Theory and methods in comparative drug and alcohol policy research: Response to a review of the literature.
Theory and methods in comparative drug and alcohol policy research: Response to a review of the literature.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.11.011
复制
发表时间：
2017-03
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Burris S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Burris S
比较药物政策分析（CPA）是活的，以及严格禁止的强有力的替代品的出现提供了令人兴奋的研究机会。然而，作为一个多学科的实践，CPA面临着一些方法上的挑战。这篇评论基于Ritter及其同事最近对CPA的评论，认为这种做法受到政策模糊定义的阻碍，导致对所研究现象的规范和测量的混乱。这个问题是由所有太常见的遗漏理论的概念化和研究的介绍。借鉴公共卫生法研究领域的经验，这篇评论建议区分经验性和非经验性的公共卫生法，一个简单的公共卫生法政策制定、规划、实施和评估研究的分类模型，一个更窄的“政策”研究的定义和理由，一个衡量政策的明确标准，以及在多学科实践中明确使用理论的权宜之计（和新的承诺）。加强CPA对于实践产生良好研究所能产生的政策影响至关重要。
Comparative drug 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 and colleagues 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.