TY - JOUR
T1 - Theory and methods in comparative drug and alcohol policy research
T2 - Response to a review of the literature
AU - Burris, Scott
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2017/3/1
Y1 - 2017/3/1
N2 - Comparative drug and alcohol policy analysis (CPA) is alive and well, and the emergence of robust alternatives to strict prohibition provides exciting research opportunities. As a multidisciplinary practice, however, CPA faces several methodological challenges. This commentary builds on a recent review of CPA by Ritter et al. (2016) to argue that the practice is hampered by a hazy definition of policy that leads to confusion in the specification and measurement of the phenomena being studied. This problem is aided and abetted by the all-too-common omission of theory from the conceptualization and presentation of research. Drawing on experience from the field of public health law research, this commentary suggests a distinction between empirical and non-empirical CPA, a simple taxonomic model of CPA policy-making, mapping, implementation and evaluation studies, a narrower definition of and rationale for “policy” research, a clear standard for measuring policy, and an expedient approach (and renewed commitment) to using theory explicitly in a multi-disciplinary practice. Strengthening CPA is crucial for the practice to have the impact on policy that good research can.
AB - Comparative drug and alcohol policy analysis (CPA) is alive and well, and the emergence of robust alternatives to strict prohibition provides exciting research opportunities. As a multidisciplinary practice, however, CPA faces several methodological challenges. This commentary builds on a recent review of CPA by Ritter et al. (2016) to argue that the practice is hampered by a hazy definition of policy that leads to confusion in the specification and measurement of the phenomena being studied. This problem is aided and abetted by the all-too-common omission of theory from the conceptualization and presentation of research. Drawing on experience from the field of public health law research, this commentary suggests a distinction between empirical and non-empirical CPA, a simple taxonomic model of CPA policy-making, mapping, implementation and evaluation studies, a narrower definition of and rationale for “policy” research, a clear standard for measuring policy, and an expedient approach (and renewed commitment) to using theory explicitly in a multi-disciplinary practice. Strengthening CPA is crucial for the practice to have the impact on policy that good research can.
KW - Methodology
KW - Policy research
KW - Policy surveillance
KW - Public health law research
KW - Theory
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85009399993&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85009399993&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.11.011
DO - 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.11.011
M3 - Review article
C2 - 28041769
AN - SCOPUS:85009399993
SN - 0955-3959
VL - 41
SP - 126
EP - 131
JO - International Journal of Drug Policy
JF - International Journal of Drug Policy
ER -