Hester Paanakker

44 organizations correspond largely to the professional focus of such organizations. They found that, compared to managers in regulating or administrating organizations, ‘managers of service providing organizations had higher scores on professionalism (clan [mode of governance]) and user focus (market [mode of governance])’ and ‘[i]n line with this, managers of lower-level organizations scored lower on balancing interests, rule abidance, and budget keeping and higher on user focus and professionalism compared to higher-level authorities’ (L. B. Andersen et al., 2012, p. 725). In an empirical study among 182 city-level public administrators, Witesman and Walters also found that public officials use a limited number of well-defined context-driven values in their professional decision making: they selected specific subsets of values that were relevant to the specific work situations they were confronted with (2015, p. 90). Besides the suggestion that a distinct type of values could be deemed relevant in specific professions, the question arises of whether these values are assigned similar meanings or not. Even in the earlier cited work of Yang (2016), respondents generally attached no more than five different meanings to a value. Although these respondents represented public administrators in different policy domains (and hence, different occupational groups), could this demonstrate the occurrence of patterns that are indeed varied, but at the same time have a limited scope of variance? And would these value orientations be even more similar within more homogenous professional groups? This provides interesting leads for further research on the uniformity of public craftsmanship values. To date, the level of value convergence in specific work contexts in terms of demarcated professions, and among frontline workers specifically, remains an unexplored field of research. 2.5 Values and Craftsmanship in the Prison Context In the literature on prison dynamics, the presence of strong values that underpin penal logic and point penal behaviour and practices in a clear direction is widely acknowledged. Many scholars stress how the incapacitation of detainees is inextricably tied to the prioritization of security at the expense of other goals of imprisonment (DiIulio, 1987; Sykes, 1958). In prisons, security as a value is linked to the deprivation of liberty and exertion of authority and tight control (Craig, 2004), and these are regarded as the core objectives of incarceration, ‘for the prison constitutes a place of domination’ (Liebling & Arnold, 2004, p. 442). Others contrast the focus on security values with their predominantly procedural nature (such as the strict enforcement of rules and regulations, control, order and stability, routine, authoritative action and coercion) with values of a relational nature (Liebling & Arnold, 2004; Molleman & Van der Broek, 2014). Liebling and Arnold (2004, pp. 435-442) assert that, in day-to-day prison practices, these so- 44 Chapter 2