It is common practice in survey questionnaires to include a general open and non-directive feedback question at the end, but the analysis of this type of data is rarely discussed in the methodological literature. While these open-ended comments can be useful, most researchers fail to report on this issue. The aim of this article is to illustrate and reflect upon the benefits and challenges of analyzing responses to open-ended feedback questions. The article describes the experiences of coding and analyzing data generated through a feedback question at the end of an international online survey with small-scale cannabis cultivators carried out by the Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium. After describing the design and dataset of the web survey, the analytical approach and coding frame are presented. The analytical strategies chosen in this study illustrate the diversity and complexity of feedback comments which pose methodological challenges to researchers wishing to use them for data analyses. In this article, three types of feedback comments (political/policy comments, general comments of positive and negative appreciation, and methodological comments) are used to illustrate the difficulties and advantages of analyzing this type of data. The advantages of analyzing feedback comments are well known, but they seem to be rarely exploited. General feedback questions at the end of surveys are typically non-directive. If researchers want to use these data for research and analyses, they need a clear strategy. They ought to give enough thought to why they are including this type of question, and develop an analytical strategy at the design stage of the study.
Through this process, we learnt that there are trade-offs between hosting multiple surveys in each country vs. using one integrated database. We also found that although perceived anonymity is routinely assumed to be a benefit of using digital research methodologies, there are significant limits to research participant anonymity in the current era of mass digital surveillance, especially when the target group is particularly concerned about evading law enforcement. Finally, we list a number of specific recommendations for future researchers utilising Internet-mediated approaches to researching hidden populations.
There is a wider demand for licit access for medical cannabis than currently available in these countries. Ideologically, medical growers can be seen distancing themselves from both the legal and illicit drug markets. From a harm reduction perspective, it is worrying that, in the context of present health and control policies in these countries, many medical growers are using cannabis to treat serious medical conditions without proper medical advice and doctor's guidance.
Novel psychoactive substances (NPS) have been a dominant feature of drug discourse for many years now and, in academic, policy and public discourse, have become established as a newand by implication, distinctcategory of drugs. We argue that this understanding of NPS is fundamentally problematic. Differences within the category are obscured, as are similarities between NPS and more established categories of drugs. Focusing on NPS as something new, different or particularly special is misleading and counterproductive and can have serious consequences in terms of understanding the bigger picture in relation to illegal drugs more generally. This has led to overestimations of the size of the NPS problem, obfuscation of the common underlying causes of dependent drug use and the implementation of significant and problematic policy changes. Furthermore, a failure to see the rise in NPS as just one of a number of emerging trends in contemporary drug scenes, alongside the development of online markets or the rise in domestic drug production operations, for example, impairs our ability to understand the wider societal, cultural and theoretical underpinnings of drug use. NPS are not particularly special: treating them as such can have dangerous and far-reaching consequences.
ARTICLE HISTORY
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.