Susanne C. Monahan

Alcoholism treatment outcome studies, 1980–1992: Methodological characteristics and quality☆

We examine the methodological characteristics and provision of study information in 339 alcoholism treatment outcome studies reported between 1980 and 1992. We consider factors in four methodological domains: sampling and description of patients, specification of treatments, outcome variable assessment and follow-up, and treatment effect estimates; we also consider the methodological quality of the studies. Although methodological quality has improved over time, there remains room for improvement. Of special concern is the low statistical power of many studies. Multiple treatment group studies had an average .54 probability of detecting a treatment effect of medium size.

Alcoholism treatment outcome studies, 1980–1992: The nature of the research

We reviewed 339 alcoholism treatment outcome studies reported between 1980 and 1992. After comparing single and multiple treatment group studies, we focus on multiple-group studies, examining and comparing principal investigator and study characteristics, patient characteristics, treatment modalities and characteristics, and follow-up points and outcome variables in published and unpublished studies. This article provides an overview of the nature of the alcoholism treatment outcome research reported in the English language over the 13-year review period.

History, Time, Meaning, and Memory: Ideas for the Sociology of Religion

In his presidential address at the 2006 Association for the Sociology of Religion meetings, Kevin Christiano called for a renewal of historical thinking in the sociology of religion. This volume, edited by Barbara Jones Denison, arose from sustained conversation following that talk. The intended audience is sociologists of religion. Its premises, critiques, and implications speak more generally to the discipline of sociology however, especially sociological knowledge so present-oriented that it elides questions of ‘‘precedence and sequence—the duration and significance of stages or events’’ (p. 10) and ‘‘time and contingency’’ (p. 15). History, Time, Meaning, and Memory includes four chapters that frame the broader issues and six empirical studies intended to realize closer attention to historical analysis. In the opening chapter, Christiano examines how sociologists create and value knowledge, and what gaps result. He argues that our quest for universalistic social theory has too often led sociologists to gloss over the specifics of time, place, context, and contingency. He urges more attention to particulars, and his commentary on the history of sociological research provides an enlightening case in point. William Swatos, Jr. follows with a chapter on the centrality of meaning in sociological analysis. Grasping meaning requires a deep understanding of the broader context in which it is embedded. This includes, but is not limited to, history. Swatos also argues that comparison, far from being a special method, is an integral part of analysis: you cannot know what something is until you know what it is not. Both Christiano and Swatos argue for interdisciplinary collaboration, so that theory development privileged by disciplines like sociology or economics can be balanced with substantive richness and understanding of the scope of theory. The volume largely takes for granted our understanding of historical analysis. Among the theoretical chapters, Peter Beyer says the most about what is meant by historical methods of research: a ‘‘focus on the generation of data through the textual analysis of things written by people long since dead. . . and with their constant need to weave the facts together imaginatively out of very partial evidence. . . ’’ (p. 69). The volume also does not name specific a-historical analyses in the sociology of religion: Christiano points to examples in sociology more generally (i.e., the post-World War II American Soldier studies), while Swatos highlights problems with the application of church-sect theory without indicating who did this flawed work. They are not arguing against straw men; examples in the sociology of religion that attend too little to time, place, context, and contingency easily come to mind. But they seem reluctant to call out directly their fellow researchers for this flaw, opting instead to recognize exceptions who have mastered rich historical analysis. Jonathan Eastwood’s chapter on secularization in Latin America provides the most complete realization of the theoretical vision of this volume. Eastwood combines rich historical analysis of different paths to and outcomes of secularization in Latin America with explicit guidance for how we might read his method of historical analysis. He emphasizes how progress through specific stages of secularization is contingent on key variables including when and how strongly national identity emerged, the church’s and the state’s respective organizational strengths, the nature of political alliances and conflict, and ‘‘the strategic situation created by the resolution of previous-stage conflicts in each case’’ (p.148). He uncovers specific historical contingencies and explains more generally how this works. His analysis is comparative, detailed and nuanced, and careful in its conclusions. With more of a focus on the construction of meaning, Rick Moore’s chapter examines how U.S. State Department reports build the meaning of ‘‘religious freedom’’ out of the speech genres of universal human rights and religious pluralism. Although the reports purport to describe what religious freedom ‘‘is,’’ Moore notes that they instead deploy various 76 Reviews