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

IF 2.3 Q3 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
R. Mellor, M. Kearnes, K. Lancaster, L. McLauchlan, A. Ritter
{"title":"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","authors":"R. Mellor, M. Kearnes, K. Lancaster, L. McLauchlan, A. Ritter","doi":"10.1177/00914509221123001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we document and analyze emergent participatory processes in drug policy, focusing on the relations between established modes of engagement and emergent participatory formats. We do this through analysis of a case example, attending to policy changes to opioid pharmacotherapy treatment in the context of COVID-19 in Australia. Semistructured interviews (n = 22) were undertaken between August 2020 and March 2021 with people closely involved in the recent policy changes and discussions surrounding opioid pharmacotherapy treatment in Australia. The analysis of the interview accounts followed work which has forged relational, co-productionist and materialist understandings of participation. Two figures of participation were encountered in the interview accounts: the tables of participation and the huddles of participation. The tables seemingly represented a standardized set of bureaucratic mechanisms for the inclusion of the “voices” of people who use drugs. The huddles emerged as a responsive and less coherent set of ad hoc participatory collectives in the context of rapid policy changes during COVID-19. Instead of viewing emergence as distinct from existing participatory formats, emergence was conceptualized ecologically in this article—that is in relation to established forms of participation. As the institutionally mandated tables served the basis for the emergent huddles of participation in this case study, it demonstrates that even the most foreclosed participatory structures can adapt and be responsive to evolving situations of need, perhaps also in ordinary times and not just in emergency conditions.","PeriodicalId":35813,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Drug Problems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Drug Problems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00914509221123001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper we document and analyze emergent participatory processes in drug policy, focusing on the relations between established modes of engagement and emergent participatory formats. We do this through analysis of a case example, attending to policy changes to opioid pharmacotherapy treatment in the context of COVID-19 in Australia. Semistructured interviews (n = 22) were undertaken between August 2020 and March 2021 with people closely involved in the recent policy changes and discussions surrounding opioid pharmacotherapy treatment in Australia. The analysis of the interview accounts followed work which has forged relational, co-productionist and materialist understandings of participation. Two figures of participation were encountered in the interview accounts: the tables of participation and the huddles of participation. The tables seemingly represented a standardized set of bureaucratic mechanisms for the inclusion of the “voices” of people who use drugs. The huddles emerged as a responsive and less coherent set of ad hoc participatory collectives in the context of rapid policy changes during COVID-19. Instead of viewing emergence as distinct from existing participatory formats, emergence was conceptualized ecologically in this article—that is in relation to established forms of participation. As the institutionally mandated tables served the basis for the emergent huddles of participation in this case study, it demonstrates that even the most foreclosed participatory structures can adapt and be responsive to evolving situations of need, perhaps also in ordinary times and not just in emergency conditions.
既定表格和紧急集合:探索新冠肺炎背景下澳大利亚阿片类药物治疗政策变化的参与过程
在本文中,我们记录并分析了毒品政策中的紧急参与过程,重点关注既定参与模式和紧急参与形式之间的关系。我们通过分析一个案例来做到这一点,关注澳大利亚新冠肺炎背景下阿片类药物治疗的政策变化。在2020年8月至2021年3月期间,对密切参与澳大利亚最近围绕阿片类药物治疗的政策变化和讨论的人进行了半结构化访谈(n=22)。对访谈叙述的分析是在工作之后进行的,这些工作形成了对参与的关系主义、合作主义和唯物主义理解。访谈记录中出现了两个参与数字:参与表格和参与分组。这些表格似乎代表了一套标准化的官僚机制,用于纳入吸毒者的“声音”。在新冠肺炎期间,在政策迅速变化的背景下,这些会议是一组反应灵敏、不太协调的特设参与集体。本文没有将涌现视为与现有的参与形式不同,而是从生态学角度对涌现进行了概念化——这与既定的参与形式有关。由于制度规定的表格为本案例研究中出现的参与群体奠定了基础,它表明,即使是最不受约束的参与结构也可以适应不断变化的需求情况,并对其做出反应,也许在平时也是如此,而不仅仅是在紧急情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Contemporary Drug Problems
Contemporary Drug Problems Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Contemporary Drug Problems is a scholarly journal that publishes peer-reviewed social science research on alcohol and other psychoactive drugs, licit and illicit. The journal’s orientation is multidisciplinary and international; it is open to any research paper that contributes to social, cultural, historical or epidemiological knowledge and theory concerning drug use and related problems. While Contemporary Drug Problems publishes all types of social science research on alcohol and other drugs, it recognizes that innovative or challenging research can sometimes struggle to find a suitable outlet. The journal therefore particularly welcomes original studies for which publication options are limited, including historical research, qualitative studies, and policy and legal analyses. In terms of readership, Contemporary Drug Problems serves a burgeoning constituency of social researchers as well as policy makers and practitioners working in health, welfare, social services, public policy, criminal justice and law enforcement.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信