Impacting life expectancies of incarcerated people through dialogic scientific gatherings and dialogic scientific workshops in prisons

The paper addresses how dialogic scientific gatherings and scientific workshops in prison settings can advance Sustainable Development Goal 4 (quality education) by creating inclusive, effective learning environments for highly vulnerable groups. While economic inequality is known to hinder academic outcomes, fewer studies focus on actionable strategies to reduce exclusion for vulnerable populations such as incarcerated people, who exhibit a significant educational gap compared to the general population. Prior evidence suggests education during incarceration can reduce recidivism and improve employment outcomes. Building on Successful Educational Actions (SEAs) and dialogic reading’s capacity to promote critical reflection and learning, the study investigates the impact of DSGs and related scientific workshops in a prison, aiming to increase scientific interest, literacy, and engagement among incarcerated adults.

The theoretical framework situates access to science as uneven across gender, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity, emphasizing the importance of STEM for societal development and the need to democratize science participation beyond traditional school contexts. Dialogic learning theory (Freire; Habermas; Flecha) underscores egalitarian dialogue, validity claims, and co-creation of knowledge as mechanisms to foster deep understanding and consensus free from coercion. High expectations are linked to better motivation, attendance, behaviors, and completion rates, with evidence that education can mitigate stigma and support reintegration for incarcerated individuals. Dialogic scientific gatherings (DSGs), identified as a Successful Educational Action, draw on dialogic reading to enhance communication and critical reflection. DSGs involve pre-reading, participant-selected excerpts, and facilitated egalitarian discussion prioritizing less frequent speakers. Experiential education and science workshops have been shown to increase scientific literacy, awareness of scientific disciplines, and realistic, interconnected views of science, while scientist participation supports the principle of science with and for society.

Design: Communicative Methodology (CM), oriented toward social transformation through egalitarian, intersubjective dialogue among researchers, participants, and practitioners. CM was chosen for its suitability in promoting co-creation of knowledge and overcoming inequalities in excluded groups such as incarcerated people. Setting and participants: Men’s prison in Catalonia (Spain), within the prison’s adult school. Timeframe: February–April 2022. Participants: 19 incarcerated men aged 29–44 who attended adult school activities. Intervention: Twenty-one Dialogic Scientific Gatherings (DSGs) and twelve researcher-led scientific workshops organized into four thematic blocks. Activities were implemented in parallel in two groups. Teachers received two preparatory training sessions on dialogic learning principles and DSG implementation. Content and schedule (examples): - Topic 1: Paleolithic human evolution (e.g., Haber et al., 2016; Jensen et al., 2019); two workshops per group. - Topic 2: Evolution of living organisms (Aguilar, 2019); two workshops per group. - Topic 3: Climate change (e.g., Kim & Jeong, 2021; Talley, 2021; Trascasa-Castro & Smith, 2021); one workshop per group. - Topic 4: Everyday STEM (e.g., Vera & Wooding, 2017); one workshop per group. Data collection: Fifteen communicative observations during DSG implementation; eight interviews with incarcerated participants; two interviews with prison teachers/staff involved in implementation. All interviews were transcribed. Analysis: A deductively developed system of categories, grounded in literature and project aims, identified potential impacts across four areas (academic expectations, science learning, communicating science in vulnerable environments, motivation for learning). Consistent with CM, categories were divided into exclusionary dimensions (barriers) and transformative dimensions (elements overcoming barriers). Ethical procedures included informed consent, anonymity via pseudonyms, and ethics approval (CREA committee).

- Engagement and motivation: Participants, most without education beyond compulsory level, showed strong motivation to attend DSGs/workshops—arriving early, recommending sessions to peers, and maintaining participation despite no certificates. New participants joined midstream, committing to regular attendance. - Changing perceptions of science: Initial beliefs that science is complicated and not for them shifted toward seeing science as accessible and relevant. Participants described the content as easier to grasp than past school experiences, attributed to dialogic dynamics rather than simplified content. - Learning gains and scientific literacy: Teachers observed improved oral expression and retention of scientific concepts (e.g., understanding human evolution, using updated terminology like hominins). Participants reported discovering new, “curious” scientific facts and explanations (e.g., fermentation processes) and a more realistic, prosocial view of scientists’ work. - Transformative interactions: Science became a new topic of conversation among incarcerated people, with discussions occurring during preparation for DSGs and in informal settings (e.g., maintenance work, transfers). Interactions expanded to prison staff who noted sustained science-related conversations. Some participants shared learning with families, influencing self-perception and aspirations (e.g., helping children with homework, motivating siblings to study). - Barriers persist: Stereotypes that science requires exceptional effort and is distant from their abilities remained, but many participants began to view themselves as capable learners and developed interest in continuing to learn. - Quantitative/contextual details: 19 incarcerated men (ages 29–44); 21 DSGs and 12 workshops delivered; data from 15 observations, 8 participant interviews, and 2 staff interviews; implementation during Feb–Apr 2022 in a Catalonian men’s prison adult school.

The findings demonstrate that DSGs and complementary scientific workshops can reduce barriers to scientific engagement among incarcerated adults by leveraging egalitarian dialogue and co-creation of knowledge. Participation fostered intrinsic motivation, reframed science as accessible and socially valuable, and enhanced scientific literacy and communication skills, thereby addressing the research question of whether DSG-based activities can promote scientific interest in prisons. The dialogic context enabled active roles for participants and scientists, building self-confidence and agency. These outcomes align with prior research on SEAs and dialogic gatherings in schools and prisons, extending evidence by focusing on science-specific dialogic activities. The interventions created new social spaces for constructive interactions among prisoners and with staff and families, which may support rehabilitation and reintegration. While immediate impacts are evident, the durability and broader life-course effects remain to be established.

This first study examining DSGs and scientist-led workshops in a prison context evidences that bringing high-quality science education to traditionally excluded populations is feasible and beneficial. The intervention increased motivation, reshaped perceptions of science, improved scientific literacy and communication, and transformed social interactions inside and beyond prison. These contributions extend the literature on Successful Educational Actions to scientific literacy in correctional settings. Future research should pursue longitudinal designs to assess medium- and long-term impacts on participants and families, explore transferability across prisons, and continue implementing SEAs to analyze social and reintegration outcomes over time.

- Case study design limits generalizability; conducted in a single Catalonian men’s prison. - COVID-19 context necessitated some workshops online rather than fully in-person, potentially affecting interaction quality. - Short-term assessment: long-term effects on participants’ trajectories and families are unknown; longitudinal follow-up is recommended to assess sustained impacts and transferability.