Understanding the science-policy nexus in Belgium: An analysis of the drug policy debate (1996-2003)

Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 241-248

  Tieberghien, Julie ^a   Decorte, Tom ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877912419     PISSN: 09687637     EISSN: 14653370     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/09687637.2012.759904     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Boland, P. (2008). British drugs policy: Problematizing the distinction between legal and illegal drugs and the definition of the drugs problem. Probation Journal, 55, 171-187.
2. Burchell, G., & Foucault, M. (1991). The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
3. Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22, 459-470.
4. Carden, F. (2004). Issues in assessing the policy influence of research. International Social Science Journal, 56, 135-151.
5. De Ruyver, B., Casselman, J., Meuwissen, K., Bullens, F., & van Impe, K. (2000). Het Belgisch drugbeleid anno 2000: Een stand van zaken drie jaar na de aanbevelingen van de parlementaire werkgroep drugs. Gent: Onderzoeksgroep Drugbeleid, Strafrechtelijk beleid en Internationale criminaliteit.
6. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
7. Guillain, C. (2003). La politique pénale du gouvernement arc-en-ciel en matière de drogues. Bruxelles: CRISP.
8. Guillain, C., & Marchand, C. (1998). La réglementation du cannabis à la lumière des conventions internationales. In B. De Ruyver, P. De Somere, G. Vermeulen, A. Noirfalise, & C. Figiel (Eds.), La politique en matière de drogues en Belgique: Développements actuels (pp. 299-318). Bruxelles: Bruylant-Maklu.
9. Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
10. Hall, W. (2008). The contribution of research to the development of national cannabis policy in Australia. Addiction, 103, 712-720.
11. Hughes, C.E. (2007). Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence? The role of evidence in the development and implementation of the Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative. Drug and Alcohol Review, 26, 363-368.
12. Hughes, C.E., & Stevens, A. (2012). A resounding success or a disastrous failure: Re-examining the interpretation of evidence on the Portuguese decriminalisation of illicit drugs. Drug and Alcohol Review, 31, 101-113.
13. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
14. Kaminski, D. (2003). Les directives de politique criminelles en matière de stupéfiants. In D. Kaminski (Ed.), L'usage pénal des drogues (pp. 107-140). Bruxelles: De Boeck and Larcier.
15. Kingdon, J.W. (2002). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. London: Longmans.
16. Landry, R., Amara, N., & Lamari, M. (2001). Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy, 30, 333-349.
17. Landry, R., Lamari, M., & Amara, N. (2003). Extent and determinants of utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Administration Review, 63, 193-205.
18. Lenton, S. (2004). Pot, politics and the press-Reflections on cannabis law reform in Western Australia. Drug and Alcohol Review, 23, 223-233.
19. Lindblom, C.E. (1959). Science of "Muddling Through". Public Administration Review, 19, 79-88.
20. MacCoun, R.J., & Reuter, P. (1997). Interpreting Dutch cannabis policy: Reasoning by analogy in the legalisation debate. Science, 278, 47-52.
21. MacGregor, S. (2012). Barriers to the influence of evidence on policy: Are politicians the problem? Paper presented at the International Society for the Study of Drug Policy, Canterbury.
22. Monaghan, M. (2009). The complexity of evidence: Reflections on research utilization in a heavily politicised policy area. Social Policy and Society, 9, 1-12.
23. Monaghan, M. (2011). Evidence versus politics. Exploiting research in UK drug policy making? Bristol: Policy Press.
24. Monaghan, M., Pawson, R., & Wicker, K. (2012). The precautionary principle and evidence-based policy. Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 8, 171-191.
25. O'Dwyer, L. (2004). A critical review of evidence-based policy making. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
26. Rich, R.F. (1997). Measuring knowledge utilization: Processes and outcomes. Knowledge and Policy, 10, 11-24.
27. Ritter, A. (2009). How do drug policy makers access research evidence? International Journal of Drug Policy, 20, 70-75.
28. Ritter, A., & Lancaster, K. (2013). Measuring research influence on drug policy: A case example of two epidemiological monitoring systems. International Journal of Drug Policy, 24, 30-37.
29. Roe, E.M. (1991). Development narratives, or making the best of blueprint development. World Development, 19, 287-300.
30. Room, R., Fischer, B., Hall, W., Lenton, S., & Reuter, P. (2010). Cannabis Policy: Moving beyond stalemate. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31. Sabatier, P.A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5, 98-130.
32. Skolnikoff, E.B. (1999). The role of science in policy. The climate change debate in the United States. Environment, 41, 16-45.
33. Stevens, A. (2007). Survival of the ideas that fit: An evolutionary analogy for the use of evidence in policy. Social Policy and Society, 6, 25-35.
34. Stevens, A. (2011). Drugs, crime and public health: The political economy of drug policy. London: Routledge.
35. Vuillaume, D. (2008). Changing scientific perspectives on cannabis use. In D. Korf (Ed.), Cannabis in Europe: Dynamics in perception, policy and markets (pp. 15-29). Lengerich: Pabst Science.
36. Weiss, C.H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426-431.
37. Weiss, C.H. (2001). What kind of evidence in evidence-based policy? Paper presented at the International Inter-disciplinary Evidenced-Based Policies and Indicator Systems Conference, London.
38. Weiss, C.H., Murphy-Graham, E., Petrosino, A., & Gandhi, A.G. (2008). The fairy godmother-and her warts making the dream of evidence-based policy come true. American Journal of Evaluation, 29, 29-47.
39. Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S.J. (Eds.). (2008). Discourse as data. London: Sage.
40. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.