Social theory in drug research, drug policy and harm reduction (original) (raw)

Qualitative methods: the new orthodoxy?

Progress in Human Geography, 2002

It is an interesting moment to write Progress in Human Geography's first report on qualitative methods. In one sense, it suggests these methods have, at long last, arrived and been accepted as established approaches. That this is an overdue recognition needs little emphasizing when surveying the number of articles drawing upon, at least in part, qualitative material. However, a less encouraging omen is the recent column in the UK Economic and Social Research Council's Social Sciences, penned by the chief executive (Marshall, 2001). In it he asserts: 'British universities and colleges are not producing quantitatively competent social scientists in sufficient numbers.' Although he does not mention what 'non-quantitative' research is doing, he discusses a series of remedial measures-such as compulsory training in statistics, prioritized awards for quantitative PhD projects, tied studentships and specialist research centres. To paraphrase Spike Milligan's comment on army training, the attitude appears to be-if someone dies when you hang them, keep hanging them until they get used to it. It is already feeding through into new postgraduate Research Training Guidelines. The problem we are told is acute, though the evidence presented is scant and, moreoever, ironically seems to consist of unanalysed, qualitative reports from meetings with civil servants: 'Failure to [remedy the shortage] is likely to result in Britain falling behind the rest of Europe, both in the provision of talented quantitative social researchers, and the ability to design public policy on a reliable evidence base.' It seems to imply that qualitative research has not only arrived but gone too far. Within geography, the last decade has undoubtedly seen an expansion in qualitative work both in terms of the types of work and the topics addressed. So in this first report I want to spend some time looking at the range of topics, then beginning to look at the range of methods that might be covered. I want to suggest that we have moved from a period when papers were prefaced with legitimations of qualitative work to a time when we are seeing debates within qualitative methods over establishing orthodox

Seven warrants for qualitative health sociology

Social Science & Medicine, 2013

The biomedical and public health sciences have established a clear warrant for their existence. A warrant is a broadly shared justification for a research-based discipline . From the post World War II WHO proclamation aiming for "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being" to a recent reconceptualization of health as "the ability to adapt and self-manage" , the warrant for the health sciences is to provide the knowledge base for the collective achievement of individual optimization. In spite of a diversity of interpretations about health priorities, the applied health disciplines have rallied around this mandate with research to prevent mortality and cure morbidity, and to alleviate the human, social, and economic costs of health or a lack of health. Articulated in grant proposals, enshrined in the notion of evidence-based medicine, and repeated in research institute's vision statements, the broad purpose suggests a common interest beyond narrow disciplinary borders. The warrant to improve population and individual health offers a ready answer to the critic's question of why we should bother with health research.

The Essential Role of Social Theory In Qualitative Public Health Research

… and New Zealand …, 2007

T he use of qualitative methods in health research has increased substantially in the past decade among researchers from a range of health disciplines. While qualitative research methods were developed by the social sciences, and it is in this literature that we find description of a wide range of approaches to their use, 1,2 there is also the approach of evaluation 3 and the practical focus of clinical disciplines such as general practice and nursing. 4,5 These different approaches draw upon a range of theoretical models and frameworks including health behaviour and community change models. 6 It is not surprising, therefore, that there has been a lively debate between the disciplines about how best to conduct studies using qualitative methods. Researchers who feel constrained by the deductive methods of quantitative approaches such as surveys and randomised controlled trials may see qualitative research methods Abstract Objective: To define the role of social theory and examine how research studies using qualitative methods can use social theory to generalise their results beyond the setting of the study or to other social groups. Approach: The assumptions underlying public health research using qualitative methods derive from a range of social theories that include conflict theory, structural functionalism, symbolic interactionism, the sociology of knowledge and feminism. Depending on the research problem, these and other social theories provide conceptual tools and models for constructing a suitable research framework, and for collecting and analysing data. In combination with the substantive health literature, the theoretical literature provides the conceptual bridge that links the conclusions of the study to other social groups and settings. Conclusion: While descriptive studies using qualitative research methods can generate important insights into social experience, the use of social theory in the construction and conduct of research enables researchers to extrapolate their findings to settings and groups broader than the ones in which the research was conducted.

Talking about drug use: what are we (and our participants) doing in qualitative research?

International journal of drug policy, 2004

This paper considers the use of qualitative research in the drugs field. Proponents have traditionally claimed that by capturing participants' lived experience through language, qualitative approaches are either the 'antidote' or the necessary complement to quantitative methods. The present paper troubles this over-simplistic dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative: both approaches often share the same ontological assumptions, rely on the same representational logic and are, in the context of 'applied' research, subject to a 'will to truth' born of a specific relation to policy. Poststructuralist ideas about the production of knowledge and the relationship between discourse and power are presented. Drugs research as both praxis and knowledge base may be seen as part of the machinery of advanced liberal government, which seeks to govern at a distance through the inscription of subjectivity. The drug user is produced and re-produced as a subject within research, always already positioned in relation to certain 'truths'. We need to conceive of qualitative research and what our participants tell us differently, such that the constructive and constructed nature of knowledge and talk becomes the focus of inquiry. Discourse analysis -with its focus on construction and function within discourse -is presented as compatible with poststructuralist ideas. To illustrate the use of this approach, three interview accounts of how participants first came to use heroin are analysed. The discourses and subject positions underpinning the 'peer pressure', the 'response to distress' and the 'risk appraisal' account are described, and we consider how these accounts might function as 'harm warrants' for intervention. Criticisms of a poststructuralist approach and its implications for qualitative research within the broader field of drugs research and policy are addressed.

Qualitative research and the epidemiological imagination: a vital relationship

Gac Sanit, 2003

This paper takes as its starting point the assumption that the «Epidemiological Imagination» has a central role to play in the future development of policies and practice to improve population health and reduce health inequalities within and between states but suggests that by neglecting the contribution that qualitative research can make epidemiology is failing to deliver this potential. The paper briefly considers what qualitative research is, touching on epistemological questions-what type of «knowledge» is generated-and questions of methods-what approaches to data collection, analysis and interpretation are involved. Following this the paper presents two different models of the relationship between qualitative and quantitative research. The enhancement model-which assumes that qualitative research findings add something extra to the findings of quantitative research-suggests three related «roles» for qualitative research: generating hypothesis to be tested by quantitative research, helping to construct more sophisticated measures of social phenomena and explaining unexpected research from quantitative research. In contrast, the Epistemological Model suggests that qualitative research is equal but different from quantitative research making a unique contribution through: researching parts other research approaches can't reach, increasing understanding by adding conceptual and theoretical depth to knowledge, shifting the balance of power between researchers and researched and challenging traditional epidemiological ways of «knowing» the social world. The paper illustrates these different types of contributions with examples of qualitative research and finally discusses ways in which the «trustworthiness» of qualitative research can be assessed.

Answering tough questions: Why is qualitative research essential for public health?

Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 2024

The complexity of global public health requires increasing sophistication and cooperation across research designs. Understanding core beliefs and values in diverse populations, incentives and demotivators, barriers and facilitators – all processes that sway public health behaviour, uptake, adherence, and thus outcomes – are in the QHR realm of expertise. Indeed, there are some public health issues that can only be understood with a qualitative approach, yet there are still issues of methodological marginalization within biomedical and public health fields. By critically examining the role of QHR in public health, and particularly arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, we present a vision for moving beyond defending QHR as valid and rigorous, to championing the use of qualitative methods as a standard of excellence in certain research areas, such as community-engaged studies on urgent emerging infectious diseases affecting socially marginalized populations. When other methods are more appropriate to a given research question, QHR is still, at the very least, an essential complement that can bolster or dialogue with even the most quantitative, clinical studies.