Ideation, social construction and drug policy: A scoping review

Abstract

Within drug policy scholarship there is a growing body of literature applying ideational and social constructionist approaches to address the complexity of drug policy making and the apparent failure of the evidence-based policy paradigm to free the process from controversy and contestation. Ideational approaches are concerned with the roles played by ideas and beliefs in policy making, while social construction explores the way policy problems are constructed, and agendas are set and delineated by dominant frames and narratives. Interest in these approaches has developed over the last two decades, but has rapidly gained momentum over the last five years. There has been limited reflection on the state of the field, therefore it is timely to conduct a review of the literature to assess the value of these approaches, capture emerging themes and issues, and identify gaps in the literature to support future research directions. Using the Arksey and O'Malley framework, a scoping review was conducted to survey the breadth of the field. Following database and hand searching, 48 studies from 1996 to 2016 were selected for inclusion in the review. A narrative synthesis was undertaken and the literature was grouped into five broad theoretical approaches: ideational policy theory, problem construction, narratives and frames (including media analysis), construction of target populations, and policy transfer and mobilities. The majority of the studies are focused on single countries and drug policy issues, with few studies undertaking comparative work or reflecting on general theoretical developments in the literature. This study found that the Arksey and O'Malley framework was effective in capturing a potentially diverse field of literature and demonstrates the importance of ideational and social constructionist approaches to drug policy scholarship. Further research is required to achieve expanded geographic coverage, test policy making models and undertake comparative work.

Prohibitionist Drug Policy in South Africa—Reasons and Effects

“…Although we bring a wealth of experience to this chapter, we acknowledge that there are likely to be other perspectives and nuances linking the health of people who use drugs and drug policy, which we have not included. Furthermore, the political agenda, processes and actors that drive drug policy are not always clear (Gstrein, 2018). Nonetheless, we suggest that this chapter contributes to a global understanding of how and why standing drug policies continue to dominate, despite the failures and harms they have caused.…”

Developing a Transformative Drug Policy Research Agenda in the United States

“…Drug policy research in the U.S. has been shaped not only by the cultural context of stigma and biases about people who use drugs but also by systemic issues that have reinforced the prohibition model, such as how drug research is designed and funded, how academic incentives and organization shape research, and a variety of methodological limitations within drug research practices. Critical drug scholars, largely outside the U.S., have focused on the ways in which the roles of stakeholders, ideas, politics, and public discourse co-construct drug policy and its conception of drugs and users (Fraser & Moore, 2011; Gstrein, 2018; Lancaster, Ritter, & Diprose, 2018; MacGregor, 2013; Race, 2017; Smith, 2015; Thompson & Coveney, 2018). Such scholarship theorizes working more fluidly with the conceptual framework of evidence-based policy (EBP), pursuing ontological and epistemological questions about what and who constitute knowledge and evidence, and proposing “a post-evidence based approach to policy analysis” (Gstrein, 2018, p. 83).…”

“…Critical drug scholars, largely outside the U.S., have focused on the ways in which the roles of stakeholders, ideas, politics, and public discourse co-construct drug policy and its conception of drugs and users (Fraser & Moore, 2011; Gstrein, 2018; Lancaster, Ritter, & Diprose, 2018; MacGregor, 2013; Race, 2017; Smith, 2015; Thompson & Coveney, 2018). Such scholarship theorizes working more fluidly with the conceptual framework of evidence-based policy (EBP), pursuing ontological and epistemological questions about what and who constitute knowledge and evidence, and proposing “a post-evidence based approach to policy analysis” (Gstrein, 2018, p. 83). With drug policy research evolving in these theoretical directions elsewhere, we might ask how the U.S. drug policy research community remains somewhat entrenched in the EBP model and seems challenged to address its policy environment.…”

“…Additionally, how research informs policy poses particularly challenging systemic issues in the U.S. (Brownstein, 2013; Daniels & Thistlewaite, 2016; Gstrein, 2018; Stein & Daniels, 2017). Almost two decades ago, the U.S. National Research Council’s (NRC) comprehensive report argued that the nation’s data and research programs were “strikingly inadequate to support the full range of policy decisions that the nation must make” (NRC, 2001, p. 1).…”

“…What has been missing in the U.S. is a research agenda that attempts to address the systemic, fundamental fallacies of the prohibitionist framework. Gstrein (2018), in a scoping review of social construction and ideation research in drug policy, defines drug policy as “government policy that addresses issues arising from the use of illicit drugs, with a particular focus on health outcomes” (Gstrein, 2018, p. 76). We use “drug policy research” here to refer to this domain but also include research that concerns addiction, treatment, harm reduction interventions, drug supply and markets, and drug-related criminal justice research.…”