be an organization built on a peda-
gogical platform, but even more important on a distinct view on humans.
At the same time, the organization contains patterns of being a learning
organization looking forward and adjusting its course when necessary and
therefore be in a position to learn through interaction. Leira therefore does
not apply to the traditional criticism of prisons seen from a Theory X per-
spective on inmates, which is basically negative (Craig, 2004). The views
reported in particular by the inmates demonstrate small differences be-
tween the espoused theory and the theory in use (Argyris & Schön, 1996).
Earlier studies have confirmed the importance of staff following the book
(Molleman & Leeuw, 2012). The inmates at Leira perceive the rules as
clear and relevant, but within the limit, considerations and decisions have
to be made. The consequences for breaking the rules are consistent, stated
clearly in writing. The consequence pedagogy platform in itself is not ques-
tioned and that is something to consider if Leira is to develop as a learning
organization. All new inmates are properly informed about Leira, its phi-
losophy and rules. It seems from this study that being met with recog-
nition, respect and a feeling of being on equal terms is viewed as very
positive and may well explain the fact that the informants find both Leira
and consequence pedagogy to be positive. Over time, the inmates receive
increasing responsibility. The consequence pedagogy applied at Leira sup-
ports the cooperative approach of a learning organization (Brandi & Elk-
jaer, 2011). The small size of Leira plays an important role in order for
new members to be introduced and socialized into the philosophy. There
are relatively many experienced managers, wardens and prisoners to fol-
low up a relatively small number of newcomers. At the same time, Leira
is subject of continuous changes, since 50% of the people are changed
meaning that the platform must be reconstructed. The structure of conse-
quence pedagogy and the view of humans are applied as a platform, while
the institution must at the same time adapt to new situations and new in-
mates, and also allow the management, staff and inmates to act and be
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Balancing Structure and Learning in an Open Prison 117
responsible for their choices. The view of humans and the humanness en-
ables the structure making it flexible and, according to our interpretation,
in balance.
The lessons learned for other organizations is that some form of struc-
ture on how to interact is very useful, however, the structure and/or other
processes must allow for adjustment and learning to be made by all mem-
bers. It should not be restricted to the management level. At the same time,
an organization can clearly benefit from the awareness of its espoused theo-
ries and the theories in use, and attempt to lessen the gap, thus creating a
more authentic framework. We therefore believe these aspects are generic
and might be valid for other organizations as well.
Acknowledgements
Sincere thanks to managers, staff and inmates at Leira. Also, we would like
to offer sincere thanks to other informants outside Leira that shared their
views. Sincere thanks also to two reviewers for constructive comments that
certainly helped improving the article.
References
Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A Theory of action
perspective. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and
practice. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic trans-
formational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181–217.
Bay, J. (1982). Avvikerne og ansvaret: På vei mot konsekvenspedagogikk [De-
viants and responsibility: Towards concequence pedagogy]. Oslo, Norway:
Cappelen.
Bay, J. (2005). Konsekvænspedagogik: En pœdagogik om eksistens og social
handlingskompetanse [Consequence pedagogy concerning existence and
social skill competence]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Borgen.
Bernstein, R. J. (1960). John Dewey: On experience, nature and freedom; Rep-
resentative selection. New York, NY: The Liberal Arts Press.
Bottoms, A. (1999) Interpersonal violence and social order in prison. In M.
Tonry & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol.
26, pp. 205–282). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Brandi, U., & Elkjaer, B. (2011). Organizational learning viewed from a social
learning persepctive. In M. Easterby-Smith, & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook
of organizational learning and knowledge management (2nd ed., pp. 23–
41). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Craig, S. M. (2004). Rehabilitation versus control: An organizational theory of
prison management. The Prison Journal, 84(4), 92–114.
Cyert, R., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. London, UK:
Blackwell.
Volume 2, Issue 1, 2013
118 Trygve J. Steiro, Bjørn Andersen, Linda Solveig Olsvik, and Per Johansen
Darabont, F. (Director). (1994). The shawshank redemption. USA: Castle Rock
Entertainment.
De Geus, A. P. (1988). Planning as learning. Harvard Business Review, 66(2):
70–4.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1981). The need for recovery of philosophy. In J. J. McDermott
(Ed.), The philosophy of John Dewey (pp. 58–97). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. (Original work published 1917)
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thou-
sands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dilulio, J. J. (1987). Governing prisons: Studies in institutional organization and
change. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Ditton, P. M. (1999). Special report: Mental health and treatment of inmates
and probationers. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/
mhtip.pdf
Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles, M. A. (2011). The evolving field of organizational
learning and knowledge management. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management
(2nd ed., pp. 1–20). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Elkjaer, B. (2004). Organizational learning: The ‘Third Way.’ Management
Learning, 35, 419–434.
Eysenck, H. J., (Ed.). (1976). Case studies in behaviour therapy. London, UK:
Routledge.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row &
Peterson.
Fiske, S., & Taylor, S. K. (2013). Social cognitions: From brains to culture.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and
how it can succeed again. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case: study research.
Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.
Gaes, G. G., Camp, S. D., Nelson, J. B., & Saylor, W. G. (2004). Measur-
ing prison performance, government privatization & accountability. Walnut
Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Gaes, G. G., & McGuire, W. J. (1985). Prison violence: The contribution of
crowding versus other determinants of prison assault rates. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 41–65.
Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society: A study in social theory.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gendreau, P., Tellier, M. C., & Wormith, J. S. (1985). Protective custody: The
emerging crisis within our prisons. Federal Probation, 44, 55–63.
Hansen, M. T. (2009). Collaboration: How leaders avoid the traps, create unity,
and reap big results. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Houchin, R. (2003). Significant change is likely in our prisons: The question
is, change in what direction? Probation Journal, 50(2), 142–148.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Balancing Structure and Learning in an Open Prison 119
Johnson, W. W., & Bennett, K. (1995). Getting though on prisoners: Results
from the National Corrections Executive Survey. Crime & Delinquency,
43(1), 24–42.
Kang, S., Morris, S., & Snell, S. (2007). Relational archetypes, organizational
learning and value creation: Extending the human resource architecture.
Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 37–50.
Kvale, S. (1996). Inter views: An introduction to qualitative research interview-
ing. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krehibel, K. (1987). Why are congressional committees powerful? American
Political Science Review, 81, 929–935.
Liebling, A., & Arnold, H. (2004). Prisons and their moral performance: A study
of values, quality, and prison life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Liebling, A., Durie, L., Stiles, A., & Tait, S. (2005). Revisiting prison suicide:
The role of fairness and distress. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds.), The
effects of imprisonment (pp. 209–231). Uffculme, UK: Willan Publishing.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.
Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Redicovering institutions: The organizational
basis of politics. New York, NY: The Free Press.
McCorkle, R. C., Miethe, T. D., & Drass, K. A. (1995). The roots of prison vio-
lence: A test of the deprivation, management, and ‘not-so-total’ institution
models. Crime & Delinquency, 41(3), 317–332.
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview (Sage University Paper Series on
Qualitative Research Methods 13). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miettinen, R. (2000). The concept of experiental learning and John Dewey’s
theory of reflective thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong
Learning and Education, 19(1), 54–72.
Molleman, T., & Leeuw, F. L. (2012). The influence of prison staff on inmate
conditions: A multilevel approach to staff and inmate surveys. European
Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 18(2), 217–233.
Nonaka, I. (1998). The concept of ‘ba:’ Building a foundation of knowledge
creation. Californa Management Review, 40(3): 40–54.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). Seci, ba and leadership: A unified
model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33, 5–34.
Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Olsvik, S., Johansen, P., & Steiro, T. J. (2007). A study of consequence ped-
agogy in a learning organization (Report). Oslo, Norway: The Correctional
Services.
Olsvik, S., Johansen, P., & Steiro, T. J. (2008, July). A study of consequence
pedagogy in a learning organization. Paper presented at the EGOS confer-
ence, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (Eds.). (1990). Self-development in or-
ganizations. London, UK: McGraw-Hill.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1999). The learning company: A strategy
for sustainable development (3rd ed.). London, UK: McGraw-Hill.
Volume 2, Issue 1, 2013
120 Trygve J. Steiro, Bjørn Andersen, Linda Solveig Olsvik, and Per Johansen
Pettigrew, A. M., & Whipp, R. (1991). Managing change for competitive suc-
cess. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Plaskoff, J. (2011) Intersubjectivity and community-building. In M. Easterby-
Smith, & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowl-
edge management (2nd ed., pp. 199–223). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Al-
bany, NY: SUNY Press.
Ragin, C. C., & Becker, H. S. (Eds.) (1992). What is a case? Exploring the
foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Reisig, D. M. (1998). Rates of disorder in higher-custody state prisons: A
comparative analysis of managerial practices. Crimes & Delinquency, 4(2),
229–245.
Reisig, M. D., & Mesko, G. (2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and prisoner
misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(1), 41–59.
Schumacher, T. (1997). West coast Camelot: The rise and fall of an organi-
zational culture. In S. A. Sackmann (Ed.), Cultural complexity in organi-
zations: Inherent contrasts and contradictions (pp. 107–132). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning orga-
nization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Shepsle, K., & Weingast, B. (1987). Why are congressional comittees power-
ful? American Political Science Review, 81, 935–945.
Shipton, H., & DeFilippi, R. (2011). Psychological perspectives in organiza-
tional learning. In M. Easterby-Smith, & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational learning and knowledge management (2nd ed., pp. 67–82).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Sicillia, M. A., & Lytras, M. D. (2005). The semantic learning organization.
Learning Organization, 12, 402–410.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk,
text and interaction. London, UK: Sage.
Stacey, R. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler Publisher.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sykes, G. (1958). A society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison.
Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press.
Taviani, P., & Taviani, V. (Directors). (2012). Cesare deve morire [Caesar must
die]. Italy: Kaos Cinematografica.
Thagaard, T. (2009). Systematikk og innlevelse: En innføring i kvalitativ metode.
[Systematic and insight: An introduction to qualitative research]. Bergen,
Norway: Fagbokforlaget.
Tjora, A. (2010). Kvalitative metoder i praksis [Qualitative methods in prac-
tice]. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Toch, H. (1988). Social climate and prison violence. In M. C. Braswell, R. H.
Montgomery, & L. X. Lombardo. (1988). Prison violence in America (pp.
37–46). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Balancing Structure and Learning in an Open Prison 121
Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation:
How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release power innovation.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wright, K. N. (2000). The evolution of decision- making among prison execu-
tives, 1975–2000. In J. Horney (Ed.). (2000). Criminal Justice 2000. (Vol.
3., pp. 177–224). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
Yin, R. (Ed.). (2004). The case study anthology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Trygve J. Steiro holds a master’s degree in organizational psychology from
the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in 1997. He is
interested in dynamic processes, interaction and learning both with regards
to research and practical work as a project manager. tsteiro@hotmail.com
Bjørn Andersen, professor of quality and project management at the Norwe-
gian University of Technology and Science and Research Manager at SINTEF
Technology and Society, has co-authored around 20 books and numerous pa-
pers for international journals and conferences. He has managed and been
involved in several national and international research and implementation
projects. bjorn.andersen@ntnu.no
Linda Solveig Olsvik holds a bachelor degree in psychology and anthropology,
and a master’s degree in pedagogics. She has various work experience from
different positions in research and in the field of education and training. In
2009 she published the book From me to you: Useful information for a better
understanding of your own self (New York, NY: Eloquent Books). Besides being
keenly interested in the psychological ‘Self,’ she has a passion for applied
systems thinking/theory and the development of functional organizations.
lsolsvik@broadpark.no
Per Johansen is educated as a social worker and holds a master’s degree
in social work. He has worked with projects concerning crime prevention,
particularly in relation to adolescents. He has lead and contributed to a
lot of surveys regarding young people concerning health, activity and norms.
per.johansen@trondheim.kommune.no
This paper is published under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Volume 2, Issue 1, 2013