Digital stratification in carceral higher education: Justice, governance and the limits of Open Distance e-Learning in South African correctional facilities

Introduction

Open Distance e-Learning (ODeL) has increasingly been promoted as a democratising mechanism capable of widening participation in higher education beyond the physical boundaries of traditional campus-based institutions. In contexts characterised by spatial exclusion and socioeconomic marginalisation, digitally mediated learning systems are often framed as inherently inclusive. Within South African correctional facilities, ODeL has emerged as a primary modality through which incarcerated individuals gain access to accredited higher education programmes. National and international policy frameworks affirm the right to education for incarcerated persons and position correctional learning as central to rehabilitation and social reintegration.

However, the expansion of enrolment through digital platforms does not automatically dismantle structural inequality. As higher education becomes progressively digitised, access to learning is mediated by what may be understood as digital capital stable connectivity, access to devices, digital literacy and the temporal flexibility necessary for sustained study. Within carceral environments these forms of capital are institutionally rationed and regulated. Consequently, the central question shifts from whether incarcerated students are formally enrolled to whether they are substantively enabled to participate in digitally mediated learning environments.

This study reconceptualises correctional ODeL provision as a site of digitally mediated stratification. Rather than interpreting technological barriers as simple implementation failures, the study interrogates how redistribution deficits, recognition gaps and representational exclusion converge to produce structural inequality within carceral higher education systems. Drawing on and extending Nancy Fraser’s social justice framework, the study therefore asks:

How do institutional governance logics and digital resource allocation structures shape incarcerated students’ participation in ODeL, and what justice-oriented reforms are required to transform carceral higher education from formal inclusion to substantive parity?

By situating correctional ODeL within broader debates on digital inequality and institutional stratification, the study moves beyond descriptive accounts of technological limitation toward a structural analysis of governance, justice and participation within digitally mediated higher education systems.

Literature review and theoretical framework

A substantial body of research demonstrates that participation in prison-based higher education correlates with reduced recidivism, improved employment prospects and enhanced psychosocial well-being (Erickson, 2018; Magee, 2021; McCorkel & DeFina, 2019). Education contributes to identity transformation, fostering self-efficacy, hope and future orientation. Parry (2024) emphasizes the psychological significance of educational participation in contexts otherwise characterized by institutional control and social stigma.

However, scholarship increasingly cautions that the transformative promise of correctional education depends on implementation conditions. Without adequate support, educational provision risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.

Digital inequality literature underscores that access to devices alone is insufficient. Meaningful participation requires stable connectivity, digital competence, academic guidance and enabling environments (Letseka et al., 2018). Within South African correctional settings, studies document persistent ICT shortages, limited computer-lab access and inadequate learner support (Mdakane et al., 2024; Mdlungu & Hlatshwayo, 2024).

Incarcerated ODeL students thus navigate a paradox: they are enrolled in digitally mediated programmes yet remain structurally constrained in their capacity to engage.

Nancy Fraser’s tripartite model of redistribution, recognition and representation offers a multidimensional lens for analyzing educational inequality. Redistribution addresses material resource allocation; recognition concerns cultural respect and dignity; representation focuses on participatory inclusion in decision-making structures.

This framework is particularly relevant in carceral contexts where deprivation, stigma and institutional exclusion converge. By applying Fraser’s model, this study moves beyond descriptive accounts of resource shortages toward an integrated analysis of structural injustice.

Fraser’s tripartite model of redistribution, recognition and representation provides the conceptual foundation for this study. However, the framework is extended here to account for the distinctive governance conditions of correctional environments.

In contemporary higher education, participation presupposes access to digital infrastructures that function as educational capital. Redistribution within ODeL therefore concerns more than physical hardware; it encompasses bandwidth reliability, software functionality, study time autonomy and technical support ecosystems. In carceral environments, digital access is subordinated to security logic. The governance of connectivity is structured around risk management rather than pedagogical facilitation. Consequently, digital capital is differentially distributed according to institutional control imperatives.

This reframing positions technological deprivation as structural stratification rather than operational inefficiency.

Recognition in Fraser’s framework concerns the cultural valuation of social actors. Incarcerated students experience status subordination not only through criminalization but through academic marginalization. Their learner identities are mediated by institutional assumptions that implicitly position them as exceptional or secondary participants.

This study therefore introduces the concept of epistemic marginality within carceral higher education. Epistemic marginality refers to the condition in which learners are formally admitted yet symbolically peripheral within academic systems. Recognition becomes a question of whether incarcerated learners are treated as knowledge-producing subjects rather than rehabilitative objects.

Representation refers to parity in decision-making structures. In correctional ODeL systems, incarcerated learners rarely influence policies governing laboratory access, digital restrictions or assessment scheduling. Educational governance remains externally determined.

This absence of participatory parity produces a democratic deficit in carceral higher education, limiting the transformative potential of redistribution and recognition reforms. Without voice, reform remains managerial rather than emancipatory.

Methods

Results

The results demonstrate that the provision of Open Distance and e-Learning within correctional facilities is shaped by three interconnected structural dynamics.

Discussion

This study examined not only access to Open Distance and e-Learning (ODeL) within correctional facilities, but also the structural conditions that shape the quality and legitimacy of that access. The findings show that while incarcerated students are formally enrolled in higher education programmes, their participation remains materially constrained, symbolically marginalised and politically unrepresented. These dimensions do not operate in isolation; rather, they intersect to produce a patterned form of digitally mediated inequality.

The technological deprivation described by participants reflects more than simple infrastructural limitations. In contemporary higher education, digital connectivity functions as a prerequisite for meaningful academic participation. Within correctional environments, however, access to digital resources is largely governed by institutional security priorities. Limited laboratory hours, unstable connectivity and rationed computer access collectively constitute significant redistribution deficits. In this sense, digital scarcity should not be understood as incidental but as structurally embedded within the governance arrangements of correctional institutions. Consequently, ODeL designed to promote flexibility and learner autonomy becomes constrained within an environment organised around regulation and control. The broader promise of digital democratisation is therefore curtailed by institutional conditions that restrict the exercise of academic agency.

Beyond material constraints, participants’ narratives also reveal a recognition gap that shapes how incarcerated students understand their academic identities. Many participants described feeling peripheral within the university system, citing delayed communication, restricted examination arrangements and limited academic engagement. These experiences point to what may be described as epistemic marginality: incarcerated students are formally acknowledged as enrolled learners yet remain symbolically positioned at the margins of institutional attention. In this context, recognition involves more than administrative inclusion; it requires affirming incarcerated learners as legitimate members of the scholarly community whose educational progress warrants equal responsiveness. Without such recognition, ODeL risks reproducing stigma within spaces otherwise committed to educational equity.

Equally significant is the absence of representation in decisions affecting incarcerated students’ educational access. Participants indicated that policies and practices governing their learning conditions were determined externally, with no formal mechanisms for consultation or participation. Matters such as laboratory scheduling, digital restrictions and resource allocation were implemented without the input of incarcerated learners themselves. This lack of participatory parity highlights a democratic deficit within the governance of higher education in correctional contexts. Efforts to address redistribution and recognition without ensuring representational inclusion remain incomplete. Structural justice requires not only equitable resource distribution and institutional respect, but also the opportunity for learners to influence the conditions under which their education takes place.

Importantly, the findings also highlight the transformative potential of correctional education. Participants consistently described education as a pathway toward dignity, personal development and social reintegration. These aspirations suggest that the central barrier is not a lack of learner motivation but rather the institutional structures within which learning occurs. The determination demonstrated by incarcerated students underscores the ethical urgency of addressing these structural inequities. However, individual resilience alone cannot substitute for systemic reform. A justice-oriented approach to correctional ODeL must therefore integrate the redistribution of digital resources, the recognition of incarcerated students’ academic legitimacy and meaningful participatory representation in order to move beyond symbolic inclusion toward substantive educational equity.

Conclusion

This study contributes to scholarship on correctional education by shifting analytical attention from access expansion to structural justice. While ODeL has increased enrolment among incarcerated students, equitable participation remains constrained by redistribution deficits, recognition gaps and representational exclusion.

Participants’ experiences demonstrate that meaningful educational participation requires stable digital infrastructure, responsive academic support and governance systems that recognise incarcerated students as legitimate educational stakeholders.

Ultimately, justice in correctional ODeL provision should not be measured solely through enrolment statistics but through parity of participation. Only when incarcerated learners possess the material resources, institutional recognition and participatory voice necessary for meaningful engagement can the democratising promise of ODeL be realised within correctional contexts.

Ethical considerations

This study forms part of the DACCE Flagship Programme: Serving Humanity by Building Sustainable Communities , an institutional research initiative at the University of South Africa (UNISA) that advances community-engaged scholarship in vulnerable and marginalised contexts, including correctional facilities.

The Flagship Programme received ethical clearance from the UNISA College of Education Ethics Review Committee (Ref: 2024/05/08/9019076/37/AM), valid from 08 May 2024 to 08 May 2027. This approval encompasses a portfolio of interrelated sub-projects conducted under the Flagship, including research on education, digital inclusion, and rehabilitation within correctional environments. The present study is directly aligned with the approved scope and objectives of the Flagship Programme and is therefore covered under this ethical clearance.

All research activities were conducted in accordance with the approved ethical protocol, including voluntary participation, informed consent procedures, strict confidentiality and adherence to the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA). Only de-identified data are reported in this study, and no information that could identify individual participants, staff members or correctional facilities has been disclosed.

Institutional permission to conduct the study was obtained from the relevant correctional authorities and the University of South Africa. In addition, the data were generated within South African correctional facilities under a formal Memorandum of Understanding between the University of South Africa and the Department of Correctional Services, which imposes strict confidentiality obligations. Given that the study involves incarcerated participants, who constitute a vulnerable population, heightened ethical safeguards were applied throughout the research process.

Informed consent was obtained verbally from all participants prior to data collection. Due to security restrictions within the correctional facility, the use of electronic recording devices and documentation tools was not permitted; therefore, recorded consent could not be obtained. All participants, who were male and between the ages of 18 and 52, were fully informed about the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of their participation, and their right to withdraw at any stage without any negative consequences.

This approach aligns with established ethical guidelines, which recognise that informed consent is a process based on the provision of adequate information, participant understanding, and voluntary agreement, rather than solely on written documentation (World Medical Association, 2013; South African National Health Research Ethics Council, 2015).

Given that the study involved incarcerated individuals, particular care was taken to minimise any risk of coercion and to ensure that participation was entirely voluntary, as this group is considered vulnerable (Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, 2021). Participants were also informed that no incentives or compensation would be provided for their participation. Formal permission to conduct the study was obtained from the correctional centre management and the relevant institutional authorities.