Models of policy-making and their relevance for drug research

Drug and Alcohol Review

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 352-357

  Ritter, Alison ^a   Bammer, Gabriele ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b The Australian National University   (Australia)

Author keywords

Advocacy coalition; Incrementalism; Policy; Window of opportunity

Indexed keywords

DRUG;

ARTICLE; DRINKING BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MANAGEMENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NONBIOLOGICAL MODEL; POLICY;

ALCOHOL DRINKING; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; MODELS, ORGANIZATIONAL; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; POLICY; POLICY MAKING;

EID: 77957930401     PISSN: 09595236     EISSN: 14653362     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00155.x     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Weiss CH, Bucuvalas MJ. Truth tests and utility tests: decision-makers' frames of reference for social science research. Am Sociol Rev 1980;45:302-13.
2. Brownson RC, Royer C, Ewing R, McBride TD. Researchers and policymakers: travelers in parallel universes. Am J Prev Med 2006;30:164-72.
3. Crosswaite C, Curtice L. Disseminating research results-the challenge of bridging the gap between health research and health action. Health Promot Int 1994;9:289-96.
4. Edwards M. Social science research and public policy: narrowing the divide. Aust J Public Admin 2005;64:68-74.
5. Gregrich RJ. A note to researchers: communicating science to policy makers and practitioners. J Subst Abuse Treat 2003;25:233-7.
6. Stone D, Maxwell S, Keating M. Bridging research and policy. Warwick: UK Department for International Development, Radcliffe House,Warwick University, 2001.
7. Weiss JA, Weiss CH. Social scientists and decision makers look at the usefulness of mental health research. Am Psychol 1981;36:837-47.
8. Mitchell A, Walsh J. The community model of research transfer. In: Lin V, Gibson B, eds. Evidence-based health policy: problems and possibilities. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2003:263-71.
9. Agar M. How the drug field turned my beard grey. Int J Drug Policy 2002;13:249-59.
10. Kingdon T. The relevance of research to policy formulation: an Australian perspective. Addiction 1993;88(Suppl.): 61S-5S.
11. Sanderson I. Getting evidence into practice. Evaluation 2004;10:366-79.
12. Secker A. The policy-research interface: an insider's view. Addiction 1993;88(Suppl.):115S-20S.
13. Hall W. The contribution of research to Australian policy responses to heroin dependence 1990-2001: a personal retrospection. Addiction 2004;99:560-9.
14. Weiss CH. Ideology, interests and information: the basis of policy positions. In: Callahan D, Jennings B, eds. Ethics, social sciences and policy analysis. NewYork: Plenum Press, 1983:213-45.
15. Bulmer M. Social science and social policy. London: Allen and Unwin, 1986.
16. Coleman D. Policy research-who needs it? Governance Int J Policy Admin 1991;4:420-55.
17. Weiss CH. Policy research in the context of diffuse decision making. J Higher Educ 1982;53:619-39.
18. John P. Is there life after policy streams, advocacy coalitions, and punctuations: using evolutionary theory to explain policy change. Policy Stud J 2003;31:481-98.
19. Sabatier PA, ed. Theories of Policy Processes. Colorado: Westview Press, 2007.
20. Lindblom CE. The science of 'muddling through'. Public Admin Rev 1959;19:79-88.
21. Lindblom CE. Still muddling, not yet through. Public Admin Rev 1979;39:517-26.
22. Baumgartner FR, Jones BD. Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
23. Baumgartner FR, Jones BD. Policy dynamics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.
24. Petrosino A, Birkeland S, Hacsi TA, Murphy-Graham E, Weiss CH. US state government and DARE: the story in four states. Policy Press 2006;2:219-319.
25. Weiss CH, Murphy-Graham E, Birkeland S. An alternate route to policy influence: how evaluations affect D.A.R.E. Am J Eval 2005;26:12-30.
26. Bridgman P, Davis G. What use is a policy cycle? Plenty, if the aim is clear. Aust J Public Admin 2003;62:98-102.
27. Bardach EA. Practical guide for policy analysis: the eightfold path to more effective problem solving, 2nd edn.Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2005.
28. Bridgman P, Davis G. Australian policy handbook, 2nd edn. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin, 2000.
29. Yeatman A. Bureaucrats, technocrats, femocrats. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1990.
30. Doran CM, Shanahan M, Mattick RP, Ali R, White J, Bell J. Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance: a costeffectiveness analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend 2003;71:295-302.
31. Lintzeris N, Ritter A, Panjari M, Clark N, Kutin J, Bammer G. Implementing buprenorphine treatment in community settings in Australia: experiences from the Buprenorphine Implementation Trial. Am J Addictions 2004;13(Suppl. 1):S29-41.
32. Ritter A, Kutin J, Lintzeris N, Bammer G, eds. Expanding treatment options for heroin dependence in Victoria: buprenorphine, LAAM, naltrexone and slow-release oral morphine. Fitzroy: Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, 1997.
33. Edwards M, Howard C, Miller R. Social policy, public policy. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2001.
34. Fenna A. Australian public policy, 2nd edn. Frenchs Forest: Pearson Longman, 2004.
35. Morris M, Patton P. Michel Foucault: power, truth, strategy. Sydney: Feral Publications, 1979.
36. Stone D. Policy paradox: the art of political decision making. (Revised edn). New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 2002.
37. Room R, Babor T, Rehm J. Alcohol and public policy. Lancet 2005;365:519-30.
38. Herman ES, Chomsky N. Manufacturing consent: the political economy of the mass media, 2nd edn. New York: Pantheon Books, 2002.
39. Homan S. The tabloid, the dance party and the Premier: the policy legacy of AnnaWood. Media Int Aust (Incorporating Culture Policy) 2003;36-49.
40. Callahan D, Jennings B. Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis. NewYork: PLenum Press, 1983.
41. Adam S, Kriesi H. The network approach. In: Sabatier PA, ed. Theories of the policy process, 2nd edn. Boulder:Westview Press, 2007:129-54.
42. Sabatier PA. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci 1988;21:129-68.
43. Van Beek I. In the eye of the needle: diary of a medically supervised injecting centre. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2004.
44. Jenkins-Smith HC. Analytical debates and policy learning: analysis and change in the federal bureaucracy. Policy Sci 1988;21:169-211.
45. Weiss CH. Congressional committees as users of analysis. J Policy Anal Manage 1989;8:411-31.
46. Kingdon T. Agendas, alternatives, and public policy, 2nd edn. NewYork: Longman, 2003.
47. Lenton S. Pot, politics and the press-reflections on cannabis law reform in Western Australia. Drug Alcohol Rev 2004;23:223-33.
48. Lenton S. Beyond modelling and evidence: bridging the gap between drug policy research and drug policy practice. Paper presented at the International Society for the Study of Drug Policy; Oslo, March, 2007.
49. Kosten T, Fiellin D. Buprenorphine for office-based practice: consensus conference overview. Am J Addict 2004;13(Suppl. 1):S1-S7.
50. Degenhardt L, Gibson A, Mattick R, Hall W. Depot naltrexone use for opioid dependence in Australia: large-scale use of an unregistered medication in the absence of data on safety and efficacy. Drug Alcohol Rev 2008;27:1-3.