Abstract
Alcohol and other drug (AOD) policy is developed within complex networks of social, economic, and political forces. One of the key ideas informing this development is that of the ‘public’ of AOD problems and policy solutions. To date, however, little scholarly attention has been paid to notions of the public in AOD policymaking. Precisely how are publics articulated by those tasked with policy development and implementation? In this article, we explore this question in detail. We analyze 60 qualitative interviews with Australian and Canadian AOD policymakers and service providers, arguing that publics figure in these interviews as pre-existing groups that must be managed – contained or educated – to allow policy to proceed. Drawing on Michael Warner’s work, we argue that publics should be understood instead as made in policy processes rather than as preceding them, and we conclude by reframing publics as emergent collectivities of interest. In closing, we briefly scrutinize the widely accepted model of good policy development, that of ‘consultation,’ arguing that, if publics are to be understood as emergent, and therefore policy’s opportunities as more open than is often suggested, a different figure – here that of ‘conference’ is tentatively suggested – may be required.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 61-81 |
| Number of pages | 21 |
| Journal | Critical Policy Studies |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2018 |
Keywords
- Australia
- Canada
- drugs
- interviews
- Michael Warner
- Policy
Cite this
}
Emergent publics of alcohol and other drug policymaking. / Fraser, Suzanne; Valentine, Kylie; Seear, Kate.
In: Critical Policy Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2018, p. 61-81.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Emergent publics of alcohol and other drug policymaking
AU - Fraser, Suzanne
AU - Valentine, Kylie
AU - Seear, Kate
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - Alcohol and other drug (AOD) policy is developed within complex networks of social, economic, and political forces. One of the key ideas informing this development is that of the ‘public’ of AOD problems and policy solutions. To date, however, little scholarly attention has been paid to notions of the public in AOD policymaking. Precisely how are publics articulated by those tasked with policy development and implementation? In this article, we explore this question in detail. We analyze 60 qualitative interviews with Australian and Canadian AOD policymakers and service providers, arguing that publics figure in these interviews as pre-existing groups that must be managed – contained or educated – to allow policy to proceed. Drawing on Michael Warner’s work, we argue that publics should be understood instead as made in policy processes rather than as preceding them, and we conclude by reframing publics as emergent collectivities of interest. In closing, we briefly scrutinize the widely accepted model of good policy development, that of ‘consultation,’ arguing that, if publics are to be understood as emergent, and therefore policy’s opportunities as more open than is often suggested, a different figure – here that of ‘conference’ is tentatively suggested – may be required.
AB - Alcohol and other drug (AOD) policy is developed within complex networks of social, economic, and political forces. One of the key ideas informing this development is that of the ‘public’ of AOD problems and policy solutions. To date, however, little scholarly attention has been paid to notions of the public in AOD policymaking. Precisely how are publics articulated by those tasked with policy development and implementation? In this article, we explore this question in detail. We analyze 60 qualitative interviews with Australian and Canadian AOD policymakers and service providers, arguing that publics figure in these interviews as pre-existing groups that must be managed – contained or educated – to allow policy to proceed. Drawing on Michael Warner’s work, we argue that publics should be understood instead as made in policy processes rather than as preceding them, and we conclude by reframing publics as emergent collectivities of interest. In closing, we briefly scrutinize the widely accepted model of good policy development, that of ‘consultation,’ arguing that, if publics are to be understood as emergent, and therefore policy’s opportunities as more open than is often suggested, a different figure – here that of ‘conference’ is tentatively suggested – may be required.
KW - Australia
KW - Canada
KW - drugs
KW - interviews
KW - Michael Warner
KW - Policy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84990956903&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/19460171.2016.1191365
DO - 10.1080/19460171.2016.1191365
M3 - Article
VL - 12
SP - 61
EP - 81
JO - Critical Policy Studies
JF - Critical Policy Studies
SN - 1946-0171
IS - 1
ER -