Kari Lancaster

How do Australian news media depict illicit drug issues? An analysis of print media reporting across and between illicit drugs, 2003-2008.

BACKGROUND Media reporting on illicit issues has been frequently criticised for being sensationalised, biased and narrow. Yet, there have been few broad and systematic analyses of the nature of reporting. Using a large sample and methods commonly adopted in media communications analysis this paper sought to identify the dominant media portrayals used to denote illicit drugs in Australian newspapers and to compare and contrast portrayals across drug types. METHODS A retrospective content analysis of Australian print media was carried out over the period 2003-2008 from a sample comprised of 11 newspapers. Articles that contained one or more mention of five different drugs (or derivatives) were identified: cannabis, amphetamines, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin. A sub-sample of 4397 articles was selected for media content analysis (with 2045 selected for full content analysis) and a large number of text elements coded for each. Key elements included topic, explicit or implicit messages about the consequences of drugs/use and three value dimensions: overall tone, whether drugs were portrayed as a crisis issue and moral evaluations of drugs/use. RESULTS The dominant media portrayals depicted law enforcement or criminal justice action (55%), but most articles were reported in a neutral manner, in the absence of crisis framings. Portrayals differed between drugs, with some containing more narrow frames and more explicit moral evaluations than others. For example, heroin was disproportionately framed as a drug that will lead to legal problems. In contrast, ecstasy and cocaine were much more likely to emphasise health and social problems. CONCLUSION Media reporting on illicit drugs is heavily distorted towards crime and deviance framings, but may be less overtly sensationalised, biased and narrowly framed than previously suggested. This is not to suggest there is no sensationalism or imbalance, but this appears more associated with particular drug types and episodes of heightened public concern.

Public opinion and drug policy in Australia: engaging the 'affected community'.

INTRODUCTION Policy should be informed by the people it directly affects; however, the voices of people who use illicit drugs have been marginalised from drug policy debate. In Australia, the majority of survey data regarding attitudes to drug policy are collected at the population level and the opinions of people who inject drugs remain underexplored. This study aimed to investigate how people who inject drugs perceive drug policy in Australia and whether these opinions differ from those of the broader general population. METHODS Drug-related policy questions were drawn from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS) and added to the 2011 Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS) Survey (n = 868). The results were analysed for the full IDRS sample and by recent drug use. IDRS responses were compared with the general population using the 2010 NDSHS. RESULTS There was a high level of support among IDRS participants for measures to reduce the problems associated with heroin, but heterogeneity in levels of support for legalisation and penalties for sale/supply across different drug types. Differences between the opinions of the IDRS sample and the NDSHS sample were identified regarding support for harm reduction, treatment, legalisation and penalties for sale/supply. DISCUSSION These findings provide a springboard for further investigation of the attitudes of people who use illicit drugs towards drug policy in Australia, and challenge us to conceptualise how the opinions of this community should be solicited, heard and balanced in drug policy processes.

Problems, policy and politics: making sense of Australia's ‘ice epidemic’

Drug policy is a complex and controversial policy domain and traditional models of the policy process which present policy making as a process of authoritative problem solving by governments deny the complexity of the policy process in the real-world. An alternative perspective is to engage with the idea of policy-making as an ongoing process of managing the problematic, with multiple participants and competing perspectives. Kingdons ‘multiple streams’ is a heuristic for understanding policy-making in this way. This article critically considers to what extent Kingdons heuristic is a useful tool for drug policy analysis, in so far as it may offer an approach to better understanding the complexity of the drug policy process, which extends beyond authoritative problem solving. We apply Kingdons ‘multiple streams’ to a case study examining the emergence of methamphetamine (an illicit, synthetic psychostimulant drug) as a policy issue in Australia from the late-1990s to the late-2000s. We find strengths in Kingdons approach as applied to drug policy but also identify a number of ways in which this case study differed from Kingdons propositions. We question Kingdons assertion that the ‘streams’ operate independently, whether policy windows are necessary for action, the role of the media and the temporal frame for analysis.

Stigma and subjectivities: Examining the textured relationship between lived experience and opinions about drug policy among people who inject drugs

Abstract Aims: The way people who inject drugs (PWID) feel about drug policy may be profoundly shaped by lived experience of stigma and the subjectivities made available in policy and practice. Using a community-based participatory research approach, this study investigated why PWID hold particular views, and considered the complexities of how lived experience and opinions about drug policy intersect within this affected community. Methods: Three qualitative focus groups were undertaken. Participants were presented with survey results arising from a previous study, and asked to interpret and explain the possible rationales underlying the opinions expressed by their peers. Findings: A duality of opinion was identified, borne from lived experience of stigmatisation, which sometimes led PWID to qualify levels of support. By exploring the rationales underlying opinions, a tension emerged between what PWID theoretically know to be effective interventions, and experiences of how policies are delivered. A sense of “within-group” stigma emerged, with sub-groups of users and drug types denoted as more “dangerous” than others. Conclusions: This study illustrates how theoretical knowledge and lived experience intersect to inform opinions about drug policy. Through in-depth discussions with the affected community, we are reminded that public opinion research is always an interpretative and sensitive pursuit.

Measuring research influence on drug policy: A case example of two epidemiological monitoring systems

BACKGROUND Assessing the extent to which drug research influences and impacts upon policy decision-making needs to go beyond bibliometric analysis of academic citations. Policy makers do not necessarily access the academic literature, and policy processes are largely iterative and rely on interactions and relationships. Furthermore, media representation of research contributes to public opinion and can influence policy uptake. In this context, assessing research influence involves examining the extent to which a research project is taken up in policy documents, used within policy processes, and disseminated via the media. METHODS This three component approach is demonstrated using a case example of two ongoing illicit drug monitoring systems: the Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS) and the Ecstasy and related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS). Systematic searches for reference to the IDRS and/or EDRS within policy documents, across multiple policy processes (such as parliamentary inquiries) and in the media, in conjunction with analysis of the types of mentions in these three sources, enables an analysis of policy influence. The context for the research is also described as the foundation for the approach. RESULTS The application of the three component approach to the case study demonstrates a practical and systematic retrospective approach to measure drug research influence. For example, the ways in which the IDRS and EDRS were mentioned in policy documents demonstrated research utilisation. Policy processes were inclusive of IDRS and EDRS findings, while the media analysis revealed only a small contribution in the context of wider media reporting. CONCLUSION Consistent with theories of policy processes, assessing the extent of research influence requires a systematic analysis of policy documents and processes. Development of such analyses and associated methods will better equip researchers to evaluate the impact of research.

Examining the opinions of people who use drugs towards drug policy in Australia

Aims: This study aimed to investigate whether there is heterogeneity of opinion about drug policies amongst people with different experiences of drug use, so as to stimulate discussion about how the diverse perspectives of people who use drugs can be meaningfully included in policy deliberation. Methods: The views of people who inject drugs were compared with the views of people who regularly use 3,4-methylendioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), using data obtained from two Australian surveys (the Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System and the Illicit Drug Reporting System). Support for drug-related policies (including treatment, harm reduction and drug legalisation) was examined using questions from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey. The extent to which demographic variables and/or drug use experience accounted for differences of opinion amongst the two samples was also explored. Findings: There were significant differences between the views of IDRS and EDRS participants, about legalisation, and a range of harm reduction and treatment interventions. The heterogeneity in support for the legalisation of different drugs could be accounted for by recent experience of use, over and above demographic differences between people who inject drugs and people who regularly use MDMA. Conclusions: These findings speak to the diversity of attitudes and experiences amongst people who use drugs, and reinforce the need to better represent a diversity of opinion in drug policy deliberation and challenge stereotypical perceptions which stigmatise people who use drugs.

Performing the Evidence-Based Drug Policy Paradigm

Through the lens of performance, this paper critically examines how “evidence” and the “evidence-based policy” paradigm are constituted in drug policy processes, enacted through the telling of policy stories. I argue that policy stories do not simply describe the drug policy process, but rather frame the notion of “evidence” and “evidence-based policy” in particular ways. Drawing on two Australian case studies and interviews with policy makers, advocates, researchers, and clinicians involved in the establishment of harm reduction programs to extend distribution of injecting equipment through peer networks and make naloxone available for administration by overdose witnesses, I ask: What do participants’ accounts of drug policy perform? And what might this imply? Through this analysis of participants’ accounts, I argue that what we call “evidence” is not fixed, but rather constituted by specific performances and practices. I suggest that these performances of the evidence-based drug policy paradigm are important, as they work to make and sustain (or, at times, interfere with) a set of assumptions about knowledge and rationales for policy action. This, in turn, raises questions about how the evidence-based drug policy endeavor might be reconsidered and remade in other ways.

‘Naloxone works’: The politics of knowledge in ‘evidence-based’ drug policy

For over 20 years, drug policy experts have been calling for the wider availability of naloxone, to enable lay overdose witnesses to respond to opioid overdose events. However, the ‘evidence base’ for peer-administered naloxone has become a key point of contention. This contention opens up critical questions about how knowledge (‘evidence’) is constituted and validated in drug policy processes, which voices may be heard, and how knowledge producers secure privileged positions of influence. Taking the debate surrounding peer-administered naloxone as a case study, and drawing on qualitative interviews with individuals (n = 19) involved in the development of naloxone policy in Australia, we examine how particular kinds of knowledge are rendered ‘useful’ in drug policy debates. Applying Bacchi’s poststructuralist approach to policy analysis, we argue that taken-for-granted ‘truths’ implicit within evidence-based policy discourse privilege particular kinds of ‘objective’ and ‘rational’ knowledge and, in so doing, legitimate the voices of researchers and clinicians to the exclusion of others. What appears to be a simple requirement for methodological rigour in the evidence-based policy paradigm actually rests on deeper assumptions which place limits around not only what can be said (in terms of what kind of knowledge is relevant for policy debate) but also who may legitimately speak. However, the accounts offered by participants reveal the ways in which a larger number of ways of knowing are already co-habiting within drug policy. Despite these opportunities for re-problematisation and resistance, the continued mobilisation of ‘evidence-based’ discourse obscures these contesting positions and continues to privilege particular speakers.

Making change happen: a case study of the successful establishment of a peer-administered naloxone program in one Australian jurisdiction.

Analysis of how policy processes happen in real-world, contemporary settings is important for generating new and timely learning which can inform other drug policy issues. This paper describes and analyses the process leading to the successful establishment of Australias first peer-administered naloxone program. Within a case study design, qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews with key individuals associated with the initiative (n=9), and a collaborative approach to data analysis was undertaken. Central to policy development in this case was the formation of a committee structure to provide expert guidance and support. The collective, collaborative and relational features of this group are consistent with governing by network. The analysis demonstrates that the Committee served more than a merely consultative role. We posit that the Committee constituted the policy process of stakeholder engagement, communication strategy, program development, and implementation planning, which led to the enactment of the naloxone program. We describe and analyse the roles of actors involved, the goodwill and volunteerism which characterised the groups processes, the way the Committee was used as a strategic legitimising mechanism, the strategic framings used to garner support, emergent tensions and the evolving nature of the Committee. This case demonstrates how policy change can occur in the absence of strong political imperatives or ideological contestation, and the ways in which a collective process was used to achieve successful outcomes.

Confidentiality, anonymity and power relations in elite interviewing: conducting qualitative policy research in a politicised domain

Abstract While the methods used to study ‘elites’ are of particular relevance in policy research, to date there has been little examination of the particular challenges associated with ‘elite’ interviewing in this field. More specifically, the issues associated with interviewing ‘elites’ while conducting qualitative research in a contested policy domain, especially if policy processes are being studied as they play out in real time, remain underexplored. While the extant literature on ‘elite’ interviewing has begun to grapple with the notions of ‘power’ and ‘vulnerability’, the question of how these notions might need to be rethought in the context of a politicised policy domain remains open for examination. This article provides a methodological and reflexive account of the challenges associated with conducting research in one highly contested policy domain, namely, drug policy. Drawing on examples from a study which examined Australian drug policy processes, this article examines issues associated with anonymity and confidentiality produced through power relations between researcher and participant, particularly as these play out in a contested policy domain. In doing so, this article critically reflects on the practical and political implications for data collection, analysis and reporting of policy research.