Working in a relational way is everything: Perceptions of power and value in a drug policy-making network.
Drug policy
Participation
Policy network
Power
Social network analysis
Value
policy-making process
Journal
Health research policy and systems
ISSN: 1478-4505
Titre abrégé: Health Res Policy Syst
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Oct 2024
03 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
04
06
2024
accepted:
07
09
2024
medline:
4
10
2024
pubmed:
4
10
2024
entrez:
3
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The development of drug policies has been a major focus for policy-makers across North America in light of the ongoing public health emergency caused by the overdose crisis. In this context, the current study examined stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of power and value in a drug policy-making process in a North American city using qualitative, questionnaire, and social network data. We interviewed 18 people who participated in the development of a drug policy proposal between October 2021 and March 2022. They represented different groups and organizations, including government (n = 3), people who use drugs-led advocacy organizations (n = 5), other drug policy advocacy organizations (n = 5), research (n = 3) and police (n = 2). Most of them identified as men (n = 8) and white (n = 16), and their ages ranged between 30 and 80 years old (median = 50). Social network analysis questionnaires and semi-structured qualitative interviews were administered via Zoom. Social network data were analysed using igraph in R, and qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. The analyses explored perceptions of value and power within a drug policy-making network. The policy-making network showed that connections could be found across participants from different groups, with government officials being the most central. Qualitative data showed that inclusion in the network and centrality did not necessarily translate into feeling powerful or valued. Many participants were dissatisfied with the process despite having structurally advantageous positions or self-reporting moderately high quantitative value scores. Participants who viewed themselves as more valued acknowledged many process shortcomings, but they also saw it as more balanced or fair than those who felt undervalued. While participation can make stakeholders and communities feel valued and empowered, our findings highlight that inclusion, position and diversity of connections in a drug policy-making network do not, in and of itself, guarantee these outcomes. Instead, policy-makers must provide transparent terms of reference guidelines and include highly skilled facilitators in policy discussions. This is particularly important in policy processes that involve historical power imbalances in the context of a pressing public health emergency.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The development of drug policies has been a major focus for policy-makers across North America in light of the ongoing public health emergency caused by the overdose crisis. In this context, the current study examined stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of power and value in a drug policy-making process in a North American city using qualitative, questionnaire, and social network data.
METHODS
METHODS
We interviewed 18 people who participated in the development of a drug policy proposal between October 2021 and March 2022. They represented different groups and organizations, including government (n = 3), people who use drugs-led advocacy organizations (n = 5), other drug policy advocacy organizations (n = 5), research (n = 3) and police (n = 2). Most of them identified as men (n = 8) and white (n = 16), and their ages ranged between 30 and 80 years old (median = 50). Social network analysis questionnaires and semi-structured qualitative interviews were administered via Zoom. Social network data were analysed using igraph in R, and qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. The analyses explored perceptions of value and power within a drug policy-making network.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The policy-making network showed that connections could be found across participants from different groups, with government officials being the most central. Qualitative data showed that inclusion in the network and centrality did not necessarily translate into feeling powerful or valued. Many participants were dissatisfied with the process despite having structurally advantageous positions or self-reporting moderately high quantitative value scores. Participants who viewed themselves as more valued acknowledged many process shortcomings, but they also saw it as more balanced or fair than those who felt undervalued.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
While participation can make stakeholders and communities feel valued and empowered, our findings highlight that inclusion, position and diversity of connections in a drug policy-making network do not, in and of itself, guarantee these outcomes. Instead, policy-makers must provide transparent terms of reference guidelines and include highly skilled facilitators in policy discussions. This is particularly important in policy processes that involve historical power imbalances in the context of a pressing public health emergency.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39363183
doi: 10.1186/s12961-024-01225-4
pii: 10.1186/s12961-024-01225-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
139Subventions
Organisme : Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
ID : 435-2021-0749
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Ahmad FB, Cisewski JA, Rossen LM, Sutton P. Provisional drug overdose death counts. Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics; 2024.
Federal, provincial, and territorial Special Advisory Committee on the Epidemic of Opioid Overdoses. Opioid- and Stimulant-related Harms in Canada. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2024.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Ongoing emergencies & disasters. 2023. https://www.cms.gov/about-cms/what-we-do/emergency-response/current-emergencies/ongoing-emergencies . Accessed 15 May 2024.
Government of British Columbia. Provincial health officer declares public health emergency. Victoria: BC Government News; 2016.
Kekatos M. Oregon officials declare state of emergency to address fentanyl crisis in Portland. New York: ABC News; 2024.
Syed N. How Philadelphia is responding to the overdose crisis in 2023: City of Philadelphia; 2023. https://www.phila.gov/2023-04-26-how-philadelphia-is-responding-to-the-overdose-crisis-in-2023/ . Accessed 15 May 2024.
Government of British Columbia. Decriminalizing people who use drugs in B.C. 2024.
Russoniello K, Vakharia SP, Netherland J, Naidoo T, Wheelock H, Hurst T, et al. Decriminalization of drug possession in Oregon: analysis and early lessons. Drug Sci Policy law. 2023;9:20503245231167410.
doi: 10.1177/20503245231167407
Government of Canada. Safer Supply. 2023. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/opioids/responding-canada-opioid-crisis/safer-supply.html#a7 . Accessed 15 May 2024.
Department of Health Care Services. Naloxone Distribution Project. https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/individuals/Pages/Naloxone_Distribution_Project.aspx . Accessed 1 Mar 2024.
Kübler D. Understanding policy change with the advocacy coalition framework: an application to Swiss drug policy. J Eur Publ Policy. 2001;8(4):623–41.
doi: 10.1080/13501760110064429
Sommerville K, Ritter A, Stephenson N. Pill testing policy: a comparative analysis using the advocacy coalition framework. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2022;41(1):275–84.
pubmed: 34252242
doi: 10.1111/dar.13352
Percival GL. Exploring the influence of local policy networks on the implementation of drug policy reform: the case of california’s substance abuse and crime prevention act. J Pub Adm Res Theory. 2009;19(4):795–815.
doi: 10.1093/jopart/mun035
Common R, Acevedo B. Governance and the management of networks in the public sector: drugs policy in the United Kingdom and the case of cannabis reclassification. Pub Manag Rev. 2006;8(3):395–414.
doi: 10.1080/14719030600853188
Kolind T, Holm K, Duff C, Frank VA. Three enactments of drugs in Danish prison drug treatment: Illegal drugs, medicine and constrainers. Drugs Educ Prevent Policy. 2016;23(2):135–43.
doi: 10.3109/09687637.2015.1109608
Lancaster K, Ritter A, Diprose R. Recasting participation in drug policy. Contemp Drug Probl. 2018;45(4):351–365.
doi: 10.1177/0091450918776024
Ritter A. Democratising drug policy. Drug Policy: Routledge; 2021. p. 120–36.
Madden A, Lancaster K, Ritter A, Treloar C. Making legitimacy: drug user representation in United Nations drug policy settings. Int J Drug Policy. 2021;87:103014.
pubmed: 33129132
doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.103014
Bjerge B, Duke K, Frank VA, Rolando S, Eisenbach-Stangl I. Exploring user groups as stakeholders in drug policy processes in four European countries. In: Hellman M, Berridge V, Duke K, Mold A, editors. Concepts of addictive substances and behaviours across time and place. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016. p. 107–28.
doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198737797.003.0006
Duke K, Thom B. The role of evidence and the expert in contemporary processes of governance: the case of opioid substitution treatment policy in England. Int J Drug Policy. 2014;25(5):964–71.
pubmed: 24582381
doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.01.015
Fishkin JS. When the people speak: deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. p. 2011.
doi: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199604432.001.0001
Mellor R, Kearnes M, Lancaster K, McLauchlan L, Ritter A. Established tables and emergent huddles: exploring the processes of participation associated with the policy changes to opioid pharmacotherapy treatment in Australia in the context of COVID-19. Contemp Drug Probl. 2022;49(4):385–404.
doi: 10.1177/00914509221123001
Mansbridge J, Bohman J, Chambers S, Christiano T, Fung A, Parkinson JR, et al. A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In: Parkinson J, Mansbridge J, editors., et al., Deliberative Systems: deliberative democracy at the large scale. ProQuest Ebook Central. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
Young IM. Democracy and Justice. In: Young IM, editor. Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002.
doi: 10.1093/0198297556.001.0001
Chilvers J, Longhurst N. Participation in transition (s): reconceiving public engagements in energy transitions as co-produced, emergent and diverse. J Environ Plan Policy Manage. 2016;18(5):585–607.
doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1110483
Chilvers J, Kearnes M. Participation in the making: rethinking public engagement in co-productionist terms. In: Chilvers J, Kearnes M, editors. Remaking participation. Milton Park: Routledge; 2015. p. 31–63.
doi: 10.4324/9780203797693
Ritter A, Hughes C, Hull P. Drug policy. In: Kolind T, Hunt G, Thom B, editors. The SAGE handbook of drug & alcohol studies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2016. p. 1–742.
McLauchlan L, Lancaster K, Kearnes M, Mellor R, Ritter A. It’s professional but it’s personal: participation, personal connection, and sustained disagreement in drug policy reform. Int J Drug Policy. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2022.103903 .
doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2022.103903
pubmed: 36371940
Freeman L. The development of social network analysis: a study in the sociology of science. Vancouver: Empirical Press; 2004.
Knoke D. Policy networks. In: The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2014. p. 210–22.
doi: 10.4135/9781446294413.n15
Rhodes RA. Policy network analysis. The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy 2006.
Knoke D, Pappi FU, Broadbent J, Tsujinaka Y. Comparing policy networks: labor politics in the US, Germany, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996.
doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139174497
Oliver KA. Evaluating power, influence and evidence-use in public health policy-making: a social network analysis. Manchester: University of Manchester; 2013.
Cvitanovic C, Cunningham R, Dowd AM, Howden SM, van Putten E. Using social network analysis to monitor and assess the effectiveness of knowledge brokers at connecting scientists and decision-makers: an Australian case study. Environ Policy Gov. 2017;27(3):256–69.
doi: 10.1002/eet.1752
Zakimi N, Greer A, Bouchard M, Dhillon A, Ritter A. Sociometric network analysis in illicit drugs research: a scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(2): e0282340.
pubmed: 36848370
pmcid: 9970099
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282340
Fergie G, Leifeld P, Hawkins B, Hilton S. Mapping discourse coalitions in the minimum unit pricing for alcohol debate: a discourse network analysis of UK newspaper coverage. Addiction. 2019;114(4):741–53.
pubmed: 30475418
pmcid: 6492293
doi: 10.1111/add.14514
Hilton S, Buckton CH, Henrichsen T, Fergie G, Leifeld P. Policy congruence and advocacy strategies in the discourse networks of minimum unit pricing for alcohol and the soft drinks industry levy. Addiction. 2020;115(12):2303–14.
pubmed: 32219917
pmcid: 7611988
doi: 10.1111/add.15068
Gil A, Polikina O, Koroleva N, Leon DA, McKee M. Alcohol policy in a Russian region: a stakeholder analysis. Eur J Pub Health. 2010;20(5):588–94.
doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckq030
Weishaar H, Amos A, Collin J. Best of enemies: using social network analysis to explore a policy network in European smoke-free policy. Soc Sci Med. 2015;133:85–92.
pubmed: 25863723
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.045
Weishaar H, Amos A, Collin J. Capturing complexity: mixing methods in the analysis of a European tobacco control policy network. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2015;18(2):175–92.
pubmed: 26185482
doi: 10.1080/13645579.2014.897851
Musto C. Regulating Cannabis Markets. The construction of an innovative drug policy in Uruguay: University of Kent, Utrecht University. 2018.
Kamruzzaman P. Exploring the nexus between participation and empowerment. J Dev Policy Pract. 2020;5(1):32–53.
doi: 10.1177/2455133320909926
Perrons D, Skyers S. Empowerment through participation? Conceptual explorations and a case study. Int J Urban Reg Res. 2003;27(2):265–85.
doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.00447
Lancaster K, Seear K, Treloar C, Ritter A. The productive techniques and constitutive effects of ‘evidence-based policy’ and ‘consumer participation’ discourses in health policy processes. Soc Sci Med. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.031 .
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.031
pubmed: 28131022
Monaghan M, Wincup E, Wicker K. Experts, expertise and drug policymaking. Howard J Crime Justice. 2018;57(3):422–41.
doi: 10.1111/hojo.12265
Lancaster K. Confidentiality, anonymity and power relations in elite interviewing: conducting qualitative policy research in a politicised domain. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2017;20(1):93–103.
doi: 10.1080/13645579.2015.1123555
Csardi G, Nepusz T. The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJ Complex Syst. 2006;1695:1–9.
Borgatti SP. Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Comput Math Organ Theory. 2006;12(1):21–34.
doi: 10.1007/s10588-006-7084-x
Wasserman S, Faust K. Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815478
Freeman LC. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Netw. 1979;1(3):215–39.
doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7
Krackhardt D, Stern RN. Informal networks and organizational crises: an experimental simulation. Soc Psychol Quart. 1988;51(2):123–40.
doi: 10.2307/2786835
Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2022. p. 338.
QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo (Version 12) 2018. https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home . Accessed 15 June 2022.
Granovetter MS. The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol. 1973;78(6):1360–80.
doi: 10.1086/225469
McLauchlan L, Lancaster K, Kearnes M, Mellor R, Ritter A. It’s professional but it’s personal: participation, personal connection, and sustained disagreement in drug policy reform. Int J Drug Policy. 2022;110:103903.
pubmed: 36371940
doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2022.103903
Young IM. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.
Parkinson JR. Democracy and public space: the physical sites of democratic performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 2012.
doi: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199214563.001.0001
OECD. OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes. 2022. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-guidelines-for-citizen-participation-processes_f765caf6-en.html . Accessed 1 Mar 2024.
Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. Guidelines on Public Engagement 2023. 2023. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/services/publications/health-systemservices/health-canada-public-health-agency-canada-guidelines-public-engagement/health-canada-public-healthagency-canada-guidelines-public-engagement.pdf . Accessed 1 Mar 2024.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner – Australia Human Rights Commission. Appendix 3: Principles for effective consultation and engagement. Native Title Report. 2009. https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/social_justice/nt_report/ntreport08/pdf/appendix3.pdf . Accessed 1 Mar 2024.
United Nations Human Rights (Office of the High Commissioner). Guidelines for States on the effective implementation of the right to participate in public affairs. 2018.
Biermann O, Kuchenmüller T, Panisset U, Leys M. Policy dialogues: facilitators’ perceived role and influence. Int J Health Gov. 2018;23(2):120–33.
Horwath J, Kalyva E, Spyru S. I want my experiences to make a difference promoting participation in policy-making and service development by young people who have experienced violence. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2012;34(1):155–62.
doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.09.012