ABSTRACT
Informating the system There is no doubt that penal institutions today are adjusting to the demands of the information society. Computers have become a standard tool in research and administrative work in Western penal systems and are often viewed as a ‘virility symbol’ (Tata 2000). To have an organisational structure and professional culture that is not adjusted to data gathering may simply seem outdated and suspicious, particularly in relation to the contemporary managerial ethos that depends on intensive data analysis.1 Information technology has enabled the creation of knowledge related to institutional and individual activities, and such systematic knowledgeability is a precondition for successful management, budget allocation, etc. System management relies on the management of information and the ability of central administrative authorities to devise monitoring devices and maintain an overview of practitioners’ activities. Electronic data processing has created new possibilities for assessing the effectiveness of various government agencies, as well as their monitoring routines. Consequently, Tata suggests that:
As managerialist pressure builds on officials who administer the courts (Bottoms 1995) to provide evidence of efficiency, effectiveness and economy (Jones 1993), so there is perceived to be an imperative to invest in computers to perform a variety of tasks … The question is likely to develop from ‘could we introduce aggregate information systems?’ to ‘if other jurisdictions are introducing information systems then why isn’t ours?’ (Tata 2000: 302)
According to Kling and Allen (1996) we should, however, distinguish between two aspects when looking at the adoption of information technology in penal systems:
• environmental explanations (ie, the rational reasons of, for example, efficiency);2
• institutional and cultural explanations (how computerisation reflects the values and interests of specific groups and actors in an organisation).
