Problematising the 'evidence-based' drug policy paradigm

‘Evidence-based policy’ has become the catch-cry of the drug policy field. A growing literature has been dedicated to realising the goal of ‘evidence-based’ drug policy: to maximise the use of quality research to inform decision-making and help answer the question of ‘what works.’

This PhD project, conducted by Professor Kari Lancaster, aimed to problematise the premise of the ‘evidence-based policy’ paradigm and, by interrogating underlying taken-for-granted assumptions, consider the implications and effects of this dominant mode of governance for drug policy. This project was informed by a range of critical poststructuralist perspectives, particularly Carol Bacchi’s Foucauldian-influenced approach.

Through a qualitative multiple case study design, this research compared three Australian drug policy issues: discussion of ‘recovery’ approaches to drug treatment, the development of approaches to extend peer-distribution of injecting equipment; and processes leading to the establishment of naloxone availability programs for witnesses to opioid overdose. The case studies drew on documentary sources and semi-structured interviews with policy makers, advocates, researchers and clinicians closely involved in these processes.

By scrutinising the premise and effects of ‘evidence-based policy,’ and highlighting the contingent nature of ‘problems,’ ‘subjects’ and the object of ‘evidence’ itself, this research contributes to a body of poststructuralist scholarship which has used the ‘problematisation’ framework to examine the political implications of the taken-for-granted status of ‘evidence-based policy’ discourse, leading to considerations for how drug policy and ‘evidence’ may be otherwise enacted.

Kari Lancaster is a Professor in Social Studies of Science and Health at the Department of Social and Policy Sciences, University of Bath.